"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.

I really wish you'd stop being a mindless boob and just
face facts - the state screwed up, not Souter. Your argument just doesn't
hold water.

I said the ex-wife had every right to pursue the child support that wasn't
paid towards the support of her children.

For once, you're right. You did indeed state that.

From the news story, he certainly didn't act in a "willful" manner.
That is
to say, he didn't willfully refuse to pay his C$. He didn't walk away
from
his job on his own. He didn't deliberately leave his kids without a
father
and abandon them for 13 years.

In a word, it wasn't his fault. Yet you want to crucify him for not
paying
a debt.

Um, no. All I have said, all along, is that the custodial parent of the
children had every right to legally pursue the
child support.

Bull.