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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message news "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped] Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here are the facts as they've been presented to us.. 1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit. 2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder. 3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder. 4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and imprisonment for 13 years), his C$ 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. Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on his motion. And you come by this information where? http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001 /news "In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995. How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted statements in the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested his CS be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his CS had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and only interest would have been added. Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in 1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two year period on a $15,600 obligation. Note the article does not say he owed back CS plus interest. An additional 2 years of CS added to the $15,600 would bring the total owed up to $26,000. The difference from $23,000 owed is based on which months he went to prison and how many months there were between his incarceration in 1992 and when CSE cites details of his case file in 1997. These numbers show CSE was quoting his CS owed without interest in 1997. If interest had been added his amount due would have been larger, not smaller, than the number of months since he went to prison. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25." This quote changes the way the CS is being characterized by CSE. For the first time they are citing a combination of CS and interest. Now for the kicker - Why is the state disclosing details of his CS records to the media? Isn't that private information? what right does the state have to disclose personal information about its citizens to the media? Would you want the state to disclose information about your tax records and payments to the media? |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message news "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped] Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here are the facts as they've been presented to us.. 1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit. 2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder. 3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder. 4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and imprisonment for 13 years), his C$ 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. Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on his motion. And you come by this information where? http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001 /news "In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995. How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted statements in the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested his CS be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his CS had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and only interest would have been added. Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in 1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two year period on a $15,600 obligation. Note the article does not say he owed back CS plus interest. An additional 2 years of CS added to the $15,600 would bring the total owed up to $26,000. The difference from $23,000 owed is based on which months he went to prison and how many months there were between his incarceration in 1992 and when CSE cites details of his case file in 1997. These numbers show CSE was quoting his CS owed without interest in 1997. If interest had been added his amount due would have been larger, not smaller, than the number of months since he went to prison. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25." This quote changes the way the CS is being characterized by CSE. For the first time they are citing a combination of CS and interest. Now for the kicker - Why is the state disclosing details of his CS records to the media? Isn't that private information? what right does the state have to disclose personal information about its citizens to the media? Would you want the state to disclose information about your tax records and payments to the media? I'm sure you already know the answer, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question(s). As I see it, it's quite simple really - the state wants to create as ugly a picture as possible of Souter. That way, when he does attempt to sue the state for their illegal activities, the jury pool will be tainted with biased jurists. If the state can succeed in Souter being portrayed as the evil villain, then the easier it is for the state to shut him down before he can get started in raising a court case against them. All it is is basic military strategy. Cut off your enemies supply lines, make the population angry with them and your opponent folds up his tent and goes home. Which is just what CSE, courts, attorneys and the radfems do to NCPs every single day - because it works. Did you get all that Moonie? Or would larger letters help? |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... [snip] That it was my kids' teeth that were "that bad" Dental insurance doesn't provide endless coverage - there are limits, per year, and per procedure. Sorry Moonie, but you never did answer the question.. How did you manage to get your kids teeth so messed up in the first place?? |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [snip] That it was my kids' teeth that were "that bad" Dental insurance doesn't provide endless coverage - there are limits, per year, and per procedure. Sorry Moonie, but you never did answer the question.. How did you manage to get your kids teeth so messed up in the first place?? === She said it was her teeth that were so messed up because she didn't take care of them and went without treatment so she could have her kids teeth fixed and even though she has insurance, the teeth were so bad that she had to spread treatment out over different years because she couldn't afford all the copays and limitations on her policy because there are limits on the policy and procedures and she went to dentists who charged more than her policy would cover so the kids' teeth are OK. You missed that? It was quite disjointed, but overall, artful. Still, I only gave it a D+ due to the lack of coherency and effort, and her incomprehensible distain for Mr. Souter. === === |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message k.