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

"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:LAvFf.35494$DV2.3757@trnddc07...

"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.

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). 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.

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



You know this man will sue the state then the CS will get paid.

What a system.

T

Of course it is. The only other way he can get out of this, other then a
movie or book deal, is if the state covers the cost of C$ on it's own and
leaves him completely out of it. But, somehow I don't see that happening.

The most likely scenario may be something like this.. The state compensates
him for false imprisonment (say about a mill or so). Then, after they hand
him the check, they present him with a bill for the C$, he pays them off
with their own money and leaves the country.

"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.


Exactly.
According to http://forejustice.org/wc/misjustice.htm, 1,522 people were
judicially exonerated or pardoned (not sure of the time period but several
individual were proven not guilty many years after being found guilty by a
"jury of their peers", which in itself is a joke). After reading this web
site, if anyone feels safe, they're fools.

Phil #3


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?

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? 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.

Sorry sister, you'll have to work a lot harder then that to make him
guilty
of willful failure to pay C$ -especially when the facts say something
completely different. The classic radfem twist-a-story routine ain't
gonna
fly here.

teachrmama wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Just as I question the compassion of loads of people. Where's the
compassion for the kids, by the way?


And they need compassion because?......... They probably did without some
things while growing up, which is regrettable. But how can grinding their
father for $38K make up for that?

Especially when they are highly unlikely to see dime one of that money.

- Ron ^*^

Tiffany 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.



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.




OR maybe (since he was in jail for murder and probably stood to do some
serious time) he just didn't give a rats ass about dealing with CSE. Why
bother? By the time he got out of jail, the kids would be over 18.

There is that point, but I'd think it would fall under the category of
"mentally distraught". How old was he? If he figured he'd be dead
before he got out, that might also have factored into his choices not to
bother.

- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message news:tmuFf.158647$oG.28214@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...


"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.

How has his exwife been penalized? She would only have received a portion of whatever he earned in prison--which is
how much? The *wrongful conviction* is what put the woman in the position of having to support the children on her
own. Do you think he should be held responsible for that?


At the end, he was wrongfully convicted. On the other hand, I strongly suspect he wasn't just walking down the
street, minding his own business - when a jury convicts, they generally feel they have enough information to convict.

Do you mean to imply that his 13 years in prison are somehow LESS horrific if he was engaged in some questionable
activities (not including murder) on the night the young woman died?


Ummmm no. I wasn't implying any such thing.

I see. Then what, exactly, WERE you implying?


Moon, during World War II, many Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps in the USA. They were given a
short amount of time to sell their possessions, including houses, and were to bring what they owned to the camps with
them. The novel "Farewell to Manzanar" deals with this.


This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Thanks for story hour, but I'll pass.

Oh, but it does. Perhaps you aren't perceptive enough to see how it
does, but that doesn't change the fact that it does.


Many American profiteers saw a golden opportunity to make money off of these Japanese Americans. They HAD to sell
their houses before a certain deadline was met, or they'd lose them, and the purchasers knew this. Guess what? Many
of them were forced to sell at a far lower price than what their houses were worth, or risk losing the entire value of
the house.

What these profiteers did was perfectly legal at the time. Legally, they didn't do anything "wrong".

Can you understand why today, many people look back at what they did with disgust? Even though they weren't breaking
any laws or reneging on any of their proscribed responsibilities?

History is chock full of further examples of people using unjust laws to profit at others' expense. Do you mean to
say that none of these people were doing anything reprehensible? Just because the law was on their side?

Someone already asked the question, what would you do if you were in his ex-wife's shoes? The kids are grown and out
of the house, and you know damned well that he didn't earn anything appreciable while he was incarcerated.


And you know this how?

I must admit that I have not considered the vanishingly small
possibility that his earnings while in prison came close to matching his
earnings while free. If his earnings while in prison (prior to his
asking for an adjustment) matched his earnings prior to his wrongful
conviction, you actually have a point. However, the chance of that
being the case is so incredibly slight that I do not believe that it
really merits serious weight in this discussion.

Do you believe otherwise?


You know that you have him on a legal technicality, that

you can use to nail his ass to the wall and maybe turn a little profit if he manages to sue the state over his
imprisonment. And if not, well, it never hurts to have another human being in your pocket, does it?


That may be your frame of mind - it certainly isn't mine.

Your posting history shows otherwise.


What would you honestly do?


Abide by the laws, and expect others to do so, as well. It's the way I was brought up, it's the way I bring up my
children, and so far, it keeps us all out of trouble.

"May you run up against the grinding wall of Law Without Compassion!"


I couldn't do what this woman is doing without feeling dirty. Could you?


