Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support

Dusty wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:MVBFf.158691$oG.94268@dukeread02...


[snip]


Just a thought.. since the MSM rarely, if ever, gives this sort of news
story much attention, and since there is rarely any mention of it at

later

dates by the victim of wrongful imprisonment, one must wonder.. why?

Call me paranoid, but if you want to keep someone quiet, (short of

killing

them) the easiest way is to buy them off to get them to "go away".

Unless

the state wants to get smeared across the headlines, I think their gonna
make Souter a very nice offer to shut his mouth and never mention it

again.

At least not in polite company..

So he'll still be free to discuss it HERE, then... :^)

- Ron ^*^


Jeesh Ron, do you even have to ask that question? Hell, he should get a
free T1 connection with direct, 24/7 access!

I'm quite sure that his insights will shock the begeebers outta certain
in-DUH-viduals...

Possibly. Never underestimate the unassailable armor of willful
ignorance, though.

- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:

Who said anything about interfering with someone else's relationship? Certainly, not I.

Yes, my ex has no relationship with the kids, for example. He simply chose to stop seeing them. I spent a lot of time
trying to encourage that relationship, he wanted no parts of it.

Your posting history shows otherwise.

Google is not your friend.


No matter, this case isn't about money or law--It is about human
compassion and respect for the father of one's children regardless of what he may/may not be.


It's also about everyone's basic needs being met - even a CP.

I find it a little too hard to believe that anyone could be as
pig-ignorant as you, Moonie. That's the weak spot of this, your latest
attempt at trolling.

- Ron ^*^

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

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

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


[irrational, irresponsible bull sh*t snipped]

Moon, you're being a bore.. again.

Larry Souter is not the one who started the whole mess, the state
did.
He
wouldn't owe $38,000 in C$ if the state had gone after the right
person
in
the woman's death in the first place. It's the state that caused
the
problem and put Souter into the mess he finds himself in. It's that
simple.

Yet there was apparently enough evidence to have convinced a jury of
his
peers to convict. You leave out that part.

Circumstantial evidence has convicted more then one innocent man. It's
used
in courts every day, all over the globe.

Could he have done something about stopping or lowering his C$ while
in
jail? Yes - if he knew about it, but there is every indication that
he
didn't learn of it until sometime well after he was jailed (ie,
several
years).

How did you divine this? All that you have from the articles is that
he
didn't DO it for a number of years - certainly,
no reasons can be determined.

When one is engaged in a fight for one's life, you tend not to be
thinking
about weather or not the grass has been cut, do you? I wouldn't,
that's
for
sure. Besides, criminal attorneys are not (generally speaking) usually
versed in civil, or "family" court matters. Think of it like this..
Would
you want your pool-boy to perform surgery on you? Or would you want
someone
that knows what the hell their doing?

None of which answered my question.

"How did you divine this?" It was simple - I used logic and reason. Two
things that you sorely lack.

And this is something that none of us know for sure whither or not
he had access to that information, or if it was ever made available
to
him
in the first place.

Exactly.

So why are you going bug-**** over this? The state screwed this guy.
End
of story.

So for you to say that it's his fault for the predicament Souter is
in
today
is complete bull ****.

Except that there was apparently enough evidence to have convinced a
jury
of his peers to convict. You leave out that
part.

The fact that the state locked up an innocent man for 13 years, keeping
him
from making timely payments on his C$, is a major issue. What the
state
used for evidence, is not. Why? Because whatever evidence the state
used
to convict Souter with, that was later found to be a fraudulent, has no
relevance to his C$ issues - save for the fact that the state used it
to
jail him for 13 years for a crime that he didn't commit.

And he didn't immediately notify the child support agencies of his
situation, for whatever his reasons. You leave out
that part, too.

Use your head for more then a hat rack, will ya?

Enough with the gratuitous insults. If you'd like to discuss, fine - if
you want to be offensive, you're already doing
a hell of a job, and we're all done.

Talk to the hand. You yourself have been more then obstinate, bullheaded,
ignorant and insulting then you've ever been in the past. Hell, even
Billy
Barger (if you've bothered to read the other postings) agrees that a great
injustice has been commited against this man.

If someone breaks into
your house, beats the crap outta ya and threatens to kill you, do you
worry
if you're wearing clean undies? No? Me either. And since it's not
common
practice for the state pen to be concerned about any one inmate's
family
problems (and most likely couldn't care less), it's not their problem.

