Sunday, June 03, 2012

I lie, I owe, so off to jail I go.

Before I drop this next post I want to acknowledge all the beautiful people I met at the Blogging While Brown conference over the past two days. (Anslem,I see you doing big things at Jet Magazine. Congrats! Sean, congrats on your big move to the Mayor's office in the Big D as well.) You all are some serious field Negroes. Folks like Nathan from the Color Curve, Curvy CEO,Brotha Tech , Darryl from From Ashey to Classy, (loved being on the panel with you and Slim Jackson) Lamar and his beautiful family still holding it down in ATL, Soca Mom, a fellow West Indian, (and republican to boot) putting in work for her family among you Negroes in D.C., and a beautiful sister from the Chi who knows a thing or two about wines.

Props to Gina for getting this thing going five years ago, it's only going to get bigger and bigger.

Now on to some bad news: I loved how Evander Holyfield put in work in the boxing ring back in the day, that's why I want to help him with his latest little problem.

"Evander Holyfield was one of the great boxing stars of the 1990s and amassed more than a quarter of a billion dollars in purses during his illustrious career. Apparently, though, $250 million doesn't go as far as it used to.
Holyfield, who filed bankruptcy in Fayette County, Ga., in 2008, reportedly owes in excess of $372,000 in child support and may wind up in jail if he does not resolve the issue, according to a TMZ report.

In both 2008 and 2009, his massive 54,000 square-foot home in Fairburn, Ga., went into foreclosure. The home, which sits on 104 acres, has 109 rooms, including 17 bathrooms, three kitchens and a bowling alley. He's had numerous financial issues in the years since.

On Saturday, TMZ reported that the Georgia Department of Human Services has gone to court on behalf of Holyfield's 18-year-old daughter. It alleged he owes $372,097.40 in child support that has gone unpaid since April 2010. According to a 2009 report in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Holyfield has child support payments of more than $500,000 a year. He has at least 11 children." [Source]

Champ, I know a thing or two about this child support thing, so please give me a call ASAP so that I can help you out with this problem. I do not want to see you go to jail for owing child support.

I  could refer you to a wonderful financial planner as well, but unfortunately it might be a bit late for that.

Finally, it looks like a certain person from Central Florida will have to turn himself in to authorities after lying to the court about his finances.

This probably will not come up at trial, because it is not relevant to what happened on that tragic night. But credibility is always an issue with the court. Especially when the other witness to what happened is dead.







   

41 comments:

Shady_Grady said...

There should be a federal standard for child support that is based on what the child needs and not on what the custodial parent thinks she needs.

Failing that perhaps it is time to restrict child support to children born in wedlock. This stuff has gotten ridiculous.

Desertflower said...

In many instances I have seen that the amounts set are ridiculous and don't take into account the dads income and living expenses.

If the dad is well off economically, he may be able to pay, but if he's a poor working class man in today's economy, more than likely he will fall behind and have to go on the lam so as not to be thrown in jail.

Sadly, 've seen this time and again here, and what it accomplishes is to deprive the child of what may be an otherwise loving, supportive paternal relationship.

mike tyson said...

Holyfield -- another sad story of a black athlete who squandered a fortune.

Something tells me his black managers swindled him for all he was worth.

Anonymous said...

Shady_Grady said...
There should be a federal standard for child support that is based on what the child needs and not on what the custodial parent thinks she needs.

Failing that perhaps it is time to restrict child support to children born in wedlock. This stuff has gotten ridiculous

Restrict child support only to children born in wedlock? OK, as long as when this law is written it also says no taxpayer public funds can ever be reappropriated or provided to those who intentionally or neglectfully have children out of wedlock knowing that they can not afford to have children with immediate disqualification for any welfare, section 8, foodstamps or other types of funds. And that all male family members of every unmarried mom must support and care for children without fathers, providing child support until they are 26 or if Obamacare is repealed 18.

Watch the family come back and men start to protect young girls from muh-dick pirates immediately.

I was blown away by someone actually suggesting that child support is out of control and if someone fathers a kid they should be off the hook as long as they didnt get married.

Whats the baby mama percentage now 80%? Should really do wonders for the culture and community.

Anonymous said...

"This probably will not come up at trial, because it is not relevant to what happened on that tragic night. But credibility is always an issue with the court. Especially when the other witness to what happened is dead."

Why wouldn't it come up? Isn't that what the prosecutor is trying to do, discredit Zimmerman, ie. show that he is not believable? I mean, it seems Zimmerman has a pattern of lying. This guy keeps showing the nature of his character which is pretty dark.

