Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[ravenest]

Do we know if Russell wants an attorney? If not then lets try to do something to help Kat out.

[Barterer]

Ok, so Marc Stevens will help (not in a full legal capacity for now) Kat file the documents.  Hopefully he is agreeable to all parties straight from the beginning.. works up from first principles and all that. It'd be cool if he took this case under his wing.. even cooler if not even that was necessary.

I imagine one or more of those documents has a line on it that would be helpful for Mindy to sign.  If all parties agree that Russell should be sprung (on greatly reduced bond) considering the circumstances, one of which is that they'd go into DRO-style mediation.  Didn't the Tuath network (or was it ancapagency) post their successful resolution of another dispute, without divulging the gory details of course.. just that it had been amicably settled.                               

I don't believe that RussellsEx is playing a very careful, legal chess game to maximize financial gain. If it was purely about money, she'd be making statements carefully bounced off a lawyer and filing documents, not gushing forth her version of the facts.  She needs something else from Russell and/or the community.  It seems like a good opportunity to demonstrate free market dispute resolution.  FTL Ian could do a radio piece on however it turns out, since Russell is one of the proclaimed super-activists.. higher than average profile for sure.

Of course there are a lot of people looking at this case other than the immediate parties.. general libertarians, government employees, FSP-hopefuls, fence sitters, and others who are fairly freedom-minded, but laughing at the spectacle of it all.  A successful resolution would go a long way toward proving "freedom works" to a lot of people.  That's what we're supposed to do, right?  Solve our own problems so efficiently and with such moral character that the state seems totally absurd, and "the shackles just fall away" automatically. 

[Dave Ridley]

awesome post barterer and good ideas.

[SethCohn]

+1 on cutting out the vitriol... if Russell's freedom depends on the diplomacy skills here, he'll be trundling those wheelbarrows of bean curd around for the rest of his life.

+1... most of the verbose posters come off as poster children for the 'single nutcase theorist who cares for nobody else and is alone with his guns and porn' archetype many of us are trying to change as the most common public perception of 'libertarians/freedom lovers/etc'.

[Lex]

+1... most of the verbose posters come off as poster children for the 'single nutcase theorist who cares for nobody else and is alone with his guns and porn' archetype many of us are trying to change as the most common public perception of 'libertarians/freedom lovers/etc'.

You don't think that's true about the archetype?

[John Galt]

+1 on cutting out the vitriol... if Russell's freedom depends on the diplomacy skills here, he'll be trundling those wheelbarrows of bean curd around for the rest of his life.

+1... most of the verbose posters come off as poster children for the 'single nutcase theorist who cares for nobody else and is alone with his guns and porn' archetype many of us are trying to change as the most common public perception of 'libertarians/freedom lovers/etc'.

Are you saying that people who just want to be left alone(Clint Eastwood is the most known libertarian who has been quoted several times in print and on video as saying "everyone leaves everyone else alone") somehow don't deserve that simple courtesy and the respect of the most fundamental basic human right?

Perhaps others would like a further explanation of your remarks also.

[John Galt]

Do you support anyone other than yourself?

I grew up in a very poor family.

we MANAGED just fine withOUT government assistance. (and yes back then some dads ran off and mom got no money)

key word being "managed" = survived= made do=found a way.

we had no car, had just basic foods and had lots of used clothes and toys.

the standard of living today imo is a fricken joke... many people say they are "broke" yet have cellphones and x boxes, ipods, new bikes and all the while they suck off the system for heathcare, foodstamps and free housing. The so called "system" (gov assistance) makes people think they are owed something.. like getting all this free shit yet they do NOTHING to deserve it.

This makes people less responsible for everything they do because they know they can always crawl up uncle sams ass and get free shit. Have more kids= more free shit.

I would love to watch and see how creative the moochers could get if the free-money-faucet was shut off. Maybe they would actually have to get off their asses and seek employment or try shoveling snow, picking berries or doing anything for a buck in order to survive. And just maybe they would think before having 8 kids knowing that it was soley up to them (AND ONLY THEM) to feed and care for them.

I am tired of the whining moochers of the world who look everywhere for free handouts yet do nothing on their own to be productive and earn an honest income.

grrrrr
Kola

I think Rand called them looters instead of moochers in Atlas Shrugged.  There was even a prominent government figure in the book named Much IIRC.

[Tom Ploszaj]

Many of you think my children do not have a right to  Russell's help with basic fundamental needs.

Absolutely correct.  I think the children that you bore with Russell do not have a right to the fruit of his labor without his express consent.  I do not believe in any implied consent.  ]

(Tongue in cheeK) I wish I knew about Libertarian principals when I got married, I'll let my son know this so if he ever has children he will know the reasons why he should not support them and where to go and have a group to assist him in living free.  Am I wrong or should statement be re-thought?

[Friday]

I know we will never agree on these things..but it is sad to me that the fact that Russell was negligent...and does owe something to his kids, is so overlooked. It truly costs your 'group' credibility....

