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

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

"Dusty" wrote in message
om...

"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.

Moonie is just too willfully pig-ignorant to comprehend the obvious in
this case. A paperwork problem or no, the Law is the Law is the Law in
her eyes and this woman is OWED money. Moonie has illustrated again and
again how some people simply fail to grasp that legality does not make
an action "right".

- Ron ^*^

"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. 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.
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? 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
care for our kids.
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.
==

"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
...


[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 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.

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.

"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.

==

"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. 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.
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? 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
care for our kids.
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.
==


Moonie and her ilk jkust have to recieve their pound of flesh.

"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
...


[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 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.

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.

Moon, he qualified for a modification. For whatever reason--maybe because
he did not know any better--the paperwork did not get done immediately. It
is one of those cases where the letter of the law kills, and the spirit of
the law is being thrust aside.

"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.

"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
...


[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 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.

He owes CS because he had a valid CS order at the time he was sent to
prison. And he owes a very large amount of CS arrearages plus interest
because the state denied his request to have his CS obligation suspended
back in 1995.

And that is why the state and the ex-wife are culpable in this case.
Neither of them responded appropriately under the CS laws to grant his
request to have his CS obligation suspended when he requested it. And once
the state and the ex-wife got his request shot down "legally" he was unable
to bring up the issue at a later date.


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.

You know darn well there are 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.

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. 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.

"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.
===========
.................................................
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. 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. My ex wasn't perfect--Still isn't--But, our relationship
was shattered by moonshine--the real stuff. It
made him crazy and abusive. 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. 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.
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.)
=============
.................................................. ..........
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? Don't you have dental insurance?
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.
=================
=================

"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..