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

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/8/2013 7:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder 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. The article state that a judge had the payments temporarily stopped. I would be surprised if he lost those however many months of payments simply because he was in jail. If it took a judge to stop them, that would seem to imply that he is still owed them. I just don't know if he's owed a lump-sum back pay, or if his length of time he is to receive support just resumes.

tazzygirl -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/9/2013 9:54:33 AM)
The current payments. The back payments she should not be held responsible for as the Judge stated she didnt have to pay those.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/9/2013 3:42:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder 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. The article state that a judge had the payments temporarily stopped. I would be surprised if he lost those however many months of payments simply because he was in jail. If it took a judge to stop them, that would seem to imply that he is still owed them. I just don't know if he's owed a lump-sum back pay, or if his length of time he is to receive support just resumes. Being a convicted felon doesn't have relevance to alimony. Neither for the payor or payee. Well, DS then I guess you would be surprised. When a judge "temporarily stops" payments, the order will specify whether the payments will accrue and still be owed, or whether they are forgiven for that period of time. In a case of child support, it is nearly always going to continue to accrue. In the case of alimony, it is not going to accrue, at least in a situation like this. Alimony would accrue if she had asked for a temporary cease based on her financial issues. Temporarily stopping payments because he is in prison is because he is not entitled to those payments at that time. While I don't agree with what you said earlier about how is he supposed to survive without them, there is a good deal of truth in that statement. Alimony is ordered to help the receiving party maintain some semblance of the marital lifestyle (financially). When he is in prison, he doesn't need help with a roof over his head, food in his stomach, etc. Accruing the payments would be akin to allowing him to get a windfall when he was released from prison. Ain't gonna happen. Oh, and the "he said/she said" mentioned by the judge? That was because he hadn't been arrested or convicted at that time. Had she separated and waited to file for divorce, she likely could have gotten a completely different ruling regarding the alimony. Her impulse to get him out of her life as soon as possible bit her in the ass.

