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
...


[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.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


[snipped for brevity]

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 that's a whole different topic. The post was about hos he owed child
support. Someone wants to start a thread
about convictions of people who were innocent, that's a whole different
thread, probably for a whole different
newsgroup.

Whoa!! Moon, I know you've read the OP, but this is over the top - even for
you! The two issues are indeed intertwined. It's called cause and effect.
The cause of the C$ arrears is the effect of the judicial system imprisoning
a man for a crime he never committed.

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.

I'm really not, Teach. There are 2 issues involved in the original post -
and I'm trying real hard to keep them
separate. One deals with child support, the other doesn't. This is a
child-support newsgroup. Not a legal one.

And since when is C$ -not- a legal issue?

Moon, your inability to grasp such simple truth is unbelievably astounding.
Your starting to make the Wicked Witch of the West look like a girl scout in
comparison.

Sweet Jesus, where is your compassion for another human being???

Dusty wrote:

"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:6ZxFf.7250$Gg1.2033@trnddc03...

[snip]


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


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 ^*^

It really is all about the money for some people . . . that is really
trashy.

"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...

wrote in message
oups.com...

It really is all about the money for some people . . . that is really
trashy.

It certainly is a sad thing when the truth comes out that "it's for the
children" is shown to be "it's for the money". Very sad, indeed.

"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.

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?


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.

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?

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


[snipped for brevity]

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 that's a whole different topic. The post was about hos he owed child
support. Someone wants to start a thread
about convictions of people who were innocent, that's a whole different
thread, probably for a whole different
newsgroup.

Whoa!! Moon, I know you've read the OP, but this is over the top - even for
you! The two issues are indeed intertwined. It's called cause and effect.
The cause of the C$ arrears is the effect of the judicial system imprisoning
a man for a crime he never committed.

Ok, let's try this, since you apparently had great difficulty understanding me the previous one. I'm truly not
interested in his legal issues with criminal court - that is not, and never was, what I was addressing. The post was
originally posted to show the issue with his arrears, and that is the sole issue to which I have been responding.

Get it now?


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.

I'm really not, Teach. There are 2 issues involved in the original post -
and I'm trying real hard to keep them
separate. One deals with child support, the other doesn't. This is a
child-support newsgroup. Not a legal one.

And since when is C$ -not- a legal issue?

Since when did murder convictions, falsely convicted or not, become child support issues?

Get it yet?


Moon, your inability to grasp such simple truth is unbelievably astounding.
Your starting to make the Wicked Witch of the West look like a girl scout in
comparison.

Ah, more of that gratuitous offense.


Sweet Jesus, where is your compassion for another human being???

I have great compassion for people who at least try to run their own lives responsibly. I have zero patience for people
who, through their inactions, or stupid actions, cause their own problems. Not tending to his child support issues for
as many years as he didn't tend to them (3? 5? post conviction) is the former.

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Gini" wrote in message news:nazFf.1434$r53.395@trndny03...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
............................

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.
==
Ya know I never heard you sound meaner than you do here. Damn,
there are priorities in life and they don't all revolve around material things.

I know that. My child was seriously injured by another student, and I'm grateful that it wasn't worse than it was.

Were I in the situation of raising kids
while their father was falsely imprisoned, I'd be working my ass off to get him out, even if he were my ex. The
children's father's life is at
stake as well as their relationship with him and I'd be more concerned about getting them to visiting hours at the
prison than worrying about the cash register.

Well, everyone makes their own choices. We have no idea what the nature of their relationship, pre- or post-divorce
was. My ex was convicted after assaulting me. It would be a cold day in hell before I'd bail him out.


My kids wouldn't starve and they'd have what they need and I'll be damned if I'd rub salt in his wound. "What they
SHOULD have been able to do?" What kind of rationalization is that? I really wonder about women who have such
problems with their horrible ex's. Why the hell weren't they more careful in selecting the father of their children
and more driven to provide for them without fixating on their father's money?

Perhaps the fathers were different in the beginning? Not all jerks wear a sign on their backs from day 1.

I didn't even have a support order
when I was single. 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.

I was damned careful about the person I chose for my childrens' fathers. Yeah, I just don't get that
mean-spiritedness, and I'm glad I don't. Planting such
resentment in children with the attitude of what "they SHOULD have been able to do" is a very dangerous plot that
will shatter into a million pieces
when the children's relationship with their absent parent isn't wrapped up in the tidy little package it is when
they are minors.

