* The Joe Walsh divorce case has taken yet another strange turn…
Calling it a “misguided attempt” to exploit his new position as a member of Congress, Joe Walsh says his ex-wife is lying about not receiving some of the $117,437 in missing child support funds she says she’s owed.
In fact, he says he paid extra from November 2005 to June 2007.
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. The couple’s children are ages 24, 20, and 16.
In the 31-page filing submitted to the Cook County circuit court’s Domestic Relations Division Tuesday afternoon, Walsh, the freshman who in the last eight months has catapulted onto a national stage with his charismatic candor and caustic rhetoric decrying government spending, argues that he’s been “pummeled by the media” since allegations he owed years of child support first broke in July.
* Walsh’s congressional office sent out a press release today...
* Mr. Walsh was able to prove (backed up with checks cashed by Laura Walsh) that he did in fact make years of payments at a time in which Laura Walsh claimed she received no payments from Mr. Walsh.
* Mr. Walsh did in fact pay his share of the education costs for all of his Children to attend Catholic school; despite the claim that Laura Walsh claims she incurred all of the costs.
* By blatantly and knowingly submitting false information in her pleading Laura Walsh and her attorney’s not only broke Illinois state law, but it is clear that the only point in submitting these allegations was an attempt to tarnish the Congressman’s reputation.
From 2007 on, the children lived with Mr. Walsh half the time.
* Over a five year period, Mr. Walsh and his wife agreed to both increases and decreases in child support changes, without modifying them in court.
* In fact for almost a full year while Laura Walsh was making $140,000 a year and living in another state, Mr. Walsh provided full time residential custodial care for his youngest son, despite making significantly less money than Laura Walsh.
* At no time did Mr. Walsh ever ask Laura Walsh for child support despite her high salary and the fact that he was the full time care giver of their only remaining dependent child. […]
I have unfairly endured two months of media ridicule as a “deadbeat dad.” My children have had to endure this as well. Yesterday’s pleading proves this charge is unfounded and shows that I have been a loving, supportive, involved Dad from the beginning. I understand that politics is a rough business and I have been an outspoken member of Congress who has clearly become a target. But to lie about me, especially my worth as a Father just isn’t right and I won’t put up with it.”
* The attorney for the former Mrs. Walsh denied there was a verbal agreement and added…
Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said his client stands behind everything she said in her December pleaading, which they began working on back when Walsh was largely unknown.
After years of not trying to collect money from Walsh, Laura Walsh went to her attorneys after she saw that the then-candidate had lent his campaign $34,000, Coladarci said.
“Last year, when she came to us, nobody thought he was going to win that race,” Coladarci said. “This wasn’t going after a congressman — it was about a guy who had enough money to donate to his campaign.”
Discuss.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:00 pm:
A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
- train111 - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:02 pm:
Hasn’t this guys shelf life expired yet??
Say a bunch of loony stuff and the news-entertainment industry fawns all over you like your the second coming of Christ or something.
If nobody reported on him, Walsh would have no avenue or audience to vent his nonsense and he would soon shut up.
train111
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:04 pm:
While I haven’t said anything about this to anyone before, I have to say something now. Be careful, Joe. This is beginning to *sound* “fishy”, like the “Svengali Figure” controversy from a while back. Voters might forgive alot, but the perception of manipulation via the press is usually considered an insult and pretty much unforgiveable because it says alot about the character of the person who allows it.
- Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:05 pm:
“A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on”
Especially when it is with an ex-wife
- Shore - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:05 pm:
There was so much coverage of the opening parts of this at this point I think the damage has been done. He can win this round, but the stuff is out there. I’m guessing a lot of those conservatives in that primary 15 years ago took issue with clinton in part because of his personal issues and will be interesting to watch whether they do what democrats did and look beyond that to walsh’s tea party leadership and support him.
- just sayin' - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:07 pm:
What an embarrassment. Walsh is the most striking example of how in 2 short yrs the tea party is doing more harm than good in politics and especially for conservatives and the GOP. They don’t want to hear it of course. Most have delusions of grandeur and think politics started when they started paying attention 2 yrs ago.
- Quinn T. Sential - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:16 pm:
This is between Mr. Walsh, his ex-wife, and the courts and really is no business of anyone else’s. Bringing this issue into the media only hurts the children, even if they are already adults. The Walsh’s are each their parents, and if the children have accepted, acknowledged and forgiven them both for their contributions to the breakdown of the marriage, then let the courts decide the finacial issues without having to embarass the children by having to have them drawn into this controversy in the media.
- D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:20 pm:
*snort* This is like every bitter Child Support battle I’ve ever seen or handled…especially w/ a Deadbeat Dad.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:20 pm:
47, you beat me to to it. The great Samuel Goldwyn, who also said “A hospital is no place to be sick.”
- MrJM - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:38 pm:
If Walsh thinks that a “verbal agreement” with his ex-wife could absolve him of financial obligations imposed by the court, then he is even more clueless than I had previously believed.
–MrJM
- too obvious - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:46 pm:
Declare war on your ex-wife and children. Good strategy for bringing in the soccer moms.
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 12:53 pm:
I think a Talking Points Memo headline has it right,
This is Just Getting Sad.
- soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 1:13 pm:
Yeah — the last thing I would want if I were Walsh would be another set of headlines with the words “deadbeat dad” or “child support.” Not exactly going to endear you with values voters, Congressman. Make a quiet settlement with the woman you once loved enough to bear three children with, ask her to grit her teeth and hold a supportive news conf, and then move on. This will end in tears — and not for the Dems, bless your shortsighted little heart.
- x ace - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 1:22 pm:
Nowdays Legit child support is paid thru the Court Clerk , isn’t it ?
Also,shouldn’t agreements and modifications be approved by the Court ?
Think the ” deadbeat ” is behind the eightball.
- zatoichi - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 1:25 pm:
Sounds like two people who deserve each other. Think I have seen this movie several times.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 1:29 pm:
Add in a third person–a political consultant, a new and/or old girlfriend, and/or a new wife to meet the minimum requirements for a “conspiracy”, and you’ve got an entire hit series!
- Tommydanger - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 1:35 pm:
If Walsh’s attorney believes the ex-wife’s attorney broke the law, s/he has an affirmative obligation to file a complaint with the ARDC. We’ll see if that happens…… Even if there is a “verbal” agreement, it does not supercede a court order requiring support to be paid. So it is written, so shall it be done!
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 1:39 pm:
I thought parents cannot make their own agreements to modify child support without court approval — probably because such “agreements” present the opportunity for the one with greater bargaining power to impose an unfair deal and because of the problems of proving that such agreements in fact occurred and what their susbtance was. And because child support is for the benefit of the kids, the custodial parent has no right to forgive it.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 1:44 pm:
Politically speaking, the only thing worse than “winning” a child support dispute is losing a child support dispute.
- roscoe tom - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 1:57 pm:
Verbal agreements and agreements to not pay child support by parties are generally held to be non binding as void against public policy. The cases are legion on the issue.
- Kerfuffle - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:13 pm:
I don’t know who is right or who is wrong, who is lying and who is not - but the only winners in these cases are the lawyers. JW’s 15 minutes are probably about up no matter what.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:18 pm:
“he and his former wife had a verbal understanding”
Unfortunately, his ex-wife also has a court order.
I don’t know whose helping Walsh with messaging — probably Joe Walsh — but calling it a “misunderstanding” is much better than calling your ex-wife a liar.
- Retired Non-Union Guy - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:19 pm:
As a divorced dad who used to pay child support with only a couple of minor disputes with the ex, all I have to say is: thank goodness for cancelled checks!.
It sounds like Joe Walsh has some of them … and if you go read the whole story Rich linked to, it sounds like the ex-wife’s lawyer was hedging.
Joe Walsh is still an idiot for not getting the order changed and not paying through the courts. What saved me was not only the cancelled checks but also the circuit clerk’s records.
- Dirty Red - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:56 pm:
If Mrs. Walsh lied, you’d think the Congressman would have said so when all of this began.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 2:57 pm:
OK, I realize this is not the biggest problem Joe has at the moment, but what is he doing using his Congressional office to send press releases about his divorce/ex-wife/child support dispute? Because reporters ask about it instead of seeking his insight on the federal budget? Even if your personal problems are interfering with official Congressional business, that doesn’t mean you can deal with your personal problems as though they ARE official Congressional business by using taxpayer-funded resources to fight with your ex-wife in the media. Perhaps this seems like nitpicking, but using a PR person and website paid for by your employer to beat up on your former spouse (who seemingly has neither her own PR person nor a website) seems unfair, juvenile and not particularly dignified behavior for a Congressman.
- Who is the real Joe Walsh? - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:28 pm:
Con Man Walsh is at it again. His polling must show he’s in trouble on the issue so he’s decided to blame his wife for the FACT that he has NOT paid his child support!
This guy is a joke…absolutely no responsibility, no morals, and no character.
I wonder if his donors will try to pay off this debt too.
An embarrassment to the GOP and to the Tea Party.
- reformer - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:44 pm:
Congressman Hultgren is the only one who benefits from this messy court battle.
- jake - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 3:54 pm:
He sent that release from his Congressional office??
With taxpayer $$?
That is totally clueless and unethical. It would even be marginal to send it from his campaign office. Obviously this has political implications, but even so, completely personal stuff should not be sent from campaign offices.
He would be best off not sending any news releases, but if he can’t resist, probably best coming from his lawyer’s office. Am I nitpicking? I think not. If somebody can’t partition his personal life from his public service, then he should not be in public office.
- park - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 7:43 pm:
shut up Jake. That is so trivial compared to …everything else.
But I love the “Illinois State Law” citation. What, like a parking ticket? Obviously Walsh’s ex is a wierdo…they seem well matched.
- Quizzical - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 8:30 pm:
What is that saying? “When you’ve dug yourself into a hole, you should…” At this rate Walsh won’t even get a gig on WLS after he loses next year.
- Lance Stevens - Wednesday, Oct 12, 11 @ 9:21 pm:
I hate to referee.. but “who is the real Joe Walsh” is totally “drive by”… having said that…Walsh is an idiot…
- nutjobvoter - Thursday, Oct 13, 11 @ 5:59 am:
nasty, nasty exwife and joe the plumber should step in