A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CS Propaganda article of the month



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 23rd 03, 06:18 PM
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month

Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days or
listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.

Getting tough on child support
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articl...4d0079e878.txt
Munster Times



  #2  
Old June 24th 03, 01:25 AM
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month

Well, the article did get one thing right... that ACES is full of poopy.
Phil #3

"Dave" ncp-without-rights@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days or
listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.

Getting tough on child support

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articl...s/f74570ad941b
a92286256d4d0079e878.txt
Munster Times





  #3  
Old June 24th 03, 02:15 PM
Indyguy1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month

frazil wrote:

Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side, it's
up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."

Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is impossible
to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any logic,
science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!


Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed? Couldn't one
produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent payment
proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
owe/earn/have/spend?

Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic income
imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a person has
the inability to pay?

My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay SS."
When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't have?" The
judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how he
shows he can't pay SS.

Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because it then
would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused to
provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he actually
earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his divorce
was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect him to
be able to show a negative.
His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the necessary
financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a summer
home, a motorcycle and two cars). At the final financial hearing the judge
reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court, and for
his arrogance. He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month and
that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases her
earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).

His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity in
the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his exes
lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the second
half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.

So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to show
what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.

Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had to
share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she should
be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his HS
sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.

He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys to help
her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he should
spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would consider
boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again we've
always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.

Mrs Indyguy





The Illinois bar must have a very low standard!


Dave ncp-without-rights@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days or
listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.

Getting tough on child support

http://www.thetimesonline.com/articl...s/f74570ad941b
a92286256d4d0079e878.txt
Munster Times




  #4  
Old June 24th 03, 07:23 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month


"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
frazil wrote:

Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side,

it's
up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."

Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is

impossible
to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any

logic,
science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!


Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed?

Couldn't one
produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent payment
proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
owe/earn/have/spend?

Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic

income
imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a person

has
the inability to pay?

My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay

SS."
When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't have?"

The
judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how he
shows he can't pay SS.

Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because it

then
would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused

to
provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he

actually
earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his

divorce
was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect

him to
be able to show a negative.
His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the

necessary
financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a

summer
home, a motorcycle and two cars). At the final financial hearing the judge
reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court,

and for
his arrogance. He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month

and
that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases

her
earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).

His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity

in
the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his

exes
lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the

second
half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.

So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to

show
what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.

Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had to
share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she

should
be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his HS
sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.

He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys to

help
her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he

should
spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would

consider
boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again

we've
always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.


After reading your story I have to point out the obvious.

The judge was a better advocate for the ex-wife than her own attorney. The
judge did the legal representation and advocacy for the woman. This story
points out the way the system tilts in favor of women with everyone working
in concert to go after the men. This judge was not a fact finder or neutral
decision maker. He overstepped and abused his judicial authority to
personally go after one of the parties.


  #5  
Old June 24th 03, 07:41 PM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month

I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob. See inline:

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

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
frazil wrote:

Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side,

it's
up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."

Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is

impossible
to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any

logic,
science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!


Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed?

Couldn't one
produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent

payment
proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
owe/earn/have/spend?

Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic

income
imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a

person
has
the inability to pay?

My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay

SS."
When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't

have?"
The
judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how

he
shows he can't pay SS.

Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because

it
then
would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused

to
provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he

actually
earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his

divorce
was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect

him to
be able to show a negative.


****** His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the

necessary
financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a

summer
home, a motorcycle and two cars).******


__________________________________________________ ___________________
It looks like her attorney demanded all the relevant records, Bob.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

At the final financial hearing the judge
reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court,

and for
his arrogance.


__________________________________________________ _______________________
The judge got on him after viewing the records that her attorney demanded
__________________________________________________ _____________________


He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month
and
that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases

her
earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).

His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the

equity
in
the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of

his
exes
lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the

second
half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.


__________________________________________________ __________________
Or is this the part you are referring to, where the judge gives a
consequence for the guy's actions?
__________________________________________________ _________________________


So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to

show
what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.

Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had

to
share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she

should
be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his

HS
sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.

He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys

to
help
her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he

should
spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would

consider
boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again

we've
always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.


After reading your story I have to point out the obvious.

The judge was a better advocate for the ex-wife than her own attorney.

The
judge did the legal representation and advocacy for the woman. This story
points out the way the system tilts in favor of women with everyone

working
in concert to go after the men. This judge was not a fact finder or

neutral
decision maker. He overstepped and abused his judicial authority to
personally go after one of the parties.


Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going to
ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but had
undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she really be
left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the
marriage?


  #6  
Old June 24th 03, 08:21 PM
The Dave©
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
The judge was a better advocate for the ex-wife than
her own attorney. The judge did the legal representation
and advocacy for the woman. This story points out the
way the system tilts in favor of women with everyone working
in concert to go after the men. This judge was not a fact
finder or neutral decision maker. He overstepped and
abused his judicial authority to personally go after one of
the parties.


