If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
... [snip] Dusty.....are you finally tiring of ****ing in the wind? I'm just bored with all Moon's b.s. rhetoric is all. She hasn't sounded this bizarre in.. hours. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
Virginia doesn't send out such letters either...I wrote, called and
physically spoke with various employees at DCSE telling them I wanted my child support reviewed because when the judge computed my "obligation' she failed to even inquire as to my ex-wife's income...never mind that the earned income credit she was able to claim was far in excess of my annual support "obligation." Virginia's DCSE is largely made up of women who have the intelligence of former welfare marms who appear to be incapable of having logical thought processes. |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
wrote in message oups.com... Virginia doesn't send out such letters either...I wrote, called and physically spoke with various employees at DCSE telling them I wanted my child support reviewed because when the judge computed my "obligation' she failed to even inquire as to my ex-wife's income...never mind that the earned income credit she was able to claim was far in excess of my annual support "obligation." Virginia's DCSE is largely made up of women who have the intelligence of former welfare marms who appear to be incapable of having logical thought processes. === Who are you talking to? What did they say? === |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "Werebat" wrote in message news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02... Here is a more detailed account of the case: http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001 /news Sadly, the focus in cases like this one are on the NCP father and his "failure" to seek a CS change. The deputy DA in the story above takes it a step further and talks about how the CP mother was forced to support her children over the years without any financial support. So what's wrong with this picture? Well, for openers, the states selectively apply the CS statutes ignoring statutory requirements when they don't work to their advantage. In this case where were the 2-3 year interval CS order reviews to determine if the ordered amount was still appropriate? The original CS order was from 1987. The man went to prison in 1992. Why was no CS review completed during that 5 year period or the subsequent 13 year period he was in prison? Because the review isn't automatic. They send a letter to the recipient of the child support, who can elect to have the review done, or ignore it, in which case the review isn't done. And secondly, why isn't the deputy DA being held accountable for failing to do his job to review CS orders like this one that have good cause reasons for reductions? And precisely how was anyone supposed to know that a review should have been done? Or are you suggesting that they review every single CS case? The public officials never admit their failures to follow the statutory requirements in the law. As far as I'm aware, having been the recipient of the letter offering to do a review - there IS no statutory requirement to review a care periodically - at least, not in my state. It's pretty obvious the state knew this guy was in prison, they knew if they did a CS review they would be forced to reduce or stop the CS order, so they did nothing. Perhaps they did no review because none was requested? The reported facts indicate the state failed to do it's job over an 18 year period. The facts indicate that the recipient of the CS didn't request a review. And third, why does the mother get a free pass for what is most likely a violation of a court decree to notify the court or the state of any changes in address, employment, or insurance coverage? Those types of parental requirements are broiler plate language in all decrees. Why is she allowed to profit from her inaction? Why isn't the mother being charged with contempt of court for her failure to follow a court order? Perhaps she didn't have any changes? She is required to notify any changes in HER employment, employment and insurance coverage. In reading the articles from both cites, there is no indication that she had any changes - at least, nothing was mentioned. So now, let's turn it around. Why didn't the obligor notify the courts of any changes in address, employment or insurance coverage? Why should he be allowed to profit from his inaction? Why shouldn't he be charged with contempt of court for his failure to follow a court order? Ummmm....please explain how the poor guy who owes 50,000+ has profited by his inaction? I, personally, do not think he should owe a penny!! He had 13 years of his life stolen from him!! Then he needs to seek recompense from the agency that took the 13 years - do you think that his ex-wife and children were responsible, and should therefore be the ones to lose? Lose what? The support to which the children were entitled. Based on what he was earning in prison, they might be actually entitled to,what, $100 total? Do you really think his ex is owed $100 per week for his entire prison term? Did the expenses and costs of raising 2 kids somehow evaporate? No, but the expenses were met. They didn't starve. He did not purposely ignore them. He *could not* pay. This money would be "paying mom back." Not "child support." Whatever the kids lost out on cannot be repaid to them. Then you're saying that the man who was falsely imprisoned for 13 years should NOT be compensated for his wrongful incarceration? Because, after all, whatever he lost out on cannot be repaid to him? I think you're wrong. For however many years, and however many dollars, the children's household lost out an any number of things, opportunities, needs, wants, and all the rest - because the household budget was stretched that much thinner when forced to cover someone else's obligations. The woman has every right to seek recompense for that loss, in pretty much the same way the man has every right to seek recompense for his loss. Jut because the mother didn't let her children starve doesn't mean that she was forced into assuming responsibilities that were not her own, and not of her own making. Yes, if one spouse dies, then the other one has to take on the responsibilities, as well - though that's why people get life insurance :-) I'm still trying to work out why you think that his 2 children somehow didn't merit being supported. Ah, Moon. Talk about twisting words. Please shoe me where I ever, in any post ,ever said that children did not merit being supported. chuckle Why would you punish them that way? Done is done! He was current until he went to jail. The children must be grown or almost so now. The "punishment" of them losing out because dad was in jail and couldn't pay is over. Those years can't be redone. Do you think money will fix it now? Of course not - but it will sure compensate, in the same way that the man should be suing the state agencies for his wrongful imprisonment - money won't fix it, but it goes at least part way to addressing a wrong. Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease No it's not; it's a choice. found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. I mean, this will probably go around and around and around - and now I'm a nice, handy target for the venom and finger pointing for which this news group is so well known. So be it. I don't recall having been venemous with you, Moon. I don't recall ever being venemous with you, although we have had some rather intense discussions. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease No it's not; it's a choice. It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. I mean, this will probably go around and around and around - and now I'm a nice, handy target for the venom and finger pointing for which this news group is so well known. So be it. I don't recall having been venemous with you, Moon. I don't recall ever being venemous with you, although we have had some rather intense discussions. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
Moon Shyne wrote: "Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease No it's not; it's a choice. It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract You can certainly make a case that the proclivity to overindulge is not something that a person chooses. Just like you can make a case that the proclivity to engage in sex with children is not something that an adult chooses. I'd agree that we should give alcoholic women and men who ruin their own lives and the lives of others around them exactly the same sort of compassion that we give to child molesters who do the same thing. - Ron ^*^ |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Werebat" wrote in message news:ilGGf.79261$QW2.58943@dukeread08...
