RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this?

RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 6:45:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Now I'm confused as to why the Left doesn't celebrate Catholicism. lol Actually, contrary to popularist lies, a fairly significant portion (36%) of Vatican followers claim to be democrats. It's a mystery to me, as well but the church of Rome has been a shit mess for decades. John F. Kennedy was democrat and Catholic. But honestly, the crazy stuff for me is that you both consider democrats as "left". I am European. Best regards.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 6:51:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Now I'm confused as to why the Left doesn't celebrate Catholicism. lol Actually, contrary to popularist lies, a fairly significant portion (36%) of Vatican followers claim to be democrats. It's a mystery to me, as well but the church of Rome has been a shit mess for decades. John F. Kennedy was democrat and Catholic. But honestly, the crazy stuff for me is that you both consider democrats as "left". I am European. Best regards. President Kennedy was Catholic (except for the adultery). He was (contrary to what revisionists will tell you) anti-abortion (as many "true" catholics are). He was anti-homosexual. He was from an uber-rich family. He was the kind of person that today's democrats claim to loathe (well, if they have an "R", after their name). Peace and comfort, Michael

vincentML -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 7:29:56 AM)
The girl was 9 years old when the rapes began. They lasted for 16 years. So, she was 25 years old when she complained to her mom. Hmmmm . . . maybe there's more to the story. The girl says she feared for their lives. Might have been true. Sometimes false accusations of child abuse have been used against men in divorce cases, however. Wonder if the rape charges came out after the alimony judgment was handed down. Wish we had more info on the time lines here.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 7:32:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Now I'm confused as to why the Left doesn't celebrate Catholicism. lol Actually, contrary to popularist lies, a fairly significant portion (36%) of Vatican followers claim to be democrats. It's a mystery to me, as well but the church of Rome has been a shit mess for decades. John F. Kennedy was democrat and Catholic. But honestly, the crazy stuff for me is that you both consider democrats as "left". I am European. Best regards. President Kennedy was Catholic (except for the adultery). He was (contrary to what revisionists will tell you) anti-abortion (as many "true" catholics are). He was anti-homosexual. He was from an uber-rich family. He was the kind of person that today's democrats claim to loathe (well, if they have an "R", after their name). Peace and comfort, Michael Likewise, Reagan was the kind of person that modern Republicans claim to loathe as was Goldwater (well, if they have a D after their name)

tweakabelle -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 7:40:37 AM)
Why aren't people jumping up and down in rage about a paltry 2 year sentence for a child rapist? The creep should still be in prison.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 7:45:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Why aren't people jumping up and down in rage about a paltry 2 year sentence for a child rapist? The creep should still be in prison. They probably had to release him because someone that got caught smoking pot had to serve a mandatory minumum.

vincentML -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 7:46:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Why aren't people jumping up and down in rage about a paltry 2 year sentence for a child rapist? The creep should still be in prison. It was a plea deal. He was never proven guilty. I still wonder if the rape accusations were not brought to the police after the alimony judgment was rendered.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 8:32:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The girl was 9 years old when the rapes began. They lasted for 16 years. So, she was 25 years old when she complained to her mom. Hmmmm . . . maybe there's more to the story. The girl says she feared for their lives. Might have been true. Sometimes false accusations of child abuse have been used against men in divorce cases, however. Wonder if the rape charges came out after the alimony judgment was handed down. Wish we had more info on the time lines here. From the OP's link: quote: Once Carol Abar found out, she filed for divorce before rape charges were brought against her husband. Since she made more money than Abar, she was forced to pay alimony -- $1,300 a month. She filed for the divorce after finding out about the rapes. Approximately 1½ years later, he was sentenced to jail. Further: quote: Now out of jail, Abar has filed to reinstate the support, according to Brian Uhl, Carol Abar's attorney. "He's asking not just to resume the existing support of $1,300 a month, but he's asking for what amounts to approximately $33,000 in past due support and that too is a miscarriage of justice," said Uhl. Abar's lawyer Sherry Collins said he only pleaded guilty to escape a harsher jail sentence and said he deserved the money. "Under the law, he is entitled to some relief from the higher income producing spouse, so that the marital standard of living can be maintained," said Collins. And under California law, child abuse is not specifically mentioned. Given Abar never abused his wife, the judge could rule in his favor. Carol Abar said, "He victimized a little girl all these years and I have to pay him for that behavior... it just doesn't make sense to me." I think it's pretty ballsy of him to ask for "back support." Based on the law presented in the article, he is owed spousal support. Since there was no mention of why a judge temporarily stopped the payments, I have no idea if back support would be warranted, or if it is just to be restarted and continue on for however many months haven't been paid.

