Wolfpack

That's a pretty weak response considering I can respond to every single thing you've written in this thread with "and you know this how? Because she said so?" (Other than the posts you made where you showed you don't have the first clue how the legal process works).You really need to look past your obsessive hatred of all things Republican. If a guy loses his job, that's generally not a good time to spend the tens of thousands of dollars you need to hire a lawyer to represent you in court.
Obviously I am because I actually took the time to read the actual article that your link refers to. That''s how I know they agreed last September to a settlement of $10,000 to handle all the missed payments. And that's where I read her own lawyer saying that he hadn't heard of any recent troubles with her receiving payments.

I guess you were just too afraid that you might actually learn something. You preferred to live in your closed minded world where all republican men are pure evil. And then you decided to demonstrate your gross ignorance of how court proceedings actually operate.

Hopefully you've learned a little something here today (though I honestly doubt it).

DarrylS

Step back from the hysteria, there is no trial in this matter.. there is a hearing to modify the existing order based on changed circumstances, it is quite simple you plug in new numbers and the order changes. You have an attorney of record who has to continue to represent you unless he or she is allowed to withdraw with permission of the judge.. he already has the cash, it will cost more, but not nearly as much as initially.

If your circumstances change it is your responsibility to go back to court and ask for relief or modification of the court order, not ignore this agreement.

That is basic family law, having witnessed it numerous times when I was in court severl times a week for many years and also having gone through a divorce in the past.

It is what it is, the way our court system works for fathers in divorce.. violation of the court sanctioned decree, can result in consequences by the court including garnishment of wages or liquidation of assets.. but the bottom line is that this responsibility to your children comes first.

__________________
"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

Are you referring to the Sun Times article which stated the following?

In the most current controversy, Walsh has responded to his ex-wife’s plea for $117,000 by submitting an e-mail that he says shows she was willing in September to settle with him for about $10,000.

An e-mail from her that the congressman attached to a court motion showed Laura Walsh saying: “For almost 2½ years now I have been very patient about money you owe me for your share of the children’s expenses because I thought you were not working. Even last summer when I was out of work for a few months, I scraped to pay for medical and education-related expenses on my own.”

That e-mail dealt with child expenses above and beyond the child support debt.

Rep. Walsh responded with this e-mail to her: “Laura, I’m good with what you’re proposing.”

In prior years, court records show Walsh objecting to paying for expenses such as summer camp or a homecoming suit he never agreed to.

But, at least recently, 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.”

Hopefully the fact that I bolded the pertinent information will help you understand that the $10,000 was agreed upon, not as payment for back court ordered child support payments but as a shared amount of extra expenses which is a separate part of the suit filed.

As the article clearly states, he is not now, nor has he been, paying child support at all.

Walsh lives with his new wife and children in McHenry. He has not paid any of the $117,437 yet, Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said Wednesday.



Yes, I have. I've learned you need help understanding what's written sometimes.

Once again - the $10,000 was not part of back child support - it was back shared expenses which were part of the original divorce decree.

Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh sued for $100,000 in child support - Chicago Sun-Times

See page 14 of the lawsuit filed for a breakdown in Joe's unpaid court ordered shared medical/dental/educational expenses. The total is: $9,639.78 - or $10,000.00 to round it out.

Joe Walsh Child Support: Wife Laura's Court Filing Released

Wolfpack

Uh, no, it is not even remotely that simple. If you want to modify child support - unless your ex agrees to your modifications (fat chance) - you still have to retain a lawyer, you still have to file a motion to change the support payments, you still have to go to court, you still have to provide proof in a court of law of your new circumstances, and you still have to make your argument in front of a judge.

Bringing a lawyer to court costs an **** ton of money.
I find that extremely hard to believe given your gross ignorance about how the system works.

Wolfpack

And you know that how? Because that's what she said?
Another lie. HER OWN LAWYER says he's been making the payments recently.
And you know that how? Because that's what she said?
And you know that how? Because that's what she said?
And you know that how? Because that's what she said?

BTW, it was wise of you to completely ignore my post where I absolutely hammered you on your gross misunderstanding of how the law works. But I am surprised you've decided to return for even more and more punishment.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

Do the words "echo chamber" come to mind?

Wolfpack

Just demonstrating your absurdity by being absurd.

DarrylS

YOu claim some type of intellectual superiority in this matter, based on what some guy says.. I spent too much time in court watching this happen daily, so am very well versed.

My daughter last week filed a motion on her own, and will be going to court for a modification sans attorney.. all you do is bring in your expense sheet with verification of such and he does it.

Stop making excuses for this guy, it is very simple, efficient and not contentious.. there is no room for objections or testimony, they just plug in numbers and arrive at different payments..

__________________
"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

That's all my ex-husband ever did. And, for the truly out-of-work and flat broke, there are all kinds of agencies willing to help.

What surprises me is that anyone would have elected a man who'd been steadily unemployed for so many years. Don't voters usually want to know what you've done, what you're doing and that you're at least moderately successful at it before they elect you to represent them?

Wolfpack

It is the height of folly to think that your little "it isn't contentious" statement covers all scenarios. It can (and usually is) VERY contentious when one party seeks to reduce payments to the other. You're completely full of crap if you think it can always easily be done "sans attorney" - especially when the person you're filing against actually is an attorney herself.

BTW, thank you for stalking.