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

Teach asked if I believe the man will be compensated. IMO he will be.
There was a similar case last week. That person received more than
$1,000,000., and spent less time in prison. It would be a terrible
injustice if the state refused to compensate him.
Bill

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




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.

Never held a job above minimum wage? Did you read the articles? The jobs
listed are well above minimum wage.

It also says he has been having a difficult time even finding work!


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!!"

I have yet to see anything in either article that she knew where he was,
at all.

They didn't tell her at the support modification hearing in 1995? That's
odd. And they didn't tell her when he was released from jail? That also is
odd.


You're so quick to condemn mothers who seek child support - and I
understand your anger at being told your children are irrelevant - but
that doesn't make all child support a bad thing.

And you have never heard me say that child support is a bad thing, although
I do think that our current system is not fair and balanced.




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.

With as vehement as you are in your condemnation for the mother, I find it
surprising that you also demand compassion for the man. Why not
compassion for both?

And what would compassion for both be? She raised the children as a single
mother, and made it through. Good for her--she deserves recognition for
that. She was harmed by the wrongful conviction, too, but she made it
through. But if she is owed, it is not by him. He did not purposely harm
her or put her in that position. And, whether we like it or not, some
wrongs are never redressed. He will never get back the 13 years he spent in
jail. She will never get back the children's younger years where she could
have used that money for them.



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.

Precisely. He wasn't just walking down the street with nothing better to
do that day.

So why are you condemning the ex wife for this?

I'm not condemning her for his conviction or the time he spent in jail. I
am questioning why she is going after him for money that he only owes
because of a paperwork issue. Where is her compassion?


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.

As long as it's the poor, beleagered CS paying one. That much is coming
though loud and clear - and a bit surprising, because you had seemed to be
a much more fair minded person to me. I have yet to see you sympathetic
to a CP having trouble supporting her children, and having a reasonable
expectation of child support from the child(ren)'s other parent.

On the contrary, I have consistently said that our present system does not
work. There are both NCPs and CPs that are harmed by it, although it is
slanted to favor CPs. In the case we are discussing, however, it is the NCP
who is being trampled on by the system. As for you statement that I have
not been sympathetic to CPs, perhaps you just haven't read the right posts,
because I have engaged in discussions with a number of CPs on this group.

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?


Which leads back to what in heck his attorney was doing for him? And why didn't his attorney advise him of the things
to do to keep his personal life in order, even with the conviction.

I see -- he was convicted, that must mean he was guilty of SOMETHING so
it's no big deal that he did time in jail. Also, he should sue his
attorney for the CS arrearage. Yeah, that'll fly.


I still fail to see why the ex-wife is the subject of so much blaming, and castigation, unless it's simply that she's a
woman, and CP of the children.

She did nothing in this whole thing, except meet her responsibilities. When did that become a bad thing?

Hm.

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.

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. 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?

What would you honestly do?

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

- Ron ^*^

"William Barger" wrote in message
...
Teach asked if I believe the man will be compensated. IMO he will be.
There was a similar case last week. That person received more than
$1,000,000., and spent less time in prison. It would be a terrible
injustice if the state refused to compensate him.

Why do you think he will be compensated? (This is a real question--not an
argument) He was convicted according to the law. Did the prosecution do
something wrong? (Besides getting him convicted, that is) They didn't know
about the witness until recently, so it's not like they hid that information
just to get a conviction.

"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.




Which leads back to what in heck his attorney was doing for him? And why didn't his attorney advise him of the
things to do to keep his personal life in order, even with the conviction.

I see -- he was convicted, that must mean he was guilty of SOMETHING so it's no big deal that he did time in jail.
Also, he should sue his attorney for the CS arrearage. Yeah, that'll fly.

Well, since that wasn't what I said, what you think will fly isn't my concern.



I still fail to see why the ex-wife is the subject of so much blaming, and castigation, unless it's simply that she's
a woman, and CP of the children.

She did nothing in this whole thing, except meet her responsibilities. When did that become a bad thing?

Hm.

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.



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?

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.



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.



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.

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.

Imagine that.

- Ron ^*^

"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?

"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?

"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

"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.

"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?

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.