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

"William Barger" wrote in message
...
This guy should, and probably will, get compensated by the state.
Hopefully he will voluntarily pay the back support in order to avoid any
further legal problems. Think of the positive impact the windfall would
have on his children. Of course the state should just let it go. This
poor guy has been through enough.
I was wondering how the authorities could confuse a murder with someone
run over by a motorhome. Mr. Souter must have had lousy legal counsel.

I looked at that, too. How could getting hit with a beer bottle appear the
same as getting hit by the outside mirror of a motor home? Wierd!

Do you really think the state will compensate him? He was convicted by a
jury on the evidence presented. It was a recent witness who came forward
that got him freed. There may not be any grounds for a lawsuit.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02...

Here is a more detailed account of the case:


http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...602040317/1001
/news

Sadly, the focus in cases like this one are on the NCP father and his
"failure" to seek a CS change. The deputy DA in the story above
takes it a
step further and talks about how the CP mother was forced to support
her
children over the years without any financial support.

So what's wrong with this picture?

Well, for openers, the states selectively apply the CS statutes
ignoring
statutory requirements when they don't work to their advantage. In
this
case where were the 2-3 year interval CS order reviews to determine
if the
ordered amount was still appropriate? The original CS order was from
1987.
The man went to prison in 1992. Why was no CS review completed
during that
5 year period or the subsequent 13 year period he was in prison?

Because the review isn't automatic. They send a letter to the
recipient of the child support, who can elect to have the review done,
or ignore it, in which case the review isn't done.


And secondly, why isn't the deputy DA being held accountable for
failing to
do his job to review CS orders like this one that have good cause
reasons
for reductions?

And precisely how was anyone supposed to know that a review should
have been done? Or are you suggesting that they review every single
CS case?

The public officials never admit their failures to follow
the statutory requirements in the law.

As far as I'm aware, having been the recipient of the letter offering
to do a review - there IS no statutory requirement to review a care
periodically - at least, not in my state.

It's pretty obvious the state knew
this guy was in prison, they knew if they did a CS review they would
be
forced to reduce or stop the CS order, so they did nothing.

Perhaps they did no review because none was requested?

The reported
facts indicate the state failed to do it's job over an 18 year
period.

The facts indicate that the recipient of the CS didn't request a
review.


And third, why does the mother get a free pass for what is most
likely a
violation of a court decree to notify the court or the state of any
changes
in address, employment, or insurance coverage? Those types of
parental
requirements are broiler plate language in all decrees. Why is she
allowed
to profit from her inaction? Why isn't the mother being charged with
contempt of court for her failure to follow a court order?

Perhaps she didn't have any changes? She is required to notify any
changes in HER employment, employment and insurance coverage. In
reading the articles from both cites, there is no indication that she
had any changes - at least, nothing was mentioned.

So now, let's turn it around. Why didn't the obligor notify the
courts of any changes in address, employment or insurance coverage?
Why should he be allowed to profit from his inaction? Why shouldn't
he be charged with contempt of court for his failure to follow a court
order?

Ummmm....please explain how the poor guy who owes 50,000+ has profited
by his inaction? I, personally, do not think he should owe a penny!!
He had 13 years of his life stolen from him!!

Then he needs to seek recompense from the agency that took the 13
years - do you think that his ex-wife and children were responsible, and
should therefore be the ones to lose?

Lose what?

The support to which the children were entitled.

Based on what he was earning in prison, they might be actually
entitled to,what, $100 total? Do you really think his ex is owed $100
per week for his entire prison term?

Did the expenses and costs of raising 2 kids somehow evaporate?

No, but the expenses were met. They didn't starve. He did not purposely
ignore them. He *could not* pay. This money would be "paying mom back."
Not "child support." Whatever the kids lost out on cannot be repaid to
them.


I'm still trying to work out why you think that his 2 children somehow
didn't merit being supported.

Ah, Moon. Talk about twisting words. Please shoe me where I ever, in any
post ,ever said that children did not merit being supported. chuckle


Why would you punish them that way?

Done is done! He was current until he went to jail. The children must be
grown or almost so now. The "punishment" of them losing out because dad was
in jail and couldn't pay is over. Those years can't be redone. Do you
think money will fix it now?


Of course, if you REALLY want to get down to picayune semantics, he
shouldn't have been in jail. Therefore, he should have been continuing to
support his children. So, who would you like to blame for that one?

I actually, have not been blaming people, Moon. I have been saying that it
is outrageous that he has been hit with such a huge arrearage. I think
everyone involved should show compassion and remove this debt from him by
whatever means available. He has endured enough. Would you, in a similar
circumstance, demand that money?


I mean, this will probably go around and around and around - and now I'm a
nice, handy target for the venom and finger pointing for which this news
group is so well known. So be it.

