Does anyone sign their name "Without Prejudice UCC 1-308"?
Submitted by juliusbragg on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 21:41
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:mv1pVTb0QdwJ:www.consti...
note: in 2004 U.C.C. 1-207 was changed to U.C.C. 1-308.
I have a stamp that I ordered that says "without prejudice U.C.C 1-308".
I carry it everywhere, and anything I sign has the stamp. They say a stamp is better than just writing it, because it shows premeditation of your concern.
»
Rules of Admiralty
After reading the posts/comments concerning "UCC 1-207/308", I am left with the conclusion that many simply do not know the truth about this "Article", nor about our "true" legal system.
To begin with, all lawyers, and judges, are "officer's of the court", therefore, they work for the very system that has been thieving from this nation for almost 100 years; they truly DO NOT work for you or your best interests!! (That would be an automatic "conflict of interest on thier part because they are "officer's of the court".)
Secondly, all courts work for the "state", which in turn, works for the "corporate government" - remember, the US government is a "corporation", therefore, falls under the rules/laws of the UCC.
**The 'United States' has always been a "legal fiction" corporation. See: Republica v. Sween, 1 Dallas 43 & 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)**
Now, here comes the "slippery-slope" of "legalese": The Constitution was never intended for the US citizen!! Proof of this statement can be found at Padelford, Fay, & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah [14 Georgia 438, 520].
Wherein the judges' decision clearly stated: "But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it."
The Constitution was converted into a "trust", which is possessed by the King of England (now Queen of England) and the Holy Roman Church. Everything you "think" that you "own" actually belongs to the one(s) who possess the "trust".
The "Trustees" are all federal and state public officials, which means that they are "agents" of a foriegn power.
If I have gleaned your full attention, then you will desire to learn more - especially if you wish to regain your sovereignty!! Please note, I never have and never will asked for any type or form of compensation for the research that I do. Why? Because you, the citizens of the united States have a RIGHT to know the truth.
Here is a (virus free) link to a "pdf" file that explains this matter in great detail (31 pages). I recommend reading it, studieing it, living it. Anyone who tells you that using "UCC 1-308" to regain your sovereignty is pointless, does not know the law! Ignorance of the law is no excuse!!
The United States government is a corporation, and therefore, bound by the UCC - on all levels of government, federal, state, and local!!!
http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/09_Global/090805.Matri...
While all the information within the file is of utmost importance, pages 20 onward reveal thye "Admiralty Law" situation with which we have been living under.
Here is another (virus free) link which "ties-in" UCC 1-308; however, at the time this was written the code was UCC 1-207. Other than the "moving" of the code, nothing else has changed:
http://supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htm
Thank you for your time in reading my reply.
Just to clear this up a bit,
Just to clear this up a bit, I dont think you implied this, just clarification:
I never suggest that using UCC 1-308 would regain sovereignty, Just that if you DO happen to sign anything in a commercial capacity, including, but not limited to Government paperwork, to be sure to reserve your rights by using the UCC.
Secondly, please be careful of the phrase "citizen of the united States"...even with the lower case "u" in united. Everyone should make it a habit to use words carefully. For example, if someone made your statement above into a voice recording, we wouldn't be able to distinguish between the lower and upper case versions, which is why it should ALWAYS be any of the following:
national of the republic of (state name)
Citizen of the united states of America
American citizen
republic of (state name) Citizen
I remember a case where a transcript was used as evidence, and there was a hard time determining the meaning because of ambiguity.
bump for interest
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI
UCC 1-307
I always put under my signature 28 USC 1746(1) Which states
TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 115 > § 1746Prev | Next § 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury....
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.
I do this because I am not within the Corporation known as United States or it's possessions. The way I see it, if you are a citizen of the United States according to the 14th amendment, you are a federally protected 2nd class citizen and owe tribute to your creator... The corporation United States
ETNFree
ETNFree
YES!!
I do! Julius, Im worried about them changing common law, or bending it. Then we will have no side to cross over too. Please look at my links on this post.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/111676
Tell me what you think?
common law isnt written law,
common law isnt written law, it cant be changed, it stems from Magna Carta. It is the idea that if you dont injure anyone, then there is no crime.
