That's terrible. His lawyer shares a part of the blame as well though.
Quote:That's terrible. His lawyer shares a part of the blame as well though.
Throw the lawyer in jail then. Actually, that's a good idea.
Better yet, throw all lawyers in jail, except my good buddy Rick. He is sleazy, but not jailworthy.
That news report creates more questions than it answered.
How were two major modifications made to a child support agreement without the father's knowledge? Notifications of that sort are normally verifiable.
Why wasn't the father in his company's paymaster office demanding an explanation the first time there was a discrepancy in the amount garnished from his paycheck?
Why didn't his attorney immediately file for a reconsideration of the judge's decision if this was such an obvious injustice? Even the judge seemed to think this may have helped resolve the situation.
The man was held in contempt and ordered remanded into custody, yet walked out of the courtroom, which the judge said was a "big no-no". How does that happen?
If he was completely without blame, why did the judge agree that he should pay the mother's attorney fees?
Finally, the report said he overpaid child support and did not follow the visitation schedule. There was nothing reported about him visiting too much beyond the anchorman saying that at the beginning of the report. In fact, the report does not even tell us exactly why he was held in contempt. Was it really for overpaying and over visiting, as this thread title implies?
Reading between the lines, which is necessary due to the poor job of reporting, it appears that the arrest warrant has been issued for this man because he left court. We only have his word, the word of his attorney, and the word of a community activist to go on that he was never notified of the child support agreement modifications.
On the face of it, he seems like a good guy. I sincerely hope he has behaved exactly as he has been portrayed. To me, this looks less like a case of Draconian justice and more like a case of a bureaucratic foul up and inept reporting.
Is this really an example of the world going bad, or just an example of taking a inflammatory report, spicing it up with a misleading title, then flinging it against a message board wall in hopes something has enough substance to support a particular world view?
Given all the complaining we hear about a biased media and a gullible audience, that would be ironic, would it not?
Quote:That news report creates more questions than it answered.
How were two major modifications made to a child support agreement without the father's knowledge? Notifications of that sort are normally verifiable.
Why wasn't the father in his company's paymaster office demanding an explanation the first time there was a discrepancy in the amount garnished from his paycheck?
Why didn't his attorney immediately file for a reconsideration of the judge's decision if this was such an obvious injustice? Even the judge seemed to think this may have helped resolve the situation.
The man was held in contempt and ordered remanded into custody, yet walked out of the courtroom, which the judge said was a "big no-no". How does that happen?
If he was completely without blame, why did the judge agree that he should pay the mother's attorney fees?
Finally, the report said he overpaid child support and did not follow the visitation schedule. There was nothing reported about him visiting too much beyond the anchorman saying that at the beginning of the report. In fact, the report does not even tell us exactly why he was held in contempt. Was it really for overpaying and over visiting, as this thread title implies?
Reading between the lines, which is necessary due to the poor job of reporting, it appears that the arrest warrant has been issued for this man because he left court. We only have his word, the word of his attorney, and the word of a community activist to go on that he was never notified of the child support agreement modifications.
On the face of it, he seems like a good guy. I sincerely hope he has behaved exactly as he has been portrayed. To me, this looks less like a case of Draconian justice and more like a case of a bureaucratic foul up and inept reporting.
Is this really an example of the world going bad, or just an example of taking a inflammatory report, spicing it up with a misleading title, then flinging it against a message board wall in hopes something has enough substance to support a particular world view?
Given all the complaining we hear about a biased media and a gullible audience, that would be ironic, would it not?
All that aside, the bottom line is that a cell is going to be taken up by a guy who is current with child support and by all accounts is an exemplary parent. And why? Because a judge got her feelings hurt. I'm sure the dead beats who never see their kids and never live up to their support obligations love this judge. She just took up one more bed in the grey bar hotel over vanity. It's one less of them that there will be space for.
No matter how the report reads, the facts are that a guy who was current on child support and is a good parent is headed to jail because some judge got her feelings hurt.
Quote:All that aside, the bottom line is that a cell is going to be taken up by a guy who is current with child support and by all accounts is an exemplary parent.
