If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Not News: Wife sues ex for missing child support payments. News: He did pay, it was a paperwork screw up. Fark: Judge orders him to pay ex's lawyer bill and throws him in jail for refusing   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 245
    More: Asinine, mr hall, child support payments, Texas, child support, contempt of court, miscarriage of justice  
•       •       •

13724 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2014 at 3:45 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-12 03:45:58 PM
Another win for feminism.
 
2014-01-12 03:47:38 PM
And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.
 
2014-01-12 03:49:04 PM
I wish I could say I was surprised.
 
2014-01-12 03:49:17 PM
A female judge. Colour me surprised.
 
2014-01-12 03:49:37 PM

Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.


I can't imagine why...
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-01-12 03:50:11 PM
His fault for being male
/and brown in Texas
 
2014-01-12 03:50:27 PM
This website.  This community.  This Fark.  How much longer can we be expected to go on without a "Texas" tag?
 
2014-01-12 03:51:20 PM
And a Daily Fail article contradicts its own headline in 3...2...
 
2014-01-12 03:52:09 PM

Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.


THIS
 
GBB
2014-01-12 03:52:26 PM
Is he black?

<clicks link>

www.pnn.dk
 
2014-01-12 03:52:38 PM

gja: His fault for being male
/and brown in Texas


I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.
 
2014-01-12 03:52:43 PM
Can't tell if patriarchy or just dumb./Not really. Just dumb.
 
2014-01-12 03:56:59 PM
C*nt Punt.
 
2014-01-12 03:57:10 PM
this is why you don't get married
 
2014-01-12 03:57:26 PM
I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.
 
2014-01-12 03:58:10 PM

Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.


Oldiron_79: THIS


WTF does marriage have to do with child support?

Goddam, there's been a lot of Fail submitted this weekend. Did they start sponsoring again?
 
2014-01-12 03:58:28 PM

Joe USer: gja: His fault for being male
/and brown in Texas

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.


Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

Talk about sticking in the wound.
 
2014-01-12 04:00:42 PM

Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.


I would pay attention. Quanell X is the strongest anti-dandruff shampoo you can buy without a prescription.
 
2014-01-12 04:01:48 PM

Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.


It's a good thing young men don't engage in pre-marital sex that could result in the conception of a child. That whole 'no marriage' thing is a foolproof method of avoiding a situation like this man is in.

I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times. Whether he was not 'told' about any of this, as he claims is dubious. He's not going to admit he knew and simply did not comply. It's easier to say he was never told to begin with.

But he's on appeal, so even though the court system is claimed to have 'broken down', and the Daily Fail is obviously trying to work the 'miscarriage of justice' angle on this -- the court system is working as intended.

Of course walking out on a judge in her courtroom when issued a contempt of court charge isn't going to win him any favors.

But sure, let's go with the "he's brown in Texas, therefore the system is stacked against him" defense. When it's pretty obvious there's way more to the story than the article lets on.
 
2014-01-12 04:01:57 PM

Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.


I find the unbiased opinion of anyone named X to be spurious at best.
 
2014-01-12 04:03:54 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.


He walked out because he was found in contempt of court.  He was found in contempt for not following court ordered visitation times.  He didn't follow court ordered visitation times because he "didn't know" about them.
 
2014-01-12 04:04:27 PM
Just playing devil's advocate here : I would assume that he was warned more than once by his wife, the child support office, and probably his wife's attorney BEFORE they went to the trouble of taking him to court.  Had he paid up prior to being dragged in to court (even though the initial error was not his) there would be no reason for him to pay the attorney's fees.  He waited until the court date was set, paid up, and then walked into the court thinking that he was free and clear.  Surprise - the lawyers are still getting paid for having to show up.

Not to mention the fact that he walked out on a judge.  I don't care who you are.  A judge will fark your day up for disrespecting them in their court room.  This is not really about a man getting gamed by the child support system.  It is more about some dumbass who got dragged to court and then pissed in the judge's corn flakes.
 
2014-01-12 04:05:17 PM

KidneyStone: Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.

I find the unbiased opinion of anyone named X to be spurious at best.


Especially Professor X. I heard he's a mutant.
 
2014-01-12 04:06:40 PM
This has nothing to do with marriage. If you want to stay out of this kind trouble then no pussy for you.
 
2014-01-12 04:08:04 PM

thamike: TheEdibleSnuggie: Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

He walked out because he was found in contempt of court.  He was found in contempt for not following court ordered visitation times.  He didn't follow court ordered visitation times because he "didn't know" about them.


And regardless of what you're charged with/convicted on/whatever, you never walk out on a judge in the middle of a hearing. That's not just a social faux pas, it's another count of contempt of court. You never piss off or disrespect the judge no matter how badly you get screwed. Appeals, new trials, etc. are all part of the system and are there to help people who were wrongly convicted, discriminated against, etc., but that's for later, when emotions are cool and your lawyer(s) can work out a strategy.

Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.
 
2014-01-12 04:08:17 PM

KidneyStone: Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.

I find the unbiased opinion of anyone named X to be spurious at best.


I'm not going to be the one to tell Racer X his opinion is suspect.
 
2014-01-12 04:09:14 PM
But it's a Texan... can we call it a wash?
 
2014-01-12 04:10:23 PM

vodka: This has nothing to do with marriage. If you want to stay out of this kind trouble then no pussy for you.


Child support is the dark knight of the gay agenda...

On a less crazy note, this screws over the mother too. He can't pay child support from jail.
 
2014-01-12 04:11:14 PM

Weatherkiss: thamike: TheEdibleSnuggie: Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

He walked out because he was found in contempt of court.  He was found in contempt for not following court ordered visitation times.  He didn't follow court ordered visitation times because he "didn't know" about them.

And regardless of what you're charged with/convicted on/whatever, you never walk out on a judge in the middle of a hearing. That's not just a social faux pas, it's another count of contempt of court. You never piss off or disrespect the judge no matter how badly you get screwed. Appeals, new trials, etc. are all part of the system and are there to help people who were wrongly convicted, discriminated against, etc., but that's for later, when emotions are cool and your lawyer(s) can work out a strategy.

Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.


Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.
 
2014-01-12 04:12:15 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: He can't pay child support from jail.


Don't worry, though, he'll still owe it. I'm sure the system will make accommodations for him...
 
2014-01-12 04:14:08 PM
3 - sues Judge and plaintiffs attorneys and makes back 2x what he lost
 
2014-01-12 04:15:27 PM

Weatherkiss: I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times.


Generally speaking you can't be criminally punished for failing to meet visitation orders -- that's a civil decree. Typically the most extreme judgement possible would be a loss of custody or visitation.

Contempt of court can certainly get in thrown in jail, though it's not clear how 6 months of unemployment will improve this situation. I'm sure the guy with a dick to the judge, but exactly what benefit does his punishment provide society or his son?
 
2014-01-12 04:15:45 PM
I read the article. All is not as it seems. 1. He didn't pay on time. 2. She had to take legal action

He wants to blame his employer for his not paying on time and correctly.

He only got caught up when he was headed to court.

Sorry Dad. That kid is YOUR responsibility. And not just when it looks like you are headed to court.
 
2014-01-12 04:16:29 PM
MusicMakeMyHeadPound:  On a less crazy note, this screws over the mother too. He can't pay child support from jail.

You're joking right?  They'll just ad it to his tab and expect him to write a check 5 minutes after stepping off the prison yard.
 
2014-01-12 04:16:47 PM

thamike: Weatherkiss: thamike: TheEdibleSnuggie: Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

He walked out because he was found in contempt of court.  He was found in contempt for not following court ordered visitation times.  He didn't follow court ordered visitation times because he "didn't know" about them.

And regardless of what you're charged with/convicted on/whatever, you never walk out on a judge in the middle of a hearing. That's not just a social faux pas, it's another count of contempt of court. You never piss off or disrespect the judge no matter how badly you get screwed. Appeals, new trials, etc. are all part of the system and are there to help people who were wrongly convicted, discriminated against, etc., but that's for later, when emotions are cool and your lawyer(s) can work out a strategy.

Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.


Well he's black and in Texas, it's the judge's fault for not taking his skin color into consideration when he blatantly disrespects her and her courtroom by walking out on her. You know how "those people" are when they get angry and emotional, so clearly he deserves a mulligan for being black and in Texas.
 
2014-01-12 04:16:57 PM

Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.


They should be shunning unprotected sex.
 
2014-01-12 04:17:40 PM

untaken_name: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: He can't pay child support from jail.

Don't worry, though, he'll still owe it. I'm sure the system will make accommodations for him...


When he gets out and goes back to his job (which no doubt will still be waiting for him) they can just garnish his wages for what he missed.
 
2014-01-12 04:18:00 PM
Sure, assuming his claims of ignorance is true, he lost my sympathy when he walked out of the courtroom.

You piss of a judge like that on purpose then you're gonna get hammered.
 
2014-01-12 04:20:28 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.


Rule one:  DON'T PISS OFF THE JUDGE>
 
2014-01-12 04:20:57 PM

itsaidwhat: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

They should be shunning unprotected sex.


With women.
 
2014-01-12 04:21:09 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: vodka: This has nothing to do with marriage. If you want to stay out of this kind trouble then no pussy for you.

Child support is the dark knight of the gay agenda...

On a less crazy note, this screws over the mother too. He can't pay child support from jail.


And maybe he won't make any more unfunded babies either..
 
2014-01-12 04:21:35 PM

profplump: Weatherkiss: I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times.

Generally speaking you can't be criminally punished for failing to meet visitation orders -- that's a civil decree. Typically the most extreme judgement possible would be a loss of custody or visitation.

Contempt of court can certainly get in thrown in jail, though it's not clear how 6 months of unemployment will improve this situation. I'm sure the guy with a dick to the judge, but exactly what benefit does his punishment provide society or his son?


In theory, a foreseeable future of timely child support payments and fewer lapses in memory and judgment.
 
2014-01-12 04:21:47 PM
Q: What's the difference between the judge in question and her ruling?

A: The ruling was a cunning stunt.
 
2014-01-12 04:24:10 PM
weknowmemes.com
 
2014-01-12 04:26:27 PM
At that point I'd move to Vietnam or some other place without extradition.
 
2014-01-12 04:27:17 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-12 04:28:27 PM
Married or not - this would have played out the same way.  Not getting married will avoid you alimony; not child support.  And child support is based on your ability to pay, not what a child needs - so it might as well be alimony.
 
2014-01-12 04:28:29 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: KidneyStone: Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.

I find the unbiased opinion of anyone named X to be spurious at best.

Especially Professor X. I heard he's a mutant.


But chemical X is made of sugar and spice and everything nice
 
2014-01-12 04:29:24 PM

profplump: Weatherkiss: I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times.

Generally speaking you can't be criminally punished for failing to meet visitation orders -- that's a civil decree. Typically the most extreme judgement possible would be a loss of custody or visitation.

Contempt of court can certainly get in thrown in jail, though it's not clear how 6 months of unemployment will improve this situation. I'm sure the guy with a dick to the judge, but exactly what benefit does his punishment provide society or his son?


You're right. Generally speaking this shouldn't have happened if the article presents it the way it is. But we don't know the whole story (by design, of course). I seriously doubt he was withheld important court documentation filled with information on what is expected of him in order to comply with a court order.

I also seriously doubt that he was never warned beforehand. I also seriously doubt he was not re-sent the same court orders on one or more occasions to ensure he was aware of what the mandate says.

But I don't know the whole story, however it's ridiculous for any legal system to waste people's time and money on an innocent man who 'fell through the cracks' of the legal system. It's possible a civil decree didn't work out between him and his ex, but if a court orders you to do something or not do something (even if it's a civil decree like child visitation), you do it or you stall for time using the appeals process. If you can't convince them and exhaust your appeals, you do whatever it is the judge states or you get faced with contempt of court.

I know Texas law is pretty draconian, but the article states the visitation was ordered by the court. Which tells me he was probably guilty of either being unwilling or unable to comply with a civil agreement between he and his ex -- possibly on multiple occasions. Which would make a court order the only real way to get him to comply.

I do agree with the sentiment that the man being sent to jail for six months does absolutely nothing beneficial for the child, and I think that sticking point should be used as the main part of his appeal process. Because regardless of his contempt of court charge, if the lawyers can convince the judge that her ruling will end up harming the child, it might be the only way for the conviction to be overturned and a reduced sentence imposed.
 
2014-01-12 04:32:43 PM
Might be worth reading, too:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/childsupport.asp

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"
 
2014-01-12 04:35:43 PM

profplump: Contempt of court can certainly get in thrown in jail, though it's not clear how 6 months of unemployment will improve this situation. I'm sure the guy with a dick to the judge, but exactly what benefit does his punishment provide society or his son?


Six months for simple contempt seems _way_ out of bounds. I'm expecting the appeals court will slap the judge down on this.
 
2014-01-12 04:36:46 PM

Fano: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: KidneyStone: Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.

I find the unbiased opinion of anyone named X to be spurious at best.

Especially Professor X. I heard he's a mutant.

But chemical X is made of sugar and spice and everything nice


And Terminator X is the best DJ in hop hop history.
 
2014-01-12 04:39:55 PM

Snarfangel: Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.

I would pay attention. Quanell X is the strongest anti-dandruff shampoo you can buy without a prescription.


I don't know why, but I thought this was hilarious! I had to bite my lip to keep from laughing WAAYY too loud.

Kudos.
 
2014-01-12 04:40:58 PM

thamike: Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.



So him walking out prevents the judge from actually looking at the facts of the case before her?
 
2014-01-12 04:42:29 PM
Three cheers for Feminism
 
2014-01-12 04:43:47 PM

silverjets: thamike: Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.


So him walking out prevents the judge from actually looking at the facts of the case before her?


Yes.
 
2014-01-12 04:44:57 PM
I figured it would someone successful and attractive.

Not surprising in Texas.
 
2014-01-12 04:46:03 PM
See kids, this is why you go gay. In most states you still can't get married so no chance of a costly divorce, and you can't impregnate someone of the same sex so no possibility of having to pay child support.

/never once got my boyfriend pregnant.
 
2014-01-12 04:47:59 PM

silverjets: thamike: Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.


So him walking out prevents the judge from actually looking at the facts of the case before her?


It allows her to avoid reconsidering the case. A judge can be as lenient or as much as an asshole as they want to be during the initial hearing. It's easier and faster to get the same judge to reconsider the case, re-examine the facts and take another look at the situation. But the judge is not obligated to do so after the original ruling.

If the judge is not willing to reconsider the case, then it goes to the appeals court, which is a lengthier process. The appeals court will re-examine the case and either uphold the judge's ruling or they won't.

It really comes down to how much time the defendant wants to spend in 'the system'. This man decided it was in his best interest to blatantly disrespect the judge -- so expecting her to go out of her way to help him is a little unreasonable. She can if she wants, but why would she now? The guy's an asshole.
 
2014-01-12 04:48:03 PM
No guys, didn't you hear? Men are obsolete now.. Not sure why the all powerful woman needed money.
 
2014-01-12 04:48:31 PM

Fano: But chemical X is made of was next to sugar and spice and everything nice


FTFY.

/still miss that show
 
2014-01-12 04:49:10 PM

Weatherkiss: And regardless of what you're charged with/convicted on/whatever, you never walk out on a judge in the middle of a hearing. That's not just a social faux pas, it's another count of contempt of court. You never piss off or disrespect the judge no matter how badly you get screwed. Appeals, new trials, etc. are all part of the system and are there to help people who were wrongly convicted, discriminated against, etc., but that's for later, when emotions are cool and your lawyer(s) can work out a strategy.

Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.


Well, with a guy named Quarnell X in his corner, maybe he was getting advice that made walking out on the judge seem like a good plan.

