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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
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 $16,000 from your young son without his consent and used it for your own during the last nine or 10 years." Assistant U.S. Attorney Paulette Stewart had recommended six months on house arrest as an adequate penalty, along with four years on probation. But Lovell said he wanted to make sure that he had Glenn's attention, and handed down the six-month sentence -- to be followed by one year of probation. "He simply has failed to meet his responsibility under the law as a parent," Lovell said. "We need the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for the offense. ... I'm not certain this defendant yet realizes the seriousness of the crime." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
What a f%cking nut-bar. This is nothing short of abuse of position -
for which this judge should be thrown from the bench in disgrace, and be barred from practicing law for good. A dad finally comes clean, but the judge feels the need to "teach him a lesson". I wonder if the judge gave any consideration to the precise lesson that has been taught to this man???? Lord knows, the judge has certainly sent a clear message - don't get married, and don't have children or the system will treat you with more distain than a murderer. Boggles the mind. On Thu, 25 May 2006 14:26:58 -0400, "Dusty" wrote: 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 $16,000 from your young son without his consent and used it for your own during the last nine or 10 years." Assistant U.S. Attorney Paulette Stewart had recommended six months on house arrest as an adequate penalty, along with four years on probation. But Lovell said he wanted to make sure that he had Glenn's attention, and handed down the six-month sentence -- to be followed by one year of probation. "He simply has failed to meet his responsibility under the law as a parent," Lovell said. "We need the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law and provide just punishment for the offense. ... I'm not certain this defendant yet realizes the seriousness of the crime." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
NewMan wrote:
What a f%cking nut-bar. This is nothing short of abuse of position - for which this judge should be thrown from the bench in disgrace, and be barred from practicing law for good. A dad finally comes clean, but the judge feels the need to "teach him a lesson". I wonder if the judge gave any consideration to the precise lesson that has been taught to this man???? Lord knows, the judge has certainly sent a clear message - don't get married, and don't have children or the system will treat you with more distain than a murderer. To me, the message came across as "purposefully ignore a court order and fail to meet your obligations for a decade and end up in jail". And I hardly see how being thrown in jail for six months equates to "more distain [sic] than a murderer". I think the judge was more than fair. Do you think if a bank robber offered to give the money back to the bank the judge would just say "ok, you can go now. Thanks for returning the money"? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
What a f%cking nut-bar. This is nothing short of abuse of position -
for which this judge should be thrown from the bench in disgrace, and be barred from practicing law for good. A dad finally comes clean, but the judge feels the need to "teach him a lesson". I wonder if the judge gave any consideration to the precise lesson that has been taught to this man???? Lord knows, the judge has certainly sent a clear message - don't get married, and don't have children or the system will treat you with more distain than a murderer. To me, the message came across as "purposefully ignore a court order and fail to meet your obligations for a decade and end up in jail". And I hardly see how being thrown in jail for six months equates to "more distain [sic] than a murderer". I think the judge was more than fair. Do you think if a bank robber offered to give the money back to the bank the judge would just say "ok, you can go now. Thanks for returning the money"? The difference here is that society has an interest in people having children, and unless you want to restrict childbearing only to the wealthy, then you'll have to deal with people of lesser means having them. Note that if the parents were married, the government would not be able to intervene even if he were financially irresponsible. A man who does not earn a lot of money is now risking prison time simply because he couldn't keep up his child support payments. How is it in the best interest of the child to have his father destroyed like that? How is it in society's best interest to have men's survival instincts (our strongest) override our reproductive instinct (our second strongest) by pitting them against each other? A more analogous situation would be if the man owed back taxes. Unless he was sitting on a large pile of cash and thumbing his nose at the system, the IRS would usually just get the money, close the file, and move on. Interest and penalties were more appropriate than prison time here. -- "Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern District of PA Judge From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
Ray Gordon wrote: What a f%cking nut-bar. This is nothing short of abuse of position - for which this judge should be thrown from the bench in disgrace, and be barred from practicing law for good. A dad finally comes clean, but the judge feels the need to "teach him a lesson". I wonder if the judge gave any consideration to the precise lesson that has been taught to this man???? Lord knows, the judge has certainly sent a clear message - don't get married, and don't have children or the system will treat you with more distain than a murderer. To me, the message came across as "purposefully ignore a court order and fail to meet your obligations for a decade and end up in jail". And I hardly see how being thrown in jail for six months equates to "more distain [sic] than a murderer". I think the judge was more than fair. Do you think if a bank robber offered to give the money back to the bank the judge would just say "ok, you can go now. Thanks for returning the money"? The difference here is that society has an interest in people having children, and unless you want to restrict childbearing only to the wealthy, then you'll have to deal with people of lesser means having them. Note that if the parents were married, the government would not be able to intervene even if he were financially irresponsible. A man who does not earn a lot of money is now risking prison time simply because he couldn't keep up his child support payments. How is it in the best interest of the child to have his father destroyed like that? How is it in society's best interest to have men's survival instincts (our strongest) override our reproductive instinct (our second strongest) by pitting them against each other? A more analogous situation would be if the man owed back taxes. Unless he was sitting on a large pile of cash and thumbing his nose at the system, the IRS would usually just get the money, close the file, and move on. Interest and penalties were more appropriate than prison time here. Have to say I agree with Ray here. The guy shouldn't have gotten off scott-free, but jail time? Seems like this judge was a bit prison-happy. Almost like he had someone or group of ones to impress. The normal interest accrued on the money owed should have been punishment enough, and was probably assessed anyway. - Ron ^*^ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
