presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #81
Calm Down. I'm not going to charge you with cyberstalking. I don't mind being cyber stalked by you. It is actually funny.
I am only one here that has experience with this law.
Last edited:
Without Due Process
- Thread starter presonorek
- Start date
Calm Down. I'm not going to charge you with cyberstalking. I don't mind being cyber stalked by you. It is actually funny.
I am only one here that has experience with this law.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 67,853
- 42,665
- 2,615
I was making fun of you not making an argument,,
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 67,853
- 42,665
- 2,615
whats wrong are you a pussy??
presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #84
What do you mean?
Michelle420
Diamond Member
Do you think what you did is illegal?
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
It is true that the government has used Covid and now J6 as an opportunity never to waste to exercise its ability to use legal hysteresis in its favor to see just how far it can violate ALL of a citizen's constitutional rights and due process of law with help from a controlled media before some court catches up to them to give them a smack and force them mostly back into line years later!
That is the definition of CORRUPTION.
The result of this will be an eventual civil war of citizenry once again resetting a failed government as per the Declaration of Independence back to representing THEM again instead of being the gross, monstrous, cancerous, enormously expensive, treasonous abandonment it has become cavorting with foreign and hostile governments around the globe over its own people who empower them to act in the first place.
One day people will wake up and realize that THEY hold the power of the purse-string. Just imagine what would happen if just 50% of the people in this country stopped paying their taxes for one year! Our fed has gotten so recklessly out of control that soon it just might come to something like that as people get desperate to solve the failing incompetency of those they trusted to run this country!
I mean, there is literally NOT ONE THING at the federal level going well, efficient, cleanly or right!
They can't even apparently keep track of their own confidential papers!
Can you imagine the secrets lost or sold for personal profit?
Almost as bad as the perps are those whose job it was to catch this stuff early and nip it in the bud!
ReinyDays
Gold Member
A FEDERAL judge or a local community dispute resolution specialist? ... your State Laws may be more restrictive than Federal Laws ... and I quoted Federal Law ...
These contacts were sexual in nature ... and sexual harassment is illegal ... you ARE a rapist ... and deserve to be in jail ... we're not here to poo-poo your hurt feelings ... man-up and deal with the consequences of your actions ... She said "no", and no means no, stupid ... I'm glad she took you to court, of course she won ... you're a filthy animal, belong in a cage, or castrated ...
Spay and neuter, it's the right thing to do ...
Brick Layer
VIP Member
§ 567 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 16A C.J.S.
...observance of those general rules established in our system of jurisprudence for the security of private rights.
In the concrete, it means that in a contest involving these rights a person will be accorded the opportunity to contest the propriety of each step in the action sought to be taken against him.
SYNONYMOUS TERMS.
The term "due process of law" is synonymous or interchangeable with, or equivalent to, "law of the land," a phrase appearing in many of the state constitutions, due process of law being said to mean, in brief, the law of the land, including the unwritten law. Other synonymous or equivalent terms are "due course of law," "due course of the law of the land," and "course of the common law."
LAW OF THE LAND, example of due process; [statutory] [expedited] [administrative] [judicial] [processes] eh.
CHILD SUPPORT DUE PROCESS [LAW OF THE LAND]
UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i)
In Michigan,
MCL 552.604(a)(iii) For a friend of the court case, an agreement by the payer...
MCL 552.604(3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
Last edited:
Brick Layer
VIP Member
§ 567 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 16A C.J.S.
...observance of those general rules established in our system of jurisprudence for the security of private rights.
In the concrete, it means that in a contest involving these rights a person will be accorded the opportunity to contest the propriety of each step in the action sought to be taken against him.
SYNONYMOUS TERMS.
The term "due process of law" is synonymous or interchangeable with, or equivalent to, "law of the land," a phrase appearing in many of the state constitutions, due process of law being said to mean, in brief, the law of the land, including the unwritten law. Other synonymous or equivalent terms are "due course of law," "due course of the law of the land," and "course of the common law."
LAW OF THE LAND, example of due process; [statutory] [expedited] [administrative] [judicial] [processes] eh.
View attachment 752002
CHILD SUPPORT DUE PROCESS [LAW OF THE LAND]
UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i)
In Michigan,
MCL 552.604(a)(iii) For a friend of the court case, an agreement by the payer...
MCL 552.604(3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
CHILD SUPPORT DUE PROCESS [LAW OF THE LAND]
UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i), means an agreement for support in a record that: is enforceable as a support order in the country of origin...
All U.S. states have enacted UIFSA (bind on the issuing state court record, continuing, exclusive jurisdiction) in order to receive federal funding for their child support programs [42 U.S.C. § 666(f)].
UIFSA addresses the duties of the state that originally issues a decree, the "issuing state".
A [CONSENT, OF] RECORD PREREQUISITE [UIFSA 701(6)(A)] BINDING ON THE STATES [for recognition and enforcement]
UIFSA 701(6) is a "Foreign support agreement", UIFSA 701(6)(A) "means an agreement" for support in a record [issuing state court record] establish child support.
UIFSA is built on a "one order, one time, one place" construct (uniformity of procedures) for the creation of a valid support order for "The Convention" and/or "UIFSA" to have an effect "one-order system" regardless of whether the parents or child later move to another state or not. This means that only a single state or foreign country at a time may issue a child support order.
The state or foreign country that issues the original order holds what UIFSA calls "continuing, exclusive jurisdiction" (CEJ).
UIFSA's core concept is continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ), CEJ as a linchpin for both UIFSA and the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCSOA).
A state that issues a support order consistent with that state's law or foreign country's law is the only state or foreign country that can change this order as long as one of the parties or the child lives there.
CEJ rules of UIFSS/FFCCSOA, CLEAR RULES REGARDING THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARRANGEMENT IN THE CONCRETE CASE ["maintenance arrangements" "private agreements" require certification upon a challenge or appeal, see Art. 25 of the 2007 Convention, recognition and enforcement under the condition that such voluntary "maintenance arrangement" "private agreement" between parents be enforceable as a decision in the State of origin.
Michigan, as the issuing state "issuing state court continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (CCEJ), "all cases under UIFSA since welfare reform legislation" WHEREFORE, UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i) is BINDING ON THE ISSUING STATE OF MICHIGAN, UIFSA's uniform utilitarian evidentiary provision [consent] [private right] "record prerequisite" (uniform process) UIFSA construct - the inclusion of a "foreign support agreement" binding on the parties in the country of origin [UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i)].
In the United States, this mechanism provides for recognition and enforcement in some of the likely Convention countries; in Michigan, UIFSA is codified as MCL 552.2101.
[UIFSA RULES, a child support "obligation" to the State must be established in conformity with uniform processes — UIFSA construct, case processing "establishment", and an evidence record "mechanism" prerequisite.]
In Michigan 552.2205, a tribunal of this state that has issued a child-support order ["Inside this State"] consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child-support order ["Outside this State" UIFSA107(6)(A)(iii)] if the order is the controlling order...
MCL 552.604(a)(iii) For a friend of the court case, an agreement by the payer...
MCL 552.604(3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court... [UIFSA 701(6)(A)].
Appropriations, hereby authorized by agreement, funds for the care of children [a voluntary private right constitutional due process of law!!!].
Ejus Ext Nolle, Quipotestuelle. Person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).
Nihil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metue. Nothing is so opposite to consent as force and fear.
Happy Paper Trails!!!
Last edited:
presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #90
presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #91
Well North Carolina law disagrees with you. They think a Monster like me should be placed on supervised probation for one year at the most.
Could it be that you are outrageously exaggerating? Lol
Progressive Hunter cyberstalked me in this thread. The exact crime he committed is exactly the thing I did. It is 100% identical. And you think progressive hunter deserves to be castrated? Seriously?
Last edited:
presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #92
The legal definition of harassment is two or more unwanted contacts. She was an elected official. I was an elected official. It was a set up.
I set up progressive hunter to cyberstalk me and he fell for it in the same way I fell for it. The cyberstalking law excluded politically protected speech. Did she literally say to stop talking to her twice? Yes. Did she block my number? No.
I thought I had freedom of speech. I thought sane people block people they don't want to talk to.
I broke the law. Yes. I didn't know unconstitutional laws were real. Now that I know the constitution is nothing more than decorative toilet paper then I totally believe I am guilty.
Fun fact. The sister law is called cyberbullying which applies to someone 17 years old and younger. That law was invalidated by the courts. Its only because this woman was 51 years old instead of 17 that I was convicted. I should have cyberstalked a six year old kid instead. That would have been legal.
Last edited:
presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #93
Next time I will "cyberstalk" a six year old kid. At least that is legal.
I had heard of cyberstalking before but I thought people set up fake accounts and stuff like that. I did none of that.
Michelle420
Diamond Member
Maybe just move forward.
presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #95
What is the other option?
presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #96
They were?
Michelle420
Diamond Member
The other option is to make yourself miserable over it. You can't change what happened. But you can move forward with the wisdom you gained from it. You may be able to help someone else avoid a situation.
It could be you move on and a few years later you hear something about her charades and games getting herself in trouble. Or she may thrive and never pay for her own part in any of it.
But if you care about yourself don't let her still be consuming you in your mind as well as the lawsuit. Move forward take yourself out of it.
Who would you be without the thought she is ruining your life? Free yourself and move forward.
presonorek
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- #98
I'm not sure what my duty is as a private citizen.
I am a man that joined the Marine Corps 3 days after I turned 18. I have ran for political office 3 times knowing that some charade like this would be a likely outcome. Am I shirking my duties as a citizen to allow something like this to happen?. Your advice is the same advice I get from everyone. Be selfish and comfortable. I'm very well aware of what the best thing for me to do personally. What is the best thing for me to do for society? If there is something I can do then i want to do it. If there is nothing i can do then yes. The selfish route is the way to go. This "crime" isn't bad enough to protect children. However adults are so vulnerable to this horrific "crime". Somebody made a boo boo probably at the legislative level. I get what you are saying. I will just feel terrible 20 years from now to find out I was in a position to be miserable for 20 additional years in order to correct this problem but I shamefully chose comfort instead.
I am not a selfish person at all.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
CHILD SUPPORT DUE PROCESS [LAW OF THE LAND]
UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i), means an agreement for support in a record that: is enforceable as a support order in the country of origin...
All U.S. states have enacted UIFSA (bind on the issuing state court record, continuing, exclusive jurisdiction) in order to receive federal funding for their child support programs [42 U.S.C. § 666(f)].
UIFSA addresses the duties of the state that originally issues a decree, the "issuing state".
A [CONSENT, OF] RECORD PREREQUISITE [UIFSA 701(6)(A)] BINDING ON THE STATES [for recognition and enforcement]
UIFSA 701(6) is a "Foreign support agreement", UIFSA 701(6)(A) "means an agreement" for support in a record [issuing state court record] establish child support.
UIFSA is built on a "one order, one time, one place" construct (uniformity of procedures) for the creation of a valid support order for "The Convention" and/or "UIFSA" to have an effect "one-order system" regardless of whether the parents or child later move to another state or not. This means that only a single state or foreign country at a time may issue a child support order.
The state or foreign country that issues the original order holds what UIFSA calls "continuing, exclusive jurisdiction" (CEJ).
UIFSA's core concept is continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ), CEJ as a linchpin for both UIFSA and the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCSOA).
A state that issues a support order consistent with that state's law or foreign country's law is the only state or foreign country that can change this order as long as one of the parties or the child lives there.
CEJ rules of UIFSS/FFCCSOA, CLEAR RULES REGARDING THE RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARRANGEMENT IN THE CONCRETE CASE ["maintenance arrangements" "private agreements" require certification upon a challenge or appeal, see Art. 25 of the 2007 Convention, recognition and enforcement under the condition that such voluntary "maintenance arrangement" "private agreement" between parents be enforceable as a decision in the State of origin.
Michigan, as the issuing state "issuing state court continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (CCEJ), "all cases under UIFSA since welfare reform legislation" WHEREFORE, UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i) is BINDING ON THE ISSUING STATE OF MICHIGAN, UIFSA's uniform utilitarian evidentiary provision [consent] [private right] "record prerequisite" (uniform process) UIFSA construct - the inclusion of a "foreign support agreement" binding on the parties in the country of origin [UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i)].
In the United States, this mechanism provides for recognition and enforcement in some of the likely Convention countries; in Michigan, UIFSA is codified as MCL 552.2101.
[UIFSA RULES, a child support "obligation" to the State must be established in conformity with uniform processes — UIFSA construct, case processing "establishment", and an evidence record "mechanism" prerequisite.]
In Michigan 552.2205, a tribunal of this state that has issued a child-support order ["Inside this State"] consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child-support order ["Outside this State" UIFSA107(6)(A)(iii)] if the order is the controlling order...
MCL 552.604(a)(iii) For a friend of the court case, an agreement by the payer...
MCL 552.604(3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court... [UIFSA 701(6)(A)].
View attachment 752066
View attachment 752064
View attachment 752063
Appropriations, hereby authorized by agreement, funds for the care of children [a voluntary private right constitutional due process of law!!!].
Ejus Ext Nolle, Quipotestuelle. Person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).
Nihil consensui tam contrarium est quam vis atque metue. Nothing is so opposite to consent as force and fear.
Happy Paper Trails!!!
Do you have any better citations? ...
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Post the court filings ... what did you say and where? ... and what did the judge actually rule? ...
You've been real thin on details ... how nasty were you? ...
New Topics
-
-
Harriet Hageman (R-WY) Doesn't Know Where San Diego Is- Started by Dont Taz Me Bro
- Replies: 4
-
-