On the bright side, Quarnell X now has more 'whitey holding us down' and 'one more reason to ditch your slave name' ammo for his community activism.
 
2014-01-12 04:51:03 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: Joe USer: gja: His fault for being male
/and brown in Texas

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.

Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

Talk about sticking in the wound.


That judge needs to be the one in jail for six months. He paid the child support--it was an admin error. As soon as he knew there was an admin error, he paid... before it went to court. His visitation was changed and he was not notified. I've seen this happen more than once, and not just in Texas. The child's mother pushed this to court, despite having gotten her child support. She needs to pay her own damn lawyer fees and this judge needs to be pulled the hell out of family court--or any court, for that matter. Even the mother's attorney testified twice that the support was paid and that he owed nothing at all. There's some shady, shady shiat going down in this case.

The mother and the judge are crazy biatches. Take the kid away, give him to dad and let mom pay the damn support.
 
2014-01-12 04:52:34 PM

Kooj: Might be worth reading, too:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/childsupport.asp

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"


that helps.  i first read the Fail's version then saw they buried the link to the original Houston article at the bottom so I then read that.  The Fail's version is just the same stuff told in a different order and successfully twisting it's meaning but Houston's version isn't that clear either.  the snopes version acknowledges the lack of clarity in what has actually happened so far (even though i've never heard the part about "overpaying").  i have already "sided" with who I think is at fault but there are too many questions yet to be cleared for me to care too much about this.
 
2014-01-12 04:53:30 PM
Is it last week already?

/repeat.jpg
 
2014-01-12 04:53:53 PM

dfenstrate: Weatherkiss: And regardless of what you're charged with/convicted on/whatever, you never walk out on a judge in the middle of a hearing. That's not just a social faux pas, it's another count of contempt of court. You never piss off or disrespect the judge no matter how badly you get screwed. Appeals, new trials, etc. are all part of the system and are there to help people who were wrongly convicted, discriminated against, etc., but that's for later, when emotions are cool and your lawyer(s) can work out a strategy.

Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Well, with a guy named Quarnell X in his corner, maybe he was getting advice that made walking out on the judge seem like a good plan.


static3.wikia.nocookie.net

In Texas, everyone hates the government. When she issues her ruling, get out of your chair and walk away from her. Like any Texan, she will swoon over you and admire your blatant disregard for the government, overturn your conviction, and force your ex to pay my attorney fees instead. That show of rugged individualism in a court proceeding has no possible way of backfiring.
 
2014-01-12 04:54:06 PM

Brostorm: Three cheers for Feminism


yes.  i have provided 3 of the Bronx variety while typing this.
 
2014-01-12 04:54:23 PM

Joe USer: gja: His fault for being male
/and brown in Texas

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.


"Contempt of court" is the alleged failure to pay up.
 
2014-01-12 04:54:41 PM
Not sure if that was his intent, but Quanell X's involvement immediately makes me feel less sympathy for the guy.
 
2014-01-12 04:55:50 PM
Not that he didn't walk out of the court without being released...
 
2014-01-12 04:58:10 PM
After seeing pics of the dad and "disrespected" judge plus taking into account Texas's geographical location I can pretty much guess why the dad is in jail.
 
2014-01-12 04:58:29 PM

Kooj: Might be worth reading, too:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/childsupport.asp

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"


Still confused... I didn't get the impression that he'd overpaid at all, just that he'd paid the amount owing. Which even Snopes says he had before going to court.

So, if the amount owing is paid in full--which, the reports indicate, and Snopes indicate it was, and the child's mother's attorney testified twice that there was no amount of child support in arrears and Hall was completely current in child support--the contempt charge still doesn't hold water (until he walked out on the judge, at which point a new contempt charge is completely valid... but six months? There are teenaged rapists doing barely more than that in jail. Come the fark on!)
 
2014-01-12 04:59:04 PM

Claude the Dog: Not sure if that was his intent, but Quanell X's involvement immediately makes me feel less sympathy for the guy.


on the contrary.  if anything, i feel more sympathy for the Dad cuz his battle became even more uphill with Quannell in his corner.  he isnt helping in the way the Dad probably hopes for.
 
2014-01-12 05:01:04 PM

Kooj: Might be worth reading, too:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/childsupport.asp

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"


Funny, the article says he was paid up:

Clifford Hall's child support payments are all caught up - he even paid back $3,000 that he says were inadvertently withheld from his ex-wife by his employer prior to the hearing

If some judge held me in Contempt for not paying something I had already paid, I'd feel tempted to walk out of her courtroom, too.
 
2014-01-12 05:01:07 PM

Aigoo: Kooj: Might be worth reading, too:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/childsupport.asp

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"

Still confused... I didn't get the impression that he'd overpaid at all, just that he'd paid the amount owing. Which even Snopes says he had before going to court.

So, if the amount owing is paid in full--which, the reports indicate, and Snopes indicate it was, and the child's mother's attorney testified twice that there was no amount of child support in arrears and Hall was completely current in child support--the contempt charge still doesn't hold water (until he walked out on the judge, at which point a new contempt charge is completely valid... but six months? There are teenaged rapists doing barely more than that in jail. Come the fark on!)


his attorney probably hadn't yet heard of the Affluenza Defense.
 
2014-01-12 05:02:03 PM

thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.


Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.
 
2014-01-12 05:02:30 PM

Joe USer: I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.


Yup.  I would expect him to end up in jail for walking out like that.  You simply do not do that sort of thing.

It does sound like there are some shenanigans going on here, though--two changes he wasn't notified of, and how does a child support change happen without you being aware that it might happen??
 
2014-01-12 05:04:16 PM

The Flexecutioner: Aigoo: Kooj: Might be worth reading, too:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/childsupport.asp

In particular, the CoC was apparently "for failure to pay child support", and, per the Snopes article:

"(Under Texas law, for an obligor to avoid contempt charges in a child support case, he must be current on all child support obligations at the time of the enforcement hearing, not just those originally pled in the motion to enforce.)"

Still confused... I didn't get the impression that he'd overpaid at all, just that he'd paid the amount owing. Which even Snopes says he had before going to court.

So, if the amount owing is paid in full--which, the reports indicate, and Snopes indicate it was, and the child's mother's attorney testified twice that there was no amount of child support in arrears and Hall was completely current in child support--the contempt charge still doesn't hold water (until he walked out on the judge, at which point a new contempt charge is completely valid... but six months? There are teenaged rapists doing barely more than that in jail. Come the fark on!)

his attorney probably hadn't yet heard of the Affluenza Defense.


+10 internets to you, sir. Right after I clean the water out of my keyboard...
 
2014-01-12 05:07:05 PM

Aigoo: TheEdibleSnuggie: Joe USer: gja: His fault for being male
/and brown in Texas

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.

Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

Talk about sticking in the wound.

That judge needs to be the one in jail for six months. He paid the child support--it was an admin error. As soon as he knew there was an admin error, he paid... before it went to court. His visitation was changed and he was not notified. I've seen this happen more than once, and not just in Texas. The child's mother pushed this to court, despite having gotten her child support. She needs to pay her own damn lawyer fees and this judge needs to be pulled the hell out of family court--or any court, for that matter. Even the mother's attorney testified twice that the support was paid and that he owed nothing at all. There's some shady, shady shiat going down in this case.

The mother and the judge are crazy biatches. Take the kid away, give him to dad and let mom pay the damn support.


THAT. A man who wants to be a real father and take responsibility is something to be cherished, not penalized because the judge is petty and his ex is probably some psycho coont out to get him for deciding the relationship wasn't going to work out.
 
2014-01-12 05:08:15 PM

Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.


Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.
 
2014-01-12 05:08:47 PM

Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.


Not being married does not protect one from child support.
 
2014-01-12 05:09:58 PM

thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.


correct.  courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.
 
2014-01-12 05:10:01 PM

Loren: Joe USer: I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.

Yup.  I would expect him to end up in jail for walking out like that.  You simply do not do that sort of thing.

It does sound like there are some shenanigans going on here, though--two changes he wasn't notified of, and how does a child support change happen without you being aware that it might happen??


You know how I know you've never dealt with the state on child support?

My sister's ex ended up behind on his child support for his second ex because it took the state almost 6 months to inform his employer. And yes, his second ex went after him with a vengeance over it. The state took the amount he was behind away from my sister's kids, then went after him after he was caught up for being in arrears on child support to my sister--a situation which they (the state) caused with their shenanigans.

My sister felt sorry for him cause ex number two was such a biatch and told the state to fark off--she'd handle child support with him personally. He willingly helped out here and there until her kids were 21, and still does occasionally. THis is why, ladies, it pays to not be an absolute raging c*nt to the father of your children.
 
2014-01-12 05:10:37 PM

saturn badger: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

Not being married does not protect one from child support.


No but it probably helps avoid some of the malice an ex-wife might bring versus an ex-girlfriend.
 
2014-01-12 05:13:00 PM

Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.


The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.
 
2014-01-12 05:13:34 PM

The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.

correct.  courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.


Yes, not being rewarded for storming out of either completely f*cking defies logic.
 
2014-01-12 05:15:00 PM
Being in the middle of a divorce and related actions that is nearing two years in duration for a marriage that barely made it past four years in length, and where there was no custody issues, I have learned the following:

1) Judges are lazy and overworked and do not read the pleadings you file before a hearing.  Ever.
2) Because the judge hasn't read the motion or the response, the party that filed the motion gets to do all the talking in the hearing, because they have to explain the motion, or in some cases, literally read it out loud to the judge.  By the time they do that, there's not enough time left for the responding party to plead their side of the case.
3) Because the party filing the motion ends up doing all the talking during the hearing, that party usually wins.
4) Judges make up their mind on whose fault it was before the first person opens their mouth.  In most cases, and especially with a female judge, it's the man's fault.  Period.
5) The party with more money pays both attorneys, even if the other side is making stupid motions.
And 6) Once you enter the legal system, there is no escape.  You will be dealing with it for the rest of your life.

My ex-wife literally attached proof she'd committed a felony to a motion she filed against me.  When we pointed that out in the hearing, she immediately withdrew the motion.  When we asked the judge to address the blatant lawbreaking, she decided it was outside her jurisdiction and did nothing.

They don't care.  You just have to walk into that courtroom and figure out how to stroke the judge's ego.  That's it.  There's nothing more to it than that.  Your case will not be evaluated on the facts, merits, or whether anybody followed proper procedure until it reaches the appellate level.
 
2014-01-12 05:15:07 PM

redmid17: saturn badger: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

Not being married does not protect one from child support.

No but it probably helps avoid some of the malice an ex-wife might bring versus an ex-girlfriend.


Or not. Women are farking crazy when they have your child. Some don't even need the child to be psycho. And I say this as a woman who cannot for the life of me understand what runs through the minds of some women. biatches be crazy.
 
2014-01-12 05:15:56 PM

thamike: The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.

correct.  courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.

Yes, not being rewarded for storming out of either completely f*cking defies logic.


no, being punished does not equal being rewarded.  and no, he did not STORM out.  that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.
 
2014-01-12 05:16:33 PM
grr... "not being punished ...."
 
2014-01-12 05:18:11 PM

Slagnasty: See kids, this is why you go gay. In most states you still can't get married so no chance of a costly divorce, and you can't impregnate someone of the same sex so no possibility of having to pay child support.

/never once got my boyfriend pregnant.


If it were only that easy. I tried but the whole "not being aroused by men" thing was a real sticking point. Especially in bed. It was like trying to shoot pool with a rope.

//obscure?
 
2014-01-12 05:20:31 PM

thamike: TheEdibleSnuggie: Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

He walked out because he was found in contempt of court.  He was found in contempt for not following court ordered visitation times.  He didn't follow court ordered visitation times because he "didn't know" about them.


It doesn't work that way and TFA doesn't state that. FTFA I'm still not sure why the contempt of court was filed.

With my ex we just ignored all the visitation ruled by the court and did our own thing. Neither of us complained. It all worked out. We did what we felt was best for the kids. We both left the county with them without notifying the court, as ordered. We decided we were not going to let the state rule what we did with our kids. In the end it was all good.
 
2014-01-12 05:22:29 PM

Weatherkiss: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.


so, when did you complete your Kolinahr?
 
2014-01-12 05:22:30 PM

The Flexecutioner: no, being punished does not equal being rewarded.  and no, he did not STORM out.  that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.


Look, if you don't understand how it works, there's really nothing I can do for you.
 
2014-01-12 05:23:09 PM

The Flexecutioner: thamike: The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.

correct.  courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.

Yes, not being rewarded for storming out of either completely f*cking defies logic.

no, being punished does not equal being rewarded.  and no, he did not STORM out.  that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.


Whether he saunters out gently and puts on sunglasses while saying, "Deal with it.", or he has a vein bulging out of his forehead and he's ready to rip a phone book in half and storms out -- it's leaving the courtroom without being dismissed.

And yes, it is illegal to do that. It has always been illegal to disrespect the courtroom. Judges are known to power trip, but regardless of what kind of woman this judge is -- what he did would have been met the same way no matter what courtroom he was in. Contempt of court.

In civil society, it's agreed upon that a judge rules the court. This is why judges are elected or appointed by other judges who were elected. Because they are people who civil society has chosen to deal in the matters of justice. They are given the power by the people to serve the people.

Do we really need to explain how civil society works? Contempt of court is contempt of court. It doesn't matter how you do it, or what your motive is -- you never piss off a judge and expect to be rewarded for your insubordination.
 
2014-01-12 05:23:14 PM

notatrollorami: Slagnasty: See kids, this is why you go gay. In most states you still can't get married so no chance of a costly divorce, and you can't impregnate someone of the same sex so no possibility of having to pay child support.

/never once got my boyfriend pregnant.

If it were only that easy. I tried but the whole "not being aroused by men" thing was a real sticking point. Especially in bed. It was like trying to shoot pool with a rope.

//obscure?


Pushing rope and giving one side hell

www.buzzfocus.com
 
2014-01-12 05:24:34 PM

Turbo6inKY: Being in the middle of a divorce and related actions that is nearing two years in duration for a marriage that barely made it past four years in length, and where there was no custody issues, I have learned the following:

1) Judges are lazy and overworked and do not read the pleadings you file before a hearing.  Ever.
2) Because the judge hasn't read the motion or the response, the party that filed the motion gets to do all the talking in the hearing, because they have to explain the motion, or in some cases, literally read it out loud to the judge.  By the time they do that, there's not enough time left for the responding party to plead their side of the case.
3) Because the party filing the motion ends up doing all the talking during the hearing, that party usually wins.
4) Judges make up their mind on whose fault it was before the first person opens their mouth.  In most cases, and especially with a female judge, it's the man's fault.  Period.
5) The party with more money pays both attorneys, even if the other side is making stupid motions.
And 6) Once you enter the legal system, there is no escape.  You will be dealing with it for the rest of your life.

My ex-wife literally attached proof she'd committed a felony to a motion she filed against me.  When we pointed that out in the hearing, she immediately withdrew the motion.  When we asked the judge to address the blatant lawbreaking, she decided it was outside her jurisdiction and did nothing.

They don't care.  You just have to walk into that courtroom and figure out how to stroke the judge's ego.  That's it.  There's nothing more to it than that.  Your case will not be evaluated on the facts, merits, or whether anybody followed proper procedure until it reaches the appellate level.


Get a new judge. My female divorce judge read everything and knew more about the case than either of our attorneys (who hadn't read everything). We each paid our own lawyers and if she had determined fault, she kept it to herself--she was trying to be as fair as she possibly could, given the circumstances. Of course, the only thing I wanted out of that marriage was me, so she could have told me to pay everything (even though I made half what he did) and I would have been perfectly okay with that.
 
