Another Draconian Child Support Case
Dusty
Glenn Sacks
Another Draconian Child Support Case
July 14, 2008
First an excerpt from the article, then a few comments. From Man returning
to city for mother's funeral arrested on child support charges (Portage
Daily Register, 7/12/08):
A former Pardeeville man wanted for five years for failing to pay more
than $12,000 in child support was picked up by authorities Thursday after he
returned to Portage for his mother's funeral.
Todd W. Bubolz, 42, of Brownsville, Texas, remains in jail on $2,500 cash
bail after he was arrested at a restaurant Thursday evening. He was in town
for the funeral of his mother, Karen Bubolz of Portage, who died Tuesday.
An arrest warrant for Bubolz was issued in March 2003 after five counts of
failure to pay child support were charged against him, but the Columbia
County Child Support Agency could not locate him for more than five years.
Bubolz was ordered in April 2001 to pay $152 per week in support for his
four children, according to a criminal complaint. The Columbia County Child
Support Agency received no payments from Bubolz between May 2001 and
December 2002, the complaint stated.
Bubolz owes about $12,920 in payments. If found guilty of all charges, he
faces up to 50 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
Paying $600 a month to support for children doesn't seem like much, and I
would imagine that he probably could have paid it if he wanted to. This is
not always the case, of course. As always, the article tells us nothing
about what else might have happened in this case -- what reason or excuse
the father may have for nonpayment, whether his custody rights were
respected, etc.
We don't know if the father had an injury or an illness, or has mental
problems, or God knows what. Maybe he really did take off one day and leave
the wife and children who loved him in the lurch purely out of selfishness.
It happens, but that's not usually the case.
But what really strikes me is this -- he faces up to 50 years in prison.
50. That is outrageous -- murderers don't even get that much sometimes.
Hell, for the lousy $13,000 he owes he could have robbed a Brink's armored
truck, stolen that much and more, shot and wounded a security guard, and he
still might not have been facing 50 years.
I haven't studied the issue, but it seems as if these draconian sentences
(or possible sentences) are becoming more and more common.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.wiscnews.com/pdr/news/295894
Man returning to city for mother's funeral arrested on child support charges
A former Pardeeville man wanted for five years for failing to pay more than
$12,000 in child support was picked up by authorities Thursday after he
returned to Portage for his mother's funeral.
Todd W. Bubolz, 42, of Brownsville, Texas, remains in jail on $2,500 cash
bail after he was arrested at a restaurant Thursday evening. He was in town
for the funeral of his mother, Karen Bubolz of Portage, who died Tuesday.
An arrest warrant for Bubolz was issued in March 2003 after five counts of
failure to pay child support were charged against him, but the Columbia
County Child Support Agency could not locate him for more than five years.
Bubolz was ordered in April 2001 to pay $152 per week in support for his
four children, according to a criminal complaint. The Columbia County Child
Support Agency received no payments from Bubolz between May 2001 and
December 2002, the complaint stated.
Bubolz owes about $12,920 in payments. If found guilty of all charges, he
faces up to 50 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. He is scheduled to
appear in court Aug. 15 for a pretrial conference.
- Shannon Green
Dusty
50. That is outrageous -- murderers don't even get that much sometimes.
Hell, for the lousy $13,000 he owes he could have robbed a Brink's armored
truck, stolen that much and more, shot and wounded a security guard, and he
still might not have been facing 50 years."
"I haven't studied the issue, but it seems as if these draconian sentences
(or possible sentences) are becoming more and more common."
Unbelievable, if it hadn't come from Sacks, or I'd have seen it posted for
myself, I'd have thought it was just another rant from the wingnuts. But
apparently, it's true, this guy could very well get 50 years in jail and
fines in excess of TWENTY TIMES what he owes in C$!!!
But it's for the children, so it's OK.
DB
"Dusty" <no....@home.org> wrote in
> Unbelievable, if it hadn't come from Sacks, or I'd have seen it posted for
> myself, I'd have thought it was just another rant from the wingnuts. But
> apparently, it's true, this guy could very well get 50 years in jail and
> fines in excess of TWENTY TIMES what he owes in C$!!!
>
> But it's for the children, so it's OK.
I have no problem believing it, this is AmeriKa comrade! LOL
So once again the poor tax payers are left paying the costs of the idiots
that thought this was a good idea.
What has it solved?
Seems the filthy fat pig bankers get bailed out for their greed!
It's just a matter of time before this country implodes and then how will
men be expected to pay their C$.
Is everyone going to prison for 50 years? LOLOLOLOLOL
dtom...@aol.com
> http://blogwonks.com/2008/07/14/another-draconian-child-support-case/
>
> Glenn Sacks
>
> Another Draconian Child Support Case
> July 14, 2008
>
THE MEDIA IS BIASED !!!! LOOK AT THEIR WORD USE ..... blah blah blah
you white people will never get it anyway.
> First an excerpt from the article, then a few comments. From Man returning
> to city for mother's funeral arrested on child support charges (Portage
> Daily Register, 7/12/08):
>
> A former Pardeeville man wanted for five years for failing to pay more
> than $12,000 in child support was picked up by authorities Thursday after he
> returned to Portage for his mother's funeral.
>
5 YEARS of hiding from his child support, what a filthy lowlife
scumbag. They should have locked him up and confiscated everything he
owned until the money was paid. If that didn't cover what he owed his
children he should be in a prison work program until he accumulated
the 12 grand plus his next 5 years worth of child support.
> Todd W. Bubolz, 42, of Brownsville, Texas, remains in jail on $2,500 cash
> bail after he was arrested at a restaurant Thursday evening. He was in town
> for the funeral of his mother, Karen Bubolz of Portage, who died Tuesday.
>
Poor guy, he couldn't hide from his obligations for another 20 years
because his mommy died. I bet his family, if they had any sense,
wanted him to come back and take care of his kids (or go to jail) they
know he is a lowlife.
> An arrest warrant for Bubolz was issued in March 2003 after five counts of
> failure to pay child support were charged against him, but the Columbia
> County Child Support Agency could not locate him for more than five years.
>
> Bubolz was ordered in April 2001 to pay $152 per week in support for his
> four children, according to a criminal complaint. The Columbia County Child
> Support Agency received no payments from Bubolz between May 2001 and
> December 2002, the complaint stated.
>
$152 a week and he hid? He should have invested $150 a month in life
insurance for his kids and died of a heart attack. His kids would be
set for life. He is an example of a person who is worth more dead than
alive.
> Bubolz owes about $12,920 in payments. If found guilty of all charges, he
> faces up to 50 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
>
He deserves it, if he has any self respect he will get the life
insurance and eat 300 lbs of bacon a week until he dies.
> Paying $600 a month to support for children doesn't seem like much, and I
> would imagine that he probably could have paid it if he wanted to. This is
> not always the case, of course. As always, the article tells us nothing
> about what else might have happened in this case -- what reason or excuse
> the father may have for nonpayment, whether his custody rights were
> respected, etc.
>
Maybe congress will pass a law that replaces his obligations for
whining. Then he can get out of supporting his kids by whining like a
child. Until that happens, let him go to jail and decide whether it is
easier to pay your bills or get gang raped.
> We don't know if the father had an injury or an illness, or has mental
> problems, or God knows what. Maybe he really did take off one day and leave
> the wife and children who loved him in the lurch purely out of selfishness.
> It happens, but that's not usually the case.
>
But we do know that he HID from his obligations for 5 years, I say
prosecute to the full extent of the law.
> But what really strikes me is this -- he faces up to 50 years in prison.
> 50. That is outrageous -- murderers don't even get that much sometimes.
> Hell, for the lousy $13,000 he owes he could have robbed a Brink's armored
> truck, stolen that much and more, shot and wounded a security guard, and he
> still might not have been facing 50 years.
>
Offer him a deal, pay 26 grand today or pay it off with interest in
some prison work program at 10 grand a year. Let him decide. He
already proved to the court that he doesn't care about his kids, why
should anyone care if he lives in prison or dies?
> I haven't studied the issue, but it seems as if these draconian sentences
> (or possible sentences) are becoming more and more common.
>
I guess people just care more about kids these days. We are finally
evolving as a society. Kudos to the judge.
teachrmama
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:41896e6c-6843-416d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 15, 11:22 am, "Dusty" <no....@home.org> wrote:
> http://blogwonks.com/2008/07/14/another-draconian-child-support-case/
>
> Glenn Sacks
>
> Another Draconian Child Support Case
> July 14, 2008
>
THE MEDIA IS BIASED !!!! LOOK AT THEIR WORD USE ..... blah blah blah
you white people will never get it anyway.
> First an excerpt from the article, then a few comments. From Man returning
> to city for mother's funeral arrested on child support charges (Portage
> Daily Register, 7/12/08):
>
> A former Pardeeville man wanted for five years for failing to pay more
> than $12,000 in child support was picked up by authorities Thursday after
> he
> returned to Portage for his mother's funeral.
>
5 YEARS of hiding from his child support, what a filthy lowlife
scumbag. They should have locked him up and confiscated everything he
owned until the money was paid. If that didn't cover what he owed his
children he should be in a prison work program until he accumulated
the 12 grand plus his next 5 years worth of child support.
==========================
Are you, by any chance, a custodial parent who is not receiving child
support? You seem to be very angry.
=============================
> Todd W. Bubolz, 42, of Brownsville, Texas, remains in jail on $2,500 cash
> bail after he was arrested at a restaurant Thursday evening. He was in
> town
> for the funeral of his mother, Karen Bubolz of Portage, who died Tuesday.
>
Poor guy, he couldn't hide from his obligations for another 20 years
because his mommy died. I bet his family, if they had any sense,
wanted him to come back and take care of his kids (or go to jail) they
know he is a lowlife.
> An arrest warrant for Bubolz was issued in March 2003 after five counts of
> failure to pay child support were charged against him, but the Columbia
> County Child Support Agency could not locate him for more than five years.
>
> Bubolz was ordered in April 2001 to pay $152 per week in support for his
> four children, according to a criminal complaint. The Columbia County
> Child
> Support Agency received no payments from Bubolz between May 2001 and
> December 2002, the complaint stated.
>
$152 a week and he hid? He should have invested $150 a month in life
insurance for his kids and died of a heart attack. His kids would be
set for life. He is an example of a person who is worth more dead than
alive.
> Bubolz owes about $12,920 in payments. If found guilty of all charges, he
> faces up to 50 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
>
He deserves it, if he has any self respect he will get the life
insurance and eat 300 lbs of bacon a week until he dies.
========================
I disagree with you. 50 years is an outrageous sentence! Murderers and
theives end up with far less time than that. And once he is sentenced, how
much child support do you think those children are going to get? What good
is it going to do the children if he goes to jail for, say, 10 years. The
youngest child will be at least 15 by the time he gets out. MOM will end
up getting every penny to spend on herself--and what good will that do the
children? Isn't child support supposed to be for the best interests of the
**children**?? That's what they say, anyway.
=========================
> Paying $600 a month to support for children doesn't seem like much, and I
> would imagine that he probably could have paid it if he wanted to. This is
> not always the case, of course. As always, the article tells us nothing
> about what else might have happened in this case -- what reason or excuse
> the father may have for nonpayment, whether his custody rights were
> respected, etc.
>
Maybe congress will pass a law that replaces his obligations for
whining. Then he can get out of supporting his kids by whining like a
child. Until that happens, let him go to jail and decide whether it is
easier to pay your bills or get gang raped.
=========================
I would far rather laws be passed making 50/50 joint custody the default for
custody, so that both parents are involved in their children's growing-up
years. Stop making one parent the parent and the other parent the bank.
============================
> We don't know if the father had an injury or an illness, or has mental
> problems, or God knows what. Maybe he really did take off one day and
> leave
> the wife and children who loved him in the lurch purely out of
> selfishness.
> It happens, but that's not usually the case.
>
But we do know that he HID from his obligations for 5 years, I say
prosecute to the full extent of the law.
===================================
Ae you due child support and are not getting it? Is the system not
successfully helping you get what the court has
ordered?=========================
> But what really strikes me is this -- he faces up to 50 years in prison.
> 50. That is outrageous -- murderers don't even get that much sometimes.
> Hell, for the lousy $13,000 he owes he could have robbed a Brink's armored
> truck, stolen that much and more, shot and wounded a security guard, and
> he
> still might not have been facing 50 years.
>
Offer him a deal, pay 26 grand today or pay it off with interest in
some prison work program at 10 grand a year. Let him decide. He
already proved to the court that he doesn't care about his kids, why
should anyone care if he lives in prison or dies?
==============================
Can you put your hands on 26 grand on a moment's notice? I sure can't, and
I work full time.
================================
> I haven't studied the issue, but it seems as if these draconian sentences
> (or possible sentences) are becoming more and more common.
>
I guess people just care more about kids these days. We are finally
evolving as a society. Kudos to the judge.
==========================
Care about kids more? My feeling is that, if the kids were really the heart
of the issue, the courts would do a lot more to make sure that the kids were
being raised by both parents, rather than turning one parent into a visitor
who pays money. Have you read the studies about the importance of having
both parents in the lives of children? I really don't think that we are
evolving as well as you seem to think, nor will we until the importance of
both father and mother to a child is acknowledged.
BTW, I know there are men who abandon their children without looking back,
and that is abominable. I also know there are women who bring child after
child into the world with no intention of ever supporting them, always
expecting someone else to pick up the slack. That is equally abominable.
But the vast majority of people do not fall into either category.
Dusty
news:41896e6c-6843-416d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> THE MEDIA IS BIASED !!!! LOOK AT THEIR WORD USE ..... blah blah blah
> you white people will never get it anyway.
That's exactly right, watch the words they use.. notice how they sucked you
in with the "..wanted for five years for failing to pay.."?
What they didn't come right out and tell you is that the amount of C$ owed
is for 19 MONTHS, not five years. It's simple math. Any idiot can figure
it out -if- they have a mind to do so. But they sure got you with it.
Also, notice how they never mention where they send the notices to? There's
no mention of it anywhere in the article. It's a known fact that CSE will
rarely update their files on where a person lives or works. That way they
can claim that they've attempted to contact you for X numbers of
months/years and then the judge can stick it up your ass on arrears. It's
the fastest way for the state to make you a criminal and get more money from
the Feds at the same time. Hell all they have to do is sit on their asses
and wait.
>> First an excerpt from the article, then a few comments. From Man
>> returning
>> to city for mother's funeral arrested on child support charges (Portage
>> Daily Register, 7/12/08):
>>
>> A former Pardeeville man wanted for five years for failing to pay more
>> than $12,000 in child support was picked up by authorities Thursday after
>> he
>> returned to Portage for his mother's funeral.
>>
> 5 YEARS of hiding from his child support, what a filthy lowlife
> scumbag. They should have locked him up and confiscated everything he
> owned until the money was paid. If that didn't cover what he owed his
> children he should be in a prison work program until he accumulated
> the 12 grand plus his next 5 years worth of child support.
I believe it's more likely he may never have known he was behind the 19
months (which is very easy to find oneself with) and the state didn't say
anything more about it after they made their one obligated attempt to send
him notification of the alleged arrears.
Another thing that's not mentioned in the article is the amount in fees,
penalties and interest that the sate will hit him up for in addition for to
the C$ owed. I'd have to guess that if they've done their Monopoly Money
Math right, they could be looking at getting an additional $15 grand and who
knows how much from the Feds, too.
DB
"Dusty" <no....@home.org> wrote in
> months/years and then the judge can stick it up your ass on arrears. It's
> the fastest way for the state to make you a criminal and get more money
> from the Feds at the same time. Hell all they have to do is sit on their
> asses and wait.
The State doesn't care anything about the children, it's a money making
scheme to get more money out of the Feds.
They pat themselves on the back when the numbers are high and they all get
bonuses!
DB
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in
> $152 a week and he hid? He should have invested $150 a month in life
insurance for his kids and died of a heart attack. His kids would be
set for life. He is an example of a person who is worth more dead than
alive.
So while you are on your moral high ground, let me ask you this!
You are ready to join in on the witch burning ceremony because the
government says man owes a few dollars.
How will this same mentality apply when that same government says that every
American citizen now owes $32,000 to help pay for the debt.
Will you pay your fair share, or just leave it for future generations to
pay?
It's immoral to force future generations to pay for your bills, pay up dead
beat or go to jail, Right?
DB
"DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote in
> It's immoral to force future generations to pay for your bills, pay up
> dead beat or go to jail, Right?
BTW, this is whatis happening now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_APRkrXeY&feature=related
Phil
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:41896e6c-6843-416d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> http://blogwonks.com/2008/07/14/another-draconian-child-support-case/
>
> Glenn Sacks
>
> Another Draconian Child Support Case
> July 14, 2008
>
THE MEDIA IS BIASED !!!! LOOK AT THEIR WORD USE ..... blah blah blah
you white people will never get it anyway.
Of course the media is biased. Even us po' white folk understand that.
> First an excerpt from the article, then a few comments. From Man
> returning
> to city for mother's funeral arrested on child support charges
> (Portage
> Daily Register, 7/12/08):
>
> A former Pardeeville man wanted for five years for failing to pay more
> than $12,000 in child support was picked up by authorities Thursday
> after he
> returned to Portage for his mother's funeral.
>
5 YEARS of hiding from his child support, what a filthy lowlife
scumbag. They should have locked him up and confiscated everything he
owned until the money was paid. If that didn't cover what he owed his
children he should be in a prison work program until he accumulated
the 12 grand plus his next 5 years worth of child support.
**********************
Except: 1) he doesn't owe the children the money, he owes the children's
MOTHER the money and; 2) any money paid to her doesn't have to be used
for support of the children. Child support has nothing to do with
children except the name.
*********************
> Todd W. Bubolz, 42, of Brownsville, Texas, remains in jail on $2,500
> cash
> bail after he was arrested at a restaurant Thursday evening. He was in
> town
> for the funeral of his mother, Karen Bubolz of Portage, who died
> Tuesday.
>
Poor guy, he couldn't hide from his obligations for another 20 years
because his mommy died. I bet his family, if they had any sense,
wanted him to come back and take care of his kids (or go to jail) they
know he is a lowlife.
****************************
He was, and is not, allowed to "take care of his kids". He's the father,
not the mother and fathers are routinely kicked out of their children's
lives when the mother decides to have him gone. His only choices were to
pay the mother and hope that she'd properly support them or face the
risk of being jailed.
****************************
> An arrest warrant for Bubolz was issued in March 2003 after five
> counts of
> failure to pay child support were charged against him, but the
> Columbia
> County Child Support Agency could not locate him for more than five
> years.
>
> Bubolz was ordered in April 2001 to pay $152 per week in support for
> his
> four children, according to a criminal complaint. The Columbia County
> Child
> Support Agency received no payments from Bubolz between May 2001 and
> December 2002, the complaint stated.
>
$152 a week and he hid? He should have invested $150 a month in life
insurance for his kids and died of a heart attack. His kids would be
set for life. He is an example of a person who is worth more dead than
alive.
*****************************************
Do you suggest the same for the mother? It would work out the same.
*****************************************
> Bubolz owes about $12,920 in payments. If found guilty of all charges,
> he
> faces up to 50 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
>
He deserves it, if he has any self respect he will get the life
insurance and eat 300 lbs of bacon a week until he dies.
**************************************
Or the mother could as well.
**************************************
> Paying $600 a month to support for children doesn't seem like much,
> and I
> would imagine that he probably could have paid it if he wanted to.
> This is
> not always the case, of course. As always, the article tells us
> nothing
> about what else might have happened in this case -- what reason or
> excuse
> the father may have for nonpayment, whether his custody rights were
> respected, etc.
>
Maybe congress will pass a law that replaces his obligations for
whining. Then he can get out of supporting his kids by whining like a
child. Until that happens, let him go to jail and decide whether it is
easier to pay your bills or get gang raped.
*************************************
Whining, you mean what so many mothers do when they are too lazy or
greedy to work for their own income?
Perhaps mother can be ordered to support their children exactly like
non-custodial fathers are with the same penalties added, including
watching the other parent do exactly the wrong things for the children
and being impotent to prevent it.
*************************************
> We don't know if the father had an injury or an illness, or has mental
> problems, or God knows what. Maybe he really did take off one day and
> leave
> the wife and children who loved him in the lurch purely out of
> selfishness.
> It happens, but that's not usually the case.
>
But we do know that he HID from his obligations for 5 years, I say
prosecute to the full extent of the law.
*************************************
And add that the mother also have to supply the exact same amount of
money while having their time an influence over the children equal the
father's. I'd be willing to bet that the mother demanded the state pay
her share of support during this time and while accepting handouts from
the government to cover her non-existant costs, she was whining to the
government how she is a woman and shouldn't be responsible for her own
children.
*************************************
> But what really strikes me is this -- he faces up to 50 years in
> prison.
> 50. That is outrageous -- murderers don't even get that much
> sometimes.
> Hell, for the lousy $13,000 he owes he could have robbed a Brink's
> armored
> truck, stolen that much and more, shot and wounded a security guard,
> and he
> still might not have been facing 50 years.
>
Offer him a deal, pay 26 grand today or pay it off with interest in
some prison work program at 10 grand a year. Let him decide. He
already proved to the court that he doesn't care about his kids, why
should anyone care if he lives in prison or dies?
**********************
So, you assume that since he wasn't paying the mother he somehow has
$26,000 on hand?
Still, the idea here is that a father is only viewed as to how much
money he is worth to the mother, not as a parent.
***********************
> I haven't studied the issue, but it seems as if these draconian
> sentences
> (or possible sentences) are becoming more and more common.
>
I guess people just care more about kids these days. We are finally
evolving as a society. Kudos to the judge.
Like I said, it is NOT about children. It is a transfer of wealth from
one parent (primarily men) to the other (primarily women).
If it actually was "child support", there would be some mandate on how
the money was used. There isn't so it is not "child" support but
tax-free income to the mother.
Phil #3
DB
"Phil" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> **********************
> So, you assume that since he wasn't paying the mother he somehow has
> $26,000 on hand?
> Still, the idea here is that a father is only viewed as to how much money
> he is worth to the mother, not as a parent.
> ***********************
Fathers are only an ATM that the government tries to extract and extort as
much money as they possibly can.
