"Werebat" wrote in message news:RXfFf.158422$oG.121366@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

thlink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message

snip

Actually, no, they didn't. The only one who didn't comply with the court orders was the NCP. The CP had no
responsibility to take care of the NCP's personal business, except in your world, I guess. What color is the sky
there, anyway?

Moon, if nothing else, you're illustrating very well just how draconian CS law really is. Let's assume that there was
no technical fault on the part of State or CP... That the wrongly imprisoned man really was responsible for making a
plea to have his CS obligation reduced.

First, this is a man who was wrongly imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit.

Which has nothing to do with his ex, his children, his child support, or the child support agencies.

How quickly would our legal system be falling over itself to
come to the aid of a woman caught in a similar situation? She was distraught, she was mentally and emotionally
shattered, etc. etc. -- so she forgot to dot a few i's and cross a few t's during that time, what kind of heartless
******* would nail her to the wall for that? Yet for this man, who is a member of the real whipping-boy class of
NCPs, there is nothing but soulless adherence to "the law".

Because there is no real life example, it would be difficult to presuppose how the situation would play out, were the CD
obligor a woman. I'm not going to try to second guess.


And what purpose the law in this case? Who does it help? The man's children?

Do you seriously think this is the case?

Ah - so if a law doesn't "help" in a particular case, then it should be ignores/disallowed? I'm not sure what your
point is here.


He didn't "withhold" any of his income from them because he didn't have any -- the incompetence of the court saw to
that!

Actually, it was more likely the incompetance of his attorney -

If he'd filed his
papers the way he should have, I don't think anyone could have seriously made a case for his continued obligation
given his circumstances (although I can't say I'd be terribly surprised if some "chivalrous" judge decided he should
still be held accountable for his pre-incarceration rate of payment).

Probably so. He would have tended to his personal responsibilities, and wouldn't be in his current predicament. My
point exactly.

His kids would have had to have
made do, just like they did. How on Earth does his failure to file a paper translate to an actual obligation to give
them money he never earned?

Because he didn't tend to his personal responsibilities and his his obligations deferred/tabled/eliminated.

Your argument is sort of the same one my ex tried when he was thousands in arrears - that the children and I had
managed, therefore he should be allowed to just ignore the arrears. It's a false argument. If I don't pay my car loan,
the car dealership will still stay in business. They will not fold. They will manage. Therefore, I shouldn't have to
pay my car loan? Cause trust me, if that's how you think it works, I could really use the extra cash in my budget by
not paying it.


Step out of the legal box for a moment here, Moon. I'm sure you can come up with many reasons why no one but this
unfortunate man did anything legally wrong. I'm not talking legality here. Tell me where is the moral right that
anyone has to use an obviously cockeyed law to grind this man even further into the dirt than he already is?

I have not defended, nor will I, any moral rights, wrongs or indifferents. I see some posters who are intent on pinning
blame on a whole host of people, none of whom caused the problem for this man, and ignoring the ones who truly DID
create the problem for this man.

My issue with all of this blaming and finger pointing is that I see NO thought, by Dusty and Bob, for example, of the
concept of personal responsibility, and people tending to their own personal responsibility. That's my biggest issue
with the posts on this topic.

Personally, I think the man jailed for 13 years should be suing the crap out of the state, for a load of money AND a
job, and then have the money applied to the arrears in child support, and then maybe everyone could get on with their
lives.

But again, that would mean that he would have to actually take action, in his own best interests, which is what he
didn't do the first time around.


It is sickening to see the profiteers hide behind the mantra of "it's for the children". This is a case where there
is nothing for the children at all. The State took the children's father away from them due to its own incompetence

Due to his own lawyer's incompetance, more likely - let's put the blame where it really is.

, then fabricated a legal tale about how he
has been "withholding" money from them that he never had the opportunity to earn because IT TOOK IT AWAY FROM HIM.

Well, that's not quite the tale - he's in arrears, and there's no question that he is.

Why? BECAUSE THE STATE
STANDS TO PROFIT BY COLLECTING A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IT FORCES THE MAN TO PAY.

Go ahead and wave the law in our faces all you want. I'm disgusted enough with the law to believe that it probably is
on your side in this matter. You're like the man who comes to "collect" the children in the movie "Rabbit-Proof
Fence", waving a piece of paper in the mother's face and saying that that makes it all OK. It's horse ****, and
everyone knows it's horse ****. Go sell it somewhere else.

I'm not defending the law, per se. Again, there is this tendency to twist words, and fabricate things that weren't
actually said.

The man was sent to jail. That's bad.

He wasn't guilty. That's worse.

Who was to blame? Probably, in large measure, his own attorney.

While he was in jail, he didn't pay child support. Understandable.

When he got out of jail, he had an arrears. Also understandable.

For some period of time, he did not tend to his own business and advise CS that he was not in a position to pay. Very
unfortunate - but no one's fault but his own.

At some point, he DID advise the CS system that he wasn't in a position to pay - more fortunate, though it's unfortunate
that he didn't take care of it years sooner.

During that time, the CP had to raise children brought into the world by 2 parents, and do it on the income and
opportunities of 1 parent. Also unfortunate, and certainly not a problem of her own making. She didn't cause the
problem, she did what she could to work with the problem at hand - why would anyone now claim that she has to solve the
problem by waving her magic wand over the results of the NCP's own failure to act in his own best interests?

Again, I see it all coming back down to that evil old personal responsibility thing.

You want that sold elsewhere? Don't you teach YOUR kids to take personal responsibility? I sure do.


- Ron ^*^