Anonymous said...

Shady Grady, "There should be a federal standard for child support that is based on what the child needs and not on what the custodial parent thinks she needs."

I agree. No child needs $3000/month. But this is the result of having a lousy lawyer, and the willingness of the father to pay "anything" that the mother claims. Well, when that happens, guess what? You guessed it...a rip off is coming. This is the pain and suffering of having children out of wedlock or getting divorced.

It's never pretty unless both are concerned 'only' for the welfare of the child. Rarely does that happen among our folks. It's so damn depressing it makes you want to cry when children are born and nobody cares.

Evander needs to get a competent lawyer. But it is probably too late. Good lawyers are like good mechanics and good doctors: "They are hard to find."

It is so depressing to see a great fighter like Holyfield go down like this. I hope he gets back up.

depressed Negro

Anonymous said...

Dear Mrs. AB and Mr. Field, I hope you two don't mind me addressing you in the same comment, but I struggle for clarification about what's real and what's not real..In other words what is the truth about our race regarding our political, emotional, psychological and spiritual welfare?

If I could just get some kind of clue from both of you, maybe my depression could be lifted. But so far all I have gotten from each of you is
apathy and total insensitivity. I need support and caring. It seems there isn't much of that among my people these days. Even Granny, a grandma, hasn't said a damn word that's comforting. This sucks.

And AB, you have completely "ignored" a fellow black person in poverty. Just how do you explain yourself? At least Field replies, even though what he says sucks.

Do you folks know that what a brother needs most is love? That's all Holyfield wanted when he had those children. That is so depressing. I woke up today and the sun was shining. I closed the drapes and went back to bed.

depressed Negro

La♥audiobooks said...

"There should be a federal standard for child support that is based on what the child needs and not on what the custodial parent thinks she needs."

Then that standard should be applied across the board, from the high income to the low. There are more average "Joe blow" non-custodial fathers who are paying inadequate amounts of child support every month because of those same income percentage guidelines, and because they are not legally required to obtain more than one income. Some of them are making over $40K-$50K and yet the court applied support is still not "adequate" for the children's needs.

So, if it's really going to be about what the "children" needs are in terms of assisting the custodial parent (FOOD, SHELTER, clothing, education, medical/Insurance, transportation, and various necessities), then the courts should require Mr. Jow-Blow to work at least 70-80 hours a week (if he's not already) in effort to bring the average child support close to anything financially "adequate" in today's economical climate. Sounds reasonable?

”Failing that perhaps it is time to restrict child support to children born in wedlock. This stuff has gotten ridiculous.

Now it’s obvious where the blame is being applied. However, restricting child support to just children born in wedlock will not stop women [golddiggers] and sexually-immoral-careless-philandering [wealthy] men from having bastard children (It doesn't even stop women from having OOW children with broke men). That sounds like a plan that only unconscionable hypersexual dead-beat men would dream up. The children are the ones who will suffer in any case.

If you do not want your children to live an equally comfortable lifestyle as you do (and their mother's by extension), then choose whom you lay with wisely, and keep your seminal fluids to yourself as you now try to do with your wallet.

field negro said...

"depressed Negro", you are not black.

"There should be a federal standard for child support that is based on what the child needs and not on what the custodial parent thinks she needs."

That's an interesting point. But how would the court be able to separate the two? If the custodial parent has to pay for light, water, and food, wouldn't it be easier if both parents were at home? How do we determine what portion of that is for the general upkeep of the home or for the subject child in particular?

BTW, high income cases in Pa. used to have a similar standard with no set guidelines, but that has since been overturned.

Thanks for bringing up an interesting point SG.

field negro said...

"Then that standard should be applied across the board, from the high income to the low. There are more average "Joe blow" non-custodial fathers who are paying inadequate amounts of child support every month because of those same income percentage guidelines, and because they are not legally required to obtain more than one income. Some of them are making over $40K-$50K and yet the court applied support is still not "adequate" for the children's needs."

La`Audio, actually the guidelines are supposed to be pursuant to the non-custodial parent's net income, and it works on a sliding scale in conjunction with the custodial parent's income. Other factors come into play as well, such as other minor children the non-custodial parent supports, private school, and day-care expenses etc. for the subject child.

And the courts can't force someone to work two jobs, although if you had two jobs all along and quit one to pay a lower child support order there could be a problem.

Still, what if the non-custodial parent wants to spend more time with the subject child and his or her second job prevents that from happening, shouldn't the court consider that?

Shady_Grady said...

