Deadbeat Dad Owed $139,000

[godsbutterfly]

I tried to get mine in first...

The question now is: Will it make an impact even hearing it from both of us? The coin is in the air....call it!

 

[hvp05]

The coin is in the air....call it!

Given how many times I have posted plain facts and links for him to review and he has continued to deny them, I'd say... no. :shrug:

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

JPC, evidently you didn't read far enough! The given link does indeed say so. Go back and read it again and look for this paragraph shown below:

"After Hoffman's arrest, he immediately paid $30,000 of his arrearage. He was then extradited to St. Mary’s County, where a judge ordered him to three years in prison, with the term suspended contingent on his paying his full arrears by Feb. 1. The payment of $109,000 was made on January 24. "

Let me know after you've read it again and found that paragraph.

I did go read that link again and you are correct that the ransom money was paid,

but it still could have been paid by his wife or his family to the dedtor's prison - paid off in his name.

And I did more factually noticed that it does not give any comments or reports from the dad or from the custodial and that troubles me.

The report is simple the gov thieves reporting the thief of a large sum of money and no details concerning justice or circumstances.

I see no virtue in cheering on thieves, even if they be gov employed thieves.

 

[meangirl]

I did go read that link again and you are correct that the ransom money was paid,

but it still could have been paid by his wife or his family to the dedtor's prison - paid off in his name.

And I did more factually noticed that it does not give any comments or reports from the dad or from the custodial and that troubles me.

The report is simple the gov thieves reporting the thief of a large sum of money and no details concerning justice or circumstances.

I see no virtue in cheering on thieves, even if they be gov employed thieves.

I voted for ya! I like your name.

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

I voted for ya! I like your name.

Well thank you for that, and I like my name too.

But this is not the best place to be talking nice to me because I am stiring up the heathen here and they do not like any nice stuff.

So when I win the election then you and I shall celebrate.

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

Oops, forgot I'd never be nice to you in public. Sorry.

Let's go!

It is okay, and you did not do anything wrong.

I just try to be protective since some of the other posters have little or no manners or civility and I try to be protective of you.

Feel free to post anywhere and cheers to your hubby too.

 

[godsbutterfly]

I did go read that link again and you are correct that the ransom money was paid,

but it still could have been paid by his wife or his family to the dedtor's prison - paid off in his name.

And I did more factually noticed that it does not give any comments or reports from the dad or from the custodial and that troubles me.

The report is simple the gov thieves reporting the thief of a large sum of money and no details concerning justice or circumstances.

I see no virtue in cheering on thieves, even if they be gov employed thieves.

I didn't see the words "Ransom" or "Debtors Prison" in the article. Not sure where you got those ideas from as they were not in the link. The implication in the story was that he had the money to pay, chose not to pay it and only did so now to avoid a lengthy jail term.
By the way, I consider myself to be quite firm in my belief in God so I do hope you were not including me as one of the "heathens" you are currently stirring up with these posts on this article.

 

[hvp05]

but it still could have been paid by his wife or his family to the dedtor's prison - paid off in his name.

I don't see why this is even an issue... unless he tries to get out of paying his wife like he did his child, because she will probably beat him to a pulp.

no details concerning justice

I saw plenty of justice.

I voted for ya! I like your name.

Not you too.

 

[hvp05]

... I do hope you were not including me as one of the "heathens" you are currently stirring up with these posts on this article.

You did demand/collect CS, thus you could be qualified. Imagine living with such a narrow worldview as he does.

 

[David]

You can find out more about the long and protracted divorce and child support battle that was waged since 1999 by going to Maryland Judiciary Case Search and searching for cases involving "Karl E. Hoffman"

 

[ImnoMensa]

I can tell you from personal knowledge that deadbeat Mom's are treated 100% different than deadbeat Dad's.

If your ex wife owes you $30,000 you are pretty much SOL.

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

You can find out more about the long and protracted divorce and child support battle that was waged since 1999 by going to Maryland Judiciary Case Search and searching for cases involving "Karl E. Hoffman"

You are quite correct in that the Court case record tells a completely different story indeed.

The couple was married and the wife files for divorce which the Court happily grants.

Then the woman demands and files for child support payments because she must have the money from her child's father that she just legally dumped.

The Court orders a super high child support payment that the dad can not afford, but the custodial needs big money to pay for her future adulteries.

The father files for the child support to be modified to a more reasonable amount and the thieving Court refuses.

Then the father is turned into a criminal and tries to escape the thieving child support and gets put into jail to steal the c/s money from the father to pay for the mom's adulteries.

The ransom money gets paid to the thieves and mommy gets her part of the stolen loot to party on because the child already has everything they need to overflowing.

The law destroys the family unit and people praise thieves and that is our American law and Maryland law.

The woman gets a divorce from the children's father and the law orders child support cash so she can break up the family with less complications.

 

[Vince]

JPC????

You beat me to it.

 

[This_person]

You are quite correct in that the Court case record tells a completely different story indeed.

The couple was married and the wife files for divorce which the Court happily grants.

"happily"? What words in the case made you come to the conclusion it was "happily" granted?

Then the woman demands and files for child support payments because she must have the money from her child's father that she just legally dumped.

Yep, to support the children. Good call!

The Court orders a super high child support payment that the dad can not afford, but the custodial needs big money to pay for her future adulteries.

"Super high"? You mean, it was outside of the guidelines for proper support? Can you provide your source for that claim?

"Cad can not afford"? Again, based on what? He was able to come up with it when demanded/enforced, so I think he could handle it.

"Future adulteries"? Are you into crystal ball readings now?

The father files for the child support to be modified to a more reasonable amount and the thieving Court refuses.

Again, was it outside of the guidelines? Was there a reason? I mean, your son had to be told that he was the father, and still refused to pay. Claiming a reason not to pay clearly does not mean there IS a reason not to pay.

Then the father is turned into a criminal and tries to escape the thieving child support and gets put into jail to steal the c/s money from the father to pay for the mom's adulteries.

Yes, the father turned himself into a criminal by not following the law. Sad that he set that example for his children - to be totally disrespectful of the rule of law, and to ignore the needs and wants of his own children. Sad, sad indeed.

Where were those adulteries shown? Against whom? Can you perform adultery against someone you're NOT married to?

The ransom money gets paid to the thieves and mommy gets her part of the stolen loot to party on because the child already has everything they need to overflowing.

There it is - we knew you'd get to that lie sooner or later.

The law destroys the family unit and people praise thieves and that is our American law and Maryland law.

Nope, that is the way these particular Americans acted. Nothing to do with the law, but thanks for trying.

The woman gets a divorce from the children's father and the law orders child support cash so she can break up the family with less complications.

Based on the horrible actions of the neglectful father, I'd say there were a lot of complications. Too bad they couldn't each have supported their children - that the father needed to be enforced by law to provide for his own children. Sad.

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

"happily"? What words in the case made you come to the conclusion it was "happily" granted?Yep, to support the children. Good call!"Super high"? You mean, it was outside of the guidelines for proper support? Can you provide your source for that claim?

"Cad can not afford"? Again, based on what? He was able to come up with it when demanded/enforced, so I think he could handle it.

"Future adulteries"? Are you into crystal ball readings now?Again, was it outside of the guidelines? Was there a reason? I mean, your son had to be told that he was the father, and still refused to pay. Claiming a reason not to pay clearly does not mean there IS a reason not to pay.Yes, the father turned himself into a criminal by not following the law. Sad that he set that example for his children - to be totally disrespectful of the rule of law, and to ignore the needs and wants of his own children. Sad, sad indeed.

Where were those adulteries shown? Against whom? Can you perform adultery against someone you're NOT married to?There it is - we knew you'd get to that lie sooner or later.Nope, that is the way these particular Americans acted. Nothing to do with the law, but thanks for trying.Based on the horrible actions of the neglectful father, I'd say there were a lot of complications. Too bad they couldn't each have supported their children - that the father needed to be enforced by law to provide for his own children. Sad.

The point was - and still remains - that the law destroys the family unit, the law legally removes one parent from the family, the law steals the parents money, the law subsidizes adultery, the law cheapens the children, the law turns parents into criminals, and the law is directly immoral.

 

[This_person]

The point was - and still remains - that the law destroys the family unit, the law legally removes one parent from the family, the law steals the parents money, the law subsidizes adultery, the law cheapens the children, the law turns parents into criminals, and the law is directly immoral.

The point is, and still remains, the law has nothing to do with it. People are responsible for their own actions and their own children.

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

The point is, and still remains, the law has nothing to do with it. People are responsible for their own actions and their own children.

That appears to be another Freudian slip for T_p, but I still must agree with him here.

It is not the law's business but in fact our intruding gov has forced its immoral laws into the marriage and family business where the gov does not belong and the laws have made a mess of things.

The gov granting easy divorce, subsidizing adultery, legally protecting the adulterers, stealing children from their God given parents, stealing child support, and the law destroying the families.

So T_p is correct that the law has no business telling parents how to parent their own children but it does anyway.

 

[This_person]

That appears to be another Freudian slip for T_p, but I still must agree with him here.

It is not the law's business but in fact our intruding gov has forced its immoral laws into the marriage and family business where the gov does not belong and the laws have made a mess of things.

The gov granting easy divorce, subsidizing adultery, legally protecting the adulterers, stealing children from their God given parents, stealing child support, and the law destroying the families.

So T_p is correct that the law has no business telling parents how to parent their own children but it does anyway.

It's too bad that you don't live in reality, since this is nothing like what I said. Parents are responsible to their children. Government intervention has been proven needed when parents desert their children financially (like you did!) to protect those children. It's sad that government intervention is required when parents act irresponsibly, but, they do (like you did!), so it's become a necessity.

 

[Dymphna]

Then the woman demands and files for child support payments because she must have the money from her child's father that she just legally dumped.

The Court orders a super high child support payment that the dad can not afford, but the custodial needs big money to pay for her future adulteries.

And yet, the custody case file indicates:

Parties previously agreed that the plaintiff would have custody of the children and the defendant would pay child support according to Maryland Guidelines.

 

[JPC sr]

Deadbeat child support resister.

The point was - and still remains - that the law destroys the family unit, the law legally removes one parent from the family, the law steals the parents money, the law subsidizes adultery, the law cheapens the children, the law turns parents into criminals, and the law is directly immoral.

BUMP.