Another day, another shady character trying to not take care of his responsibilities!!
A Chicago judge issued a preliminary ruling Wednesday against U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) in his child-support dispute with his ex-wife, ordering the Tea Party favorite to explain why he appears to be $100,000 behind in child-support payments. Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega also wanted to know why Walsh wasn’t in court Wednesday — the McHenry Republican’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh, was there — and initially said he expected him to show up for the next hearing.
In court, Walsh’s attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court. Vega gave her a puzzled look — to which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”
“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge replied.
But after Laura Walsh’s attorney said he didn’t think the congressman needed to appear at the next hearing, Vega ultimately did not issue an order requiring the congressman to appear. But Vega did issue a “rule to show cause” — which means Walsh has to tell the court why he shouldn’t be held in contempt for falling so far behind in child support over the past five years.
Laura Walsh argues her ex-husband owes more than $100,000, a number the congressman disputes. But Vega’s ruling means that the burden is now on the congressman to prove that he doesn’t owe the money, attorneys for both Walshes agree. But last year, when she saw he had made a $35,000 contribution to his own congressional campaign, she became suspicious about his claims that he had no money. She had her attorney file the motion that Vega granted on Wednesday.
After Wednesday’s court hearing, Laura Walsh spoke about having to shoulder the financial burden of three children — two of them now adults — on her own for the last several years.
“It’s been extremely difficult,” she said. “We get through one day at a time.”
Laura Walsh — a public policy analyst for pharmaceuticals giant Eli Lilly and Co. — said the issue before the court is straightforward: “It’s child support. Either he paid it, or he didn’t. I’m certainly pleased with the ruling today.”
Boyle said her client, too, “is very satisfied with the judge’s orders of today, as it will finally afford him the opportunity to present his case to the court.”
SMH at this guy donating $35,000 to himself and then turning around saying that he doesn’t have money to support his kids. What a dirty dog.