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

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

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

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02...

snip


Ooops--$30,000--not 50

Well, in it's simplest terms, he profited by not paying that money per month. I still don't see why his ex and
children should pay the price, they're not the ones who took 13 years of the man's life.

How did he profit?

By not having used any of his personal resources.

He wasn't earning money that he got to keep rather than
pay to her.

And you somehow think that his ex had anything to do with this?

If his ex had wanted the $$ to be collected, don't you think
she could have filed a complaint?

Perhaps she did - perhaps she didn't know he was in jail, and only knew that the CS stopped. Far too many perhaps's for
anyone to know which actually happened.

Instead of jumping on the "poor me" stump
when he is finally released from his wrongful imprisonment and proclaiming the hardships *she* suffered in raising her
own children while he rotted in prison for a crime he didn't commit?

And you would know that this is what she did........... how?

I really dislike allegations that have no basis in the available facts.

She made it through those years--why
does she feel she is owed any repayment? She sounds like a greedy, selfish shrew to me.

Teach, would you please show me where, in either article, you saw anything about the CP at all, aside from this?

David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client "has endured the substantial
burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support."



Now, you may not agree with it all, but what her attorney is claiming is absolutely true. She HAS endured the
substantial burden of raising two children without his contribution of child support. There's nothing greedy, selfish,
or shrewish in that statement - it's the simple truth.


Even if she no longer cares for him, she can at least have
some sympathy for what he went through.

Is that a requirement? Have you seen a whole lot of sympathy on this here newsgroup for the CPs? I think not.

Unless, of course, she thinks he
might file an unlawful imprisonment lawsuit against the state, and she wants to make sure she gets a sizeable piece of
the pie.

More allegations? Anything to support it?

See what I mean about no sympathy for the other side?

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

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

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02...

Here is a more detailed account of the case:


http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

Sadly, the focus in cases like this one are on the NCP father and his
"failure" to seek a CS change. The deputy DA in the story above takes it a
step further and talks about how the CP mother was forced to support her
children over the years without any financial support.

So what's wrong with this picture?

Well, for openers, the states selectively apply the CS statutes ignoring
statutory requirements when they don't work to their advantage. In this
case where were the 2-3 year interval CS order reviews to determine if the
ordered amount was still appropriate? The original CS order was from 1987.
The man went to prison in 1992. Why was no CS review completed during that
5 year period or the subsequent 13 year period he was in prison?

Because the review isn't automatic. They send a letter to the recipient of the child support, who can elect to
have the review done, or ignore it, in which case the review isn't done.


And secondly, why isn't the deputy DA being held accountable for failing to
do his job to review CS orders like this one that have good cause reasons
for reductions?

And precisely how was anyone supposed to know that a review should have been done? Or are you suggesting that they
review every single CS case?

The public officials never admit their failures to follow
the statutory requirements in the law.

As far as I'm aware, having been the recipient of the letter offering to do a review - there IS no statutory
requirement to review a care periodically - at least, not in my state.

It's pretty obvious the state knew
this guy was in prison, they knew if they did a CS review they would be
forced to reduce or stop the CS order, so they did nothing.

Perhaps they did no review because none was requested?

The reported
facts indicate the state failed to do it's job over an 18 year period.

The facts indicate that the recipient of the CS didn't request a review.


And third, why does the mother get a free pass for what is most likely a
violation of a court decree to notify the court or the state of any changes
in address, employment, or insurance coverage? Those types of parental
requirements are broiler plate language in all decrees. Why is she allowed
to profit from her inaction? Why isn't the mother being charged with
contempt of court for her failure to follow a court order?

Perhaps she didn't have any changes? She is required to notify any changes in HER employment, employment and
insurance coverage. In reading the articles from both cites, there is no indication that she had any changes - at
least, nothing was mentioned.

So now, let's turn it around. Why didn't the obligor notify the courts of any changes in address, employment or
insurance coverage? Why should he be allowed to profit from his inaction? Why shouldn't he be charged with
contempt of court for his failure to follow a court order?

Ummmm....please explain how the poor guy who owes 50,000+ has profited by his inaction? I, personally, do not think
he should owe a penny!! He had 13 years of his life stolen from him!!

Then he needs to seek recompense from the agency that took the 13 years - do you think that his ex-wife and children
were responsible, and should therefore be the ones to lose?

Lose what?

The support to which the children were entitled.

Based on what he was earning in prison, they might be actually
entitled to,what, $100 total? Do you really think his ex is owed $100 per week for his entire prison term?

Did the expenses and costs of raising 2 kids somehow evaporate?

I'm still trying to work out why you think that his 2 children somehow didn't merit being supported.

