Skip to main content

View Diary: Martin Bashir of MSNBC vs Joe Walsh (R Ill) Bashir Hits It Out Of The Ballpark (150 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I presume she "agreed" at some point that he did (11+ / 0-)

    not have to pay what was ordered by the Court, probably because he was earning less or unemployed etc.

    She was probably trying to be reasonable under difficult circumstances for her ex husband. You see that all the time.

    That doesn't mean he is not legally required to pay it unless he went to Court to modify the support order which he clearly didn't.

    Walsh starts making decent income again after his election to Congress and wife says ok, pay me what you owe, and he runs to Court saying she agreed he didn't have to pay.

    Legally insufficient, morally reprehensible.  Sounds like Walsh. I am suprised the Judge has allowed this to go on as long as it has.

    •  The reason he claims for the agreement (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, Losty, sharman
      Through his attorney, Walsh claimed he had a “verbal agreement” with his wife on child support because “Joe and his former wife were both tired of court appearances and the resulting emotional and financial impact on the family. Neither party had the financial or emotional wherewithal to continue the battle.”
      http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...

      from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

      by Catte Nappe on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 02:36:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still doesn't matter. If they did actually agree (7+ / 0-)

        to this, but didn't want to pay more costs, they could easily have paid less than $50 to file and schedule a hearing. 10 minutes in front of the judge would have altered the dollar amount. Most judges will do so if there is agreement.

        Absent the judge changing the order, the agreement is moot.

        Even if they did agree, verbally, his ex-wife is within her legal rights to take him to court. Simply because the actual order was never changed. Would she be ethical, not necessarily, but it IS legal.

        "TEABAGGER=Totally Enraged About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights."

        by second gen on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 03:07:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are 100% right. (0+ / 0-)

          I would add that it is almost impossible to get an order modified retroactively. This matter should be open and shut. The fact that it is taking so long suggests that he has some standing.

          I had a similar disagreement with my ex. Fortunately, she made her threats in writing and I kept them. So, when she sued me for 350K I was able to prove that she had blackmailed me into an agreement that I did not want. I was also able to prove that she had committed fraud, perjury and had supplied false documents to the court. Even with all that it took 10 months and a pile of money to beat her.

          Men are not always at fault in these matters.

          I like to believe in love as democracy - Salman Rushdie

          by crystalboy on Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 06:42:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site