"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped]

Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here
are
the
facts as they've been presented to us..

1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit.
2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder.
3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of
murder.
4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and
imprisonment
for 13 years), his C$ arrears mounts to astronomical levels
($38,000).
5. He attempts to have his C$ lowered, or stopped after he
learns
of
it.
The state refuses to allow him to do so.
6. After 13 years of imprisonment, the guy is found innocent
(witness
came
forward) and is released.
7. The state hands him a bill for $38,000 in C$ for the time
they
kept
him
in prison and could make payments (remember, the state also
said
that
they
wouldn't allow him to have his C$ lowered while they kept an
innocent
man
locked up, too).

So Moon, please explain to us how being arrested for a crime he
didn't
commit, spending 13 years in jail (unable to pay $100 a week in
C$,
plus
interest, fees and penalties), being cut-off from his children,
lose
of
his
job, lose of his home, lose of his belongings and car, is all
the
guys
fault?

I didn't say it was all the guy's fault.

Moon, since about day one of this thread you've done nothing but
infer
over
and over and over again that Souter is to blame for the trouble
that
the
state caused him.

He's in trouble for having not taken action about his child support.
That
much is fairly indisputable.

Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on
his
motion.

And you come by this information where?



http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

"In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week
in
his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped
paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments
suspended until 1995.

How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted
statements in
the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to
prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested
his CS
be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his
CS
had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and
only
interest would have been added.


Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support.

He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in
1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two
year
period on a $15,600 obligation.

There's no way that only 8,000 would have been added over the couse of
another 2 years of non-payment when he was
paying more than 5,000 per year.

It's simple math - Take $23,000 in CS owed and divide it by the annual
amount due of $5,200. The result is 4.4 years. That means this guy was not
in prison a full 5 years between whichever month he went to prison in 1992
and whichever month was used to quoted the $23,000 in 1997. If he went to
prison the latter part of 1992 and the CS owed was quoted in early 1997 the
4.4 years time span fits.

To make the numbers come out close you can assume the guy was in prison 4
years and 5 months at the time the $23,000 was quoted. That's 53 months at
$433.33 per month which multiples out to $22,966 which is close to $23,000.
There is no way he got a reduction in CS back in 1995. And there is no way
the interest charged would equal the CS order amount. The only explanation
is his request to have his CS obligation suspended was denied.