I don't recall having been venemous with you, Moon. I don't recall ever
being venemous with you, although we have had some rather intense
discussions.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:F0pFf.158441$oG.103707@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:RXfFf.158422$oG.121366@dukeread02...

Moon, if nothing else, you're illustrating very well just how draconian
CS law really is. Let's assume that there was no technical fault on the
part of State or CP... That the wrongly imprisoned man really was
responsible for making a plea to have his CS obligation reduced.

First, this is a man who was wrongly imprisoned for a murder he didn't
commit.


Which has nothing to do with his ex, his children, his child support, or
the child support agencies.

No, but it is inhuman to ignore it as a facet of this case, Moon.

You think it's more human to blame, and penalize his exwife, and his
children?
Certainly, they had nothing to do with the troubles in which he found
himself.

How has his exwife been penalized? She would only have received a portion
of whatever he earned in prison--which is how much? The *wrongful
conviction* is what put the woman in the position of having to support the
children on her own. Do you think he should be held responsible for that?

P. Fritz wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Werebat wrote:
Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message
news:F0pFf.158441$oG.103707@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:RXfFf.158422$oG.121366@dukeread02...

Moon, if nothing else, you're illustrating very well just how
draconian CS law really is. Let's assume that there
was no technical fault on the part of State or CP... That the
wrongly imprisoned man really was responsible for
making a plea to have his CS obligation reduced.

First, this is a man who was wrongly imprisoned for a murder he
didn't commit.


Which has nothing to do with his ex, his children, his child
support, or the child support agencies.

No, but it is inhuman to ignore it as a facet of this case, Moon.


You think it's more human to blame, and penalize his exwife, and his
children?
Certainly, they had nothing to do with the troubles in which he found
himself.

Wow, Moon is really being irrational on this one.

One this one?????????? When isn't she?

Yes, and I really shouldn't be troubling myself with arguing with her.
I must be procrasting about something...

Ah, yes, the toilets need cleaning. That was it.

- Ron ^*^

teachrmama wrote:

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Aw. Poor baby. Having to raise her own children while their father rotted
in jail for a crime he didn't commit. (I bet he would have gladly traded
places with her) I don't agree that there is nothing greedy about it. His
CS was current when he was wrongfully imprisoned. The children are either
grown and gone, or nearly so. The money would go exclusively to the mother.
SHE wants to be repaid for those missing years by a man who may never again
hold a job above minimum wage. I don't give a rat's tookus about whose
"legal responsibility" it was to file with CSE--where is her compassion? "I
had to support my own kids because you were in jail, you deadbeat!!"

It really is amazing how Moon and many feminists confuse "legality" with
"morality". You have to wonder how many slaves they'd have whupped this
week if only it were still *legal*.

- Ron ^*^

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Werebat" wrote in message news:F0pFf.158441$oG.103707@dukeread02...


Moon Shyne wrote:
"Werebat" wrote in message news:RXfFf.158422$oG.121366@dukeread02...

Moon, if nothing else, you're illustrating very well just how draconian CS law really is. Let's assume that there
was no technical fault on the part of State or CP... That the wrongly imprisoned man really was responsible for
making a plea to have his CS obligation reduced.

First, this is a man who was wrongly imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit.


Which has nothing to do with his ex, his children, his child support, or the child support agencies.

No, but it is inhuman to ignore it as a facet of this case, Moon.

You think it's more human to blame, and penalize his exwife, and his children?
Certainly, they had nothing to do with the troubles in which he found himself.

How has his exwife been penalized? She would only have received a portion of whatever he earned in prison--which is
how much? The *wrongful conviction* is what put the woman in the position of having to support the children on her
own. Do you think he should be held responsible for that?

At the end, he was wrongfully convicted. On the other hand, I strongly suspect he wasn't just walking down the street,
minding his own business - when a jury convicts, they generally feel they have enough information to convict.

Which leads back to what in heck his attorney was doing for him? And why didn't his attorney advise him of the things
to do to keep his personal life in order, even with the conviction.

I still fail to see why the ex-wife is the subject of so much blaming, and castigation, unless it's simply that she's a
woman, and CP of the children.

She did nothing in this whole thing, except meet her responsibilities. When did that become a bad thing?

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:TjaFf.158396$oG.37265@dukeread02...

snip


Ooops--$30,000--not 50

Well, in it's simplest terms, he profited by not paying that money per month. I still don't see why his ex and
children should pay the price, they're not the ones who took 13 years of the man's life.

How did he profit?

By not having used any of his personal resources.

He wasn't earning money that he got to keep rather than
pay to her.

And you somehow think that his ex had anything to do with this?

If his ex had wanted the $$ to be collected, don't you think
she could have filed a complaint?

Perhaps she did - perhaps she didn't know he was in jail, and only knew that the CS stopped. Far too many perhaps's
for anyone to know which actually happened.