LAA, the blame belongs equally to the parents who have either brought a child into the world by accident, without benefit of marriage or other committment, and/or decide for relatively frivolous reasons that they can no longer live together. It takes two to tango. Holyfield didn't rape all those women nor did they slip and fall on his Evander.

The problem comes because women and by extent society wish to try to extract the financial benefits of marriage without being or staying married. The children are already suffering but at least if child support were restricted to a situation in which there was some sort of prior legal commitment , we could reduce the costs of the entire legal and financial superstructure built to cover the cost of stupid and irresponsible men AND women. I know you generally prefer to blame men for every little thing but this is a problem that men and women created together.

Field, I've thought about it and I think that child support should only be about the basic needs of the child. It should also have a monthly limit (say between $3-5K). It simply does not cost that much to raise a child. At $5,000/mth in support we're talking about an amount greater than the median household income of the US.

Women will scream and holler but if you restrict it to children born in marriage and put a limit on it, I think people will be surprised by how quickly some people start acting more responsibly.

The custodial parent can submit receipts and budget to the judge and attorneys and non-custodial parents so that there's no doubt about where the money goes.

Whether or not there's a good relationship between ex-spouse, the NCP should only be on the hook to support his/her children born in wedlock, not support the custodial parent's "lifestyle". All this stuff about "support me in the lifestyle to which I've become accustomed.." no freaking way. That lifestyle was a package deal when we were married. Since we're not married any longer all I can say is...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbGthv-dJp4

Shady_Grady said...

Also in most states (all?) you can not take more than 50% of someone's income for cs.
You just can't.

So again the children suffer because of stupid decisions by their parents. Is there any way to stop it? Give the parents greater incentives not to be stupid. But if someone is bound and determined...what can society do?

La♥audiobooks said...

Field, all those issues you raised were already considered.

I'm glad that you found my above statement unreasonable, it was meant to be. Just as I found the statement which suggest that more wealthy men in the reverse should no longer pay "above-adequate" child support pursuant to those same "unreasonable" guidelines.

alicia banks said...

eh is a fertile pookie

&

karma is real

ditto for condoms and that lying kkkiller gz

kudos x 2

http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/760356180/on-the-public-execution-of-trayvon-martin---10-undeniable-facts/

http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/736657405/on-%E2%80%9Cdisintegration%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93-a-brave-and-necessary-literary-masterpiece/

http://webspace.webring.com/people/rm/monicasass/MIKE-TYSON.htm

La♥audiobooks said...

It amazes me how certain men know they are walking around with million dollar sperms, yet they fail to safe guard them as much as they safe guard their wallets and their expensive cars.

Fools.

Anonymous said...

FN I don't agree with the mothers getting all that loot either. but Laaudio also has a point but I think u missed it. Just saying

Anonymous said...

FN I don't agree with the mothers getting all that loot either. but Laaudio also has a point but I think u missed it. Just saying

field negro said...

La~Audio, not calling you unreasonable, we are just talking here.

Anonymous said...

Field, is that 3 black people in the courtroom picture. If that's G.Z. and he's white then so is Obama.

Desertflower said...

So if the NC parent loses there job,and/or has to go on unemployment.

I don't see that the rates are adjusted to that effect. At least over here they're not! There's a minimum amount that the NC must meet or be jailed!

If two parents that are living with the child and the provider lost there job, I don't think he/she would be jailed for it.

Whitey's Conspiracy said...

"Finally, it looks like a certain person from Central Florida will have to turn himself in to authorities after lying to the court about his finances.

This probably will not come up at trial, because it is not relevant to what happened on that tragic night. But credibility is always an issue with the court. Especially when the other witness to what happened is dead."
----------------------

I disagree Field because his affirmative defense is probably going to require his testimony; I don't think he can even make the elements on his statements to the popo much less begin to persuade the jury, and once he's in the box that extra passport in the safety deposit box is golden consciousness of guilt material, and the $$ statements make him out to be the liar many of have thought him all along. I'd pound it...er... "down his throat" with a 10lb sledgehammer.

field negro said...

Desertflower,if there is a change of circumstances he or she has to petiition the court to modify the order.

Most courts won't just adjust it without a petition being filed.

Whitey's Conspiracy said...

California gives relative relief to super-earners on guideline child support. Once it's over about 10k a month per child they usually only award an additional 40-50% of guideline.

Curvy CEO said...

Thank you for the e-love. Great to meet you in person as well! Continue to speak the truth!!

Anonymous said...

I disagree Field because his affirmative defense is probably going to require his testimony; I don't think he can even make the elements on his statements to the popo much less begin to persuade the jury, and once he's in the box that extra passport in the safety deposit box is golden consciousness of guilt material, and the $$ statements make him out to be the liar many of have thought him all along. I'd pound it...er... "down his throat" with a 10lb sledgehammer.

You must lose a lot of cases.
By what evidence do you say he has been lying all along? Witnesses, post mortem results etc all support his statement.

The judge already knew and dismissed his additional passport, obviously having turned himself in twice now there is no issue with his flight as you try and suggest. The judge knew the lost passport was returned after he was bonded out. The prosecutor having no case and looking like the corrupt fool that he is with all the evidence coming out was the one who filed the motion to revoke his bond based upon the internet funds - availible after his bond hearing and the passport. He will be out shortly and none of this will change the facts and evidence that he acted in self defense against a very, stereotypical thug on lean and weed,. violent attacking bus drivers and a criminal stealing womens jewelry.

Give the spanish guy a break, your credibility is shot as you seem to not have a clue about law and evidence and take the mindless racist side.

Anonymous said...

Field, ""depressed Negro", you are not black."

God dammit! why are you fucking with me in my time of sadness and depression? I need support and encouragement from my black brothers and sisters, not discouragement and thrown out of my race. WTF is wrong with you?

That's why I wrote that comment to you and AB. Neither one of you are sympathetic to my disease. That is pretty cruel and depressing. Field how would you feel if Philadelphia fired your black ass and your wife divorced you at the same time? You'd be pretty depressed wouldn't you? Well, that's the way I feel.

AB and Field are such a hard asses.

depressed Negro

Anonymous said...

No Blogging While Brown person empathized with me and I was there. I hoped that you would recognize me as the depressed Negro who you turned down for lunch a few days ago.

No one talked to me at the Conference. Field, I have to tell you that Conference was a most depressing experience. You have exaggerated the gathering because I saw nothing great about it.

Whitey's Conspiracy said...

You must lose a lot of cases.
-----------

Of course. Only Perry Mason wins all of his cases; Real trial lawyers settle 90% win about 5% and lose about the same.
-----------
The judge already knew and dismissed his additional passport,
------------
No, he represented to the court that he had but 1 passport, but the jailhouse recordings caught he and his wife discussing where the other was stashed. That, my anon friend, keeping a second passport while denying it, is indicative of possible flight plans / consciousness of guilt, and is going to be prime cross examination territory if/when he takes the stand to spin his excuse..

Whitey's Conspiracy said...

PS A-non,

Anyone who says he knows in advance how a criminal jury trial is going to turn out before it's convened should either avoid throwing "credibility" stones or get used to hearing snickers.

Anonymous said...

On Zimmerman let me see if I as a person who is not a lawyer can makes sense of this Zimmerman thing.

The prosecutor used as the only evidence requesting his bond be revoked Zimmermans wifes testimony that a website had been set up for donations for his legal fund. His wife's testimony, meaning when she told the court prior to the judge granting bond that this site existed and funds were being donated for his Legal defense the court was advised

Well, two things pop out immediately. They didn't lie, they told the judge. The money was donated for his legal defense, not for bond and diversion could be unethical and illegal to the purpose funds were requested/donated.

He isn't a flight risk obviously which is the entire premise behind bonding someone out, unless of course you are playing with corrupt prosecutors who are playing racial games with a horribly illegal affadavit and prosecution given the affadavit, omitted evidence that was known and transparant racial pandering.

The prosecutor knew. KNEW all the evidence that was finally released that clearly highlighted self defense yet omitted all of it from the affadavit, all of it. WHY?

To calm the savage leeches/beasts of society.

Unnaceptable.

Anonymous said...

Funny how quick the MRAs find it necessary to reduce child support. Oddly enough, judges tend to take the best interest of the child(ren) before the alleged needy needs of the parent whining about how she gots it all and lefts him wit' nuttin'.
Pardon my smirk, but a judge will give little weight to your needy need for a Porsche...especially if your offspring are not able to have food, clothing and shelter.
As far as budgeting...no...you won't live off Rittenhouse....but you can find suitable lodging that allows the kids to have what they need.

Care to share which law school you attenderated?

As far as Zimmerman, any lawyer worth retaining would most certainly caution the client to NOT LIE to the judge. That is pretty much universal...judges detest being lied to.
Makes me wonder how ofter self-proclaimed legal 'experts' ever brought a case.

Mold

Whitey's Conspiracy said...

"Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead the court down the primrose path?" an angry Lester asked Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, at Friday's hearing.

"He can't sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods."
----------------------

"His credibility has taken a it, been tarnished, and rehabilitating it.... that's going to be up to him" said Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O;Meara

Anonymous said...

Here even if the nc goes to court and petitions for a reduction due to loss of income, after a very long time it is taken into consideration and he/she must still continue to pay Usually a sum that Is still unrealistic for the amount of income in question.

The system just seems to be geared towards Eventual incarceration and the separation of the paternal figure.

I realize it's a complicated situation but it merits looking into,at least here on the island anyway

Desert

Anonymous said...

dear mr. field, could you do a post about miracles? I know we are short on miracles because I can't think of one miracle--but Mexicans and so do the white Catholics can tell about miracles in their race and church. I am looking for hope and miracles for our depressed race.

depressed Negro

Anonymous said...

Controlling fantasy to follow...You have been warned.

It should be a crime for a woman to have a child out of wedlock, until say 26-27 years of age. May be if they are married a woman can have a baby as young as age 20 1/2, without it being a crime.


We now have the technology...to determine who the father is, not just her say so. So therefore, the mother AND the sperm donor, regardless of his age, should be on a very particular parole to raise and successfully watch until the crumb snatcher reaches the age of 18. Both of which should have artificially terminated until said child is 18, and this should be regardless of the young woman's or her family's ability to pay or care for a child on her own.

There is supposed to be some equality before the law. If that man that fathered all of those kids, was nabbed for producing the FIRST one and had to report that yes we sat down and had dinner as a family or yes, I picked him up and we went to the park for T-Ball on Saturday. Think of it as a "lifestyle change." If the she and he can get along and get it together maybe they can make a relationship out of it well and good. If not they can act like the best intentioned of divorced parents. And do things like go to school and work and other grownup sort of things.


That should take the fun of of being irresponsible fairly equally? But given this scenario, birth control, condoms, anti spermicidal gels etc should be as available and as cheap as tooth paste and a good toothbrush.

Bob said...

Jailing someone for non-support seems counterproductive.

The day Holyfield decided he needed a 109 room home with 17 baths was the day he doomed himself to going broke. I'm sure some of the less sycophantic people around him warned him he was making a big mistake. But the entourage of useless hangers-on he supported no doubt loved the purchase.

Anonymous said...

The champ should be given a chance to keep his house, he earned it. This is the kind of stuff that ruins a champ through no fault of his own. Why did those women get pregnant in the first place? These days there is no excuse for getting pregnant. Contraceptives and pills are available to women. They got pregnant to hook the champ into taking care of them. That's a damn shame. That's depressing.

Field, the justice system needs Jesus.

Anonymous said...

What would happen if a disaster struck a black nation?

Chaos,Crime and violence.

"Chaos broke out in the densely-populated Lagos neighbourhood where a passenger jet crashed Sunday, as rescue workers faced heavy crowds and aggressive soldiers while trying to access smoldering wreckage."


"The looting started right away," said Tunji Malomo, who told AFP he locked up his nearby bar as soon as he heard news of the crash.

"Thousands of onlookers had partially blocked access to the crash site, prompting soldiers to try to clear the area out. They used rubber whips, their fists and even threw a wood plank at those crowded around."

"The strong-arm tactics likely did more harm than good. Looking to evade the troops' aggression, people took off in several directions, trampling their neighbours as they tried to avoid being crushed themselves."

"Some locals snaked a fire hose hoisted on their shoulders from a truck parked on the road towards the impact area."

"But this effort was also interrupted by the security forces, whose aggression eventually broke up the human chain.

Some reacted by throwing stones at the troops, creating a crossfire of hailing rocks over the narrow street adjacent to the site.

The area also plunged into all-out pandemonium when a helicopter tried to land amid the crowd, kicking up clouds of ash and light debris that again scattered people in various directions."

Nikesha said...

child support is only an issue if the woman makes it an issue.

my father refused to pay child support, my mother didn't want to send him to jail because it wouldn't help the situation.

for holyfield if his finances are a mess what good would sending him to jail do. that's not going to get the women and children any money any faster.

on the last point of zimmerman.

his credibility is completely shot. but with the high profile nature of this case, so too is the credibility of the judge jury and lawyers. we all know what happened the question is did zimmerman have the right to do what he did.

Socamom said...

It was great meeting you! I am officially addicted to your blog... *returning to lurking*

Anonymous said...

Whoa, hold on there. First, there are witnesses that will most likely clear him. Second, he's fighting for his life and dealing with dangerous foolish prosecuters over charging him. The least he should do is try to hide some money as even if declared innocent, he'll be unemployable. Now you are on the side of the courts? Wow!