Why would you punish them that way?

Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should
have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one?

I mean, this will probably go around and around and around - and now I'm a nice, handy target for the venom and finger
pointing for which this news group is so well known. So be it.

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

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

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


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

No, but it is inhuman to ignore it as a facet of this case, Moon.


How quickly would our legal system be falling over itself to

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


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

In other words, you know the answer damn well and you know it doesn't
support your screed. OK.

An NCP mother locked up for 13 years for a murder she didn't commit, and
the State pounces on her like a duck on a June bug when she's finally
exonerated because she forgot (or possibly didn't realize she had to)
file some paperwork in a timely manner?

You seriously think ANY politician or member of the judiciary would
jeopardize their career by letting that fly? Even I don't think you're
that stupid.


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

Do you seriously think this is the case?


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

Zealous pursuit of the letter of the law, untempered by compassion and
leading to suffering without any actual wrongs being redressed, is, if
not Evil, certainly something less than desireable in any society I
would choose to live in.


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


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

What happened to your vaunted dislike for second guesses?


If he'd filed his

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


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

I agree that the best thing for him to have done would have been to have
gotten the paperwork in as soon as possible. There's also a lot we
don't know here -- in particular, why he delayed filing as long as he
did. Was he unaware of the law and how it applied to him? Was he
severely depressed and emotionally distraught (understandable in this
case)? Did he file promptly, but the State deparment of CSE "lost" the
paperwork a couple of times and then dragged their feet for a while
getting the paperwork through their bureaucracy? Was he told that the
matter had been taken care of, only to learn later that it was not?
There are many possibilities here. I don't know the particulars so it's
hard to argue one way or another about the specifics.

However, in general, the rigorous enforcement of the letter of the law
in this case is not something I can say I am comfortable with in any
society I would want to live in.


His kids would have had to have

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


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

He didn't file some papers. That has nothing to do with what he was
earning while he was in prison, and nothing to do with any lies that
might be told about his "withholding" of earnings from his kids while he
was imprisoned.


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

Are you currently unable to work because you are in jail for something
you didn't do?


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


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

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

Now you are just trying to push buttons, and it isn't going to work.
"Personal responsibility" being touted as the standard around which CP
welfare mooms rally? Wotta laugh!


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

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


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


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

Again, what happened to your vaunted dislike of "second guessing"?


, then fabricated a legal tale about how he

has been "withholding" money from them that he never had the opportunity to earn because IT TOOK IT AWAY FROM HIM.


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

Why? BECAUSE THE STATE

STANDS TO PROFIT BY COLLECTING A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IT FORCES THE MAN TO PAY.

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


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

There certainly is. I never said you were defending the law, only using
it to further your own screed.


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

He wasn't guilty. That's worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moon, how would her situation have been any different if he had filed
his papers the day he was convicted?


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

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

Since you seem so cozy with the way things are playing out for this poor
man, I will utter upon you something that is "technically" not a curse,
as defined by your own beliefs -- "May you come up against the grinding
wall of Law Without Compassion!"

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message news:F0pFf.158441$oG.103707@dukeread02...


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

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

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


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

No, but it is inhuman to ignore it as a facet of this case, Moon.

You think it's more human to blame, and penalize his exwife, and his children?
Certainly, they had nothing to do with the troubles in which he found himself.

This guy should, and probably will, get compensated by the state.
Hopefully he will voluntarily pay the back support in order to avoid any
further legal problems. Think of the positive impact the windfall would
have on his children. Of course the state should just let it go. This
poor guy has been through enough.
I was wondering how the authorities could confuse a murder with someone
run over by a motorhome. Mr. Souter must have had lousy legal counsel.
Bill

Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message news:F0pFf.158441$oG.103707@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:

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

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

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


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

No, but it is inhuman to ignore it as a facet of this case, Moon.


You think it's more human to blame, and penalize his exwife, and his children?
Certainly, they had nothing to do with the troubles in which he found himself.

When did I blame his ex? And how is she being penalized? Is it such a
penalty that she not be entitled to a percentage of money he never earned?

You're being thick as a brick on this one, Moonie -- which shouldn't
shock me, after all.

- Ron ^*^

William Barger wrote:

This guy should, and probably will, get compensated by the state.
Hopefully he will voluntarily pay the back support in order to avoid any
further legal problems. Think of the positive impact the windfall would
have on his children. Of course the state should just let it go. This
poor guy has been through enough.

Gods, even Barger sees the light on this one!

- Ron ^*^

Werebat wrote:
Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message news:F0pFf.158441$oG.103707@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:

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

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

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


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

No, but it is inhuman to ignore it as a facet of this case, Moon.


