Mrs.PatsFanInVa

As I linked to earlier (and which you chose to ignore) Joe Walsh is not denying the charges. He says "they have been working out past due amounts."

Need I remind you that the dem who was accused of making unwanted sexual advances (which is considerably different than sexually assaulting) to a young girl has not been charged......

Joe Walsh HAS been charged. I don't know what your experiences in divorce court are - but I've been there - and you can't file those kinds of charges without some kind of proof.

I presume his ex-wife hand that proof, showed it and a judge agreed to hear the case.

Burden of proof's on him now.

Amazing how you continue to stick up for him - seeing as how you're such a family guy and so obsessed with single mothers and their inability to care for their children and how important you always feel it is for parents to provide for their own children.....maybe now you understand why some women have a hard time of it, huh?

His child support payments weren't even that high - something like $2100.00 per month for awhile and then they were lowered to $1800.00. At 2G a month that puts him at about 5 -6 years behind. Which means he paid for a year or two and then got tired of it and quit. Do you honestly think he had no income for 6 years?

If a dad loses his job and lets the courts know, they are always more than happy to make the necessary adjustments to his support payments. Losing a job, changing a job, having an income change, all those things are recognized by the courts - if you bother going to court and letting them know.

Simply stopping the payments is not the responsible action. And the father who takes that action is totally irresponsible.

And a dirt bag.

DarrylS

No it happens all the time, your first financial obligation is towards your family, especially the children.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

DarrylS

Atypical response Wu resigned, interestingly enough Vitter and Walsh march on. Even though the right knows what is best for everyone...

See the trend, the granny state right knows what is best for everyone else, except themselves.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

The Brandon Five

I won't defend this guy, but that is not always true. I have had friends who were paying their spouse (directly) have assets seized because the spouse went to the Department of Revenue and claimed that they hadn't paid. When documentation was shown that proved that payment had been made, nothing happened to the lying ex-wife.

There might also be penalties. At the very least there is interest, so who knows how long he didn't pay? Maybe he made partial payments. How many kids does he have, isn't it three? Two bills a month is not chump change. That's way more than most awards.

Wolfpack

You know for someone who is such a little Miss Know-It-All when it comes to spelling and grammar in this forum, you sure are demonstrating an INCREDIBLE amount of ignorance and cluelessness regarding how the legal system works, how divorce court works, and how child support works.

First of all, he hasn't been "charged" with anything. You clearly don't understand the difference between civil and criminal courts of law and you are using terms completely inappropriately (but at least you're spelling them right! ). She hasn't filed charges against him. She has filed a civil suit.
Just when I thought you couldn't get any more ignorant, you manage to dig yourself in even deeper - and I won't even take your usual routine of pointing out you made a spelling mistake in your above sentence! (Funny how spell checkers don't catch it when your incorrect spelling of a word is actually another word itself, huh?).

Second of all, she doesn't have to show a judge a single shred of evidence or proof supporting her claim in order to file a lawsuit. She can file anything she darn well wants without a single shred of evidence backing her.

Your statement that you "presume his ex-wife hand (sic.) that proof, showed it and a judge agreed to hear the case" shows you really don't have any clue whatsoever regarding how court works. She can't present anything to a judge without him present (except in certain cases of domestic violence seeking a temporary restraining order, but that obviously is not alleged here). Your statements are simply the height of arrogant ignorance, which we are quite used to seeing from you (and you didn't even spell it right! ).

Clue for Mrs-Clueless-in-VA: When you file a suit, you go to the court and file it. You don't have to first prove there's any sort of merit to the suit before being allowed to file it. You just show up and file the paperwork (and then alert the media if your ex-husband is a high profile politician).
Translation: He's a republican, so little Miss Self-Righteous-in-VA's constant mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" gets completely thrown out the window.
According to the article, she sent an e-mail willing to settle all debts for $10,000. Do you honestly think he's been stiffing her for 6 years, owes her well over $100,000, and yet she also said she would be willing to take $10k? Also, according to the article, her own attorney admits that:

"he appears to be paying his share of the expenses, said Laura Walsh’s attorney, Coladarci, “because I haven’t been getting calls from my client saying he hasn’t.”"

