Skip to comments.(U.S. Rep. Joe) Walsh ordered to prove why he’s $100,000 arrears in child-support
Posted on 09/14/2011 9:43:31 PM PDT by Libloather
Walsh ordered to prove why hes $100,000 arrears in child-support
By ABDON M. PALLASCH
September 14, 2011 9:14PM
CHICAGO A Cook County judge issued a preliminary ruling Wednesday against U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Johnsburg, in the Tea Party favorites child-support dispute with his ex-wife, ordering Walsh to explain why he appears to be $100,000 behind on his child-support payments.
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Raul Vega also wanted to know why Walsh wasnt in court for the hearing the McHenry Republicans ex-wife, Laura Walsh was and said he expects him to show up at the next hearing in November.
Walshs new attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega for what purpose he wanted the congressman in court.
Vega gave her a puzzled look. To which Boyle responded: Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.
(Excerpt) Read more at newssun.suntimes.com ...
He better stop messin' around with this and pay up.
He’s got accountants who pay for it all.
He has accountants pay for it all.
Right. "All men get screwed over here. You didn't know that?"
Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution:
“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
That’s $20,000 a year. I wonder how many kids he has?
State formulas are guidelines, as are the standard cusody orders. You can agree to any number, but then you are bound to that agreement. The numbers are higher for the wealthy (Tiger’s are in the millions annually).
I thought that protection only applied to Kennedys.
“He has accountants pay for it all.”
Maybe he could sell the Mazer, because he can’t drive it anymore?
But seriously folks...
It's because he didn't make the payments! DUH!
Vega gave her a puzzled look. To which Boyle responded: His Maserati does 185, he lost his license...now he don’t drive.
That means that Walsh isn’t subject to “civil arrest,” not that he can’t be sued or ordered to pay back child support.
We’ve known that Walsh is a deadbeat for like 18 months now (soon after he won the February 2010 primary it came out that he and his campaign owed people money left and right, and the IL GOP tried tp get him to stand down so he could be replaced by a non-deadbeat. It was certainly Walsh’s right to stay in the race, and to his credit he struck a chord with voters and rode the GOP wave to an upset victory over Melissa Bean, but he really should have paid his debts, particularly the back child support he owes his kids. Walsh is a strong voice in favor of reducing the federal debt, but if his personal debt is as out of control as the federal government’s then all his insights and eloquence will be for naught.
Child support Family court is like Iranian justice, current child support laws are a bribe to any woman to have kids without a husband, or to break up her family if married. Its a complete scam.
If it legally was required to be used for the kids, rather than the Mom’s boyfriends, drugs, alcohol,... etc then it would make sense. But it is just privatized welfare now encouraging fatherless families.
“But it is just privatized welfare now encouraging fatherless families.”
So true! Child support should be based on how much it costs to raise a child, not how much the sucker, er father, makes. This is just alimony in a different form and even worse since it’s not tax deductible like alimony. Also the feds have made sure that if you fall behind you’re screwed as the interest and penalties often are more than what’s owed and it can’t be reduced. Sucks to be a man in the US, you’re taking your financial life in your hands if you marry and have kids.
I agree. Assuming that this has been legally settled, then he should pay up. If he believes that this is a matter of principle and a miscarriage of justice then he should say so and be ready for the consequences. You cannot preach personal responsibility and then weasel on child support.