Regardless of what people say, it still exists 100% today, but 99.9% of people in this country agreed to follow statutory law instead, which has penalties, even if there is no injured party. For example, anyone who signs up for a "drivers license", gives up the common right to travel, and instead enjoys the 'privilege' of 'driving'. So if you talk on your phone, or forget to put on your seat belt, the administrative officers, put in charge to oversee a 'subjects' of the drivers license may issue a citation for breaking a rule, even though no party is injured.
This is the same if you work for a company that has a policy of "no chewing gum" if you're caught with gum, you might get a fine. Chewing gum, of course, is a right, but by signing up to work for that company, you gave up the right to chew gum.
Well, guess what? You have given up MANY rights throughout the years by "signing" up for things: Social Security, Drivers License, Fishing License, Hunting License, Building Permits, Property Taxes, Identification Cards, Business License, Selective Service, Library Cards, Medicare, Financial Aid, Public School, Marriage License, Voter Registration, Jury Registration, and so on. NONE OF WHICH are mandatory!!!!!
ALL of these items are adhesion contracts, that have far reaching implications, without you knowing it. Some people will say "ignore these contracts" and work around them, I say begin terminating them for lack of understanding and intent, because once terminated, the contract is void....working around them keeps the contracts void, and keeps you subject to the terms therein.
Ive heard a lot of talk
Ive heard a lot of talk about the accepted for value, but very little success stories. Im going to research it more and see how it could work in accordance with various tax forms.
ill keep you posted.
Accepted for Value Returned for Value
Introduction (parts 3 and 4):
PART 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETjrJmARaa8&feature=PlayList&...
PART 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsrqOoLZo4&feature=PlayList&...
If the introduction hooked you, get into the nitty gritty details...read this:
http://vinyasi-public-records.info/data/a4v.pdf
Its a disaster. However I
Its a disaster. However I support the intent of child support.
Title IV-D is a program to help mothers where the father abandonded the family and the mother came to the state for help, thus becoming a "needy family" the state then could collect based on the "bennefits" the mother would get from the state and not a penny more. the goal was to have the fathers who abandonded the children to pay for his kids and not have the burden put upon the citizens.not a bad program.... however this power was blown out of control!!!
"child support" was defined in a supreme court case
LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, PETITIONER
v.
ELIZABETH STROOP, ET AL."
its money paid due to an absent parent, or needy family. you can not be in title IV-D without a needy parent or absent parent. Today there are statues that say all you need is a court or and to apply, so anyone can get in and the state uses child support guidelines, even when there are no absent parent or needy family making an incentive to get pregnant for monetary gain.
I have friends that went to jail, good fathers, lost their jobs, and couldn't pay, went to jail!! One friend has his daughter all the time, he watches her during the day, still pays child support and day care, even though he watches her. Another friend had a judge base his support on "potential" income and made his child support more than 100% of his income and he went in to arrears 130k, destroyed his credit and his 15 year career in the airforce!! Its countless reasons like this, why im going after public officials who enjoy destroying families.
Im going to be researching finding my child support case on Dunn and brad street and find out whats really going on!!
ya they have a lot on that
ya they have a lot on that site. I study IRS publications, and I go to
forms.gov
irs,com
treasury.gov
ucc article 3 and 9
title, 11,12,15,18,26,28,31
its a lot of reading and takes a long time but its like going on a treasury hunt, I decided after my children and I have suffered at the strong arm of the gov, I would study day and night until I figured out my remedies so this would never happen to me again. I never had any idea how deep the rabbit hole would go.....
freedom-school.com has a lot of info on this stuff
http://www.freedom-school.com
-------
http://www.RebootTheRepublic.com
"one thing though, you can
"one thing though, you can pay your debt with FRNs. If I lend you 1 dollar, I expect you to pay back 1 dollar and any interest we decided on"
Answer:
I agree based on a "dollar" a dollar is not a federal reserve note, a federal reserve note does not distinguish the debt.In fact it doubles the debt. Research the GAAP principles of debits and credits. also order from the IRS.gov a 4506T and research your 1098's, look both at what the purported lender filed and what the purported lender filed to the IRS....most likely you will see a big difference.