njlauren -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/9/2013 8:52:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 1) Woman meets man. 2) woman marries man 3) Man rapes woman's daughter for 16 years before daughter tells mother. 4) Woman files charges against man, divorces man, and is ordered to pay spousal support to man who raped her daughter. 5) Man goes to prison. Spousal support stops while he is serving time. 6) Man gets out of prison and wants spousal support resumed, did I mention he raped woman's daughter for 16 years? quote: Woman Forced to Pay Spousal Support to Ex Who Raped Her Daughter CORONA, CALIF. - A woman says she was forced to pay spousal support to her ex-husband who was convicted of raping her daughter. Carol Abar told CBS2 Los Angeles she paid $22,000 in spousal support to her ex, before he was jailed. But Abar's ex is now out of prison and wants the spousal support to resume -and the law may be on his side. source To continue, Man pleads guilty to ONE rape charge, repeat one, and gets a two year sentence, this is out of five rape charges. Judge said it was her word against his and there was no proof that the man ever raped her daughter. As I understand it, the only thing that would exclude him from being able to get spousal support is if he abused his wife. Child abuse or molestation is not taken into consideration. <snip> Abar's lawyer Sherry Collins said he only pleaded guilty to escape a harsher jail sentence and said he deserved the money.<snip> This one statement raises questions, in my opinion. 1) If his attorney thought he was innocent, why advise him to plead guilt to avoid a harsher sentence? 2) If he was innocent, why not take it to the courtroom, let a jury decide, if as the judge in the divorce hearing said there was no proof? Now if there were DNA evidence, there would be no doubt, IMO, or if there were documented evidence in the form of physical injury to the victim, that would at least give credence to her story. Do not misunderstand me, I am giving her the benefit of the doubt on the simple grounds that if he had not raped her over the years as she claimed, then she is trying one hell of a move to screw him over for some offense he did do. Sorry but to create a lie to support the allegations would be too hard to maintain and keep straight. If there is no spousal support order, how is this guy supposed to live, in the near term. Ohio is a no-fault divorce State and the typical spousal support decree is generally only given for 1/3 the length of the marriage. Consider the current economic climate. Are jobs plentiful? Not exactly. Would a felony charge make it more difficult to get hired? Um, yes, absolutely. Would a crime such as raping a minor exacerbate the difficulty? I'm willing to bet it would. The judge said there was no proof, just his word against hers. What recourse does this guy have? How is he supposed to support himself? For better or worse, he was convicted in a court of law of having raped the woman's daughter, which legally makes him guilty. Suppose he had beaten her for x years and was sent to jail, should she support him then? What if he knifed her, got sent to jail, should she have to support him then? You can argue till the cows come home there was no way to know he was guilty, but he still pled guilty to the charges, which is an admission of guilt. My answer would be he should have thought of that before presumably doing the crime in the first place. Unless you want to believe that the woman lied, the daughter lied, and sent the guy to prison out of spite, the answer is that like any criminal who is sent to jail, he has to face the consequences.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/9/2013 8:59:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder 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. The article state that a judge had the payments temporarily stopped. I would be surprised if he lost those however many months of payments simply because he was in jail. If it took a judge to stop them, that would seem to imply that he is still owed them. I just don't know if he's owed a lump-sum back pay, or if his length of time he is to receive support just resumes. Being a convicted felon doesn't have relevance to alimony. Neither for the payor or payee. Well, DS then I guess you would be surprised. When a judge "temporarily stops" payments, the order will specify whether the payments will accrue and still be owed, or whether they are forgiven for that period of time. In a case of child support, it is nearly always going to continue to accrue. In the case of alimony, it is not going to accrue, at least in a situation like this. I wouldn't be surprised if he lost those months as backpay, though. Say the support order was for 40 months at $1500/month. If he's in jail for 10 of those months, I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't accruing them, getting a windfall when he's out, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't get 40 months of $1500/month. That's what would surprise me. quote: Alimony would accrue if she had asked for a temporary cease based on her financial issues. Temporarily stopping payments because he is in prison is because he is not entitled to those payments at that time. While I don't agree with what you said earlier about how is he supposed to survive without them, there is a good deal of truth in that statement. Alimony is ordered to help the receiving party maintain some semblance of the marital lifestyle (financially). When he is in prison, he doesn't need help with a roof over his head, food in his stomach, etc. Accruing the payments would be akin to allowing him to get a windfall when he was released from prison. Ain't gonna happen. Oh, and the "he said/she said" mentioned by the judge? That was because he hadn't been arrested or convicted at that time. Had she separated and waited to file for divorce, she likely could have gotten a completely different ruling regarding the alimony. Her impulse to get him out of her life as soon as possible bit her in the ass. No, the he said/she said was referring to the child abuse case. It didn't seem like there was a lot of evidence damning this guy.

njlauren -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/9/2013 9:01:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder 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. The article state that a judge had the payments temporarily stopped. I would be surprised if he lost those however many months of payments simply because he was in jail. If it took a judge to stop them, that would seem to imply that he is still owed them. I just don't know if he's owed a lump-sum back pay, or if his length of time he is to receive support just resumes. Being a convicted felon doesn't have relevance to alimony. Neither for the payor or payee. Well, DS then I guess you would be surprised. When a judge "temporarily stops" payments, the order will specify whether the payments will accrue and still be owed, or whether they are forgiven for that period of time. In a case of child support, it is nearly always going to continue to accrue. In the case of alimony, it is not going to accrue, at least in a situation like this. Alimony would accrue if she had asked for a temporary cease based on her financial issues. Temporarily stopping payments because he is in prison is because he is not entitled to those payments at that time. While I don't agree with what you said earlier about how is he supposed to survive without them, there is a good deal of truth in that statement. Alimony is ordered to help the receiving party maintain some semblance of the marital lifestyle (financially). When he is in prison, he doesn't need help with a roof over his head, food in his stomach, etc. Accruing the payments would be akin to allowing him to get a windfall when he was released from prison. Ain't gonna happen. Oh, and the "he said/she said" mentioned by the judge? That was because he hadn't been arrested or convicted at that time. Had she separated and waited to file for divorce, she likely could have gotten a completely different ruling regarding the alimony. Her impulse to get him out of her life as soon as possible bit her in the ass. Which to me lends credence that the guy did what she said he did, that she was so disgusted with what he did that she couldn't wait to get shed of him. It is very easy outside to look in and say "separate, wait until he is busted and sent to jail, and then file for divorce", that might be the logical course, but when faced with the reality that the creep molested her daughter, I can understand that reaction. I have dealt with abuse like that in my life, my spouse was abused by her father for many years, and I am only sorry that I found out too late to either do something to him myself or have someone do it, he had fled the country, so I understand her reaction to wanting to get him out of her life. I suspect she probably had a lawyer tell her that, but given the nature of what she believed happened, she probably couldn't stand the thought of staying married to him. I agree that would have been the more logical approach, but when you deal with something like your child being hurt because of the person you were married to, it goes out the window.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/9/2013 9:26:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri No, the he said/she said was referring to the child abuse case. It didn't seem like there was a lot of evidence damning this guy. Read that part again: 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. "The judge told me I had no proof. It was my word against him," she said. "He had been raping her since she was little. Since I got married to him." She filed for divorce before he was charged. The judge in the criminal case has nothing to do with her spousal support. Also a judge isn't going to say it is "your word against his" in a criminal trial, and then the guy takes a plea deal to avoid a harsher sentence.