No one said anything about planting resentment in children.

Except you.

The realities are what they are. Many times, mothers who have to pick up the slack for ex's who don't tend to their
responsibilities have to give up enough that there are life long repercussions - for example, neglecting their own
medical or dental care because after covering for the absent parent, there just isn't enough money to tend to their
own medical needs. Any idea how much 4 root canals, 2 dental implants, 5 oral surgeries and 3 crowns costs, in money,
pain, time and care?

That's just one example of the costs when a CP has to cover the costs of the non-responsible parent.

This guy wasn't non-responsible. He was in jail. Wrongly in jail.

And he didn't do anything about his child support. Nothing about it for years. Non-responsible.

Clearly, we're not going to agree on this. So be it.

"Gini" wrote in message news:6LAFf.795$iU2.222@trndny07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"Moon Shyne" wrote
.......................
Well, everyone makes their own choices. We have no idea what the nature of their relationship, pre- or post-divorce
was. My ex was convicted after assaulting me. It would be a cold day in hell before I'd bail him out.
===========
It isn't about *you* --It's about the kids and their relationship with their father. Period.

You bet. Of course, if the father bothered to have a relationship with the children these past 4 years, my feelings
about bailing him out might be different.

There are any number of divorced fathers out there who don't make the effort required to have a solid relationship with
their kids - and, for the most part, they blame it on everyone else but themselves.


===========
................................................
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!

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.

Oh well, so much for intelligent decision making.


My ex wasn't perfect--Still isn't--But, our relationship
was shattered by moonshine--the real stuff. It
made him crazy and abusive.

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?


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.

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.

Fine. I'm all done.

They were not my
property and under no circumstances, outside him abusing them,
did I have any right to interject myself or my feelings into their rights to a relationship with each other.

Yet you would imply that I did? On what facts, please? (and Im not talking about the crap that gets tossed around the
newsgroup that's nothing more than groundless allegations)


A month or so ago, my 27 year old and I were talking about relationships and I mentioned to him that his dad and I
were
soulmates and he said, "You still are." That he could say that so freely and without reserve, tells me that even
though I chose to leave their dad, I made
the right decisions in my effort to secure their relationship with him and it was never precipitated on money, and
there was a lot of it that I walked
out on. I surely struggled financially, being a fulltime student and quasi-single mom. We had no custody arrangement
but, as a graduate student, their dad traveled a lot in those years and was gone for extended trips to Russia and
South America. I could have surely used the money he spent on those trips, and demanded that
the kids "come first," but I had no claims to the money by virtue of me leaving the relationship, and was just as
happy as the boys when the letters, emails or gifts came from their dad. I was excited for them. (Note also that later
in this time, I had remarried, my husband was paying outrageous support to his ex and I became
disabled by the aggravated assault/attempted murder that I have mentioned here before. But, my husband and I refused
to make money, / lack thereof, an issue that would taint the relationship between my sons and their dad. Now, my boys
have tremendous love and respect for their stepfather as well. That's what matters, even more than root canals.)


Since when does supporting one's children taint a parent's relationship with their children?

That's the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.

And one's physical health matters, Gini, no matter how much you'd like to ignore that - parent has to stay healthy in
order to be able to raise the kids - kind of like on the airplane, the parent puts on the oxygen mask first so they stay
alive long enough to take care of the kids?

=============
.................................................. .........
Planting such
resentment in children with the attitude of what "they SHOULD have been able to do" is a very dangerous plot that
will shatter into a million pieces
when the children's relationship with their absent parent isn't wrapped up in the tidy little package it is when
they are minors.

No one said anything about planting resentment in children.

Except you.
=================
Well, perhaps it just took me to point it out to you.
=================

The realities are what they are. Many times, mothers who have to pick up the slack for ex's who don't tend to their
responsibilities have to give up enough that there are life long repercussions - for example, neglecting their own
medical or dental care because after covering for the absent parent, there just isn't enough money to tend to their
own medical needs. Any idea how much 4 root canals, 2 dental implants, 5 oral surgeries and 3 crowns costs, in money,
pain, time and care?
=================
I'm well aware of the costs. How on earth did their teeth get in such bad shape?

Because there was no money left over to pay for it after having to cover all of dad's share of suport, PLUS providing
the insurance that dad decided the court order didn't matter, he wasn't going to provide it.

Don't you have dental insurance?

What's your annual max coverage in dental insurance? Most people, it's right around $1000


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.

=================
=================