Ray Gordon wrote:
The difference here is that society has an interest in people having children, and unless you want to restrict childbearing only to the wealthy, then you'll have to deal with people of lesser means having them. Note that if the parents were married, the government would not be able to intervene even if he were financially irresponsible. A man who does not earn a lot of money is now risking prison time simply because he couldn't keep up his child support payments. You must have read a different article than I did. The article posted in this newsgroup said nothing about his inability to pay, only about his unwillingness. Actually, there wasn't any proof he was unwilling either, just the word of the judge. I think, though, you're making assumptions to fit your argument. How is it in the best interest of the child to have his father destroyed like that? Perhaps he'll think twice or three times before witholding support for the next 8-10 years. In that regard the child may be way better off. Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying support, directly affecting the child. After the jail term he will (presumably) be more motivated to keep up support payments, and the childs best interest will be served. I'm not saying jail was absolutely the best thing here. From the facts presented in the article, however, it seemed quite justified. For all we know, this judge has dealt with this guy a dozen times over the years and simply ran out of ways to incent him to pay. Without more facts, we're all just pushing agendas around. I for one am going to assume the judge knew way more about the situation than we do. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"Random Stranger" wrote ..................................... Perhaps he'll think twice or three times before witholding support for the next 8-10 years. In that regard the child may be way better off. Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying support, directly affecting the child. == Perhaps. But, you are now making assumptions to fit your argument. There is nothing in the system requiring the custodial parent to spend the money on the child. Hence, we cannot conclude that not paying the support directly affects the child. In fact, if there were checks in place to insure the money is reserved strictly for the child's needs, there would be greater compliance by the payor. As it is, only noncustodial parents are mandated by law to spend a percentage of their income "on their child(ren)." (Actually, they are only mandated to give it to the custodial parent.) There is no such mandate of custodial parents or parents in intact families. == |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"He simply has failed to meet his responsibility under the law as a parent," Under the Communist Law, he is only bullied into paying large sums of money, nothing to do with parenting. 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. ... Promote respect for a law that percecutes only the poor that cannot afford it? Total rubbish, I bet Lovell ate and slept well while his thoughtless actions ruined another human beings life. Where do we contact this Balloon to let him know he was out of order? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"Random Stranger" wrote in message . com... Ray Gordon wrote: The difference here is that society has an interest in people having children, and unless you want to restrict childbearing only to the wealthy, then you'll have to deal with people of lesser means having them. Note that if the parents were married, the government would not be able to intervene even if he were financially irresponsible. A man who does not earn a lot of money is now risking prison time simply because he couldn't keep up his child support payments. You must have read a different article than I did. The article posted in this newsgroup said nothing about his inability to pay, only about his unwillingness. Actually, there wasn't any proof he was unwilling either, just the word of the judge. I think, though, you're making assumptions to fit your argument. That's how Dusty posts - in some (or many cases), he sensationalizes the subject line beyond any rational connection to the actual article. How is it in the best interest of the child to have his father destroyed like that? Perhaps he'll think twice or three times before witholding support for the next 8-10 years. In that regard the child may be way better off. Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying support, directly affecting the child. Read some of the other posts in here - apparently, the prevailing attitude is that if the child didn't starve to death in the interim, the CS wasn't actually needed, since the child was supported by others. After the jail term he will (presumably) be more motivated to keep up support payments, and the childs best interest will be served. I'm not saying jail was absolutely the best thing here. From the facts presented in the article, however, it seemed quite justified. For all we know, this judge has dealt with this guy a dozen times over the years and simply ran out of ways to incent him to pay. Without more facts, we're all just pushing agendas around. I for one am going to assume the judge knew way more about the situation than we do. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??
"Random Stranger" wrote in message om... NewMan wrote: What a f%cking nut-bar. This is nothing short of abuse of position - for which this judge should be thrown from the bench in disgrace, and be barred from practicing law for good. A dad finally comes clean, but the judge feels the need to "teach him a lesson". I wonder if the judge gave any consideration to the precise lesson that has been taught to this man???? Lord knows, the judge has certainly sent a clear message - don't get married, and don't have children or the system will treat you with more distain than a murderer. To me, the message came across as "purposefully ignore a court order and fail to meet your obligations for a decade and end up in jail". And I hardly see how being thrown in jail for six months equates to "more distain [sic] than a murderer". I think the judge was more than fair. Do you think if a bank robber offered to give the money back to the bank the judge would just say "ok, you can go now. Thanks for returning the money"? Apples and oranges. Robbing a bank is a premeditated act by the robber. Child support is foisted on the NCP, and enforced, literally by gunpoint, both of which are unconstitutional, but ignored in the current P.C. environment that has infected the guvmint. Imagine signing a contract with a builder for a house, you move in, pay the mortagage etc. Then five years down the road, the builder decides he doesn't like the contract, goes to court and gets you evicted. You have done nothing to violate the contract, but that doesn't matter, you are tossed out of the house by the court.....to add insult to injury, you are still required to make the mortagage payment, as weel as pay additional money to decorate YOUR house as he sees fit, You can drive by the house once a month to see it, but you cannot step on the property, driving by more than once a month will land you in jail. How much incentive would you have to continue making the mortgage payments????? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | January 18th 06 05:47 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 19th 05 05:35 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 30th 05 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | May 30th 05 05:28 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | March 30th 05 06:33 AM |