Judge orders Rep. Joe Walsh (R) to prove he doesn’t owe back child-support

J.E.D

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
14,159
Reaction score
2,227
Points
280
Self-appointed fiscal responsibility hawk and loudmouth, Rep Joe Walsh (R) has been ordered by a judge to prove that he does not owe his ex-wife $100,000 in child support. Looks like the hypocrite's chickens are coming home to roost. :lol::lol::lol:

Judge scolds Rep. Joe Walsh, orders him to prove he doesn

A judge in Chicago issued a preliminary ruling Wednesday against U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) in the Tea Party favorite’s child-support dispute with his ex-wife, ordering Walsh to explain why he appears to be $100,000 behind on his child-support payments.

Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega also wanted to know why Walsh wasn’t in court for the hearing — the McHenry Republican’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh was — and said he expects him to show up at the next hearing, in November.

Walsh’s new attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court.

Vega gave her a puzzled look.

To which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”

“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge said.

Ultimately, Laura Walsh’s attorney said the congressman probably wouldn’t have to come to court for the next hearing, after all.

Still, Vega said he was going to issue a “rule to show cause” why Walsh shouldn’t be held in contempt of court for falling behind, according to his ex-wife, by $100,000 in his child support over the past five years.

The effect of that ruling is that, instead of Laura Walsh having to prove that the congressman owes the money, now the burden shifts to the congressman to prove that he doesn’t owe money, according to attorneys for both Walshes.

Laura Walsh said her husband started making half-payments years ago and then making no payments at all, claiming he had no money.

Last year, when she saw he had made a $35,000 contribution to his own congressional campaign, Laura Walsh said she became suspicious about his “no money” claims and had her attorney file the motion that Judge Vega granted on Wednesday.

In less than a year in Congress, the telegenic, silver-haired freshman has catapulted to the top of the cable television short-list, offering pithy anti-Obama soundbites, often criticizing the Obama administration for fiscal irresponsibility.
 
OP
J.E.D

J.E.D

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
14,159
Reaction score
2,227
Points
280
Who cares and what difference does it make?
I care because Walsh has been running around bragging about how fiscally responsible he is, while simultaneously criticizing Obama and the Dems for (in his opinion) not being fiscally responsible. It's his own fault for being a loudmouthed hypocrite. You're damn right I'm going to call him out.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
Who cares and what difference does it make?
I care because Walsh has been running around bragging about how fiscally responsible he is, while simultaneously criticizing Obama and the Dems for (in his opinion) not being fiscally responsible. It's his own fault for being a loudmouthed hypocrite. You're damn right I'm going to call him out.
So, you have the proof that he hasn't paid? Or are you hanging him because he's a Republican?
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,117
Reaction score
15,856
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Who cares and what difference does it make?
I care because Walsh has been running around bragging about how fiscally responsible he is, while simultaneously criticizing Obama and the Dems for (in his opinion) not being fiscally responsible. It's his own fault for being a loudmouthed hypocrite. You're damn right I'm going to call him out.
So, you have the proof that he hasn't paid? Or are you hanging him because he's a Republican?
well, i hope he paid.

but.. in my experience, ex wives generally don't claim that they weren't paid when they were. it's too easy to prove otherwise with canceled checks and receipts. what you get more of are disputes money which was never paid, about how much the ex should pay for things. they fight over one or the others obligations to share expenses. but they generally don't fight too much about whether daddy has paid when he's written the checks. the major exception is when cash has been given. in that case, the parent who owes the money is going to have a problem anyway since they can't prove they paid.
 

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,806
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
I'm surprised there's no mention of a discovery hearing (at which neither party need be present).
Proof of income and historical income is presented and the lawyers hash it out.

Silly thread.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,117
Reaction score
15,856
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I'm surprised there's no mention of a discovery hearing (at which neither party need be present).
Proof of income and historical income is presented and the lawyers hash it out.

Silly thread.
that doesn't exist in every state or in every type of proceeding.

and in this particular case, i'm guessing the judge doesn't believe him or she would have said to provide the proof to his wife's lawyer.
 

Mustang

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
7,771
Reaction score
1,538
Points
245
Location
39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
Self-appointed fiscal responsibility hawk and loudmouth, Rep Joe Walsh (R) has been ordered by a judge to prove that he does not owe his ex-wife $100,000 in child support. Looks like the hypocrite's chickens are coming home to roost. :lol::lol::lol:

Judge scolds Rep. Joe Walsh, orders him to prove he doesn

A judge in Chicago issued a preliminary ruling Wednesday against U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) in the Tea Party favorite’s child-support dispute with his ex-wife, ordering Walsh to explain why he appears to be $100,000 behind on his child-support payments.

Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega also wanted to know why Walsh wasn’t in court for the hearing — the McHenry Republican’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh was — and said he expects him to show up at the next hearing, in November.

Walsh’s new attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court.

Vega gave her a puzzled look.

To which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”

“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge said.

Ultimately, Laura Walsh’s attorney said the congressman probably wouldn’t have to come to court for the next hearing, after all.

Still, Vega said he was going to issue a “rule to show cause” why Walsh shouldn’t be held in contempt of court for falling behind, according to his ex-wife, by $100,000 in his child support over the past five years.

The effect of that ruling is that, instead of Laura Walsh having to prove that the congressman owes the money, now the burden shifts to the congressman to prove that he doesn’t owe money, according to attorneys for both Walshes.

Laura Walsh said her husband started making half-payments years ago and then making no payments at all, claiming he had no money.