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message news "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped] Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here are the facts as they've been presented to us.. 1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit. 2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder. 3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder. 4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and imprisonment for 13 years), his C$ 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. Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on his motion. And you come by this information where? http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001 /news "In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995. How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted statements in the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested his CS be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his CS had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and only interest would have been added. Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in 1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two year period on a $15,600 obligation. Note the article does not say he owed back CS plus interest. An additional 2 years of CS added to the $15,600 would bring the total owed up to $26,000. The difference from $23,000 owed is based on which months he went to prison and how many months there were between his incarceration in 1992 and when CSE cites details of his case file in 1997. These numbers show CSE was quoting his CS owed without interest in 1997. If interest had been added his amount due would have been larger, not smaller, than the number of months since he went to prison. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25." This quote changes the way the CS is being characterized by CSE. For the first time they are citing a combination of CS and interest. Now for the kicker - Why is the state disclosing details of his CS records to the media? Isn't that private information? what right does the state have to disclose personal information about its citizens to the media? Would you want the state to disclose information about your tax records and payments to the media? I'm sure you already know the answer, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question(s). As I see it, it's quite simple really - the state wants to create as ugly a picture as possible of Souter. That way, when he does attempt to sue the state for their illegal activities, the jury pool will be tainted with biased jurists. If the state can succeed in Souter being portrayed as the evil villain, then the easier it is for the state to shut him down before he can get started in raising a court case against them. All it is is basic military strategy. Cut off your enemies supply lines, make the population angry with them and your opponent folds up his tent and goes home. Which is just what CSE, courts, attorneys and the radfems do to NCPs every single day - because it works. Did you get all that Moonie? Or would larger letters help? So if the state can disclose details of a father's CS payment file, why can't the state disclose details of a mother's maternity profile? Why is it off-limits to disclose how many men a welfare mother has had children with when a man can be chastised for having children with multiple women? Why isn't a state as willing to disclose a mother's promiscuous parenting behavior as much as they are willing to disclose father's CS financial responsibility? |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Gini" wrote in message news:L4eHf.453$qI.326@trndny03...
[snip] === She said it was her teeth that were so messed up because she didn't take care of them and went without treatment so she could have her kids teeth fixed and even though she has insurance, the teeth were so bad that she had to spread treatment out over different years because she couldn't afford all the copays and limitations on her policy because there are limits on the policy and procedures and she went to dentists who charged more than her policy would cover so the kids' teeth are OK. You missed that? It was quite disjointed, but overall, artful. Still, I only gave it a D+ due to the lack of coherency and effort, and her incomprehensible distain for Mr. Souter. === === I must have. The way she wrote it was so poor that I gave her an F- (lack of effort, poor grammar, and a coherency that stunk so bad I stopped reading it after the 4th line). And she very nearly landed in the #1 spot on my kilfile - even ahead of Billy B (if you can imagine that!). If it was her teeth, then no wonder she hasn't had a date in ages... Doesn't she know that they make TOOTHBRUSHES, FLOSS, TOOTHPICKS, MOUTH WASH, FLUORIDE... and a whole host of things to help keep one's choppers in decent shape between dentist visits??? I can only imagine how happy (and disgusted) she made her dentist. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net... [snip] So if the state can disclose details of a father's CS payment file, why can't the state disclose details of a mother's maternity profile? Why is it off-limits to disclose how many men a welfare mother has had children with when a man can be chastised for having children with multiple women? Why isn't a state as willing to disclose a mother's promiscuous parenting behavior as much as they are willing to disclose father's CS financial responsibility? Simple, it would make them (the state) look bad. And, eventually, it would undermine their Federal kick backs (i.e., the Federal Matching Funds program, Federal Welfare programs, etc..). Remember - Woman = Good. Man = Bad. No matter what the truth really is.. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [snip] Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on his motion. And you come by this information where? http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...0317/1001/news "In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995. Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25." Where do you see that the court refused to act on his motion? Certainly, by the time he asked to have his payments suspended, he was already 3 years in arrears, and interest generally starts accruing once support is a full month in arrears. You answered your own question. You have insisted that once he took action to have the CS stopped, the state REFUSED to act on his motion. Again, please show where the state refused to act on his motion. Or are you saying that they refused to wipe out the already existing arrears (which would be a different issue)? |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message k.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message news "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... [Moon's b.s. about alcoholism snipped] Let's get back on topic, shall we? And while we're at it, here are the facts as they've been presented to us.. 1. A guy gets busted for a crime he did NOT commit. 2. The state arrests him on the false charge of murder. 3. The state tries and convicts him of the false crime of murder. 4. Because of the states action against him (false arrest and imprisonment for 13 years), his C$ 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. Moon, he DID take action to stop his C$. The state REFUSED to act on his motion. And you come by this information where? http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001 /news "In 1987, before his conviction, Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995. How many times do you need this explained to you? Your quoted statements in the article left out the information that he paid CS up until he went to prison. At $100 per week he owed $5,200 per year. When he requested his CS be suspended he would have owed 3 years times $5,200 or $15,600. If his CS had been suspended at that point no further CS would have accrued and only interest would have been added. Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. He owed $23,000 in back support because his support was not suspended in 1995. There is no way $8,000 in interest could have accured over a two year period on a $15,600 obligation. There's no way that only 8,000 would have been added over the couse of another 2 years of non-payment when he was paying more than 5,000 per year. Note the article does not say he owed back CS plus interest. An additional 2 years of CS added to the $15,600 would bring the total owed up to $26,000. The difference from $23,000 owed is based on which months he went to prison and how many months there were between his incarceration in 1992 and when CSE cites details of his case file in 1997. These numbers show CSE was quoting his CS owed without interest in 1997. If interest had been added his amount due would have been larger, not smaller, than the number of months since he went to prison. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25." This quote changes the way the CS is being characterized by CSE. For the first time they are citing a combination of CS and interest. So what? Now for the kicker - Why is the state disclosing details of his CS records to the media? Yeah, someone new to blame, Bob - perhaps it was the media's fault that the guy didn't report the change in his circumstances? After all, trying to blame his ex-wife for doing do didn't work too well! Isn't that private information? Actually, at least parts of it are probably public record - you know, the kind that some people might go digging up and blast all over the internet? And you don't know that the state disclosed the details to the media - it's quite possible that the media got the information through some other means............ like the guy's legal representative, wanting publicity about the false conviction? what right does the state have to disclose personal information about its citizens to the media? See above. Would you want the state to disclose information about your tax records and payments to the media? See above. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Gini" wrote in message news:B2dHf.452$qI.107@trndny03... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:jHcHf.137$Hn.29@trndny05... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:mQbHf.557$U2.370@trndny08... "teachrmama" wrote .......................... If they continue to live on public moneys (money I and other tax payers work hard to earn), have child after child that they cannot support, spend money paid for the support of their children to feed their "disease" and NEVER change their choices then, yes, they have earned my scorn, Moon. Those that make the effort to secure jobs, but still have occasional slips, are at least trying. But those that never even apply for jobs, just sit on their fannies with their mouths open for Big Daddy Gubmint to drop in the sweat-soaked $$ of the American taxpayer--no sympathy from me. == It's more than a little curious that MS can profess compassion for a drunk but have no tolerance for a man wrongly convicted and sent to prison but forgot to get his child support order reduced. Very curious. Perhaps, it's a case of "When it's me, it's excusable. When it's someone else, to hell with them." Her insensitivity to this man's plight has pretty much erased all the benefit of the doubt I've tried to give her all these years. No matter--I'm still waiting to hear how her kids' teeth got that bad. It wasn't my kids' teeth. I took care of them. Then, when there wasn't enough money, I skipped on my own care. === But, you have dental insurance. === Yet another bad assumption on your part, Gini. === And the assumption is? That it was my kids' teeth that were "that bad" Dental insurance doesn't provide endless coverage - there are limits, per year, and per procedure. === Well, that's a pretty convoluted attempt at an explanation but, I'm guessing you gave it your best shot. Which part didn't you understand? It wasn't my kids' teeth that got that bad. It was mine. Dental insurance only covers a portion of the costs. There are co-pays. There are deductibles. There is a maximum benefit per year. When there isn't enough money, as when a non-custodial parent does't or won't contribute to the support of the children, sometimes expenses have to be put off, or eliminated entirely. Many times, it's the custodial parent's health care, which is precisely what I posted back on 2/5. Get it that time? === === |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A dentist's child abuse crime (also: Pregnant citizens: URGENT) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | September 7th 05 11:00 PM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 04:47 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 03:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 05:27 AM |