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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |