Subscribe: Comments for Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
change  child support  child  circumstances  comment  court  family court  family  judicial fairness  judicial  law  pay  support 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Comments for Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Last Build Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:36:40 +0000


Comment on On the Issues: WEDC Chief Praises Foxconn Plan as “Transformational” by Larraine McNamara-McGraw

Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:36:40 +0000

I was unable to make it, but it's just as well. Mark Hogan is utterly delusional. He's in a bubble of his and other kleptocrats' making. The Fox Con is exactly what the kanji show: the fox guarding the hen house. I hope my alma mater will offer a program that tells the truth about this horrific rip off. Here's another idea: You know that big Amazon box that puts so many human robots to work down in Kenosha? Drive in there (you have to tell the guard you are there for an interview) and check out the workers' cars. How many from WI? How many from IL? Not very inspiring. This phony deal may actually bankrupt the state. It is not that we are too stupid not to get it. It is that power brokers like Foxiness and yes, my dear Alma Mater, put the phony side out there because you have lucre to gain in lying about it. C'mon, MULS - have a discussion about the truth of this con job. Shame on you if you do not.

Comment on Congratulations Jessup Moot Court Team by Deborah Darin

Wed, 14 Feb 2018 02:03:30 +0000

Congratulations to you and your coaches!

Comment on Congratulations Jessup Moot Court Team by Melissa Love Koenig

Tue, 13 Feb 2018 22:40:43 +0000

Congratulations, Team!!

Comment on Jacob Haller Named Public Interest Student of the Year by Melissa Love Koenig

Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:06:26 +0000

Congratulations, Jacob! Well deserved.

Comment on Child Support, Contempt of Court, and (Maybe) Lawyers by Amanda G.

Mon, 29 Jan 2018 20:43:48 +0000

My situation is painfully similar.

Comment on The Challenges of Being a Bad Lawyer by Jeff Myer

Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:10:06 +0000

I will take the click bait and dissent. “Bad” lawyers who see their responsibility as “ripping the other guy’s face off on behalf of a client” disserve and demean the profession. That it pays well does not justify it. That some clients expect it does not excuse it. The Rules of Professional Conduct do not require a lawyer to engage in such tactics or endorse the attitude of that “bad” lawyer. The Rules do not require any lawyer to engage in any behavior inconsistent with the lawyer’s moral compass. “Bad” lawyers are bad lawyers (no quotation marks, air or actual) with a badly magnetized moral compass. We can zealously advocate without engaging in such attitude and tactics. We need not acquiesce in their continuance.

Comment on My Official Super Bowl Television Post by Bruce E. Boyden

Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:16:37 +0000

Timothy, I can't give you legal advice, so I'm going to refrain from opining as to whether you are in the clear or not. But I will say that it seems unlikely to me that planetarium equipment is a "receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes" that would qualify for the Section 110(5)(A) exemption.

Comment on My Official Super Bowl Television Post by Timothy Girdwood

Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:41:26 +0000

So, at a private university I am an officer of a veterans-only organization and the university recently opened a planetarium. We wanted to show the Super Bowl for free exclusively to our members. At first we were given the green light as long as it wasn’t public, then we were told no because the screen is bigger than 55”. Here you debunk the 55” screen-size rumor. However, as a nonprofit private organization, are we allowed to use the planetariums equipment to show the Super Bowl?

Comment on A Heartbreaker Named Detroit by Rolando Mintos

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 23:07:16 +0000

Very powerful content.

Comment on Capitalization in Briefs to a Trial Court by Mark A. Nelson

Thu, 11 Jan 2018 20:21:38 +0000

Do you write Cross-complainant, or Cross-Complainant? Cross-defendant or Cross-Defendant?

Comment on A Reflection upon My Tenth Anniversary of Being a Lawyer by Liz

Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:42:41 +0000

Wow, ten years! I'm so proud of you, mom. I was certainly impressed back then, but growing up (a bit, anyway) and working full-time has deepened my understanding of the work you did for yourself and our family -- I'm in awe of you!

Comment on Ponderings of a Law Professor: Where Are Women’s Voices? by Sushma grande

Mon, 08 Jan 2018 23:49:14 +0000

The scenario has changed; many women are highly active in their academic programs and in social activities in their surrounding. They are much concerned about gender inequality and proving their importance, the value in society.

Comment on Marquette Law Review Article Featured in Prescription Painkiller Exposé by Mike Honda

Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:54:37 +0000

Has this article ever been shared by ALL THE CONGRESSMEMBERS WHO BEAT THEIR CHESTS BEMOANING THE EPIDEMIC AND DEATHS IN THEIR DISTRICTS, while they voted for this law? Or was the process of rule making allowed the bill to slip through and voted upon w a Voice vote? Mike Honda Former member

Comment on “Work-Mom” Balance by Melissa Love Koenig

Wed, 03 Jan 2018 17:11:50 +0000

Thank you for your outstanding post on this important topic. Your observations and suggestions are spot on, and I appreciate your candor and thoughtfulness in your approach to this topic. I think when parents are balancing two (or more) jobs and a child, they need each other's support in balancing time commitments and the support of family and friends, as well as the opportunity to outsource some tasks to reliable and affordable providers. Thanks again.

Comment on The Continued Expansion of Treatment Courts in Wisconsin by Orrick Owen

Fri, 29 Dec 2017 10:43:45 +0000

Excellent article on criminal bails.

Comment on A Trifecta of Illegitimacy by Emmanuel L Muwonge

Sun, 17 Dec 2017 16:45:44 +0000

Please tell me you are saying all this in jest, had no intention of challenging the underlying premise on the basis of merit and, if I may add, you wanted to instill a sense of ease and relaxation so other blog readers take a pause and step back. If I am in error, you won't have been the first to issue such fallacies but hopefully and prayerfully anxious you confirm I am not in error.

Comment on Child Support, Contempt of Court, and (Maybe) Lawyers by Dolores Juarez

Sat, 02 Dec 2017 18:53:45 +0000

My ex husband never paid child support and I refused to play the child support game. I raised my children on my own without any assistance. I worked, received an education and my children lacked nothing. I only asked that my ex be involved in my children's life -- which he never did. I now have a going through the child support system and I can see how fathers have no rights. My ex daughter in law receives help from me and my son is actively involved in the kids life (when he is allowed to). Now my son is jailed for child support debt. How can an administrative associate judge have the power to pass such judgement? And, how can he be jailed for a debt? I have attended some of these child support proceedings and these fathers have no say or voice. Don't get me wrong, there are some fathers that are not involved with their children at all and have forgotten they even exist. But sometimes these mothers play games using their children against the fathers. I would rather have had my ex-husband involved in their lives than have the money. I was a strong, hardworking woman that was and is able to take care of my children. But, no amount of money can take place of the time a father can have in a child's life.

Comment on The Myth About Practicing IP by N. Denver

Wed, 29 Nov 2017 06:30:55 +0000

Most attorneys I know who practice in IP found it invaluable to take IP courses in law school because it's not the easiest field to jump into without a foundation.

Comment on Completing the Revolution by Edward A. Fallone

Mon, 30 Oct 2017 20:19:38 +0000

Daniel: I would agree with you that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's precedent on the scope of judicial deference to agency action is not the best model of either sound analysis or clarity. However, it is precedent, and the principle of stare decisis would argue in favor of retaining the existing standard. After all, the legislature is perfectly capable of amending Section 227 and replacing the Court's standards with the one that you argue in favor of. In a matter of statutory interpretation, the legislature always retains the upper hand over misguided judicial interpretations. I fear that your invitation to the Court to engage in a large scale revision of the rules for judicial deference, and to throw out such an extensive body of precedent and practice, runs directly counter to the expressed personal philosophies of those current Justices who disclaim any desire to "make law." It seems to me that the re-imagining of an entire area of administrative law seems to qualify as a legislative project rather than the resolution of a particular case or controversy. The "power to say what the law is" does not give the Justices a blank check for the wholesale remodeling of the legal universe. If it did, then some of our Supreme Court Justices would have to apologize for their prior criticisms of "judicial activism."

Comment on Can You Be Forced to Turn Over Your Social Network Passwords in a Civil Case? by Erin L King

Thu, 21 Sep 2017 02:33:47 +0000

I've been asked to provide my info as well, but the attorney that is asking me to turn it over has already been in trouble twice, so why should I hand over my passwords where he could have access to my credit cards?

Comment on Law Gone Wrong: Wisconsin’s Spousal Maintenance Statute by Nan Kallas

Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:23:33 +0000

I see no need to support your ex indefinitely. I believe a time frame should be put in place! A 5 year max! If I stayed at home, took care of the kids, and raised them, should I get income from my ex indefinitely? I'm a woman and I firmly believe this would be wrong. I was a single parent and didn't even get the child support it took to raise them. I've seen too many women take advantage of the way this system is set up. I'm in Wisconsin, a no-fault divorce state. One example is the wife who cheated on the husband and got a divorce, and yet now the guy is stuck paying all the bills and $300-400 a week to his ex, who also took half of everything. So, one partner decides to stay home and raise the kids, while the other gets penalized for stepping up, working his ass off to raise his family, and then is left with nothing to show for his years of hard work. How can people fully move on when they are left supporting the ex-spouse who initiated the divorce? And this happens to both sexes. Something definitely needs to change. There should ALWAYS be a time frame put on support. This would encourage ex-spouses to find work and to try to make something of themselves. I compare it to the welfare system: you have to force people to step up. Divorce is divorce -- where is the finality in it when you are left supporting the ex indefinitely? Changes need to be made.

Comment on New Criminal Law Blog by Chris Reid

Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:12:23 +0000

Great idea!

Comment on Child Support, Contempt of Court, and (Maybe) Lawyers by Giovanni LoPresti

Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:38:24 +0000

WHY A CHILD SUPPORT DEBTORS ARE DENIED JUDICIAL FAIRNESS WHEN FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE My research has revealed that most Americans are unaware that our federal government reimburses States 66% of collection cost expended for child support enforcement, see Title IV under the Social Security Act. This doesn’t bother me, but the additional incentive dollars the States received to treat citizens like garbage does. Under Title IV: States receive additional incentive dollars for: a. paternity establishment b. order establishment c. collection on current support cases d. cases paying towards arrears e. cost effectiveness f. performance So regardless of a child support debtors changed financial circumstances, a family court judge will routinely deny any request for a reduction or, even a temporary reduction. The unfortunate truth, family court judges armed with physic abilities to determine a citizen’s earning abilities, don’t care. They are the front line in defending the State’s performance incentives. A family court judge will bully a citizen by denying any type of relief sought, suspend your driver’s license, professional license, passport, may incarcerate you for failure to pay child support without a finding of ability to pay, intercept your tax return, garnish your unemployment or workman’s compensation, destroy her credit, and your home State will receive additional incentive dollars from our federal government for doing this to you. This is not only insane, cruel, unconscionable, but definitely creates an appearance of impropriety. States routinely incarcerate child support debtors, without any determination that they have the ability to pay. The States routinely tell citizens that they are court ordered to pay child support and find them in civil contempt. However, the court order is also a civil judgment by operation of law. Did you ever hear of any situation whereby any judge would allow any person to have a slice a cake and eat it too? For example, if you obtained a civil judgment against me, you can’t suspend my passport, driver’s license, professional license, intercept my tax return, garnish my unemployment or disability check, hold me in contempt, and jail me for failure to pay a debt. Special thanks to our federal government, state government are permitted to have a slice of cake and eat it too. The last time I checked, the 14th Amendment prohibits States from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. The federal government must do the same, but this is also required by the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause. All citizens should be entitled to judicial fairness in any court proceeding. I urge all citizens to write their elected officials and asked them to repeal this unconscionable law. Alternatively, send your elected official a strong message and vote them out of office. A debtor citizen cannot rely upon judicial fairness in a family court proceeding, if a State has a financial interest in maintaining additional incentives dollars.

Comment on Child Support, Contempt of Court, and (Maybe) Lawyers by Giovanni LoPresti

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 17:52:39 +0000

UNCONSCIONABLE DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT As an American Citizen, you want to believe that any person can rely upon judicial fairness in a child support proceeding. The reality is all child support debtors are treated like a piece of garbage. The wisdom of common sense, respect, judicial fairness, doesn’t exist under the present law. The mastermind of this unconscionable child support enforcement law was former Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. His Senate Bill modified U.S. Code Title IV-D (42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c)) which requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations. The law abolished the statute of limitations, created a civil judgment by operation of law on all child support debtors, allows adverse credit reporting, allows a cost of living adjustment every two years, allows for review of child support orders every 3 years, without a showing of substantial change in circumstance, allows for a suspension of drivers licenses, passports, professional licenses, income withholding, tax intercepts, unemployment & workman compensation intercepts, requires citizen to provide their social security numbers, requires employers to utilize new hire directory to see if a child support debt is owed, provides locator services, requires health care coverage to be provided by either or both parents, and requires a debtor citizen to show proof of substantial change in circumstances necessary in request for review outside 3-year cycle. I want to focus on the requirement of proof of substantial change in circumstances necessary in requesting a review of child support outside 3-year cycle. The law offers no guidance whatsoever on what constitutes a substantial change in circumstances. Similarly, the Office of Child Support Enforcement offers no guidance either. With no guidance whatsoever, the law requires payments to be maintained without regard to a citizen’s ability to pay. In my view, common sense and judicial fairness would dictate that an injury, illness, loss of employment at no fault of a citizen, whether temporary or not, would constitute a substantial change in financial circumstances. Nonetheless, family court judges throughout the United States have consistently rejected a child support debtor’s request for child support reduction under these circumstances. I asked myself over and over again, why are family court judges are so mean and lack understanding and compassion? The answer to this question is going to shock you. Under the present law, there is a presumption that child support award is correct and a citizen debtor has the ability to pay or find similar work at the same rate of pay, even if you’re not making the same amount of money. Put simply, Congress has provided family court judges psychic abilities to determine a citizen's earning capabilities. I have heard endless horror stories of citizens whose financial circumstances changed, and denied judicial fairness in family court. Unfortunately, this is what will likely happen if your financial circumstances change: 1. Unemployment or workmen compensation garnished at the full amount. 2. Your ability to support yourself doesn’t matter. 3. Fall behind at no fault of your own, driver’s license, professional license, passport revoked. 4. Your credit will be destroyed. 5. You can expect armed law enforcement showi[...]