Posted on 07/21/2009 5:08:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?
Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?
Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?
Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?
Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?
These are among the injustices that the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic Senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.
His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.
Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer.
Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.
Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support," and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.
But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father).
This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful.
Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wa., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.
The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone, for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream.
There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.
Kind of old news now.
Not from NJ where they do it all of the time?
He is the effective legal father. Don't you love these arcane concepts that they codify into law? tough crap for you dude! try voting the bastards out.
(Tough love from the liberal trash running the legal system)
I had an employee to whom I paid about $10 per hour. Good wages for the job he had.
He was a nice guy but did screw up and had a child out of wedlock.
The judge, female, ordered child support payments equal to his gross earnings, so he started going to jail every three or four months on a two to three week sentence for non-payment.
When he told the judge he obviously could not pay the whole amount each month she ordered him to get a better job, as if he was capable of that (he was not). He did have a second job but he did have to live somewhere and eat now and then. The judge did not care.
Yes the family courts are like Islamic courts in Iran and pro-life republicans made a deal with the feminists to promote single mom-hood and destroy marriage. Its why the whole Palin pro-life theme leaves me flat.
I didn’t think the judges could order child support calculated differently than the law allowed. I do know that the judge in my divorce took my ex’s word for what he made and later took his atty’s word for what he made but they demanded to see MY paystub to substantiate the insurance deduction. His W-2 is never looked at to see the bonus he gets every year (that dried up as soon as he was out of the house - bet me!)
There is a lot of injustice out there. Just because the mother of a child says a certain guy is the father doesn’t make it so - but that is the name on the birth certificate. If not married, I think it should be mandatory for blood type match minimum to determine the father. DNA is the guy still says he “didn’t do it”!
I also think that Pam Stenzel’s film about teenage sex should be shown in every school in the nation! “Sex has a price tag.”
One of the few reasons I can see that gay marriage should be allowed. It will be funny to see lesbians jailed under these laws when they get divorced from their wives.
Wow, can we prosecute the Judge, the prosecution, the CPS (or agency in charge of child support) under USC TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 & § 242? (Conspiracy against rights AND Deprivation of rights under color of law, respectively)
Moreover, the cited law allows for the death-penalty in cases where kidnapping (or attempt) was used in such conspiracy/deprivation. (see: http://definitions.uslegal.com/k/kidnapping/ #3,5,& 6 may all be applicable)
And finally, just to cement that the cited federal laws ARE applicable: either Amendment 6 or 7 of the United States constitution is applicable; one deals with civil suits, the other with criminal, and both guarantee the right to a Jury trial in this instance.
"Out of Order?", a year 2000 WCVB-TV (Boston) Chronicle video is an excellent description of this ongoing injustice against men.
I tell this story a lot. Stop me if you’re heard it before.
Years ago when Cabbage Pattch dolls were all the rage, I was working with this woman (divorced, two children) who was always complaining about money. Her favorite complaint was about her ex-husband who she said did not pay enough child support. She was constantly dragging the poor guy into court for more money.
So right before Christmas, this woman who was so broke and poor announced that she had bought a Cabbage Patch doll for her daughter. big mouth that I am, I asked her how, if she was so broke and poor and not getting enough child support, could afford to buy her daughter this doll. If I remember right, those dolls cost about $100 or $200. Of course, this woman became all huffy. She told me that I wouldn’t understand because I didn’t have children, and that when you have children, you spend whatever you have to in order to ensure their happiness.
I informed this woman that while I didn’t have children, I do know how I was raised. Basically, my partents provided food, clothing and shelter. If there was anything left over, it was put into savings accounts for our higher education. Anything else that might be left over after that would go for luxuries, such as toys. If we kids wanted some toy, and my parents didn’t have the money,
we did not get that toy.
From then on, every time she whined about her ex-husband, I just tuned her out or walked away.
No. Judges have unqualified immunity.
For example, the judge could order you castrated for screwing his daughter and there isn't really any recourse for you against him. - legally.
Since I am going through a divorce, I am well aware of these stories. Nothing this extreme has happened to me, yet. However the assumption made by the Court, before even one hearing is always that the child will stay with the mother, and that the father is a deadbeat who isn’t going to pay. I feel good about how I’m going to be treated when that is the starting point.
That’s not what this law says, it says ANY persons.... that means judges, Senators, USSC Justices, and even the President are valid applicants/targets of this law.
Words DO have meanings.
Oh wait, only for us peons and grunts; the law doesn’t apply to government officials. [/cynic]
When North Carolina first instituted a standardized system for child support about 9 years ago where support was paid to NC Child Support and then redistributed, they had a glitch in their system that put thousands of men in arrears even with the payments current on a personal level.
My ex and 18 year old daughter lived in South Carolina so I drove down there in a crane service truck to file for the emancipation of my daughter not knowing that there was a warrant outstanding for my arrest for NC's failure to pay support. Thanks to a sympathetic Clerk of Courts who explained the situation to me, I put a lot of road between the courthouse and myself until the situation resolved itself.
sure - but judges have unqualified immunity from those laws. In case you didn't get that meaning from my prior post because I put it badly.
Like how diplomats have diplomatic immunity from almost everything and our laws can pound sand in that regard, no matter how they read.
(Tough love from the liberal trash running the legal system)
Yes, these are laws enforcing centuries-old doctrines.
I can't help but notice that for feminists, any laws (which apply to women) based upon centuries-old doctrines are suspect by definition.
>sure - but judges have unqualified immunity from those laws.
On what grounds? If they are rendering just and lawful judgments while living within the law then they need have no fear; the only thing such a system would ensure would be the corruption and arrogance of the judge.
>In case you didn’t get that meaning from my prior post because I put it badly.
Oh, I got your meaning; but it does not logically follow.
I’d like to see this unqualified immunity vs the laws of physics. (I get the feeling my .45 ACP, 357 Mag, or 5.7x28 would trump any judge’s “immunity” from said laws... but I could be wrong, they COULD be gods who rule the universe and stand above all law. I just don’t think that is the case.)
maybe marrying a good girl and otherwise keeping it in your pants isn’t such a bad idea after all.
For a while women hooked into the scam of accusing a random soldier in the war zone of being the father and the military, without question, took “support” money out of the soldier’s paycheck for the women and courts upheld it all. I haven’t heard about such an incident for a few years so I think it must have been stopped but it was a great scam while it lasted. I wasn’t sure that was true until I met such a damsel right here who bragged about it. She was still getting money from the soldier she never actually met several months later.
A “good girl” who is befriended by a good feminist attorney or just an attorney who sees fees from the husband and from the state is every bit as dangerous as a conniving %$#@*.
And it is men who pay it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.