And the moonbats in here sound so pathetic trying to make it sound like these are 3 year old children starving to death and living on the streets. The mother is a non-practicing attorney, 2 of the 3 children are now adults, and the youngest in 16 years old. Nobody is living in a homeless shelter here.

DarrylS

More rationalization for shirking basic responsibilities as a father and defying court orders.. he is scum pure and simple.

Whether they are hungry or not hungry is not the issue, the issue is not doing what he is supposed to do and going against a valid court order. If he felt that the order was unfair, he could go back and ask for modification.. not ignoring it.

It is implied when you are divorced that you continue to share expenses, beyond and above the court ordered support.. usually that does not cover everything.

He has not been charged with anything, does not mean that he did or did not break the court order(the law)... it means that if brought back to court he could then be determined to be in violation of the existing court decree..

The phrase "anywhere near" denotes that he owes and has not fulfilled his responsibility.

Report: Congressman Joe Walsh owes $117,000 in child support, ex-wife Laura Walsh says | abc7chicago.com

Walsh is the typical dead beat dad, who will tapdance around this court order until the judge pulls the rug out from under his feet... if you take care of your own business first, then it becomes no one's business.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Wolfpack

Actually, that kind of is an issue, both morally as well as legally. If the children are living comfortably while the father is unemployed, lost his house and doesn't have 2 red cents to rub together (which is true in this case prior to Walsh getting elected) then you'll have to forgive me if I don't consider him the scum of humanity if he was a couple hundred dollars short once or twice 5 years ago on what was a pretty darn high settlement.
True, but only a complete moron would say a guy who was a couple hundred dollars short 5 years ago when he lost his job and he lost his house but has since then (by her own lawyer's admission) been paying in full and on time is as much "scum pure and simple" as someone who has stiffed his ex to the tune of $120,000.

By the way, thank you for stalking.

DarrylS

Your misogyny is showing, again.

If you lose your job or your financial situation changes, you go back to court to modify the court order.. you don't just ignore it. The court is sensitive to these issues that either party faces.

Just about every child support agreement is based on a formula, that is predetermined and you just plug in the numbers. So if your financial situation changes you go back to court and plug in the new numbers, presto then you have a new agreement.

It is not that complicated, it is not based on his ex wife's need or some arbitrary figures.. it is all calculated based on established formulas.

There is never any excuse to just ignore a court order and violate the rulings of any court. In family law this is considered quite heinous. Your first obligation is towards your children, you come second in divorce proceedings.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

And you know this how? Because he says so? How did he take two overseas trips, in that case? What was he living on?

It wasn't a "settlement." it was court ordered support - and in Illinois all child support is based upon a percentage of parental income. It's quite cut and dried. You make this much, you pay this much. There is no "high" or "low," it's a simple formula which is applied to every child support case in the state in the same manner. If the judge set his payments at $2,000 per month it means that's what the formula said his payments should be - based upon his income. If his income changed through no fault of his own he should have immediately contacted the court and had his payments adjusted. However, if he deliberately changed his job, quit his job or otherwise caused the fall in income he could still be held liable. Judges do not look kindly on parents who try to hide or change assests in order to get out of child support.

Where are you getting this information that he's been paying in full and on time? Even he's admitted that he's behind and he's "working" on it.

Obviously you're reading something I've missed somewhere.

Wolfpack

Your ignorance is showing again.
Feel free to join us in the real world, Darryl. If you lose your job and your house and you can't help but come up a couple hundred short for a few months (while your children are living in a comfortable situation and are not in any sort of danger whatsoever), you probably aren't going to have the roughly $20,000 it would take to hire a lawyer to bring you back into court to get the figures revised downward.
You obviously don't have the first clue how much it costs to get to the point which you conveniently label "presto." When you lose your job and lose your house and don't have 2 red cents to rub together, it's pretty hard to come up with a $10,000 retainer (plus another $10,000 when you actually get to trial).

BTW, thank you for stalking.