vincentML -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 8:37:47 AM)
quote: She filed for the divorce after finding out about the rapes. Approximately 1½ years later, he was sentenced to jail. Okay. So, mom did not call the cops right off and have him arrested and charged. She went to divorce court first. Seems an odd sequence. doncha think?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 8:46:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: She filed for the divorce after finding out about the rapes. Approximately 1½ years later, he was sentenced to jail. /quote] Okay. So, mom did not call the cops right off and have him arrested and charged. She went to divorce court first. Seems an odd sequence. doncha think? Totally not disagreeing with you, Vince. I can't answer to the timing, as filing for divorce before rape charges were brought could simply be the day before, too. The case may have been what took all the time between filing divorce, bringing charges to bear, and having to pay spousal support. Or, it could be as illegitimate as you are implying is potentially true (not implying that you think it is illegit, but that you are implying there is still the potential for the rape allegations to be illegit).

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 9:29:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Kennedy was Catholic (except for the adultery). He was (contrary to what revisionists will tell you) anti-abortion (as many "true" catholics are). He was anti-homosexual. Yep, we call that "progress", that such people are no longer considered progressive, not even in the USA. Half a century does not pass in vain, have you seen "Mad Men"?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 9:32:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: She filed for the divorce after finding out about the rapes. Approximately 1½ years later, he was sentenced to jail. Okay. So, mom did not call the cops right off and have him arrested and charged. She went to divorce court first. Seems an odd sequence. doncha think? it didn't say that. It said she filed for divorce and then he was arrested. Even if you call the cops about a crime right now and you know who did it, it may take weeks or months before an arrest is made.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 9:44:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr President Kennedy was Catholic (except for the adultery). He was (contrary to what revisionists will tell you) anti-abortion (as many "true" catholics are). He was anti-homosexual. Yep, we call that "progress", that such people are no longer considered progressive, not even in the USA. Half a century does not pass in vain, have you seen "Mad Men"? No. I don't watch television and what you call "progress", some call "the fall of western society" Pece and comfort, Michael

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 10:14:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: She filed for the divorce after finding out about the rapes. Approximately 1½ years later, he was sentenced to jail. /quote] Okay. So, mom did not call the cops right off and have him arrested and charged. She went to divorce court first. Seems an odd sequence. doncha think? it didn't say that. It said she filed for divorce and then he was arrested. Even if you call the cops about a crime right now and you know who did it, it may take weeks or months before an arrest is made. Charges aren't brought forward until after an arrest? Or, is it charges are brought, leading to an arrest? I don't have a problem with 17 months passing between the end of a divorce proceeding (or the onset of a support decree, whichever came first) and his going to jail.

GotSteel -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 10:27:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Unfortunately, God does not get actively involved in criminal proceedings, I mean lets face it, if a booming disembodied voice from the heavens accompanied by legions of angels were to declare a person guilty or innocent, who could argue? GotSteel. [8D] LMAO!!! No, if reality resembled what the Bible claims I'd still be a Christian.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 11:32:07 AM)
Let's please get back on topic, which does not include Catholicism :)

vincentML -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 12:31:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DS quote: She filed for the divorce after finding out about the rapes. Approximately 1½ years later, he was sentenced to jail. /quote] Okay. So, mom did not call the cops right off and have him arrested and charged. She went to divorce court first. Seems an odd sequence. doncha think? it didn't say that. It said she filed for divorce and then he was arrested. Even if you call the cops about a crime right now and you know who did it, it may take weeks or months before an arrest is made. Charges aren't brought forward until after an arrest? Or, is it charges are brought, leading to an arrest? I don't have a problem with 17 months passing between the end of a divorce proceeding (or the onset of a support decree, whichever came first) and his going to jail. Okay, I understand the possible discrepency. My point is the information available to us is incomplete and so difficult to make judgments. He may have been a child rapist scumbag and it is understandable that a woman or a male victim would keep silent for many years out of all the psychological trauma entailed. OTOH, there have been cases of false accusations made against men in divorce cases. This may not be one of those. We just can't be sure from the skimpy news article is all I am saying.

tazzygirl -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 2:18:35 PM)
~FR 16 years passed between the beginning of the assaults and the mother being told. the "child" in question would be 25. Meaning the mother could not bring charges. That doesnt mean the marriage wasnt in trouble.

vincentML -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 2:20:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR 16 years passed between the beginning of the assaults and the mother being told. the "child" in question would be 25. Meaning the mother could not bring charges. That doesnt mean the marriage wasnt in trouble. Yes. Good point. Thank you.

littlewonder -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 6:54:57 PM)
I don't think he can get back payments if he is a convicted felon. I think they lose that kind of right once they are considered a felon. I don't know if it's a state law or a federal law. Maybe each state is different.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02