The only account we have that he is an exemplary father is his.
And why? Because a judge got her feelings hurt. I'm sure the dead beats who never see their kids and never live up to their support obligations love this judge. She just took up one more bed in the grey bar hotel over vanity. It's one less of them that there will be space for.
Again, you don't even know why he was sentenced to 6 months in jail. You do understand that there appears to be a difference between the reason for the sentence and the reason for the warrant, don't you?
No matter how the report reads, the facts are that
a guy who was current on child support and is a good parent
is headed to jail...
The bolded text is fact. The italicized text is something that appears to be true, but we only have his word on it.
...because some judge got her feelings hurt.
That is an assumption. Name one judge that will not issue a warrant when a person sentenced and ordered remanded to jail leaves the courtroom.
Try as you might to disregard the last two questions in my post to which you replied, that is the real lesson learned from this thread.
That is my opinion, not a fact. See how that works?
Quote:For more information:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/childsupport.asp
That pretty much sums up what my questions were about. There's too much unknown to arrive at too many conclusions, but one thing is for sure, the report that he was sent to jail for overpaying (never mind the even more ludicrous "over visiting" embellishment in the parroted title of this thread) will not get that TV reporter Pulitzer Prize consideration.
The thing we all should be complaining about is that TV reporter's jacket. That was hideous.
OK, I'll play. Let's try this again.
Quote:Dakota, on 11 Jan 2014 - 6:52 PM, said:![[Image: snapback.png]](http://jungle.jaguars.com/public/style_images/master/snapback.png)
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Dakota" data-cid="108782" data-time="1389484358">
<div>
All that aside, the bottom line is that a cell is going to be taken up by a guy who is current with child support and by all accounts is an exemplary parent.
The only account we have that he is an exemplary father is his.
Well, he spends time with his child. He does so because he's responsible and that's what he wants to do, if nothing else, because he thinks it's right.
The exemplary thing was my interpretation, but if you think it's off base, compared to fathers who abandon their kids, I'd love to hear it. That's my take. He's doing a hell of a lot better than a majority of fathers from separated homes these days.
And why? Because a judge got her feelings hurt. I'm sure the dead beats who never see their kids and never live up to their support obligations love this judge. She just took up one more bed in the grey bar hotel over vanity. It's one less of them that there will be space for.
Again, you don't even know why he was sentenced to 6 months in jail. You do understand that there appears to be a difference between the reason for the sentence and the reason for the warrant, don't you?
Ok, what was the reason for the warrant or the sentence? If you think the reason's wrong, try giving some examples of how it's so.
No matter how the report reads, the facts are that
a guy who was current on child support and is a good parent
is headed to jail...
The bolded text is fact. The italicized text is something that appears to be true, but we only have his word on it.
See the first reply. I summed it up there. I know you disagree, but that's how I feel.
...because some judge got her feelings hurt.
That is an assumption. Name one judge that will not issue a warrant when a person sentenced and ordered remanded to jail leaves the courtroom.
Again, show me where he was remanded. They have these guys called bailiffs, and when someone is remanded, those guys take the person into custody. That's how it works. Are you blaming the bailiffs for failing to take a remanded person into custody?
Try as you might to disregard the last two questions in my post to which you replied, that is the real lesson learned from this thread.
That is my opinion, not a fact. See how that works?
</div>
</blockquote>
I know you were really exited to get a response for the last two, so I'll oblige.
Is this really an example of the world going bad, or just an example of taking a inflammatory report, spicing it up with a misleading title, then flinging it against a message board wall in hopes something has enough substance to support a particular world view?
Sort of the response I expected. I also suspect it has a lot to do with my thread in the site section. I know you think it was a shot at you. I also think you want very hard to turn this thread into that sort of debate in a lame attempt to break out the "I told you so"
Regarding your opinion that it was an inflammatory report, 95% of news these days is. There is an agenda behind most.
As far as the title being misleading, I copied and pasted it from the site I saw the video at. I know you really wish I came up with it, but sadly, I cannot take credit.
As far as flinging something at a message board? We've covered that. We've established that it's a bad idea to discuss those topics here. You conceded as much in the admin thread. Furthermore, they apparently don't care because they responded to other threads, but didn't see this forum and it's rules as a big deal. If they don't care, why should you or I?
That is my opinion, not a fact. See how that works?
As for the opinion vs fact thing. It's precisely the reason I wasted a lot of time with those other threads. So, we can return to beating each other up and finding new and interesting ways to hate each other. Apparently that train's free and able to roll down the tracks.
Or then again, you could always ban me. That would surely be your easiest course of action here. I'm sure that would bring you some sense of joy.
Fire away. I'm sure you have a lot to say.
Doesn't sound like we're getting the full story here. I have a hard time believing a judge is throwing someone in jail for paying TO much child support. It is frustrating hearing about the schedule visits, I just can't imagine having to schedule time to see my kids, breaks my heart.
I wish more young men would understand how life altering some of their actions can be, the real loser in all of this is the poor kid caught in the middle.
Pick your mates wisely moral of the story.
Quote:OK, I'll play. Let's try this again.
I know you were really exited to get a response for the last two, so I'll oblige.
Is this really an example of the world going bad, or just an example of taking a inflammatory report, spicing it up with a misleading title, then flinging it against a message board wall in hopes something has enough substance to support a particular world view?
Sort of the response I expected. I also suspect it has a lot to do with my thread in the site section. I know you think it was a shot at you. I also think you want very hard to turn this thread into that sort of debate in a lame attempt to break out the "I told you so"
Regarding your opinion that it was an inflammatory report, 95% of news these days is. There is an agenda behind most.
As far as the title being misleading, I copied and pasted it from the site I saw the video at. I know you really wish I came up with it, but sadly, I cannot take credit.
As far as flinging something at a message board? We've covered that. We've established that it's a bad idea to discuss those topics here. You conceded as much in the admin thread. Furthermore, they apparently don't care because they responded to other threads, but didn't see this forum and it's rules as a big deal. If they don't care, why should you or I?
That is my opinion, not a fact. See how that works?
As for the opinion vs fact thing. It's precisely the reason I wasted a lot of time with those other threads. So, we can return to beating each other up and finding new and interesting ways to hate each other. Apparently that train's free and able to roll down the tracks.
Or then again, you could always ban me. That would surely be your easiest course of action here. I'm sure that would bring you some sense of joy.
Fire away. I'm sure you have a lot to say.
You seem to be sure of a lot of things. One thing I'm sure of is my ability to remain objective. I take every post at face value. Despite what you may think of me or what you assume my motives to be, my reaction to this thread was genuine. I think it was a poorly prepared news story that was posted to get a reaction, and you just confirmed my point.
I apologized for my part in the threads you noted in the site thread, and removed both. The irony of that situation was that neither thread became contentious or even overtly political until you started with your "experiment." Regardless, you made a good point, I accepted it and moved on. Apparently, you have not. It's good to have a healthy ego, but not everything is about you.
You earned my respect and admiration at one point, both in the fairness you displayed when moderating, and especially for saving The Sideline. I doubt this means anything to you, but respect and admiration are no longer a factor when responding to your posts. Judging from your posts in the last few months, which is really all most of us have to go on when forming opinions about other members, you are behaving exactly in the manner you claim will ruin this message board.
Carry on. I have no interest in banning you. There was a time where your opinion mattered to me, but that time has past.
Please continue to enjoy your message board experience.
Quote:
I wish more young men would understand how life altering some of their actions can be, the real loser in all of this is the poor kid caught in the middle.
Pick your mates wisely moral of the story.
I agree with you. But for many people they don't care about anyone but their damn selves. They don't even bother thinking about fallout from their actions. As long as they are getting what they want, the second they want it. Thats all that matters to them. More true today amongst a larger sect of society than at any point ever before.
Quote:I agree with you. But for many people they don't care about anyone but their damn selves. They don't even bother thinking about fallout from their actions. As long as they are getting what they want, the second they want it. Thats all that matters to them. More true today amongst a larger sect of society than at any point ever before.
Yes, the world now is much worse than lets say, 1939....