Moonlightmaddnes -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/9/2013 9:28:32 PM)
There are times when I am sure our justice system is a joke. One of my best friends has to take her daughter to her ex's house even though he was convicted of 7 counts of felony child abuse when their daughter was 3. They were not tiny bruises either they were black and purple and all over her hands and legs. He confessed to using pluming line to whip her for every thing she did wrong and was found guilty still he was allowed every other weekend and several weeks during the summer unsupervised. The judge told him not to hit his daughter. Oh yeah telling him will do a lot of good.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Would someone please explain how the FUCK a judge can even consider this? (5/9/2013 9:44:38 PM)
Lauren, I hear what you are saying, but that would also mean that her daughter waited quite some time before going to the police as well. Look at it this way (using numbers for days). Day 1 her daughter tells her that the stepfather molested her for years. She probably has the knock down drag out, "get the fuck out of my house" argument the same day. She may have made an appointment with an attorney on day 1, but more likely day 2, and that wouldn't likely be same day. So day 3 she meets with the attorney, tells him her story and says she wants a divorce. Rules of ethics dictate that the attorney counsel the woman about her options. This would include asking if charges were filed or going to be. If (and I never dealt with this, so I'm not sure) a conviction will have any effect on support, he is bound to disclose that. California is a no fault state, but they are also not an equitable distribution state, so assets of the marriage should have been split 50/50, not including a support order. Based on a 16 year marriage, spousal support would have been discussed, in fact it would have been part of the initial intake to ask how long the marriage was. The attorney would also have already known about the disparity in income, another intake question. In other words, she should have been advised if a conviction would make a difference in spousal support. She decides, as you said, she can't be married to him for another minute, and says she doesn't want to wait. This isn't a quickie divorce because obviously not all the issues were settled (spousal support). So she leaves the attorney's office on day 3 determined to get a divorce. Those papers aren't going to be ready for a week. So she isn't going to get those papers to even sign before day 7. They are signed and now need to be served. Well, that could take another week or so. Sure it can be done quicker, but it is unlikely. Does he have an attorney, will the attorney accept service (always a yes, but still needs to be asked). Once served, his attorney files an answer and possible counter complaint. There is another couple of weeks at least, and that is if everyone is really rushing through this. Now everyone has filed. Well, I'm not up on California divorce rules, but usually, there is mandatory mediation. Not to discuss reconciliation, but to discuss distribution of assets. That takes time to get scheduled. So on and so forth. Basically, I'm saying that they didn't get before a judge who made the "he said/she said" comment probably for at least 3 months. If charges had been filed in the interim, her attorney would have again made mention of how it could effect spousal support. Here in NJ, divorces can be put through within a couple of weeks, but that is when there are no issues in dispute and the parties agree to everything. That wasn't the case here.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.296875E-02