Think about this, my ordered payments are now $70,000 in Arrears! This
money will never be paid but used to prop up the CS nazi department's
propaganda numbers to try justify their existence!
My Child is still alive and well despite having received very few funds from
this useless government agency for over 10 years now. Think of all the
money tax payers would save if they didn't have to pay for all the Courts,
judges, lawyers, prison expenses, law enforcement costs. and the cost of
running the CSE too.
CS laws hasn't helped any family where the family were working together
anyway, it's only aggravated a situation that is already difficult. Why
punish everyone for the 1% dead beats that are hopeless causes and can't pay
no matter how much jail time you throw at them?
dtom...@aol.com
>
> 5 YEARS of hiding from his child support, what a filthy lowlife
> scumbag. They should have locked him up and confiscated everything he
> owned until the money was paid. If that didn't cover what he owed his
> children he should be in a prison work program until he accumulated
> the 12 grand plus his next 5 years worth of child support.
>
> ==========================
> Are you, by any chance, a custodial parent who is not receiving child
> support? You seem to be very angry.
> =============================
No and I'm not angry, I am just shocked how far removed from reality
some people are.
>
> Poor guy, he couldn't hide from his obligations for another 20 years
> because his mommy died. I bet his family, if they had any sense,
> wanted him to come back and take care of his kids (or go to jail) they
> know he is a lowlife.
>
>
> $152 a week and he hid? He should have invested $150 a month in life
> insurance for his kids and died of a heart attack. His kids would be
> set for life. He is an example of a person who is worth more dead than
> alive.
>
>
> He deserves it, if he has any self respect he will get the life
> insurance and eat 300 lbs of bacon a week until he dies.
>
> ========================
> I disagree with you. 50 years is an outrageous sentence! Murderers and
> theives end up with far less time than that. And once he is sentenced, how
> much child support do you think those children are going to get?
Slightly more than they would get otherwise.
> What good
> is it going to do the children if he goes to jail for, say, 10 years.
More good than letting him hide, even if it is $50 a year it will be
better than letting him hide from his responsibility for another 20
years.
> The
> youngest child will be at least 15 by the time he gets out. MOM will end
> up getting every penny to spend on herself
You have a lot of nerve trying to attribute motives to my opinion if
you are stupid enough to say something like this. MOM has raised her
kids with NO help from her scumbag ex for the past 5 years. What kind
of miserable situation are you developing your opinions in that you
immediately defend a criminal and attack the mother who is paying for
and raising the children alone?
> --and what good will that do the
> children? Isn't child support supposed to be for the best interests of the
> **children**?? That's what they say, anyway.
No good other than letting them see the consequences of being a
scumbag. If they get a few dollars while their father dies in jail
then they will benefit more from that than their current situation.
>
>
> Maybe congress will pass a law that replaces his obligations for
> whining. Then he can get out of supporting his kids by whining like a
> child. Until that happens, let him go to jail and decide whether it is
> easier to pay your bills or get gang raped.
>
> =========================
> I would far rather laws be passed making 50/50 joint custody the default for
> custody, so that both parents are involved in their children's growing-up
> years.
You really think that this guy wanted to be part of his family's life?
Does the fact that he HID from them for 5 years clue you in to the
fact that he shouldn't have any custody rights?
> Stop making one parent the parent and the other parent the bank.
So the guy who hid from his family and refused to pay ANYTHING to
support them is the bank? The mother who is raising and supporting the
kids on her own with no help from her scumbag ex is the bad guy
because she takes responsibility for raising the kids. You can't be
serious.
>
> But we do know that he HID from his obligations for 5 years, I say
> prosecute to the full extent of the law.
>
> ===================================
> Ae you due child support and are not getting it? Is the system not
> successfully helping you get what the court has
> ordered?=========================
>
I'm not due any child support and I support my own children. No matter
what a court said, I would never HIDE from my kids like the scumbag
you seem to admire.
>
> Offer him a deal, pay 26 grand today or pay it off with interest in
> some prison work program at 10 grand a year. Let him decide. He
> already proved to the court that he doesn't care about his kids, why
> should anyone care if he lives in prison or dies?
>
> ==============================
> Can you put your hands on 26 grand on a moment's notice? I sure can't, and
> I work full time.
> ================================
>
Then if you are the guy in the article you can go to jail and pay it
off cleaning toilets for $1 an hour. It isn't anyone else's fault when
a guy hides from his family obligations. The penalty should be as bad
as the offense.
>
> I guess people just care more about kids these days. We are finally
> evolving as a society. Kudos to the judge.
>
> ==========================
> Care about kids more? My feeling is that, if the kids were really the heart
> of the issue, the courts would do a lot more to make sure that the kids were
> being raised by both parents, rather than turning one parent into a visitor
> who pays money.
Like a visitor who hides from his family for 5 years and only returns
because his mother dies? This guy deserves nothing but punishment,
financial or personal. He should pay a huge sum to buy his freedom. He
should pay his child support 5 years in advance and delay his
incarceration for 5 years. Why should the state let him run away and
hide again for free?
> Have you read the studies about the importance of having
> both parents in the lives of children? I really don't think that we are
> evolving as well as you seem to think, nor will we until the importance of
> both father and mother to a child is acknowledged.
>
Deadbeat dads who hide for 5 years until they get caught are not
important to the kids, the kids are probably better off without him.
He should be forced to pay before he is free to run and hide from his
family again.
> BTW, I know there are men who abandon their children without looking back,
> and that is abominable. I also know there are women who bring child after
> child into the world with no intention of ever supporting them, always
> expecting someone else to pick up the slack. That is equally abominable.
> But the vast majority of people do not fall into either category.
This guy falls into the first category. The mother is raising and
supporting the family alone so she doesn't fall into either category
you describe.
dtom...@aol.com
>
> That's exactly right, watch the words they use.. notice how they sucked you
> in with the "..wanted for five years for failing to pay.."?
>
> What they didn't come right out and tell you is that the amount of C$ owed
> is for 19 MONTHS, not five years. It's simple math. Any idiot can figure
> it out -if- they have a mind to do so. But they sure got you with it.
>
Okay, go out and try to pay all of your bills and raise your family
for 19 months without money.
> Also, notice how they never mention where they send the notices to? There's
> no mention of it anywhere in the article. It's a known fact that CSE will
> rarely update their files on where a person lives or works. That way they
> can claim that they've attempted to contact you for X numbers of
> months/years and then the judge can stick it up your ass on arrears. It's
> the fastest way for the state to make you a criminal and get more money from
> the Feds at the same time. Hell all they have to do is sit on their asses
> and wait.
So this lowlife didn't get a notice from the state so he forgot he had
kids to support? If he cared about his family or had a responsible
thought in his head for those years he wouldn't need a monthly
reminder from the state.
>
> I believe it's more likely he may never have known he was behind the 19
> months (which is very easy to find oneself with) and the state didn't say
> anything more about it after they made their one obligated attempt to send
> him notification of the alleged arrears.
>
I believe it is impossible that he had no idea he owed support to his
family. 5 years or 2 years he must have noticed that he wasn't writing
that $600 check every month. He hid and he got caught.
> Another thing that's not mentioned in the article is the amount in fees,
> penalties and interest that the sate will hit him up for in addition for to
> the C$ owed. I'd have to guess that if they've done their Monopoly Money
> Math right, they could be looking at getting an additional $15 grand and who
> knows how much from the Feds, too.
They said 12 grand, didn't they? And if he got penalties and interest
because he tried to avoid paying, he deserves them, the rest of the
world understands what happens when you don't pay your bills, why
shouldn't those rules apply to him?
dtom...@aol.com
> "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in
I'm not sure how indefensible my position would have to be before I
trotted out such a weak line of crap. I'm guessing I would have to be
arguing pro nazi before I would need to resort to such a pile of crap.
dtom...@aol.com
> "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message
I addressed all of your bullshit deflections in another post. I know
that you all need to defend irresponsible fathers no matter how much
you have to lie or villify women to do it, but you are just repeating
the same bullshit. Did you miss the part of the article where the guy
hid from his family and didn't pay anything? Was the single mother
(responsible parent) buying coke and booze with that $0 a month?
Shadow39
I addressed all of your bullshit deflections in another post. I know
that you all need to defend irresponsible fathers no matter how much
you have to lie or villify women to do it, but you are just repeating
the same bullshit. Did you miss the part of the article where the guy
hid from his family and didn't pay anything? Was the single mother
(responsible parent) buying coke and booze with that $0 a month?
--------------------------------------------------------
You are just repeating the same bullshit we hear too punky brewster: that
men should just pay pay pay thier life away regardless of situation. You see
a guy in arrears and he's automatically a deadbeat. You are clueless, and a
troll as far as I'm concerned. You have no grasp of reality and things that
could happen to this country in the future.
teachrmama
Really? And how do you figure that? Do you think he will make so much at
his prison job that he will be able to support his children?
= = = = = = = = =
> What good
> is it going to do the children if he goes to jail for, say, 10 years.
More good than letting him hide, even if it is $50 a year it will be
better than letting him hide from his responsibility for another 20
years.
= = = = = = = = =
I've already said that I do not think anyone should abandon their children.
But I think that punishing parents that abandon their children far more
stringently than those who kill the parents of children is ridiculous. Do
you think a murderer should get 50 years in prison and be forced to pay the
children of the person he killed for all those years?
= = = = = = = =
> The
> youngest child will be at least 15 by the time he gets out. MOM will end
> up getting every penny to spend on herself
You have a lot of nerve trying to attribute motives to my opinion
= = = = = =
I attributed absolutely NO motives to your opinion at all. I have no idea
why you are interpreting it that way. I an just saying that the children
(for whom CS is supposed to be paid) will not benefit from it.
= = = = = = =
if
you are stupid enough to say something like this. MOM has raised her
kids with NO help from her scumbag ex for the past 5 years. What kind
of miserable situation are you developing your opinions in that you
immediately defend a criminal
= = = = = = = =
In what way am I defending a criminal by saying that I think that 50 years
in jail is excessive?
= = = = = = = =
and attack the mother who is paying for
and raising the children alone?
= = = = = = = =
In what way am I attacking the mother by saying that 50 years is excessive?
= = = = = = = =
> --and what good will that do the
> children? Isn't child support supposed to be for the best interests of the
> **children**?? That's what they say, anyway.
No good other than letting them see the consequences of being a
scumbag.
= = = = = =
So the point of jailing a father who abandons his children for an
excessively long time is to teach children that being a scumbag is **worse**
than being a murder, a rapist, an armed robber, a pedophile..........?
= = = = = = = =
If they get a few dollars while their father dies in jail
then they will benefit more from that than their current situation.
>
>
> Maybe congress will pass a law that replaces his obligations for
> whining. Then he can get out of supporting his kids by whining like a
> child. Until that happens, let him go to jail and decide whether it is
> easier to pay your bills or get gang raped.
>
> =========================
> I would far rather laws be passed making 50/50 joint custody the default
> for
> custody, so that both parents are involved in their children's growing-up
> years.
You really think that this guy wanted to be part of his family's life?
Does the fact that he HID from them for 5 years clue you in to the
fact that he shouldn't have any custody rights?
= = = = =
Oh--you know these people. I didn't realize that.
= = = = = = = =
> Stop making one parent the parent and the other parent the bank.
So the guy who hid from his family and refused to pay ANYTHING to
support them is the bank?
= = = = =
The custodial parent/ noncustodial parent system makes one parent the parent
and the other the bank. I do not know the particular people involved in
this situation, as you seem to. But if the system itself were fairer, we
would see far fewer cases like this one
= = = = = = =
The mother who is raising and supporting the
kids on her own with no help from her scumbag ex is the bad guy
because she takes responsibility for raising the kids. You can't be
serious.
= = = = =
You will have to show me where I said that.
= = = = = =
>
> But we do know that he HID from his obligations for 5 years, I say
> prosecute to the full extent of the law.
>
> ===================================
> Ae you due child support and are not getting it? Is the system not
> successfully helping you get what the court has
> ordered?=========================
>
I'm not due any child support and I support my own children. No matter
what a court said, I would never HIDE from my kids like the scumbag
you seem to admire.
= = = = = = =
I'n very glad to hear that you would never do that. The vast majority of
people would never do that.
= = = = = = = =
>
> Offer him a deal, pay 26 grand today or pay it off with interest in
> some prison work program at 10 grand a year. Let him decide. He
> already proved to the court that he doesn't care about his kids, why
> should anyone care if he lives in prison or dies?
>
> ==============================
> Can you put your hands on 26 grand on a moment's notice? I sure can't, and
> I work full time.
> ================================
>
Then if you are the guy in the article you can go to jail and pay it
off cleaning toilets for $1 an hour. It isn't anyone else's fault when
a guy hides from his family obligations. The penalty should be as bad
as the offense.
= = = = = = =
How long would it take him to earn your $26,000 plus penalties and interest
at $1 per hour?
= = = = = = = = =
>
> I guess people just care more about kids these days. We are finally
> evolving as a society. Kudos to the judge.
>
> ==========================
> Care about kids more? My feeling is that, if the kids were really the
> heart
> of the issue, the courts would do a lot more to make sure that the kids
> were
> being raised by both parents, rather than turning one parent into a
> visitor
> who pays money.
Like a visitor who hides from his family for 5 years and only returns
because his mother dies?
= = = = =
No, not like him. Like the thousands of other fathers who have been turned
out of their own homes and have had their time with their children
restricted to visitor status because they carry the label "noncustodial
parent."
= = = = = = =
This guy deserves nothing but punishment,
financial or personal. He should pay a huge sum to buy his freedom. He
should pay his child support 5 years in advance and delay his
incarceration for 5 years. Why should the state let him run away and
hide again for free?
= = = =
Nonetheless, 50 years is excessive.
= = = = = =
> Have you read the studies about the importance of having
> both parents in the lives of children? I really don't think that we are
> evolving as well as you seem to think, nor will we until the importance of
> both father and mother to a child is acknowledged.
>
Deadbeat dads who hide for 5 years until they get caught are not
important to the kids, the kids are probably better off without him.
He should be forced to pay before he is free to run and hide from his
family again.
= = = =
Scuzzy mothers who hide children from fathers and refuse to let the fathers
interact with their own children are just as despicable. don't you think?
How about the women who have 6 or 7 kids by 6 or 7 dads, and have never held
a job in their lives, and don't intend to? Aren't they just as bad as this
dad? Would you put them in jail for 50 years?
= = = = =
> BTW, I know there are men who abandon their children without looking back,
> and that is abominable. I also know there are women who bring child after
> child into the world with no intention of ever supporting them, always
> expecting someone else to pick up the slack. That is equally abominable.
> But the vast majority of people do not fall into either category.
This guy falls into the first category. The mother is raising and
supporting the family alone so she doesn't fall into either category
you describe.
= = = =
I never made a single disparaging comment about the mother in this story.
Is she a friend of yours?
teachrmama
On Jul 16, 1:27 am, "Dusty" <no....@home.org> wrote:
>
> That's exactly right, watch the words they use.. notice how they sucked
> you
> in with the "..wanted for five years for failing to pay.."?
>
> What they didn't come right out and tell you is that the amount of C$ owed
> is for 19 MONTHS, not five years. It's simple math. Any idiot can figure
> it out -if- they have a mind to do so. But they sure got you with it.
>
Okay, go out and try to pay all of your bills and raise your family
for 19 months without money.
= = = = =
Not without money--the mother was working, right? Withou child support
money--but not withou any money.
= = = = =
> Also, notice how they never mention where they send the notices to?
> There's
> no mention of it anywhere in the article. It's a known fact that CSE will
> rarely update their files on where a person lives or works. That way they
> can claim that they've attempted to contact you for X numbers of
> months/years and then the judge can stick it up your ass on arrears. It's
> the fastest way for the state to make you a criminal and get more money
> from
> the Feds at the same time. Hell all they have to do is sit on their asses
> and wait.
So this lowlife didn't get a notice from the state so he forgot he had
kids to support? If he cared about his family or had a responsible
thought in his head for those years he wouldn't need a monthly
reminder from the state.
= = = = =
Nobody should abandon their children when a marriage breaks up. Nobody.
But answer this one for me: Woman gets pregnant and does not tell man.
They go their separate ways without the man ever knowing he was a father.
10 years later the woman sues for child support back to the birth of the
child. Who is the scumbag in this scenario? The man who never paid? Or
the woman who denied her child a father and the father his child?
dtom...@aol.com
> I addressed all of your bullshit deflections in another post. I know
> that you all need to defend irresponsible fathers no matter how much
> you have to lie or villify women to do it, but you are just repeating
> the same bullshit. Did you miss the part of the article where the guy
> hid from his family and didn't pay anything? Was the single mother
> (responsible parent) buying coke and booze with that $0 a month?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are just repeating the same bullshit we hear too punky brewster: that
> men should just pay pay pay thier life away regardless of situation.
No, I am saying that THIS guy should be punished for hiding from his
responsibilities, I am glad he got caught and I hope he learns his
lesson. I'm guessing nobody here has every said that. Nice attempt to
change the subject though.
>You see
> a guy in arrears and he's automatically a deadbeat. You are clueless, and a
> troll as far as I'm concerned. You have no grasp of reality and things that
> could happen to this country in the future.
So he didn't hide? He didn't get caught because he had to return to
the jurisdiction of his crime for a funeral? What info do you have
from that article that shows the guy didn't hide from his family and
avoid paying his child support? I'll guess none.
dtom...@aol.com
>
>
> Slightly more than they would get otherwise.
>
> Really? And how do you figure that? Do you think he will make so much at
> his prison job that he will be able to support his children?
If he makes slightly more than $0 and the money gets to his kids, they
would be getting slightly more.
> = = = = = = = = =
> I've already said that I do not think anyone should abandon their children.
> But I think that punishing parents that abandon their children far more
> stringently than those who kill the parents of children is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is that you don't understand that one of those
people can avoid jail by paying what they legitimately owe and one of
those people couldn't.
> Do
> you think a murderer should get 50 years in prison and be forced to pay the
> children of the person he killed for all those years?
> = = = = = = = =
Do you think a murder should be allowed to pay someone 50 grand and
get out of his murder charge?
> > The
> > youngest child will be at least 15 by the time he gets out. MOM will end
> > up getting every penny to spend on herself
>
> You have a lot of nerve trying to attribute motives to my opinion
> = = = = = =
> I attributed absolutely NO motives to your opinion at all.
You did exactly that when you insinuated I was a custodial parent
trying to collect child support.
> I have no idea
> why you are interpreting it that way.
You have no idea why your question was nothing more than an attempt to
attribute motives to my opinion? I think you have an idea why but you
pretend to be righteously indignant when you get called on it.
> I an just saying that the children
> (for whom CS is supposed to be paid) will not benefit from it.
> = = = = = = =
>
$1 would be more of a benefit than a father who is allowed to hide and
pay nothing.
> if
> you are stupid enough to say something like this. MOM has raised her
> kids with NO help from her scumbag ex for the past 5 years. What kind
> of miserable situation are you developing your opinions in that you
> immediately defend a criminal
>
> = = = = = = = =
> In what way am I defending a criminal by saying that I think that 50 years
> in jail is excessive?
> = = = = = = = =
Nice cut job. Read the original post where you try to pass off the
idea that the mother will spend the money however she wants etc as an
argument. You are taking the criminal's side and trying to paint the
single (responsible) parent as the bad guy.
>
> and attack the mother who is paying for
> and raising the children alone?
>
> = = = = = = = =
> In what way am I attacking the mother by saying that 50 years is excessive?
> = = = = = = = =
Read the original post, your creative cutting makes discussing
anything with you tiresome. You know what you said and removed it
before making the above argument.
>
> = = = = = =
> So the point of jailing a father who abandons his children for an
> excessively long time is to teach children that being a scumbag is **worse**
> than being a murder, a rapist, an armed robber, a pedophile..........?
> = = = = = = = =
>
No, but I don't expect you to get it.
>
> You really think that this guy wanted to be part of his family's life?
> Does the fact that he HID from them for 5 years clue you in to the
> fact that he shouldn't have any custody rights?
>
> = = = = =
> Oh--you know these people. I didn't realize that.
> = = = = = = = =
>
Apparently better than you do.
>
> So the guy who hid from his family and refused to pay ANYTHING to
> support them is the bank?
>
> = = = = =
> The custodial parent/ noncustodial parent system makes one parent the parent
> and the other the bank. I do not know the particular people involved in
> this situation, as you seem to. But if the system itself were fairer, we
> would see far fewer cases like this one
> = = = = = = =
>
There will always be scumbags who try to avoid paying their bills, it
is a good thing when the law catches one of them and forces them to
pay.
>
> Then if you are the guy in the article you can go to jail and pay it
> off cleaning toilets for $1 an hour. It isn't anyone else's fault when
> a guy hides from his family obligations. The penalty should be as bad
> as the offense.
>
> = = = = = = =
> How long would it take him to earn your $26,000 plus penalties and interest
> at $1 per hour?
> = = = = = = = = =
>
I bet he could come up with a lot more money for his kids that way
than he is currently coming up with. Let him figure out a better way,
if he can't then my way will work just fine.
>
>
> = = = = =
> No, not like him. Like the thousands of other fathers who have been turned
> out of their own homes and have had their time with their children
> restricted to visitor status because they carry the label "noncustodial
> parent."
> = = = = = = =
>
Was there a 2nd page of this article that mentioned those thousands of
fathers? If so, I didn't see it.
> This guy deserves nothing but punishment,
> financial or personal. He should pay a huge sum to buy his freedom. He
> should pay his child support 5 years in advance and delay his
> incarceration for 5 years. Why should the state let him run away and
> hide again for free?
>
> = = = =
> Nonetheless, 50 years is excessive.
> = = = = = =
Nice wake up call though.
>
> Deadbeat dads who hide for 5 years until they get caught are not
> important to the kids, the kids are probably better off without him.
> He should be forced to pay before he is free to run and hide from his
> family again.
>
> = = = =
> Scuzzy mothers who hide children from fathers and refuse to let the fathers
> interact with their own children are just as despicable. don't you think?
This guy was HIDING, the police had to wait until his mother died and
nab him when he returned to the state. The mother in this story was
raising and supporting the kids without his help. What does your silly
comment have to do with them?