Just how Souter was informed of having to get some paperwork off to
Family
court is beyond me. Perhaps someone told him. Perhaps he read about
it
some where. Perhaps he heard about it on the radio or TV news. Who
cares
how he learned of it. The point is, after he did find out about it, he
took
action.

I can only guess that if Souter had known about having to deal with
family
court on top of his other worries, he'd have done something about it.
But
it's only a guess, based upon the fact that he did take action on it
after
he learned of it.

So, while you may think it's bull****, it IS the reality.

No, Moon, your being hung up on what evidence was used to convict
Souter
is
a load of crap. The idea that you want to pin this entire issue on him
is
also bull ****. The one thing that Larry Souter is guilty of is not
having
had Perry Mason as his defense attorney.

Actually, I'm looking at it from a side that you seem all too willing to
ignore. What happpens when one parent ceases
supporting their children - since you all seem to have such a problem
with
the mother seeking the back child support.

Here's where you're dead wrong. I don't have the slightest issue with Mom
seeking payment of the arrears. I do have an issue with how it was
created.

When one parent stops supporting their children, it changes the financial
outlook for the children's primary household.

Possibily, but not nesessarly. CP's also have the ability to turn to the
state and request assistance - financial and otherwise. NCP's don't have
this option.

The children go without any number of things, the CP's income is
stretched
to the breaking point, providing their share
of the support as well as the other parent's share of the support, as
well
as all the other things that the other parent
was undoubtedly providing a share of, like health insurance for the kids.

Prove it. Antidotal evidence will not be accepted, only empirical
evidence
will be.

Yes, the children go without any number of things. Yes, the mother goes
without things as well, because her
discretionary income (you know the part that's left after the bills and
her share of supporting the children) is now
going to cover the other parent's share of the support for the children.

And hell yes, I still believe she has every right to seek those arrears.
Yes, the children didn't starve (we hope),
they weren't left homeless (we hope), and they received adequate medical
care (we hope). That doesn't eliminate all of
the things that the mother would have been able to do, and SHOULD have
been able to do, had she not had to do double
duty by covering the other parent's share of the support for the
children.

Like what, monthly trips to Disney land?? Weekly hair appointments??
Seems
to me like Mom had everything covered 'cept for gratuitous spending.
Which
is not what C$ is to be used for, legally anyway. Are you saying that she
should have had this extra money on hand so she could spend it on gifts,
trips and pedicures? Sure sounds like it to me.

AND since that was the entire reason and topic of this post in the first
place, that the man owes a ton of back child
support, my position remains the same.

Then you're wrong. Go reread the OP and open your eyes when you do it,
you
might learn something. Then again, maybe not, your delicate radfem
sensibilities might go into shock at being presented with the facts...

Try asking some working single mothers who have been forced to cover
someone else's share of support for the children -
you might gain a much more balanced view of things.

I don't have to, love. I lived it. I grew up with it. And I still
believe
your stance on this issue is positively, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.



I live it too and for all its worth, money was not an issue for my child and
her father. He had the opportunity to come whenever he wanted with no
discussion of money. He could call and talk to her, no interference from me
concerning money.

I did well, my daughter is fine. She was able to have some positive moments
with her father before he died. I sleep well every night knowing I DID
NOTHING to interfere and even drove her 4-5 hours to see him. Did I struggle
for money at times? Yes, but I am sure I would have struggled even if he
paid regular support.

T

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
"Gini" wrote in message
news:6LAFf.795$iU2.222@trndny07...
"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Gini" wrote
................................
My ex loved his boys and would never let them be without their needs
met. I didn't need a judge telling him or me how and when to car0e for
our kids.

Then you are most fortunate. Not all divorced fathers are able to
remember that their children need to come first.
==============
It wasn't fortune--It was careful, intelligent decision-making.

You had some test to make sure he wasn't going to turn into a jerk 8 years
down the road?

Wasn't going to explode into abuse after 6 years?

Tell us!
====
No problem--It's called judging character.
====

My ex and I
were married 8 years before becoming parents.
If a mate was "different in the beginning," then the mate was not known
intimately enough before the decision to marry
and have children.

