Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The fine print
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
Posted in:
* Joe Walsh and his ex-wife will both have to appear in court next month over allegations about Walsh owing $100K in back child support, according to the Sun-Times.
* Jack Coladarci, the lawyer for Laura Walsh, answered questions today about Walsh’s claim that he had a “verbal agreement” to lower his child support payments…
“He would tell Laura, ‘I’m not making any money. I can’t afford to pay child support.’ So she would agree to take a reduction in the support. But she never gave up her right to collect that support,” Coladarci said. “She had to use her own money to cover him and his expenses at the times when he wasn’t making payments for the kids’ education and everything else. She had to get something to help out, and it was still tight. There were still tuition issues with the schools. Him treating her like a bank isn’t fair — taking out an interest-free loan, we think that payment in full is appropriate.”
* Coladarci also disputed that copies of Walsh’s canceled checks prove anything…
Coladarci said Friday that his initial review of the checks show they were for other obligations — and not for the monthly child-support obligations.
* And Coladarci criticized the congressman for using his taxpayer funded office to send out press releases about the case…
Under his congressional seal on a statement sent Wednesday to reporters around the country, Rep. Walsh said Coladarci and Laura Walsh “broke Illinois state law” by “blatantly and knowingly submitting false information in her pleading.” […]
“We’ll stand behind everything that’s filed,” Coladarci said. “Congressman Walsh is having his congressional office issue statements against her — that’s an interesting use of taxpayer money. She doesn’t have those resources.”
Frankly, either way this looks bad for Walsh. He should’ve settled this thing quietly and moved on rather than doing his usual oppressed victim schtick.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 2:51 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The fine print
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Well, he’s telling us this and he’s telling us that, changes it every day. He says it doesn’t matter.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 2:57 pm
Once again, Joe Walsh’s story fails the smell test. In circumstances so acrimonious, we are to believe that terms would be voluntary and without written documentation? Ridiculous.
There is a clear pattern of reckless and irresponsible behavior here. The fact that there are the extraordinary circumstances where a Member of Congress must have support deducted from his salary speaks volumes about Congressman Walsh’s “family values”.
Comment by LincolnLounger Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 2:58 pm
the self destruction of a teabag
Comment by railrat Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 3:08 pm
In addition to figuring out how to pay what’s past due, he should give some thought to how he’s going to pay for things when he’s out of work in 15 months.
Comment by And I Approved This Message Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 3:24 pm
The guy doesn’t know when to shut up. If he tries peddling that stuff in front of a judge, he’s in for a major smackdown.
As it stands now, the exes’ lawyer is going to shred him.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 3:29 pm
I wonder how he’s paying his lawyer??? He’s so broke after all.
Comment by Seriously??? Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 3:58 pm
When a judge orders a certain amount of child support payment it is a court order. No one can change that order but a judge. Doesn’t matter what the wife decided to accept at the time you still owe what the judge says you owe.
Comment by Leave a Light on George Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 3:59 pm
The people who hate deadbeat dads really feel strongly about deadbeat dads.
Walsh has some impulse control issues.
If Randy Hultgren could buy this amount of bad publicity for Walsh, he would gladly drop the amount of money in dispute (between Walsh and his ex).
So, Walsh, even if he’s right, should pay his ex wife the full amount and have her sign something that says it’s settled.
But rather than doing the cost-benefit analysis of his current situation, Walsh seems obsessed with getting some sort of vindication from the court that his ex-wife wronged him.
A reasonable person could conclude that Walsh doesn’t make good decisions (and doesn’t surround himself with people who can steer him away from areas that are problematic).
What is the job of a legislator? A big part of it is making decisions.
Being in the media making bad decisions… it reflects poorly on Walsh’s judgment.
Also, Walsh’s attorney could be giving his client better advice. If Walsh is lying to the court and manipulating the process, the judge should fully enforces applicable rules. (This is true if Walsh’s ex and her attorney are lying and manipulating the process too.)
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Oct 14, 11 @ 4:17 pm