> How about the women who have 6 or 7 kids by 6 or 7 dads, and have never held
> a job in their lives, and don't intend to? Aren't they just as bad as this
> dad? Would you put them in jail for 50 years?
> = = = = =
I didn't see that in the article, did she have multiple kids with
multiple dads? Can you point that part of the story to me?
>
> This guy falls into the first category. The mother is raising and
> supporting the family alone so she doesn't fall into either category
> you describe.
>
> = = = =
> I never made a single disparaging comment about the mother in this story.
> Is she a friend of yours?- Hide quoted text -
>
You insinuated many things about her, not because of any facts
presented but because reality doesn't support your argument that
fathers are victims and mothers are money grubbing whores. Is the
criminal a friend of yours?
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"Dusty" <no....@home.org> wrote in message
news:g5ifc8$i1f$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
Never ceases to amaze me. "Child support" is the ONLY debt that is criminal
to not pay it. Go figure.........
>
>
dtom...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Even more amazing is the fact that you've never heard of taxes,
traffic fines or workman's comp. Those won't have a a negative effect
on a child's life the way child support will, but you can get tossed
in jail for not paying them. I guess I should have known better than
to expect an intelligent response after reading your quote at the top.
Now I know better.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3414b21c-497b-41f1...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 12:52 am, "Shadow39" <n...@no.com> wrote:
> I addressed all of your bullshit deflections in another post. I know
> that you all need to defend irresponsible fathers no matter how much
> you have to lie or villify women to do it, but you are just repeating
> the same bullshit. Did you miss the part of the article where the guy
> hid from his family and didn't pay anything? Was the single mother
> (responsible parent) buying coke and booze with that $0 a month?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are just repeating the same bullshit we hear too punky brewster: that
> men should just pay pay pay thier life away regardless of situation.
No, I am saying that THIS guy should be punished for hiding from his
responsibilities, I am glad he got caught and I hope he learns his
lesson.
*********************
That's because you lack a fundamental understanding of the relationship
between rights and responsibilities.
***********************
teachrmama
On Jul 17, 12:59 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>
>
> Slightly more than they would get otherwise.
>
> Really? And how do you figure that? Do you think he will make so much at
> his prison job that he will be able to support his children?
If he makes slightly more than $0 and the money gets to his kids, they
would be getting slightly more.
> = = = = = = = = =
> I've already said that I do not think anyone should abandon their
> children.
> But I think that punishing parents that abandon their children far more
> stringently than those who kill the parents of children is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is that you don't understand that one of those
people can avoid jail by paying what they legitimately owe and one of
those people couldn't.
=================================
So because the murderer cannot bring his victim back to life, he does no
deserve to be punished as much as the person who merely owes money? The
**money** is more important than the living parent who was murdered? Wow!
===================================
> Do
> you think a murderer should get 50 years in prison and be forced to pay
> the
> children of the person he killed for all those years?
> = = = = = = = =
Do you think a murder should be allowed to pay someone 50 grand and
get out of his murder charge?
====================
I'm not the one advocating 50 years in prison for the person who doesn't pay
child support--a much longer term than some murderers get. You are.
===================================
> > The
> > youngest child will be at least 15 by the time he gets out. MOM will end
> > up getting every penny to spend on herself
>
> You have a lot of nerve trying to attribute motives to my opinion
> = = = = = =
> I attributed absolutely NO motives to your opinion at all.
You did exactly that when you insinuated I was a custodial parent
trying to collect child support.
======================
I did no such thing. I was trying to find out where you were coming
from--you sound like a custodial parent whom the system has let down.
Nothing negative about it.
============================
> I have no idea
> why you are interpreting it that way.
You have no idea why your question was nothing more than an attempt to
attribute motives to my opinion? I think you have an idea why but you
pretend to be righteously indignant when you get called on it.
================
<chuckle> You are wrong. I was trying to determine where your point of
view was coming from.
========================
> I an just saying that the children
> (for whom CS is supposed to be paid) will not benefit from it.
> = = = = = = =
>
$1 would be more of a benefit than a father who is allowed to hide and
pay nothing.
==================
No it wouldn't. $1 would accomplish nothing, and you know it. Now you are
being silly.
====================
> if
> you are stupid enough to say something like this. MOM has raised her
> kids with NO help from her scumbag ex for the past 5 years. What kind
> of miserable situation are you developing your opinions in that you
> immediately defend a criminal
>
> = = = = = = = =
> In what way am I defending a criminal by saying that I think that 50 years
> in jail is excessive?
> = = = = = = = =
Nice cut job. Read the original post where you try to pass off the
idea that the mother will spend the money however she wants etc as an
argument.
======================
YOU need to go back and read it, because I did not say that! I said that
the **children who are supposed to receive the benefit of child support**
will be grown, and the mother will be the one reaping the benefits! Putting
that man in jail for **50 years** is NOT going to benefit those
**children**!! And the system is supposed to be about the **children**!
=================================
You are taking the criminal's side and trying to paint the
single (responsible) parent as the bad guy.
====================
Please explain to me how I am taking his side by saying that 50 years in
prison is excessive.
===============================
>
> and attack the mother who is paying for
> and raising the children alone?
>
> = = = = = = = =
> In what way am I attacking the mother by saying that 50 years is
> excessive?
> = = = = = = = =
Read the original post, your creative cutting makes discussing
anything with you tiresome. You know what you said and removed it
before making the above argument.
=====================
I have not cut a single thing from my posts. Not one word. Go back and
check
=================================
>
> = = = = = =
> So the point of jailing a father who abandons his children for an
> excessively long time is to teach children that being a scumbag is
> **worse**
> than being a murder, a rapist, an armed robber, a pedophile..........?
> = = = = = = = =
>
No, but I don't expect you to get it.
=======================
No, I don't get it. That is the whole point. I don't understand how anyone
can feel that **50 years** in prison is a suitable punishment for avoiding
child support. Especially when a murder, a rapist, an armed robber, a
pedophile will probably get less time.
=========================
>
> You really think that this guy wanted to be part of his family's life?
> Does the fact that he HID from them for 5 years clue you in to the
> fact that he shouldn't have any custody rights?
>
> = = = = =
> Oh--you know these people. I didn't realize that.
> = = = = = = = =
>
Apparently better than you do.
=====================
Hey, either you know them personally and are able to make these statements
from a position of being in on all the dynamics, or you don't. I don't know
them at all. I don't know why he avoided child support. The only point I
made was that 50 years is an excessive punishment.
==========================
>
> So the guy who hid from his family and refused to pay ANYTHING to
> support them is the bank?
>
> = = = = =
> The custodial parent/ noncustodial parent system makes one parent the
> parent
> and the other the bank. I do not know the particular people involved in
> this situation, as you seem to. But if the system itself were fairer, we
> would see far fewer cases like this one
> = = = = = = =
>
There will always be scumbags who try to avoid paying their bills, it
is a good thing when the law catches one of them and forces them to
pay.
=========================
Yes, unfortunately, there will always be scumbags--of both genders. We can
agree on that.
======================
>
> Then if you are the guy in the article you can go to jail and pay it
> off cleaning toilets for $1 an hour. It isn't anyone else's fault when
> a guy hides from his family obligations. The penalty should be as bad
> as the offense.
>
> = = = = = = =
> How long would it take him to earn your $26,000 plus penalties and
> interest
> at $1 per hour?
> = = = = = = = = =
>
I bet he could come up with a lot more money for his kids that way
than he is currently coming up with. Let him figure out a better way,
if he can't then my way will work just fine.
=======================
You better hope that none of your male relatives ever get caught in the
child support system. You might feel a bit differently if they do. (And I
will say again that I don't think that any parent should completely abandon
their children)
=========================
>
>
> = = = = =
> No, not like him. Like the thousands of other fathers who have been turned
> out of their own homes and have had their time with their children
> restricted to visitor status because they carry the label "noncustodial
> parent."
> = = = = = = =
>
Was there a 2nd page of this article that mentioned those thousands of
fathers? If so, I didn't see it.
=========================
Ah, yes, you have hit the nail on the head. The majority of people have not
seen that "second page," and buy into the fact that a man who falls behind
on child support must be a scumbag deadbeat.
================================
> This guy deserves nothing but punishment,
> financial or personal. He should pay a huge sum to buy his freedom. He
> should pay his child support 5 years in advance and delay his
> incarceration for 5 years. Why should the state let him run away and
> hide again for free?
>
> = = = =
> Nonetheless, 50 years is excessive.
> = = = = = =
Nice wake up call though.
=====================
Won't do him any good to wake up if he is spending virtually the rest of his
life in prison, will it?
============================
>
> Deadbeat dads who hide for 5 years until they get caught are not
> important to the kids, the kids are probably better off without him.
> He should be forced to pay before he is free to run and hide from his
> family again.
>
> = = = =
> Scuzzy mothers who hide children from fathers and refuse to let the
> fathers
> interact with their own children are just as despicable. don't you think?
This guy was HIDING, the police had to wait until his mother died and
nab him when he returned to the state. The mother in this story was
raising and supporting the kids without his help. What does your silly
comment have to do with them?
============================
The fact is that the system that is supposed to take care of these things is
incapable of doing so. There is something wrong with the system itself.
You're looking at it as this one case, and can't see anything beyond that.
You feel that punishing this man will accomplish---what? In the overall
scheme of things, how is **anyone** going to be helped by his spending 50
years in prison? I can see how the world is safer if a pedophile of
murderer is locked up. But what actual good is accomplished by this man
spending 50 years in prison?
==========================
> How about the women who have 6 or 7 kids by 6 or 7 dads, and have never
> held
> a job in their lives, and don't intend to? Aren't they just as bad as this
> dad? Would you put them in jail for 50 years?
> = = = = =
I didn't see that in the article, did she have multiple kids with
multiple dads? Can you point that part of the story to me?
=========================
Again, you are focused on this one case--I'm asking you to step beyond that
and answer the question about the mother who does not support her own
children. Should a mother who does not support her children be sent to
prison for 50 years, too?
========================
>
> This guy falls into the first category. The mother is raising and
> supporting the family alone so she doesn't fall into either category
> you describe.
>
> = = = =
> I never made a single disparaging comment about the mother in this story.
> Is she a friend of yours?- Hide quoted text -
>
You insinuated many things about her, not because of any facts
presented but because reality doesn't support your argument that
fathers are victims and mothers are money grubbing whores. Is the
criminal a friend of yours?
================
You are incorect. I did no such thing. You misinterpreted what I said. I
said that very little of the money that might be collected from this man in
prison would benefit the children, because they would be grown and out of
the house. Totally different from your interpretation.
dtom...@aol.com
>
> So he didn't hide? He didn't get caught because he had to return to
> the jurisdiction of his crime for a funeral? What info do you have
> from that article that shows the guy didn't hide from his family and
> avoid paying his child support? I'll guess none.
The 5 years where the state couldn't locate him for starters. The fact
that he didn't pay the support he owed for his 4 kids until they
arrested him. He hid until his mom died then he had to come out of
hiding and take a chance. Luckily he got nabbed.
dtom...@aol.com
>
> What is ridiculous is that you don't understand that one of those
> people can avoid jail by paying what they legitimately owe and one of
> those people couldn't.
> =================================
> So because the murderer cannot bring his victim back to life, he does no
> deserve to be punished as much as the person who merely owes money? The
> **money** is more important than the living parent who was murdered? Wow!
> ===================================
>
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just out of
your mind? Do you think that a murderer should be allowed to get out
of jail by paying 50 grand? This guy could avoid jail by paying 12
grand that he owes for his own 4 children. Do you see the difference?
Your take on my comment is just stupid.
> > Do
> > you think a murderer should get 50 years in prison and be forced to pay
> > the
> > children of the person he killed for all those years?
> > = = = = = = = =
>
> Do you think a murder should be allowed to pay someone 50 grand and
> get out of his murder charge?
> ====================
>
> I'm not the one advocating 50 years in prison for the person who doesn't pay
> child support--a much longer term than some murderers get. You are.
> ===================================
I'm not advocating anything. The article says he could get 50 years
probably meaning IF guilty of all the charges against him and the
punishments are added together. Nobody is stupid enough to believe
that he is looking at 50 years (except maybe you) The fact that he
could avoid punishment by paying his child support makes his situation
much easier to deal with that a murderer who can't pay his way out of
jail. In this case the deadbeat is being given a choice, pay or go to
jail.
> ================
> <chuckle> You are wrong. I was trying to determine where your point of
> view was coming from.
> ========================
Now you know, I am anti-deadbeat.
>
> $1 would be more of a benefit than a father who is allowed to hide and
> pay nothing.
> ==================
>
> No it wouldn't. $1 would accomplish nothing, and you know it. Now you are
> being silly.
> ====================
>
So you can't admit that $1 is more than $0? I don't think you can
defend that point to anyone, no matter how blind to reality you are.
> =======================
> No, I don't get it. That is the whole point. I don't understand how anyone
> can feel that **50 years** in prison is a suitable punishment for avoiding
> child support. Especially when a murder, a rapist, an armed robber, a
> pedophile will probably get less time.
> =========================
>
Stop saying 50 years, it is just stupid, we all know he's not getting
50 years and has the opportunity to pay his bills and avoid jail
altogether. The 50 years number is what all the charges against him
added together would amount to. If the state charges him with the same
crime 12 times a year for 2 years and the penalty is 2 years for that
charge the exaggerated version would be "He's looking at 48 years in
jail" we all know that is bullshit.
>
> =========================
> Ah, yes, you have hit the nail on the head. The majority of people have not
> seen that "second page," and buy into the fact that a man who falls behind
> on child support must be a scumbag deadbeat.
> ================================
>
So you are just making things up, right? This guy didn't pay, avoided
the jurisdiction where he was ordered to pay for 5 years and you are
defending him and villifying the mother who is raising 4 children
without him.
>
> The fact is that the system that is supposed to take care of these things is
> incapable of doing so. There is something wrong with the system itself.
> You're looking at it as this one case, and can't see anything beyond that.
I can see plenty behind that, you seem to be unable to address what
was written in the article without dragging unrelated nonsense into
it.
>
> > How about the women who have 6 or 7 kids by 6 or 7 dads, and have never
> > held
> > a
>
You haven't shown me where the woman in this article has 6 or 7 kids
with different men. It seems that she had 4 kids with this one
deadbeat. Is this just something else you made up?
Phil
"DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Jkpfk.6795$vn7....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
All this is obvious in light of the fact that CSE costs more than it
could ever "collect", even including those who would pay anyway, which
is almost all of them, especially those who are treated more fairly than
the majority are treated. When you count only the forced collections
from those who simply refuse to pay, the true deadbeats, the difference
between the amounts spent and the amounts collected is even more
apparent that CSE is a debit, not an asset.
Phil #3
Phil
*****************************************************
1) No, you didn't answer any of my questions. You simply avoided them.
2) No one is defending any irresponsible fathers, some of us are simply
trying to make you see that there is more here in this case than meets
the prejudiced eye.
3) No one has vilified women other than those who use their children as
pawns to extract unfair and unnecessary amounts of money from the other
parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and equal
parent in his own right.
4) I didn't see any evidence of "hiding". What I saw was that he was
claimed to have owed for 19 months of C$ payments but never "why". Do
you know he was not hospitalized, unemployed or even incarcerated during
this time? Keep in mind that the article stated that Columbia County CSE
was unable to locate him, which likely is a case of not even looking.
There is something else that is possible here. Since the CSE was only
looking for payments between May 2001 and December 2002, it appears
there may have been something else afoot here. Was his "obligation"
ended in December 2002? Was he paying before May 2001 and WHY did he
stop paying in 2002? Did the children move out on their own in May 2001,
thereby becoming emancipated? Did they move in with him in December
2002? Did he and the mother agree to something other than the
established court order and fail to notify the court or CSE? Was he
perhaps living with the mother and family during that time, supporting
the entire family? Before jumping to the conclusion that this guy was
just a bad man, consider that there are more questions than answers
here.
5) Do you know the mother was a "responsible parent"? No, not unless you
are intimately acquainted with her. Neither do I know she was not.
6) Here's you (second) chance to answer the questions I put to you but
since you cannot without showing your agenda, you won't.
Phil #3
*****************************************************
Phil
************************************************
Nowhere in the article does it say he was "hiding".
Until there is some indication as to WHY he stopped paying, the
questions outnumber the answers.
Do we know if the children were living with mom during this 19 months?
No, we don't, at least not from the article.
You are pronouncing guilt after a 'trial by media' without the truth,
whole truth and nothing but the truth, which is typical.
Phil #3
teachrmama
On Jul 17, 3:30 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>
> What is ridiculous is that you don't understand that one of those
> people can avoid jail by paying what they legitimately owe and one of
> those people couldn't.
> =================================
> So because the murderer cannot bring his victim back to life, he does no
> deserve to be punished as much as the person who merely owes money? The
> **money** is more important than the living parent who was murdered? Wow!
> ===================================
>
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just out of
your mind? Do you think that a murderer should be allowed to get out
of jail by paying 50 grand? This guy could avoid jail by paying 12
grand that he owes for his own 4 children. Do you see the difference?
Your take on my comment is just stupid.
== ==== ===== ==== ==
A murderer could be in jail for **less than 50 years**!! You want the guy
who did not pay CS to be in jail for **50 years**!! You do not seem to
think it unfair that the murderer get **less time** than the guy who didn't
pay CS. So you are saying that **murder** is less egregious than not paying
money. Get it?!
== ===== ==== ===== === ====
> > Do
> > you think a murderer should get 50 years in prison and be forced to pay
> > the
> > children of the person he killed for all those years?
> > = = = = = = = =
>
> Do you think a murder should be allowed to pay someone 50 grand and
> get out of his murder charge?
> ====================
>
> I'm not the one advocating 50 years in prison for the person who doesn't
> pay
> child support--a much longer term than some murderers get. You are.
> ===================================
I'm not advocating anything. The article says he could get 50 years
probably meaning IF guilty of all the charges against him and the
punishments are added together. Nobody is stupid enough to believe
that he is looking at 50 years (except maybe you) The fact that he
could avoid punishment by paying his child support makes his situation
much easier to deal with that a murderer who can't pay his way out of
jail. In this case the deadbeat is being given a choice, pay or go to
jail.
== ==== ==== =====
So what if it is easier to deal with? The fact that the sentence sould
exceed the sentence prescribed by law for a pedophile or a rapist is
obscene!
=== ====== ======= ===== ====
> ================
> <chuckle> You are wrong. I was trying to determine where your point of
> view was coming from.
> ========================
Now you know, I am anti-deadbeat.
>
> $1 would be more of a benefit than a father who is allowed to hide and
> pay nothing.
> ==================
>
> No it wouldn't. $1 would accomplish nothing, and you know it. Now you are
> being silly.
> ====================
>
So you can't admit that $1 is more than $0? I don't think you can
defend that point to anyone, no matter how blind to reality you are.
=== ====== === ====
I didn/t say it wasn't more--I said it would not be of any benefit. very
different statements.
====== ======== ======== = =
> =======================
> No, I don't get it. That is the whole point. I don't understand how anyone
> can feel that **50 years** in prison is a suitable punishment for avoiding
> child support. Especially when a murder, a rapist, an armed robber, a
> pedophile will probably get less time.
> =========================
>
Stop saying 50 years, it is just stupid,
= ======== ========= ===========
No, I won't stop saying 50 years. That was my entire point. Even the
possibility of 50 years for nonpayment of CS is excessive. You want the guy
thrown in jail, never answered the 50 years point, and now want me to drop
it. 50 years is obscene. So is 10 years, as far as that goes.
====== ======== ======== =======
we all know he's not getting
50 years and has the opportunity to pay his bills and avoid jail
altogether. The 50 years number is what all the charges against him
added together would amount to. If the state charges him with the same
crime 12 times a year for 2 years and the penalty is 2 years
===== ============ ==========
So now you're saying that 2 years in jail for missing one child support
payment is reasonable?
====== ========= ==========
for that
charge the exaggerated version would be "He's looking at 48 years in
jail" we all know that is bullshit.
======== ========= ========== ==========
You're the one who thinks the family will actually benefit if he is locked
up.
====== ======== ========== ==========
>
> =========================
> Ah, yes, you have hit the nail on the head. The majority of people have
> not
> seen that "second page," and buy into the fact that a man who falls behind
> on child support must be a scumbag deadbeat.
> ================================
>
So you are just making things up, right? This guy didn't pay, avoided
the jurisdiction where he was ordered to pay for 5 years and you are
defending him and villifying the mother who is raising 4 children
without him.
============ ============ =============
Please show me where I ever defended him. I statedthat the possible
sentence was outrageous. How is that defending him?
And show me where I in any way villified her. Saying that the small amount
of money she would receive from him if he were locked up for such an
extended period would not benefit the children, who would be adults in a
very short time, is NOT villifying her in any way.
============== ============ ==========
>
> The fact is that the system that is supposed to take care of these things
> is
> incapable of doing so. There is something wrong with the system itself.
> You're looking at it as this one case, and can't see anything beyond that.
I can see plenty behind that, you seem to be unable to address what
was written in the article without dragging unrelated nonsense into
it.
=========== =========== ==========
I did address the possibility of 50 years being obscene--quite a number of
times--but YOU want me to completely drop that part of the article!
========== ======= ============
>
> > How about the women who have 6 or 7 kids by 6 or 7 dads, and have never
> > held
> > a
>
You haven't shown me where the woman in this article has 6 or 7 kids
with different men. It seems that she had 4 kids with this one
deadbeat. Is this just something else you made up?
======== ========== =========
So you agree with a system that could lock a man up for 50 years for
nonpayment of support, but cannot even begin to address the idea of a woman
being locked up for nonsupport of her children. Hmmmmm.......
teachrmama
"Phil" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:JtudnV3w0f2oy-LV...@earthlink.com...
=========
And that is one of the worst things about the system--collecting from the
true deadbeats is overlooked in favor of "collecting" from those who pay
ayway--just to make their statistics look good. But putting that "deadbeat"
label on a man relegates him to a much lower status, even if it is
undeserved!
teachrmama
Obviously somebody knew where he was, because they notified him when his mom
died. Why couldn't the authorities find him? And if he were truly hiding,
he must have been working under the table, or he could have been located
using the national database.