Moon Shyne wrote: "Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease No it's not; it's a choice. It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract You can certainly make a case that the proclivity to overindulge is not something that a person chooses. Just like you can make a case that the proclivity to engage in sex with children is not something that an adult chooses. I'd agree that we should give alcoholic women and men who ruin their own lives and the lives of others around them exactly the same sort of compassion that we give to child molesters who do the same thing. You would. - Ron ^*^ |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can only
assume that it did not come through to your server, so I am reposting it for you: Moon: Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? TM: I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? Moon: I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. TM: Are you saying that choosing to drink even though you know that taking that first drink will cause a flare-ip of your disease is the same as being sent to prison for a crime you didn't commit? Alcoholism can be controlled--just don't drink. And, Moon, there is a huge difference between being unable to support your family (such as being locked up in jail) and being unwilling to do so, knowing that if you don't haul your butt out of bed and go to work, someone else will step in and provide for both you and the children you bring into the world. A huge difference. One is out of your control--and one is choice. "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease No it's not; it's a choice. It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. I mean, this will probably go around and around and around - and now I'm a nice, handy target for the venom and finger pointing for which this news group is so well known. So be it. I don't recall having been venemous with you, Moon. I don't recall ever being venemous with you, although we have had some rather intense discussions. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can only assume that it did not come through to your server, so I am reposting it for you: Moon: Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? TM: I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? Moon: I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. TM: Are you saying that choosing to drink even though you know that taking that first drink will cause a flare-ip of your disease is the same as being sent to prison for a crime you didn't commit? Alcoholism can be controlled--just don't drink. It's a disease - a really ****ty one. I didn't say it was the same as being jailed, except that both can land a person in a position where they are unable to support their families. And, Moon, there is a huge difference between being unable to support your family (such as being locked up in jail) and being unwilling to do so, knowing that if you don't haul your butt out of bed and go to work, someone else will step in and provide for both you and the children you bring into the world. A huge difference. One is out of your control--and one is choice. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that last one. "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:6JyGf.24798$sA3.24392@fed1read02... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... snip I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease No it's not; it's a choice. It's not only a disease, but it has been found to have genetic components. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/NewsEvents/...s/physguid.htm http://www.aafp.org/afp/990115ap/361.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) It cuts both ways, Teach - even though you may not like it. I mean, this will probably go around and around and around - and now I'm a nice, handy target for the venom and finger pointing for which this news group is so well known. So be it. I don't recall having been venemous with you, Moon. I don't recall ever being venemous with you, although we have had some rather intense discussions. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... I notice that you did not respond to my answer to your question. I can only assume that it did not come through to your server, so I am reposting it for you: Moon: Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'd like to know something - just exactly when did being falsely accused, arrested, and subsequently jailed for murder became a trivial thing? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TM: I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar circumstance, demand that money? Moon: I don't know. I DO know, however, that you don't show the same compassion for an alcoholic woman (keeping in mind that alcoholism is a desease found in the physician's guide) who is unable to support her family :-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The 'complex chronic psychological and nutritional disorder associated with excessive and usually compulsive drinking' is what alcoholism is. It is not a disease. Cystic Fibrosis is a disease. Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease. Leprosy is a disease. Alcoholism is -not- a disease, it is a mental disorder, nothing more. Yes, there does appears to be some sort of genetic connection related to alcoholism, but that hardly makes it a disease. Being jailed for a false crime is not something that anyone, even you Moon, would find to be within their ability to control. Unlike alcoholism, which is a choice, jail time for a false murder charge is not. The truth can hurt Moon - even though you may not like it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TM: Are you saying that choosing to drink even though you know that taking that first drink will cause a flare-ip of your disease is the same as being sent to prison for a crime you didn't commit? Alcoholism can be controlled--just don't drink. It's a disease - a really ****ty one. I didn't say it was the same as being jailed, except that both can land a person in a position where they are unable to support their families. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ According to Websters... Alcoholism Pronunciation: 'al-k&-"ho-"li-z&m, -k&-h&- Function: noun 1 : continued excessive or compulsive use of alcoholic drinks 2 : poisoning by alcohol; especially : a complex chronic psychological and nutritional disorder associated with excessive and usually compulsive drinking Even WebMD lists it as a neurological disorder. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And, Moon, there is a huge difference between being unable to support your family (such as being locked up in jail) and being unwilling to do so, knowing that if you don't haul your butt out of bed and go to work, someone else will step in and provide for both you and the children you bring into the world. A huge difference. One is out of your control--and one is choice. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you on that last one. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, I suppose that when a person gets mugged, raped or murdered, you'd somehow come up with the cockamamie idea that it was the victim's fault for what the criminal did to them. And I'm quite sure that you'd call stubbing one's toe a disease as well... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A dentist's child abuse crime (also: Pregnant citizens: URGENT) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | September 7th 05 11:00 PM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 04:47 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 03:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 05:27 AM |