2nd post attempt - C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??

The first attempt to post this apparently didn't fly, so....
--------------------------------------------------------------

Note how, in the 3rd sentence, all but $944 of the arrears had been paid
off. Then the judge gets a case of the Moonies (Hyper-droolies, whatever...
insert your favorite radfem here) and acts in the most ridiculous fashion
possible - he tosses the man in jail, destroying his livelihood, forcing him
to loose his home and granting his X everything she ever wanted.

Even when the "debt" is paid, that's still not good enough for the radfems
and their Divorce Industry cronies.

"OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!" shouted the Radfem Supporter.
-----------------------------------------------------------

http://billingsgazette.net/articles/...adbeat-dad.txt

Judge orders prison time for not paying child support
By The Associated Press

HELENA -- A federal judge here has sentenced am Alabama man to six months in
prison for failing to pay child support for nearly a decade, chastising the
father for spending money that should have gone to support his son.

The attorney for Roman Glenn, 35, had requested his client receive only a
probationary sentence so he could continue to work and pay his child
support. In court Tuesday, Glenn noted that he has now paid $16,900 and was
ready to pay the remaining $944.

U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell, however, was not moved, saying Glenn had
moved and changed jobs to avoid paying the $304 monthly child-support for
nearly a decade.

"You seem to have a great deal of ability. You seem to be very intelligent.
You have had some very responsible jobs. You also have a history of leaving
any job that you have after a fairly short time," Lovell told Glenn. "And
now you come in, finally, at the time for sentence and you tell me you have
paid this child support, which goes back for a period of almost 10 years.

"It appears to me that you borrowed $16,000 from your young son without his
consent and used it for your own during the last nine or 10 years."

Assistant U.S. Attorney Paulette Stewart had recommended six months on house
arrest as an adequate penalty, along with four years on probation.

But Lovell said he wanted to make sure that he had Glenn's attention, and
handed down the six-month sentence -- to be followed by one year of
probation.

"He simply has failed to meet his responsibility under the law as a parent,"
Lovell said. "We need the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for the
offense. ... I'm not certain this defendant yet realizes the seriousness of
the crime."

Dusty wrote:
The first attempt to post this apparently didn't fly, so....
--------------------------------------------------------------

Note how, in the 3rd sentence, all but $944 of the arrears had been paid
off. Then the judge gets a case of the Moonies (Hyper-droolies, whatever...
insert your favorite radfem here) and acts in the most ridiculous fashion
possible - he tosses the man in jail, destroying his livelihood, forcing him
to loose his home and granting his X everything she ever wanted.

Even when the "debt" is paid, that's still not good enough for the radfems
and their Divorce Industry cronies.

Dude, I'm all for fathers rights and believe the courts are way too
biased, but you're coming off more "rad" than some of the "radfems" on
this one.

From what little we know, the guy purposefully evaded paying child
support for a decade. For that, you think it's ok for him to get off
with little more than an apology? What's to stop him from avoiding child
support for the next 10 years if he learns he can just wait and make it
up at the last minute?

The guy deserves to be punished if he purposefully avoided child support
for a decade. He makes all responsible NCPs look bad.

As for "destroying his livelihood, forcing him to lose his home", thats
a bit overly dramatic. He apparently jumps from job to job so it's not
like he is losing the family business. And there's no mention of whether
he owned a home or not. The guy isn't being forced to lose anything --
he's thrown it away.

It also doesn't seem like his X is getting "everything she ever wanted".
All she's getting is court ordered child support, and the $304/month
doesn't sound wholly unreasonable. There's no mention she is getting
anything else out of the deal.

The judge did the right thing, based on the few facts we know from the
news article.

"Random Stranger" wrote in

The guy deserves to be punished if he purposefully avoided child support
for a decade.

It's the system that forces him to run! Paying the monthly rate and the
ganished rate is unrealistic.

As for "destroying his livelihood, forcing him to lose his home", thats a
bit overly dramatic.

Really? You haven't a clue how devistating it is. 6 months of no income and
then thrown onto the street with nothing to live on and a jail record
hanging around your neck. nobody wants to hire a convicted felon!!!

It also doesn't seem like his X is getting "everything she ever wanted".
All she's getting is court ordered child support, and the $304/month
doesn't sound wholly unreasonable.

Funny, gas prices rise by $50 a gallon and people are claiming they can't
eat, imagine if they were landed a $300 tax to pay every month?

$300 tax to pay every month?

What tax? How is the child supposed to survive? The money is for the
child. As for the sentence being harsh, it sounds like he did not pay
until he was convicted. This sort of like giving back the donuts after
you get caught steeling them.