Dusty
On Jul 16, 1:27 am, "Dusty" <no....@home.org> wrote:
>
> That's exactly right, watch the words they use.. notice how they sucked
> you
> in with the "..wanted for five years for failing to pay.."?
>
> What they didn't come right out and tell you is that the amount of C$ owed
> is for 19 MONTHS, not five years. It's simple math. Any idiot can figure
> it out -if- they have a mind to do so. But they sure got you with it.
Okay, go out and try to pay all of your bills and raise your family
for 19 months without money.
----------------------------
Sure thing, just as soon as you go and work your ass off at 80+ hours a week
only to have it sucked from your bank account before you ever see it and
you're left with under $100 a week to eat, pay rent, get gas for your car...
Let's see you do that.
Oh, then when you complain to the court about it, let's see how you like it
when they impute your income even higher then the last time you complained
and they jacked up your C$..
Sound like fun to you?
----------------------------
> Also, notice how they never mention where they send the notices to?
> There's
> no mention of it anywhere in the article. It's a known fact that CSE will
> rarely update their files on where a person lives or works. That way they
> can claim that they've attempted to contact you for X numbers of
> months/years and then the judge can stick it up your ass on arrears. It's
> the fastest way for the state to make you a criminal and get more money
> from
> the Feds at the same time. Hell all they have to do is sit on their asses
> and wait.
So this lowlife didn't get a notice from the state so he forgot he had
kids to support? If he cared about his family or had a responsible
thought in his head for those years he wouldn't need a monthly
reminder from the state.
------------------------
We're talking about the state being in violation of their own law, not the
individual. If the state had a responsible thought in it's collective head,
the guy would have gotten his notice, the payments would have come
automaticly from his pay check and this problem wouldn't have happened in
the first place.
-----------------------
> I believe it's more likely he may never have known he was behind the 19
> months (which is very easy to find oneself with) and the state didn't say
> anything more about it after they made their one obligated attempt to send
> him notification of the alleged arrears.
I believe it is impossible that he had no idea he owed support to his
family. 5 years or 2 years he must have noticed that he wasn't writing
that $600 check every month. He hid and he got caught.
------------------------
It doesn't matter what you "believe" or not. The FACT is the state is in
violation of their own laws - including Federal law, for starters - due
process. The state (may well have, as it was never mentioned in the article
so we may never know) took that away from the guy.
Since garnishments are automatic in almost every state these days, there's
no need for the guy to write out a check to anyone.
And since employers must send in the SSN's of their employees to the SSA for
cross referencing.. it would have taken the state less then 90 days to know
exactly where this guy was working and living. And if the SSN he'd given
his employer had been a fake, the SSA would have notified his employer of
that and he never would have had a check in his hand until he squared the
issue away.
So, to my mind, the very idea he was "in hiding" all that time without
someone knowing something was fishy, is highly doubtful. It's far easier to
find a brokedead parent then it is a hardened criminal.
-------------------------
> Another thing that's not mentioned in the article is the amount in fees,
> penalties and interest that the sate will hit him up for in addition for
> to
> the C$ owed. I'd have to guess that if they've done their Monopoly Money
> Math right, they could be looking at getting an additional $15 grand and
> who
> knows how much from the Feds, too.
They said 12 grand, didn't they? And if he got penalties and interest
because he tried to avoid paying, he deserves them, the rest of the
world understands what happens when you don't pay your bills, why
shouldn't those rules apply to him?
-----------------------
Actually, if you do the math, the paper claims one thing, but if you do the
math, it's a bit less then what's stated. About $300-400 less then what
they claim.
And when the person/agency, for whatever reason, doesn't get the bill to
you, lies in wait for some family tragedy to befall you, then pounces upon
you and tries to stick a massive debt up your ass and expects you to cough
up a few thousand as a kind of "Get Outta Jail" card so you can go back to
work.. sounds like a scam to me.
----------------------
Dusty
Me thinks that we've had words with this "person" before.. remember the fool
from the music group?
Could it be....??
dtom...@aol.com
> A murderer could be in jail for **less than 50 years**!! You want the guy
> who did not pay CS to be in jail for **50 years**!! You do not seem to
> think it unfair that the murderer get **less time** than the guy who didn't
> pay CS. So you are saying that **murder** is less egregious than not paying
> money. Get it?!
Complete nonsense, I will assume that you are either twisting in the
wind or just unable to comprehend what you read.
dtom...@aol.com
>
> Okay, go out and try to pay all of your bills and raise your family
> for 19 months without money.
>
> = = = = =
> Not without money--the mother was working, right? Withou child support
> money--but not withou any money.
> = = = = =
>
4 kids and a job to support them, while the deadbeat is hiding from
his child support out of state. I notice nobody here has mentioned her
except with derision. And you aren't even smart enough to use real
derision, you use weird, slanted digs like "what about women with 6
kids from 6 fathers" Do you really consider remarks like that
sensible? Do you believe that they address the article posted here?
Sadly, I think you do.
>
> So this lowlife didn't get a notice from the state so he forgot he had
> kids to support? If he cared about his family or had a responsible
> thought in his head for those years he wouldn't need a monthly
> reminder from the state.
>
> = = = = =
> Nobody should abandon their children when a marriage breaks up. Nobody.
> But answer this one for me: Woman gets pregnant and does not tell man.
This guy knew he had 4 kids, the wife didn't try to hide it from him.
Again, your reasoning is bizzare.
> They go their separate ways without the man ever knowing he was a father.
> 10 years later the woman sues for child support back to the birth of the
> child. Who is the scumbag in this scenario? The man who never paid? Or
> the woman who denied her child a father and the father his child?
> = = = = =
The guy who leaves the state to shirk his responsibility to 4 kids,
the one who has to get arrested before he will pay his child support.
I get the feeling that this was a 20 page article and I only saw the
first page. Maybe you can post the part of the story I missed and see
if it changes my mind.
teachrmama
=======================
Oh, I'm reading just fine. You do not seem to have the ability to look at
what you are saying honestly. You seem to belong to the punish-the-man
school of thought.
teachrmama
On Jul 17, 1:03 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, go out and try to pay all of your bills and raise your family
> for 19 months without money.
>
> = = = = =
> Not without money--the mother was working, right? Withou child support
> money--but not withou any money.
> = = = = =
>
4 kids and a job to support them, while the deadbeat is hiding from
his child support out of state. I notice nobody here has mentioned her
except with derision.
= = = = = =
On the contrary, I never said a derisive thig about her. You might wish I
had so you could paint her as a victim--but I did not.
= = = = = = = = =
And you aren't even smart enough to use real
derision, you use weird, slanted digs like "what about women with 6
kids from 6 fathers"
= = = = =
Being from the punish-the-man school of thought, it is probably difficult
for you to see that some women creeate their own problems, then expect
someone else to bail them out. I do not know if the woman in this story is
of the same sort as you or not.
So what about the woman with 6 kids by 6 dads who never works a day in her
life, but expects everyone else to pick up her slack. Should she go to jail
for nonsupport, too?
= = = = =
Do you really consider remarks like that
sensible?
= = = = =
Absolutley Do you not know that this goes on?
And you never did answer my question about the mother who hides the fact
that a child was born from the father until the child is older (say 10) then
expects child support back to the birth of the child. Is the dad the
deadbeat for not paying for 10 years? Or is the mom the deadbeat for
keeping father from child and chjild from father?
== = = = = =
Do you believe that they address the article posted here?
Sadly, I think you do.
= = = =
Ah--you simply do not want to open your eyes and see that the article did
not include enough information to arbitrarily label the man a deadbeat and
send him to jail for up to 50 years. You will not reply to anything except
the few "facts" seemingly addressed in the article.
= = = = = = = =
>
> So this lowlife didn't get a notice from the state so he forgot he had
> kids to support? If he cared about his family or had a responsible
> thought in his head for those years he wouldn't need a monthly
> reminder from the state.
>
= = = = =
How do you know that? Perhaps he thought he had completed his child support
obligation, only to have it continued withou his knowledge. How do you know
he was served properly. How can you just assume that he purposely abandoned
his children? (And, again, I do noth think that any parent should abandon
their children--or kick the other parent out of the child's life)
= = = = = = =
> Nobody should abandon their children when a marriage breaks up. Nobody.
> But answer this one for me: Woman gets pregnant and does not tell man.
This guy knew he had 4 kids, the wife didn't try to hide it from him.
Again, your reasoning is bizzare.
= = = =
How old are the children? Do you know that? Do you know the circumstances
of his leaving them? You really don't know anything, and are filling in the
gaps with your own prejudices. If he really did abandon them, it was wrong,
but the article does not address it.
= = = = = =
> They go their separate ways without the man ever knowing he was a father.
> 10 years later the woman sues for child support back to the birth of the
> child. Who is the scumbag in this scenario? The man who never paid? Or
> the woman who denied her child a father and the father his child?
> = = = = =
The guy who leaves the state to shirk his responsibility to 4 kids,
the one who has to get arrested before he will pay his child support.
I get the feeling that this was a 20 page article and I only saw the
first page. Maybe you can post the part of the story I missed and see
if it changes my mind.
= = = = =
You really are incapable of answering a question that would put a woman in
the wrong, aren't you?!
dtom...@aol.com
> *****************************************************
> 1) No, you didn't answer any of my questions. You simply avoided them.
> 2) No one is defending any irresponsible fathers, some of us are simply
> trying to make you see that there is more here in this case than meets
> the prejudiced eye.
True, the father might have stashed millions in safe deposit boxes
while working off the books. If he mother didn't die he would have
continued to hide out of state living like a king while his ex was
raising and paying for their 4 kids. The article doesn't say this, but
it could very likely be the case. This guy might be even worse than I
thought.
> 3) No one has vilified women other than those who use their children as
> pawns to extract unfair and unnecessary amounts of money from the other
Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money after an
article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
up.
> parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and equal
> parent in his own right.
Did this woman do this? Did I miss that part of the article? Funny how
I read it and only saw a story about a guy who hid from supporting his
4 kids and got caught when he returned to the scene of the crime.
Maybe you can post the missing parts of the story that were on the
phantom pagees of that article.
> 4) I didn't see any evidence of "hiding". What I saw was that he was
> claimed to have owed for 19 months of C$ payments but never "why".
He lived outside the jurisdiction of the court it seems. Once he was
outside of the state or country he stopped paying child support. 5
years later he had to return for a funeral. So yes, he did avoid
paying and did hide from his responsibilities.
> Do
> you know he was not hospitalized, unemployed or even incarcerated during
> this time? Keep in mind that the article stated that Columbia County CSE
> was unable to locate him, which likely is a case of not even looking.
So if the IRS stopped looking for you, you would stop paying your
taxes and let the bills pile up? Would you be surprised when they
found you and had 5 years worth of bills and fines waiting for you?
Again, I didn't see the part of the article that claimed he was
hospitalized or incarcerated, maybe you can post that page for us. It
seems you are just making excuses for a guy who doesn't want to pay
his bills.
> There is something else that is possible here. Since the CSE was only
> looking for payments between May 2001 and December 2002, it appears
> there may have been something else afoot here. Was his "obligation"
> ended in December 2002? Was he paying before May 2001 and WHY did he
> stop paying in 2002? Did the children move out on their own in May 2001,
> thereby becoming emancipated? Did they move in with him in December
> 2002? Did he and the mother agree to something other than the
> established court order and fail to notify the court or CSE? Was he
> perhaps living with the mother and family during that time, supporting
> the entire family? Before jumping to the conclusion that this guy was
> just a bad man, consider that there are more questions than answers
> here.
Did he pay the money he was ordered by a court to pay. No, he didn't.
You don't have any answers to the questions you are asking unless you
can show me where to find that info in the article.
> 5) Do you know the mother was a "responsible parent"? No, not unless you
> are intimately acquainted with her. Neither do I know she was not.
She's raising 4 kids while the father is in another state or county
avoiding them. Compared to him she is a saint.
> 6) Here's you (second) chance to answer the questions I put to you but
> since you cannot without showing your agenda, you won't.
>
Your agenda is to lie until you get caught. You have no info at all
but try to paint the guy as a victim every way possible. The facts
presented show that the mother is raising 4 kids without her ex, the
ex was hiding and did not pay child support that he was ordered (or
agreed) to pay.
$152 a week for 4 kids won't even cover half the rent in most of the
country. It seems this guy had money to live outside the county, money
for a car and liesure time to take off from work and go to a funeral.
Supporting his 4 kids just wasn't a priority, I bet he has stories to
tell about how his ex takes the $152 a week and blows it on school
supplies and country club memberships.
Here is your second chance to be honest, I don't expect you to veer
from your agenda to try honesty but you have the chance.
teachrmama
On Jul 17, 10:46 am, "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> *****************************************************
> 1) No, you didn't answer any of my questions. You simply avoided them.
> 2) No one is defending any irresponsible fathers, some of us are simply
> trying to make you see that there is more here in this case than meets
> the prejudiced eye.
True, the father might have stashed millions in safe deposit boxes
while working off the books. If he mother didn't die he would have
continued to hide out of state living like a king while his ex was
raising and paying for their 4 kids. The article doesn't say this, but
it could very likely be the case. This guy might be even worse than I
thought.
= = = = = =
And he might be a whole lot better than you thought--but don't let that
possibility get in the way of your prejudices.
= = = = = =
> 3) No one has vilified women other than those who use their children as
> pawns to extract unfair and unnecessary amounts of money from the other
Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money after an
article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
up.
= = = = = =
How is asking a question in an attempt to get you to think beyond the
sketchy information given in the article and attempt to villify women? You
never have answered a single question about whether women who fail to
support their children deserve the same consequences as men who don't
support theirs. Why is that?
= = = = = =
> parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and equal
> parent in his own right.
Did this woman do this? Did I miss that part of the article? Funny how
I read it and only saw a story about a guy who hid from supporting his
4 kids and got caught when he returned to the scene of the crime.
Maybe you can post the missing parts of the story that were on the
phantom pagees of that article.
= = = =
Why don't you take a moment to post what information the article did not
contain that you would like to see. Or did the article give you all the
information you need to form your opinion?
= = = = =
> 4) I didn't see any evidence of "hiding". What I saw was that he was
> claimed to have owed for 19 months of C$ payments but never "why".
He lived outside the jurisdiction of the court it seems. Once he was
outside of the state or country he stopped paying child support. 5
years later he had to return for a funeral. So yes, he did avoid
paying and did hide from his responsibilities.
= = = =
<chuckle> I can tell that you are not very well informed about the system
you advocate so strongly. There is no place in this entire country (or many
other countries) that you are outside the jurisdiction of the CS system.
There ae interstate agreements between every single state. The federal
government even has a hand in it. "Out of the jurisdiction of the court"
doesn't fly. Look it up!
= = = = = =
> Do
> you know he was not hospitalized, unemployed or even incarcerated during
> this time? Keep in mind that the article stated that Columbia County CSE
> was unable to locate him, which likely is a case of not even looking.
So if the IRS stopped looking for you, you would stop paying your
taxes and let the bills pile up? Would you be surprised when they
found you and had 5 years worth of bills and fines waiting for you?
Again, I didn't see the part of the article that claimed he was
hospitalized or incarcerated,
= = = = =
That's right! You didn't!! Because the article does not say anything about
what he was doing or why he wasn't paying! You filled in all that
information on your own!
= = = = =
maybe you can post that page for us. It
seems you are just making excuses for a guy who doesn't want to pay
his bills.
= = = = =
Maybe you can post the part of the article that says "he just wasn't paying
his bills." You have no idea why, do you?
= = = = =
> There is something else that is possible here. Since the CSE was only
> looking for payments between May 2001 and December 2002, it appears
> there may have been something else afoot here. Was his "obligation"
> ended in December 2002? Was he paying before May 2001 and WHY did he
> stop paying in 2002? Did the children move out on their own in May 2001,
> thereby becoming emancipated? Did they move in with him in December
> 2002? Did he and the mother agree to something other than the
> established court order and fail to notify the court or CSE? Was he
> perhaps living with the mother and family during that time, supporting
> the entire family? Before jumping to the conclusion that this guy was
> just a bad man, consider that there are more questions than answers
> here.
Did he pay the money he was ordered by a court to pay. No, he didn't.
You don't have any answers to the questions you are asking unless you
can show me where to find that info in the article.
= = = = =
Problem is, you don't know the answers either, but you don't mind villifying
the guy based on the scanty information given in the article.
= = = = =
> 5) Do you know the mother was a "responsible parent"? No, not unless you
> are intimately acquainted with her. Neither do I know she was not.
She's raising 4 kids while the father is in another state or county
avoiding them. Compared to him she is a saint.
= = = =
How old are those kids? Do you have any idea? Was the mother raising them
during that period? Do you even know? There are so many unanswered
questions. Maybe she is a saint. Maybe he is a sinner. But, then again,
maybe not. We simply do not have enough information to make such
judgments--or most of do not have enough info, anyway. You seem to feel
that you are qualified to judged the gu based on a less-than-complete
newspaper article.
= = = =
> 6) Here's you (second) chance to answer the questions I put to you but
> since you cannot without showing your agenda, you won't.
>
Your agenda is to lie until you get caught. You have no info at all
but try to paint the guy as a victim every way possible. The facts
presented show that the mother is raising 4 kids without her ex, the
ex was hiding and did not pay child support that he was ordered (or
agreed) to pay.
= = = = =
Only when wrapped up in your prejudices. Not everyone fills in the gaps in
the article the way you do--with scorn and judgmentalism.
= = = = =
$152 a week for 4 kids won't even cover half the rent in most of the
country.
= = = =
Hmmmmm.....Half the rent of what?
= = = =
It seems this guy had money to live outside the county, money
for a car and liesure time to take off from work and go to a funeral.
= = = =
Oh, my, this is the first time in my life I have ever heard a funeral
referred to as "leisure time!"
= = = =
Supporting his 4 kids just wasn't a priority, I bet he has stories to
tell about how his ex takes the $152 a week and blows it on school
supplies and country club memberships.
= = = = =
Wow! You really do feel as if you know the intimate details of this guy's
life, don't you? Didn't your mother teach you not to be judgmental of
others?
= = = =
Here is your second chance to be honest, I don't expect you to veer
from your agenda to try honesty but you have the chance.
= = =
Is what you have posted as honest as you can get?
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6b12c493-38a8-448d...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
*********************
You just responded to your OWN questions. Not surprising for someone who
erases statements from a post to which they are replying.
dtom...@aol.com
>
> = = = = = =
> And he might be a whole lot better than you thought--but don't let that
> possibility get in the way of your prejudices.
> = = = = = =
See? It isn't that hard to stay on topic. I wasn't sure if you even
knew how to do it. Now you go on and defend a guy who owes child
support for 4 kids and hid until his mother died and he had to return
for the funeral. Don't let any of this get in the way of your
prejudices.
>
> > 3) No one has vilified women other than those who use their children as
> > pawns to extract unfair and unnecessary amounts of money from the other
>
> Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money after an
> article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
> either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
> women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
> understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
> victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
> trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
> up.
>
> = = = = = =
> How is asking a question in an attempt to get you to think beyond the
> sketchy information given in the article and attempt to villify women?
It is an attempt to deflect the topic by mentioning something
completely unrelated. What if I were to defend every abusive parent
story I heard by asking you how you felt about child molestors? If you
had any sense your first question would be "What does this have to do
with child molestors" ...... Ohhh I just want you to think about
child molestors for a minute ... so you think about something other
than how bad my argument really is.
> You
> never have answered a single question about whether women who fail to
> support their children deserve the same consequences as men who don't
> support theirs. Why is that?
> = = = = = =
>
Nonsense, this woman is supporting her 4 children, the father is the
one who didn't pay for nearly 2 years. You think she should be
punished for raising 4 kids alone? If that is not your point it is
just another attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that you
have no point at all.
> > parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and equal
> > parent in his own right.
>
> Did this woman do this? Did I miss that part of the article? Funny how
> I read it and only saw a story about a guy who hid from supporting his
> 4 kids and got caught when he returned to the scene of the crime.
> Maybe you can post the missing parts of the story that were on the
> phantom pagees of that article.
>
> = = = =
> Why don't you take a moment to post what information the article did not
> contain that you would like to see. Or did the article give you all the
> information you need to form your opinion?
> = = = = =
>
It seems to have covered a lot more for you than for me, it covered
women with 6 kids, women who abandon their kids, here in the real
world we call all of your "information" make believe.
> = = = =
> <chuckle> I can tell that you are not very well informed about the system
> you advocate so strongly. There is no place in this entire country (or many
> other countries) that you are outside the jurisdiction of the CS system.
> There ae interstate agreements between every single state. The federal
> government even has a hand in it. "Out of the jurisdiction of the court"
> doesn't fly. Look it up!
> = = = = = =
Working off the books, for instance, is being out of the jurisdiction
of the court. There are many other ways to do it and this guy seemed
to find one of them for 5 years.
>
> So if the IRS stopped looking for you, you would stop paying your
> taxes and let the bills pile up? Would you be surprised when they
> found you and had 5 years worth of bills and fines waiting for you?
> Again, I didn't see the part of the article that claimed he was
> hospitalized or incarcerated,
>
> = = = = =
> That's right! You didn't!! Because the article does not say anything about
> what he was doing or why he wasn't paying! You filled in all that
> information on your own!
> = = = = =
>
No, YOU filled that info in, I merely read that he didn't pay and
stayed below the radar for 5 years until his mom died and he had to
return to the area for a funeral. You fill the rest of the story about
women with 6 kids, jail time, hospitalization etc. I would like to see
where you got all of these ideas. The article says he owed the money
and stayed out of sight but was able to get back home for the funeral.
THink he could have made that trip some other time to drop off the
$150 a week he needed to pay?
>
> = = = = =
> Maybe you can post the part of the article that says "he just wasn't paying
> his bills." You have no idea why, do you?
> = = = = =
The article says it in black and white, you can read can't you? It
said he owed 600 a month and didn't pay it for 19 months. They even
did the math for you and added it up so you could save time.
>
> Did he pay the money he was ordered by a court to pay. No, he didn't.
> You don't have any answers to the questions you are asking unless you
> can show me where to find that info in the article.
>
> = = = = =
> Problem is, you don't know the answers either, but you don't mind villifying
> the guy based on the scanty information given in the article.
> = = = = =
And you villify people with NO information at all, women with 6 kids,
women who abandon their kids, jail, hospitalization etc. At least I am
basing my opinion on things I read in the article rather than things I
made up out of whole cloth like you.
>
> She's raising 4 kids while the father is in another state or county
> avoiding them. Compared to him she is a saint.
>
> = = = =
> How old are those kids? Do you have any idea? Was the mother raising them
> during that period? Do you even know? There are so many unanswered
> questions. Maybe she is a saint. Maybe he is a sinner. But, then again,
> maybe not. We simply do not have enough information to make such
> judgments--or most of do not have enough info, anyway. You seem to feel
> that you are qualified to judged the gu based on a less-than-complete
> newspaper article.
> = = = =
>
> > 6) Here's you (second) chance to answer the questions I put to you but
> > since you cannot without showing your agenda, you won't.
>
> Your agenda is to lie until you get caught. You have no info at all
> but try to paint the guy as a victim every way possible. The facts
> presented show that the mother is raising 4 kids without her ex, the
> ex was hiding and did not pay child support that he was ordered (or
> agreed) to pay.
> = = = = =
>
> Only when wrapped up in your prejudices. Not everyone fills in the gaps in
> the article the way you do--with scorn and judgmentalism.
> = = = = =
>
Most will, very few people will show the bigotry that you display.
Most people won't create a littany of excuses for someone who doesn't
pay their bills before they know anything about him.
> $152 a week for 4 kids won't even cover half the rent in most of the
> country.
> = = = =
> Hmmmmm.....Half the rent of what?
> = = = =
>
It probably would cover the rent of a trailer nowadays.
> It seems this guy had money to live outside the county, money
> for a car and liesure time to take off from work and go to a funeral.
>
> = = = =
> Oh, my, this is the first time in my life I have ever heard a funeral
> referred to as "leisure time!"
> = = = =
It isn't work time, he managed to get the days off and travel. He
could have just as easily taken the time off to go fishing. As far as
a job is concerned it is leisure time.
Bob W
It isn't work time, he managed to get the days off and travel. He
could have just as easily taken the time off to go fishing. As far as
a job is concerned it is leisure time.
You should do two things -
Become a family court judge. You will fit right into their assumptions
about parents.
And then figure out how to post to usenet in text format.
teachrmama
"Bob W" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:_cqdnf065bdSlx3V...@giganews.com...
Another know-it-all who feels she knows all about the system without any
experience whatsoever, Bob. I wonder what she would think about the 75 year
old man in L.A. who was determined to be the father of a child by a woman he
had never even met, just because he had the same name, and was ordered to
pay because he did not know enough to dispute it in court--thought it was
just a silly mistake. The courts would **never** do a thing like that,
would they? I don't think she believes that there are women out there with
multiple children by multiple men that live on their child support, and
never do a single thing to support their children financially, except to
have more children to bring in more money. And, obviously, she does not
believe women should *ever* be held responsible for their own
behavior--there is always a man to blame. You're right--she would fit right
into the family court system! <chuckle> I wonder if she realizes that a
man with 4 children to support is probably paying close to 50% of his salary
in child support--I guess she thinks he should be able to survive on only
$150 per week, while mom and the kids get the other $150 plus what mom is
earning (if she is) plus all the government subsidies that go along with
being a single mom.
Dusty
news:g5p56...@news2.newsguy.com...
Maybe it's me, but I've noticed some similarities between this poster (XXX)
and others we've had in the past... They all seem to react the same way -
first post is almost always an attack on someone they agree with; then wild,
off-the-wall rants that make little or no sense at all; factual information
makes no sense to them, it confuses them to no end and they rarely (if ever)
debate it (and they often refuse to acknowledge it even exists, this is
often done by refusing to reply to a post containing such information); then
there is incredible speculation on missing information that they somehow
believe is factual; they rarely, if ever answer questions put to them, but
fully expect an answer to their questions; they have little or no knowledge
of how to post on Usenet or make a reply or post available for all viewers;
when presented with an NCP (or a CP) who shares their experience, they blow
them off or attack them; they make a wide variety of personal attacks on
those sharing their experiences and knowledge in order to educate and inform
the attacker.
Sounds like we keep getting the same person over and over again.
Dusty
-------------------------
Personally, I'd like to see you stay on topic, answer the questions put to
you and watch you twist in the wind as you attempt to back up your
wild-assed claims. I honestly think that would be very entertaining.
I'd also like to see you figure out how to use your newsreader and post
properly when making a reply.. but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
-------------------------
teachrmama
It does not say that the man was in hiding. It said that the authorities
could not locate him. It does not say he was even in Wisconsin when the
support order was given. Perhaps they notified him "by publication",
expecting him to read the Portage Daily Register whereever he was. It makes
np mention whatsoever of why they could not locate him, so to say he was
hiding is just a judgment on your part.
And it actually does not say he did not pay. It says that the Columbia
County Child Support Agency did not receive the payments--perhaps the mother
of the children was living in Brownsville with him, and both had forgotten
about the order. The article does not mention the mother at all, so we
don't know if she received payment of not.
The other thing that the article does not say is that the mother of the
children worked to support them. It does not even say that all 4 children
were by the same mother.
I looked up the salary a man would have to earn to be charged $600 per month
in child support. His gross salary would be a little less than $2000 per
month to live oner month. minus the $600 for child support, minus taxes,
medicare, social security. That would leave him what? About $700 to pay
for a place to live, food to eat, utilities, a car to drive, etc. And no
tax breaks because the children's mother(s) will get those--not him.
I read several articles on this subject--about half of them say he could get
as much as 75 years in jail, not 50.
So now I would like you to show me where you got the information about the
man hiding for 5 years. And about the mother of the chjildren working to
support them on her own for 5 years. Just show ne in the article where it
says those 2 things.
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dea8b936-ee48-4b6c...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Dusty
On Jul 17, 2:32 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Never ceases to amaze me. "Child support" is the ONLY debt that is
> criminal
> to not pay it. Go figure.........
Even more amazing is the fact that you've never heard of taxes,
traffic fines or workman's comp. Those won't have a a negative effect
on a child's life the way child support will, but you can get tossed
in jail for not paying them. I guess I should have known better than
to expect an intelligent response after reading your quote at the top.
Now I know better.
-------------------------------
Money on taxes owed can be paid off by paying a percentage of what's owed,
or even forgiven. Just ask the IRS, they'd be happy to tell you all about
it.
Traffic fines, nearly the same thing, they can be fought in a court of law
and dismissed, or you can pay off a percentage and you're done.
Workman's comp isn't necessary if you have under a certain number of
employees (I think it's less then 10 or something like that) or are self
employed.
Actually, yes, they can have a negative effect on children, their parents
can loose a hefty chunk of their hard earned cash for a lengthy period of
time, driver's licenses or their businesses.
The point you're missing is that all of the scenarios you mention above can
be dealt with in a logical, lawful manner. They can be forgiven, dismissed,
the amount owed can be lowered, etc. "Child support" cannot.
No thanks to the Bradley Amendment, C$ cannot be lowered for any reason -
ever. Also, the BA does not allow judges discretion when handling C$ or
arrears. It prevents them from setting aside arrears when a parent shows
them that the amount is erroneous and/or unpayable (just an example, there
are many others). The BA is a draconian piece of legislation that drives
many hundreds and thousands of parents into poverty every year. It is a
main source for many of the problems in family court today and drives a
wedge between NCP's and their children deliberately and for no good reason.
It also is a chief factor in the destruction of many a second family, too.
The BA adds such a weighty burden to an already heinous situation that it
becomes impossible to get out from under the debt that it imposes upon
people. I strongly suggest you read up on it and see for yourself what
detrimental effects it has on people of divorce.
Therefore, you're argument is false.
-----------------------------
teachrmama
"Dusty" <no....@home.org> wrote in message
news:g5p7qo$v8r$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
I just want to see her post (1) where in the article it said that the man
was hiding, and (2) where in the article it said that the mother of the
teachrmama
You could very well be right. This poster certainly did not get all of her
"facts" from the article, and does not seem to have the ability to think
beyond her biases.
>
>
Phil
On Jul 17, 12:02 pm, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
> A murderer could be in jail for **less than 50 years**!! You want the
> guy
> who did not pay CS to be in jail for **50 years**!! You do not seem to
> think it unfair that the murderer get **less time** than the guy who
> didn't
> pay CS. So you are saying that **murder** is less egregious than not
> paying
> money. Get it?!
XXX: Complete nonsense, I will assume that you are either twisting in
the
wind or just unable to comprehend what you read.
That's what your posts advocate. If you agree with this guy getting 50
years in prison, then by established fact you would rather him spend
more time in prison for failing to pay 19 months of C$ than many
murderers, thieves, rapists, pedophiles, etc., commonly receive. If you
want to say otherwise, you've had many chances and have so far, denied
them all.
Your verbiage and posting style is very familiar but I just can't quite
place it. What name did you post under previously, if you don't mind my
asking?
Phil #3
Phil
And I have a handful of questions as well, none of which were mentioned
in the article. This doesn't sound like a common story. Why only 19
months of unpaid C$? Why not 19 years? Did he pay then stop, never pay,
children emancipated but CSE not notified? .
Phil #3
Phil
After searching court records online, I found the neither of the people
involved in this case are exactly pillars of respect. I doubt he was
"hiding" so much as just wanted to be done with the whole thing while
she was perhaps just trying to punish him.
The wife filed for "maintenance" in March of 1995, which was closed in
2001. She filed for divorce (3/20/2001). (They were both sued in small
claims by a hospital for the amount of $876.15 on 3/27/2001).
Both have other criminal entries, primarily failing to pay bills or
other debts as well as hot checks, theft, etc., so it appears that she
is no better than he, judging from their individual court records.
Still, until the whole story is available, there are too many questions
that are unanswered.
Phil #3
Phil
I'm not sure to whom you are referring but I do believe I recognize the
posting signature as one I've read many times before.
Phil #3
Phil
On Jul 17, 10:46 am, "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> *****************************************************
> 1) No, you didn't answer any of my questions. You simply avoided them.
> 2) No one is defending any irresponsible fathers, some of us are
> simply
> trying to make you see that there is more here in this case than meets
> the prejudiced eye.
XXX: True, the father might have stashed millions in safe deposit boxes
while working off the books. If he mother didn't die he would have
continued to hide out of state living like a king while his ex was
raising and paying for their 4 kids. The article doesn't say this, but
it could very likely be the case. This guy might be even worse than I
thought.
********************************************************
So you prefer to assume the worst. Noted, but it's not news.
********************************************************
> 3) No one has vilified women other than those who use their children
> as
> pawns to extract unfair and unnecessary amounts of money from the
> other
XXX: Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money after
an
article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
up.
********************************************************
Apparently you misunderstood the intent of the question, which I think
was to bring out your sense of justice in whether punishing a man for
wrongs or perceived wrongs was alright while forgiving women any
indescretion. The question about mothers with several children by
different fathers was also trying to show you that some mothers are
just as evil as some fathers. Basing one's conclusions based on a short
and inconclusive newspaper article is stupid.
********************************************************
> parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and
> equal
> parent in his own right.
XXX: Did this woman do this? Did I miss that part of the article? Funny
how
I read it and only saw a story about a guy who hid from supporting his
4 kids and got caught when he returned to the scene of the crime.
Maybe you can post the missing parts of the story that were on the
phantom pagees of that article.
*******************************************************
See? That's what I mean. We don't KNOW. It didn't say she didn't refuse
to allow him contact any more than it said he was hiding.
Get it yet? Filling in the blanks with sexism is not the answer to a
true and valid story. By the way, I did NOT say she did this, I asked
******************************************************
> 4) I didn't see any evidence of "hiding". What I saw was that he was
> claimed to have owed for 19 months of C$ payments but never "why".
XXX: He lived outside the jurisdiction of the court it seems. Once he
was
outside of the state or country he stopped paying child support. 5
years later he had to return for a funeral. So yes, he did avoid
paying and did hide from his responsibilities.
*******************************************************
So you're saying that by moving and stopping payments, he was actively
"hiding"?
You don't know that he did not send his current address to CSE, do you?
No, you don't.
In case you're interested, the wife has at least 7 charges (felony and
misdemeanor) against her by the state of Wisconsin.
*******************************************************
> Do
> you know he was not hospitalized, unemployed or even incarcerated
> during
> this time? Keep in mind that the article stated that Columbia County
> CSE
> was unable to locate him, which likely is a case of not even looking.
XXX: So if the IRS stopped looking for you, you would stop paying your
taxes and let the bills pile up? Would you be surprised when they
found you and had 5 years worth of bills and fines waiting for you?
Again, I didn't see the part of the article that claimed he was
hospitalized or incarcerated, maybe you can post that page for us. It
seems you are just making excuses for a guy who doesn't want to pay
his bills.
******************************************************
You completely missed the idea that since you don't know anything, you
don't just get the convenience of making up your own and claim it to be
authoritative.
******************************************************
> There is something else that is possible here. Since the CSE was only
> looking for payments between May 2001 and December 2002, it appears
> there may have been something else afoot here. Was his "obligation"
> ended in December 2002? Was he paying before May 2001 and WHY did he
> stop paying in 2002? Did the children move out on their own in May
> 2001,
> thereby becoming emancipated? Did they move in with him in December
> 2002? Did he and the mother agree to something other than the
> established court order and fail to notify the court or CSE? Was he
> perhaps living with the mother and family during that time, supporting
> the entire family? Before jumping to the conclusion that this guy was
> just a bad man, consider that there are more questions than answers
> here.
XXX: Did he pay the money he was ordered by a court to pay. No, he
didn't.
You don't have any answers to the questions you are asking unless you
can show me where to find that info in the article.
**********************************************************
Again, was there even an order for child support issued after 2001?
Apparently, but we don't KNOW that. I do know that Mrs. Bubolz filed for
"maintenance" in 1995 and that case was closed in 2001. I don't have
access to the divorce records so I can't say for sure there was an order
for support issued. Your turn.
**********************************************************
> 5) Do you know the mother was a "responsible parent"? No, not unless
> you
> are intimately acquainted with her. Neither do I know she was not.
XXX:She's raising 4 kids while the father is in another state or county
avoiding them. Compared to him she is a saint.
********************************************
See above where she has been charged with at least 7 criminal
violations, both misdemeanor and felony.
Are you SURE you want to proclaim this woman as some type of heroine?
********************************************
> 6) Here's you (second) chance to answer the questions I put to you but
> since you cannot without showing your agenda, you won't.
>
XXX:Your agenda is to lie until you get caught. You have no info at all
but try to paint the guy as a victim every way possible. The facts
presented show that the mother is raising 4 kids without her ex, the
ex was hiding and did not pay child support that he was ordered (or
agreed) to pay.
***************************************************
Unless you can point out even ONE lie I told, the liar is you.
I, and others, have repeatedly asked you questions about the case since
you seem to "got it all knowed up" but either cannot or refuse to answer
except to blame others for asking for information that you seem to
believe to have.
First of all, you don't know she was even living in the same house as
the children. For all you know, the grandparents or her brother was
raising the childrend she never even visited them. Probably not, but it
remains possible.
Second, you don't know he was hiding.
Your entire base is assumption.
***************************************************
XXX: $152 a week for 4 kids won't even cover half the rent in most of
the
country. It seems this guy had money to live outside the county, money
for a car and liesure time to take off from work and go to a funeral.
Supporting his 4 kids just wasn't a priority, I bet he has stories to
tell about how his ex takes the $152 a week and blows it on school
supplies and country club memberships.
*************************************************
So you know he was not living with his parents because he was injured,
ill or otherwise unemployed?
You also know he owned a car?
You know he had liesure (sic) time to take off work or that he was even
employed? (most companies grant funeral leave, by the way; sometimes
paid).
Please cite your references.
And again, as you should know, "child support" is not "support of
children". It is a payment from one parent (primarily the father) the
the other parent (primariliy the mother) to use as she sees fit, even if
it is on beer and cigarettes. The ONLY stipulation is that the children
not be *legally* neglected or abused.
You don't know that she and the children weren't living, rent and
utility-free with relatives.
You are assuming the mother to be saintly based solely on her sex, which
by definition is sexism.
She is no saint, by the way. Neither is he.
*************************************************
XX: Here is your second chance to be honest, I don't expect you to veer
from your agenda to try honesty but you have the chance.
************************************************
Which of us is jumping to conclusions? (Hint: I'm asking questions while
you're making statements of fact but without any knowledge). Am I
defending this guy? No, I asked for information while you demonized him
without any question whatever.
Which of us is being intellectually dishonest is glaringly obvious.
Phil #3
Phil
On Jul 17, 5:51 pm, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>
> = = = = = =
> And he might be a whole lot better than you thought--but don't let
> that
> possibility get in the way of your prejudices.
> = = = = = =
XXX: See? It isn't that hard to stay on topic. I wasn't sure if you even
knew how to do it. Now you go on and defend a guy who owes child
support for 4 kids and hid until his mother died and he had to return
for the funeral. Don't let any of this get in the way of your
prejudices.
******************************************
Please cite ANY post where TM (or anyone else) defended the actions of
this guy.
All I have seen is that others (other than you, that is) are not quite
ready to punish this guy without knowing more than was printed in the
newspaper.
Do you now the meaning of P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E?
******************************************
>
> > 3) No one has vilified women other than those who use their children
> > as
> > pawns to extract unfair and unnecessary amounts of money from the
> > other
>
> Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money after an
> article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
> either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
> women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
> understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
> victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
> trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
> up.
>
> = = = = = =
> How is asking a question in an attempt to get you to think beyond the
> sketchy information given in the article and attempt to villify women?
XXX: It is an attempt to deflect the topic by mentioning something
completely unrelated. What if I were to defend every abusive parent
story I heard by asking you how you felt about child molestors? If you
had any sense your first question would be "What does this have to do
with child molestors" ...... Ohhh I just want you to think about
child molestors for a minute ... so you think about something other
than how bad my argument really is.
********************************************************
Actually, I think TM was trying to draw out conclusive evidence of your
apparent sexism toward fathers but allowing you to show that you always
side with mothers, even without any evidence whatever, as you have done
in reference to this case, here.
*******************************************************
> You
> never have answered a single question about whether women who fail to
> support their children deserve the same consequences as men who don't
> support theirs. Why is that?
> = = = = = =
>
XXX; Nonsense, this woman is supporting her 4 children, the father is
the
one who didn't pay for nearly 2 years. You think she should be
punished for raising 4 kids alone? If that is not your point it is
just another attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that you
have no point at all.
*******************************************************
Again you come to a gun fight with a knife.
You, nor anyone else knows if this woman is supporting the children. For
all we know, they live in another state with relatives or friends.
You don't know if she was, in fact raising them, do you?
Assumptions are not proof, even if it feels good.
******************************************************
> > parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and
> > equal
> > parent in his own right.
>
> Did this woman do this? Did I miss that part of the article? Funny how
> I read it and only saw a story about a guy who hid from supporting his
> 4 kids and got caught when he returned to the scene of the crime.
> Maybe you can post the missing parts of the story that were on the
> phantom pagees of that article.
>
> = = = =
> Why don't you take a moment to post what information the article did
> not
> contain that you would like to see. Or did the article give you all
> the
> information you need to form your opinion?
> = = = = =
>
XXX: It seems to have covered a lot more for you than for me, it covered
women with 6 kids, women who abandon their kids, here in the real
world we call all of your "information" make believe.
******************************************************
Not an answer to the question asked; apparently another deflection.
*****************************************************
> = = = =
> <chuckle> I can tell that you are not very well informed about the
> system
> you advocate so strongly. There is no place in this entire country (or
> many
> other countries) that you are outside the jurisdiction of the CS
> system.
> There ae interstate agreements between every single state. The federal
> government even has a hand in it. "Out of the jurisdiction of the
> court"
> doesn't fly. Look it up!
> = = = = = =
XXX: Working off the books, for instance, is being out of the
jurisdiction
of the court. There are many other ways to do it and this guy seemed
to find one of them for 5 years.
********************************************************
In your own statement: "this guy **seemed** to find..."
This is hardly what I would call proof or even evidence, for that
matter.
Your prejudice is palpable as well as your ignorance of the way the
system works in practice.
*******************************************************
>
> So if the IRS stopped looking for you, you would stop paying your
> taxes and let the bills pile up? Would you be surprised when they
> found you and had 5 years worth of bills and fines waiting for you?
> Again, I didn't see the part of the article that claimed he was
> hospitalized or incarcerated,
>
> = = = = =
> That's right! You didn't!! Because the article does not say anything
> about
> what he was doing or why he wasn't paying! You filled in all that
> information on your own!
> = = = = =
>
XXX: No, YOU filled that info in, I merely read that he didn't pay and
stayed below the radar for 5 years until his mom died and he had to
return to the area for a funeral. You fill the rest of the story about
women with 6 kids, jail time, hospitalization etc. I would like to see
where you got all of these ideas. The article says he owed the money
and stayed out of sight but was able to get back home for the funeral.
THink he could have made that trip some other time to drop off the
$150 a week he needed to pay?
******************************************************
Wait a minute thar Babalooie, where in the article did it say he "stayed
below the radar"?
Please show were anyone stated anything about this case other than that
in the article other than to ask questions, which elementary school-aged
children know is not the same as making a statement. The article does
NOT say he "stayed out of sight" no matter how much you wish it had.
If you have other evidence, it is well past time to show it. Without
further evidence than was stated in this article, you are pre-judging
based on facts not in evidence, in other words, assumption based on
prejudice.
******************************************************
>
> = = = = =
> Maybe you can post the part of the article that says "he just wasn't
> paying
> his bills." You have no idea why, do you?
> = = = = =
The article says it in black and white, you can read can't you? It
said he owed 600 a month and didn't pay it for 19 months. They even
did the math for you and added it up so you could save time.
>
> Did he pay the money he was ordered by a court to pay. No, he didn't.
> You don't have any answers to the questions you are asking unless you
> can show me where to find that info in the article.