2014-01-12 05:24:59 PM

saturn badger: It doesn't work that way and TFA doesn't state that. FTFA I'm still not sure why the contempt of court was filed.

With my ex we just ignored all the visitation ruled by the court and did our own thing. Neither of us complained. It all worked out. We did what we felt was best for the kids. We both left the county with them without notifying the court, as ordered. We decided we were not going to let the state rule what we did with our kids. In the end it was all good.


It does work that way.  You and your wife are lucky.

Read the sourced article.  It's just as poorly written, but includes the same sort of details that the Daily Fail always excludes when they have their usual wild hair up their ass.
 
2014-01-12 05:25:00 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Weatherkiss: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.

so, when did you complete your Kolinahr?


On graduation day like any other vulcan. What planet are you from?
 
2014-01-12 05:25:05 PM

Weatherkiss: The Flexecutioner: thamike: The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.

correct.  courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.

Yes, not being rewarded for storming out of either completely f*cking defies logic.

no, being punished does not equal being rewarded.  and no, he did not STORM out.  that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.

Whether he saunters out gently and puts on sunglasses while saying, "Deal with it.", or he has a vein bulging out of his forehead and he's ready to rip a phone book in half and storms out -- it's leaving the courtroom without being dismissed.

And yes, it is illegal to do that. It has always been illegal to disrespect the courtroom. Judges are known to power trip, but regardless of what kind of woman this judge is -- what he did would have been met the same way no matter what courtroom he was in. Contempt of court.

In civil society, it's agreed upon that a judge rules the court. This is why judges are elected or appointed by other judges who were elected. Because they ar ...


And a six month sentence for contempt of court is kind of like dropping a bomb on a housing complex because the people won't come out to be arrested.
 
2014-01-12 05:27:52 PM

redmid17: And a six month sentence for contempt of court is kind of like dropping a bomb on a housing complex because the people won't come out to be arrested.


You're arguing a point that isn't being debated by the people you're responding to.
 
2014-01-12 05:28:31 PM

redmid17: Weatherkiss: The Flexecutioner: thamike: The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.

correct.  courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.

Yes, not being rewarded for storming out of either completely f*cking defies logic.

no, being punished does not equal being rewarded.  and no, he did not STORM out.  that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.

Whether he saunters out gently and puts on sunglasses while saying, "Deal with it.", or he has a vein bulging out of his forehead and he's ready to rip a phone book in half and storms out -- it's leaving the courtroom without being dismissed.

And yes, it is illegal to do that. It has always been illegal to disrespect the courtroom. Judges are known to power trip, but regardless of what kind of woman this judge is -- what he did would have been met the same way no matter what courtroom he was in. Contempt of court.

In civil society, it's agreed upon that a judge rules the court. This is why judges are elected or appointed by other judges who were elected. Be ...


Except noone dies, no property is destroyed, and the only financial loss is from court fees and the lack of income while imprisoned.

I'm not saying the six month jail sentence isn't harsh. For all I know it'll be appealed and reduced or eliminated entirely. But he blatantly pissed off the judge. It just makes it more difficult for her (or another judge) to reconsider and lessen the punishment.
 
2014-01-12 05:29:26 PM

thamike: redmid17: And a six month sentence for contempt of court is kind of like dropping a bomb on a housing complex because the people won't come out to be arrested.

You're arguing a point that isn't being debated by the people you're responding to.


Well it is now.
 
2014-01-12 05:30:22 PM

Weatherkiss: so, when did you complete your Kolinahr?

On graduation day like any other vulcan. What planet are you from?


Earth... since you are from Vulcan, this is something you may not understand about humans... Human emotions sometimes get in the way of the logical mind and override our ability to cope with an emotionally heated situation. Sometimes, this causes unwanted effects such as blurting out man-hating coont remarks at a judge, or walking out on a proceeding to try to cool off emotionally in an effort to avert the blurting of said comments.
 
2014-01-12 05:33:54 PM
Befehl ist befehl
 
2014-01-12 05:36:55 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Weatherkiss: so, when did you complete your Kolinahr?

On graduation day like any other vulcan. What planet are you from?

Earth... since you are from Vulcan, this is something you may not understand about humans... Human emotions sometimes get in the way of the logical mind and override our ability to cope with an emotionally heated situation. Sometimes, this causes unwanted effects such as blurting out man-hating coont remarks at a judge, or walking out on a proceeding to try to cool off emotionally in an effort to avert the blurting of said comments.


Even on Earth, you're expected to keep your emotions in check in a courtroom. This is expected of every adult in court. They are civil proceedings, not trash tv like Maury.

If people willingly choose to act like a dick in court, they will get slammed. For their own punishment, or to serve as another example to the rest of civil society that the courtroom is not the school playground. It's an institution to be respected and the people within to act respectably.

If she lets him go because he decided to get butthurt (even understandably so), it sets the precedent that you can act a fool in court to everyone else and nothing bad will happen.
 
2014-01-12 05:37:54 PM

redmid17: Weatherkiss: The Flexecutioner: thamike: The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.

correct.  courts and elementary schools absolutely do not operate on logic.

Yes, not being rewarded for storming out of either completely f*cking defies logic.

no, being punished does not equal being rewarded.  and no, he did not STORM out.  that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.

Whether he saunters out gently and puts on sunglasses while saying, "Deal with it.", or he has a vein bulging out of his forehead and he's ready to rip a phone book in half and storms out -- it's leaving the courtroom without being dismissed.

And yes, it is illegal to do that. It has always been illegal to disrespect the courtroom. Judges are known to power trip, but regardless of what kind of woman this judge is -- what he did would have been met the same way no matter what courtroom he was in. Contempt of court.

In civil society, it's agreed upon that a judge rules the court. This is why judges are elected or appointed by other judges who were elected. Because they ar ...

And a six month sentence for contempt of court is kind of like dropping a bomb on a housing complex because the people won't come out to be arrested.


It's true, this judge has no dick.
 
2014-01-12 05:37:55 PM

redmid17: saturn badger: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

Not being married does not protect one from child support.

No but it probably helps avoid some of the malice an ex-wife might bring versus an ex-girlfriend.


How? An ex is an ex. I was told by the court we don't care about you. We care about the kids. The ex was there too. There is no difference when kids are involved.
 
2014-01-12 05:40:24 PM

saturn badger: redmid17: saturn badger: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

Not being married does not protect one from child support.

No but it probably helps avoid some of the malice an ex-wife might bring versus an ex-girlfriend.

How? An ex is an ex. I was told by the court we don't care about you. We care about the kids. The ex was there too. There is no difference when kids are involved.


I almost feel sorry for the Farkers who seem to think not being married means freedom from responsibility in regards to breeding. Almost.
 
2014-01-12 05:40:41 PM

Weatherkiss: HindiDiscoMonster: Weatherkiss: so, when did you complete your Kolinahr?

On graduation day like any other vulcan. What planet are you from?

Earth... since you are from Vulcan, this is something you may not understand about humans... Human emotions sometimes get in the way of the logical mind and override our ability to cope with an emotionally heated situation. Sometimes, this causes unwanted effects such as blurting out man-hating coont remarks at a judge, or walking out on a proceeding to try to cool off emotionally in an effort to avert the blurting of said comments.

Even on Earth, you're expected to keep your emotions in check in a courtroom. This is expected of every adult in court. They are civil proceedings, not trash tv like Maury.

If people willingly choose to act like a dick in court, they will get slammed. For their own punishment, or to serve as another example to the rest of civil society that the courtroom is not the school playground. It's an institution to be respected and the people within to act respectably.

If she lets him go because he decided to get butthurt (even understandably so), it sets the precedent that you can act a fool in court to everyone else and nothing bad will happen.


leave the human emotion stuff to humans... you Vulcans aren't very good at understanding them.
 
2014-01-12 05:41:31 PM
Aigoo:

Get a new judge. My female divorce judge read everything and knew more about the case than either of our attorneys (who hadn't read everything). We each paid our own lawyers and if she had determined fault, she kept i ...

You don't get to just shop for a judge in Kentucky.  You get the one you're assigned.  If you don't like them, too bad.  Unless one party has dirt on the judge and can get them to recuse, you're stuck.  If you don't like their decision, you have to appeal.
 
2014-01-12 05:42:27 PM

Weatherkiss: The Flexecutioner: thamike: The Flexecutioner: thamike: Vector R: thamike: In civil society, it's agreed upon that a judge rules the court. This is why judges are elected or appointed by other judges who were elected. Because they ar ...


What part of 6-months in jail do you find fair for this slight?  I was never saying he shouldn't have been held in CoC because the law (in a zero-tolerance kind of way) demands a CoC ruling.  but the 6th months in jail part IS arbitrarily at the whims of her ego.  this is the part that is power-tripping and worth every bit of scrutiny and derision from the public.

thamike: The Flexecutioner: no, being punished does not equal being rewarded.  and no, he did not STORM out.  that's just you trying to inflammatorily make your illogical case that he somehow deserves 6 months in jail for bruising her fragile ego.

Look, if you don't understand how it works, there's really nothing I can do for you.


says the man looking in the mirror.  mincing words and twisting meanings is really all that's at stake here.  look, if you wanna bail from losing a discussion, im all for it but there's really nothing i can do for you except be correct.
 
2014-01-12 05:43:50 PM

saturn badger: redmid17: saturn badger: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

Not being married does not protect one from child support.

No but it probably helps avoid some of the malice an ex-wife might bring versus an ex-girlfriend.

How? An ex is an ex. I was told by the court we don't care about you. We care about the kids. The ex was there too. There is no difference when kids are involved.


I'm speaking generally here, but I'm guessing there is a higher likelihood of animosity because it usually takes more to break up a marriage than a relationship. Most relationships, as far as I know, don't end up with alimony or split assets. Basically just more stuff to be bitter and fight over.
 
2014-01-12 05:44:29 PM

Weatherkiss: Except noone dies, no property is destroyed, and the only financial loss is from court fees and the lack of income while imprisoned.


Good luck thinking he'll be able to pay when he gets out, as his job is likely gone.  He'll be lucky to not be homeless.

I imagine the hearing went something like a Judge Judy episode, judge making decisions based on clean cut mannerisms as oppose to facts and reasoning.  It does seem odd to go through a hearing when the matter is already settled.  Why was the court hearing still held, and why did the ex even need a lawyer anyway?  Isn't these kind of cases treated somewhat like a criminal case where prosecutors are used?
 
2014-01-12 05:50:11 PM

lack of warmth: Weatherkiss: Except noone dies, no property is destroyed, and the only financial loss is from court fees and the lack of income while imprisoned.

Good luck thinking he'll be able to pay when he gets out, as his job is likely gone.  He'll be lucky to not be homeless.

I imagine the hearing went something like a Judge Judy episode, judge making decisions based on clean cut mannerisms as oppose to facts and reasoning.  It does seem odd to go through a hearing when the matter is already settled.  Why was the court hearing still held, and why did the ex even need a lawyer anyway?  Isn't these kind of cases treated somewhat like a criminal case where prosecutors are used?


Judge Judy is a television show that pretends to be a court. She does not deal in justice. She deals in binding arbitration. These are civil matters that she handles. Judge Judy is unable to dole out 'contempt of court' charges if she wants. She's even gotten in trouble on a few occasions because she overstepped her boundaries in terms of arbitration.

Real Life Court is drastically different.
 
2014-01-12 05:52:03 PM

Weatherkiss: lack of warmth: Weatherkiss: Except noone dies, no property is destroyed, and the only financial loss is from court fees and the lack of income while imprisoned.

Good luck thinking he'll be able to pay when he gets out, as his job is likely gone.  He'll be lucky to not be homeless.

I imagine the hearing went something like a Judge Judy episode, judge making decisions based on clean cut mannerisms as oppose to facts and reasoning.  It does seem odd to go through a hearing when the matter is already settled.  Why was the court hearing still held, and why did the ex even need a lawyer anyway?  Isn't these kind of cases treated somewhat like a criminal case where prosecutors are used?

Judge Judy is a television show that pretends to be a court. She does not deal in justice. She deals in binding arbitration. These are civil matters that she handles. Judge Judy is unable to dole out 'contempt of court' charges if she wants. She's even gotten in trouble on a few occasions because she overstepped her boundaries in terms of arbitration.

Real Life Court is drastically different.


not much.... they don't deal in Justice either... just law.

/real court is a circus too.
 
2014-01-12 05:52:58 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Weatherkiss: lack of warmth: Weatherkiss: Except noone dies, no property is destroyed, and the only financial loss is from court fees and the lack of income while imprisoned.

Good luck thinking he'll be able to pay when he gets out, as his job is likely gone.  He'll be lucky to not be homeless.

I imagine the hearing went something like a Judge Judy episode, judge making decisions based on clean cut mannerisms as oppose to facts and reasoning.  It does seem odd to go through a hearing when the matter is already settled.  Why was the court hearing still held, and why did the ex even need a lawyer anyway?  Isn't these kind of cases treated somewhat like a criminal case where prosecutors are used?

Judge Judy is a television show that pretends to be a court. She does not deal in justice. She deals in binding arbitration. These are civil matters that she handles. Judge Judy is unable to dole out 'contempt of court' charges if she wants. She's even gotten in trouble on a few occasions because she overstepped her boundaries in terms of arbitration.

Real Life Court is drastically different.

not much.... they don't deal in Justice either... just law.

/real court is a circus too.


On that we can agree.
 
2014-01-12 05:56:11 PM
The real messed up thing is how he was forced to marry and knock up this woman.
 
2014-01-12 05:56:15 PM

Spirit Hammer: untaken_name: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: He can't pay child support from jail.

Don't worry, though, he'll still owe it. I'm sure the system will make accommodations for him...

When he gets out and goes back to his job (which no doubt will still be waiting for him) they can just garnish his wages for what he missed.


Also, I'm sure there will be fees for the 6 months he deadbeated out on his payments while he lazed around not working (while on the state's dime, the lazy lout).
 
2014-01-12 05:57:16 PM

saturn badger: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

Not being married does not protect one from child support.


No, but fake names and phone numbers do.
 
2014-01-12 05:57:18 PM

Weatherkiss: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

It's a good thing young men don't engage in pre-marital sex that could result in the conception of a child. That whole 'no marriage' thing is a foolproof method of avoiding a situation like this man is in.

I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times. Whether he was not 'told' about any of this, as he claims is dubious. He's not going to admit he knew and simply did not comply. It's easier to say he was never told to begin with.

But he's on appeal, so even though the court system is claimed to have 'broken down', and the Daily Fail is obviously trying to work the 'miscarriage of justice' angle on this -- the court system is working as intended.

Of course walking out on a judge in her courtroom when issued a contempt of court charge isn't going to win him any favors.

But sure, let's go with the "he's brown in Texas, therefore the system is stacked against him" defense. When it's pretty obvious there's way more to the story than the article lets on.


Well put. Unfortunately we'll still get people complaining about misandry, their idea of feminism, and just how hard is to be a man.
 
2014-01-12 05:58:12 PM

Weatherkiss: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

It's a good thing young men don't engage in pre-marital sex that could result in the conception of a child. That whole 'no marriage' thing is a foolproof method of avoiding a situation like this man is in.

I'm pretty sure his 6 month jail sentence was a result of his contempt of court charge, related to not visiting his son as issued by court order at particular times. Whether he was not 'told' about any of this, as he claims is dubious. He's not going to admit he knew and simply did not comply. It's easier to say he was never told to begin with.

But he's on appeal, so even though the court system is claimed to have 'broken down', and the Daily Fail is obviously trying to work the 'miscarriage of justice' angle on this -- the court system is working as intended.

