FARK.com: (6639274) Joe Walsh (R-Illinois): "I had a verbal agreement with my ex NOT to pay child support." That counts, right? RIGHT?

		Joe Walsh (R-Illinois): "I had a verbal agreement with my ex NOT to pay child support." That counts, right? RIGHT? (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com)		104
		More: Followup, Rep. Joe Walsh, child support

• • •

2184 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Oct 2011 at 6:54 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6639274

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

104 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

hatelabs

2011-10-12 01:53:44 PM

PLAY ROCKY MOUNTAIN WAY!!

Brandyelf

2011-10-12 01:58:36 PM

If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist.

Dumbass.

FlashHarry

2011-10-12 02:15:33 PM

life's been good to him so far. he should share the wealth.

Runs_With_Scissors_

2011-10-12 02:16:46 PM

Bwhahahahahaha!!!

Wait... Think about it: We have a Congresscritter on the Hill who says a verbal agreement can override a court order.

He's either inexcusably ignorant or lying. Neither are acceptable.

xenophon10k

2011-10-12 02:17:56 PM

[bender-oh-wait-you're-serious-let-me-laugh-even-harder.jpg]

Aarontology

2011-10-12 02:27:01 PM

See?

They had an agreement for him to be a shiatty father.

GAT_00

2011-10-12 02:32:54 PM

$10 says he gets away with it.

olddeegee

2011-10-12 02:36:35 PM

" A verbal contract is as good as the paper it's written on." Jack Warner (?)

Vodka Zombie

2011-10-12 03:03:33 PM

Sometimes you just have to sit and marvel at the stupidity of Republicans.

jchic

2011-10-12 03:14:50 PM

GAT_00: $10 says he gets away with it.

No bet!

mauricecano

2011-10-12 03:25:09 PM

Child support is the right of the child, not the parent. This is why in virtually every state the parent's can't simply "agree" to no child support, it deprives the child to their right to the support. The parents are only guardians.

thomps

2011-10-12 03:51:41 PM

coco ebert

2011-10-12 03:55:55 PM

gilgigamesh

2011-10-12 03:59:25 PM

Runs_With_Scissors_: Bwhahahahahaha!!!

Wait... Think about it: We have a Congresscritter on the Hill who says a verbal agreement can override a court order.

He's either inexcusably ignorant or lying. Neither are acceptable.

Actually it possibly could if it was a consent judgment, and it doesn't restrict the parties from verbally amending the agreement.

But not as to child support, as mauricecano described.

gilgigamesh

2011-10-12 04:01:49 PM

Oh wait, this was actually argued in a pleading? I thought he was just commenting on it when asked.

Forget what I said and sanction his ass. Him and his lawyer both.

Headso

2011-10-12 04:05:05 PM

is that the you lie guy?

unlikely

2011-10-12 04:12:56 PM

Yet another zinger from the party that brings you "legislating morality", "family values", and JAY-Zus.

Elandriel

2011-10-12 04:24:46 PM

As an aside, I have a verbal agreement with this congressman to give me 50% of his earnings, equally as valid no?

kingoomieiii

2011-10-12 04:26:51 PM

Headso: is that the you lie guy?

Different Joe.

MisterTweak

2011-10-12 04:33:02 PM

Defending the sanctity of sanctimony.

I think it's time to start reminding these infantile twits: That whole "till death do you part" thing? How 'bout you stick to that, eh?

Calmamity

2011-10-12 04:43:06 PM

MisterTweak: That whole "till death do you part" thing? How 'bout you stick to that, eh?

Personal responsibility and moral fortitude are for poor people.

thomps

2011-10-12 04:45:36 PM

Calmamity: MisterTweak: That whole "till death do you part" thing? How 'bout you stick to that, eh?

Personal responsibility and moral fortitude are for poor people.

whoa whoa whoa there. playing a little fast and loose with the word "people" there, aren't you?

Nadie_AZ

2011-10-12 04:58:07 PM

Joe, no. Just no. You dipshiat, she can say whatever you want her to say, but until she files the paperwork and the Family Court decides you aren't dick enough to be pushing her around, then you are stuck.

Pay up, asshole*.

_{/*could care less about party affiliation, here}

cmunic8r99

2011-10-12 05:23:23 PM

GAT_00: $10 says he gets away with it.

IIRC, Illinois judges don't much like their orders ignored - especially when it comes to child support.

The Onanist

2011-10-12 05:24:42 PM

Nadie_AZ:

/*could care less about party affiliation, here

How much less COULD you care??

Ennuipoet

2011-10-12 05:56:14 PM

Don Henley will NOT stand for this!

Bathia_Mapes

2011-10-12 06:12:55 PM

Child support is for the benefit of the children. Even if his ex-wife had made a verbal agreement, which I highly doubt, the rights of her children override that agreement.

Also, if there was a verbal agreement for Walsh not to pay child support, why is she taking him to court for non-payment of said support? That does not compute.

GAT_00

2011-10-12 06:15:40 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Also, if there was a verbal agreement for Walsh not to pay child support, why is she taking him to court for non-payment of said support? That does not compute.

I'm guessing his argument would be she's a lying biatch and probably a Democrat, so she doesn't deserve the money.