>
> = = = = =
> Problem is, you don't know the answers either, but you don't mind
> villifying
> the guy based on the scanty information given in the article.
> = = = = =
XXX: And you villify people with NO information at all, women with 6
kids,
women who abandon their kids, jail, hospitalization etc. At least I am
basing my opinion on things I read in the article rather than things I
made up out of whole cloth like you.
*******************************************************
Actually, you are reading into the article things that were not in the
article, like "staying below the radar", 'the wife supporting the kids',
his employment, ownership of an automobile, etc.
*******************************************************
XXX: Most will, very few people will show the bigotry that you display.
Most people won't create a littany of excuses for someone who doesn't
pay their bills before they know anything about him.
********************************************************
You could save the state a lot of money if you would just share the
evidence of your certainty about his guilt in this. Even the state,
which has a fiscal interest in this case is willing to have a hearing at
least.
It is abundantly obvious that 100% of the bigotry shown here is yours.
You have your mind made up despite the fact that you have been asked
several questions about other possibilities other than hiding out to
avoid paying, none of which were even attempted to be answered by you
since you already have all the evidence you need based on, of all
things, a short article in a newspaper.
You remind me of someone I know who believes that trials are a waste of
time and money. Anyone arrested, in her opinion is guilty of *something*
and are therefore guilty enough to be sentenced without trial for
'certain' criminal violations.
One simple fact remains that has several obvious conclusions: When
others ask questions, you take them as evidence of defending this guy;
when asked questions, you refuse to answer and you fail to produce one
shred of evidence that the charges are valid except that he was charged
and eventually arrested.
********************************************************
> $152 a week for 4 kids won't even cover half the rent in most of the
> country.
> = = = =
> Hmmmmm.....Half the rent of what?
> = = = =
>
XXX: It probably would cover the rent of a trailer nowadays.
*****************************************************
Again, a non-answer. TM asked "half the rent of what?", to which you
answered a question not asked.
Where did she and the kids live? In an apartment in the slums, with her
parents, in a twelve-room mansion? Maybe even in different households?
Perhaps they lived with him during this time and they had an informal
agreement that no C$ was to be paid, which the state will not likely
recognize.
See? Too many questions with no answers.
****************************************************
> It seems this guy had money to live outside the county, money
> for a car and liesure time to take off from work and go to a funeral.
>
> = = = =
> Oh, my, this is the first time in my life I have ever heard a funeral
> referred to as "leisure time!"
> = = = =
XXX: It isn't work time, he managed to get the days off and travel. He
could have just as easily taken the time off to go fishing. As far as
a job is concerned it is leisure time.
*******************************************************
So since you know where he worked, what does he do for a living?
Also, do you consider it "leisure time" when a mother stays home from
work with a sick child?
*******************************************************
Phil #3
dtom...@aol.com
> "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f24acbf8-c7cc-412e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 2:32 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Never ceases to amaze me. "Child support" is the ONLY debt that is
> > criminal
> > to not pay it. Go figure.........
>
> Even more amazing is the fact that you've never heard of taxes,
> traffic fines or workman's comp. Those won't have a a negative effect
> on a child's life the way child support will, but you can get tossed
> in jail for not paying them. I guess I should have known better than
> to expect an intelligent response after reading your quote at the top.
> Now I know better.
>
> -------------------------------
> Money on taxes owed can be paid off by paying a percentage of what's owed,
> or even forgiven. Just ask the IRS, they'd be happy to tell you all about
> it.
>
But you can go to jail for not paying them. So you are not addressing
the point.
> Traffic fines, nearly the same thing, they can be fought in a court of law
> and dismissed, or you can pay off a percentage and you're done.
But you can go to jail for not paying them. So you are not addressing
the point.
>
> Workman's comp isn't necessary if you have under a certain number of
> employees (I think it's less then 10 or something like that) or are self
> employed.
But you can go to jail for not paying it. So you are not addressing
the point.
>
> Actually, yes, they can have a negative effect on children, their parents
> can loose a hefty chunk of their hard earned cash for a lengthy period of
> time, driver's licenses or their businesses.
Not paying won't have an effect, getting caught not paying them might.
So you are not addressing the point again.
>
> Therefore, you're argument is false.
> -----------------------------
I don't think you would know.
teachrmama
Obviously, the unpaid amounts are now arrearages, and there is no current
order in that county (or probably in that state). There is way more to this
story than meets the eye. And the mother is not mentioned at all, nor
interviewed for thearticle, so you have to wonder if she even lives in the
area. I do hope a followup is done to answer some of the questions.
teachrmama
<chuckle> According to XXX this woman is a saint!! It sounds more as if
these people deserved each other!! He may not even have been in town when
the CS order was given, considering they had separated in 95. I wonder how
old the children are.
>
> Still, until the whole story is available, there are too many questions
> that are unanswered.
That is one fact that is for certain!
dtom...@aol.com
>
> XXX: True, the father might have stashed millions in safe deposit boxes
> while working off the books. If he mother didn't die he would have
> continued to hide out of state living like a king while his ex was
> raising and paying for their 4 kids. The article doesn't say this, but
> it could very likely be the case. This guy might be even worse than I
> thought.
>
> ********************************************************
> So you prefer to assume the worst. Noted, but it's not news.
> ********************************************************
And you assume he had valid reasons for shirking his responsibilities.
You want to be his lawyer and don't have one non derisive thought
about the mother who is raising 4 kids on her own with an ex who
misses 2 years worth of child support payments.
>
> XXX: Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money after
> an
> article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
> either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
> women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
> understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
> victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
> trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
> up.
> ********************************************************
> Apparently you misunderstood the intent of the question,
No I didn't, it was an obvious and stupid attempt to steer the
conversation away from the topic. Just like most of the posts from the
"men are just victims of the system" crowd. It addressed nothing in
the article and it addressed nothing I said, it was lame and stupid.
> which I think
> was to bring out your sense of justice in whether punishing a man for
> wrongs or perceived wrongs was alright while forgiving women any
> indescretion.
More deflection, what was the woman in the article forgiven? Was she
forgiven for raising 4 kids on her own? I guess you are all just
preaching to the choir and really don't know how the world works
outside of your own family problems.
> The question about mothers with several children by
> different fathers was also trying to show you that some mothers are
> just as evil as some fathers.
How many mothers were discussed in this article? Zero really, one as a
side bar if you want to get technical. What evidence do you have that
the woman who was raising 4 kids with an irresponsible ex is evil in
any way? I'll say you have none, therefore this is just another weak
deflection of reality when you can't defend one of your own without
lying.
> Basing one's conclusions based on a short
> and inconclusive newspaper article is stupid.
> ********************************************************
>
You seem to have no problem doing it. You even add 20 pages worth of
make believe to the story in order to defend the guy. Evil mothers,
jail, hospitalizations, unemployment etc. Maybe he forgot, maybe his
ex made a deal ..... none of this is even closely related to fact,
just made up crap to defend a guy who didn't pay child support for 2
years and hid for 5.
> > parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and
> > equal
> > parent in his own right.
>
Nonsense, he forgot to pay child support for 4 kids, for 2 years and
hid until he got busted 5 years later, he has no interest in being a
full time parent.
> XXX: Did this woman do this? Did I miss that part of the article? Funny
> how
> I read it and only saw a story about a guy who hid from supporting his
> 4 kids and got caught when he returned to the scene of the crime.
> Maybe you can post the missing parts of the story that were on the
> phantom pagees of that article.
>
> *******************************************************
> See? That's what I mean. We don't KNOW. It didn't say she didn't refuse
> to allow him contact any more than it said he was hiding.
And we do know that he had child support to pay and didn't pay it for
2 years.
> Get it yet? Filling in the blanks with sexism is not the answer to a
> true and valid story. By the way, I did NOT say she did this, I asked
> ******************************************************
Defending deadbeats regardless of the fact is?
>
> XXX: He lived outside the jurisdiction of the court it seems. Once he
> was
> outside of the state or country he stopped paying child support. 5
> years later he had to return for a funeral. So yes, he did avoid
> paying and did hide from his responsibilities.
>
> *******************************************************
> So you're saying that by moving and stopping payments, he was actively
> "hiding"?
Yes.
> You don't know that he did not send his current address to CSE, do you?
Yes I do. He didn't.
> No, you don't.
> In case you're interested, the wife has at least 7 charges (felony and
> misdemeanor) against her by the state of Wisconsin.
> *******************************************************
Lets play your game then. "Since her ex was a deadbeat she needed to
steal bread from the grocery store to feed her 4 kids"
>
> XXX: So if the IRS stopped looking for you, you would stop paying your
> taxes and let the bills pile up? Would you be surprised when they
> found you and had 5 years worth of bills and fines waiting for you?
> Again, I didn't see the part of the article that claimed he was
> hospitalized or incarcerated, maybe you can post that page for us. It
> seems you are just making excuses for a guy who doesn't want to pay
> his bills.
>
> ******************************************************
> You completely missed the idea that since you don't know anything, you
> don't just get the convenience of making up your own and claim it to be
> authoritative.
> ******************************************************
You seem to think you do though. Sorry that reality doesn't suit your
ideas.
>
> XXX: Did he pay the money he was ordered by a court to pay. No, he
> didn't.
> You don't have any answers to the questions you are asking unless you
> can show me where to find that info in the article.
>
> **********************************************************
> Again, was there even an order for child support issued after 2001?
> Apparently,
You answered your own question.
>
> XXX:She's raising 4 kids while the father is in another state or county
> avoiding them. Compared to him she is a saint.
>
> ********************************************
> See above where she has been charged with at least 7 criminal
> violations, both misdemeanor and felony.
As a parent, she is better than him. As a shoplifter, maybe she isn't
so good. After all she needs to shoplift groceries when her ex stops
paying child support.
> Are you SURE you want to proclaim this woman as some type of heroine?
> ********************************************
I'm not proclaiming her anything, she is raising 4 kids on her own and
dealing with a deadbeat ex, she is certainly worthy of more
consideration than the ex who fled the county and stopped paying to
support the 4 kids.
>
> XXX:Your agenda is to lie until you get caught. You have no info at all
> but try to paint the guy as a victim every way possible. The facts
> presented show that the mother is raising 4 kids without her ex, the
> ex was hiding and did not pay child support that he was ordered (or
> agreed) to pay.
>
> ***************************************************
> Unless you can point out even ONE lie I told, the liar is you.
> I, and others, have repeatedly asked you questions about the case since
> you seem to "got it all knowed up" but either cannot or refuse to answer
> except to blame others for asking for information that you seem to
> believe to have.
I've stated everything pretty clearly, your wild stories about
hospitalizations, incarcerations and whatever else have been treated
as ridiculous attempts to change the subject, because that is all they
are.
> First of all, you don't know she was even living in the same house as
> the children. For all you know, the grandparents or her brother was
> raising the childrend she never even visited them. Probably not, but it
> remains possible.
So, show me that you know any of these things, then show me how it
absolves the ex from paying his $150 a week.
> Second, you don't know he was hiding.
> Your entire base is assumption.
> ***************************************************
>
He was hiding, he knew he owed the money and he had to get arrested
before he dealt with the problem. Unless he totally forgot about his 4
kids when the state lost his address, in which case he is worse than I
originally thought.
> XXX: $152 a week for 4 kids won't even cover half the rent in most of
> the
> country. It seems this guy had money to live outside the county, money
> for a car and liesure time to take off from work and go to a funeral.
> Supporting his 4 kids just wasn't a priority, I bet he has stories to
> tell about how his ex takes the $152 a week and blows it on school
> supplies and country club memberships.
>
> *************************************************
> So you know he was not living with his parents because he was injured,
> ill or otherwise unemployed?
His mother was dead and he had to drive to her funeral, so this was a
simple assumption for anyone who isn't willing to be a pathological
liar to defend his own bigotry.
> You are assuming the mother to be saintly based solely on her sex, which
> by definition is sexism.
Here is a lie from you just to make the point. Read what I said and
you will see that I said she is a saint COMPARED to the deadbeat ex. I
just point it out because you seem to be oblivious to lies from
yourself and anyone who agrees with you.
> *************************************************
> XX: Here is your second chance to be honest, I don't expect you to veer
> from your agenda to try honesty but you have the chance.
>
> ************************************************
> Which of us is jumping to conclusions? (Hint: I'm asking questions while
> you're making statements of fact but without any knowledge). Am I
> defending this guy? No, I asked for information while you demonized him
> without any question whatever.
No you are pushing an agenda, I will bet that I could check google
right now and find out that every post you ever made on this subject
is pro non custodial parent and/or anti custodial parent, anti-child
support and pro deadbeat dad.
> Which of us is being intellectually dishonest is glaringly obvious.
Exactly. Except you will never admit to your semantic games and
nonsense.
teachrmama
On Jul 18, 11:01 am, "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> XXX: True, the father might have stashed millions in safe deposit boxes
> while working off the books. If he mother didn't die he would have
> continued to hide out of state living like a king while his ex was
> raising and paying for their 4 kids. The article doesn't say this, but
> it could very likely be the case. This guy might be even worse than I
> thought.
>
> ********************************************************
> So you prefer to assume the worst. Noted, but it's not news.
> ********************************************************
And you assume he had valid reasons for shirking his responsibilities.
You want to be his lawyer and don't have one non derisive thought
about the mother who is raising 4 kids on her own with an ex who
misses 2 years worth of child support payments.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
OK, you have officially made it to pathetic now. Nobody has defended this
guy. Everyone except you has said that the whole story has not been
told--there are not enough facts for fair and honest people to make
judgements. You seem to feel that if everyone does not join into your
kick-fest of this guy, then they are defending him. You are wrong, of
course, but I doubt very much that that will stop you.
Nobody here has criticized the mother. You take questions about the CS
system in general and try to twist and shove them into the narrow confines
of the small story that started the discussion. Then you do what you do so
well--villify people for not bowing to your uninformed opinion, and
accepting the facts that you have made up to fill in the gaps n the story.
BTW, you never did provide a cite demonstrating that this woman actually
took care of the kids for the time that the CS was owed. You are going to
do that, right?
+++++++++++++++++++
>
> XXX: Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money after
> an
> article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
> either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
> women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
> understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
> victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
> trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
> up.
> ********************************************************
> Apparently you misunderstood the intent of the question,
No I didn't, it was an obvious and stupid attempt to steer the
conversation away from the topic. Just like most of the posts from the
"men are just victims of the system" crowd. It addressed nothing in
the article and it addressed nothing I said, it was lame and stupid.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
<chuckle> You did not answer because you are **incapable** of answering a
question where a woman is obviously in the WRONG!! Sometimes the women are
WRONG, XXX. Sometimes the men are wrong. Sometimes both are wrong.
Sometimes neither are wrong, and are caught up in circumstances beyond their
control. But you don't want to look at that. You want everyone to
reverently agree with your mostly-totally-made-up story about a man who did
not pay 20 months of child support, and might go to jail for 50 years.
+++++++++++++++++++++
> which I think
> was to bring out your sense of justice in whether punishing a man for
> wrongs or perceived wrongs was alright while forgiving women any
> indescretion.
More deflection, what was the woman in the article forgiven? Was she
forgiven for raising 4 kids on her own? I guess you are all just
preaching to the choir and really don't know how the world works
outside of your own family problems.
+++++++
Did she raise them? I have seen no proof of that..
++++++++++
> The question about mothers with several children by
> different fathers was also trying to show you that some mothers are
> just as evil as some fathers.
How many mothers were discussed in this article? Zero really,
+++++Hey, wow! Progress!! So you *admit* you *nade up* the part about the
mother raising the kids on her own!! What else did you make up, XXX?
+++++++++++++
one as a
side bar if you want to get technical. What evidence do you have that
the woman who was raising 4 kids with an irresponsible ex is evil in
any way?
++++
What wevidence do you have that she wasn't? You already admitted that she
was not mentioned in the story.
++++++++++++
I'll say you have none, therefore this is just another weak
deflection of reality when you can't defend one of your own without
lying.
> Basing one's conclusions based on a short
> and inconclusive newspaper article is stupid.
> ********************************************************
>
You seem to have no problem doing it. You even add 20 pages worth of
make believe to the story in order to defend the guy.
+++++
OK, please go back and post exactly what anyone here said in defense of the
gu. NOT what people said *might* be some of the reasos the payments weren't
made. But what anyone said defending what he actually did--which was not
pay for 20 months 5 years ago.
+++++++++++++
Evil mothers,
jail, hospitalizations, unemployment etc. Maybe he forgot, maybe his
ex made a deal ..... none of this is even closely related to fact,
++++++
Which fact would that be? The article says nothing whatsoever about *why*
he did not pay.
++++++++++++++++
just made up crap to defend a guy who didn't pay child support for 2
years and hid for 5.
> > parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and
> > equal
> > parent in his own right.
>
Nonsense, he forgot to pay child support for 4 kids, for 2 years and
hid until he got busted 5 years later, he has no interest in being a
full time parent.
+++++
Oh, so now you psychic source tells you that he **forgot.** Please do post
the cite where you got that information---or are you making it up?
++++++++++++++++
> XXX: Did this woman do this? Did I miss that part of the article? Funny
> how
> I read it and only saw a story about a guy who hid from supporting his
> 4 kids and got caught when he returned to the scene of the crime.
> Maybe you can post the missing parts of the story that were on the
> phantom pagees of that article.
>
> *******************************************************
> See? That's what I mean. We don't KNOW. It didn't say she didn't refuse
> to allow him contact any more than it said he was hiding.
And we do know that he had child support to pay and didn't pay it for
2 years.
++++++++++++++
Yes, that's right. It does not say he was hiding. It does not say the
mother struggled to raise the kids on her own. It does not say he was
working under the table. It does not say that the county exerted great
efforts to locate him, but failed. It does not say **any** of those things.
It **only** says that he owes 20 months of child support from 5 years ago.
And you have made many, many judgements based on that single fact.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Get it yet? Filling in the blanks with sexism is not the answer to a
> true and valid story. By the way, I did NOT say she did this, I asked
> ******************************************************
Defending deadbeats regardless of the fact is?
++++
Again, please post exactly what anyone here said to defend this man. You
won't, of course, because you can't.
+++++++++++++++++
>
> XXX: He lived outside the jurisdiction of the court it seems. Once he
> was
> outside of the state or country he stopped paying child support. 5
> years later he had to return for a funeral. So yes, he did avoid
> paying and did hide from his responsibilities.
>
> *******************************************************
> So you're saying that by moving and stopping payments, he was actively
> "hiding"?
Yes.
+++++++
Really? Hmmmm....you are truly spectacular at being judgemental. I hope
that is not your only--uh--talent in life.
++++++++++++++++++++
> You don't know that he did not send his current address to CSE, do you?
Yes I do. He didn't.
+++++++++++++++++
Go ahead and post the cite for that, too. You won't, of course, because you
can't.
++++++++++++++++++
> No, you don't.
> In case you're interested, the wife has at least 7 charges (felony and
> misdemeanor) against her by the state of Wisconsin.
> *******************************************************
Lets play your game then. "Since her ex was a deadbeat she needed to
steal bread from the grocery store to feed her 4 kids"
++++++++++++++++++=
<Snicker> That's it. Go ahead and blame him for all her bad choices. I am
not surprised.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> XXX: So if the IRS stopped looking for you, you would stop paying your
> taxes and let the bills pile up? Would you be surprised when they
> found you and had 5 years worth of bills and fines waiting for you?
> Again, I didn't see the part of the article that claimed he was
> hospitalized or incarcerated, maybe you can post that page for us. It
> seems you are just making excuses for a guy who doesn't want to pay
> his bills.
>
> ******************************************************
> You completely missed the idea that since you don't know anything, you
> don't just get the convenience of making up your own and claim it to be
> authoritative.
> ******************************************************
You seem to think you do though. Sorry that reality doesn't suit your
ideas.
++++++++++++++++
You're looking in the mirror on that comment, for sure!
+++++++++++++++++++++
>
> XXX: Did he pay the money he was ordered by a court to pay. No, he
> didn't.
> You don't have any answers to the questions you are asking unless you
> can show me where to find that info in the article.
>
> **********************************************************
> Again, was there even an order for child support issued after 2001?
> Apparently,
You answered your own question.
>
> XXX:She's raising 4 kids while the father is in another state or county
> avoiding them. Compared to him she is a saint.
>
> ********************************************
> See above where she has been charged with at least 7 criminal
> violations, both misdemeanor and felony.
As a parent, she is better than him. As a shoplifter, maybe she isn't
so good. After all she needs to shoplift groceries when her ex stops
paying child support.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Right back to the part where YOU prove that she even raised the kids, and
that they were not raised by grandparents or foster care. It didn't mention
that in "the article."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Are you SURE you want to proclaim this woman as some type of heroine?
> ********************************************
I'm not proclaiming her anything, she is raising 4 kids on her own and
dealing with a deadbeat ex, she is certainly worthy of more
consideration than the ex who fled the county and stopped paying to
support the 4 kids.
+++++++++++++++++++
Prove it, then. You won't, of course, because you CAN'T!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> XXX:Your agenda is to lie until you get caught. You have no info at all
> but try to paint the guy as a victim every way possible. The facts
> presented show that the mother is raising 4 kids without her ex, the
> ex was hiding and did not pay child support that he was ordered (or
> agreed) to pay.
>
> ***************************************************
> Unless you can point out even ONE lie I told, the liar is you.
> I, and others, have repeatedly asked you questions about the case since
> you seem to "got it all knowed up" but either cannot or refuse to answer
> except to blame others for asking for information that you seem to
> believe to have.
I've stated everything pretty clearly, your wild stories about
hospitalizations, incarcerations and whatever else have been treated
as ridiculous attempts to change the subject, because that is all they
are.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
<snicker> Possibilities about reasons he may not have paid are "wild
stories," but poor, downtrodden, heroic mother forced to steal to support
her 4 children is a fact. LOLOLOLOL
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> First of all, you don't know she was even living in the same house as
> the children. For all you know, the grandparents or her brother was
> raising the childrend she never even visited them. Probably not, but it
> remains possible.
So, show me that you know any of these things, then show me how it
absolves the ex from paying his $150 a week.
++++++++++++++++++
YOU are the one that has consistently stated that the children were raised
by the mother, despite the fact that the article does no even mention the
mother.