I agree; this group IS losing credibility.  I feel I must respond, even if it costs me some friends.

I could write a massive amount about this thread (which I must admit, I haven't read the last several pages of; it's just making me sick to my stomach).  I'll limit myself to the following:

* RussellsEx is not the reason Russell is in jail now, no matter how you twist it.  She and Russell had a legal and religious contract with one another, years before Russell began his current "crusade" against the State.  They voluntarily chose to have a child and adopt two others. RussellsEx chose to divorce Russell.  Agents of the State chose to award her child support.  Russell has made numerous choices over the course of many years, with full knowledge of what a possible outcome of those choices was.  His choices included not making the payments to the State child support agency which it demanded, rightly or wrongly, and for at least two years now not holding down any job where his wages would be garnished to pay the child support the State says he owes.  The State has finally decided to lock Russell up for all the unpaid bills.  RussellsEx has not wronged Kat in any way.

* Russell prefers to sit in a jail cell rather than post bail.  He has demonstrated this when his bail has been far, far less than $10,000.
He has said as much on this forum.  If it were anyone else, I feel confident that the Free Stater community can, and would, find $10,000 and get one of our own out of the clink.  That is not what Russell wants.

* I believe that an able-bodied adult has a moral obligation to his/her children that he/she voluntarily brought into existence and/or adopted.  I don't believe he/she needs the State to force him to acknowledge that.  I don't believe he/she needs to profess to be a Christian to acknowledge that.  I don't believe he/she needs to profess to be a libertarian to acknowledge that.  That moral obligation includes various kinds of support: financial and emotional.

* I find it really hard to believe that either the State, or Russell's ex-wife, could prevent him from having any contact with his children, if that's what he wanted.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

Many of you think my children do not have a right to  Russell's help with basic fundamental needs.

A couple of people (and some brand-new aliases) are claiming to believe that. Most libertarians believe in keeping their contracts.

(And I actually did grow up on a dairy farm, doing hard and dangerous labor, so don't give me any "you're just a TV-watching milksop" nonsense).

[picaro]

I believe that an able-bodied adult has a moral obligation to his/her children that he/she voluntarily brought into existence and/or adopted.

I don't think Russell disagrees.  He was forcibly separated from his children.  He has offered to raise them.

[kola]

How does russell want to handle HIS situation?

[SethCohn]

+1... most of the verbose posters come off as poster children for the 'single nutcase theorist who cares for nobody else and is alone with his guns and porn' archetype many of us are trying to change as the most common public perception of 'libertarians/freedom lovers/etc'.

You don't think that's true about the archetype?

No, it's NOT true, and I can point to dozens of examples where it isn't... and some where it is... (all stereotypes have some people who fit it...)

[SethCohn]

+1... most of the verbose posters come off as poster children for the 'single nutcase theorist who cares for nobody else and is alone with his guns and porn' archetype many of us are trying to change as the most common public perception of 'libertarians/freedom lovers/etc'.

Are you saying that people who just want to be left alone(Clint Eastwood is the most known libertarian who has been quoted several times in print and on video as saying "everyone leaves everyone else alone") somehow don't deserve that simple courtesy and the respect of the most fundamental basic human right?

Perhaps others would like a further explanation of your remarks also.

Perhaps you can't read simple English, since you twisted what I wrote to mean something else entirely.
Try reading what I wrote, instead of what you imagined I wrote.

[Raineyrocks]

Many of you think my children do not have a right to  Russell's help with basic fundamental needs.

Absolutely correct.  I think the children that you bore with Russell do not have a right to the fruit of his labor without his express consent.  I do not believe in any implied consent.  ]

(Tongue in cheeK) I wish I knew about Libertarian principals when I got married, I'll let my son know this so if he ever has children he will know the reasons why he should not support them and where to go and have a group to assist him in living free.  Am I wrong or should statement be re-thought?

If I'm understanding your response correctly, which I think I am, I don't think your wrong the statement should be re-thought. My son's girlfriend is pregnant right now and I feel that my son has an obligation to help raise the child monetarily and personally.  I don't like to project my feelings onto other people and their situations and I hope my post won't be taken as such especially because I don't even really know Russell that well or his ex. I will only express my feelings on the issue if anyone chooses to get upset over how I feel that's on them. If anyone decides to twist anything I write I won't waste my time playing cat and mouse but if anyone has a genuine question about what I've written I will answer it as long as I feel it's not too personal about my children's lives until I ask them.

I've seen and experienced people, (both fathers & mothers) & myself that have had to deal with more issues than are being discussed on this thread. A couple of reasons that I've been reluctant to participate in this thread are that I don't want to go deeply into my personal stuff on a public forum and I also don't want Kat to take what I say or how I feel the wrong way because I like Kat.  Having said that this is how I feel for what it's worth:

1.  I don't think that a father should owe child support if his, (I'll stick to male gender for the sake of the length of my post), children are kept from him.  If he doesn't get to be involved with his children and he's a decent guy then why should he pay?  I do however believe if a father wants to be involved with his children he has legal resources to help him.  I know a lot of people prefer to keep the govt. out of their business and I understand that but unfortunately when it comes to stuff like this sometimes it's the only avenue someone has.  I had to get a lawyer, go to court, etc. to get one of my children back from my mother whom stole her.  I tried everything else before going this route but forget it, it was my only way.

2.  I think it would be great if both parents could work money stuff out in private based on the children's needs not x-boxes but shoes without holes in them.  I keep reading that Russell's ex's kids are still alive so they didn't need Russell, what if they had to go to school with holes in their clothes and were made fun of?  Does anybody here really know what they needed?  I'm assuming Russell didn't know because he didn't keep in contact, that's an assumption off of what I'm reading.  What I'm saying is the argument that the kids are still alive is dumb.  Keeping this short I'll give you an example of when my father left my mother who worked 2 jobs to try to support her 3 kids, sometimes we lived off of bisquick and water.  Okay we are alive but tell me you would want that for your kids if maybe my father gave her $20 here and there we could have had other food choices.  See what I mean?

3.  My daughter and her ex boyfriend work their stuff out in private regarding my grandson, his dad doesn't give my daughter a specific amount of money every week, he is totally involved in my grandson's life and when he needs clothes, $$ for field trips, etc. and my daughter doesn't have it they talk and he provides.  That's one of the best examples of working stuff like this out the nicest way I can think of, no courts.  They are in their low twenties and I have tons of respect for how they handle having a child together after breaking up.  As we all know it doesn't always go that way though, does it?  Without knowing any specifics between Russell and his ex there is no way in the world I could know if they tried to do this.  That's the thing about this whole thread I think everyone is making a lot of assumptions when really they don't know the exact details of this.    Let's get back to my father and mother, he got remarried to someone with 3 kids, they had a nice house, (we lived in dumps when he and my mother were married), and he provided for them.  I was a teenager with a chip on my shoulder so I assumed he didn't give a shit about his 3 kids only his new wife's children. Then I learned some other things a few years later,  my mother could be a real nut case a lot of times and she would make us hide when my dad tried to come see us, we didn't understand but were too afraid to ask her questions.  So should my father have been given a court order to give her $200 a week?  No, I don't think so. Did my dad have to give up so quickly?  I remember being made to hide 2 times when he wanted to see us.  When my mother took my daughter, I went over to her house to see my daughter sometimes I was invited in for awhile, sometimes my mom would punch me, other times no one answered the door and I could hear my daughter in there.  What I'm saying is nothing kept me away from my daughter for long, nothing!  Obviously my mother's mental stuff kept my dad away which I try my best to understand.  I wrote him a letter when I was 12 or 13 begging him to meet me somewhere and let me live with him; this was before he got remarried.  I was told for years he never got the letter, well I found the letter in his headboard when I was looking for tissues one time when I was 19, it hurt like hell.  He had nothing to say.

4.  Back on track I don't want to make this post about me I'm just using some personal examples so I'm sorry if it's long.  Let's go to the situation at hand from my limited understanding of Russell and his children.  If/when Russell offered to raise the children what if his ex didn't want to give her kids totally up?  What if she wanted to be a part of their lives too?  So as for that it's just food for thought.

5.  It's a shame that Russell has to go to jail because it solves absolutely nothing.  It would have been better if perhaps a mediator of some sorts out of the legal system could have sat them both down and worked something out if they wanted that.  If Russell's ex wanted Russell out of the picture with their kids  she, in my opinion without judgment, should have canceled the child support orders with the court and if Russell was in agreement then it would have been a done deal.  Does she live in a different state?  How could Russell get to see the kids?  That would have been another thing maybe a mediator would've helped with, I don't know.  It's all just sad but the kids should be the main focus.  Like have they wanted to see Russell, I don't know how many years all of this has been I just think having a relationship with your parents is so much more important than money, money, all the time unless of course the kids need things.  I've known people that were issued big weekly child support checks and cashed them then went to the bar or bought themselves clothes.  That in my opinion is crap and unless you have a real little baby or a handicapped child how much money does somebody need weekly to raise kids?  Why does a judge get to decide that off of how much the parent earns weekly?  So if Joe Blow earns $1000 a week, he should give his ex with let's say 2 kids, $500 a week?   I knew this lady that got something like $400 a week for one kid, she gave her kid the $400 every week, he was in 6th grade.  So yeah there are idiotic laws, people but somewhere there should be a logical starting point, right?

Did you know that I read somewhere a few years ago that if a parent got remarried and he lost his job then his new spouse became responsible for his child support money , is that nuts or what?  Did the spouse make the kids? 

Oh well I guess that's all that was on my mind, I hope everyone understands my post and doesn't get offended.