If you buy something from me on credit, I expect the payment in dollars. You can't make that giant leap of faith that FRN's are just debt instruments that can't be used to pay debt and seriously expect people to continue listening. It's just not reality, it is not the way the world works. if you were to succeed in making FRN's illegal, you would crash the entire economy? No matter what you read or how right you think you are, it will never happen.
Good luck on your quest
Answer:
is it possible anything I create through my credit I could claim as my income making it a taxable event and show whoever has the offsetting credit as with holding the taxes??? a little game of hot potato....... who's holding the taxes..
the bottom line, I want to pay for things but there is no substance to our monetary policy making it impossible, so all I can do is discharge my obligation.
After studying monetary policy in great depth, I believe if we had honest money, most of the corruption would go away.
just chew on in a bit, the bank has us sign a promissory note, then that promissory note is what funds the loan and we have to pay back 30 years plus interest and never actually own the house.........its this reason why our country will collapse and the banks will get it all, just like at a casino if you keep playing they will own all you got.
If i am able to discharge debts and help other be free, this will be like a knife in the heart of the banking system and giving people their energy back, so they can enjoy the true values of life, your time, your family and investing in others.
points of study:
Beareau of public debt
14th amendment
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "
every time you pay your bills with debt notes you increase the public debt.......
I was sharing my success
I was sharing my success stories because some people are interested in learning what other people are doing to fight the new world order, but since I was attacked Ill share.
My wife left me for another man, my children at the time were 3,2, and a baby. i had 60% custody and had to pay her full child support and spouse maintenance plus the house payment her boyfriend moved in to sleeping in my bed.
So maybe Im not a man for supporting this corruption, but i have lived through 6 years of litigation hell because I chose to have children and be a father. I am the president of a non profit group and have testified to the legislature on family matters, as well as helped lobby and get legislation introduced that went no where. The Department of human services and title IV-D were to powerful.
So I started asking myself some questions:
what is marriage?
what is a contract?
Who owns the kids?
Why is the state acting like they own my kids?
if I have my kids most of the time why do I pay child support?
what is child support? how did it start?
extra...
So go ahead and make fun, call me a dead beat dad, a loser for not paying my bills with federal reserve debt notes(which dont pay bills, you cant pay bills with more debt), whatever. I have 3 children who are proud of me and God is proud of me, remember he flipped the tables on the money changers.
P.S. UCC i use as a witness, they record and assign documents, I also use a notary so I have 2 state witnesses, other than that I dont see the UCC as doing anything else. The bulk of what Im studying is the IRS forms and how to use them.
in closing, I have studied for thousands of hours and I have nothing to prove to anyone, I do share various documents with others who like to study and have a healthy dialog, the end result is to achieve a remedy, and if Im wrong i want to know why so I can make modifications, but character attacks without facts...Im not going to get in to.
I feel ya man, the system is
I feel ya man, the system is rigged to destroy the American family.
Women are encouraged, and given an incentive, to leave the family. They usually get the kids, and then are told that they are entitled to 20% of every cent you earn for the next 18 years, even if they fall in love with the guy in the next cubicle.
I shouldn't be forced under penalty of death (by imprisonment) to work so that my son's mother can have a pampered lifestyle. I should be able to save for my son myself, the way I want, and not just hand his mother a cruise or vacation every couple weeks.
Baseline 50-50 custody and no extortion (I mean mandatory child support) and marriages in this country would start lasting again. IMHO
For an informed citizenry, individuals must discard the television set in favor of the acquisition of information via either books and/or the internet. An uneducated populous will remain in ignorance and thus continue to suffer the sharp ax of tyranny.
.
first off, if anyone was making fun of you for your situation, screw them. I enjoy a spirited debate about this because I believe that most of the strawmen arguments are bogus money making schemes and leading patriots to the slaughter. As for what you are using the UCC for, I don't really see the purpose, but you aren't trying to tell me the treasury is going to zero my debt if I file it correctly, so I have no problem with your stance and am looking forward to hearing about your success in this.
cheers.
one thing though, you can pay your debt with FRNs. If I lend you 1 dollar, I expect you to pay back 1 dollar and any interest we decided on.