Instead of jumping on the "poor me" stump
when he is finally released from his wrongful imprisonment and proclaiming the hardships *she* suffered in raising
her own children while he rotted in prison for a crime he didn't commit?

And you would know that this is what she did........... how?

I really dislike allegations that have no basis in the available facts.

It says in the article that she whined about having had to support the children on her own. I didn't make it up.

I quoted the only thing in either of the articles about the ex-wife. Still don't see anything about whining.

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client "has endured the substantial
burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support."

So where's this part in the article about whining?




She made it through those years--why
does she feel she is owed any repayment? She sounds like a greedy, selfish shrew to me.

Teach, would you please show me where, in either article, you saw anything about the CP at all, aside from this?

David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client "has endured the
substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support."

Why would her attorney say anything at all if she had not asked him to? Why would she even *have* an attorney?
Attorneys work for money--and you wouldn't hire one unless you thought you were going to get back more money than you
would have to pay the attorney.

When you have someone who has failed to pay their child support for years on end, you seek the child support. Some
people hire an attorney, some don't. She was well within her rights to hire an attorney to address the years of arrears
in child support.




Now, you may not agree with it all, but what her attorney is claiming is absolutely true. She HAS endured the
substantial burden of raising two children without his contribution of child support. There's nothing greedy,
selfish, or shrewish in that statement - it's the simple truth.

Aw. Poor baby. Having to raise her own children while their father rotted in jail for a crime he didn't commit. (I
bet he would have gladly traded places with her) I don't agree that there is nothing greedy about it. His CS was
current when he was wrongfully imprisoned. The children are either grown and gone, or nearly so. The money would go
exclusively to the mother. SHE wants to be repaid for those missing years by a man who may never again hold a job
above minimum wage.

Never held a job above minimum wage? Did you read the articles? The jobs listed are well above minimum wage.

I don't give a rat's tookus about whose
"legal responsibility" it was to file with CSE--where is her compassion? "I had to support my own kids because you
were in jail, you deadbeat!!"

I have yet to see anything in either article that she knew where he was, at all.

You're so quick to condemn mothers who seek child support - and I understand your anger at being told your children are
irrelevant - but that doesn't make all child support a bad thing.




Even if she no longer cares for him, she can at least have
some sympathy for what he went through.

Is that a requirement? Have you seen a whole lot of sympathy on this here newsgroup for the CPs? I think not.

Oh, so if CPs don't get sympathy, then this man doesn't get sympathy? That makes a lot of sense.

With as vehement as you are in your condemnation for the mother, I find it surprising that you also demand compassion
for the man. Why not compassion for both?



Unless, of course, she thinks he
might file an unlawful imprisonment lawsuit against the state, and she wants to make sure she gets a sizeable piece
of the pie.

More allegations? Anything to support it?

Actually, that wasn't any sort of an allegation. It was just a thought. I would also think that it's doubtful that
he will be able to sue. He was convicted by a jury on the basis of evidence presented.

Precisely. He wasn't just walking down the street with nothing better to do that day.

So why are you condemning the ex wife for this?

It was a witness
that came in later that got him released.


See what I mean about no sympathy for the other side?

I don't think "sides" deserve sympathy. I think individuals sometimes deserve sympathy.

As long as it's the poor, beleagered CS paying one. That much is coming though loud and clear - and a bit surprising,
because you had seemed to be a much more fair minded person to me. I have yet to see you sympathetic to a CP having
trouble supporting her children, and having a reasonable expectation of child support from the child(ren)'s other
parent.

"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.

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). 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.

So for you to say that it's his fault for the predicament Souter is in today
is complete bull ****.

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:AusFf.158642$oG.16460@dukeread02...

teachrmama wrote:

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Aw. Poor baby. Having to raise her own children while their father
rotted
in jail for a crime he didn't commit. (I bet he would have gladly
traded
places with her) I don't agree that there is nothing greedy about it.
His
CS was current when he was wrongfully imprisoned. The children are
either
grown and gone, or nearly so. The money would go exclusively to the
mother.
SHE wants to be repaid for those missing years by a man who may never
again
hold a job above minimum wage. I don't give a rat's tookus about whose
"legal responsibility" it was to file with CSE--where is her compassion?
"I
had to support my own kids because you were in jail, you deadbeat!!"

It really is amazing how Moon and many feminists confuse "legality" with
"morality". You have to wonder how many slaves they'd have whupped this
week if only it were still *legal*.

- Ron ^*^

Shhhh, don't give her any ideas... Besides, she just might be a closet
dominatrix - complete with a tight leather teddy, whips and chains and
everything! Ooooo, be still my beating heart!!

"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.


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.

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 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.
And he didn't immediately notify the child support agencies of his situation, for whatever his reasons. You leave out
that part, too.

So, while you may think it's bull****, it IS the reality.