NV: Father sent to prison for not paying child support

"Hyerdahl" wrote in

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.

Great idea, lets also send all the adulterers to jail too!

It's primitive thinking like this that returns us to the dark ages of
ignorance and witch hunts.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

It's very likely that "Hyerdahl" is motivated by nothing more than a
desire to provoke men and to draw some attention to herself. Oh well, I'll
rise to the bait.

In the first place, the crime for which these "folks" -- almost
invariably men -- are sent to jail is not doing anything to themselves or to
their children. Their crime is not paying substantial amounts of money to
the mothers of their children. And, secondly, as the research data show,
these men who don't pay are usually impoverished themselves.

P.S. "Hyerdahl," are you by any chance related to the Norwegian explorer who
sailed across the Pacific on a rickety raft, in pursuit of an improbable
theory? Why not try to attract attention to yourself by doing likewise?

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Lesa" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Father sent to prison for not paying child support

Not for failure to pay a debt. For failure to provide care for his
children. Not paying child support is equivocal to child abuse.

What would you propose he do when he doesn't have the cash to cough up,
what
then?

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner -- life's been a bit busy. If he
doesn't have the money right now due to some circumstance that can be proven
(lost his job, severe illness and huge medical bills, etc) he goes to court
and explains and the child support is redueced. If he takes no action to
explain his circumstances, just doesn't pay, he's simply an ass who's
abusing his children.

"Lesa" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"Lesa" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Father sent to prison for not paying child support

Not for failure to pay a debt. For failure to provide care for his
children. Not paying child support is equivocal to child abuse.

What would you propose he do when he doesn't have the cash to cough up,
what
then?

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner -- life's been a bit busy. If he
doesn't have the money right now due to some circumstance that can be
proven
(lost his job, severe illness and huge medical bills, etc) he goes to
court
and explains and the child support is redueced. If he takes no action to
explain his circumstances, just doesn't pay, he's simply an ass who's
abusing his children.

Hey, no problem, life happens. Anyway...

It's highly unlikely that he'd ever be able to get his C$ reduced. I know
this to be a fact - because I've been to court (several times) to get my own
C$ reduced and instead, the judge INCREASED it! All the while I had letters
from former employers that explained why my job had gone away and still it
was ignored. The judges just won't listen to men.

DB wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in

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.

Great idea, lets also send all the adulterers to jail too!

Why? Adultry is more of a religious consideration and we do have a
separation between church and state, no?


It's primitive thinking like this that returns us to the dark ages of
ignorance and witch hunts.

Nonsense. If you don't support your own children, you deserve jail
time.

Kenneth S. wrote:
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

It's very likely that "Hyerdahl" is motivated by nothing more than a
desire to provoke men and to draw some attention to herself. Oh well, I'll
rise to the bait.

In the first place, the crime for which these "folks" -- almost
invariably men -- are sent to jail is not doing anything to themselves or to
their children. Their crime is not paying substantial amounts of money to
the mothers of their children. And, secondly, as the research data show,
these men who don't pay are usually impoverished themselves.

You don't get to decide which men are "impoverished" and which men are
cheating the system....unless you're a family court judge. They have
to look at what the man has, what he did prior to the divorce, what he
is now doing, and other issues. A man who was a brain surgeon prior to
divorce, selling ice cream from a cart now, is likely to raise judicial
suspicion. :-)

P.S. "Hyerdahl," are you by any chance related to the Norwegian explorer who
sailed across the Pacific on a rickety raft, in pursuit of an improbable
theory? Why not try to attract attention to yourself by doing likewise?

Hahahahahaha......He was an adventurer; so am I; beyond that, we have
little in common. However, my 'raft' is leaving sometime in Jan.

"Hyerdahl" wrote in

It's primitive thinking like this that returns us to the dark ages of
ignorance and witch hunts.

Nonsense. If you don't support your own children, you deserve jail
time.


I totally agree is you *don't* support your children, but what if you
*can't* support your children at the extortionate CS rates the government
has set?

Do you seriously think you could personally pay $150/week on top of all your
other living expenses?

If you don't support your own children, you deserve jail
time.

Which has nothing to do with anything discussed here. NOTHING.
Hmm, if a man paid $1,000,000 per year in C$ for one child, no,
make that $10,000,000 per year in C$ for one child, would you
say that this man is supporting his child? That's right, you wouldn't.
After all, with the man assessed $10,000,001 per year for
C$ he is persecuted by you and the government FOR NOT
SUPPORTING HIS CHILD!

A man who was a brain surgeon prior to
divorce, selling ice cream from a cart now, is likely to raise judicial
suspicion. :-)

But it should not. All togther now, what is it called when a person
is forced to do specific work to pay off a debt...why it's
INDENTURED SURVITUDE! Well, except when that person
is a man.

This is mythology along the lines that women are paid less than
men by employers who somehow keep hiring men! The myth
is that men forgo $200,000 a year jobs for $10,000 a year
jobs to save on $20,000 C$ a year. Interesting paradox we are to
believe, that someone is so smart as to be able to earn $200,000
a year and yet too dumb to recognized this approach results
in an over $170,000 a year financial loss.

"abdd" wrote in message
...
If you don't support your own children, you deserve jail
time.

Which has nothing to do with anything discussed here. NOTHING.
Hmm, if a man paid $1,000,000 per year in C$ for one child, no,
make that $10,000,000 per year in C$ for one child, would you
say that this man is supporting his child? That's right, you wouldn't.
After all, with the man assessed $10,000,001 per year for
C$ he is persecuted by you and the government FOR NOT
SUPPORTING HIS CHILD!

A man who was a brain surgeon prior to
divorce, selling ice cream from a cart now, is likely to raise judicial
suspicion. :-)

But it should not. All togther now, what is it called when a person
is forced to do specific work to pay off a debt...why it's
INDENTURED SURVITUDE! Well, except when that person
is a man.

This is mythology along the lines that women are paid less than
men by employers who somehow keep hiring men! The myth
is that men forgo $200,000 a year jobs for $10,000 a year
jobs to save on $20,000 C$ a year. Interesting paradox we are to
believe, that someone is so smart as to be able to earn $200,000
a year and yet too dumb to recognized this approach results
in an over $170,000 a year financial loss.
===
Runs along the same lines that subsequent children shouldn't be a factor in
assessing child support because the NCP might have had them just to get
his support lowered.
===

It's highly unlikely that he'd ever be able to get his C$ reduced. I know
this to be a fact - because I've been to court (several times) to get my
own
C$ reduced and instead, the judge INCREASED it!

Me too. How many times does this have to happen before one gets the message
loud and clear to not go back to court regardless of the validity.

The judges just won't listen to men.

More specifically, they do whatever is currently politically expedient.
And that is to forcibly transfer funds from men to women and do
it in a way that both keeps the men financially unable to protect themselves
from the oppression and is wrapped in propaganda that the feebleminded
masses (Hyerdahl) actively embrace.

Viewing this at its core, it is because it is the nature of humans to
not hold people accountable for inappropriate actions that at the
time they were performed were politically correct. For example,
how many individual Nazi death camp guards were forced to
pay for their crimes. Judges know that were (hopefully) the
current political oppression of men to be halted, they will not
be worse for wear in any way for their roll as oppressors.