If you buy something from me on credit, I expect the payment in dollars. You can't make that giant leap of faith that FRN's are just debt instruments that can't be used to pay debt and seriously expect people to continue listening. It's just not reality, it is not the way the world works. if you were to succeed in making FRN's illegal, you would crash the entire economy? No matter what you read or how right you think you are, it will never happen.
Good luck on your quest
Seems that a lot of people
Seems that a lot of people here do not understand reservation of rights under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Using 1-308 does NOT eliminate debt, it is not a magic code, it is a section of the UCC that allows for one to reserve their rights rather than consenting. You can prevent surrendering your rights through govt. adhesion contracts or implied contracts by signing "without prejudice" or "under protest" UCC 1-308 next to your signature.
"If you DONT reserve your rights you are presumed to consent, and that consent is tacit rather than explicit" For example, if you sign your drivers license agreement, even though the "contract" doesnt completely describe all of the terms, you are considered "reasonably noticed" to all of the terms implied.
at least read p. 43-44
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf
google Sub Silentio, or "Qui Tacet consentire videtur"
Remember the BIG PRINT GIVETH and the small print taketh away
"Every citizen of the United States is supposed to know the law [God's law and man's law]. . ."
[Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall (74 U.S. 169) 666 (1869);
Without Prejudice
The thing I find absurd, is the idea that signing something like U.C.C. 1-308 will give you some sort of protection. The premise being of course that you are "staying in honor". Yeah, that and $2.65 will get you a cup of coffee.
First of all UCC only applies at a federal level. It doesn't get you out of situations with the state you live in because you are "a citizen of that state" and not a citizen of the "federal republic". What a bunch of hooey. If you are a citizen of a state then you are subject to that states laws.
Secondly, of what use is honor to a government that no longer has any honor or integrity. Face it folks, all of this Ron Paul stuff is a desperate attempt by the Republicans to somehow find some sort of spin to get people to think that they are not relics of a bygone era. If Ron Paul were truly interested in freedom then he would disentangle himself completely from the republican party rather than "try to change it from within."
I admit at first I was taken in by all of his Federal reserve nonsense, and to a great extent I believe that banks and capitalists are parasites and are a huge part of our problem. Problem is: Ron Paul is a capitalist and friend of the parasites, for all of his meaningless ranting otherwise.
If you think that signing your name a certain way will protect you from a government that doesn't even obey it's own laws then you have clearly deluded yourself.
you don't like capitalism?
You're on the wrong website unless you just want to troll the waters, but we don't put up with crap like that for very long.
Also, yes, this argument is nuts and doesn't make any sense and doesn't offer anyone any protection other than some type of mental trickery they are playing on themselves, but UCC's are used in each state and you file them with each state's secretary of state. So while I agree with you this doesn't make any sense, realize 99.999% of Ron Paul supporters don't belive in this fairy tail either. Also, you know communism failed right? Glad you are here, you will probabaly learn a lot while you are on this website. Do your best to ignore the nutty crap like sovereignty/strawman stuff and focus on what really matters, returning to the constitution. Your eyes will open if you allow them to see the light. And if you are here just to troll, you won't last long
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. - George S. Patton
Nutty crap?
Soveignty is nutty? Sounds like your the communist to me.
Discourse
I suppose that if you believe that a forum like this should be just a bunch of think alike sheep getting together to pat each other on the back for following the same party line, then you are right, I am on the wrong page because I don't swallow everything RP has to say hook line and sinker.
But if you believe that freedom is about people with different views coming together to share their different points of views and possibly finding a common ground and even solutions to common problems, then I have to say that anywhere I find people with viewpoints different than my own is a good place to share my point of view and to read theirs.
As far as communism/socialism, there are as many different flavors of that as there are different opinions on what capitalism is. If you haven't done so, you might find a quick youtube search of Noam Chomsky to be rather enlightening. As far as that thing they had in the Soviet Union, it could better be described as Statist Capitalism than it would be Communism. IMHO any system that centralises power and enables a few to exploit the many is a bad system. I am kind of partial to the kind of low grade social capitalism that they had in Ben Franklins day.
But you need to be careful how you use the word Socialist or Capitalist, or any other word. They don't mean the same things to everyone. That said, when i use the term Capitalist toward Ron Paul I don't so much mean free markets as I do a supporter of a system whereby there are owners and there are workers, and the owners get rich by exploiting the efforts of the workers with or without the self righteous presumption that they are entitled to do this simply because they know how to.