But you ended up divorced anyway.
===
Indeed, but that had nothing to do with the kids or his fathering qualities.
Fact is, if I had it to do over, I wouldn't divorce.
Not because it wasn't the best thing for me (it was) but because how it
affected the boys. I thought I could do it without trauma to them, but
even under the most carefully planned exit strategy (no custody/child
support/fighting crap, and moving just down the road), it was still the
most difficult part of their life. I should have taken that hit and spared
them. I was wrong.
===

Oh well, so much for intelligent decision making.
===
The intelligent decision was not to have children with someone of unproven
character. For instance, I knew my ex would stop a freight
train to protect his kids. Yep, he'd figure out how to do that. Can you say
that about your childrens' father?
===
...................................
And why didn't you know that in the beginning, with your intelligent
decision making? AND, if you didn't divine this with your intelligent
decision making, how can you determine that someone else didn't use their
intelligent decision making, to be blindsided by something that wasn't
there in the beginning?
====
You sound resentful that you chose such a poor father (poor father,
according to you. I don't know the man.) for your kids, and I didn't. Not my
fault.
Blindsiding only happens to those who have not properly assessed their
surroundings. I suppose I was blindsided by
the effect moonshine would have on my ex. If I'd seen it coming, I certainly
would have stopped it before it temporarily
destroyed him. I knew he couldn't drink hard liquer--it turned his stomach
long before he had a chance to get drunk on it.
That didn't happen with the shine. It was amazingly palatable. I was quite
fond of it myself. Wish I had some in the cupboard now.
====

By the time he quit drinking and went through
detox, the damage was done. But, never, ever did I feel I had
the right to interfere with his relationship with his sons.

Who said anything about interfering with someone else's relationship?
Certainly, not I.
=====
That was me.
=====

Yes, my ex has no relationship with the kids, for example. He simply
chose to stop seeing them. I spent a lot of time trying to encourage that
relationship, he wanted no parts of it.
=====
My guess is he chose to stop seeing you. The meanspiritedness and
inflexibility you've shown in this thread might be what drove him away. You
can get away
with the insistence now that you were beyond fault in the matter, but kids
become adults and form their own conclusions about how/why their parents
behaved the way they did. They can even detect those nuances that indicate a
parent's attempt to deceptively color their world and nuances that sometimes
even the parent doesn't see. I can see someone being blindsided by that.
=====
=====

"Gini" wrote in message
news:ezKFf.1464$r53.213@trndny03...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
"Gini" wrote in message
news:6LAFf.795$iU2.222@trndny07...
"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Gini" wrote
...............................
My ex loved his boys and would never let them be without their needs
met. I didn't need a judge telling him or me how and when to car0e for
our kids.

Then you are most fortunate. Not all divorced fathers are able to
remember that their children need to come first.
==============
It wasn't fortune--It was careful, intelligent decision-making.

You had some test to make sure he wasn't going to turn into a jerk 8
years down the road?

Wasn't going to explode into abuse after 6 years?

Tell us!
====
No problem--It's called judging character.
====

My ex and I
were married 8 years before becoming parents.
If a mate was "different in the beginning," then the mate was not known
intimately enough before the decision to marry
and have children.

But you ended up divorced anyway.
===
Indeed, but that had nothing to do with the kids or his fathering
qualities. Fact is, if I had it to do over, I wouldn't divorce.
Not because it wasn't the best thing for me (it was) but because how it
affected the boys. I thought I could do it without trauma to them, but
even under the most carefully planned exit strategy (no custody/child
support/fighting crap, and moving just down the road), it was still the
most difficult part of their life. I should have taken that hit and spared
them. I was wrong.
===

Oh well, so much for intelligent decision making.
===
The intelligent decision was not to have children with someone of unproven
character. For instance, I knew my ex would stop a freight
train to protect his kids. Yep, he'd figure out how to do that. Can you
say that about your childrens' father?
===
..................................
And why didn't you know that in the beginning, with your intelligent
decision making? AND, if you didn't divine this with your intelligent
decision making, how can you determine that someone else didn't use their
intelligent decision making, to be blindsided by something that wasn't
there in the beginning?
====
You sound resentful that you chose such a poor father (poor father,
according to you. I don't know the man.) for your kids, and I didn't. Not
my fault.
Blindsiding only happens to those who have not properly assessed their
surroundings. I suppose I was blindsided by
the effect moonshine would have on my ex. If I'd seen it coming, I
certainly would have stopped it before it temporarily
destroyed him. I knew he couldn't drink hard liquer--it turned his stomach
long before he had a chance to get drunk on it.
That didn't happen with the shine. It was amazingly palatable. I was quite
fond of it myself. Wish I had some in the cupboard now.
====

By the time he quit drinking and went through
detox, the damage was done. But, never, ever did I feel I had
the right to interfere with his relationship with his sons.

