In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard

> From: Dan Dingeldein 
> Hi,

One of the big questions is at what point does the child support shift 
from a negotiated settlement into a "loss of life liberty or property" 
requiring the full process of law?

Would attourneys for women be so eager to represent them in the family 
court if they knew that they might actually be forced to represent men in 
the criminal proceedings - at no charge!  It doesn't take much for an NCP 
father to prove he cannot afford an attourney.

> My understanding is that they also view child support as a obligation
> as opposed to a debt.

If this is true, then the father would be entitled to a public defender 
the minute the judge exceeded the amount negotiated in the settlement.  
The wife could settle for less on the probability that she would get it.
Only the voluntary portion of the contract would be enforcable.

> Thus, arrearage is considered "non-support" which is a felony here in Ma,
> thus the ability of law enforcement to arrest and incarcerate pending 
> arraignment under felony charges. 

I suppose this would be tantamount to a fraud or embezzlement charge.  
Such a charge would entitle the defendent to a Jury Trial, public 
defender, criminal prosecutor, a unanimous verdict, and the right of the 
Jury to determine whether the amount in the original settlement was fair and 
reasonable.

When voters see the state asking for a "mere 25%" of the man's gross 
"imputed income" (what the state says he can make), they think 25% isn't 
so bad.  When they suddenly see a man who has studied for 16-18 years, 
worked 50-60 hours/week for 10-12 years, and finally able to earn 
$50,000/year left with $6oo/month to live on, a Jury suddenly develops a 
strange sense of compassion.  If the opposition pointed out that what 
they really want to do is raise the total deduction from 35% to 95% of 
actual income, voters might "wake up and smell the coffee".

I don't know which is more offensive, the 20% that goes to my wife and 
her husband for child support, or the 50% that goes to them from my tax 
pocket to their disability, food stamps, medicaid, and FHA mortgage.
Neither of them earns more than $300/month (on the books anyway) and both 
have been full-time students for almost 6 years now.

I wonder if they would be so eager to prosecute if I could present that 
evidence in court.  Up until now, NCPs were quietly swept under the rug.  
The collection agencies would get their 30% and pass the rest on to the 
mother.  After a while, it just isn't worth it to either side.  The NCPs 
stop wanting to see their children, the CPs just find ways to make it on 
their own.

The only way a man would pay 80% of his income for 20 years is if he were
committed to the outcome of his children.  A man who only sees his 
children every two weeks won't be committed to the outcome.

> It's utterly obsurd. You get laid off, it takes months to get a hearing,

Companies like to lay-off fathers right after the divorce.  This is a 
very unproductive period in a man's life.  He is a higher insurance risk, 
he is more irritable, and he will not be motivated by money.

> the judge denies your request to restructure the obligation.

The judge isn't stupid.  How are you going to pay $300/month to "catch 
up" when your earning $2000 and paying $1000 in "taxes" and $500/month in 
child support?  Where are you going to live for $300/month.  How are you 
going to get to work.

Here's a little secret.  The Judge EXPECTS you to do something illegal!  
He EXPECTS you to sell DRUGS, PIMP, Hustle Queers, Break into is cranky 
neighbors house and steal her jewels.  You might even kill someone.

Remember, the Judge spends 8 hours/day listening to hardened criminals 
pretend to be innocent victims.  The good ones are real convincing, 
especially the young looking girls in their white frilly dresses.  To him 
you are case number 7 of the day.  He has already seen three men try to 
get a "default judgement" in which the wife loses everything, including 
the House, Kids, and the IRA.  Then there's the hooker who just happened 
to find this john's card.  The john thinks she's just a pretty lady who 
wanted to have sex with him.  She didn't charge him anything.  Now she 
wants 1/2 the ranch, 20% of his oil royalties, and a restraining order.

Neither of them know that the Judge just happened to pull up her prior 
convictions.  He'll find for the mother because the bumpkin didn't put up 
any evidence of his own and as judge, he must obey the guidelines of the law.
Besides, as a single poppa, he'll be paying 60% of his income to the 
state for the next 20 years.

> You're already hundreds if not thousands of dollars behind,
> you still can't find a decent job, you hit the "felony threshold" of 
> $2500 in arrears, a warrant is issued and you get arrested. You go in 
> front of the same judge who denied your adjustment in the first place, 
> he finds you in contempt and guilty of non-support, VIOLA!

In other words, if you owe $2499, you are just a nice schmuck who got 
stuck with ball-crushing child support.  At $2501, you are a hardened 
criminal who should be raped at least once a day in the state penetentary 
by a 250 lb body builder named "Bruce".

Put another way, if you owe that extra $2, you are now eligle for a 
$200/hour lawyer at no cost to you, a $200/hour prosecutor, at no cost to 
you, a Jury of your peers (at least 50% men), at no cost to you, and all 
the trappings of a $500,000 trial.  You can't be forced to give blood to 
prove that it is your child.  You can't be forced to testify against 
yourself.  You can force the mother to perjure herself (it's SOOO EASY),
and compell her own family to refute her testimony.

You can also make sure that her version of "200 ways to fraud your lover" 
are exquisitely detailed in the public courtroom.  And after the jury 
aquits you, you can sue the state for malicious prosecution.  This might 
be kinda FUN!

> you`re now a jailbird, and some states are tacking on the costs of
> incarceration to your illegally produced arrearage!!!

Why should you go to jail now, you can do all of those appeals (if the 
jury is heartless enough to convict you).  By the time you make it to 3rd 
circuit, you should be able to get a mistrial.  Then the state can pay 
another half million trying to convict you again.

I can see it now, in an attempt to get 38 billion dollars from 
"dead-beat-dads", the state and federal governments will spend $1 
million/man (about $36 trillion) trying to give them "due process".

When they offer you the plea bargain - DEMAND a reduction to 5% of gross 
or 20% of net, whichever is less.  Then demand weekly visitation and 
demand that the costs of visitation be deducted from both your taxes and 
your child support.  Then get a job somewhere else in the country and let 
the state pay for your air-fare and hotel bills to come back home for 
"visitation".

If they turn down your offer, remind them that they will have to spend $1 
million to prosecute you, and another $1 million to incarcerate you for 
the next 20 years.  In addition, tell them that since you are disease 
free, you will sue them for every penny they ever imputed for the next 60 
years if you get even a HINT of HIV!  You will subpenoe the records they 
used to determine how much they thought you could earn.

> What a F@$#%#$^ joke to call this a justice system!!!

Since they were nice enough to create all these delightful new laws, lets 
use the justice system to cripple itself.  The lawyers will hate it (they 
would be forced to serve as public defenders "pro-bono" in many states).  
The judges would hate it (they would have backlogs of 10 million cases 
within 6 months), and the Politicians would be looking to hang the guy 
with the "Bright Idea to go after Dead-Beat-Dads".  The few remaining 
voters who would be paying 90% taxes by now, would be begging us to 
settle for 3% of gross, just to keep us out of the courts.

> 					Dan D 

Is anybody else here excited for a change!

	Rex B.


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Feb 20 21:15:13 1996