YooperBoyka wrote:
"Fred" wrote in message
. net...
YooperBoyka wrote:

I have no children, primarily because if I did, I'd lose my
constitutional
rights and could wind up in prison for failure to pay child support,
which
effectively makes it a debtor's prison.
Wrong. Refusing to pay will send you to prison. An inability to pay
will not.
Don't confuse the two.
Why not?
The courts do often enough.
So if someone makes a mistake, that justifies you making the same
mistake?

That doesn't make sense ... (8-(
What doesn't make sense is that an inability to pay can and WILL
get you incarcerated.
Pretending it won't will solve nothing.
I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction,

Let's look at the entire passage that I wrote:

"I cannot speak for any other jurisdiction, but as to the jurisdiction
in which I reside (Minnesota), an inability to pay will NOT get you
incarcerated. It might get your child support reduced if you make a
motion to that effect, and/or it might result in establishment of a
payment plan, but it will NOT get you incarcerated. Only if you have the
ability to pay and are not doing so MIGHT you be incarcerated.

"If you want to cite a jurisdiction that has a policy of incarcerating
based on inability (not refusal; inability) to pay, please do so. But
knock off the glittering generalities; they are not appropriate. "

Then you might want to start reading on the subject.

I did, as to my jurisdiction. I also invited you to cite a jurisdiction
that supports your contention. You, in turn, ignored what I provided and
refused to provide info in kind.

You are being intellectually dishonest. Shame on you.

"Inability" can be defined in oh-so-many wonderful ways, donchaknow.

Then provide information regarding a jurisdiction that supports your
position.

And can the glittering generalities, which I have already demonstrated
are not valid.