Joe Walsh Accuses Ex-Wife Of Lying About Back Child Support

[jefferson_dem]

Source: Huffington Post

Tea Party-affiliated U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) has already described claims of his owing more than $115,000 in back child support payments as "wildly and off-the-charts inaccurate," but in a court filing submitted Tuesday, the freshman congressman accused his ex-wife Laura Walsh of lying about their arrangement.

Walsh said that his ex-wife's claims are a "misguided attempt" to exploit his position as a member of Congress, according to the Daily Herald. He claims that he paid her more than was required from November 2005 to June 2007, and that, though he did not pay up between March 2008 and December 2010, he and his ex-wife had a "verbal understanding" that they would divide the children's expenses without resorting to child support payments.

Walsh has asked the judge to deny his ex-wife's request for his current child support payments to be increased, in addition to suspending his driver's license and freezing his bank accounts until he catches up on the payments she says he owes.

The congressman also described the timing of his ex-wife's filing -- Dec. 6, a matter of weeks after the 2008 election -- as somewhat suspicious, a suggestion that Laura Walsh's attorney, Jack Coladarci, told the Daily Herald was "a very funny thing to say."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/joe-walsh-accuses-ex-wife_n_1006769.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

[atreides1]

1. Hey Joe

When it comes to child support, unless it's on paper, it don't count!

[LiberalFighter]

6. Joe Walsh is so smart! Probably tried to deal with his wife without an attorney.

An attorney should had told him that unless it is agreed to in court it don't count. And probably all child support must be paid directly to the court and they do the disbursement so that there is a record of all transactions to reduce problems such as this.

Didn't he say something about having financial problems? Then how could he claim he has mostly paid the support?

[DebJ]

2. A congress person who doesn't understand that a contract on

paper will hold the weight, not words claimed in a 'he-said, she-said' fashion????????????????

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Then show the canceled checks Meathead . . .

[rurallib]

4. The ex-wife should have filed before the election

maybe this POS would have lost

[spooky3]

8. Ha! Seriously, when do you have more money, before or after you've gotten a steady job?

And her attorney probably told her that from a PR perspective it would look bad if it appeared she was trying to undermine his election by filing in advance.

[tanyev]

5. That's why you always get the agreement in writing, no matter how amicable things may be.

And why you follow the procedures as established by the court.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. No kidding.

It's really sad that he's trying to deflect from two years of nonpayment by claiming he paid more than was due in years prior to that. Actually supporting your kids above the minimum amount stated in the court documents is not banking payments against future deficits.

[cstanleytech]

14. Yup, if its not in writing he needs to man up and pay his debts.

[spooky3]

7. Put the guy in front of Judge Judy! She's heard it all before.

And doesn't suffer fools and liars gladly.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Another chapter is the 'Stories of the Sanctified Marrieds'

Remember, one man, one woman are bound by God, who is in the mix. It is a Sacrament, and therefore, either this story is false or the 'sacrament' is false. Which is it, folks?

[SpiralHawk]

10. Republicon Family Cesspool Values

as usual

[russspeakeasy]

12. Joe is a waste of skin..

[mercuryblues]

13. His is screwed

and he knows it. According to the divorce agreement, he was also supposed to pay a percentage of his investment earnings to support his children. He told his wife they were losing money, when they clearly were not and hiding assets from her. He had to file a disclosure report and that is probably where she learned the truth about how much money he was hiding.

The timing seemed suspicious to him? what a crock of BS, she has been trying to get him to fully pay for 9 years. This isn't his first time at the rodeo.

[gratuitous]

15. With apologies to Kim Basinger, an oral agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on

Funny how such a self-styled smart guy like Rep. Walsh wouldn't know such a basic fact of the legal world. Oh well, it's an experience he can regale his Tea Bagger buddies with, being laughed out of a courtroom. Not a good experience, to be sure, but it's an experience and there's no arguing that!

[MrsBrady]

16. stay classy, joe n/t

[librechik]

17. just when you think this snake couldn't slink any lower...n/t

[SoapBox]

18. Shouldn't there be black and white, legal documents regarding the original settlement?

...and when push comes to shove, Mr. Dirt Bag, "he said, she said" ain't gonna work.

Papers please! Then we will know the facts...oh ya, and show us the cancelled checks that you
already paid her with. Simple!

[liberal N proud]

19. Deadbeat Congressman

[Scuba]

20. The party of "personal responsibility" shows their colors, again. n/t

[left on green only]

21. We should have known after seeing him perched in front

of a picture of Ronnie Raygun. He's probably waiting for the money he owes his ex wife to trickle down to her. Fecal orifice is too good a term to use for that pair.

[lsewpershad]

22. Creep

[chelsea0011]

23. His request in front of a judge requesting his greviences has little to do with

the court case coming up concerning his stopping child support. Wake me when that happens because then agreement is all black and white. I doubt not paying child support is not part of the agreement.

[wordpix]

24. hey joe, with a salary at $174K/yr. + fed benefits, you can afford to pay your child support

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

U.S. Congress salaries and benefits have been the source of taxpayer unhappiness and myths over the years. Here are some facts for your consideration.
Also See: The 10 Wealthiest Members of Congress

Rank-and-File Members:
The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. snip

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). more....