My ex has fallen into arrears on a nearly annual basis. Yup, you can bet that I file contempt of court charges, and use
the weight of the courts to 'encourage' him to comply with the court orders.

That isn't what I asked. Nice try at twisting my words, though.

Answer the question: "I couldn't do what this woman is doing without
feeling dirty. Could you?"


And no, I don't feel dirty about it at all - because it's the most amazing thing - once he realized that I wouldn't pick
up his slack and clean up his messes, he managed to start supporting the kids.

Unless your husband was also jailed for 13 years for something he didn't
do, what you did with him is irrelevant.

I couldn't do what this woman is doing without feeling dirty. Could you?

I realize that I'm wasting my time arguing with a nutjob, but what the hey.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lVwFf.158660$oG.153968@dukeread02...


Tiffany 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.



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.




OR maybe (since he was in jail for murder and probably stood to do some
serious time) he just didn't give a rats ass about dealing with CSE. Why
bother? By the time he got out of jail, the kids would be over 18.

There is that point, but I'd think it would fall under the category of
"mentally distraught". How old was he? If he figured he'd be dead before
he got out, that might also have factored into his choices not to bother.

- Ron ^*^


We can't even imagine how mentally distraught he would be. Imagine being
convicted of a murder you didn't do, being sentenced for what would feel
like eternity. I just imagine cs payments were the last thing on his mind. I
can see why it would take a few years to 'click'.

Seriously though, being wrongfully convicted I don't feel his jail time
should be used against him for accruing arrears. That is not to say if a NCP
goes to jail for 6 months on a DUI charge that his payments should be
suspended.

The man is looking at possibly more then a million though.... time will
tell.

T

"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.



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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip--getting too long

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.

I quoted the only thing in either of the articles about the ex-wife.
Still don't see anything about whining.

"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."

So where's this part in the article about whining?




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.

When you have someone who has failed to pay their child support for
years on end, you seek the child support. Some people hire an attorney,
some don't. She was well within her rights to hire an attorney to
address the years of arrears in child support.

Uh, Moon...apparently the modification of CS was done in the middle of
his time in jail. Are you trying to say that she was not told of his
whereabouts at the time of the modification?

I have no way of knowing one way or the other. Do you?

And even if she didn't ever
know (which is almost unbelievable) she does know that he was wrongfully
imprisoned for 13 years.

Which may or may not have been something she knew before she hired an
attorney. It also might be something that she only found out after she
had started the process. Why would you condemn her without having all the
facts, which is what I've been protesting all along?

She spent money on an attorney hoping to get money
from a man who was wrongfully imprisoned for 13 years and who is having a
difficult time finding work. I didn't say anything about her rights--I
am questioning her compassion!

Just as I question the compassion of loads of people. Where's the
compassion for the kids, by the way?


The kids?? The kids now have their father whom they can rebuild a
relationship with. The kids now have a father whom they don't need to be
ashamed of.

Its the mother that seeks money, not the kids.

T

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

snip--getting too long

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.

I quoted the only thing in either of the articles about the ex-wife.
Still don't see anything about whining.

"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."

So where's this part in the article about whining?




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.

When you have someone who has failed to pay their child support for
years on end, you seek the child support. Some people hire an
attorney, some don't. She was well within her rights to hire an
attorney to address the years of arrears in child support.

Uh, Moon...apparently the modification of CS was done in the middle of
his time in jail. Are you trying to say that she was not told of his
whereabouts at the time of the modification?

I have no way of knowing one way or the other. Do you?

And even if she didn't ever
know (which is almost unbelievable) she does know that he was wrongfully
imprisoned for 13 years.

Which may or may not have been something she knew before she hired an
attorney. It also might be something that she only found out after she
had started the process. Why would you condemn her without having all
the facts, which is what I've been protesting all along?

She spent money on an attorney hoping to get money
from a man who was wrongfully imprisoned for 13 years and who is having
a difficult time finding work. I didn't say anything about her
rights--I am questioning her compassion!

Just as I question the compassion of loads of people. Where's the
compassion for the kids, by the way?

And they need compassion because?......... They probably did without some
things while growing up, which is regrettable. But how can grinding their
father for $38K make up for that?





Did I miss something in the article that even states that their was a real
struggle for existence for the mother and children? This mother might have
been making good money, maybe a boyfriend on the side paying bills.

T

"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.



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.

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.

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

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.

He didn't cause that, Moon. He did without one heck of a lot more than
either the kids or the mom did! He lost his freedom!! And he didn't have
the money to pay, anyway. It was a paperwork problem that caused the
arrearages--not neglect on his part. I hope to heck you are never on a
jury. You are mean-spirited.