In this particular case, I read something entirely different. It was her
attorney that did all the work (subpoena, etc), and he lied, apparently.
The judge merely reacted to both actions. If the man had not lied, would
the judge have made the same decision, only to give the appearance of
fairness? Very possible. While I agree with you in principle, I can't
defend lying or hiding the truth. I'm working on the assumption that what
was told was accurate.


  #7  
Old June 24th 03, 08:22 PM
Indyguy1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month

The Dave wrote:

In this particular case, I read something entirely different. It was her
attorney that did all the work (subpoena, etc),


Yep.

and he lied, apparently.

He did and talked openly about it outside of the courtroom.

The judge merely reacted to both actions.


Pretty much. BTW the judge even warned him that there would be consequences if
he didn't come clean.

If the man had not lied, would
the judge have made the same decision, only to give the appearance of
fairness? Very possible.


Not according to what the judge told him and his exs lawyer (he was pro se)
prior to his refusal to produce proof he was incapable of paying SS. The judge
gave his initial view that SS should be awarded, the proceeds from the marital
home would be split 60/40 (in favor of the wife) and they woudl each be liable
for their own attorney fees. His arrogance lost him half of his portion of
equity and about 4K in lawyer fees he had to pay on behalf of his ex.

While I agree with you in principle, I can't
defend lying or hiding the truth. I'm working on the assumption that what
was told was accurate.


I was in the cat bird postion on this one. While the man is related to us by
blood, his ex is a long time friend of ours. We got to hear both sides.

Mrs Indyguy










  #8  
Old June 24th 03, 08:47 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month


"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.


The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The
judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not
produce that evidence without prior notice.

It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an example,
the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment records.
When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the timeframe of
the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he would
not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded timeframe,
and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of proper
notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the Order
to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they do,
they are advocating and judging simultaneously.


Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going to
ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but had
undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she really

be
left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the
marriage?


According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage
where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as compensation.
The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes to
justify past marriage agreements.

But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony
as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the
case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
behavior in court. That's clearly a finding of fault.) I don't understand
how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a
marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent
and independent simultaneously.

So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding in
no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men and
required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?


  #9  
Old June 24th 03, 11:39 PM
frazil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month


Indyguy1 wrote in message
...
frazil wrote:

Yup, and this is the tell-tale sign. "On the criminal side, we have to
prove they have the ability to pay," Carter said. "On the civil side,

it's
up to (the offender) to prove they can't pay."

Surely, anyone with a scrap of logical thought knows that it is

impossible
to prove a negative proposition. It is the first thing taught in any

logic,
science (including the social sciences, and I use the term loosely), or
philosophy course. And, to think this guy has a JD!


Wouldn't providing an overall financial picture be what is needed?

Couldn't one
produce pay stubs, any credit card statements, auto and home/rent payment
proof, checking/savings account summaries, etc., to show what they
owe/earn/have/spend?


Sure they can. But in what you describe above, what they are really proving
by providing paystubs, bank statements, credit card reciepts, etc, is the
positive proposition of what the records say they earn and spend. First, it
says nothing about their ability to pay CS. Second, if the negative
proposition is to be proven, they must show that they don't earn anything
under the table working for company X. And if not company X, then Company
Y, if not Y, then Z, and is not Z then Q, and so on, and so on. The person
must prove that they don't make any money under the table for the infinite
number of ways one can earn money under the table. Third, the would also
have to show that every penny they spend was absolutely necessary, and if
one penny was spent without absolute necessity they fail in proving they can
pay. IOW, proving a negative proposition requires one to show that every
possibility isn't true, and since there are an infinite number of
possibilities, you can do it. Because there will always be another
possibility the must be shown not to be true.


Of course this can be abused. People can hide money or have unrealistic

income
imputted. But on the norm isn't the above what is needed to prove a person

has
the inability to pay?

My H's cousin, during his divorce, kept saying. "I can't afford to pay

SS."
When the judge said prove it he said. "How do I prove what I don't have?"

The
judge told him to show what he does have/earn/owe/spend and that is how he
shows he can't pay SS.

Of course he didn't want to show what he owed/earned/had/spent, because it

then
would show he DID have the ability to pay SS, and he knew it. He refused

to
provide anything other than his pay stubs (that showed half of what he

actually
earned as he was being paid under the table the other half until his

divorce
was final) and figured the court would just take his word and not expect

him to
be able to show a negative.
His exes attorney supeoned his bank statements and the rest of the

necessary
financial records (including his titled holdings that included a boat, a

summer
home, a motorcycle and two cars). At the final financial hearing the judge
reamed him a new butt hole for refusing to produce, lying to the court,

and for
his arrogance. He will be paying SS to his ex in the sum of $2000 a month

and
that will be reviewed every 5 years and reduced only as his ex increases

her
earnings (she was a SAHM for the majority of their 30 year marriage).

His punishment, for his lies, was he lost half of his share of the equity

in
the marital home that was being sold and he was ordered to pay half of his

exes
lawyer fees. he was also cautioned by the judge that if he missed one SS
payment the IRS would be very interested in talking to him about the

second
half of his income that he hadn't paid taxes on for the past two years.

So you don't need to show a negative to show you can't pay. You need to

show
what you owe/earn/have/spend in order to prove you can't pay.

Of course H's cousin didn't agree as he didn't think it was fair he had to
share anything with his stbx, afterall *he made* all the money and she

should
be thankful he supported her for 30 years before he dumped her for his HS
sweetheart that looked him up after her H passed away.

He also didn't feel he had to cut back his SOL or sell any of his toys to

help
her out because it was his money, in his shallow little mind, and he

should
spend it however he wanted to. Pretty damn sad that any human would

consider
boat storage and slip fees more important than the mother of their own
children's abilty to eat and have a roof over their head. But then again

we've
always wonderd if H's cousin is really human.

Mrs Indyguy





The Illinois bar must have a very low standard!


Dave ncp-without-rights@freedoms-door wrote in message
...
Reading this one sided propaganda article reminded me of the old days

or
listening to Radio Moscow back before the fall of Communism.

Getting tough on child support


http://www.thetimesonline.com/articl...ws/f74570ad941

b
a92286256d4d0079e878.txt
Munster Times






  #10  
Old June 25th 03, 05:44 AM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default CS Propaganda article of the month


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

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

I can't quite figure out what you are looking at, Bob.


The fact the judge gave the man a very narrow way to prove his point,
knowing full well it was not possible to comply with that criteria. The
judge set up the only evidence he would accept knowing the man could not
produce that evidence without prior notice.


It says that the woman's lawyer subpoenaed records, so there must have been
at least some advance notice. I guess I'm reading it differently from you.
But we do tend to understand things through the filter of our own
experiences, so I can somewhat understand where you are coming from.

It's no different than several experiences I had in my case. As an

example,
the judge responded to false accusations made against me outside of the
scope of a CS payment hearing by saying show him all of my payment

records.
When I responded I only brought my payment records covering the timeframe

of
the alleged non-payment period, the judge said I was out of luck, he would
not allow me to come back with the evidence covering the expanded

timeframe,
and ruled against me. No proof of the false accusations, no chance to
provide evidence to the contrary, no sticking to the legal concept of

proper
notice, no limiting the scope of the hearing to the allegation in the

Order
to Show Cause. The judges do that all the time to men, and when they do,
they are advocating and judging simultaneously.


And, of course, that was wrong. You seem to have gotten a bum deal all the
way around.



Knowing your experiences in court with the SAH issue, I'm still going

to
ask. Here we have a woman who truly had not worked for 30 years, but

had
undertaken all the household and child rearing duties. Should she

really
be
left with just half the equity in the house because he wants to end the
marriage?


According to the law, this case fits the criteria of a long-term marriage
where one party has low income potential and is due alimony as

compensation.
The law allows women to get a share of their ex-husband's future incomes

to
justify past marriage agreements.

But that doesn't mean I agree with the alimony concept. I look at alimony
as compensation for a finding of fault in a no-fault divorce era. (In the
case IndyGuy posted the alimony was set high as a penalty for the man's
behavior in court.


My impression was he lost part of his share of the equity in the house
because of his behavior. And he must make quite a bit of money to be
required to pay $2000 per month. That's a big award!

That's clearly a finding of fault.)

But the judge was penalizing him for his court behavior--not for a fault
within the marriage.

I don't understand
how anyone can acknowledge the existence of no-fault divorce and still
advocate alimony based on fault finding based on the characteristics in a
marriage relationship. I view that kind of illogical twisting of the
no-fault divorce as allowing women to have it both ways, i.e. be dependent
and independent simultaneously.


Did the judge comment upon the characteristics within the marriage?


So let me ask you - Why is it okay for a judge to make a fault finding in
no-fault divorces? Why aren't women held to the same standards as men and
required to continue their in-marriage contributions post-divorce?


Oh, geesh, Bob. This question always bothers me. Money is what we all need
to survive in our society. Lack of money condemns one to a life of poverty.
Without money, one does not eat. Without the dishes being washed and the
carpet vacuumed, one can still eat, if one has money. To leave one's spouse
in a dirty house is not nearly as drastic as leaving one's spouse with no
money, and no way to make a liveable wage, with children to support.

I do not support the system the way it is today. But, then, I do not
support replacing one unfair system with another unfair system, either.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Webcast – Foster Our Futu National Foster Care Month 2004 wexwimpy Foster Parents 1 March 4th 04 08:55 PM
Kids should work... Doan Spanking 33 December 10th 03 09:05 PM
CyberNews article: THE NEW PHONICS methodology and its history Tracy Sherwood General 2 September 4th 03 03:39 AM
Food Recalls (x-posted) Ali's Daddie General 0 August 28th 03 06:12 PM
DCF CT monitor finds kids *worsen* while in state custody Kane General 8 August 13th 03 07:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.