Of course walking out on a judge in her courtroom when issued a contempt of court charge isn't going to win him any favors.

But sure, let's go with the "he's brown in Texas, therefore the system is stacked against him" defense. When it's pretty obvious there's way more to the story than the article lets on.


Thank you for preventing me from having to write all that.
 
2014-01-12 05:58:46 PM
Justice is dead.

Long live arbitrary and capricious application of process!
 
2014-01-12 05:58:55 PM

thamike: It does work that way. You and your wife are lucky.

Read the sourced article. It's just as poorly written, but includes the same sort of details that the Daily Fail always excludes when they have their usual wild hair up their ass.


It doesn't really work that way. The visitation orders are for when either party decides they want to ignore them and not allow visitation. Then it is back to court.

I doubt many follow the visitation orders anyway. They are very tight and controlled. This year on this holiday every other year and this weekend and this day. Ugh! They are very strict. After we had the mediation hearing we looked at each other and said fark that. We'll do it our way.

And yeah. I was kind of lucky the ex agreed. We are still friends and I spend holidays at her place with the kids. A win win for all of us. Well, except she still burns the food. Gawd!

/she makes a better friend than a wife
//I can go home without her
 
2014-01-12 06:01:35 PM
Weatherkiss:
Judge Judy is a television show that pretends to be a court. She does not deal in justice. She deals in binding arbitration. These are civil matters that she handles. Judge Judy is unable to dole out 'contempt of court' charges if she wants. She's even gotten in trouble on a few occasions because she overstepped her boundaries in terms of arbitration.

Real Life Court is drastically different.


WHAAAAT!  Judge Judy is a television show.  You don't say.

I have been in Real Life Court, and the tone is set by the judge.  If you weren't aware, Judge Judy used to do this woman's job, so the comparison isn't that far off.

The coolest judge I have seen was very relaxed and casual, but did get irritated with our lawyer for forgetting certain paperwork which caused the hearing to be rescheduled.  The second time we saw him, a lawyer failed to show up, so he stopped court to call the lawyer personally to tell him to call back in 24 hours or the US Marshals were going to be picking him up (yes, federal court) and he will be refunding his payment back to the client.  The judge was anti-bad lawyer.  It was hard not to like him.
 
2014-01-12 06:09:21 PM

Aigoo: Take the kid away, give him to dad and let mom pay the damn support.


I just came.
 
2014-01-12 06:09:36 PM

saturn badger: It doesn't really work that way. The visitation orders are for when either party decides they want to ignore them and not allow visitation. Then it is back to court.

I doubt many follow the visitation orders anyway. They are very tight and controlled. This year on this holiday every other year and this weekend and this day. Ugh! They are very strict. After we had the mediation hearing we looked at each other and said fark that. We'll do it our way.


There has been some interesting stories involving child support and visitation in MI.  MI passed a law ( I don't recall how long ago) allowing non custodial parent to not pay child support for the time spent at their home.  As in, if the kid spent the summer with dad, dad didn't pay for the summer.  We had some judges didn't hear about the change until the dad was dragged into court for back child support that he didn't owe.  The dad (in one case) knew he got a three month discount for the three months the kid was with him, but the judge didn't learn until the heated court proceedings.  The dad was probably lucky he didn't go to jail for proving a judge wrong.
 
2014-01-12 06:09:51 PM
This is farking vaginal tyranny.
 
2014-01-12 06:11:16 PM

redmid17: saturn badger: redmid17: saturn badger: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

Not being married does not protect one from child support.

No but it probably helps avoid some of the malice an ex-wife might bring versus an ex-girlfriend.

How? An ex is an ex. I was told by the court we don't care about you. We care about the kids. The ex was there too. There is no difference when kids are involved.

I'm speaking generally here, but I'm guessing there is a higher likelihood of animosity because it usually takes more to break up a marriage than a relationship. Most relationships, as far as I know, don't end up with alimony or split assets. Basically just more stuff to be bitter and fight over.


The issue here is child support. There is no mention of other assets. There is no difference in child support with a marriage or not. Your kid? Pay the money. Case closed.
 
2014-01-12 06:13:08 PM

ltdanman44: this is why you don't get married


just because you are/were not married doesn't mean that you wouldn't have to support a kid if you fathered one
 
2014-01-12 06:14:43 PM

saturn badger: redmid17: saturn badger: redmid17: saturn badger: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

Not being married does not protect one from child support.

No but it probably helps avoid some of the malice an ex-wife might bring versus an ex-girlfriend.

How? An ex is an ex. I was told by the court we don't care about you. We care about the kids. The ex was there too. There is no difference when kids are involved.

I'm speaking generally here, but I'm guessing there is a higher likelihood of animosity because it usually takes more to break up a marriage than a relationship. Most relationships, as far as I know, don't end up with alimony or split assets. Basically just more stuff to be bitter and fight over.

The issue here is child support. There is no mention of other assets. There is no difference in child support with a marriage or not. Your kid? Pay the money. Case closed.


Yes. Thank you for explaining how child support works. I *clearly* didn't understand.

Oh wait I was talking about why an ex-wife might have more reason to be bitter than an ex-girlfriend. No one is disputing child support payments here.
 
2014-01-12 06:15:15 PM

Weatherkiss: The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.


Authoritarianism is a form of government. It is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience. You know, like when the Nazis and the Communists killed all of those people.
 
2014-01-12 06:17:16 PM

Earl Green: This website.  This community.  This Fark.  How much longer can we be expected to go on without a "Texas" tag?


If we're relying on Mail articles, i.e. articles written based on the fever-dreams of a drunken right-wing moron ineptly trying to craft propaganda, with no relation whatsoever to actual physical reality?

Probably a long time.
 
2014-01-12 06:31:30 PM

lack of warmth: There has been some interesting stories involving child support and visitation in MI. MI passed a law ( I don't recall how long ago) allowing non custodial parent to not pay child support for the time spent at their home. As in, if the kid spent the summer with dad, dad didn't pay for the summer. We had some judges didn't hear about the change until the dad was dragged into court for back child support that he didn't owe. The dad (in one case) knew he got a three month discount for the three months the kid was with him, but the judge didn't learn until the heated court proceedings. The dad was probably lucky he didn't go to jail for proving a judge wrong.


In my state (CA) we just pay. I did some off the books deal early in the game and it cost me dearly. They can sign off on child support and let us handle it but at any time can sign back on. That could get ugly. I let the state handle it via payroll deduction. She offered a cash payout for less money towards the end but I refused. Nine more months and I was free. She wanted to start some sort of business and needed the cash. Sorry. Not coming from me. It might have saved me around 5K but I was legal and paying. I looked at is as an investment to myself.

And they don't need to prove it went to the kids. It is just money going down a black hole.

 
2014-01-12 06:35:21 PM

redmid17: Yes. Thank you for explaining how child support works. I *clearly* didn't understand.

Oh wait I was talking about why an ex-wife might have more reason to be bitter than an ex-girlfriend. No one is disputing child support payments here.


Why would an ex-wife have a reason to be more bitter?  In my case she left me. I had the bigger reason to be more bitter. A relationship is a relationship. A biatch is a biatch and a bastard is a bastard no matter what the paper says.
 
2014-01-12 06:37:53 PM

saturn badger: redmid17: Yes. Thank you for explaining how child support works. I *clearly* didn't understand.

Oh wait I was talking about why an ex-wife might have more reason to be bitter than an ex-girlfriend. No one is disputing child support payments here.

Why would an ex-wife have a reason to be more bitter?  In my case she left me. I had the bigger reason to be more bitter. A relationship is a relationship. A biatch is a biatch and a bastard is a bastard no matter what the paper says.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-12 06:38:31 PM

strathmeyer: Weatherkiss: The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.

Authoritarianism is a form of government. It is characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience. You know, like when the Nazis and the Communists killed all of those people.


Wait... that would mean... that I'm a Nazi and a Communist...

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-01-12 06:38:43 PM

omnimancer28: Just playing devil's advocate here : I would assume that he was warned more than once by his wife, the child support office, and probably his wife's attorney BEFORE they went to the trouble of taking him to court.


I see you are completely unfamiliar with how the family court system works.

Here's a simple rule to figure out if you will be farked by the family court system.  Do you have a penis?
 
2014-01-12 06:40:57 PM
www.madmaxz.com

Only yourselves to blame, ladies.
 
2014-01-12 06:40:59 PM

OgreMagi: Here's a simple rule to figure out if you will be farked by the family court system. Do you have a penis?


THISSITY THIS THIS THIS
 
2014-01-12 06:41:01 PM

itsaidwhat: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

They should be shunning unprotected sex.


Yep. I knew a guy who boasted of never wearing condoms because he didn't like the way they felt. And a few weeks later, surprise 18-month-old daughter. And a psycho ex-girlfriend for a mother.
 
2014-01-12 06:42:48 PM

rebelyell2006: itsaidwhat: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

They should be shunning unprotected sex.

Yep. I knew a guy who boasted of never wearing condoms because he didn't like the way they felt. And a few weeks later, surprise 18-month-old daughter. And a psycho ex-girlfriend for a mother.


She has no idea how hard it is to be a man and not being able to control your impulsive desire to fark without using protection. She's just taking advantage of the court system to punish him for something he had no control over.
 
2014-01-12 06:46:15 PM

Weatherkiss: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.


I beg to differ. He wasn't in state custody, and if he needs to go use the bathroom ( a common excuse to go cool off, coincidentally), he sure as shiat can go. I'm sure even a convict in shackles could be escorted to the bathroom.
 
2014-01-12 06:46:37 PM

Weatherkiss: rebelyell2006: itsaidwhat: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

They should be shunning unprotected sex.

Yep. I knew a guy who boasted of never wearing condoms because he didn't like the way they felt. And a few weeks later, surprise 18-month-old daughter. And a psycho ex-girlfriend for a mother.

She has no idea how hard it is to be a man and not being able to control your impulsive desire to fark without using protection. She's just taking advantage of the court system to punish him for something he had no control over.


Well, the guy was a moron in a traveling band who settled down. Who saw his bandmates piss razors after catching gonorrhea. And still did not want to wear condoms.
 
2014-01-12 06:46:41 PM
Today I learned Farkers think Alimony is Child Support.

Today I taught Farkers that Alimony is not child support, but adult support.

/They are similar though, both can cost you 50% of your yearly pre-tax income as a man.
//Better pray to your god your divorce is amicable if you are a man. Prenuptial agreements have already been voided by divorce courts.
 
2014-01-12 06:47:07 PM

rebelyell2006: itsaidwhat: Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.

They should be shunning unprotected sex.

Yep. I knew a guy who boasted of never wearing condoms because he didn't like the way they felt. And a few weeks later, surprise 18-month-old daughter. And a psycho ex-girlfriend for a mother.


I mean, he's not wrong. Sex without a condom feels way better than sex with a condom. It probably doesn't feel better than not having to dole out a bunch for child support.
 
2014-01-12 06:47:37 PM

Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.


Was he wrong? Spmeone obviously asked for his opinion, unlike yours.
Therefore STFU & GBTW
 
gja [TotalFark]
2014-01-12 06:48:28 PM

ZzeusS: 3 - sues Judge and plaintiffs attorneys and makes back 2x what he lost


4- Tased to death for having the temerity to question pigs and the kings of the kangaroo courts
 
2014-01-12 06:48:52 PM

Vector R: You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.


It's court, not first grade.

You ask for a recess in court proceedings like a time out in sports. You don't raise your hand and say "Judge, I gotta go potty."
 
2014-01-12 06:49:12 PM

fluffy2097: Today I learned Farkers think Alimony is Child Support.

Today I taught Farkers that Alimony is not child support, but adult support.

/They are similar though, both can cost you 50% of your yearly pre-tax income as a man.
//Better pray to your god your divorce is amicable if you are a man. Prenuptial agreements have already been voided by divorce courts.


I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.
 
2014-01-12 06:49:13 PM

Vector R: Weatherkiss: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

The courtroom is not your parents' house. You can't just pout and walk away and slam the door when your feels get hurt. The courtroom is an instrument of justice, of civil society. If you disrespect the judge, you disrespect the court, you disrespect the institution the country is founded on. You aren't allowed to take a breather unless the judge says you may. You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

The system is not perfect, but it's the best one we have. If someone gets screwed over, the only thing they need to do is sit down and shut the fark up until the gavel is brought down and the judge explicitly says that the case/court is dismissed. Yes, it sucks when you get screwed over by the court. Yes, it's normal to feel angry and enraged.

But no, it's not 'better' to go take a breather. He should have put his big boy pants on and waited patiently and calmly to avoid invoking the judge's ire.

That's how civil society works. If you can't be an adult, you get punished like a child.

I beg to differ. He wasn't in state custody, and if he needs to go use the bathroom ( a common excuse to go cool off, coincidentally), he sure as shiat can go. I' ...


Some judges will apparently hit you with contempt there too!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/insulted_in_restroom_texas_ju dg e_holds_court_attendee_69_in_contempt/
 
2014-01-12 06:50:11 PM

redmid17: Sex without a condom feels way better than sex with a condom. It probably doesn't feel better than not having to dole out a bunch for child support.


Which is why you never let the girl get your real name or number, and you always go back to her place. Then if she gets pregnant, she can't find you.

/Not really
 
2014-01-12 06:51:22 PM

saturn badger: lack of warmth: There has been some interesting stories involving child support and visitation in MI. MI passed a law ( I don't recall how long ago) allowing non custodial parent to not pay child support for the time spent at their home. As in, if the kid spent the summer with dad, dad didn't pay for the summer. We had some judges didn't hear about the change until the dad was dragged into court for back child support that he didn't owe. The dad (in one case) knew he got a three month discount for the three months the kid was with him, but the judge didn't learn until the heated court proceedings. The dad was probably lucky he didn't go to jail for proving a judge wrong.

In my state (CA) we just pay. I did some off the books deal early in the game and it cost me dearly. They can sign off on child support and let us handle it but at any time can sign back on. That could get ugly. I let the state handle it via payroll deduction. She offered a cash payout for less money towards the end but I refused. Nine more months and I was free. She wanted to start some sort of business and needed the cash. Sorry. Not coming from me. It might have saved me around 5K but I was legal and paying. I looked at is as an investment to myself.

And they don't need to prove it went to the kids. It is just money going down a black hole.


You got to admit though, not making the other parent child support for extended stays makes sense.  The old way made the parent pay twice, child support payments to custodial parent and the actual support of the child during the stay.  It almost makes me proud of my state.  Now if I could get child support from my stepson's father, I would be right as rain.  Canadian prick left the country before the kid was born, with no contact.  Irritates me as much as the deadbeat mom's out there not being hunted down by the courts.  I have yet to hear of a mom getting busted for back support, when I know of a few who don't pay at all.
 
2014-01-12 06:51:34 PM

OgreMagi: I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not


What you pay for both is calculated based off your pre-tax income though. So it's calculated off about 33% more money then you actually ever get in any given year.
 
2014-01-12 06:57:17 PM

redmid17: Oh wait I was talking about why an ex-wife might have more reason to be bitter than an ex-girlfriend. No one is disputing child support payments here.


I'll bring this up because it seems no one has, but a fair number of women have mentioned to me that when they got divorced they came under an ass load of pressure from their families, in particular their mother to be absolute dicks about everything. And the lawyer I consulted in my divorce said often she gets cases where dear old mom comes to the meetings with the lawyer and bully's her daughter into making a knock down drag out fight of it.
 
2014-01-12 06:58:07 PM

fluffy2097: OgreMagi: I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not

What you pay for both is calculated based off your pre-tax income though. So it's calculated off about 33% more money then you actually ever get in any given year.


Clarification noted.  Also, if your income changes, perhaps because the economy sucks and you had to take a lesser paying job, the family court doesn't care that you are now a cashier and not an engineer.  Your payments are still going to be based on your "earning potential".
 
2014-01-12 06:59:09 PM

OgreMagi: I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.


Nope. If it was I would have been golden.
 
2014-01-12 06:59:18 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: Joe USer: gja: His fault for being male
/and brown in Texas

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.

Frankly, I'd walk out too if somebody told me I'd be forced to pay my ex's legal fees ON TOP of whatever I just recently doled out in child support payments.

Talk about sticking in the wound.


Oh, that's common. My friend has to pay his ex-wife's lawyer fees everytime she throws a temper tantrum. She's 'unemployed' (works for cash) listing only the alimony and child support as her income. He actually hired a detective to follow her, and tried to get discovery for other bank accounts, but the judge denied it.

/doesn't hurt that the state gets a cut of the monies paid
 
2014-01-12 06:59:49 PM

redmid17: Some judges will apparently hit you with contempt there too!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/insulted_in_restroom_texas_ju dg e_holds_court_attendee_69_in_contempt/


FTFA: "It probably wasn't the smartest thing, but it was a (gut) reaction. I guess you have no freedom of speech with a judge."

Clearly the judge was power-tripping because he didn't take the man's emotions into account.
 
2014-01-12 07:00:04 PM

OgreMagi: fluffy2097: Today I learned Farkers think Alimony is Child Support.


I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.


Nope. I pay child support and it is not a pre-tax deduction, nor is it deductible on the 1040.
If you're very, very lucky you can get the court to let you take the tax deduction, but guess what, if your ex is able to file faster than you are and claims the kid, you're SOL when you go to file. You'll eventually get it fixed with the IRS, but it is a royal pain in the ass.

/There are many things broken in that system
//State farked up and didn't record some payments that were deducted from your check? FARK YOU, PAY US
///They'll increase it at lightning speed if you get a better job, and reduce it at a glacial pace if you get laid off, if they do at all
 
2014-01-12 07:00:08 PM
If you are a millionaire, stick your wife and children in a modest middle class home with a modest middle class allowance.  That way they can't ream you to pay for that standard of living they have grown accustomed to.
 
2014-01-12 07:02:15 PM

omnimancer28: Just playing devil's advocate here : I would assume that he was warned more than once by his wife, the child support office, and probably his wife's attorney BEFORE they went to the trouble of taking him to court.  Had he paid up prior to being dragged in to court (even though the initial error was not his) there would be no reason for him to pay the attorney's fees.  He waited until the court date was set, paid up, and then walked into the court thinking that he was free and clear.  Surprise - the lawyers are still getting paid for having to show up.

Not to mention the fact that he walked out on a judge.  I don't care who you are.  A judge will fark your day up for disrespecting them in their court room.  This is not really about a man getting gamed by the child support system.  It is more about some dumbass who got dragged to court and then pissed in the judge's corn flakes.


A judge is supposed to be completely impartial and not have a personal bias,  If a judge cannot do that they should be removed from their position.
 
2014-01-12 07:02:46 PM

buzzcut73: //State farked up and didn't record some payments that were deducted from your check? FARK YOU, PAY US


I read of some cases where the man got arrested because he didn't make the payments.  Even the ex-wife insisted he made the payments on time, but he was still ran through the system and farked over.  If you are in a state where the payments are processed through the government system, your life can be farked overly royally because some low-level clerk with a hangover didn't check a box.
 
2014-01-12 07:03:41 PM

itsaidwhat: I read the article. All is not as it seems. 1. He didn't pay on time. 2. She had to take legal action

He wants to blame his employer for his not paying on time and correctly.

He only got caught up when he was headed to court.

Sorry Dad. That kid is YOUR responsibility. And not just when it looks like you are headed to court.


According TFA he DID pay up. It sounds like the terms of his child support were changed without his knowledge. (Unheard of, right?) It was an admin snafu. He was hauled to court because agents of that court screwed up. Then he was ordered to pay the ex's unnecessary legal bills... amazingly. And the judge is pissed cause he's not kissing her arse hard enough.
Anger would be the normal human response here.
 
2014-01-12 07:05:05 PM

inglixthemad: /doesn't hurt that the state gets a cut of the monies paid


What state is this? The state I live in took the money and gave it all to her.
 
2014-01-12 07:05:53 PM

Joe USer: gja: His fault for being male
/and brown in Texas

I'm betting the contempt of court had something to do with it as well.


He should have had a free pass on the contempt as he was dragged into that hellhole unnecessarily and asked to do something that is ridiculous. Whoever made the error should be responsible for all the financial results. And the judge should be forced into a sex change, followed by a visit in front of a judge just as idiotic as herself.
 
2014-01-12 07:06:39 PM

0z79: Snarfangel: Elegy: I, for one, appreciate Quanell X weighing in on this situation.

I would pay attention. Quanell X is the strongest anti-dandruff shampoo you can buy without a prescription.

I don't know why, but I thought this was hilarious! I had to bite my lip to keep from laughing WAAYY too loud.

Kudos.


AgreedX
 
2014-01-12 07:11:22 PM

Weatherkiss: redmid17: Some judges will apparently hit you with contempt there too!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/insulted_in_restroom_texas_ju dg e_holds_court_attendee_69_in_contempt/

FTFA: "It probably wasn't the smartest thing, but it was a (gut) reaction. I guess you have no freedom of speech with a judge."

Clearly the judge was power-tripping because he didn't take the man's emotions into account.


Well as soon as someone challenged the judge, the sentence was magically commuted and he was released. I think that's a pretty fair case for power-tripping. Appeals court looks like they didn't seem to fond of that ruling either.
 
2014-01-12 07:12:34 PM

redmid17: Weatherkiss: redmid17: Some judges will apparently hit you with contempt there too!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/insulted_in_restroom_texas_ju dg e_holds_court_attendee_69_in_contempt/

FTFA: "It probably wasn't the smartest thing, but it was a (gut) reaction. I guess you have no freedom of speech with a judge."

Clearly the judge was power-tripping because he didn't take the man's emotions into account.

Well as soon as someone challenged the judge, the sentence was magically commuted and he was released. I think that's a pretty fair case for power-tripping. Appeals court looks like they didn't seem to fond of that ruling either.


So the system works since the appeals court did not re-affirm the judge's ruling.
 
2014-01-12 07:13:36 PM

Weatherkiss: redmid17: Weatherkiss: redmid17: Some judges will apparently hit you with contempt there too!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/insulted_in_restroom_texas_ju dg e_holds_court_attendee_69_in_contempt/

FTFA: "It probably wasn't the smartest thing, but it was a (gut) reaction. I guess you have no freedom of speech with a judge."

Clearly the judge was power-tripping because he didn't take the man's emotions into account.

Well as soon as someone challenged the judge, the sentence was magically commuted and he was released. I think that's a pretty fair case for power-tripping. Appeals court looks like they didn't seem to fond of that ruling either.

So the system works since the appeals court did not re-affirm the judge's ruling.


The system also cost a man 2 days in prison because a judge was being a dickbag. I don't know about you, but I prefer to spend time outside of jail.
 
2014-01-12 07:15:20 PM

fluffy2097: Vector R: You aren't allowed to go to the bathroom unless the judge allows you to.

It's court, not first grade.

You ask for a recess in court proceedings like a time out in sports. You don't raise your hand and say "Judge, I gotta go potty."


I do it the adult way, and just go out to the bathroom without making a big fuss over it. This isn't Shawshank. If she wants to be a coont and tell me to hold it (when straining your bladder is unhealthy) then I'll happily piss on the floor and speak with the ACLU if the court wants to cry about it.
 
2014-01-12 07:16:02 PM

redmid17: Weatherkiss: redmid17: Weatherkiss: redmid17: Some judges will apparently hit you with contempt there too!

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/insulted_in_restroom_texas_ju dg e_holds_court_attendee_69_in_contempt/

FTFA: "It probably wasn't the smartest thing, but it was a (gut) reaction. I guess you have no freedom of speech with a judge."

Clearly the judge was power-tripping because he didn't take the man's emotions into account.

Well as soon as someone challenged the judge, the sentence was magically commuted and he was released. I think that's a pretty fair case for power-tripping. Appeals court looks like they didn't seem to fond of that ruling either.

So the system works since the appeals court did not re-affirm the judge's ruling.

The system also cost a man 2 days in prison because a judge was being a dickbag. I don't know about you, but I prefer to spend time outside of jail.


So the system is imperfect.
 
2014-01-12 07:21:24 PM

lack of warmth: You got to admit though, not making the other parent child support for extended stays makes sense. The old way made the parent pay twice, child support payments to custodial parent and the actual support of the child during the stay. It almost makes me proud of my state. Now if I could get child support from my stepson's father, I would be right as rain. Canadian prick left the country before the kid was born, with no contact. Irritates me as much as the deadbeat mom's out there not being hunted down by the courts. I have yet to hear of a mom getting busted for back support, when I know of a few who don't pay at all.


It does make sense but that never happened to me. As a working stiff and not having many extended stays it would not have saved me much anyway.

In the end I paid my dues and was able to help raise two wonderful daughters. The big bonus in all this is when it came time for college they were able to use their mothers income to apply for grants. One is on grants now (and also working) and the other, through grants and scholarships, is now on a full paid scholarship in her Ph.D program. It is all legal and on the up and up since they lived with her.

There are benefits to divorce for the kids and dad.

Oh, one more thing... I do get the occasional phone call... dad? I am a bit short this month... so in a way I still pay child support. At least I know where the money goes now. I pay for car insurance for one.

/still paying
//they are supposed to take care of me in my old age
///so they say
 
2014-01-12 07:22:18 PM

Jim_Callahan: Earl Green: This website.  This community.  This Fark.  How much longer can we be expected to go on without a "Texas" tag?

If we're relying on Mail articles, i.e. articles written based on the fever-dreams of a drunken right-wing moron ineptly trying to craft propaganda, with no relation whatsoever to actual physical reality?

Probably a long time.


I don't usually see "right wing idiots" writing slanted articles to make black people look like they got screwed. I think you got your directions confused.
 
2014-01-12 07:24:57 PM

buzzcut73: Nope. I pay child support and it is not a pre-tax deduction, nor is it deductible on the 1040.
If you're very, very lucky you can get the court to let you take the tax deduction, but guess what, if your ex is able to file faster than you are and claims the kid, you're SOL when you go to file. You'll eventually get it fixed with the IRS, but it is a royal pain in the ass.


This was a deal I made with the ex. The deductions were mine. I did great with them up until they turned 17. I thought they ran out at 18. Oops! Cost me a lot of money that year. I adjusted for the next year.
 
2014-01-12 07:28:24 PM

buzzcut73: ///They'll increase it at lightning speed if you get a better job, and reduce it at a glacial pace if you get laid off, if they do at all


Really? Out here is is up to the ex to get it increased. As my income rose the payments never did in the 17 years I paid them. She could have been vindictive but never did.

Guess I was lucky to have an ex that wasn't a real biatch.

/most of the time anyway
 
2014-01-12 07:31:29 PM

dstrick44: itsaidwhat: I read the article. All is not as it seems. 1. He didn't pay on time. 2. She had to take legal action

He wants to blame his employer for his not paying on time and correctly.

He only got caught up when he was headed to court.

Sorry Dad. That kid is YOUR responsibility. And not just when it looks like you are headed to court.

According TFA he DID pay up. It sounds like the terms of his child support were changed without his knowledge. (Unheard of, right?) It was an admin snafu. He was hauled to court because agents of that court screwed up. Then he was ordered to pay the ex's unnecessary legal bills... amazingly. And the judge is pissed cause he's not kissing her arse hard enough.
Anger would be the normal human response here.


Suggest a re-read. It's his kid, and his responsibility to know the terms, not anyone else's responsibility to make sure he knows. He's a slacker and wouldn't be in court if he was taking proper care of his kid.

I don't think six months of jail is the answer, unless the judge knows he won't actually serve it and it's only being used for effect. Which it clearly is having. And not just on him.

Look, either he pays or the rest of us pay. I vote that he pays.
 
2014-01-12 07:31:45 PM
He can play this:

www.bizpacreview.com
Or turn in this:
 
2014-01-12 07:32:22 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-01-12 07:33:25 PM

saturn badger: buzzcut73: Nope. I pay child support and it is not a pre-tax deduction, nor is it deductible on the 1040.
If you're very, very lucky you can get the court to let you take the tax deduction, but guess what, if your ex is able to file faster than you are and claims the kid, you're SOL when you go to file. You'll eventually get it fixed with the IRS, but it is a royal pain in the ass.

This was a deal I made with the ex. The deductions were mine. I did great with them up until they turned 17. I thought they ran out at 18. Oops! Cost me a lot of money that year. I adjusted for the next year.


Yeah, the ex and I had the same deal, she just decided she didn't like it anymore and instead of trying to get something changed, she just started filing before I did for the last 3 years. She knew that due to the nature of the work I was doing at the time that I wouldn't see a W-2 until long after her return was filed.

Once I got back to the real world and filed amended returns with the IRS with all supporting paperwork, I got my money back. I guess the IRS went after her for the refunds she collected but wasn't entitled to and made her life a little difficult for a while, which was nice to hear.
 
2014-01-12 07:54:08 PM

Tillmaster: A female judge. Colour me surprised.


A white female judge in *Texas* with a black defendant.

Color me rven more shocked.
 
2014-01-12 07:57:02 PM

OgreMagi: fluffy2097: Today I learned Farkers think Alimony is Child Support.

Today I taught Farkers that Alimony is not child support, but adult support.

/They are similar though, both can cost you 50% of your yearly pre-tax income as a man.
//Better pray to your god your divorce is amicable if you are a man. Prenuptial agreements have already been voided by divorce courts.

I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.


You are incorrect. Child support is not tax deductible. Alimony is.
 
2014-01-12 08:02:20 PM

Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.


Yet they are not shunning farking which is the real reason a child was produced and thus the support needed
 
2014-01-12 08:15:52 PM

Enormous-Schwanstucker: Q: What's the difference between the judge in question and her ruling?

A: The ruling was a cunning stunt.


As opposed to a stunning coont?
 
2014-01-12 08:19:36 PM

OgreMagi: fluffy2097: Today I learned Farkers think Alimony is Child Support.

Today I taught Farkers that Alimony is not child support, but adult support.

/They are similar though, both can cost you 50% of your yearly pre-tax income as a man.
//Better pray to your god your divorce is amicable if you are a man. Prenuptial agreements have already been voided by divorce courts.

I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.


Generally, child support is *not* tax deductible, though spousal support *is*.  The theory I guess being that you'd have to pay that money anyway for upkeep of the children, but the ex-biatch is an adult, and *could* work if she'd get off her fat, bonbon-eating ass, and actually *use* the pharmacy tech education you paid for in the year before you split up....wait, I'm drifting of track, where were we?

Oh yes.  So, spousal support is tax deductible.  Unless there are notional arrears, in which case, spousal isn't tax deductible.  If there are notional arrears, then, well, you're farked forever.  Or you engage in a long, hard, expensive court process to get them expunged because they weren't legitimate to begin with.  Oh fark, I'm drifting off-track again.


/my ex is a fat, lazy biatch.  Send her just over 50% of my net income every month.  That's not enough, apparently.
 
2014-01-12 08:20:01 PM
t3.gstatic.com
/Christian Nation
 
2014-01-12 08:20:45 PM
Sounds to me like this guy didn't get the correct amount held out of his paycheck yet he did nothing about it.  It may not be his fault, but he is responsible for making sure the correct payments are being made.  The mother was not getting her child support so she had to hire a lawyer.  Then, knowing there was going to be a hearing, the father suddenly decided to correct the "mistakes".  So, yes, he is responsible for paying the mother's lawyer.

But, by all means, continue to think society is anti-male
 
2014-01-12 08:20:52 PM

fluffy2097: redmid17: Sex without a condom feels way better than sex with a condom. It probably doesn't feel better than not having to dole out a bunch for child support.

Which is why you never let the girl get your real name or number, and you always go back to her place. Then if she gets pregnant, she can't find you.

/Not really


Make sure to impregnate only homeless women. what, like they have the resources to find you, other than an empty day?
 
2014-01-12 08:27:12 PM

RedVentrue: Enormous-Schwanstucker: Q: What's the difference between the judge in question and her ruling?

A: The ruling was a cunning stunt.

As opposed to a stunning coont?


That was the implied joke :)
 
2014-01-12 08:34:04 PM
If nothing else this proves that judges have way too much power.  fark judges.  Respect is to be earned, not given.  You've done x to become a judge, I've done y to get to where I am, why does your x carry more weight than my y?
 
2014-01-12 08:36:41 PM

Watubi: Sounds to me like this guy didn't get the correct amount held out of his paycheck yet he did nothing about it. It may not be his fault, but he is responsible for making sure the correct payments are being made. The mother was not getting her child support so she had to hire a lawyer. Then, knowing there was going to be a hearing, the father suddenly decided to correct the "mistakes". So, yes, he is responsible for paying the mother's lawyer.

But, by all means, continue to think society is anti-male


If that mistake was him over-paying, would he get the money back?
 
2014-01-12 08:44:18 PM

weltallica: [www.madmaxz.com image 620x350]
Only yourselves to blame, ladies.


Bwaahahahahaahahaaaaa. Yeah, he looks like a great catch.
 
2014-01-12 08:45:05 PM

patchvonbraun: OgreMagi: fluffy2097: Today I learned Farkers think Alimony is Child Support.

Today I taught Farkers that Alimony is not child support, but adult support.

/They are similar though, both can cost you 50% of your yearly pre-tax income as a man.
//Better pray to your god your divorce is amicable if you are a man. Prenuptial agreements have already been voided by divorce courts.

I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.

Generally, child support is *not* tax deductible, though spousal support *is*.  The theory I guess being that you'd have to pay that money anyway for upkeep of the children, but the ex-biatch is an adult, and *could* work if she'd get off her fat, bonbon-eating ass, and actually *use* the pharmacy tech education you paid for in the year before you split up....wait, I'm drifting of track, where were we?

Oh yes.  So, spousal support is tax deductible.  Unless there are notional arrears, in which case, spousal isn't tax deductible.  If there are notional arrears, then, well, you're farked forever.  Or you engage in a long, hard, expensive court process to get them expunged because they weren't legitimate to begin with.  Oh fark, I'm drifting off-track again.


/my ex is a fat, lazy biatch.  Send her just over 50% of my net income every month.  That's not enough, apparently.



Just a few questins

How many children does your ex wife have?
 
2014-01-12 08:55:29 PM

mjbok: If that mistake was him over-paying, would he get the money back?


In my state yep. They pulled a months payment that was over the line and I got my money back.
 
2014-01-12 08:56:31 PM

Aigoo: So, if the amount owing is paid in full--which, the reports indicate, and Snopes indicate it was, and the child's mother's attorney testified twice that there was no amount of child support in arrears and Hall was completely current in child support--the contempt charge still doesn't hold water (until he walked out on the judge, at which point a new contempt charge is completely valid... but six months? There are teenaged rapists doing barely more than that in jail. Come the fark on!)


I think he wasn't current at the time she filed the case.  He found out about the problem and fixed it before the court appearance.

lack of warmth: I imagine the hearing went something like a Judge Judy episode, judge making decisions based on clean cut mannerisms as oppose to facts and reasoning. It does seem odd to go through a hearing when the matter is already settled. Why was the court hearing still held, and why did the ex even need a lawyer anyway? Isn't these kind of cases treated somewhat like a criminal case where prosecutors are used?


Because she was out to hurt him rather than simply get what she was supposed to.

OgreMagi: I read of some cases where the man got arrested because he didn't make the payments. Even the ex-wife insisted he made the payments on time, but he was still ran through the system and farked over. If you are in a state where the payments are processed through the government system, your life can be farked overly royally because some low-level clerk with a hangover didn't check a box.


Yeah.  I used to have a coworker who got farked on child support because she filed for welfare and omitted mentioning the child support she was receiving.  They turned around and came after him for the welfare money--and ended up getting it because in time he realized that winning would cost more than simply paying up.

itsaidwhat: Suggest a re-read. It's his kid, and his responsibility to know the terms, not anyone else's responsibility to make sure he knows. He's a slacker and wouldn't be in court if he was taking proper care of his kid.

I don't think six months of jail is the answer, unless the judge knows he won't actually serve it and it's only being used for effect. Which it clearly is having. And not just on him.

Look, either he pays or the rest of us pay. I vote that he pays.


No.  What is he supposed to do, call them up every month before sending the check to see if something changed?  I strongly suspect someone failed to send out a notice they were supposed to--very likely deliberately.
 
2014-01-12 08:59:01 PM

Guest: patchvonbraun: OgreMagi: fluffy2097: Today I learned Farkers think Alimony is Child Support.

Today I taught Farkers that Alimony is not child support, but adult support.

/They are similar though, both can cost you 50% of your yearly pre-tax income as a man.
//Better pray to your god your divorce is amicable if you are a man. Prenuptial agreements have already been voided by divorce courts.

I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.

Generally, child support is *not* tax deductible, though spousal support *is*.  The theory I guess being that you'd have to pay that money anyway for upkeep of the children, but the ex-biatch is an adult, and *could* work if she'd get off her fat, bonbon-eating ass, and actually *use* the pharmacy tech education you paid for in the year before you split up....wait, I'm drifting of track, where were we?

Oh yes.  So, spousal support is tax deductible.  Unless there are notional arrears, in which case, spousal isn't tax deductible.  If there are notional arrears, then, well, you're farked forever.  Or you engage in a long, hard, expensive court process to get them expunged because they weren't legitimate to begin with.  Oh fark, I'm drifting off-track again.


/my ex is a fat, lazy biatch.  Send her just over 50% of my net income every month.  That's not enough, apparently.


Just a few questins

How many children does your ex wife have?


Three.  One of whom is 24 and I'm still on the hook for support of.  The "system" is insane, and should be flushed.
 
2014-01-12 09:11:48 PM

cryinoutloud: weltallica: [www.madmaxz.com image 620x350]
Only yourselves to blame, ladies.

Bwaahahahahaahahaaaaa. Yeah, he looks like a great catch.


She's there, isn't she?

Keep looking for that 6'4" CEO with a six-pack, girlfriend.  Bet he's right 'round the corner!
 
2014-01-12 09:58:16 PM
Man, I'm so glad I finished with the ex spouse and child support four years ago...
 
2014-01-12 10:06:18 PM

weltallica: cryinoutloud: weltallica: [www.madmaxz.com image 620x350]
Only yourselves to blame, ladies.

Bwaahahahahaahahaaaaa. Yeah, he looks like a great catch.

She's there, isn't she?

Keep looking for that 6'4" CEO with a six-pack, girlfriend.  Bet he's right 'round the corner!


Considering they're brother and sister both living in their parents' house...
 
2014-01-12 10:17:21 PM

Turbo6inKY: Aigoo:

Get a new judge. My female divorce judge read everything and knew more about the case than either of our attorneys (who hadn't read everything). We each paid our own lawyers and if she had determined fault, she kept i ...

You don't get to just shop for a judge in Kentucky.  You get the one you're assigned.  If you don't like them, too bad.  Unless one party has dirt on the judge and can get them to recuse, you're stuck.  If you don't like their decision, you have to appeal.


If you can demonstrate clear bias, you can certainly ask for a new judge. Or is Kentucky more bass-ackwards than it was 23 years ago (which is the last time I set foot in the state, and it was pretty bass-ackwards then)?
 
2014-01-12 10:22:25 PM

cryinoutloud: weltallica: [www.madmaxz.com image 620x350]
Only yourselves to blame, ladies.

Bwaahahahahaahahaaaaa. Yeah, he looks like a great catch.


I think that's the point, like this is what you've made us into! (Not saying I believe it's that simple myself.)
 
2014-01-12 10:34:56 PM
Aigoo:

If you can demonstrate clear bias, you can certainly ask for a new judge. Or is Kentucky more bass-ackwards than it was 23 years ago (which is the last time I set foot in the state, and it was pretty bass-ackwards then)?


You can't demonstrate the bias. That would be like telling a Fox News viewer their favorite station isn't really fair and balanced.
 
2014-01-12 10:46:16 PM

thamike: Vector R: thamike: Walking out when you're pissed off at the Judge will not help you in any way, except grant you a temporary reprieve of being angry. But it'll simply make it harder for your lawyers to get the Judge to reconsider the ruling.

Even the judge said that had he not walked out like that, she would have been able to give the case a closer look.  Of course, the Daily Mail sliced that tidbit out of their almost verbatim reposting of a retarded MyFoxHouston blog piece.

Oh no, she was perfectly able to give the case a closer look, she just chose not to because she's a power-tripping coont. Some of us walk away when we get too emotional, and that's probable exactly what happened. Better to go take a breather than tell the judge exactly how much of a man-hating coont she is.

Yeah, well, that's not how court works.  That's not even how elementary school works.


Tell that to any of the people who sell "anger management" courses these days.
Their answer is ALWAYS "retreat".
 
2014-01-12 11:02:51 PM
He's a dumbass. You don't get up and walk out of court before being dismissed by the judge. If he does jail time that's why. Not because of the late child support.
 
2014-01-12 11:25:33 PM

patchvonbraun: OgreMagi: fluffy2097: Today I learned Farkers think Alimony is Child Support.

Today I taught Farkers that Alimony is not child support, but adult support.

/They are similar though, both can cost you 50% of your yearly pre-tax income as a man.
//Better pray to your god your divorce is amicable if you are a man. Prenuptial agreements have already been voided by divorce courts.

I'm fairly certain child support is tax deductible, though alimony is not.

Generally, child support is *not* tax deductible, though spousal support *is*.  The theory I guess being that you'd have to pay that money anyway for upkeep of the children, but the ex-biatch is an adult, and *could* work if she'd get off her fat, bonbon-eating ass, and actually *use* the pharmacy tech education you paid for in the year before you split up....wait, I'm drifting of track, where were we?

Oh yes.  So, spousal support is tax deductible.  Unless there are notional arrears, in which case, spousal isn't tax deductible.  If there are notional arrears, then, well, you're farked forever.  Or you engage in a long, hard, expensive court process to get them expunged because they weren't legitimate to begin with.  Oh fark, I'm drifting off-track again.


/my ex is a fat, lazy biatch.  Send her just over 50% of my net income every month.  That's not enough, apparently.


This is not a justification for making allimony (legalized theft and extortion) tax deductible.  It's a justification for removing the whole concept of alimony altogether.
 
2014-01-12 11:27:30 PM

saturn badger: mjbok: If that mistake was him over-paying, would he get the money back?

In my state yep. They pulled a months payment that was over the line and I got my money back.


Well, you should consider yourself lucky.  In many states if your income goes up your child support will go up retroactively and automatically in many cases.  In no states does your child support automatically go down if you lose your job or get a pay cut.  You have to file for it (and if you're lucky enough to actually get a reduction approved) there is no way in hell you get back the difference for the months until the change was approved.

Child support is rigged against men, plain and simple.  Easy way to prove it:  there are multiple instances of men who have proved they are not the father (cue Maury) of a child, but still are required by the courts to pay child support.
 
2014-01-12 11:31:04 PM

Watubi: Sounds to me like this guy didn't get the correct amount held out of his paycheck yet he did nothing about it.  It may not be his fault, but he is responsible for making sure the correct payments are being made.  The mother was not getting her child support so she had to hire a lawyer.  Then, knowing there was going to be a hearing, the father suddenly decided to correct the "mistakes".  So, yes, he is responsible for paying the mother's lawyer.

But, by all means, continue to think society is anti-male


Can't tell uf your trolling or clueless. You just might be a feminazi as no rational person would ever say that with a straight face unless they were trolling.
 
2014-01-12 11:49:50 PM
He probably reads Fark divorce threads and decided to "take a stand" against the family court judge.
 
2014-01-13 12:11:52 AM
Woman on the bench. no shock.
 
2014-01-13 01:08:25 AM
And regardless of what you're charged with/convicted on/whatever, you never walk out on a judge in the middle of a hearing. That's not just a social faux pas, it's another count of contempt of court. You never piss off or disrespect the judge no matter how badly you get screwed. Appeals, new trials, etc. are all part of the system and are there to help people who were wrongly convicted, discriminated against, etc., but that's for later, when emotions are cool and your lawyer(s) can work out a strategy.


Only if you are a rich biatch that likes taking it in the ass. Seriously, you know what it cost for an appeal.....god, you must be white.
 
2014-01-13 01:19:06 AM

Weatherkiss: I know Texas law is pretty draconian, but the article states the visitation was ordered by the court. Which tells me he was probably guilty of either being unwilling or unable to comply with a civil agreement between he and his ex -- possibly on multiple occasions. Which would make a court order the only real way to get him to comply.


That's pretty spurious.

You don't know if the reason for it is
A) the ex and he couldn't agree
B) one or both of them intentionally made it hard to comply
C) the courts automatically issue visitation orders in cases like this (they do in oregon)
D) he's an asshat (that does seem the most likely though, given further evidence)

Also, as to the court papers... they are available on a website, if you didn't "get" yours somehow, your lawyer could have told you where they were, provided copies, or had a copy sent to you at any time.  You could also use your case number to have looked them up at any time.

I'm guessing this guy was a jerk to the judge, an ass to his ex and a typical absentee father.  fark him.
I'm also guessing his ex has made all this just about as hard as she could possibly manage, so fark her too.
 
2014-01-13 03:06:44 AM
Texas sucks with documents. Stationed there six years and hated every time I had to deal with any state or local government organization.

Personal point: I had recieved a letter stating I was up for jury duty. The normal, "We'll be in touch if we need you" type thing. A month later I was receiving papers stating I'd never shown up for jury duty when summoned. Had to bring the two letters to my SJA on base to get it figured out. They never sent the court summons and decided I was at fault for not magically knowing a time and date they wanted me to show up for selection. SJA got me out of trouble, but I did have a warrant out on me for about two months after that detail was cleared up.

Also saw many fathers going through divorce get screwed by paperwork that never arrived. They were still screwed even after stuff arrived with a postmark proving it was sent AFTER it was supposed to have arrived.

Texas sucks at paperwork and using the mail. As for documents being available online in any form... If you don't know a form exists and no one tells you of it, what reason to you have for going hunting for such things when you're busy with life?

Not entirely on the guy's side or his ex's because there's more than what's being told, but I could see the lack of being informed as plausable in that dang state. Texas sucks at documents.
 
2014-01-13 03:29:08 AM
I would hit the judge FTFA:

i.dailymail.co.uk

/with a brick
//bitter
///Image is hotlinked.
 
2014-01-13 08:30:36 AM

mjbok: saturn badger: mjbok: If that mistake was him over-paying, would he get the money back?

In my state yep. They pulled a months payment that was over the line and I got my money back.

Well, you should consider yourself lucky.  In many states if your income goes up your child support will go up retroactively and automatically in many cases.  In no states does your child support automatically go down if you lose your job or get a pay cut.  You have to file for it (and if you're lucky enough to actually get a reduction approved) there is no way in hell you get back the difference for the months until the change was approved.

Child support is rigged against men, plain and simple.  Easy way to prove it:  there are multiple instances of men who have proved they are not the father (cue Maury) of a child, but still are required by the courts to pay child support.


Indeed my combined support payments were based on a legal fiction--namely, that I was still employed at Nortel, making the low-six-digit income I was making there.  But at the time of our separation, I was unemployed, having been disgorged with hundreds of others one fine day in November 2008.  But the "legal fiction" was that I was capable of working at a job that paid what Nortel paid me.  They paid fairly-far above "scale" for many positions, and I was in one of them.  Those jobs simply don't exist any more, and until recently, I was making $45K less than I was at Nortel (that has improved by $10K recently).  But, biatch-faced fat coont and her lawyer insist that I "owe" as if I was still working at the much-better job.  So, the arrears continue to accrue.   I can't afford the $10K it's going to cost to fight this in court, and biatch-face knows this.

Fortunately, I don't have any assets that can be seized, and the FRO (that's another story) doesn't feel inclined to come after me, since I'm covering the child-support portion and *most* of the spousal support portion, AND I'm carrying the communal debt-load entirely myself.  Did I mention that in the year before we split up, I borrowed $9K for her education, and she graduated *with honors* in a pharmacy tech program.  Refuses, still, to work.

/this is cheaper than a therapist :)
 
2014-01-13 09:22:01 AM
patchvonbraun: long sad story

I have a similar story: I had switched divisions from a labor to a technical position at my job in order to progress further but had to take a temporary 25k/year reduction in pay, (2 steps back to take 10 steps forward if you will). Coincidentally, I had a c/s review during this time. The lady (it wasn't a judge, but the head case worker) had decided I had "under employed" myself to screw up C/s even though I had letters from the company stating this was untrue and would (within 3 years) be earning the same or more money than I was previously. She set my c/s to an amount that pretty much meant I would be in jail for "contempt of court" as I had no way to make the monthly payments. I told her as much. She stated "Mr. kendelrio, you have the  potential to pay this much per month". I told her I also had the  potential to win 250 million dollars playing the lottery, but I couldn't walk on the car lot and buy a new car with the  potentialmoney I was going to win.

Long story longer, I had to hire a lawyer (fortunately he let me make a payment plan) and go in front of a real judge.

The judge reduced it, but it still should never have been that high to begin with.

While we are on the subject, I brought up the state of Louisiana's conflict of interest in the whole deal; She asked what conflict of interest? I stated that Louisiana gets 5% of what they collect as a "processing fee", so the more they collect, the more they get. I asked "Doesn't it take a set amount to process a case? Why the percentage". The answer I got was "You are paying for the ones we can't collect."

I'm not against C/S. I understand it isn't for my ex, but for my kid. I would never want to deny her. In fact, I'm the one who set mine up through the state so it would be automatically deducted. If I never see it, I never miss it. I  am,however, tired  of the entire process treating men like pieces of shiat by setting it so high that you literally can barely afford to eat.

I pay 1k a month plus insurances (health, vision and dental) for one child while a female I work with (comparable incomes) who is paying c/s to her ex is paying $75 per kid (three kids).

Ya, it's a fair system.

/that last was sarcasm if you missed it.
 
2014-01-13 10:05:53 AM

kendelrio: patchvonbraun: long sad story

I have a similar story: I had switched divisions from a labor to a technical position at my job in order to progress further but had to take a temporary 25k/year reduction in pay, (2 steps back to take 10 steps forward if you will). Coincidentally, I had a c/s review during this time. The lady (it wasn't a judge, but the head case worker) had decided I had "under employed" myself to screw up C/s even though I had letters from the company stating this was untrue and would (within 3 years) be earning the same or more money than I was previously. She set my c/s to an amount that pretty much meant I would be in jail for "contempt of court" as I had no way to make the monthly payments. I told her as much. She stated "Mr. kendelrio, you have the  potential to pay this much per month". I told her I also had the  potential to win 250 million dollars playing the lottery, but I couldn't walk on the car lot and buy a new car with the  potentialmoney I was going to win.

Long story longer, I had to hire a lawyer (fortunately he let me make a payment plan) and go in front of a real judge.

The judge reduced it, but it still should never have been that high to begin with.

While we are on the subject, I brought up the state of Louisiana's conflict of interest in the whole deal; She asked what conflict of interest? I stated that Louisiana gets 5% of what they collect as a "processing fee", so the more they collect, the more they get. I asked "Doesn't it take a set amount to process a case? Why the percentage". The answer I got was "You are paying for the ones we can't collect."

I'm not against C/S. I understand it isn't for my ex, but for my kid. I would never want to deny her. In fact, I'm the one who set mine up through the state so it would be automatically deducted. If I never see it, I never miss it. I  am,however, tired  of the entire process treating men like pieces of shiat by setting it so high that you literally can barely afford to eat.

...


The FRO (Family Responsibility Office) was created here in Ontario about 30 years ago, when some coont convinced the government that "something needs to be done about deadbeat dads".   So, they created the FRO, who have ex-judicial powers that would astound.  They used some insanely-high numbers to support their claims (60% of dads are dead-beat, or some such nonsense).  A study, years later, showed that the numbers they used to create the FRO in the first place were a near-complete fiction.  Most of their "dead-beat-dads" were either *actually dead*, or had paid-up and made other other arrangements *years and years* prior, and that in fact, only about 10% are what we'd call "dead-beat".

I was briefly unemployed between a contact terminating abruptly, and the job I currently have (been here for 3 years).  During that time, I collected UI benefits, for a grand-total of $1700/month.  Half of which was garnished and sent to the ex.  The FRO hounded me *weekly*, threatening to take away my drivers license, passport, and ultimately throw me in jail, for failing to pay the $3500.00/month in the original agreement.   I asked them how it was they expected me to seek suitable employment without a car (I live in a rural area, as does my ex and the kids), nor how I was expected to make payments from a jail cell.  That, apparently, isn't their problem.  The "victim" is supposed to blow magic fairy-dust out their ass to make payments, it's not their problem.  Oh, the arrears continue to accumulate while you're in jail.  Fortunately, I talked to the ex.  She had no idea that the FRO were being such assholes to me and, rather out-of-character for her, convinced them to back-off.  She must have had a moment of supreme clarity, and realized that she'd be getting nothing if I was in jail.

The FRO here (and, I suspect, in most other places) is a government-sponsored collection of thugs with extra-judicial powers.  They need to be scrapped.   Read the stories of victims of the FRO (100% of them male) who, having nowhere else to turn, ended their lives after years of harassment, despite good-faith efforts to meet the terms of their support agreements. It's an outrage.  Makes me so mad.
 
2014-01-13 10:08:39 AM

The Flexecutioner: says the man looking in the mirror.  mincing words and twisting meanings is really all that's at stake here.  look, if you wanna bail from losing a discussion, im all for it but there's really nothing i can do for you except be correct.


You were being emotional about how harsh the sentence is, somehow inferring from my practical look at what transpired that I think 6 months in jail was fitting and not draconian.  I have implied nothing but the fact that when one walks out of his own contempt hearing in anger, before it is finished, the judge will usually levy a sentence. You're reacting to the sentence, I'm reacting to the story.  These reactions are not mutually exclusive.

 The only other point I'm making is how the awful article (and the awful op-ed looking mess that it claims as a source) is biased and full of weasel words, geared to rile up lazy-brained men of either dubious character or emotional immaturity.  This thread is proof positive of its success in that.
 
2014-01-13 10:55:09 AM

patchvonbraun: Indeed my combined support payments were based on a legal fiction--namely, that I was still employed at Nortel, making the low-six-digit income I was making there.  But at the time of our separation, I was unemployed, having been disgorged with hundreds of others one fine day in November 2008.  But the "legal fiction" was that I was capable of working at a job that paid what Nortel paid me.  They paid fairly-far above "scale" for many positions, and I was in one of them.  Those jobs simply don't exist any more, and until recently, I was making $45K less than I was at Nortel (that has improved by $10K recently).  But, biatch-faced fat coont and her lawyer insist that I "owe" as if I was still working at the much-better job.  So, the arrears continue to accrue.   I can't afford the $10K it's going to cost to fight this in court, and biatch-face knows this.


So, what exactly do you expect will happen? You lose your job - suffering a drastic change in circumstances - and you expect to sit on your couch until a handwritten letter arrives from the judge, who has used their psychic powers to detect your new lack of employment, excusing you from any child support obligations? Do you really think that the judge takes hours each day to inquire into the current employment status of each and every support payer? Don't you think it might be a weeeeeeee bit easier to contact the court and say "hey, I'm out of work, and I can't make my support payments"? But oh, wait, that might take some effort on your part. Much better to go on Fark and biatch about how unfair the courts are for not magically knowing your entire life story without being told.

And there are such things as volunteer legal counsel for destitute individuals such as yourself. But again, that takes getting off your ass.

Fortunately, I don't have any assets that can be seized, and the FRO (that's another story) doesn't feel inclined to come after me, since I'm covering the child-support portion and *most* of the spousal support portion, AND I'm carrying the communal debt-load entirely myself.  Did I mention that in the year before we split up, I borrowed $9K for her education, and she graduated *with honors* in a pharmacy tech program.  Refuses, still, to work.

Why not get custody changed? You're out of work, you take care of the kid. That way she can go to work. But again, that takes more effort than whining on the Internet.
 
2014-01-13 11:13:06 AM
Power tippers will power trip... Congratulations for farking this up way more than it was, judge.
 
2014-01-13 11:21:20 AM

Theaetetus: patchvonbraun: Indeed my combined support payments were based on a legal fiction--namely, that I was still employed at Nortel, making the low-six-digit income I was making there.  But at the time of our separation, I was unemployed, having been disgorged with hundreds of others one fine day in November 2008.  But the "legal fiction" was that I was capable of working at a job that paid what Nortel paid me.  They paid fairly-far above "scale" for many positions, and I was in one of them.  Those jobs simply don't exist any more, and until recently, I was making $45K less than I was at Nortel (that has improved by $10K recently).  But, biatch-faced fat coont and her lawyer insist that I "owe" as if I was still working at the much-better job.  So, the arrears continue to accrue.   I can't afford the $10K it's going to cost to fight this in court, and biatch-face knows this.

So, what exactly do you expect will happen? You lose your job - suffering a drastic change in circumstances - and you expect to sit on your couch until a handwritten letter arrives from the judge, who has used their psychic powers to detect your new lack of employment, excusing you from any child support obligations? Do you really think that the judge takes hours each day to inquire into the current employment status of each and every support payer? Don't you think it might be a weeeeeeee bit easier to contact the court and say "hey, I'm out of work, and I can't make my support payments"? But oh, wait, that might take some effort on your part. Much better to go on Fark and biatch about how unfair the courts are for not magically knowing your entire life story without being told.

And there are such things as volunteer legal counsel for destitute individuals such as yourself. But again, that takes getting off your ass.

Fortunately, I don't have any assets that can be seized, and the FRO (that's another story) doesn't feel inclined to come after me, since I'm covering the child-support portion and *mo ...


The process of putting together a "change of circumstance motion" isn't, actually, as easy as you paint it.  I never said I didn't talk to my lawyer. I've spent a *lot* on lawyers during this whole mess.  Actually going to court and arguing such a motion (and, it wouldn't be a single visit to the court, it would be several round-trips, because, that's how the system is set up) would cost me more than I can possibly put together.  Would it be "worth it"?  Yes, I suppose that spending $10K (that I don't have) to have $50-$60K in arrears expunged and monthly payments adjusted would be "worth it", but guys like me are stuck in cash-flow situations where none of the "worth it" math actually applies.  I can't get a freebie lawyer because, well, I actually work for living.

I resent being called lazy.  I work two jobs just to meet the unreasonable support obligations, and spend lots of time with my kids.  But hey, if you want to characterize me, and people like me as "couch surfing assholes", you're entirely free to do that.  I just don't think it's a reasonable
characterization.

/done


Don't assume that you know the entire story, either.
 
2014-01-13 11:25:04 AM

Theaetetus: Don't you think it might be a weeeeeeee bit easier to contact the court and say "hey, I'm out of work, and I can't make my support payments"? But oh, wait, that might take some effort on your part. Much better to go on Fark and biatch about how unfair the courts are for not magically knowing your entire life story without being told.


If only it was that easy.  To get support increased is not that difficult.  To get it decreased is positively Herculean in comparison.
 
2014-01-13 11:39:56 AM
mjbok:If only it was that easy.  To get support increased is not that difficult.  To get it decreased is positively Herculean in comparison.

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-13 11:47:55 AM

patchvonbraun: The process of putting together a "change of circumstance motion" isn't, actually, as easy as you paint it.  I never said I didn't talk to my lawyer. I've spent a *lot* on lawyers during this whole mess.  Actually going to court and arguing such a motion (and, it wouldn't be a single visit to the court, it would be several round-trips, because, that's how the system is set up) would cost me more than I can possibly put together.  Would it be "worth it"?  Yes, I suppose that spending $10K (that I don't have) to have $50-$60K in arrears expunged and monthly payments adjusted would be "worth it", but guys like me are stuck in cash-flow situations where none of the "worth it" math actually applies.


And so what? The court is supposed to magically know all this and change everything for you without being told? You're complaining that the system is unfair, but what you're saying is that it's only "unfair" because it's not psychic.

I can't get a freebie lawyer because, well, I actually work for living.

Tell that to this guy:
"But at the time of our separation, I was unemployed, having been disgorged with hundreds of others one fine day in November 2008."

I resent being called lazy.  I work two jobs just to meet the unreasonable support obligations, and spend lots of time with my kids.  But hey, if you want to characterize me, and people like me as "couch surfing assholes", you're entirely free to do that.  I just don't think it's a reasonable
characterization.


"I'm unemployed and won't tell that to the court! It's so unfair that they think I still have a job!"
"Well, if you got off your lazy ass and told the court, they'd fix it."
"I work two jobs!"

If you can't even get your story straight here, how much credibility do you think a court would credit it with?

But still, there's a fundamental point here... You seem to think that the court should act to fix your situation without you ever telling them that it needs to be fixed. Where does this huge sense of entitlement come from?
 
2014-01-13 11:57:33 AM

The Flexecutioner: What part of 6-months in jail do you find fair for this slight?  I was never saying he shouldn't have been held in CoC because the law (in a zero-tolerance kind of way) demands a CoC ruling.  but the 6th months in jail part IS arbitrarily at the whims of her ego.  this is the part that is power-tripping and worth every bit of scrutiny and derision from the public.



I think the issue here is easily represented in a way we can all understand:


2.bp.blogspot.com


I'm not sayin' she was right, but you're sayin' walking out on the judge don't mean nothing, and I'm sayin' it does. I've been in a million courtrooms with a million judges and attitude and decorum always meant somethin'. We act like they don't, but they do. That's what's so f*ckin' f*cked up about it. This emotional thing's goin' on that nobody's talkin about, but you know it and we know it, the farkin' Judge knew it, and this guy shoulda better f*ckin' known f*ckin' better. That's her f*ckin' courtroom, man. She ain't gonna have a sense of humor about that sh*t.
 
2014-01-13 12:01:23 PM

Theaetetus: If you can't even get your story straight here, how much credibility do you think a court would credit it with?


Newsflash.  People that were at one time unemployed do (usually) find work.  You have a job making 100k.  You get laid off.  You get dinged with CS based on that 100k "potential".  You find two jobs which (together) get you to 70k.  You think you should have to jump through tons of hoops to get this rectified?
 
2014-01-13 12:05:07 PM
mjbok:Newsflash.  People that were at one time unemployed do (usually) find work.  You have a job making 100k.  You get laid off.  You get dinged with CS based on that 100k "potential".  You find two jobs which (together) get you to 70k.  You think you should have to jump through tons of hoops to get this rectified?

Obviously that person is an asshole who is intentionally underemploying themselves. They need to bootstrap up and get that jerb back!

/was that too much?
 
2014-01-13 12:15:14 PM

mjbok: Theaetetus: If you can't even get your story straight here, how much credibility do you think a court would credit it with?

Newsflash.  People that were at one time unemployed do (usually) find work.  You have a job making 100k.  You get laid off.  You get dinged with CS based on that 100k "potential".  You find two jobs which (together) get you to 70k.  You think you should have to jump through tons of hoops to get this rectified?


You think the court should magically know all of that, without even contacting them once? Is even a single hoop, 20 feet in diameter and sitting on the ground, still too much?
 
2014-01-13 12:37:02 PM

Theaetetus: You think the court should magically know all of that, without even contacting them once? Is even a single hoop, 20 feet in diameter and sitting on the ground, still too much?


The court did know he was unemployed.  The court thought he had the "potential" to make 100k based on previous earnings and CS was set based on that.  If the court thinks he should pay x on an income of 0, why would the court reduce CS when the amount being made is actually more than 0.

Trying to figure out if you're a troll, a misandrist, or just a regular asshole
 
2014-01-13 12:46:55 PM

mjbok: Theaetetus: You think the court should magically know all of that, without even contacting them once? Is even a single hoop, 20 feet in diameter and sitting on the ground, still too much?

The court did know he was unemployed.  The court thought he had the "potential" to make 100k based on previous earnings and CS was set based on that.  If the court thinks he should pay x on an income of 0, why would the court reduce CS when the amount being made is actually more than 0.


He never said any of that, nor do I believe it's even remotely true, particularly since he said that he didn't go to court:
Actually going to court and arguing such a motion... would cost me more than I can possibly put together. 

Trying to figure out if you're a troll, a misandrist, or just a regular asshole

Or the fourth option, an advocate for the court system who won't let people get away with sob stories that are based on a false premise that the court should magically know all the details about your life and fix everything when circumstances changed  without ever being notified. Shiat, is that really so tough to understand? Or does saying that you should contact the court rather than expecting them to be omniscient make me an asshole in your world?
 
2014-01-13 12:54:05 PM

Theaetetus: Or the fourth option, an advocate for the court system who won't let people get away with sob stories that are based on a false premise that the court should magically know all the details about your life and fix everything when circumstances changed without ever being notified. Shiat, is that really so tough to understand? Or does saying that you should contact the court rather than expecting them to be omniscient make me an asshole in your world?


Do you not understand that someone (that had been laid off) was saddled with child support based on a 100k a year income?  Do you also not understand that CS is not automatically lowered when the court is notified of a change in income, and rarely is reduced based on smaller income?  Do you not understand that the requirements to get child support raised are far fewer than those to get it lowered, if getting it lowered is possible at all?  Is that so tough to understand?
 
2014-01-13 12:59:52 PM
Judge Millard, however, says that when she found Hall in contempt of court, he got up and walked out of the courtroom - which is enough to anger any judge.

Dumbass.
 
2014-01-13 01:34:14 PM

mjbok: Theaetetus: Or the fourth option, an advocate for the court system who won't let people get away with sob stories that are based on a false premise that the court should magically know all the details about your life and fix everything when circumstances changed without ever being notified. Shiat, is that really so tough to understand? Or does saying that you should contact the court rather than expecting them to be omniscient make me an asshole in your world?

Do you not understand that someone (that had been laid off) was saddled with child support based on a 100k a year income?


Do you not understand that someone earning 100k was saddled with child support based on an income of 100k, and that subsequently, they lost their job, but didn't bother telling the court about it?

Do you also not understand that CS is not automatically lowered when the court is notified of a change in income,

Sure, they have to verify that change, and also verify that you're voluntarily avoiding higher paying opportunities in order to stiff your kid.

... and rarely is reduced based on smaller income?

And that's completely incorrect. Unless, of course, you're including in that pool all of the people who never go to court and never ask for it to be reduced in the first place. Because, hoo boy, are there a lot of those idiots.

Do you not understand that the requirements to get child support raised are far fewer than those to get it lowered, if getting it lowered is possible at all?  Is that so tough to understand?

"Far fewer" being one less - as noted above, if your income goes down, the court will look to see if you're just trying to stiff your kid. If it goes up, that's moot. But other than that, it's an identical set of factors.
 
2014-01-13 01:38:20 PM

Theaetetus: Do you not understand that someone earning 100k was saddled with child support based on an income of 100k, and that subsequently, they lost their job, but didn't bother telling the court about it?


You're an idiot.  It's been explained several times.  The person had an income of $0.  They were unemployed. They were given CS based on their former income of 100k.  The court was well aware of the fact they had no income.
 
2014-01-13 01:41:51 PM
System is farked.  You have to definitely keep on top of the communication with any child support organization.  Also, if he is in jail for non payment, he can't earn money. In CA they  will take your licence if you are behind, which hinders most people's ability to work.  Also, they withhold your Income Tax refund if they think you owe.  The system needs an overhaul.
 
2014-01-13 02:01:09 PM

thamike: The Flexecutioner: says the man looking in the mirror.  mincing words and twisting meanings is really all that's at stake here.  look, if you wanna bail from losing a discussion, im all for it but there's really nothing i can do for you except be correct.

You were being emotional about how harsh the sentence is, somehow inferring from my practical look at what transpired that I think 6 months in jail was fitting and not draconian.  I have implied nothing but the fact that when one walks out of his own contempt hearing in anger, before it is finished, the judge will usually levy a sentence. You're reacting to the sentence, I'm reacting to the story.  These reactions are not mutually exclusive.

 The only other point I'm making is how the awful article (and the awful op-ed looking mess that it claims as a source) is biased and full of weasel words, geared to rile up lazy-brained men of either dubious character or emotional immaturity.  This thread is proof positive of its success in that.


The exact opposite, I was being rational about how harsh it was.  The Judge, who is supposed to be unbiased and de facto the most rational person there, handed down an egregious sentence for a response (walking out) to a mandatory CoC, not a CoC born of an outburst of emotion or any of the things we see in tv judge scenes that have gavels banging, etc.  and yeah, the article was fail, but i read Fail's, the Houston original, and the snopes article to piece what i could together of what we know and what was suggested.  Based on what we know (which isnt the full story) she was absolutely out of bounds in thinking somehow that 6 months in jail was a good outcome for him, the ex, the child, and the courts.  and it was all over her feelings getting hurt.  should a "followup" clarify this im all for admitting being in the wrong but based on what we know now I am not.

thamike: The Flexecutioner: What part of 6-months in jail do you find fair for this slight?  I was never saying he shouldn't have been held in CoC because the law (in a zero-tolerance kind of way) demands a CoC ruling.  but the 6th months in jail part IS arbitrarily at the whims of her ego.  this is the part that is power-tripping and worth every bit of scrutiny and derision from the public.


I think the issue here is easily represented in a way we can all understand:


[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x478]


I'm not sayin' she was right, but you're sayin' walking out on the judge don't mean nothing, and I'm sayin' it does. I've been in a million courtrooms with a million judges and attitude and decorum always meant somethin'. We act like they don't, but they do. That's what's so f*ckin' f*cked up about it. This emotional thing's goin' on that nobody's talkin about, but you know it and we know it, the farkin' Judge knew it, and this guy shoulda better f*ckin' known f*ckin' better. That's her f*ckin' courtroom, man. She ain't gonna have a sense of humor about that sh*t.


I get the effort.  it was clever and you even found the pic for that exposition to really sell it.  but i was never saying that it never means anything to walk out on a judge.  i was saying walking out on a mandatory CoC status ruling NEVER warrants 6 months in jail for a Dad totally up on his payments with no prior altercations with the judge (as far as we know).  the armchair lawyers in here have informed me that some CoCs are mandatory responses in family court for things like being delinquent or late on terms (both of which he was up to date on when court convened).  the way you are perceiving whatever attitudes were "probably" present when he walked out vs. the ones I'm assuming are all still based on assumptions (or experiential bias) and cant play rational parts in why we are claiming who was in the "wrong" here.  this is fark.  of course we already know who is "wrong" here and we have whargarrbulous discourses about these things before any facts are in.  and honestly, my snarky comment about logic being nowhere in elementary schools and the court system was simply a response to your snarky comparison of the two.  cheap shots begat cheap shots and thus is Fark discourse.  but on the topic iteslf, the judge was nothing but out of line.  there is no justifying it beyond admitting she was power-tripping within the lines.

at best for this guy, all he can hope is that decisions like this preclude her from higher offices or judgeships.  even this is just one example for us, to me she doesn't seem capable of not letting emotion get the best of her.  (yeah, yeah, im sure there are plenty just as bad or worse than her in those higher offices.)
 
2014-01-13 02:29:16 PM

mjbok: Trying to figure out if you're a troll, a misandrist, or just a regular asshole


ding ding ding
 
2014-01-13 02:50:33 PM

Theaetetus: mjbok: Theaetetus: Or the fourth option, an advocate for the court system who won't let people get away with sob stories that are based on a false premise that the court should magically know all the details about your life and fix everything when circumstances changed without ever being notified. Shiat, is that really so tough to understand? Or does saying that you should contact the court rather than expecting them to be omniscient make me an asshole in your world?

Do you not understand that someone (that had been laid off) was saddled with child support based on a 100k a year income?

Do you not understand that someone earning 100k was saddled with child support based on an income of 100k, and that subsequently, they lost their job, but didn't bother telling the court about it?

Do you also not understand that CS is not automatically lowered when the court is notified of a change in income,

Sure, they have to verify that change, and also verify that you're voluntarily avoiding higher paying opportunities in order to stiff your kid.

... and rarely is reduced based on smaller income?

And that's completely incorrect. Unless, of course, you're including in that pool all of the people who never go to court and never ask for it to be reduced in the first place. Because, hoo boy, are there a lot of those idiots.

Do you not understand that the requirements to get child support raised are far fewer than those to get it lowered, if getting it lowered is possible at all?  Is that so tough to understand?

"Far fewer" being one less - as noted above, if your income goes down, the court will look to see if you're just trying to stiff your kid. If it goes up, that's moot. But other than that, it's an identical set of factors.


Oh good, the patent attorney that has presumably never been on the receiving end in family court is here to tell us just how easy the system is, if only you'll get off your ass.

Here's how mine went
1. Get good job-state files for increase, sends notice by post halfway across the country then halfway across the Pacific to notify me of my right to a hearing if I respond within 10 days of postmark. I receive notice 20 days after postmark

2. CS gets set to new amount because I didn't respond in time, effective retroactive to filing date. Whatever, start paying new amount.

3. Get laid off due to contract change in new fiscal year. Go on unemployment CS is now $200/mo above UE payments

4. Call CS office and Court. Response "FARK YOU PAY US"

5. Mandatory administrative hearing. Provide layoff notice, proof of UI income, statement of assets, and proof of work search showing average of 5 resumes per day across the nation for similar paying jobs. That is 150 per month.

6. FARK YOU PAY US

7. File in court. Refile all paperwork. Wait 6 months

8. Receive notice of hearing with option to appear by phone. Ask for phone hearing so as to not have to travel halfway across country for an hour long hearing

9. FARK YOU GET OUT HERE NEXT WEEK!!

10. Hearing day, prior to court: "Hrm. It seems as though you can only pay $XXX instead of the 4 times that we've been charging you. OK, fine, we'll go with that.

11. Judge: FINE. HERE'S YOUR NEW AMOUNT. BUT FARK YOU, YOU STILL OWE THE BALANCE OF WHAT YOU WERE OVERCHARGED.

Only took two years. Really easy stuff.
 
2014-01-13 03:18:36 PM
Judges wear black for a reason.
 
2014-01-13 03:19:09 PM

buzzcut73: Only took two years. Really easy stuff.


But if you weren't so lazy it would have resolved easily and there would have been butterflies and kittens and the court probably would have paid you.  Why did you have to be so lazy?
 
2014-01-13 03:19:45 PM

Deep Contact: Judges wear black for a reason.


Because it's slimming?
 
2014-01-13 04:27:14 PM

The Flexecutioner: The exact opposite, I was being rational about how harsh it was.


Which would be perfectly fine if had taken any position on the harshness of the sentence.  Do you see how your opinion and my opinion have nothing at odds with one another?

I'm talking about the lack of journalistic integrity, and you're (well you seemed to be) accepting the story as it was given.  My only point was that this piece was designed to inspire exactly the overwhelming manrage response that it has received.  That alone calls the integrity of the facts into question.

So far, i see two major factions in this conversation--"F*ck that whorebeast b*tch trying to get one over on manly manhood man-me" vs. "Deadbeat dad tried to get one over on the system, and now he wants to call unfair when he gets his just desserts."  It's a cheap trick that is the life force of the Daily Mail--and increasingly of the entirety of news media-- and one that is the single most driving reason for my training and education in journalism to go absolutely nowhere in its intended direction.

I'm not reacting to this on my base gender-specific triggers. And if you are saying you aren't either, fine.  The Pulp Fiction thing works for the rest of them (and that's being polite), and you can consider yourself excluded, if you like.
 
2014-01-13 04:40:33 PM

buzzcut73: Oh good, the patent attorney that has presumably never been on the receiving end in family court is here to tell us just how easy the system is, if only you'll get off your ass.

Here's how mine went
1. Get good job-state files for increase, sends notice by post halfway across the country then halfway across the Pacific to notify me of my right to a hearing if I respond within 10 days of postmark. I receive notice 20 days after postmark

2. CS gets set to new amount because I didn't respond in time, effective retroactive to filing date. Whatever, start paying new amount.

3. Get laid off due to contract change in new fiscal year. Go on unemployment CS is now $200/mo above UE payments

4. Call CS office and Court. Response "FARK YOU PAY US"

5. Mandatory administrative hearing. Provide layoff notice, proof of UI income, statement of assets, and proof of work search showing average of 5 resumes per day across the nation for similar paying jobs. That is 150 per month.

6. FARK YOU PAY US

7. File in court. Refile all paperwork. Wait 6 months

8. Receive notice of hearing with option to appear by phone. Ask for phone hearing so as to not have to travel halfway across country for an hour long hearing

9. FARK YOU GET OUT HERE NEXT WEEK!!

10. Hearing day, prior to court: "Hrm. It seems as though you can only pay $XXX instead of the 4 times that we've been charging you. OK, fine, we'll go with that.

11. Judge: FINE. HERE'S YOUR NEW AMOUNT. BUT FARK YOU, YOU STILL OWE THE BALANCE OF WHAT YOU WERE OVERCHARGED.

Only took two years. Really easy stuff.


So just get custody next time. Apparently it's really easy for a man to get especially if he's unemployed.
 
2014-01-13 05:50:16 PM

Fafai: So just get custody next time. Apparently it's really easy for a man to get especially if he's unemployed.


So true, if a man is unemployed he almost always wins custody.
 
2014-01-13 09:59:30 PM

Luse: And for some reason young men are increasingly shunning marriage.


What does marriage have to do with child support?
 
2014-01-13 11:53:57 PM

rnatalie: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 725x503]


Scary, I'm at over 50% on that "man card", and I haven't even been trying (or knew there was a list).
 
Displayed 245 of 245 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report