You think it's more human to blame, and penalize his exwife, and his children?
Certainly, they had nothing to do with the troubles in which he found himself.

Wow, Moon is really being irrational on this one. First, if his ex was
"penalized" at all, it was the state who "penalized" her and her
children by placing the children's father in jail for a crime he did
not commit. So the state should owe her the money.

Second, his ex was not being "penalized" any more than a woman with a
husband that gets hit by a car and died is "penalized." She raised the
children and now she is wanting to get a big piece of the settlement
pie. Funny thing is, sometimes these wrongful conviction guys don't get
a whole lot out of it, because of limits set on lawsuits against the
state. A sort of limited immunity.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Werebat wrote:
Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:F0pFf.158441$oG.103707@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:

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

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

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


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

No, but it is inhuman to ignore it as a facet of this case, Moon.


You think it's more human to blame, and penalize his exwife, and his
children?
Certainly, they had nothing to do with the troubles in which he found
himself.

Wow, Moon is really being irrational on this one.

One this one?????????? When isn't she?


First, if his ex was
"penalized" at all, it was the state who "penalized" her and her
children by placing the children's father in jail for a crime he did
not commit. So the state should owe her the money.

Second, his ex was not being "penalized" any more than a woman with a
husband that gets hit by a car and died is "penalized." She raised the
children and now she is wanting to get a big piece of the settlement
pie. Funny thing is, sometimes these wrongful conviction guys don't get
a whole lot out of it, because of limits set on lawsuits against the
state. A sort of limited immunity.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02...

snip


Ooops--$30,000--not 50

Well, in it's simplest terms, he profited by not paying that money per
month. I still don't see why his ex and children should pay the price,
they're not the ones who took 13 years of the man's life.

How did he profit?

By not having used any of his personal resources.

He wasn't earning money that he got to keep rather than
pay to her.

And you somehow think that his ex had anything to do with this?

If his ex had wanted the $$ to be collected, don't you think
she could have filed a complaint?

Perhaps she did - perhaps she didn't know he was in jail, and only knew
that the CS stopped. Far too many perhaps's for anyone to know which
actually happened.

Instead of jumping on the "poor me" stump
when he is finally released from his wrongful imprisonment and
proclaiming the hardships *she* suffered in raising her own children
while he rotted in prison for a crime he didn't commit?

And you would know that this is what she did........... how?

I really dislike allegations that have no basis in the available facts.

It says in the article that she whined about having had to support the
children on her own. I didn't make it up.


She made it through those years--why
does she feel she is owed any repayment? She sounds like a greedy,
selfish shrew to me.

Teach, would you please show me where, in either article, you saw anything
about the CP at all, aside from this?

David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing
that his client "has endured the substantial burden of raising her two
children without defendant's contribution of child support."

Why would her attorney say anything at all if she had not asked him to? Why
would she even *have* an attorney? Attorneys work for money--and you
wouldn't hire one unless you thought you were going to get back more money
than you would have to pay the attorney.



Now, you may not agree with it all, but what her attorney is claiming is
absolutely true. She HAS endured the substantial burden of raising two
children without his contribution of child support. There's nothing
greedy, selfish, or shrewish in that statement - it's the simple truth.

Aw. Poor baby. Having to raise her own children while their father rotted
in jail for a crime he didn't commit. (I bet he would have gladly traded
places with her) I don't agree that there is nothing greedy about it. His
CS was current when he was wrongfully imprisoned. The children are either
grown and gone, or nearly so. The money would go exclusively to the mother.
SHE wants to be repaid for those missing years by a man who may never again
hold a job above minimum wage. I don't give a rat's tookus about whose
"legal responsibility" it was to file with CSE--where is her compassion? "I
had to support my own kids because you were in jail, you deadbeat!!"



Even if she no longer cares for him, she can at least have
some sympathy for what he went through.

Is that a requirement? Have you seen a whole lot of sympathy on this here
newsgroup for the CPs? I think not.

Oh, so if CPs don't get sympathy, then this man doesn't get sympathy? That
makes a lot of sense.


Unless, of course, she thinks he
might file an unlawful imprisonment lawsuit against the state, and she
wants to make sure she gets a sizeable piece of the pie.

More allegations? Anything to support it?

Actually, that wasn't any sort of an allegation. It was just a thought. I
would also think that it's doubtful that he will be able to sue. He was
convicted by a jury on the basis of evidence presented. It was a witness
that came in later that got him released.


See what I mean about no sympathy for the other side?

I don't think "sides" deserve sympathy. I think individuals sometimes
deserve sympathy.