# "Family values" group honors deadbeat dad congresscritter **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 6, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079 "2011-11-06T18:07:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/41 "2011-11-07T17:35:44Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I wasn’t playing gotcha games, and I wasn’t trying to refute or argue against anything you said. Sorry if it came across that way. OK. I misread your intent. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/42 "2011-11-07T17:48:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. I misread your intent. Yeah, I tend to get a _liiittle_ too heated up over issues like this. tee hee. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/43 "2011-11-07T17:59:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “Just asking questions” has a specific meaning on this MB, namely “trolling”. I can’t see that what **Bricker** is doing falls into that category. I disagree. Just Asking Questions is a rhetorical device that is meant to lead the discussion off into another direction, or provide a cover. It has nothing whatsoever to do with trolling, which I take to be a deliberate provocative statement meant to whip up discord, particularly when the maker of the statement knows the statement to be false. This is clearly not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/44 "2011-11-07T18:20:56Z")
At any rate, this is not the “just asking questions” technique we’re seeing from friend **Bricker**. It is more like the “Nobody can possibly comment unless you have perfect knowledge of the situation” technique. Unless we have the court records, affidavits, notarized statements, family counsellor notes and colonoscopies of all involved,we cannot possibly know if the esteemed Rep. Walsh owes so much as a penny to this woman (who may or may not be his ex wife; we cannot tell until we physically see the divorce decree). This technique is frequently followed by the “It’s all old news, this has no relevance anymore” technique. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/45 "2011-11-07T18:46:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So it’s certain that Joe Walsh’s ex-wife is telling the truth, and that Joe Walsh is lying? Of course it isn’t. However, the point of this thread is not whether Joe Walsh owes back child support. It’s whether it was stupid of the Family Research Council to give him a family values award while the allegation is out there. That said, I’m not entirely convinced that there’s anything _wrong_ with the award regardless of Walsh’s financial peccadilloes, inasmuch as the Family Research Council has nothing to do with families or values. Or research, for that matter. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/46 "2011-11-07T18:52:03Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I disagree. Just Asking Questions is a rhetorical device that is meant to lead the discussion off into another direction, or provide a cover. It has nothing whatsoever to do with trolling, which I take to be a deliberate provocative statement meant to whip up discord, particularly when the maker of the statement knows the statement to be false. “Just asking questions” is a deliberate, provocative question meant to whip up discord. Happens all the time around here, and people all the time get called on it. I mean, wasn’t Hitler really justified in distrusting the Jews? I’m not saying he was justified, I’m “just asking questions”. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/47 "2011-11-07T20:01:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > inasmuch as the Family Research Council has nothing to do with families or values. Or research, for that matter. I’m not even sure they’re a council, strictly speaking. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/48 "2011-11-07T21:14:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So it’s certain that Joe Walsh’s ex-wife is telling the truth, and that Joe Walsh is lying? We do have [an outright admission of failure to pay](http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111011/news/710119610/), albeit with an attached lame excuse: > [@](#): > > The McHenry Tea Partyer, however, admits he did not pay child support from March 2008 to December 2010, but says he and his former wife had a verbal understanding that they would divide the children’s expenses but neither would pay the other child support. If he actually did try to replace a court-ordered payment schedule with “a verbal understanding”, that in itself indicates him to be too incompetent at legal matters to be one of the people who write the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/49 "2011-11-07T21:15:52Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > At any rate, this is not the “just asking questions” technique we’re seeing from friend **Bricker**. It is more like the “Nobody can possibly comment unless you have perfect knowledge of the situation” technique. Unless we have the court records, affidavits, notarized statements, family counsellor notes and colonoscopies of all involved,we cannot possibly know if the esteemed Rep. Walsh owes so much as a penny to this woman (who may or may not be his ex wife; we cannot tell until we physically see the divorce decree). That’s a very poor characterization of what I’m asking. I don’t ask for perfect evidence, or even overwhelmingly convincing evidence. I asked what you were relying on. In other words, I’d like to see SOME evidence apart from the ex-wife’s claims. I’m asking why her version is given weight and his isn’t, when (so far as I can see) both sides have the same type and quantity of evidence in play. She’s claimed he owes money; he denies it. I’m not asking for anything notarized – I’m asking why, with what we all know so far, you credit her and not him. So – why? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/50 "2011-11-07T21:17:23Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Ahhhh not defending. Just asking questions. After all, how do we even know that this “Joe Walsh” person even exists at all? Has anybody here actually seen him in person? (Well, I have during the Hotel California tour) And how do we really know that (if he does exist) he even has any children? Maybe this person taking him to court is a delusional stalker! Hmmmmm? Ever thought of that? > > You’re quite the deep, critical thinker when it comes to folks like this Congressman aren’t you? That’s not fair. I haven’t raised any questions along the absurd lines you mention, have I? I don’t think I’ve ever done that, in fact. Why would you accuse me of it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/51 "2011-11-07T21:20:19Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > We do have [an outright admission of failure to pay](http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111011/news/710119610/), albeit with an attached lame excuse: > > If he actually did try to replace a court-ordered payment schedule with “a verbal understanding”, that in itself indicates him to be too incompetent at legal matters to be one of the people who write the laws. I don’t agree with that. Going into court costs money. If they did agree on no support during that period of time, and he believed she was dealing in good faith with him, it’s not incompetent to replace a court-ordered payment schedule with a verbal understanding. Of course, it does assume a risk, but the magnitude of that risk rests on her good faith. Why do you contend that is _per se_ incompetence? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/52 "2011-11-07T21:55:24Z")
Can a verbal understanding abrogate a court ordered payment schedule? The second is a written judge’s order; the second is a voluntary verbal contract. If they agreed on no support during that time, aren’t his actions still in violation of the court order unless the order gets dismissed or stayed? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/53 "2011-11-08T00:04:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I agree with the judge – I think Mr. Walsh should explain that, too. > > But since he hasn’t yet had the hearing at which he explains it, I’m not inclined to reach a conclusion ahead of time. > > But you are? > [@Bricker](#): > > What I haven’t seen yet is any court anywhere actually ordering him to pay this. HEY BRICKER READ THE WHOLE POST. THE WHOLE POST BRICKER ALL OF IT. You see, sir, if you read the entire post, you are treated to the second link I posted. The one with the hearing at which he explains it. I will now quote at length. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/8173663-418/rep-joe-walsh-i-had-verbal-deal-not-to-pay-child-support.html](http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/8173663-418/rep-joe-walsh-i-had-verbal-deal-not-to-pay-child-support.html) > [@](#): > > The thick nine-year-old divorce file in Cook County Circuit Court chronicles how every few years Laura Walsh has gone to court saying her ex-husband is not paying and asking a judge to order him to pay, sometimes garnishing his wages. > [@](#): > > In her pleading three weeks after Walsh was elected to Congress, Laura Walsh said that from November 2005 to March, 2008, Walsh made only half-payments, failing to make required “second or third monthly $500 payments” on top of the $1,135 being deducted from his check. > > Then he stopped making payments altogether in March of 2008, telling her he “had no income.” > > Walsh admitted the second part of that Wednesday, but said it was by mutual agreement because he was making very little money, she was making good money, and the kids were spending as much time with him as with her: “Joe admits that as of April 1, 2008, he did not pay Laura direct child support. However, he asserts that he should have been relieved of this obligation,” according to his filing. > > But Joe Walsh said he was making the $500 payments. As evidence he attached photocopies of canceled checks bearing the signature of a “Laura Walsh” dated from the middle and often the end of the month from November 2005 through late 2006/early 2007, when they begin to taper off. > > Joe Walsh also attached checks sent to his children’s Catholic high school and notes, “He has made arrangements to pay off his past-due balance to Loyola Academy.” > > Walsh argues that because his income dipped as low as $11,733 for all of 2008 while his ex-wife earned $139,796, he could have gone to court to ask a judge to lower his obligations or have her pay child support to him, but he chose not to. Mr. Bricker, can you please tell me if one member of a family unit has the right to unilaterally decide to change the child support payments due without a ruling from a court? Mr. Bricker, can you please tell me if two members of a family unit have the right to unilaterally decide to change the child support payments due without a ruling from a court? Mr. Bricker, can you, perhaps, tell me if only the court can actually adjust child support payments due? Mr. Bricker, can you tell me of the validity of a verbal agreement that only one party in said verbal agreement attests to existing? Mr. Bricker, would you note that Mr. Walsh has had to have had his wages garnished before, because he has not been paying his child support? Given these facts, can you come to any probable conclusions? Let me repeat the established facts here. He has admitted to not paying support. The support was not changed by a court. He is being paid 174,000/yr. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/54 "2011-11-08T00:05:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree with that. Going into court costs money. If they did agree on no support during that period of time, and he believed she was dealing in good faith with him, it’s not incompetent to replace a court-ordered payment schedule with a verbal understanding. Of course, it does assume a risk, but the magnitude of that risk rests on her good faith. Why do you contend that is _per se_ incompetence? I would say that anyone who has even the tiniest bit of legal experience (equivalent to watching a few Judge Judy shows) would know that a subsequent verbal agreement would not stand up against a prior court ordered agreement. He should try the “good faith” excuse on the judge. Even the judiciary needs a laugh now and again. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/55 "2011-11-08T00:15:09Z")