Last year, when she saw he had made a $35,000 contribution to his own congressional campaign, Laura Walsh said she became suspicious about his “no money” claims and had her attorney file the motion that Judge Vega granted on Wednesday.

In less than a year in Congress, the telegenic, silver-haired freshman has catapulted to the top of the cable television short-list, offering pithy anti-Obama soundbites, often criticizing the Obama administration for fiscal irresponsibility.
You've got Joe all wrong.

You see, Joe had a particular lifestyle. That lifestyle required a certain level of income...and subsequent spending to maintain that lifestyle

Here's the problem. Joe couldn't maintain that lifestyle AND pay his child support. When he TRIED to do that, he found that he was spending beyond his means. So, Joe realized something. Paying child support made him a hypocrite. Don't you see? Those child support payments were essentially the equivalent of deficit spending, and Joe just HATED deficit spending.

So, Joe stayed true to his principles, AND cut, Cut, CUT that deficit spending because...Joe is a man of principle!
 
Last edited:

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
Joe Wilson is solidly with the Tea Party on this one.

Those kids should get a freakin job for pete's sake. Joe's not into wealth re-distribution. It's his money, why should he pay for someone's life.

Everybody for themselves!
 
R

rdean

Guest
It never would have been an issue if he hadn't USED HIS OWN kids in his politics.

Walsh said, “I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money.”

Actually, he owes $117,000.00

He had enough money to give himself $35,000.00 for his campaign and took his girlfriend on vacations to Mexico and Italy. This has been all over the news in Chicago.
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
Here in Oregon child support is handled through the DA's office of the county involved. My bank account gets garnished the first of every month by the DA. they do charge me $10 per month extra for the service. However given the general level of my ex's veracity, this is cheap at 3x the price.
 

Immanuel

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
2,265
Points
183
I care because Walsh has been running around bragging about how fiscally responsible he is, while simultaneously criticizing Obama and the Dems for (in his opinion) not being fiscally responsible. It's his own fault for being a loudmouthed hypocrite. You're damn right I'm going to call him out.
So, you have the proof that he hasn't paid? Or are you hanging him because he's a Republican?
well, i hope he paid.

but.. in my experience, ex wives generally don't claim that they weren't paid when they were. it's too easy to prove otherwise with canceled checks and receipts. what you get more of are disputes money which was never paid, about how much the ex should pay for things. they fight over one or the others obligations to share expenses. but they generally don't fight too much about whether daddy has paid when he's written the checks. the major exception is when cash has been given. in that case, the parent who owes the money is going to have a problem anyway since they can't prove they paid.
In my humble opinion, only a fool would pay cash to his ex-wife for child support or alimony. It seems to me that the best bet is to pay it through the courts or payroll deductions and make sure that the records are kept at all times.

Immie
 
R

rdean

Guest
Here in Oregon child support is handled through the DA's office of the county involved. My bank account gets garnished the first of every month by the DA. they do charge me $10 per month extra for the service. However given the general level of my ex's veracity, this is cheap at 3x the price.
Do you feel you've become a better judge of character? Sometimes it takes hard lessons to get through our hard heads.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,117
Reaction score
15,856
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
So, you have the proof that he hasn't paid? Or are you hanging him because he's a Republican?
well, i hope he paid.

but.. in my experience, ex wives generally don't claim that they weren't paid when they were. it's too easy to prove otherwise with canceled checks and receipts. what you get more of are disputes money which was never paid, about how much the ex should pay for things. they fight over one or the others obligations to share expenses. but they generally don't fight too much about whether daddy has paid when he's written the checks. the major exception is when cash has been given. in that case, the parent who owes the money is going to have a problem anyway since they can't prove they paid.
In my humble opinion, only a fool would pay cash to his ex-wife for child support or alimony. It seems to me that the best bet is to pay it through the courts or payroll deductions and make sure that the records are kept at all times.

Immie
many people have cash businesses. they earn their money in cash and pay in cash.

and, i know this may be difficult for you to believe,... often, people, particularly in matrimonial actions, keep their income in cash so the ex can't prove how much they make and therefore can't obtain as much child support as they'd be entitled to by statute.

most people don't want to pay through the courts. some find it convenient if their spouse is a nutter and will lie... but mostly, people don't want their employers involved in their private matters.
 

Immanuel

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
2,265
Points
183
well, i hope he paid.

but.. in my experience, ex wives generally don't claim that they weren't paid when they were. it's too easy to prove otherwise with canceled checks and receipts. what you get more of are disputes money which was never paid, about how much the ex should pay for things. they fight over one or the others obligations to share expenses. but they generally don't fight too much about whether daddy has paid when he's written the checks. the major exception is when cash has been given. in that case, the parent who owes the money is going to have a problem anyway since they can't prove they paid.
In my humble opinion, only a fool would pay cash to his ex-wife for child support or alimony. It seems to me that the best bet is to pay it through the courts or payroll deductions and make sure that the records are kept at all times.

Immie
many people have cash businesses. they earn their money in cash and pay in cash.

and, i know this may be difficult for you to believe,... often, people, particularly in matrimonial actions, keep their income in cash so the ex can't prove how much they make and therefore can't obtain as much child support as they'd be entitled to by statute.

most people don't want to pay through the courts. some find it convenient if their spouse is a nutter and will lie... but mostly, people don't want their employers involved in their private matters.
Then he is a fool and deserves whatever he gets.

One can keep his money in cash and make a deposit in the checking account on the same day as making the payment to his ex-wife thus providing proof of payment.

Immie
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top