NV: Father sent to prison for not paying child support

"Bob Whiteside" wrote:
Let's say you were accused of not going to the grocery store.
How would you set up a defense to a charge like that?

With receipts?

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:31:59 -0500, "Rog'"
wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote:
Let's say you were accused of not going to the grocery store.
How would you set up a defense to a charge like that?

With receipts?

With your name on them? Easy for another mouth-piece to claim they
were someone else's receipts.

"The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Moon, I wasn't talking about the article. Well, OK, the very first question
was (what if he just doesn't have the cash), but the remainder of my
comments were not about the article.

"GL Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:31:59 -0500, "Rog'"
wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote:
Let's say you were accused of not going to the grocery store.
How would you set up a defense to a charge like that?

With receipts?

With your name on them? Easy for another mouth-piece to claim they
were someone else's receipts.

Unless one uses a debit or credit card, or writes a check to the store,
there is no way to prove anything. A great many people still use cash at
the grocery store and there's no way to prove that the receipt you're
showing the court is indeed yours for any given day. It becomes an
impossible thing to prove.

And how many deadbroke Dads have credit cards, much less bank account debit
cards, that the courts haven't already sucked all the funds from to pay off
grievously high C$ awards? Very few do, IMO. Mostly because banks won't
extend credit to someone that they consider a bad risk because of the lack
of money they possess from C$ garnishments.

It's a double edged sword - if the NCP gets ahead, the courts take it away
and increase their C$ to off-set the increase. So why should they even try
to get ahead? The Divorce Industry has established no incentives for men to
better themselves or improve their lot in life. Hence the high suicide rate
of divorced men.

And if they die, then the states increase the C$ of other men still alive
and in the system. Then the states can receive more taxpayer money from the
Feds via the "Matching Funds" program and offset the expenditure the state
incurs for cover Mommy's ass while she drives Dad out of their children's
lives. He starts to think of killing himself as an option to get out from
under and the cycle begins again with another destitute father.

It's simple, really.

And when enough men are removed, their are fewer of them left to fight for
their rights. Then the states can use the numbers of dead fathers (that
they have helped to create in the first place) as a weapon against those
remaining men that seek redress from the government and try to increase
fairness for the rest of the men still in the system.

It's a no win situation for men.

And it can get even worse, with "palimony" and false rape claims. But don't
get me started...

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

[snip]

Moon, I wasn't talking about the article. Well, OK, the very first
question
was (what if he just doesn't have the cash), but the remainder of my
comments were not about the article.

No **** Sherlock - so then, one might wonder why you would post an article
with the misleading line of "Oh yeah, this makes a ****in' ****-load of
sense! 24-60 months - in the freakin' State Pen??? For failure to pay a
debt?!?!? WTF, over?!?" amd then go into the rant that you did over things
that had nothing to do with the article.

You wouldn't have simply been trying to stir up ****, would you?

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"GL Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:31:59 -0500, "Rog'"
wrote:

"Bob Whiteside" wrote:
Let's say you were accused of not going to the grocery store.
How would you set up a defense to a charge like that?

With receipts?

With your name on them? Easy for another mouth-piece to claim they
were someone else's receipts.

Unless one uses a debit or credit card, or writes a check to the store,
there is no way to prove anything.

Or those nifty little cards that get you the sale prices - they have an
identifying number as well.

A great many people still use cash at
the grocery store and there's no way to prove that the receipt you're
showing the court is indeed yours for any given day. It becomes an
impossible thing to prove.

Not really.


And how many deadbroke Dads have credit cards, much less bank account
debit
cards, that the courts haven't already sucked all the funds from to pay
off
grievously high C$ awards?

Check cards are pretty much standard with checking accounts nearly
everywhere.

Very few do, IMO. Mostly because banks won't
extend credit to someone that they consider a bad risk because of the lack
of money they possess from C$ garnishments.

Of course they do - there are even credit cards that can be had
post-bankruptcy, as well as pre-paid credit and debit cards - if you're
going to spend money on groceries, it's just as easy to get a visa gift card
type card with the cash, and then use that, isn't it?

There's always a way, all you have to do is brainstorm it just a little bit.


It's a double edged sword - if the NCP gets ahead, the courts take it away
and increase their C$ to off-set the increase. So why should they even
try
to get ahead? The Divorce Industry has established no incentives for men
to
better themselves or improve their lot in life. Hence the high suicide
rate
of divorced men.

For the most part, child support won't automatically increase CS - they will
revisit the income levels approximately once every 3 years......



And if they die, then the states increase the C$ of other men still alive
and in the system.

What sort of nonsense is this?

Then the states can receive more taxpayer money from the
Feds via the "Matching Funds" program and offset the expenditure the state
incurs for cover Mommy's ass while she drives Dad out of their children's
lives. He starts to think of killing himself as an option to get out from
under and the cycle begins again with another destitute father.

It's simple, really.

And when enough men are removed, their are fewer of them left to fight for
their rights. Then the states can use the numbers of dead fathers (that
they have helped to create in the first place) as a weapon against those
remaining men that seek redress from the government and try to increase
fairness for the rest of the men still in the system.

It's a no win situation for men.

And it can get even worse, with "palimony" and false rape claims. But
don't
get me started...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

[snip]

Moon, I wasn't talking about the article. Well, OK, the very first
question
was (what if he just doesn't have the cash), but the remainder of my
comments were not about the article.

No **** Sherlock - so then, one might wonder why you would post an article
with the misleading line of "Oh yeah, this makes a ****in' ****-load of
sense! 24-60 months - in the freakin' State Pen??? For failure to pay a
debt?!?!? WTF, over?!?" amd then go into the rant that you did over
things
that had nothing to do with the article.

You wouldn't have simply been trying to stir up ****, would you?

Comprehension never was one of your strong suits Moon. Obviously you're
having trouble discerning my personal comments from those of the author of
the article I posted. Oh, well.

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

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

[snip]

Moon, I wasn't talking about the article. Well, OK, the very first
question
was (what if he just doesn't have the cash), but the remainder of my
comments were not about the article.

No **** Sherlock - so then, one might wonder why you would post an
article
with the misleading line of "Oh yeah, this makes a ****in' ****-load of
sense! 24-60 months - in the freakin' State Pen??? For failure to pay a
debt?!?!? WTF, over?!?" amd then go into the rant that you did over
things
that had nothing to do with the article.

You wouldn't have simply been trying to stir up ****, would you?

Comprehension never was one of your strong suits Moon. Obviously you're
having trouble discerning my personal comments from those of the author of
the article I posted. Oh, well.

I understood just fine - what I found problematic was your obvious intention
of going into the rant under false pretenses - I suspect you do that a lot.

Oh yeah, this makes a ****in' ****-load of sense! 24-60 months - in the
freakin' State Pen??? For failure to pay a debt?!?!? WTF, over?!?

It makes good political sense. That is why it is the law of the land,
has been for some time and will be for some time I am sure. Is it
really any more irrational than a department store lunch counter
turning away paying customers?

Oh, this story just screams of a Federal law suit on it's way.

Not at all. The same federal government that maintained the legality
of slavery for how many years? Political oppressions come and go.
In fact, how many people do you think today have the attitude that
the widespread incarceration of alleged fathers we have today
is only fitting given the imagined transgressions men are supposed
to have committed against women?

Dusty wrote:

Oh yeah, this makes a ****in' ****-load of sense! 24-60 months - in the
freakin' State Pen??? For failure to pay a debt?!?!? WTF, over?!?

Oh, this story just screams of a Federal law suit on it's way.

And upon what would you base the grounds? Sending folks to jail
enables them time to think about what they're doing to themselves and
their children. More folks should be sent to jail and when they're
ready to take steps to pay support, they can leave.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Father sent to prison for not paying child support



MARLENE GARCIA,
December 8, 2005

http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/ar...News/112080017


A Fallon man was sent to prison Tuesday for not paying child support for his
twin children.

Jolon Thomas Farren owes more than $15,000 in support payments since his
children were born five years ago, said Churchill County District Attorney
Arthur Mallory.

The Department of Parole and Probation recommended Farren be placed on
probation so he could began making payments, but Mallory asked Judge Robert
E. Estes to send the defendant to prison.

Mallory said Farren, 33, did not show up for an interview at the probation
department before his sentencing date, an indication that he would not
follow the rules on probation. Defendants go through an interview process
that covers their personal and criminal history before probation officials
make a recommendation to the judge at sentencing.

"The defendant's parents have indicated there are drugs involved," Mallory
said. "The $15,000 is not going to get paid if you give him probation. We're
asking for 24-60 months in the Nevada State Penitentiary so maybe he'll
realize some things he needs to get done, and that's to pay his child
support."

The children's mother was in court. She told Judge Estes that Farren has
only paid $150 toward supporting his children in five years.

Farren said it was not until the children were 2 1/2 years old before DNA
testing proved he was the father. He also alleged he was denied any
visitation or contact with the twins.

Defense attorney Paul Drakulich asked for probation.

"Ultimately, what we're trying to do here is get this child support paid and
get these children taken care of. He not going to be able to do that sitting
in prison," the attorney said.

Judge Estes asked Farren if he had paid any support since June 8, 2004 when
a judgement was entered against him for failure to pay support. He was
ordered to pay $450 a month. The defendant said he had made two payments of
$20 or $40.

"Mr. Farren, I understand this is not a violent offense and ordinarily the
court would be quite amenable to probation...You've known this was happening
for a long time and you didn't care," Judge Estes said.

He sentenced Farren to 12-32 months in the Nevada State Prison.

Marlene Garcia can be contacted at



--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.


begin 666 spacer.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``````````"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end