Bathia_Mapes

2011-10-12 06:31:36 PM

GAT_00: Bathia_Mapes: Also, if there was a verbal agreement for Walsh not to pay child support, why is she taking him to court for non-payment of said support? That does not compute.

I'm guessing his argument would be she's a lying biatch and probably a Democrat, so she doesn't deserve the money.

Yeah, I'm sure that would convince the judge to side with him.

Rent Party

2011-10-12 06:56:59 PM

fuhfuhfuh

2011-10-12 06:59:55 PM

Well, it is his word against hers... and we all know how honest politicians are.

theorellior

2011-10-12 07:01:16 PM

Do as I say, not as I do.

Karac

2011-10-12 07:01:29 PM

Hey - I'm not a deadbeat dad. I'm just a farking moron for not getting her to put it in writing!

\Paid for by the Committee to Re-elect Joe Walsh

Guidette Frankentits

2011-10-12 07:01:46 PM

My friend had one too. He didn't get screwed over at all. Now he has custody.

CSB

Ed Finnerty

2011-10-12 07:02:12 PM

Does he not Value his Family?

JohnnyC

2011-10-12 07:02:31 PM

Bathia_Mapes: Child support is for the benefit of the children.

Theoretically. However, there is no accounting for what is done with the money once it is handed over. As an example, my ex has a tendency to buy herself nice things with the money I pay. About the only way it is for the benefit of my child is that my ex MAY be slightly less abusive when she has a constant influx of nice things for herself. But there is no guarantee on that either.

stutte2

2011-10-12 07:02:48 PM

"You're not getting a frigging dime!" Doesn't equal a verbal agreement.

Mike Chewbacca

2011-10-12 07:02:52 PM

mauricecano: Child support is the right of the child, not the parent. This is why in virtually every state the parent's can't simply "agree" to no child support, it deprives the child to their right to the support. The parents are only guardians.

That's not necessarily true. My cousin agreed to no child support so long as her loser ex-husband agreed to never seek custody of the kid. Since his lack of interest in his son was a major reason for their divorce, he quickly agreed. She's now marrying some other dude, and that dude is adopting her son. The kid even calls him daddy, and he's the only daddy the kid has ever known.

/Hawaii, if anyone is curious

I hate Chevy

2011-10-12 07:05:12 PM

Most agreements are verbal.

/romero

FlashHarry

2011-10-12 07:06:58 PM

The Onanist: Nadie_AZ:

/*could care less about party affiliation, here

How much less COULD you care??

i46.tinypic.com

/pet peeve

Nina_Hartley's_Ass

2011-10-12 07:07:57 PM

Ed Finnerty: Does he not Value his Family?

Have you seen his kid?

image.com.com

stutte2

2011-10-12 07:08:04 PM

I hate Chevy: Most agreements are verbal.

/romero

And most Verbals are Keyser Soze.

Liberal_With_a_Gun

2011-10-12 07:10:07 PM

Good thing he's not a part of the "Family Values Party" of this would be soooooooooooooo embarrassing.

/Oh...wait...

I hate Chevy

2011-10-12 07:13:14 PM

stutte2: I hate Chevy: Most agreements are verbal.

/romero

And most Verbals are Keyser Soze.

He had immunity.

cryinoutloud

2011-10-12 07:15:11 PM

Of course. If you can't trust your ex, who can you trust?

/boy I learned that the hard way

Ed Finnerty

2011-10-12 07:15:13 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ed Finnerty: Does he not Value his Family?

Have you seen his kid?

[image.com.com image 640x443]

Yes and I have looked at what he can do. I must say, I wasn't impressed.

Grungehamster

2011-10-12 07:15:38 PM

gilgigamesh: Oh wait, this was actually argued in a pleading? I thought he was just commenting on it when asked.

Forget what I said and sanction his ass. Him and his lawyer both.

I love that he is rather explicit that he claims his ex-wife told him he didn't have to pay child support because she was tired of wasting the money and time taking him to court to try to get him to pay child support. Even his own version of events paints him as a major league asshole.

PonceAlyosha

2011-10-12 07:20:15 PM

duffman13

2011-10-12 07:21:52 PM

He's just an ordinary average guy

Car_Ramrod

2011-10-12 07:22:41 PM

Grungehamster: gilgigamesh: Oh wait, this was actually argued in a pleading? I thought he was just commenting on it when asked.

Forget what I said and sanction his ass. Him and his lawyer both.

I love that he is rather explicit that he claims his ex-wife told him he didn't have to pay child support because she was tired of wasting the money and time taking him to court to try to get him to pay child support. Even his own version of events paints him as a major league asshole.

Holy shiat, you're not kidding.

"Joe and his former wife were both tired of court appearances and the resulting emotional and financial impact on the family. Neither party had the financial or emotional wherewithal to continue the battle."

then

Her attorney denied the claim, as well as Mr. Walsh's office's claim that the suit is "an attempt to tarnish the Congressman's reputation" timed to his emergence as a public figure.

According to her attorney, she only launched the latest effort to collect the money after the then-candidate lent his campaign $34,000, indicating that he had significantly more cash than he had let on.

So he dragged the battle out, lied and said he didn't have any money, then gave himself $34k. It's not her fault if the truth tarnishes his reputation.

Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.