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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 ^*^ |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"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. == |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Gini" wrote in message news:nazFf.1434$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. == |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Gini" wrote in message news:nazFf.1434$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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:nazFf.1434$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. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"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. ================= ================= |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Man wrongly convicted now owes $38,000 in back child support
"Tiffany" wrote in message
news:6ZxFf.7250$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.. |
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 03:47 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |