Man railroaded in murder rap must pay back child support for his 9 years on death row

Read the story here.

This story would be somewhat humorous for its Kafkaesque nature, if it wasn't such a tragedy because it is happening to a real person.

I actually called and talked to this guy this morning, found his name in the Houston phone book. Seemed like a nice enough fellow. He was just getting off work from his late-shift job at Houston Metro Transit. My plan is to set up a fund to help him out. Write a letter to the Houston Chronicle. Contact Texas Fathers for Equal Rights. Hell, if he agrees, we may end up on Larry King Live.

Unbelievable!

Um...he *did* owe the child support. I've been unemployed for a year and *I'm* still supporting *my* kids. I *wish* it would only add up to $25K over nine years.

Why is it so unjust for this guy to pay child support?

Did you even read the article? The police and prosecutors conspired to unjustly nail this guy for a crime he did not commit. Sent him to DEATH ROW for nine years! I admire the man for enduring it without becoming insane.

The conspiracy has been proven. His compensation for the nine years of life which was robbed from him: $0.00

I think the State of Texas royally fucked up on this one, dear.

yeah...had he not been in jail, he probably would have been able to pay the child support.

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
Did you even read the article?
The conspiracy has been proven. His compensation for the nine years of life which was robbed from him: $0.00
I think the State of Texas royally fucked up on this one, dear.

Yes, I did read the article. Obviously the state *did* fuck up; more specifically the state's agents appear to be guilty of deep malfeasance. Looks like they had determined to "hang a nigger for a white girl's death", and that's what they did.

This is hardly the first time sovereign immunity has been used to shield evil, <b>especially</b> in Texas. The Texas judiciary has amply demonstrated that justice can be in very short supply for those who are too black, too hispanic, or too queer. If Bradley's attorney hasn't filed a Federal suit based in equal protection and conspiracy to violate civil rights, maybe he needs a new attorney.

But let's bear in mind that his child-support payments aren't due to the state. They're due to the mother (or custodian, according to the article) of his children. If he doesn't pay his child-support, they are the ones who gets screwed.

Now he has a job, and he's paying his child support, which I think is how it should be. They people who actually wronged him should be brought to account, too, instead of mounting a feel-good symbolic campaign that doesn't address what's really wrong.

Originally posted by MaggieL


But let's bear in mind that his child-support payments aren't due to the state. They're due to the mother (or custodian, according to the article) of his children. If he doesn't pay his child-support, they are the ones who gets screwed.

He couldn't possibly have made those payments while ON DEATH ROW. Holding him responsible for back payments is one step away from slavery. If anyone owes the back payments, it's the state. If they aren't going to pay, too bad -- this is "force majeur" in the true sense of the term.


BTW, the "children" are now adults.

At the very least, the state should pick up the interest on the payments. His not being able to pay, and therefore being charged interest on late payments, is through the fault of the state, not himself.

His whole beef with the *state* should be the subject of a Federal civil rights lawsuit...and should include any damages (like interest and lost income) he suffered as a result.

He also should have petitioned the court for a reduction in his child support...which he didn't bother to do because he figured he'd never get out and the kid's custodians wouldn't persue him.. Goodness knows there's plenty of people spending all their time in the can in the law library filing motions in pro se.

But none of this has *anything* to do with his absolute liability for the child support. The child support obligation goes from one parent to the *child*, with the custodial parent acting for the child. The state is only involved by way of enforcing the civil court's order on behalf of the custodian. The action to recover the back support wasn't filed in *retaliation* for the state civil action (as is so slyly implied), it was filed because there was some possibility that the guy would have assests to attach if he won that case....or the Federal suit he should be filing right now.

This children may be adults *now*, but while they were groing up *somebody* was covering this guy's responsibilities. That the state has fucked this guy over big-time has nothing to do with child support....it's a red herring pure and simple.

Originally posted by MaggieL
His whole beef with the *state* should be the subject of a Federal civil rights lawsuit...and should include any damages (like interest and lost income) he suffered as a result.

Sovereign immunity is a quite useful thing.

He also should have petitioned the court for a reduction in his child support...which he didn't bother to do because he figured he'd never get out and the kid's custodians wouldn't persue him..

I'd think that being on death row would tend to distract one from such considerations. You consider it just to penalize him for failure to do the appropriate paperwork while in prison?

But none of this has *anything* to do with his absolute liability for the child support. The child support obligation goes from one parent to the *child*, with the custodial parent acting for the child. The state is only involved by way of enforcing the civil court's order on behalf of the custodian.

Oh, bull. The state makes the laws imposing the liability. The state imposes the penalties. The state sets the amounts. The state makes the obligation nondischargable in bankruptcy (which would have been the obvious answer, even had he been imprisoned justly). The civil court is an instrument of the state. The state is involved up to its eyebrows.

Sovereign immunity won't apply if he proves a conspiracy to violate his civil rights in a Federal court.

And the law says he's liable for support for his children ...the fact that agents of the state of Texas have been fucking him over is simply not germaine to that liability. The state only gets involved in child support when there's a dispute and one or both parties ask the courts to resolve the issue.

And yes, I think the issue of supporting his childrem *should* be on his mind on death row...in fact probably *more* so since he presumably thought he was going to be executed at some point. Death row is a continuing sequence of appeals, motions, wrts and other filings and court appearances. One more wouldn't have been that big a deal.

Regardless, I can imagine being so consumed by the enormity of being sentenced to die for something you didn't commit that you simply lack the ability to focus on anything else. Obviously I've never been sentenced to die so I can't speak from experience, but neither can anyone else here (presumably), so I think it's from ignorance that we speculate on what he was able or not able to do while on death row.

I'm curious as to whether his original attorney in 1981 advised him of his ability to petition for lower payments. If not, he should definitely go after that lawyer. The story doesn't mention that specific attorney's name. I also wonder if he had a P.D., in which case, he could go after Montgomery County, TX.

(I did NOT read the article, but will go back and do so after I say this -- I just want to say a few things about the situation in THEORY before I go back and get the particulars -- it'll be interesting to see if I change my mind at all)

Forgeting the legalities of this (in which, I believe, Maggie is correct), my sense of right and wrong on this all depends on where the money to support his kids DID come from during the years that he was in prison. Let me point out two extremes:

1. If the mother of the children had a great job making $200K / year, "right" would seem to be for her to excuse him from repayment of his child support

2. If the mother is now living on welfare and living in a shack because she spent the money alone to raise the kids, I think she is entitled to SOMETHING from him and, at the same time, he SHOULD be entitled to something from the state. But excusing the former because of the latter, is trying to have two wrongs make a right. Just because someone else does not give YOU what you are due, does not excuse you from your responsibilites to others -- especially children.

I guess, I would put blame for the child support issue on the person who would get it -- for not excusing him from paying it. Assuming that he/she doesn't truly NEED the cash.

P.S. I just went back and read the article and I believe he should be able to petition for a retroactive reduction in payments for the time he was in prison for an inability to pay. But the people billing him ARE acting acording to the law. If he did petition for a retroactive reduction and I were the judge, I'd grant it.

Originally posted by sycamore
I'm curious as to whether his original attorney in 1981 advised him of his ability to petition for lower payments. If not, he should definitely go after that lawyer.

That much is certainly true.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
so I think it's from ignorance that we speculate on what he was able or not able to do while on death row.

"Able" in the sense of "having sufficient emotional energy to get done" as opposed to "literally able". If something massively bad happens to me, I might as a consequence not get around to filing my income taxes on time. But when that catches up with me, I'm not expecting IRS to say, "That's OK, we know you had other stuff on your mind."

To paraphrase Sir Walter Raleigh:

"Contemplating one's own death focuses the mind wonderfully."

I paraphrase because I cannot bring the exact quote to mind right now.
And I lost my Bartlett's Quotations.

And I'm even more sure that someone else will correct me before the ink on their screen is dry.

Brian

Originally posted by BrianR
To paraphrase Sir Walter Raleigh:

"Contemplating one's own death focuses the mind wonderfully."

<snip>
And I'm even more sure that someone else will correct me before the ink on their screen is dry.

"Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a
fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
Boswell's "Life of Samuel Johnson", Sept. 19, 1777 entry

Another good one from the same source: "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

My favorite SWR qoute is from Cassell's:

"'Tis a sharp remedy, but a sure one for all ills."

Feeling the edge of the axe which was to behead him. David Hume, History of Great Britain (1754).

Thank you, Maggie. I knew I was asking for it. But what the heck.

You only live once, unless you're a believer in reincarnation.

I only get to go around once. Thank goodness.

Brian