DB wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in


The guy deserves to be punished if he purposefully avoided child support
for a decade.


It's the system that forces him to run! Paying the monthly rate and the
ganished rate is unrealistic.


The article gave no evidence for any of that. There's no evidence that
the monthly rate or the garnished rate was unrealistic. Maybe it was.
Maybe it wasn't. We don't know, so assuming either way only serves one
agenda or another.

As for "destroying his livelihood, forcing him to lose his home", thats a
bit overly dramatic.


Really? You haven't a clue how devistating it is. 6 months of no income and
then thrown onto the street with nothing to live on and a jail record
hanging around your neck. nobody wants to hire a convicted felon!!!

The article didn't say he was convicted of a felony, did it?

I'm sure it can be devastating, no argument there. I also think many
people have done 6 months terms and lived to tell the tale. And I
further think it /should/ be a pretty big burden on this fellow if his
refusal to pay support for a decade placed a big burden on his child. If
it was fun, it wouldn't be punishment.

Unfortunately, the article didn't give enough facts to know if his
actions were a huge burden on his child or not.



It also doesn't seem like his X is getting "everything she ever wanted".

All she's getting is court ordered child support, and the $304/month
doesn't sound wholly unreasonable.


Funny, gas prices rise by $50 a gallon and people are claiming they can't
eat, imagine if they were landed a $300 tax to pay every month?

Learn to debate, dude. What you just said has nothing to do with your
claim she is "getting everything she wanted" and my counter-claim that
the article said no such thing.

I agree that a $300/month burden is tough on most people. My monthly
bill was over a thousand so I can empathize (and I rent a small, old 3BR
house so I'm hardly wealthy). The point being debated is not whether
this is a fair or unfair amount, but whether or not she is getting
"everything she wanted".

Where do you live that gas is over $50/gallon?

I'm not saying CS is fair, I'm not saying it doesn't hurt. I'm not
saying the punishment wasn't harsh. I'm saying that, _for this
particular news article_ we don't have enough facts, but the facts we
do have seem to indicate that the judge acted somewhat wisely.

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
$300 tax to pay every month?

What tax? How is the child supposed to survive?

I agree. Without that $300, the child is most CERTAINLY doomed to death!

The money is for the
child.

Uhuh.

As for the sentence being harsh, it sounds like he did not pay
until he was convicted. This sort of like giving back the donuts after
you get caught steeling them.

Judge is a retard. He should be removed and disbarred. He is a perfect
example of stupid and incompetent lawyer, who was unable to survive with his
own practice as a lawyer, so he bribed and kissed ass around to be a public
employee - nominated judge.

How can he (and for that reason you people) suggest, that a civil case for
owing money is offense to go to jail for?

How can you people compare this civil matter to robbing bank - a federal
criminal offense?

Are you all stupid? This f*cked-up judge certainly is.


--
Pursuant to Public Law No 109-162 I hereby certify, assert, testify,
warrant, and affirm that it is not (nor has it ever been) my intent,
aim, objective or purpose in any way to irritate, frustrate, bother,
provoke, gall, aggravate, bother, bug, chafe, fret, irk, nettle, peeve,
put out, rile, bait, beleaguer, beset, plague, tease, torment, worry,
disturb, vex, exasperate, ruffle, harrass, harry, pester, bedevil, ****
off, **** on, or in any other way annoy the reader of this post.


"Random Stranger" wrote in message
...
DB wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in


The guy deserves to be punished if he purposefully avoided child support
for a decade.


It's the system that forces him to run! Paying the monthly rate and the
ganished rate is unrealistic.


The article gave no evidence for any of that. There's no evidence that
the monthly rate or the garnished rate was unrealistic. Maybe it was.
Maybe it wasn't. We don't know, so assuming either way only serves one
agenda or another.

As for "destroying his livelihood, forcing him to lose his home", thats
a
bit overly dramatic.


Really? You haven't a clue how devistating it is. 6 months of no income
and
then thrown onto the street with nothing to live on and a jail record
hanging around your neck. nobody wants to hire a convicted felon!!!

The article didn't say he was convicted of a felony, did it?

I'm sure it can be devastating, no argument there. I also think many
people have done 6 months terms and lived to tell the tale. And I
further think it /should/ be a pretty big burden on this fellow if his
refusal to pay support for a decade placed a big burden on his child. If
it was fun, it wouldn't be punishment.

Unfortunately, the article didn't give enough facts to know if his
actions were a huge burden on his child or not.



It also doesn't seem like his X is getting "everything she ever
wanted".

All she's getting is court ordered child support, and the $304/month
doesn't sound wholly unreasonable.


Funny, gas prices rise by $50 a gallon and people are claiming they
can't
eat, imagine if they were landed a $300 tax to pay every month?

Learn to debate, dude. What you just said has nothing to do with your
claim she is "getting everything she wanted" and my counter-claim that
the article said no such thing.

I agree that a $300/month burden is tough on most people. My monthly
bill was over a thousand so I can empathize (and I rent a small, old 3BR
house so I'm hardly wealthy). The point being debated is not whether
this is a fair or unfair amount, but whether or not she is getting
"everything she wanted".

Where do you live that gas is over $50/gallon?

I'm not saying CS is fair, I'm not saying it doesn't hurt. I'm not
saying the punishment wasn't harsh. I'm saying that, _for this
particular news article_ we don't have enough facts, but the facts we
do have seem to indicate that the judge acted somewhat wisely.

"Random Stranger" wrote in message
...
DB wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in


The guy deserves to be punished if he purposefully avoided child support
for a decade.


It's the system that forces him to run! Paying the monthly rate and the
ganished rate is unrealistic.


The article gave no evidence for any of that. There's no evidence that
the monthly rate or the garnished rate was unrealistic. Maybe it was.
Maybe it wasn't. We don't know, so assuming either way only serves one
agenda or another.

ANY rate is unrealistic.


As for "destroying his livelihood, forcing him to lose his home", thats
a
bit overly dramatic.


Really? You haven't a clue how devistating it is. 6 months of no income
and
then thrown onto the street with nothing to live on and a jail record
hanging around your neck. nobody wants to hire a convicted felon!!!

The article didn't say he was convicted of a felony, did it?

I'm sure it can be devastating, no argument there. I also think many
people have done 6 months terms and lived to tell the tale.

Just as there are many single mothers who collected no "child support" and
lived to tell THAT tale.

And I
further think it /should/ be a pretty big burden on this fellow if his
refusal to pay support for a decade placed a big burden on his child.

It placed NO burden on his child.

If
it was fun, it wouldn't be punishment.

Unfortunately, the article didn't give enough facts to know if his
actions were a huge burden on his child or not.



It also doesn't seem like his X is getting "everything she ever
wanted".

All she's getting is court ordered child support, and the $304/month
doesn't sound wholly unreasonable.


Funny, gas prices rise by $50 a gallon and people are claiming they
can't
eat, imagine if they were landed a $300 tax to pay every month?

Learn to debate, dude. What you just said has nothing to do with your
claim she is "getting everything she wanted" and my counter-claim that
the article said no such thing.

I agree that a $300/month burden is tough on most people. My monthly
bill was over a thousand so I can empathize (and I rent a small, old 3BR
house so I'm hardly wealthy). The point being debated is not whether
this is a fair or unfair amount, but whether or not she is getting
"everything she wanted".

Where do you live that gas is over $50/gallon?

That you fail to recognize the typo tells me that perhaps it is you that
needs to learn how to debate.


I'm not saying CS is fair, I'm not saying it doesn't hurt. I'm not
saying the punishment wasn't harsh. I'm saying that, _for this
particular news article_ we don't have enough facts, but the facts we
do have seem to indicate that the judge acted somewhat wisely.

There is no such thing as a wise "child support" judge.

Chris wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in message
...

The article gave no evidence for any of that. There's no evidence that
the monthly rate or the garnished rate was unrealistic. Maybe it was.
Maybe it wasn't. We don't know, so assuming either way only serves one
agenda or another.


ANY rate is unrealistic.


Ok, that explains some of your responses. You feel NCPs shouldn't pay
any support, right?

...
I'm sure it can be devastating, no argument there. I also think many
people have done 6 months terms and lived to tell the tale.


Just as there are many single mothers who collected no "child support" and
lived to tell THAT tale.


So we agree it's possible that the 6 month term won't ruin the guy for
life? Good.

And I
further think it /should/ be a pretty big burden on this fellow if his
refusal to pay support for a decade placed a big burden on his child.


It placed NO burden on his child.


How do you know that? Or do you simply assume it to fit your argument?


Where do you live that gas is over $50/gallon?


That you fail to recognize the typo tells me that perhaps it is you that
needs to learn how to debate.


Possibly. I wasn't sure if you were trying to be factual, extrapolating
to make a point, or just made a simple typographical error. Now I know.

"Random Stranger" wrote in

particular news article_ we don't have enough facts, but the facts we do
have seem to indicate that the judge acted somewhat wisely.


With such great wisdom, is it any wonder why the government is an obsolete
administrator of common sense & simple logic?