When I use the term Socialism or Communism I don't mean the Nazi "Socialism" we are seeing developed in this country under Woodrow Wilson = yada yada = Clinton = G.W. Bush = Obama. I mean a system in which the people who do the work own the results of that work. Everyone who participates gets an equal piece of the pie commensurate with their labor (not necessarily their "ability" which is highly subjective at best).
Few laws, or government regulations, small confederacies of worker/owners, a presumption that money is perishable and not something to be hoarded or exploited at interest. For example, maybe money should be tied to the labor hour and not a material thing. That is more in keeping with my vision of how a good system would work.
Inquirion
I agree with you almost 100%. Especially the labor part. we should have some type of system that is based on credit hours worked, instead of cash. This way they couldn't steal your labor and create money from nothing. However, I dissagree about the labor hours being perishable. I think you should be able to save them, trade them, donate ect.
#2. I would agree with you on the Ben Franklin type gov, if only I thought it would last. My motto is, either the constitution allowed these current events to happen, or it was powerless to prevent it. Which is it?
I am totally in agreement with you, on learning other veiwpoints. What a bore this world would be if we didn't mix it up a bit.
On Ron Paul, I feel like you do. He led me to this movement and was a essential part of me waking up. But knowing what I know now ( See #2 )
I think they all feed off the system and WE are the system. Plus the whole secret society thing never sat well with me nor did the acceptance of the money from neo nazis or the articles and quotes about the black people. The articles about them, that were supossedly done in his name. He later said he wasn't responsible for them. Also I wonder about all the campaign money and where it ended up. It seems like to me, they wouldn't want all bad guys up there, it might make you think the game was rigged.. Im like you, I think it is a centralized group running the show.
Inquirion says, "I suppose
Inquirion says, "I suppose that if you believe that a forum like this should be just a bunch of think alike sheep getting together to pat each other on the back for following the same party line" ....you obviously have not been on this site long.
I personally agree with Ron Paul 100% on every issue as they pertain to the Federal and State Govt. Ron Paul has an immaculate 30+ year voting record. I have never seen Ron Paul lie, be disingenuous, waffle around an answer, or in any way show that his loyalties lie anywhere but with the American people and the Constitution. I cannot say this about any other politician I've ever seen.
You seem to be stuck in the fake Democrat vs Republican argument. I don't really care what party Ron Paul is in. I will continue to vote for him because 'he' best represents me...I don't really see why people care about party, unless the're too stupid to be able to think for themselves.
Since you're a new member maybe you could share with us the area's you feel Ron Paul has it wrong.
ps your ideas of Communism/Socialism/Capitalism are pretty weak...example...you say "by 'Socialism' I mean a system in which the people who do the work own the results of that work. Everyone who participates gets an equal piece of the pie commensurate with their labor"....LOL. How can people own the results of their work if they have to give away their work to everyone else? Who gets to determine how much of the pie each person gets?
May I recommend some light reading for you...try 'Economics in one lesson' by Henry Hazlitt
Total Agreement
I think that with respect to sharing what it is that Ron Paul says that I disagree with, that it is best to consider each point as they come up. He has said quite a lot. Regarding whether or not he is disingenuous, I will make no claims for or against him on that count. However, I will comment that he keeps company with some pretty sinister folks by remaining with a party that is clearly against the people.
I agree that worrying about Democrat vs Republican is like worrying about which flavor of vanilla you ought to order, but the fact is he is hanging with vanilla and not trying to truly challenge the status quo. He had only 10% of the Republican vote during the last presidential primary in spite of his huge fund raising efforts.
If he had joined a third party he could have done a great deal more with that 10% like getting ballot access for a party that is more aligned with his espoused values. So while he may not be lying or waffling, he really isn't getting much done is he? How effective does he really want to be, or is he just blowing smoke?
With regard to owning your work, the concept does work even in our society. For example there are several functional co-ops in running in the US right now. http://www.usworker.coop/public/documents/1.2.07_ANG_Newspap... if you care to read about one in particular.
