Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott
Forums › General Discussion › Supreme Court rules against Rick Scott-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
No, you're right. I stand corrected. I am not wrong about your holdings in your C Corp being relevant assets as far as family court is concerned. Just as a McDonalds majority shareholder's would be. You didn't answer. Why did you say you were taking a smaller paycheck to avoid child support, then say that you have been completely forthcoming with the court about your corporate profits. The two statements are contradictory. You are either hiding income from the court or you aren't.McDonald IS a C corp. there are only C and S. That's the only letters they use. And the judge knew exactly what I was doing but there wasn't a thing he could do about it. I smiled at him the whole time. The only income that can be used is the income associated with MY SSN. No where is there a contribution. (McDonald may be a LLC or something so u may be right. Not sure if they are. Instead use Halliburton in the example instead)
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
So I should commute halfway across the country? You really are the answer man! 😂༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
You obviously are having . Just deciding to move isn't an option for every༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
And that's where I call bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. Seriously you don't. I looked for a job steadily for somewhere in the neighborhood I could work requires fiThat's no way to make an impression on an employer. sharing my 99 escort for us to both work full time. Were fucking dedicated.
Then go where the work is!!!!!! Why would you not come here and work hitches and then go home???? It's simple no exp necessary fast cash! That part I really don't get.
Who said move? I live 600 miles away from where I work.
-
I didn't volenterr the information. The shares that I hold are only relevant to my net worth, not income. They only become income once they are sold. Like hedging a share to offset a tax liability. It's not a loos or gain until it's sold. My net worth have zero to do with child support. And besides, I have 2000 shares with a par value of .01 each. All my shares add up to $20.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Your ex's lawyer fucked up then. The judge will only decide what is put before him by the attorneys. How do you feel about deadbeat dads in general? I know the vast majority of people on welfare are single mothers. Not to get too personal, but is your ex on welfare too?Never said I had nothing to hide either. The whole reason I incorporated was child support (and liability). I haven't contradicted 1 single thing. They wanted $2800 a month child support when it all started (her lawyer messed up on math). I kept asking for a continuance so I could hire a lawyer and work around my scheduale. What I was actually doing was setting up the corporation. Told them I couldn't afford a lawyer and then handed a copy of my paycheck showing $400 a week salary. The judge knew exactly what I did and why I did it. Even told me so. But there wasn't a thing in the world he could do about it.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Are you saying that net worth is not required to be disclosed in family court? I definitely don't buy that.I didn't volenterr the information. The shares that I hold are only relevant to my net worth, not income. They only become income once they are sold. Like hedging a share to offset a tax liability. It's not a loos or gain until it's sold. My net worth have zero to do with child support. And besides, I have 2000 shares with a par value of .01 each. All my shares add up to $20.
-
Grimm: drive the whole way and work 20 days. Get $7350 in your pocket for those 20 days and then drive back home.
Fnord: my girls are very well taken care of. My ex is a dot coordinator for a major oil company. I personally provide more that child support says I have to. But, I didn't feel the $2800 her lawyer wanted was fair. Simple as that. As far as net worth yes it did come up. But my net worth had ZERO to do with child support. The net worth of my shares is $20. I guess they might have added that in, I honestly don't know. My net worth was only mentioned in the divorce part, not the child support part. -
Wait, hold up. Did you really say that you incorporated in the middle of a divorce proceeding for the sole purpose of showing a radically smaller income than when the proceedings began and the judge and her lawyers said nothing? That's shady as fuck.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Wait, hold up. Did you really say that you incorporated in the middle of a divorce proceeding for the sole purpose of showing a radically smaller income than when the proceedings began and the judge and her lawyers said nothing? That's shady as fuck.
Not real sure what to say. I total agree, but I justified it by the liability protection. It was shady, underhanded and more. But it was LEGAL. If everybody else can use loopholes to their advantage, figured I should too.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
So now we arrive at the part where I said I only have one car between the two of us. So what's next answer man? Buy another car right. So I'll save you the trouble. I don't have the five or so grand I'd need for something that wouldn't be a total bucket. And can't afford a payment. You're missing the whole damn point anyway. I don't need to work in Texas because I have a job already. The point is that you're wrong about your assumptions. And that what works for you doesn't work for everyone else. But you refuse to accept that.Grimm: drive the whole way and work 20 days. Get $7350 in your pocket for those 20 days and then drive back home
-
༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
So now we arrive at the part where I said I only have one car between the two of us. So what's next answer man? Buy another car right. So I'll save you the trouble. I don't have the five or so grand I'd need for something that wouldn't be a total bucket. And can't afford a payment. You're missing the whole damn point anyway. I don't need to work in Texas because I have a job already. The point is that you're wrong about your assumptions. And that what works for you doesn't work for everyone else. But you refuse to accept that.Grimm: drive the whole way and work 20 days. Get $7350 in your pocket for those 20 days and then drive back home
My answer would be to take the one car you have and drive to west Texas and go to work for $350 a day. Let her buy a car out of your first 5k check. Work 2 months here then go home for days off.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Alright answer man so how should my wife get to work while I'm gone with the car?༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
So now we arrive at the part where I said I only have one car between the two of us. So what's next answer man? Buy another car right. So I'll save you the trouble. I don't have the five or so grand I'd need for something that wouldn't be a total bucket. And can't afford a payment. You're missing the whole damn point anyway. I don't need to work in Texas because I have a job already. The point is that you're wrong about your assumptions. And that what works for you doesn't work for everyone else. But you refuse to accept that.Grimm: drive the whole way and work 20 days. Get $7350 in your pocket for those 20 days and then drive back home
My answer would be to take the one car you h
-
Grimm:
She don't. You will pull in 10k a month. Betting that's close to what you're making now. Let her take a break, then go back to work with the new car. Stop with the "I can't" and start with the "how can I". If everybody unemployed has the same mentality as you, they're going to stay unemployed. -
(In the sensorimotor I was talking about, both husband and wife was unemployed). Or ask a family member to take her for 2 weeks. What happens if the one car y'all have breaks down tomorrow? Just give up and wait for the lights to get shut off? No, you get the "how can I" attitude.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Hell yeah.★fnord★ wrote:
Wait, hold up. Did you really say that you incorporated in the middle of a divorce proceeding for the sole purpose of showing a radically smaller income than when the proceedings began and the judge and her lawyers said nothing? That's shady as fuck.
Not real sure what to say. I total agree, but I justified it by the liability protection. It was shady, underhanded and more. But it was LEGAL. If everybody else can use loopholes to their advantage, figured I should too.
-
I'm looking around at oil field jobs in west Texas and there's definitely a boom going on there. I fail to see how someone with no industry experience or specialized skills is going to pull down anything close to $350 a day. More like $15-$20 an hour from what I've seen. That's just not enough to justify maintaining two residences once you deduct living expenses. The math simply doesn't work unless someone is desperate and unemployed and even then barely. Extraction boom towns tend to have exorbitant costs of living. There's a reason why they're having trouble filling those entry level jobs.
-
👆 I'm trying to think of any oilfield company that doesn't provide housing and I'm getting a blank. If you're on a rig, then housing is here. Other at the very least get in a man camp. Not the best place, but you go home on your days off.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
You're still missing the point. Ok genius one more time. My wife is an assistant manager of a hotel and is trying to pursue it as a career. So I should tell her "hey honey fuck your aspirations I'm gonna go work in Texas for awhile. I'm gonna take the car so you're stuck with our two year old with no transportation and no money for awhile until I get paid. So good luck buying food and diapers while I'm gone."Grimm:
She don't. You will pull in 10k a month. Betting that's close to what you're making now. Let her take a break, then go back to work with the new car. Stop with the "I can't" and start with the "how can I". If everybody unemployed has the same mentality as you, they're going to stay unemployed.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to your flawed answers. I mean do you think further than the thought that's right in front of you? Or just spew the first thing that comes to mind? -
༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
Just do what Mack does. Hide your income to limit your exposure, put the wife and kid on welfare and cross state lines with an illegal bang stick, putting your entire livelyhood and freedom in jeopardy. It's easy when you take advantage of the loopholes in the law. Stop thinking "I can't" and start thinking "What can I get away with?". 😜ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote: ✂️
You're still missing the point. Ok genius one more time. My wife is an assistant manager of a hotel and is trying to pursue it as a career. So I should tell her "hey honey fuck your aspirations I'm gonna go work in Texas for awhile. I'm gonna take the car so you're stuck with our two year old with no transportation and no money for awhile until I get paid. So good luck buying food and diapers while I'm gone."
