Lesbian Custody Battle!!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I refer you again to "merit selection" which is supported by George Soros.

What is weird is that there once was a page on wikipedia explaining the process, that seems to be removed. I was going to link it.

Anyways a private committee makes a selection from several judges and then submits it to the states governor who has to choose from about 7. I suspect that this committee hand picks these judges politically, meaning that we have many judges who are likely also active members of socialist and communist parties sitting in as judges in the family court system, which by the way is called domestic, not family court in the US.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Anyways to further elaborate, the entire LGBTQ community is essentially being used by the socialists and communists who wish to overthrow the Republic and its constitution, to undermine individual liberties and gives way to treating people like cattle making all of their important life decisions for them. To destroy the family unit as some "art of war" technique in hope to make EVERYBODY dependent on the government to establish a communist world government.

It is total and complete control and domination that they seek and the LGBTQ as well as women and minorities are being used as pawns.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
My question is, who gave this judge the authority to steal away your own child from you, because it wasn't god and I can only wonder where the father was and how he must feel about all of this."


I'll answer the question, but you are most likely not going to like the answer. The parents gave the judge the right.

There are two elements that give the State, or its agent, the "right" to decide what to do with the STATE'S property - the child.

1. The marriage contract. It creates a corporation between the two parties involved, placing the control of the corporation's assets under the jurisdiction of the State itself - this judge is the acting agent of the State. In essence, when you get married and "license" the use of the term "marriage" you agree to allow the State to control ALL of the assets created by the new company, including children. Once married, the State is control of all the assets until the company is dissolved completely - with the State's oversight. The State, if it determines it is in the best interest of the State, can keep the couple married if it wishes and deny divorce, though it rarely does, but it can.

2. The "birth certificate" gives control of the living person to the State. children with a birth certificate, are an asset of the State, as such, it is in the best interest of the State to do what is best for their assets. The State seeks to protect their assets, so if the State determines one "parent" is better then the other it will act in its own interest by placing its asset where it will be best served - this also includes placing it elsewhere altogether it it pleases. The asset is key for the State as the asset has had several million dollars printed in it's name upon birth, a loan to the State, which is guaranteed to be repaid by the asset, with interest. So the State wants to see the asset in the best scenario - though best is vague at best in the times we live in.

The answer is the parents gave control of their lives over to the State when the married, or claimed marriage, and they should not be at all surprised by the State's decision. Had they had a child, without a recorded live birth certificate, and with no marriage, they'd have been tossed out court due to no jurisdiction. But then they would have whined about having to deal with the matter on their own, like adults.

reply to post by crankyoldman


Very helpful post, thanks.

But what about cases in which both parents are not married?

reply to post by thehoneycomb


NOW I understand what you meant. Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, that system is terrible.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Thanks, I am glad you understand my plight. I wish everybody took the time to look into this so we can begin fixing it.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Yes they can be. Nice how you put all biological parents on a pedastal. But if all parents knew best or had the best interests of their child, we wouldn't need social services.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Actually, the religious right is battering the constition and hiding under the first amendment to press their ideas on the gay community.

The founding fathers purposefuly created a republic and not a democracy so the majority doesn't overrule the minority, and that the minorities have rights.

Fact is, using the protection of the church's rights to batter minorities is what the Constitution WASN'T about.

reply to post by nixie_nox


We dont need social services all they do is meddle. They have all been wronged and feel that the world owes them something because of something that happened to them so they feel compelled to enforce a collective punishment on all those they feel that could have potentially harm them.

What did they do back in the day? Thats probably the system we need to go back to.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Well for minorities these days things are definitely twisted.

First of all, there are no minorities because America is the melting pot of all people and nationalities. But blacks are still considered minorities according to the classification of the US census data which puts them in a minority group against all other people and ethnicities.

Going back to slavery, yeah it existed. But in many cases they arrived by the thousands sent over here by England with false hopes and promises, and since that could be seen as an act of war they could be easily considered prisoners of war instead of slaves, but thats a topic for another day.

But civil war was really about states rights over the federal government as the constitution intended, but I digress, thats a topic for another thread.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Do you have any information to back that up or are you talking out of your pie hole?

Because as a former worker at social services, I have seen some pretty heinous things done to children...by their own parents.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


What do minorities have to do with anything other then you just confirming my suspicions that you are a really bigoted religious nut? Let me guess which southern state you live in.....

reply to post by nixie_nox


Trust me Ive been through the system fighting for my own. One of the advocates told me that I would never see my child again if I didnt shut my pie hole.

Not guilty of abusing or neglecting my child BTW.

But I do understand that some bad things really do happen to children and it will continue to happen until this system gets corrected.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Your the one who brought up minorities, not me.

Frankly in my neighborhood there are more blacks and mexicans than whites, but just keep assuming things.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Yes because criminals always admit they are guilty.

Just because you had a singular experience does not mean that social services doesn't have to go out and rescue children every day.

So you also just admitted that the parents are flawed, and the system has to intervene on the child's behalf. The state doesn't care about your right as a citizen, their number one priority is to protect the child. Period.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Umm....

Well for minorities these days things are definitely twisted.

First of all, there are no minorities because America is the melting pot of all people and nationalities. But blacks are still considered minorities according to the classification of the US census data which puts them in a minority group against all other people and ethnicities.

????



And NOW you are saying there ARE minorities in your neighborhood.

ok, I am done with teh crazy talk.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Yep, accusations and collective punishment. Thanks for proving my point your all the same.

But since you care so much about my child, in the short period of time I lived with her mother when she was pregnant, she became extremely abusive towards me. She went out of her way to annoy me. She tried to provoke me to hit her, she hid the shower head from me, my showers were standing water for three weeks, she called the police on my for no reason, she invited her father over who tried to start a fist fight with me for no reason that same day. She starved my cat and took away the food I bought for her away from my cat, locked up the cat in her bedroom along with the dry food, which I also purchased and the microwave. She piled everything I owned when I was trying to sleep into the spare bedroom at 7am with music blasting, when she was done, you could not step on or see the floor.

Worst of all I tried to leave but there were no shelters that accepted men, only woman and children.

Guess who got custody without any questions asked, she did.

You don't need to know all that, but go ahead, open your mouth again.

ETA: Yes not only did she stave my cat and attempted to starve me in my home, she was also physically abusive. She has punched me and hit me over the head with blunt objects.

I will never understand this psychotic argument.

How, exactly HOW, is gay marriage a threat to "marriage and family"???

If someone is gay, they're not going to have a productive marriage with YOU, they just aren't. It doesn't threaten YOUR marriage in any way whatsoever if two other people, that you are not married to, get married. It doesn't threaten your marriage if the guy down the road marries his wife, how would it affect your marriage if he married his husband??

The biggest threat to marriage and family is divorce, that's it, DIVORCE. If you want to really protect the "sanctity of marriage" and the family, outlaw divorce. Make it illegal. Force these people that run off to Vegas to actually stay married and provide for one another, you know.... like they used to do. That's the one thing you could do to protect marriage.

Two gay people getting married has ZERO effect on heterosexual marriage, ZERO. Many would argue that the only people who raise such a fuss over gay marriage are actually gay themselves and throw such a big fit to make people think they aren't. I honestly can't think of any other reason that anyone would be so adamant about it. If you are heterosexual and married, what two other men or two other women do has absolutely no bearing on your marriage in any way whatsoever. It's not possible.

Don't want the government to allow homosexual marriage? Fine, let the government do away with ALL marriage, leave it up to the church and church alone without any rights or priveledges offered to the couple who is wed. That would take care of the whole thing. The only reason the homosexual community wants gay marriage to be legal is so they get the same rights and benefits that heterosexual couples do. That's the ONLY reason. Either give them the same perks or do away with the perks for everybody and there won't be a problem any more. If you're going to claim it's a religious institution, then keep it a religious institution, take away the government benefits, take away divorce and have people honor their vows instead of having record divorce rates that keep climbing every year.

...but don't forget, there are churches that marry gay couples too. It's a battle you cannot and will not win.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Yep, accusations and collective punishment. Thanks for proving my point your all the same.

But since you care so much about my child, in the short period of time I lived with her mother when she was pregnant, she became extremely abusive towards me. She went out of her way to annoy me. She tried to provoke me to hit her, she hid the shower head from me, my showers were standing water for three weeks, she called the police on my for no reason, she invited her father over who tried to start a fist fight with me for no reason that same day. She starved my cat and took away the food I bought for her away from my cat, locked up the cat in her bedroom along with the dry food, which I also purchased and the microwave. She piled everything I owned when I was trying to sleep into the spare bedroom at 7am with music blasting, when she was done, you could not step on or see the floor.

Worst of all I tried to leave but there were no shelters that accepted men, only woman and children.

Guess who got custody without any questions asked, she did.

You don't need to know all that, but go ahead, open your mouth again.

ETA: Yes not only did she stave my cat and attempted to starve me in my home, she was also physically abusive. She has punched me and hit me over the head with blunt objects.

edit on 4-10-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)

She was pregnant dummy.... hormones do things to pregnant women.

So, instead of preserving the sanctity of marriage, you left her and your child? Yeah, that's a great example to set. Why are you so worried about two men or two women who want to be together when you can't even live up to your own commitments???

I'm sure if we heard HER side of the story, we'd get a much clearer picture. Most likely the things you are saying aren't 100% true, only your view of them and her view would probably add a lot of things that would make you seem like Satan himself.

People here (well, most of them anyway) aren't stupid enough to fall for these childish games and you're not going to get anywhere with this big story of yours.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

Very helpful post, thanks.

But what about cases in which both parents are not married?

The State owns anyone who has a birth certificate until 18, when they have 90 days to opt out of the contract, none do, so it rolls over. So unless the party demands the State show jurisdiction, which none do, the State assumes jurisdiction by default. If there is no BC on the child, then the State has to take jurisdiction another way, criminals will do what they do of course and ignore the law, but the point of law is that the State owns the people via the contracts they create. Why anyone wants this is beyond me, and why anyone thinks the State taking complete control over their lives is validation of their right to love each other is cosmically absurd.

people get caught in the catch 22. They actually don't want to be responsible for their child, they like public school etc. so if they knew that not having a BC would liberate them, but also require them to pay for their child's education they'd opt for the BC and State control. Then, 5 days a week the child comes home on work release to see the guardian, the State is the parent, and the State offers supervised vacation twice a year, saves the parents money.

As for the marriage part. Marvin Mitchelson, the famous divorce atty, tried to create State jurisdiction on relationships without a marriage license, he failed as the State had no right to intervene per the law. High school lovers ever need the State's permission to breakup? How about live ins? Nope, if you sign up, you are no longer in charge of any aspect of your life, none. You children are property of the State no matter where they came from or how the got there if the BC is valid.