+++++++++++++++++++++
> Second, you don't know he was hiding.
> Your entire base is assumption.
> ***************************************************
>
He was hiding,
+++++++++++++++
Prove it. Use the article and prove it. Use another cite, but PROVE IT!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
he knew he owed the money
++++++++++++++++++++++
Prove it. Use the article and prove it. Use another cite, but PROVE IT!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and he had to get arrested
before he dealt with the problem. Unless he totally forgot about his 4
kids when the state lost his address, in which case he is worse than I
originally thought.
++++++++++++++++++++
Go ahead and prove that one, too
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> XXX: $152 a week for 4 kids won't even cover half the rent in most of
> the
> country. It seems this guy had money to live outside the county, money
> for a car and liesure time to take off from work and go to a funeral.
> Supporting his 4 kids just wasn't a priority, I bet he has stories to
> tell about how his ex takes the $152 a week and blows it on school
> supplies and country club memberships.
>
> *************************************************
> So you know he was not living with his parents because he was injured,
> ill or otherwise unemployed?
His mother was dead and he had to drive to her funeral, so this was a
simple assumption for anyone who isn't willing to be a pathological
liar to defend his own bigotry.
++++++++++++++++++
You know, this really says a lot about your view of parenting. You are
asked if he might have been living with his parents. You respond that his
*mother* is dead, which, in you mind, seems to take care of the parent
question. His father would not count as a parent, right?
++++++++++++++++++++++++
> You are assuming the mother to be saintly based solely on her sex, which
> by definition is sexism.
Here is a lie from you just to make the point. Read what I said and
you will see that I said she is a saint COMPARED to the deadbeat ex. I
just point it out because you seem to be oblivious to lies from
yourself and anyone who agrees with you.
+++++++++++++++++++++Right back to what you are best at: judgmentalism.
Based on one short article with very few facts, you have come to the
conclusion that the mother is better than the father. That really is some
talent you have there. Bet it goes over great at church.
++++++++++++++++++++++
> *************************************************
> XX: Here is your second chance to be honest, I don't expect you to veer
> from your agenda to try honesty but you have the chance.
>
> ************************************************
> Which of us is jumping to conclusions? (Hint: I'm asking questions while
> you're making statements of fact but without any knowledge). Am I
> defending this guy? No, I asked for information while you demonized him
> without any question whatever.
No you are pushing an agenda, I will bet that I could check google
right now and find out that every post you ever made on this subject
is pro non custodial parent and/or anti custodial parent, anti-child
support and pro deadbeat dad.
++++++++++++++
Go ahead, do it, then. You might be surprised. You also might just revert
to kind, and be judgmental.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Which of us is being intellectually dishonest is glaringly obvious.
Exactly. Except you will never admit to your semantic games and
nonsense.
++++++++++++++++++
LOLOLOLOL. You are too, too droll.
Phil
On Jul 18, 11:01 am, "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> XXX: True, the father might have stashed millions in safe deposit
> boxes
> while working off the books. If he mother didn't die he would have
> continued to hide out of state living like a king while his ex was
> raising and paying for their 4 kids. The article doesn't say this, but
> it could very likely be the case. This guy might be even worse than I
> thought.
>
> ********************************************************
> So you prefer to assume the worst. Noted, but it's not news.
> ********************************************************
XXX: And you assume he had valid reasons for shirking his
responsibilities.
You want to be his lawyer and don't have one non derisive thought
about the mother who is raising 4 kids on her own with an ex who
misses 2 years worth of child support payments.
********************************************
Nope.
I know that in many cases, non-payment has many reasons, some are even
valid.
I would rather eat glass than be a lawyer.
I know little about him, less about her.
You'll do well not to try to tell me what I want (or think for that
matter). It puts you at a severe disadvantage because between us, I am
the only one with that ability and knowledge.
*******************************************
>
> XXX: Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money
> after
> an
> article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
> either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
> women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
> understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
> victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
> trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
> up.
> ********************************************************
> Apparently you misunderstood the intent of the question,
XXX: No I didn't, it was an obvious and stupid attempt to steer the
conversation away from the topic. Just like most of the posts from the
"men are just victims of the system" crowd. It addressed nothing in
the article and it addressed nothing I said, it was lame and stupid.
****************************************************
I was correct, you didn't understand and still don't.
*****************************************************
> which I think
> was to bring out your sense of justice in whether punishing a man for
> wrongs or perceived wrongs was alright while forgiving women any
> indescretion.
More deflection, what was the woman in the article forgiven? Was she
forgiven for raising 4 kids on her own? I guess you are all just
preaching to the choir and really don't know how the world works
outside of your own family problems.
*******************************************************
Yes, you have pronounced him automatically guilty and many times painted
her as the 'poor, pituful' abused woman by stating as fact many things
that very well may be as untrue as the things you assume about him such
as her having custody. It is likely, but unknown. Also that she is
supporting the children, which is less likely but unknown as well. If
you have any idea how the real world works, you've yet to show it. Most
of the people who are asking you questions (and being ignored) have been
through the mess of "family court". I don't know about you but you
appear ignorant.
******************************************************
> The question about mothers with several children by
> different fathers was also trying to show you that some mothers are
> just as evil as some fathers.
XXX: How many mothers were discussed in this article? Zero really, one
as a
side bar if you want to get technical. What evidence do you have that
the woman who was raising 4 kids with an irresponsible ex is evil in
any way? I'll say you have none, therefore this is just another weak
deflection of reality when you can't defend one of your own without
lying.
*********************************************************
There was absolutely nothing mentioned about any mother in any way in
the article.
The evidence about both of them that I have came from the Wisconsin's
State on-line court records. It doesn't say she's evil, it just states
that she's been arrested a few times just as it does about him but now
you've gotten yourself confused. You have confused TM's question about
the mothers who go from man to man getting pregnant then demanding C$
with this woman.
Where did I say this woman was evil?
With your being unable to answer, who then is the liar?
*********************************************************
> Basing one's conclusions based on a short
> and inconclusive newspaper article is stupid.
> ********************************************************
>
XXX:You seem to have no problem doing it. You even add 20 pages worth
of
make believe to the story in order to defend the guy. Evil mothers,
jail, hospitalizations, unemployment etc. Maybe he forgot, maybe his
ex made a deal ..... none of this is even closely related to fact,
just made up crap to defend a guy who didn't pay child support for 2
years and hid for 5.
***********************************************************
If I have made any conclusions from the article, please show them. If
you fail to do so, you prove yourself to be a slanderous liar once
again.
I posted what information I found. It is up to you to accept it or deny
it by doing your own research (fat chance, eh?) If you choose to
continue your quest to automatically judge a man guilty, based on a
newspaper article, you're a fool; typical but still a fool.
**********************************************************
> > parent while at the same time preventing him from being a full and
> > equal
> > parent in his own right.
>
XXX:Nonsense, he forgot to pay child support for 4 kids, for 2 years and
hid until he got busted 5 years later, he has no interest in being a
full time parent.
********************************************************
Now you're just being sarcastic. Is that because what I said hit a
little too close to home?
How do you know so much about him?
Care to tell or is it a big secret?
********************************************************
> XXX: Did this woman do this? Did I miss that part of the article?
> Funny
> how
> I read it and only saw a story about a guy who hid from supporting his
> 4 kids and got caught when he returned to the scene of the crime.
> Maybe you can post the missing parts of the story that were on the
> phantom pagees of that article.
>
> *******************************************************
> See? That's what I mean. We don't KNOW. It didn't say she didn't
> refuse
> to allow him contact any more than it said he was hiding.
XXX: And we do know that he had child support to pay and didn't pay it
for
2 years.
**********************************************************
Actually, we don't know that either. All we know is that there was a
warrant out for his arrest for failure to pay. Neither you nor I know
that he wasn't sending her money directly instead of through CSE who
would then assume he wasn't paying at all. It is a long shot but it IS
possible, now isn't it?
Oh, no, a man invoved is automatically guilty, right?
************************************************************
> Get it yet? Filling in the blanks with sexism is not the answer to a
> true and valid story. By the way, I did NOT say she did this, I asked
> ******************************************************
XXX: Defending deadbeats regardless of the fact is?
***************************************
It is nothing but your imagination. No one here has defended deatbeats
to my knowledge.
**************************************
>
> XXX: He lived outside the jurisdiction of the court it seems. Once he
> was
> outside of the state or country he stopped paying child support. 5
> years later he had to return for a funeral. So yes, he did avoid
> paying and did hide from his responsibilities.
>
> *******************************************************
> So you're saying that by moving and stopping payments, he was actively
> "hiding"?
XXX: Yes.
*****************************************************
Wrong again.
*****************************************************
> You don't know that he did not send his current address to CSE, do
> you?
XXX: Yes I do. He didn't.
***********************************
You are a liar...
***********************************
> No, you don't.
> In case you're interested, the wife has at least 7 charges (felony and
> misdemeanor) against her by the state of Wisconsin.
> *******************************************************
Lets play your game then. "Since her ex was a deadbeat she needed to
steal bread from the grocery store to feed her 4 kids"
**********************************
... that's YOUR game. The one where you ASSume to know things that you
don't. FYI, asking questions is not the same as making statments.
********************************
>
> XXX: So if the IRS stopped looking for you, you would stop paying your
> taxes and let the bills pile up? Would you be surprised when they
> found you and had 5 years worth of bills and fines waiting for you?
> Again, I didn't see the part of the article that claimed he was
> hospitalized or incarcerated, maybe you can post that page for us. It
> seems you are just making excuses for a guy who doesn't want to pay
> his bills.
>
> ******************************************************
> You completely missed the idea that since you don't know anything, you
> don't just get the convenience of making up your own and claim it to
> be
> authoritative.
> ******************************************************
XXX: You seem to think you do though. Sorry that reality doesn't suit
your
ideas.
******************************************************
The truth is that I don't know any more than was posted in the article
(and that which I found on-line about them both) but I'm not making shit
up to suit a sexist agenda; that's YOUR forte.
Tell me, what color are Mr. Bubolz's eyes?
*****************************************************
>
> XXX: Did he pay the money he was ordered by a court to pay. No, he
> didn't.
> You don't have any answers to the questions you are asking unless you
> can show me where to find that info in the article.
>
> **********************************************************
> Again, was there even an order for child support issued after 2001?
> Apparently,
XXX: You answered your own question.
*********************************************
No, I am ASSuming so because I could not access the divorce, custody and
child support records. I can only ASSume that there was one based on the
fact that there was a warrant for failure to pay. I still don't KNOW it.
Did he pay the wife directly instead of through the CSE? We just don't
know. We can ASSume he didn't but the FACT is, we don't know.
Haven't you got it yet? You got into deep shit here by making judgements
based on things you don't know. THAT is why you have been taken to task.
The real question is not about him or her or the children, it is about
your obvious and apparent sexism.
****************************************
>
> XXX:She's raising 4 kids while the father is in another state or
> county
> avoiding them. Compared to him she is a saint.
>
> ********************************************
> See above where she has been charged with at least 7 criminal
> violations, both misdemeanor and felony.
XXX: As a parent, she is better than him. As a shoplifter, maybe she
isn't
so good. After all she needs to shoplift groceries when her ex stops
paying child support.
*******************************************
See? You are ASSUming she even lives with them. Please show where that
information was given in the article. It wasn't.
Who said she was a shoplifter? I didn't. It wasn't in the article.
Please provide your information.
By the way, the charges were previous to the maintenance and divorce. I,
unlike you, don't know any more about it other than she was charged.
There were at least three charges of "IOWC" (issuance of worthless
checks) that were dismissed as well as a plea of "guilty" to four other
cases, all well before the family cases.
Next ASSumption, please.
********************************************
> Are you SURE you want to proclaim this woman as some type of heroine?
> ********************************************
XXX: I'm not proclaiming her anything, she is raising 4 kids on her own
and
dealing with a deadbeat ex, she is certainly worthy of more
consideration than the ex who fled the county and stopped paying to
support the 4 kids.
*************************************************
None of which you KNOW to be true.
***********************************************
>
> XXX:Your agenda is to lie until you get caught. You have no info at
> all
> but try to paint the guy as a victim every way possible. The facts
> presented show that the mother is raising 4 kids without her ex, the
> ex was hiding and did not pay child support that he was ordered (or
> agreed) to pay.
>
> ***************************************************
> Unless you can point out even ONE lie I told, the liar is you.
> I, and others, have repeatedly asked you questions about the case
> since
> you seem to "got it all knowed up" but either cannot or refuse to
> answer
> except to blame others for asking for information that you seem to
> believe to have.
XXX: I've stated everything pretty clearly, your wild stories about
hospitalizations, incarcerations and whatever else have been treated
as ridiculous attempts to change the subject, because that is all they
are.
**************************************************
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl
That proves you to be not just a liar but a slanderer as well.
Ok, now lie your way out of it. (I ASSume you can do a simple search;
just put her last name in the correct spot and her first name in the
correct spot and hit "search".
It's not hard.
Find out how wonderful your heroine is.
**************************************************
> First of all, you don't know she was even living in the same house as
> the children. For all you know, the grandparents or her brother was
> raising the childrend she never even visited them. Probably not, but
> it
> remains possible.
XXX: So, show me that you know any of these things, then show me how it
absolves the ex from paying his $150 a week.
************************************************
Neither of us KNOW any of it. THAT is the point you keep missing over
and over and over again.
Are you dense or just so bigoted that you think the answers to all
questions is man = bad; woman = good?
*************************************************
> Second, you don't know he was hiding.
> Your entire base is assumption.
> ***************************************************
>
XXX: He was hiding, he knew he owed the money and he had to get arrested
before he dealt with the problem. Unless he totally forgot about his 4
kids when the state lost his address, in which case he is worse than I
originally thought.
*************************************************
ASSuming this is not a paperwork snafu and that he was not sending money
to her instead of CSE or that they had an informal agreement to end C$
but forgot to notify CSE or any one of several other possibilities all
the while he very well may have been in the hospital for much of the
last 5 years. Maybe not. You just don't KNOW, do you?
You don't KNOW, you only ASSume and what you ASSume is that he is bad
and she is good, obviously based on your own personal bias.
*************************************************
> XXX: $152 a week for 4 kids won't even cover half the rent in most of
> the
> country. It seems this guy had money to live outside the county, money
> for a car and liesure time to take off from work and go to a funeral.
> Supporting his 4 kids just wasn't a priority, I bet he has stories to
> tell about how his ex takes the $152 a week and blows it on school
> supplies and country club memberships.
>
> *************************************************
> So you know he was not living with his parents because he was injured,
> ill or otherwise unemployed?
XXX: His mother was dead and he had to drive to her funeral, so this was
a
simple assumption for anyone who isn't willing to be a pathological
liar to defend his own bigotry.
*************************************************
Where was the father, sister, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins?
Where was he living (other than in Texas)? Was it with his father,
brother, sister or was he living alone, remarried or what?
C'mon, you think you got it all knowed up, prove it.
*************************************************
> You are assuming the mother to be saintly based solely on her sex,
> which
> by definition is sexism.
XXX: Here is a lie from you just to make the point. Read what I said and
you will see that I said she is a saint COMPARED to the deadbeat ex. I
just point it out because you seem to be oblivious to lies from
yourself and anyone who agrees with you.
**************************************************
Wrong again. I pointed out your apparent sexism, nothing more.
I found that she is just a likely to be just as bad as he is.
For one thing, you don't KNOW from the article that she was living with
the children or supporting them, DO YOU? You ASSume so, but you do NOT
have that personal knowledge.
When both cases are compared, neither is better than the other, despite
your ASSumption otherwise. Use either or both the article and the court
records search. You don't know that she didn't foist the children off on
her relatives an skip out without spending one dime on their support, do
you? In fact, you don't even know if she's alive.
**************************************************
> *************************************************
> XX: Here is your second chance to be honest, I don't expect you to
> veer
> from your agenda to try honesty but you have the chance.
>
> ************************************************
> Which of us is jumping to conclusions? (Hint: I'm asking questions
> while
> you're making statements of fact but without any knowledge). Am I
> defending this guy? No, I asked for information while you demonized
> him
> without any question whatever.
XXX: No you are pushing an agenda, I will bet that I could check google
right now and find out that every post you ever made on this subject
is pro non custodial parent and/or anti custodial parent, anti-child
support and pro deadbeat dad.
*************************************************
Don't make aspersions on my character; do the work then come back and
tell me what you've found. But it's easier to draw bigoted ASSumptions,
innit?
*************************************************
> Which of us is being intellectually dishonest is glaringly obvious.
Exactly. Except you will never admit to your semantic games and
nonsense.
*************************************************
You mean I'm not the one making ASSumptions? Thank you for that.
Now, prove anything you've claimed. ANYTHING at all.
Let's start with her supporting the children, okay?
Prove that, then we'll move on.
Phil #3
Dusty
-----------------------------
Traffic fines, unpaid taxes and worker's comp are all extreme cases in which
one might be arrested for not paying. They are not normally something that
would almost certainly land a person in jail for lack of payment.
On the other hand, unlike the above, non-payment of C$ will almost certainly
land you in jail - especially if you don't have any money.
So your taking fairly easy things to get around and making them into heinous
crimes is absurd and insulting. The only one that can, and often times is
made into a major crime, is the non-payment of C$ - for any reason (which is
exactly what the Bradley Amendment does - makes parents into criminals for
not making enough money to support their own robbery by the state).
----------------------------
> Actually, yes, they can have a negative effect on children, their parents
> can loose a hefty chunk of their hard earned cash for a lengthy period of
> time, driver's licenses or their businesses.
Not paying won't have an effect, getting caught not paying them might.
So you are not addressing the point again.
------------------------
You have seriously contradicted yourself on that one.. not paying won't
effect.., ..being caught not paying will..
Not paying your traffic fines can result in a number to things happening to
an adult that will have direct effects on a child. How are you going to
pick up your kids from day care when your car is booted and it's after 5pm?
Not paying your taxes will result in your wages being garnished and your
refunds being taken if you refuse to work with the IRS. Therefore, you'd
have available spending cash to burn on your child. Only in extreme cases
would a person find themselves arrested and in jail for failure to pay
taxes.
Workman's comp.. I don't know much about it, so unless there's something
seriously skewed about WC, I can only imagine that the results for that
would be similar to the above examples.
Non-payment of C$ will get you tossed into the county lock up in a New York
minute.
------------------------
> Therefore, you're argument is false.
> -----------------------------
I don't think you would know.
------------------------------
An assumption on your part and incorrect.
------------------------------
teachrmama
>
> "X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:82775066-ed93-4330...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 18, 11:01 am, "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip for length>
>> XXX: Mentioning women who have 6 kids with 6 men to collect money after
>> an
>> article about a women who is raising her 4 kids without support is
>> either the dumbest non sequitur ever or an attempt to villify this
>> women by comparing her to "women with 6 kids from 6 fathers" I
>> understand that your only goal is to convince everyone that men are
>> victims and women are lazy but unless you can back up anything you are
>> trying to claim about the article posted you are just making things
>> up.
>> ********************************************************
>> Apparently you misunderstood the intent of the question,
>
> XXX: No I didn't, it was an obvious and stupid attempt to steer the
> conversation away from the topic. Just like most of the posts from the
> "men are just victims of the system" crowd.
> It addressed nothing in
> the article
>and
>it addressed nothing I said, it was lame and stupid.
==============================
Don't you find it interesting, Phil, that the only 2 things she wants
addressed are (1) the very few facts contained in the article, and, (2) what
she says. Kind of sheds light on her way of thinking, doesn't it?
dtom...@aol.com
But you CAN go to jail for not paying them. You are a dimwitted lying
nitwit. Stop lying and try to learn the difference between "your" and
"you're" Mostly you should stop lying constantly, I don't really care
that you are an illiterate slob.
Shadow39
----------------------------------------------------------
It always comes down to the nitpicking about spelling when trolls like XXX
doesn't have any other leg to stand on with thier inane ramblings.
teachrmama
========================
<snicker> Grammar flame--the last stand of a person with no ammunition to
continue the discussion.
Dusty
-------------------------------------
Ah there it is, the personal attack. I knew it wasn't far off. It always
boils down to one thing when a troll can't fight argue against facts - make
it personal. Just like a radfem to do something like that.
Welcome to my kill file XXX.
-------------------------------------
Phil
Mostly it makes me sad that there are so many people who believe what
the media prints to be, not just the truth but the absolute truth and
are able to fill in any missing details based on prejudice. I am amazed
at some of the things S/he thinks were contained in the article that I
still can't find like any reference to him "hiding" or any reference to
the mother at all, especially how she has be laboring all these years to
support and provide for herself and the kids.
Phil #3
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:017700e7-45ec-42dd...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 1:03 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, go out and try to pay all of your bills and raise your family
> for 19 months without money.
>
> = = = = =
> Not without money--the mother was working, right? Withou child support
> money--but not withou any money.
> = = = = =
>
4 kids and a job to support them, while the deadbeat is hiding from
his child support out of state. I notice nobody here has mentioned her
except with derision. And you aren't even smart enough to use real
derision, you use weird, slanted digs like "what about women with 6
kids from 6 fathers" Do you really consider remarks like that
sensible? Do you believe that they address the article posted here?
Sadly, I think you do.
***************************
They don't address the article here; but neither do you address her
question. Why?
****************************
>
> So this lowlife didn't get a notice from the state so he forgot he had
> kids to support? If he cared about his family or had a responsible
> thought in his head for those years he wouldn't need a monthly
> reminder from the state.
>
> = = = = =
> Nobody should abandon their children when a marriage breaks up. Nobody.
> But answer this one for me: Woman gets pregnant and does not tell man.
This guy knew he had 4 kids, the wife didn't try to hide it from him.
Again, your reasoning is bizzare.
> They go their separate ways without the man ever knowing he was a father.
> 10 years later the woman sues for child support back to the birth of the
> child. Who is the scumbag in this scenario? The man who never paid? Or
> the woman who denied her child a father and the father his child?
> = = = = =
The guy who leaves the state to shirk his responsibility to 4 kids,
the one who has to get arrested before he will pay his child support.
***********************
Non sequitur.
