|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Feb 11, 2010 19:40:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 11, 2010 21:49:57 GMT -5
That is really hard to believe. Who would remove the guy's ability to pay for not paying?
I just finished "Paradise Under Siege" and he certainly isn't going to make a living as a novelist.
Swimmy, comment please!
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Feb 11, 2010 23:12:25 GMT -5
He has collected enough big paychecks that I don't believe he can't afford to support his children. However a vision of shrinking assets might encourage him to remember in which suit he left his checkbook.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 11, 2010 23:39:37 GMT -5
No, it's not that he can't afford to support his children. He feels that it is unconstitutional to require him to support his children. I've butted head with him several times and dispelled every argument he as flung in the face of well-settled law. I, as well as others, saw this coming from a mile away. Two reasons he has his license suspended. One, it's part of the non-contempt powers of the court to try and enforce payments. This is just he first. Next, they will suspend his driver's license. After that, he could be held in contempt and imprisoned for 6 months. At that point, he will probably be disbarred. Two, as an attorney, sworn to follow the law and not act in a manner that calls into question the judiciary's integrity or the attorney's character and fitness to be an attorney, intentionally ignoring a court order is unethical, unprofessional, and grounds to have your license revoked.
I have to laugh at his baseless rhetoric and the irony. He was one of the lead attorneys prosecuting Sherrill v OIN for not paying taxes, yet he won't pay child support. One has legitimate arguments, the other is too full of himself to see his parental obligation to support his children. The intelligent approach would be to pay the support, and fight it on legal grounds. But the appellate courts have heard his constitutional arguments and found them to be without merit. There is NO conspiracy theory as he insists. It's a scare tactic he used to avoid supporting his children. It's about time he got exposed for it. What he cries out as injustice is just how families are. Women, traditionally, are the primary care takers for their children. It makes NO sense to uproot the children from that situation simply because a deadbeat father is trying to avoid having to pay child support. It's in the child's best interest to provide as close to a stable environment that is as close to the status quo pre-custody battle, and it is well settled case law, all the way to the US Supreme Court. It's that simple, but only leon could arrogantly and foolishly push such an irrational and unfounded mantra that has ZERO support.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Feb 12, 2010 6:17:31 GMT -5
Well written, supported by fact & precedent. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 12, 2010 6:57:15 GMT -5
If I were to consider myself an expert on anything, family law would be the closest subject I would be arrogant enough to make such a claim. I have handled several cases where the father is the primary care provider and successfully secured primary residence or sole custody in those instances. And, often times, the noncustodial parent is fighting the custody and visitation set up solely because they don't want to pay child support. I have a case right now, where the mother is suing for custody. We have an audio recording of her saying that hell will freeze over before she pays a dime in support to her children's father. And I've seen all too often when some fathers fight for equal visitation. They put on a great show in the court room about their love for their children. But after that order, once it's signed, in practice, the fathers are hardly around and rarely exercise the liberal visitation they received. But this way, they don't have to pay for child support. So, you instruct the client to keep a journal of when visitation is exercised and for how long. In 6 months, you have the client file another petition, the change in circumstances is the significant lack of visitation and the burden on the true custodial parent's schedule because she is forced to have the kids ready at a moment's notice during dad's scheduled visitation time. Now, dad is hard pressed to fight the original schedule offered that reflected the true status between the parties. And it is amazing when I get them on the stand for cross and they shout out that they won't pay child support, or that they'd agree to the change if they still did not have to pay child support.
While the law and the courts may not have always been favorable to deserving fathers, I've experienced firsthand that those deserving fathers will get the custody and visitation arrangement that they should have. And I don't mean to single out fathers. There are plenty of women who are just as guilty, but they are still a minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Feb 12, 2010 13:46:24 GMT -5
Many years ago I had Marc Jonas for an attorney that represented me in a divorce proceeding.
He was one of the founders of a local chapter of Equal Rights for Fathers and he was very active as an advocate for equal treatment for men in the family and divorce courts. They DID accomplish change in some areas, and did it legally. THAT is the kind of lobbying for men's rights that is acceptable. NOT depriving you children of support to make a point.
To thumb his nose at authority and the courts is just plain damned ignorant for a man with Koziol's education. Contempt of court is not tolerated by ANY judge, and especially not contempt by an attorney and officer of the court.
The only point Koziol will make is to be a martyr for the "cause" and to be without a license or means to pay the payments he owes. He will not only be forced to pay, but will be forced to earn the money in much less lucrative profession after he loses his license to practice law.
I wonder if he gave any thought to those he is representing in cases that are pending before the courts, and the effect that his ignorance might have on THEIR lives. He strikes me as a loud mouth, self indulgent, arrogant legend in his own mind. It is a shame because he has successfully represented folks in some important cases and won favorable decisions. He is NOT a stupid man or a less than capable attorney.
I would say the he simply chose the wrong fight, and has not been able to put a divorce behind him. It is a fight between him and his ex-wife that he has tried to portray as a cause for many. it is HIS children that are suffering, not yours or mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by fiona on Feb 12, 2010 19:11:11 GMT -5
thank you both for a well informed, well thought out, intelligent discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 12, 2010 20:57:39 GMT -5
This thread has brought to mind news earlier of Alec Baldwin and Kim Bassinger. (How long has their fight been going on now ) his daughter called 911 to report his threat of taking pills. Seems the media thinks Kim put her up to it. And I am wondering what this child will be like as an adult with all the antics she's been through because of her parents'divorce. Tell me she is not damaged.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Feb 13, 2010 11:50:17 GMT -5
Did you see what Swimmy said will happen next? He'll have his driver's license suspended. If that doesn't convince him to pay for his own children he'll be going off to jail.
His poor kids are old enough to know what's going on & may end up blaming themselves. Doesn't he see the damage is is causing to them just to "make a point"? If he doesn't like the law, he should work to get it changed.
When he used his girls in that picture in the OD at Christmas time where they say they missed him, I was appalled. HE put that picture in the paper. Jerk.
|
|
|
|
Post by corner on Feb 13, 2010 13:45:49 GMT -5
cant wait to hear what this arrogant asshole has to say!
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Feb 13, 2010 15:53:06 GMT -5
cant wait to hear what this arrogant asshole has to say! Probably that he is running for president in 2012.  |
|
|
|
Post by corner on Feb 13, 2010 15:57:32 GMT -5
we already got an arrogant, clueless dictatorial asshole there!
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Feb 13, 2010 16:20:28 GMT -5
Sad testament to what could be a great law career if aimed in the correct direction. He is noted for his civil rights work and defense against discrimination by government, but he has picked a very dangerous strategy to pursue in his quest for changes to the custody and child support laws.
Seems pretty stupid to me for a lawyer to risk his license in the middle of a legal battle when there are so many more logical ways to handle the problem. I have to think that he is simply a sore loser and it stems from his resentment for his ex wife, not the laws that require him to pay support.
Hunker down and put on your "big boy pants" Leo, and pay up ya big whineass. A well known attorney is NOT going to get away with a hundred bucks or so a week, when he is making thousands a week. Get over it. Fight the battle in another way and don't be such a cheap and neglectful dad.
I can't believe that he would take the welfare of his own children and turn it into his own personal campaign against family law. The kids are the one's that are deprived due to his ignorance, not he or his ex.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Feb 13, 2010 16:40:47 GMT -5
This whole thing can very possibly cause psychological damage to those kids. They may think they are reduced to a cost that their father is not willing to pay. He has no idea what this will do to them. His "fight" should have been done privately & within the law.
|
|