I’m fascinated by this informal negation of court orders. By chance, does the same principle apply to restraining orders? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/56 "2011-11-08T00:15:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’m fascinated by this informal negation of court orders. By chance, does the same principle apply to restraining orders? Only if you do it “in good faith” ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/57 "2011-11-08T00:28:09Z")
Mr. Bricker, you are a wonderful poster when you are not ‘pounding on the table.’ We admire your ability to argue the law. We admire your ability to argue the facts. The thing is, sometimes you are pounding on the table and it’s really effing obvious to everyone, and you’re acting like the cat trying to cover up on the parquet floor. Don’t be that cat. It ain’t cool. If you can, by the way, find the transcripts of the two sessions I linked in my first post in the thread, it would be most wonderful. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/58 "2011-11-08T02:01:30Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Maybe the issue is that Republicans expect people to be immoral. I mean, that’s why you have to legislate things like marriage, sex, abortion, drugs, etc., because people can’t be trusted to make those decisions on their own. You know, I hadn’t thought about it exactly like this before, but you may be onto something. It certainly supports the religious people, even the more moderate ones, who assume atheists are all sadistic heathens without rules to guide them, or homophobes who assume people can be ‘turned’ gay. As if everyone is one dropped Bible away from murdering their neighbor, or one gay wedding announcement away from dropping their wife and kids and heading a pride parade. So it’s natural for someone ‘good’ to simply slip and give way to evil, every so often, especially when they’ve only got black and white to choose between. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/59 "2011-11-08T13:24:41Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > You see, sir, if you read the entire post, you are treated to the second link I posted. The one with the hearing at which he explains it. > I will now quote at length. > [http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/8173663-418/rep-joe-walsh-i-had-verbal-deal-not-to-pay-child-support.html](http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/8173663-418/rep-joe-walsh-i-had-verbal-deal-not-to-pay-child-support.html) I admit I did not read the second link – just the summaries posted here. > [@](#): > > Mr. Bricker, can you please tell me if one member of a family unit has the right to unilaterally decide to change the child support payments due without a ruling from a court? No. But that’s not exactly what he says happened. He says that she agreed with him to modify the payments. If that’s true, then they generally do have the right to do that. > [@](#): > > Mr. Bricker, can you please tell me if two members of a family unit have the right to unilaterally decide to change the child support payments due without a ruling from a court? When the two members of the family unit are the only two parents, then yes, they generally do – as a practical matter, the court is not supervising the payments, after all. > [@](#): > > Mr. Bricker, can you, perhaps, tell me if only the court can actually adjust child support payments due? “Actually?” Only the court can change its own order, of course. But if “actually” means "to all practical effect, then no – if the parties agree to a different number, and the party receiving the payments never raises the issue, then the effect of that decision is to adjust child support payments without the intervention of the court. > [@](#): > > Mr. Bricker, can you tell me of the validity of a verbal agreement that only one party in said verbal agreement attests to existing? I don’t know what this question means. If the agreement never happened, then it doesn’t exist. If the agreement happened, then it does exist. I think you mean to ask about the problem of proof. Consider these two situations: A: Wife admits that she agreed that husband could skip six month’s worth of payments, but now comes to the court and says, “Even though I told him he could skip six months’ worth of payments, I now want him held to the written agreement and he should pay the entire sum.” B: Wife denies she ever agreed to skipping payments and says to the court, “I now want him held to the written agreement and he should pay the entire sum.” Do you see the difference between these two situations? > [@](#): > > Mr. Bricker, would you note that Mr. Walsh has had to have had his wages garnished before, because he has not been paying his child support? > > Given these facts, can you come to any probable conclusions? Yes. This is a fact I didn’t know before you quoted from that link. So – when I asked, back there, “What evidence are you relying upon to believe her and not him?” a good answer would have been: _The fact that he’s already had his wages garnished before for non-payment._ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079/60 "2011-11-08T14:24:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree with that. Going into court costs money. If they did agree on no support during that period of time, and he believed she was dealing in good faith with him, it’s not incompetent to replace a court-ordered payment schedule with a verbal understanding. Of course, it does assume a risk, but the magnitude of that risk rests on her good faith. Why do you contend that is _per se_ incompetence? I find it hard to believe the Congressman couldn’t afford the $~50 filing fee required to have a support order modified _pursuant to an agreement of the parties_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/family-values-group-honors-deadbeat-dad-congresscritter/602079.md?page=4)