**************************
I get the feeling that this was a 20 page article and I only saw the
first page. Maybe you can post the part of the story I missed and see
if it changes my mind.
Bob W
The shrinks call it projection.
To add to your comment, one of the easiest ways for a reporter to inject
bias onto a story is to leave out central facts that don't meet the
reporter's personal agenda. Omission of facts slants a story even more than
how a story is reported.
dtom...@aol.com
> > > criminal
> > > to not pay it. Go figure.........
>
>
> one might be arrested for not paying. They are not normally something that
> would almost certainly land a person in jail for lack of payment.
Read the quote I was responding to, then ask yourself "Are there other
debts that you can go to jail for avoiding" If the answer is yes, then
you agree with me. If the answer is no, you are lying.
>
> You have seriously contradicted yourself on that one.. not paying won't
> effect.., ..being caught not paying will..
>
I have not contradicted myself, you are just thinking and talking in
circles. If you don't pay your traffic tickets and never get caught,
there will be no effect on your children. If you don't pay your child
support and never get caught, there will still be an effect on your
children. I know you can't tolerate any opinion that doesn't preach to
the choir here, but even you can see through your agenda and notice
that you are not making sense.
>
> > Therefore, you're argument is false.
> > -----------------------------
>
> I don't think you would know.
>
> ------------------------------
> An assumption on your part and incorrect.
Your argument is false, if you do understand the simple facts I stated
above then you are merely pushing your agenda without regard for the
truth.
dtom...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
How sad that you can't admit when you are wrong. Is your whole
personality tied up in this agenda? When you run out of lies do you
always make a show out of killfiling? Will your choir abandon you if
you veer from your "dads are victims" platform or disagree with one of
them in any way? Thanks for the laugh though, I'll leave you to your
agenda and your team of storytelling yes men.
teachrmama
=====================
He doesn't immediately agree with you about his "terrible sin" of using
"your" instead of "you're" and your conclusion is that he can't admit he is
wrong? This from the person who made up all sorts of details about the
article that started this thread, and cannot admit she made it up? That is
just too funny!!
teachrmama
===================
OMG, it is hilarious to see you posting that about another poster,
considering all the stuff you made up about the guy in the article (and his
exwife, for that matter) and have absolutely no way of backing up!
Shadow39
"
>> -------------------------------------
>> Ah there it is, the personal attack. I knew it wasn't far off. It always
>> boils down to one thing when a troll can't fight argue against facts -
>> make
>> it personal. Just like a radfem to do something like that.
>>
>> Welcome to my kill file XXX.
>> -------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> How sad that you can't admit when you are wrong. Is your whole
> personality tied up in this agenda? When you run out of lies do you
> always make a show out of killfiling? Will your choir abandon you if
> you veer from your "dads are victims" platform or disagree with one of
> them in any way? Thanks for the laugh though, I'll leave you to your
> agenda and your team of storytelling yes men.
>
> =====================
> He doesn't immediately agree with you about his "terrible sin" of using
> "your" instead of "you're" and your conclusion is that he can't admit he
> is wrong? This from the person who made up all sorts of details about the
> article that started this thread, and cannot admit she made it up? That
> is just too funny!!
Notice how this troll only selectively replies to posts?
teachrmama
"Shadow39" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
news:0HXgk.3188$KI7....@newsfe08.iad...
Yep <chuckle> She gives up on everyone that does not come around to her way
of thinking. She has yet to answer the majority of the questions put to
her--undoubtedly because she *can't* answer them. You have to wonder what
she thinks about the system she praises for bringing this miscreant to
justice being the same system that refused to grant the sainted exwife of
the miscreant a restraining order against him when said sainted exwife asked
for one. Hmmmm.... is the system good or evil? She has not commented on
that yet.
>
>
dtom...@aol.com
> OMG, it is hilarious to see you posting that about another poster,
> considering all the stuff you made up about the guy in the article (and his
> exwife, for that matter) and have absolutely no way of backing up!
Stuff I made up? Like 6 kids with 6 fathers when the article clearly
stated she had 4 kids, stuff like that? Hospitalizations,
incarcerations unemployment plus every other excuse you made for the
guy who didn't pay his child support. In case you don't know, those
things were just made up from scratch, there was no mention of any of
those things in the article.
I see how you tried your best to avoid the topic here, since it
obviously goes against the rules to think for yourself. Try it again
*Are there other debts besides child support which can land you in
jail?* No need to reply with a diatribe of lies and stories, a simple
yes or no would be best.
Phil
On Jul 21, 1:05 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
> OMG, it is hilarious to see you posting that about another poster,
> considering all the stuff you made up about the guy in the article
> (and his
> exwife, for that matter) and have absolutely no way of backing up!
Stuff I made up? Like 6 kids with 6 fathers when the article clearly
stated she had 4 kids, stuff like that? Hospitalizations,
incarcerations unemployment plus every other excuse you made for the
guy who didn't pay his child support. In case you don't know, those
things were just made up from scratch, there was no mention of any of
those things in the article.
*******************************************************
Clearly, you do not understand the difference between 'possibility',
'probablity' and 'prejudice'.
There was a scant news article about a man being arrested for failing to
pay child support when he was in town for the funeral of his mother. You
chose to denounce him as a deadbeat without any knowledge (prejudice)
while others here were trying to offer you "possible" reasons, some of
which are "probable", based on each person's factual history with child
support. Then you went even further and decided that, again without any
knowledge at all about the situation, the mother was a single mother,
alone in trying to support her children by working. None of this is
known unless you have other intimate knowledge of the people involved,
which you have not shared with anyone here. You even accused me of
making up their state court records, even though I supplied you with the
link to look for yourself. It seems facts only get in your way. You
refuse to answer questions and are quick to accuse others of 'taking his
side' by simply asking them. You are obviously basing imagined scenario
on your personal agenda and/or bias.
In short, you are apparently a sexist bigot who apparently believes that
women are good, men are bad, regardless.
*******************************************************
I see how you tried your best to avoid the topic here, since it
obviously goes against the rules to think for yourself. Try it again
*Are there other debts besides child support which can land you in
jail?* No need to reply with a diatribe of lies and stories, a simple
yes or no would be best.
******************************************************
The topic is that a man was arrested for failing to pay child support.
Others here tried to give you examples of why this may not be as cut and
dried as you choose to believe, yet you not only believed your own
prejudice, you started making claims about both the man and the mother,
(who wasn't even mentioned), as if you had personal knowledge about
them. TM tried to ask you a question about the woman who has 6 kids by
different fathers to increase her total paycheck of child support and
you somehow attempted to portray her question as being about this
particular case, which anyone with any semblance of intelligence would
have understood was not what was being stated in any way, shape or form.
Somehow you believe you know this guy was hiding from CSE and when
others tried to give you reasons this may not be true, you pooh-poohed
them as if you had direct and definitive knowledge that he was. Yet you
failed each and ever time to provide any reason for your belief; and
still are failing. Then you decided (it wasn't in the article) that the
mother was a poor and pitiful, mistreated, hard-working single mother
striving with every fiber of her being to support her 4 children, even
without realizing that the support probably ended several years earlier,
most probably because they are now adults. For all we know, she may have
moved to Texas with him, which, by your way of categorizing people,
means she was "hiding". We don't even know where she is living if she is
even alive yet here you have made her into a poster child for the plight
of single mothers.
Can one be jailed for failing to pay other offenses? Of course, but
unlike C$, all other debts can be forgiven, worked out by 'community
service', dismissed in bankruptcy or discharged in many other ways. C$
arrearages can never be forgiven and there is nothing that can satisfy
it except payment in full, including any and all penalties and interest
(often at bank card rates). The arrearage even continues (with fines and
interest being tacked continually onto the original amount) while the
"debtor" is in jail, even if his only actual crime was being too poor to
pay the amounts a judge decided he should; certainly not the amount that
is *necessary*. With traffic tickets and the like, the fine is always a
stable number. If failure to pay results in arrest, the fine is
customarily doubled (the original fine and the new one of failure to
pay). With C$, the amount continually grows exponentially. Not only does
the monthly amount continue, but the interest alone makes it
near-impossible to get caught up, much less pay it off. In other words,
no other debt is handled like C$; and no other debt is without
accountability as is C$. In all debts in civil court, the claimant must
show how and why the money is owed. With C$, the amount is established
out of thin air and assumed to be correct, even if the money never
benefits the children to which is it supposedly meant to support.
Asking for "a simple yes or no... " is not always possible and in
comparisons of two entirely separate things, unwise. There are two
distinctly different forms of law: criminal and civil. C$ is a civil
action, traffic penalties and fines for misdemeanors and felonies are
criminal actions (traffic is handled different than other crimes but it
is still a criminal action). C$ is the only CIVIL action that a man can
be jailed for not paying. No matter how many millions of dollars in debt
a person becomes or how long they refuse to pay it, they can never be
jailed for not paying them... except when the debt is child support.
This remains true no matter that the judge uses "contempt of court" as a
subterfuge to jail the offender, for the entire reason for jailing is
that he refused -or- was unable to pay the original "debt".
Now, if you'd like to answer, there are MANY questions that you have
been asked that you have yet to address. So many, in fact, I don't even
know where to start.
I guess the obvious place is to hear how you know so many intimate
details about this man and woman that were not addressed in the original
article or in anything posted since.
Phil #3
DB
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in
> They said 12 grand, didn't they? And if he got penalties and interest
because he tried to avoid paying, he deserves them, the rest of the
world understands what happens when you don't pay your bills, why
shouldn't those rules apply to him?
The rest of the world understands that everyone must go out and work for
themselves and not expect handouts or other people to solve their own
personal problems.
CS is not about all men walking out on their kids!
Bob W
========
CS is not a debt. Your question is based on an erroneous assumption that CS
is a debt.
Chris
--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
.
.
"X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
Chris
teachrmama
On Jul 21, 1:05 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
> OMG, it is hilarious to see you posting that about another poster,
> considering all the stuff you made up about the guy in the article (and
> his
> exwife, for that matter) and have absolutely no way of backing up!
XXX: Stuff I made up? Like 6 kids with 6 fathers when the article clearly
stated she had 4 kids, stuff like that? Hospitalizations,
incarcerations unemployment plus every other excuse you made for the
guy who didn't pay his child support. In case you don't know, those
things were just made up from scratch, there was no mention of any of
those things in the article.
=========================
Those weren't aboutthe people in the article. Those were questions for you
about your opinion of the CS system, since you obiviously immediately
assumed the worst about the father mentioned in this article, and assumed
that there would be no good excuse for a man not paying his child support.
You never did answer any questions along those lines. **AND** you also
never answered any questions about the things you **made up**!! Auch as
that the dad was hiding, and the mother was supporting the 4 children.
===========================
I see how you tried your best to avoid the topic here, since it
obviously goes against the rules to think for yourself. Try it again
*Are there other debts besides child support which can land you in
jail?* No need to reply with a diatribe of lies and stories, a simple
yes or no would be best.
=====================
I never made the statement that there are no other debts besides child
support that can land you in jail. But the fact is that debtors prison is
against the law in this country. Go ahead. Look it up.
teachrmama
I have come to the point where I find this person hilarious. Sad, but
hilarious. She refuses to answer any questions, insists that *we* deal with
"only the article," but includes all the stuff she made up as part of the
article! On top of that, she acts as if all of us are one person, rather
than a group of individuals, and demands that each of us answer questions
about what other people posted, without regard to who posted the info she is
questioning. She is a lot like that guy who was posting a few months ago
about how "his experience" has shown that "most men" are glad not only to
pay the required amounts, but over and above, and that "any man" who objects
must be some kind of scum. And that, were he to find himself in the
position of being charged an unreasonable amount of CS (which would never
happen because his wife couldn't survive without him), he would simply go to
court and discuss it reasonably and logically with the judge, and the judge
would fix it to his satisfaction. <chuckle>
dtom...@aol.com
> "X...@XXX.COM" <dtomba...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f0a5dfbc-890e-4370...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 1:05 am, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
>
> > OMG, it is hilarious to see you posting that about another poster,
> > considering all the stuff you made up about the guy in the article
> > (and his
> > exwife, for that matter) and have absolutely no way of backing up!
>
> Stuff I made up? Like 6 kids with 6 fathers when the article clearly
> stated she had 4 kids, stuff like that? Hospitalizations,
> incarcerations unemployment plus every other excuse you made for the
> guy who didn't pay his child support. In case you don't know, those
> things were just made up from scratch, there was no mention of any of
> those things in the article.
>
> *******************************************************
> Clearly, you do not understand the difference between 'possibility',
> 'probablity' and 'prejudice'.
Did you answer the question? It was a yes no question and you spent
some time creating a giant pile of bullshit. You can't answer a yes no
question? Will a simple yes crack the shell of lies you are creating?
Answer the question with a real answer or stop trying to be a part of
civilized society.
dtom...@aol.com
> "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:D6-dnRywdaj9ARnV...@earthlink.com...
>
>
> > Stuff I made up? Like 6 kids with 6 fathers when the article clearly
> > stated she had 4 kids, stuff like that? Hospitalizations,
> > incarcerations unemployment plus every other excuse you made for the
> > guy who didn't pay his child support. In case you don't know, those
> > things were just made up from scratch, there was no mention of any of
> > those things in the article.
>
> > *******************************************************
>
> I have come to the point where I find this person hilarious.
No, you feel stupid and you don't want to admit to being dishonest in
front of the choir so you are going to lie and flail and avoid giving
honest answers until you bore me and leave you to your choir. Then you
can go back and pretend you proved something to someone about freeing
fathers from paying their bills. I am sure your cabal of losers and
victims will cheer you on, because they don't seem to have much going
on for the most part. My question is simple, you can answer it and
follow the conversation or divert the conversation to things you know
your choir will support. Choose the latter and you know you are one of
the deadbeat lying losers, you can be the king of the deadbeat lying
losers though. Choose the former and you might have a shot at living
in reality. The choice is yours. I think you are a liar and dumber
than most of the people who post here, based on your posting, not a
personal attack, you just seem very stupid.
Since I'm not interested in circular arguments with idiots, I will
respond when you make a post that is an honest response to my
question.
Give it a shot, honesty can be liberating.
teachrmama
==============================
Will you ever get to the point of admitting that you made up all the things
you did about the father hiding and the mother supporting the children
alone? You did make all that up. It is not in the article. People brought
up other possibilities for what may have happened, but you **insist** he was
hiding. You **insist** she was supporting 4 children alone. No proof--just
made up stuff. Not even identified as *possibilities,* as some of the
reasons he might not have paid were. You insist they were facts from the
story. Now stop dodging, and either admit you made it up, or prove it!
dtom...@aol.com
> ========
> CS is not a debt. Your question is based on an erroneous assumption that CS
> is a debt.
Wow, you have to be pretty deep in denial and a huge liar to even
float this trial balloon. Child support is a debt, you have to pay it,
try to grow up and get over it.
dtom...@aol.com
> =====================
> I never made the statement that there are no other debts besides child
> support that can land you in jail. But the fact is that debtors prison is
> against the law in this country. Go ahead. Look it up.
Then why are you wasting your time trying to defend an idiot who tried
to make that claim? Is this part of the cabal's rules? You must lie
and spin anytime someone says anything that isn't in the handbook or
risk losing your victim status?
Bob W
=====
CS is not a debt. It is a money judgment that accrues monthly.
Stick around. You might learn something.
teachrmama
On Jul 21, 9:21 pm, "teachrmama" <teachrm...@iwon.com> wrote:
> "Phil" <f...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:D6-dnRywdaj9ARnV...@earthlink.com...
>
>
> > Stuff I made up? Like 6 kids with 6 fathers when the article clearly
> > stated she had 4 kids, stuff like that? Hospitalizations,
> > incarcerations unemployment plus every other excuse you made for the
> > guy who didn't pay his child support. In case you don't know, those
> > things were just made up from scratch, there was no mention of any of
> > those things in the article.
>
> > *******************************************************
>
> I have come to the point where I find this person hilarious.
No, you feel stupid and you don't want to admit to being dishonest in
front of the choir so you are going to lie and flail and avoid giving
honest answers until you bore me and leave you to your choir.
====================
<snicker> You really are funny. The ONLY person here who made any claims
about that article that cannot be proved is **YOU**. Somehow you think that
if you conntineu to lash out at everyone else, the rest of us will forget
the fact that you **made up** the fact that the man in the article was
hiding. That you **made up** the fact that the mother (who wasn't even
mentioned in the articel) was working to support her 4 children alone.
========================
Then you
can go back and pretend you proved something to someone about freeing
fathers from paying their bills.
==========
Go ahead and prove where I in any way tried to free any father from paying
any bill. Dare ya!
======================
I am sure your cabal of losers and
victims will cheer you on, because they don't seem to have much going
on for the most part. My question is simple, you can answer it and
follow the conversation
===========
You mean the conversation about you making up facts?
==================
or divert the conversation to things you know
your choir will support. Choose the latter and you know you are one of
the deadbeat lying losers, you can be the king of the deadbeat lying
losers though. Choose the former and you might have a shot at living
in reality. The choice is yours. I think you are a liar and dumber
than most of the people who post here, based on your posting, not a
personal attack, you just seem very stupid.
====================
<snicker> Oh. Now I see. "Living in reality" means accepting your made up
facts as real. LOLOLOL
===========================
Since I'm not interested in circular arguments with idiots, I will
respond when you make a post that is an honest response to my
question.
Give it a shot, honesty can be liberating.
=======================
It would probably help **you** to take your own advice and admit that you
made up the "facts" about the dad hiding and the mom supporting 4 children
alone.
teachrmama
===============
First of all, you misunderstood what he was saying, and never did bother to
try to understand.
Second, he does not need me to defend him, nor did I do so on that particlar
issue anywhere in this thread. I was far more interested in your bigotry
and your made-up "facts."
DB
"Bob W" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:HMOdnVPX3J1n0hjV...@giganews.com...
Isn't it wonderful to have the government ram down our throats what they
think we should have to spend on our children. Maybe triple XXX would like
the idea of total government control on everything that effects us from
forced Retirement savings to medical care payments.
It's people like her that think they can pick and choose what is right for
other people, but doesn't apply to themselves.
Once you start giving the government control over it's citizens, there is no
turning back.
Phil
**********************************************
While you yourself ignore almost all questions from others, substituting
instead more sexism, unfounded beliefs and fabricated stories.
In order to demand answers, it is mandatory to ANSWER those put to you.
*********************************************
Give it a shot, honesty can be liberating.
******************************************
How would YOU know?
*****************************************
Phil #3
Phil
*************************************
Yes, I did answer the question you just didn't like the answer so, you
conveniently snipped it, which is typical for one who is intellectually
dishonest and morally bankrupt.
And no, it *wasn't* a 'yes or no question', for instance if I ask you
"are you still an idiot?", THAT is every bit as much a "yes or no
question?" as yours.
As you have proven time and time again, you are dishonest. You refuse to
answer questions such as how you know so much about these two people
then try to chastise others for giving the "correct" answer to your
questions. You even reject the answers given because it doesn't fit with
your prejudice.
Besides, you don't actually deserve an answer until you answer some of
those that have been put to you so many times by so many people.
Phil #3
Phil
"DB" <Dee...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:5Ichk.16030$uE5....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Bob W" <rob...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:HMOdnVPX3J1n0hjV...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "X...@XXX.COM" <dtom...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:e77d4852-9c64-4bb5...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 21, 2:31 pm, "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>> ========
>>> CS is not a debt. Your question is based on an erroneous assumption
>>> that CS
>>> is a debt.
>>
>> Wow, you have to be pretty deep in denial and a huge liar to even
>> float this trial balloon. Child support is a debt, you have to pay
>> it,
>> try to grow up and get over it.
>>
>> =====
>> CS is not a debt. It is a money judgment that accrues monthly.
>>
>> Stick around. You might learn something.
>
> Isn't it wonderful to have the government ram down our throats what
> they think we should have to spend on our children. Maybe triple XXX
> would like the idea of total government control on everything that
> effects us from forced Retirement savings to medical care payments.
Yep, that's what socialists do.
"For her according to her needs, from him according to his ability."
>
> It's people like her that think they can pick and choose what is right
> for other people, but doesn't apply to themselves.
And that's what hypocrites do. Like the ones that demand I not smoke
while driving a gas guzzling and polluting cars, which are little more
than a symbol of their superior status.
> Once you start giving the government control over it's citizens, there
> is no turning back.
>
There IS a way back but it is very difficult and costly: revolution. I
hope it doesn't come to that in the US.
Phil #3
Phil
"teachrmama" <teach...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:g63cm...@news2.newsguy.com...
I wish I could say the same. It would be humorous if this was an anomaly
but it is becoming commonplace. There are so many hypocrites and so
little factual information available and in more areas than custody and
C$. Morals in the US has been reduced to a bumper sticker. It is no
longer the answers that give away one's particular bent but the
questions. You can clearly see evidence for that in XXX's myriad
questions (at the same time ignoring uncomfortable questions).
It has been fun, up to the point that s/he is beginning to go over the
edge of sanity. S/he no longer recognizes how bigoted s/he is and seems
to demand that others accept his/her biased conclusions, which were
drawn from the smoggy blue sky. Now it has become pathetic.
Like a feminist, s/he attacks rather than defend. When all else fails,
like a feminist s/he uses ad hominems to construct their house of cards
in some vain attempt to deflect their obvious sexism while ignoring or
making light of the questions asked them.
You are very possibly correct in your identification; the sexism is the
same.
Phil #3
DB
"Phil" <fa...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>> It's people like her that think they can pick and choose what is right
>> for other people, but doesn't apply to themselves.
>
> And that's what hypocrites do. Like the ones that demand I not smoke while
> driving a gas guzzling and polluting cars, which are little more than a
> symbol of their superior status.
It's amusing to watch this same government that promises to look after the
children with their draconian CS laws and turn around and fuck those same
children with their debt load and idiot war games.
It's interesting how the entire population are feeling the pinch with just a
couple hundred extra dollars at the pumps and this government throws money a
them by means of a stimulus package with a second one on the way.
Mean while millions of fathers have been bankrupt by these loonies and
nobody even gives it a glance!
Dusty
Vive la Revolution! (just don't start the bloody thing without me, eh?)