Who said anything about interfering with someone else's relationship?
Certainly, not I.
=====
That was me.

google is not a friend of amy lynn........interfering would be an
understatement compared to what she wanted to do.

=====

Yes, my ex has no relationship with the kids, for example. He simply
chose to stop seeing them. I spent a lot of time trying to encourage
that relationship, he wanted no parts of it.
=====
My guess is he chose to stop seeing you. The meanspiritedness and
inflexibility you've shown in this thread might be what drove him away.
You can get away
with the insistence now that you were beyond fault in the matter, but kids
become adults and form their own conclusions about how/why their parents
behaved the way they did. They can even detect those nuances that indicate
a parent's attempt to deceptively color their world and nuances that
sometimes even the parent doesn't see. I can see someone being blindsided
by that.
=====
=====

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

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


snip


You know darn well there are legal issues related to CS.

Yes, Bob, there are - and his conviction (falsely or not) for murder darn
well isn't one of those legal issues related
to CS.

Here is how his conviction is related to CS - He was sent to prison. In
1995 he attempted to get his CS suspended based on his changed
circumstances. His request was denied. His CS arrearage obligation
continued to accrue.


In a case like
this one the DA and the ex-wife would successfully argue against any
subsequent requests to suspend his CS obligation that his request was
for
re-litigation of an issue already settled by the court and he was
attempting
to get a second bite at the apple.

Attempting to predict the future again? How can you possibly claim to
know what anyone "would" do?

Do you ever actually debate a topic based on its merits or just look for one
word to jump on and argue about it's use?



When he got screwed by the system back in 1995 when his original request
to
suspend CS was refused, he was screwed forever on that issue.

And there doesn't seem to be ANY information about what happened back in
1995. No telling who screwed up, who screwed
who, or anything else.

There is information about what happened back in 1995. He requested his CS
obligation be suspended. What we don't know is why he his request was
turned down. Apparently, being incarcerated in MI is not considered a
significant change of circumstance.


Once an NCP
gets a screwy decision from a court on an issue they cannot raise it
again
as a change of circumstance after the original change of circumstance is
ruled to not be adequate.

Now how would you possibly pretend to know what happened?

Why pretend? He requested suspension of his CS obligation while
incarcerated. What reason would you give to support a request for
suspending CS if you were incarcerated?

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
................................

There is information about what happened back in 1995. He requested his
CS
obligation be suspended. What we don't know is why he his request was
turned down. Apparently, being incarcerated in MI is not considered a
significant change of circumstance.
====
It's not in Florida, either.
====

"Gini" wrote in message
news:arMFf.3091$_I4.1980@trndny02...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
...............................

There is information about what happened back in 1995. He requested his
CS
obligation be suspended. What we don't know is why he his request was
turned down. Apparently, being incarcerated in MI is not considered a
significant change of circumstance.
====
It's not in Florida, either.
====

I can tell you from personal experience that nothing that ever happened to
me or my ex-wife over 16 years of paying CS and SS ever rose to the level of
"significant change of circumstance." Being able to get a support
adjustment based on change of circumstances is just another of the many
false hopes extended by the CS system that never seems to materialize into
action for CS payers.

I can almost quote verbatim how the judges used to deal with me. "While the
provision to make adjustments to CS is well founded in the law, the evidence
and circumstances presented to support such a change has not risen to the
level of significance I would consider necessary to grant such a request in
this case."

The point I was making about the prisoner case is simple - When you get that
type of response from the court you recognize no future argument about
change of circumstance is going to fly. And to suggest he didn't try hard
enough or should have tried again is just bogus. You only get one shot, and
when you get turned down that issue is done and over with legally.

I suppose I can't imagine the state NOT compensating him because it
would be the right thing to do. God knows how much money he could have
made in those years. I just believe that when an injustice occurs; and
there is an opportunity to somewhat right the wrong , then humanity owes
it to itself to take advantage of it. You do have a good argument. There
is really nowhere to lay the blame.
Bill

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


{snip of irrelevant bull **** rant]

Lemme guess, you wanna debate the meaning of the word "is" next..?

Moon, sometimes you amaze me with the amount of **** that's between your
ears. You won't listen to the truth, you refuse to see the facts, and you
spout the radfem's anti-male crap with such vehemence the likes of which
haven't been seen since Hermann Goring's rants at his trial in Nurnberg....
Absolutely amazing.