Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 09/06/2009 1:22:50 AM PDT by Chet 99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Chet 99
More HERE.
2 posted on 09/06/2009 1:26:20 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Just who is the racist now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Chet 99

What a stinking pile this case is!

They need to give the man back his drivers license and refund his $6,000 immediately.

Then he needs to sue the bastards for putting him in jail in the first place.

What a travesty.


3 posted on 09/06/2009 1:30:53 AM PDT by Nik Naym (I remember when the United States was a free country. I feel old.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Chet 99

This judge needs to be impeached.


4 posted on 09/06/2009 1:32:11 AM PDT by TheThinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Chet 99

Sadly, this is the state of ‘justice’ in America, and has been for a very long time.
Many people on FR believe in “the rule of law”.
Unfortunately for them, they would be quite shocked by just how much our so-called justice system exists merely to extort money from citizens.
The reason why people with money can buy their way out of most any legal trouble is because the system has been manipulated to be that way on purpose. It exists primarily to justify and feed its own existence.

Legal problems?
Go to jail... or pay a fine and heavy court fees to the state and walk.

And more often than not, the crime is either trumped up or over-hyped in the first place. It is amazing how completely unrecognizable the prosecution’s case can be from reality when presented in court. And let’s not forget, the prosecutor, public defender, and judge all work for the same boss: the State.

Somehow I don’t think that is what the founding fathers really had in mind.


6 posted on 09/06/2009 1:34:16 AM PDT by counterpunch (In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: roamer_1
Heads up.


7 posted on 09/06/2009 1:36:00 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Chet 99
"..The argument for keeping Hatley liable for the back payments, according to the attorney who represented him in 2000, was that he signed a consent agreement with the Office of Child Support Services.

The court agreed that Hatley had to comply with the consent agreement for the period he believed the child was his son, said attorney Latesha Bradley..."

His mistake was to acknowledge the child as his for any period and especially in writing without DNA PROOF. That said, what happened to this man is an outrage. The situation in child support cases in utterly rigged against the man.

10 posted on 09/06/2009 1:42:10 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Chet 99

” A Georgia man who spent a year in jail for nonpayment of child support —
despite the fact he has no children — has been cleared of the debt,
his attorney said Tuesday.”

“It’s a small world after all!”
As this very evening late at night (about 11PM), I saw a commercial
by a law firm in Mid-Missouri actually run a societally-useful
advert to drum up business.

From the advert, all I can tell is that there is a short-lived
provision that allows males (who else?; and I can say that as I “are one”)
to legally demand DNA testing of themselves and the purported off-spring
to make sure of paternity (or NON-paternity).

I have to give Missouri credit. Unless they’ve had some major change
since 2005 when I fled, California was famed for delivering default judgement
to males when some female they hardly knew (and sometimes never
“made whoopy” with) would name them as the father of their child.

And the California judicial/court system refused to allow the male
saddled for up to 18 years of child-support statement to demand and
receive the result of a paternity test to see if “Papa” actually be
“on the hook” and that the child was actually the guy’s offsping.

This was an ugly legacy of former and charismatic Los Angeles
District Attorney Gil Garcetti.
He’s a decent photographer...probably a better one than he was
a District Attorney.


11 posted on 09/06/2009 1:45:10 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Chet 99

Not a SHRED of common sense exhibited here.

Indeed, it is true. “The law is an ass”

So is this Judge.


16 posted on 09/06/2009 2:02:53 AM PDT by 101voodoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Chet 99

bump


26 posted on 09/06/2009 6:48:31 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Chet 99

It should be illegal for any woman to make child-support claims if she was not married to the “father” at the alleged time of conception, unless the “father” has been convicted of rape.


28 posted on 09/06/2009 8:28:18 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson