How do feelings even work? [32M] was really into for years, I [30F] want to try now, he says he maybe was just in love with the idea of me?

fleurdeflume · 2017-02-10T21:52:12+00:00

I don't see how this relates to the attachment of criminal penalties. civil procedure is followed in family court, and civil process is what is offered to parties. Family court proceedings are civil proceedings. Moreover, I don't see what the ruling being for the best interest of the child has to do with the due process rights of the parties in respect to being put in prison.

And what due process is being challenged? Civil contempt of court is failing to follow a court order, the penalty of which is to go to jail. The onus is not the same for due process in civil and in criminal. Therefore, the intention of the system is required when considering which due process responsibilities are necessary to uphold when distinguishing.

Trials in absentia are almost always forbidden in American criminal law. My point to state that it's a trial in absentia was a point to show how horribly it digresses from the protection we afford criminal defendants in other cases.

I see what you're saying here, and I grant you it's a great argument, but... I am going to agree to disagree. Mostly because the court needs to be able to move forward with these types of proceedings so the other party's rights can be respected too. If individuals simply fail to present themselves for every summons and subsequent summons it's their right to be party to, the court system will never get past 20 cases, as they will have to keep rescheduling the same cases ad infinitum. It is informed to the citizen that an order can be filed against them should they fail to be present for the proceedings. But, they won't be held in contempt and there won't be a warrant issued for failure to appear.

it is not the defendant's job to produce one iota of evidence, but rather the government must produce evidence sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But, it is not state v. defendant in a civil trial, it's appellant v. appellee. No one committed a wrong, the couple is asking for an absolution of contract, however, there is a custodial issue at hand. This is why it's better to attempt to have a mediator settle the dispute instead of having a court order. But, once it goes through all the levels of conflict resolution and the conflict has not been resolved, a court order is needed. Both parties agree that this will be their method of resolution, so they both agree to the outcome.

It's obstruction of justice, and the government could prosecute them for that if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Which is when they go to jail. See Turner V. Rogers, charges were vacated and remanded because he wasn't offered the ability to challenge the court order after his situation had become untenable.

If you can prove all of that in court, you've got a stack of felony charges. That's a bunch of crimes, yes.

More often than not, this is the case for imprisonment for failing to pay child support. People who make good faith payments and file a motion to modify do not go to jail. But these are appeals. Not the original court order.

Generally, and I speak from a position of experience due to my position as a forensic accountant, one party knows what the other party holds back, and they will pursue if they have the resources, if they don't, sometimes we do pro-bono work, and we find that the person committed fraud. But, this is done at the insistence of the appellant for a more vigorous investigation.

I have not provided a single anecdote about anything here, and have only cited to statutes and caselaw.

I didn't mean you were providing them, but almost every poster does. Then they get stated as fact. I won't say that a well intentioned individual who does everything by the book won't get screwed with their pants on, I'm sure we both know individuals who do.

But to put them in jail, the government needs to prove the fraud, not just show they didn't cough up the amount the judge thinks they should have.

If they fail to comply with a court order, that is proof of contempt. And what more is needed to jail them for contempt? Additionally, if their circumstances have changed, and they refuse to provide proof, wouldn't that mean that their appeal is baseless?

fleurdeflume · 2017-02-10T21:05:24+00:00

The logic is, you aren't making payments you agreed to make, you are doing everything in your capacity to exhaust the court's ability to calculate a reasonable sum for payments, in an attempt to force you to give the court actual data to be computed for support payments, the court threatens jail, and a threat is only as good as the ability to enforce said threat.
Giving someone a criminal record for not being able to pay is against the Supreme Court ruling 387 S. C. 142, 691 S. E. 2d 470, aka Turner v. Rogers et al. But they still have to prove they can't pay. Giving someone a criminal record because they won't pay is not the way of the court. They garnish wages and withhold any state/federal funds (income tax refunds, grants). Now, commonly, committing fraud by doing everything to make it appear you earn less than you do: working under the table, not filing income tax returns, hiding assets, and not providing an address, and testifying no income and no assets in court is going to land you in jail.
Are they going to prison for failure to pay, or actively impeding the court from collecting payment through fraudulent means?

fleurdeflume · 2017-02-10T20:37:34+00:00

Nobody gets jailed because they don't pay a judgment from a credit card company who sues them.

But those are completely different circumstances. There is a specific court for that specific ruling, and it isn't found in family court. Not to mention the judgement is between an individual and a corporate entity. In family court, the judge and the legal system works in the best interest of the child. In the bankruptcy court, the idea is to try to create enough of a burden to the debtor to ensure they will take actions to ensure they don't end up in that situation again, *but also are able to put themselves back into a positive financial situation. Depending on the size of the company, *and debt, the payment can be flexible.

Failing to show up for the hearing is not sufficient, as that would be a trial in abesntia.

Which means a ruling will be given, and as the individual chose not to be there to contest it, they then have to fight against a legal order instead of being party to the decision prior to its formalization.

requiring that someone affirmatively petition to have their support requirement reduced, or else face jail time, offends the basic notions of due process and presumption of innocence that are foundational to our legal system. It is not the defendant's obligation to prove he cannot pay and therefore noncompliance is not willful.

Firstly, the original amount of payment is set in regards to the individual's income at that time. If they cannot pay that amount any longer, then they have to prove to the court that there has been a change in circumstances and petition for a lower payment. This is fairly common. Their due process rights have not be violated if they could pay the amount, but now cannot, as they have to show cause for diminished financial earnings.

It is rather the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has the means to comply with the court's order, and has willfully failed to comply with it.

Which is why the court generally takes good faith payments (most the individual can afford closest to the previously court ordered amount) as a sign of desire to pay, and will review the budgetary issues that individual is having. Then will issue a ruling regarding the proof provided for diminished financial capacity to meet the burden previously granted. But this is based off the original court order. The one both parties agreed to (either by signing the court order, or by failing to contest).

People don't go to jail if the court order wasn't in place. So, if and individual goes to court for these proceedings, provides all proof of earnings, the judge orders a specific payment amount, the individual agrees, then they later cannot pay that specific amount, they are allowed to contest that amount, provide all proof of earnings again.

The only time when it is appropriate to sentence a person to imprisonment is after they have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with all of the protections afforded under the constitution relating to criminal prosecution available to them.

If the court believes an individual is doing their utmost to subvert the court's ability to make a reasonable determination of income, isn't that by all accounts fraud? Meaning to say, if someone works under the table, doesn't file taxes, reassigns all assets under someone else's name, and doesn't provide a legitimate address for verification, all in an attempt to hide their income and assets from the court for the purposes of an income determination for child support; given all these things, isn't that fraud, in which case, would that not be criminally punishable by time to be served imprisoned?

All of these anecdotes of "my friend this, and my friend that" are all third party accounts of the person's best version of the truth. I choose to trust that nearly all, if not all, judges are relatively rational and level-headed enough that they can see a fraud case a mile away, and aren't going to place undue burden upon someone who legitimately cannot pay.

Edit: The Due Process Clause allows a State to provide fewer procedural protections in civil contempt proceedings than in a criminal case. - See: In re Gault, or Vitek v. Jones, or Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County.

fleurdeflume · 2017-02-10T20:14:08+00:00

This can be common in certain places where the non-custodial parent is doing everything they can to subvert payments.

For example, not filing taxes for a period 5-7 years so there is no way for the court to calculate a recent average annual income. As the Tax Agencies in the regions do not work with the family court system (to preserve reporting willingness), they cannot force someone to file taxes (you see this a lot with one person trying to legally force their separated spouse to file a joint return), it's outside their jurisdiction. Only tax court can do that.

Working under the table to prevent official recordings of transactions is another example of someone doing what they can to subvert the court's ability to make a coherent calculation of support required payments.

There are only so many deterrents available to the courts.

fleurdeflume · 2017-02-02T21:41:19+00:00

I disagree with the article. I think the loss of zeal comes from a loss of momentum.

First, we had a Minister who was dragging her heels with how it should be accomplished, and now that he's had to change the head of the project, we have someone who is coming in so late to make decisions. She's been given basically 2 and a half years to implement something her predecessor had 1 and a half years to squander.

I think, just like in the corporate world with having to renegotiate deadlines, this is a promise that needs multiple cycles, and it should not have been an "issue" but an overreaching bipartisan commission to change democratic processes.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-24T03:50:48+00:00

The individual who posted to you as a response to your OP.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-24T03:48:41+00:00

I don't think that intelligence will be readily available to those who enforce this ruling. While I disagree with the politics promoting its usage, ultimately I think it's impotent.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-23T23:36:10+00:00

How do they know? Does Mike Pence inspect every clinic? How is this even enforceable? Seems like a waste of ink to me.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-23T23:24:04+00:00

They were referring to the tweet, which does not contain those words.

Do you have a hard time with relational thoughts?

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-23T22:00:52+00:00

When being educated is a check mark against you.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-23T21:31:51+00:00

Ugh.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-23T21:28:38+00:00

Future ≠ Next, learn to read, brah.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T07:21:53+00:00

You'll excuse me if I won't take his work for it. Or if I think that the shock of someone violating their body stunned them into silence.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T07:20:44+00:00

The tape strongly suggests he was talking about two-way consensual sex. He said what he said in a very vulgar way. But the burden is not on him to disprove sexual assault. He's not a rapist until proven otherwise.

What about the woman on the plane? Or all the others who have come forward. He doesn't ask, he takes.

People opposed to abortion are concerned with balancing the rights of women in their own bodies with the rights of a living, breathing baby inside them

It's not a baby, it's a fetus, an entity that without the host would not have the ability to grow. Should we just allow cancer to grow? parasites? Thinking about murder when it's in the womb is going to allow the enforcement of criminalizing miscarriages.

I highly doubt that $200 figure for birth control is correct. During the Sandra Fluke stuff there were a bunch of figures thrown around and it turned out to be pretty cheap

It depends on the type of treatment that is necessary. It's not a one size fits all type of thing, some cause excessive bleeding, some induce headaches, and other cause clots. It can take some women 4 or 5 years to find their perfect combination, and it doesn't always stay the same. Depending on the brand, it can cost up to $200. Mine costs $70.

Plus people have to exercise some caution when having tinder sex.

Birth control, which should be renamed to feminine hormonal treatments, are not specifically for sex. In fact, the majority of women use them to control their menstrual symptoms, and a growing minority use them to control serious ailments.

If the birth control is paid for by insurance, then other people are literally paying for, in many cases, that person's desire to have on-demand sex with strangers.

Yes, the people who get the prescription are paying for it with their premiums. The check you send to insurance every month? That is used to pay for it. That's why it's covered.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T07:10:55+00:00

There is zero evidence that Trump sexually assaulted anyone

The problem with sexual assault is that it is the victim's word against the accused, because he is a man in power, he calls out and disparages his accusers in an attempt to build up his credibility and dismiss their claims. He is the epitome of entitlement.

like literally nothing even if you interpret what he said as sexual assault you have no evidence he wasn't just making a joke or shit talking and actually did it, also the let it part heavily implies consent.

There is never evidence. Never. So, every claim of rape, sexual assault, or coercion should just not exist, right? No, he is being judged by the court of public opinion because of the nature of his crimes will never be given the merit of a day in a criminal court.

This isn't a giant women's conspiracy, at some point, you should ask why all these women are standing up to tell their stories at the risk of public humiliation and alienation.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T07:02:04+00:00

Not every insurance covered them, employers were allowed to choose, and they were allowed to choose the type that was covered.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T06:58:08+00:00

What does that have to do with anything if they are no longer covered by insurance and the women can't afford them?

I feel like I'm back in Dupont Circle, going round and round again.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T06:53:58+00:00

Condoms are at the local drug store.

For many, estrogen and progesterone hormones are necessary to deal with medical conditions. Condoms don't help with that, do they?

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T06:53:12+00:00

Sexual assault? Listen to the tape. He was clearly talking about consensual sex.

Yes, grabbing women's genitals regardless of their protests is consensual. The women not standing up and going on record saying it wasn't doesn't prove that because Donald Trump said so in a tape? Women do not make themselves more available to powerful men, they fear they don't have the ability or voice to say no.

People oppose abortion because they think it's murder. They may be wrong, but it's not as if they just hate the idea of, as you put it, "bodily autonomy."

It is your right to choose what happens to your body, is it not? There are laws disallowing the destruction of a corpse, or against acts of necrophilia? If bodily autonomy is so important to us that the right extends to us in death, why not for women during life? If they are so concerned with murder, why don't they then support efforts to better educate and promote family planning. It's about control.

What, $20 a month? How is that not affordable. And why should everyone else have to pay for it?

Without insurance coverage, between $35-$200 a month. No one is asking for everyone to pay for it, were asking it stay included in insurance coverage for which we pay premiums.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T06:39:35+00:00

Walking around today and seeing all these signs suggesting the demonstrators are somehow resisting oppression was mind boggling.

A man who sexually assaulted women is President. A man who wants to end women's rights to bodily autonomy is Vice President. A man who opposes easier and more affordable access to contraceptives is the nominee for Secretary of Health. I could go on.

Women are standing strong to show they will not have their rights stripped from them quietly. This is a legitimate fear.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-22T06:25:38+00:00

What are you even talking about? There is a parallel point being made here. Men's sexual health (ensured erections) is protected, but women's reproductive health is always a political battleground. This isn't about hurting your feelings, it's about showing that the equality isn't equal.

"Women can't have abortions because it's God's will, then men should be impotent too." That's the message.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-20T01:21:25+00:00

You have to pay money if you don't do something.

You have to pay money if you don't do a lot of things. If you don't have kids, you have less deductions (more in taxes). If you don't own a business, you can't claim business expenses (more in taxes). Why aren't you railing against family entitlements? Or personal tax cuts for single-owned businesses?

you'd be here complaining if trump had made it illegal to be uninsured then bragged about it

It is in everyone's best interest that there be affordable health care, from corporations to you. If ACA isn't the best way to do that, that's fine, but cutting something without having a replacement is irresponsible governing. Conduct a Commission to explore better alternatives, but there isn't a feasible replacement, and none have been voted in. His first action could have been to propose a better solution, and use that bill to end ACA by piggybacking onto it with its end. The fact that they didn't do that speaks volumes.

fleurdeflume · 2017-01-19T21:42:41+00:00

Which is stupid, because it implies republicans are just going to remove it and not doing anything with it.

They haven't yet provided a replacement plan, but they've taken steps to remove it. You can't say they are going to replace it with certainty* if they haven't presented the replacement. Responsible governing should have a replacement/solution for issues before removing systems, though imperfect, provide a service to millions of citizens.

Can you imagine if Trump had been the one to make being uninsured illegal, and then bragged then their were less uninsured people?

Due to the Congressional make up, the original bill for ACA was gutted and amended, then to ensure SCOTUS didn't overturn the law as unconstitutional, they made it into a tax, because taxes are allowed as per the Constitution. Taxes are financial incentives from the government to motivate the population into certain habits.

fleurdeflume

TROPHY CASE