If you get past the foolish notion that competition is better than cooperation you can see that cooperation wins the day. Cooperation and exploitation cannot peacefully coexist. It has been said that 5 exceptional warriors that don't trust each other will fall to a single lion but that 5 ordinary farmers who trust each other with their lives can take the lion down in short order.
True communism isn't about large centralized governments exploiting an entire population like we saw in the Stalinist Soviet Union. It is about small self organizing systems of small groups of people cooperating for their shared well being without hierarchy, but forming networks that self organize into a robust economy. It is what free market systems wish they could be if they weren't filled with a bunch of insecure self aggrandizing wannabe bankers.
When you are part of a team you share the victory and the spoils. When you are a selfish bastard you try to make sure that nobody gets what you believe is your fair share. It is a different mind set. When you are part of the 40 thieves, then the best you can hope for is some sort of Ayn Randian free market system. But when you see the competition "man behind the curtain" for what it really is you can begin to clear the wool from in front of your eyes. You might do well to do some light reading yourself. I have read Economics in one lesson and I don't buy the lie. Here is a link for you to do a little self education: http://www.leninism.org/some/
I don't subscribe to anything
With an "ism" at the end of it. Then you will be just fine.
as far as successes: All
as far as successes:
All debt collectors shut down. ill remove any derogatory comments on my credit soon. Im also billing various debt collectors for violations in the FDCPA and will take them to small claims court. I should win, i researched it and wrote my paper work in a way that the courts have made decisions.
Im now going after my mortgage and child support. DBT........
This is how Im being active. If more people were shutting down debt by not paying, the banks would lose control.
people ask me a lot, dont you think you should pay your obligations?
think of it like this.
If i broke into your car stole your money and then borrowed it back to you for interest, and you found out the truth, would you feel compelled to pay me back?
This is how I feel against the banks. they use our promissory notes to fund loans, so its our energy that creates all money. Then on top of that they fictionalize it and make even more money...then if you default they also get the asset!!!! You can see why in less than 100 years everyone is in debt up to their eyeballs and cant get out, the banks pledge nothing and in the end take it all.
Child support
So you are planning on screwing your children out of their support?
A fine, upstanding citizen.
Fortunately for your kids, this plan will fail.
Spoken like a true gold digger.
You go girl. He should take the kids and make her pay child support. At least then they will probably receive the care they deserve.
Lol
Hahahahaha!! Quite a leap there fella!
I am a divorced father of two who paid child support without fail and without complaint for over ten years.
If the kids are better off with the father, that is a different issue. But a man who will not support his kids isn't much of a man.
Leaps
Couple of things. One, Acala sounds like a girls name to me, so it didn't seem much like a leap.
Two, that goes to show what can happen when you make assumptions. On the same line of thought, we don't know this other guys story do we?
Since we don't know the circumstances, of his situation we don't know whether or not he is simply trying to avoid supporting his children, or if he even agreed to have children or was suckered in to it, or what.
I will say that I think that anyone who doesn't take an active role in trying to help their own children grow up healthy and strong, is severely dysfunctional to say the least. But each person's circumstance is unique and it is all to easy to become judgmental without having all the facts.
Since I don't have all of this fellows facts (or for that matter do I know if the "fellow" is even a man). But I am not inclined to judge the person harshly with so few facts in hand.
It is good that in your case you had a somewhat amicable divorce relationship and apparently the mother was sufficiently functional to provide a good home to the children with financial help from you of course. It is also good that you made enough money to be able to afford the child support without having to skip meals or live under a bridge or anything. Likewise, it is good that the mother of your children actually used the child support you sent to the benefit of the children and not for her own personal benefit or to benefit the man who replaced you in her life. (I am making a couple of what I consider to be fairly safe presumptions about your circumstances here so feel free to refute those presumptions with contrary facts if you so desire.)
Not everyone is so lucky however.
Preserving your credit
So let me get this straight. You think the banks are parasites and crooks, but you are worried about your credit rating? HAH. Now if that isn't an oxymoron then I don't know what is.
Isn't that like the guy who hates the cable company because he thinks that the television brainwashing us all into mindless sheep but stands in line for an hour to pay his overdue cable bill.
I mean get real, in the first case if you don't plan on doing business with the banks then your credit rating is a meaningless number, and if you don't like TV brainwashing your kids then why keep paying your cable bill?