And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to your flawed answers. ✂️ -
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Oh and she makes damn good money. So having her quit her job would be pretty damn counterproductive wouldn't it? Two incomes is better than one isn't it? I mean c'mon that's obvious shit.Grimm:
She don't. You will pull in 10k a month. Betting that's close to what you're making now. Let her take a break, then go back to work with the new car. Stop with the "I can't" and start with the "how can I". If everybody unemployed has the same mentality as you, they're going to stay unemployed. -
༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Oh and she makes damn good money. So having her quit her job would be pretty damn counterproductive wouldn't it? Two incomes is better than one isn't it? I mean c'mon that's obvious shit.Grimm:
She don't. You will pull in 10k a month. Betting that's close to what you're making now. Let her take a break, then go back to work with the new car. Stop with the "I can't" and start with the "how can I". If everybody unemployed has the same mentality as you, they're going to stay unemployed.If she makes that good of money, go get another car. Your first check will be right at 5000. The whole thing was for unemployed people Grimm. I take it all back. Stay in SoCal and rock on.
-
If she's making more than 10k a month and you still have trouble feeding a kid, you got serious problems man. Stay with the attitude you have. Seems to be working for ya. My tower is over. Be back tomorrow.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
We don't have any problems feeding our daughter. I had no stake in this entire thing other than trying to make you understand the flaws in your logic that is all.If she's making more than 10k a month and you still have trouble feeding a kid, you got serious problems man. Stay with the attitude you have. Seems to be working for ya. My tower is over. Be back tomorrow.
-
Grimm, did you notice how you went from making Mack's daily rate, to $7500 a month, to $10,000 a month? Sure, you can make $10,000 in a month. All you have to do is work 120 to 150 hours a week of backbreaking labor. Wait
-
$350 a day x 30 days equals $10,500. Mine is hardly backbreaking at all. Maybe 2 hours of work today and 10 hours talking to y'all.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
In what universe do they hand out $35/hr? jobs to warm bodies with no experience and no relevant training outside of nuclear waste cleanup in Antarctica, lol? If I saw an ad for this job, I would think "Wow, that's not a very good scam at all. At least make it halfway believable."$350 a day x 30 days equals $10,500. Mine is hardly backbreaking at all. Maybe 2 hours of work today and 10 hours talking to y'all.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
In what universe do they hand out $35/hr? jobs to warm bodies with no experience and no relevant training outside of nuclear waste cleanup in Antarctica, lol? If I saw an ad for this job, I would think "Wow, that's not a very good scam at all. At least make it halfway believable."$350 a day x 30 days equals $10,500. Mine is hardly backbreaking at all. Maybe 2 hours of work today and 10 hours talking to y'all.
Do me a favor. Call them tomorrow and ask what they pay.
-
Or just google "solids control consultant"
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Provide a phone number and I'll make a call. I even have industry experience. I'll let you know what they say.★fnord★ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
In what universe do they hand out $35/hr? jobs to warm bodies with no experience and no relevant training outside of nuclear waste cleanup in Antarctica, lol? If I saw an ad for this job, I would think "Wow, that's not a very good scam at all. At least make it halfway believable."$350 a day x 30 days equals $10,500. Mine is hardly backbreaking at all. Maybe 2 hours of work today and 10 hours talking to y'all.
Do me a favor. Call them tomorrow and ask what they pay.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Solids Control ConsultantOr just google "solids control consultant"
Employer: Mud Tech Services Updated: Mar 20 2014
Desired Expertise: Field Service Tech, Mud Engineer / Drilling Fluids
Experience: 1+ years
Minimum Education: High School/Secondary
Location: Central, South, West Texas, North, South Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, US
Reference Code: 4592
Employment Type: Rotational Contractor
Job Status: Closed - No longer accepting applications^Is that it?
-
http://www.simplyhired.com/salaries-k-solids-control-consultant-jobs.html
Average salary for this position is $63,000/yr.
The average salary for solids control consultant jobs is $63,000. Average solids control consultant salaries can vary greatly due to company, location, industry, experience and benefits.
This salary was calculated using the average salary for all jobs with the term "solids control consultant" anywhere in the job listing.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC