OC Judge Reversed For Cruel Treatment of Ex-Husband in Child Support Case

• He is still the presiding judge in my custody case. So far I get 4 hours of visitation a week since my ex lied out her ass about drug addiction which is not true. Everything I have presented to the judge he has completely ignored and took her motion and statements and the gospel truth. 

• That's complete and utter bullshit! You have just proven you know absolutely nothing about the women's movement you misogynist moron! It was ALWAYS about equality...about women having the right to enjoy the same rights men like you take for granted! I believe my rights as a human being should not hinge on something as arbitrary as gender. That's it. So sorry that bothers you.

• Good article. Gary Karlin

• Why only one of the few occasions ?  I know why actually : It's because you're conditioned to believe that whenever there is any difference of opinion between a man and a woman , the woman must be the aggrieved party while the man must be the antagonist .  That's what everybody thinks and that's also why the douchebag judge in question decided that having no money to even sustain his own basic needs isn't a good enough reason for a man to stop paying his ex-wife money she doesn't need to support kids she probably thinks of as hers alone anyway . Remember boys : Don't get married and this won't happen .  (Pre-nups get tossed all the time when men get to keep their things so don't rely on that) Gold-digging Western women can't take your money in a divorce if you never marry them in the first place .  And don't live with them either .  In fact , just save yourself the hassle and go abroad .  They still have real women in the less developed world (instead of short-haired , sweat-pants-wearing sofa hogs)

• How? Where?

• There are a lot of abuses in traffic court, even in parking ticket cases. See an OCWeekly story called "The Ticket Wizard."

• There's just one thing I don't understand -- why isn't Judge Kreber under investigation for judicial misconduct? I certainly hope that this idiot isn't hearing any more family court cases.

• First of all MEN are not the gatekeepers of birth; all they can do is supply the "drops of life". Even if they want kids, it's up to the woman to allow this to happen. Regarding the various types of family support. Women/moms/spouse would approach the family support issue completely different if fathers were treated equally in court.  Child/spousal support can be very lucrative, so it makes sense to divorce and "take the kids" [early], as this would more than likely guarantee a certain level of additional income for the foreseeable future.  Divorce, and out of wedlock child births would decline if the male's chance in court was equal to the female.  Women (in general) would think twice about trying to take men to court with hopes of scoring an early income stipend.

• YOU AT "FAMILYLAWCOURTS.COM" APPARENTLY HAVE NOT LEARNED TO READ YET!!!! DID NOT APPLY IN THE APPELATE COURT!!!! GET OVER IT AND GET A LIFE!!!! WE DONT CARE TO HEAR IT FROM YOU ANY MORE!!!! YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON APPLICABLE FACTS WHEN YOU DECIDE TO GROW UP AND USE INTELLIGENCE IN YOUR PERCEPTION OF SITUATIONS. AND, IMHO, YOU PROBABLY REALLY NEED TO GET LAID SINCE YOUR SO STUCK ON THAT ONE ISSUE!!!!

• YOU AT "FAMILYLAWCOURTS.COM" APPARENTLY HAVE NOT LEARNED TO READ YET!!!!  DID NOT APPLY IN THE APPELATE COURT!!!! GET OVER IT AND GET A LIFE!!!!  WE DONT CARE TO HEAR IT FROM YOU ANY MORE!!!!  YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON APPLICABLE FACTS WHEN YOU DECIDE TO GROW UP AND USE INTELLIGENCE IN YOUR PERCEPTION OF SITUATIONS.  AND, IMHO, YOU PROBABLY REALLY NEED TO GET LAID SINCE YOUR SO STUCK ON THAT ONE ISSUE!!!! 

• Or make child support tax deductible for the parent who pays it. The custodial parent can qualify for, depending on their income, possibly an earned income tax credit, child tax credit, and child care credit, easily totalling $3,000 or more a year, while the non-custodial parent, who is paying child support, gets nothing.

• Also, I think it's pretty ridiculous to get divorced, and still expect to have the same lifestyle you had when you were married. It's far more expensive to maintain two separate households than one combined one. If this woman didn't want her standard of living to change, then she shouldn't have gotten divorced. People need to be realistic.

• So, this woman has a $90,000 a year, not counting child support, and she's whining??? Not saying she shouldn't receive child support, but on $90,000, she can more than support her kids adequately, without an additional $2,000+ a month. Most married couples I know who have gone through layoffs and pay cuts would feel rich just having a combined $90,000 a year income, let alone just one spouse earning that much. I seriously doubt either she or her kids are going hungry, since they're no longer receiving that extra $2,000 a month. The judge was way out of line to expect the ex-husband to still come up with that much money in child support a month, when he is essentially unemployed.

• familylawcourts, isn't time for your evening medication?  LOL

• Honey, you're obviously late for your medication.

• The fact remains that the "pornography addiction" (and we all know that was a guaranteed red herring floated by his ex-wife loser to disparage him, and almost certainly NOT true, just like when so many women are told by their counsel to make false accusations of abuse and/or false accusations of child abuse/molestation, which are almost always unsubstantiated and utterly false) has NOTHING to do with a child support obligation.   Any comment otherwise is ludicrous, uninformed, myopic, shrill, histrionic and utterly stupid.  The fact is that his income has substantially changed, as has the marketplace.  This makes me so happy I am happily divorced and that I required my ex-wife to sign a prenuptial agremeement which protected my income, assets, intellectual property and contained a waiver or spousal support.  Marriage is very risk, utterly pointless and a waste of time for a man with means, money, a career and assets.  Divorce is the transfer or unearned and undeserved assets, plain and simple.  At least the appellate court got it right.

• cite and proof Sparky.

• <i>FamilyLawCourts.com is funny.</i> "funny" would not be the word I would use to describe it.

• Pre-nups are worthless. Gender pandering judges rule them inadmissible all the time.

• She makes nearly 3 times as much as  you, and has virtually no expenses, and YOU have to pay HER. That makes no sense, at all. 'Tis misandry, straight up.

• Good for you, Kate! Fair-minded women like you and my girlfriend are the reason why I could never be a misogynist.

• That is the best course of action! A woman's reaction to a prenup says everything about what her intentions are. What fair minded person wouldn't want both parties involved in a marriage to have legal protection so that if things don't work out, both people walk away with half?

• That's a red herring, and you know it. Who spends money on porn in this day and age, when there's so much stuff for free on the internet? And even if he did spend a bit of money on porn, who cares? It's irrelevant. The guy was probably really depressed after losing his job and being treated like a wallet with legs by the family court system. <sarcasm>How dare he have even one vice! </sarcasm>

• Dearest "FamilyLawCourts.com": You clearly have serious reality issues and I wish you luck.

• Dearest "Familylawcourts.com": No matter how many times you deceitfully claim that I didn't mention the alleged porn issue, you can't change the fact that I did include it in my column. Any person with a first grade reading skill wouldn't have made this mistake . . . unless . . . you're just being an asshole. By the way, as a journalist who routinely covers the courts, the porn issue had no bearing whatsoever on the appellate decision, as has been accurately pointed out in this comments section.

• Dearest "Familylawcourts.com": I did mention the alleged porn addiction. But don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

• Actually this is a great opportunity for any child support obligor to have the courts adjust their support payments. Citing a current abuse of discretion case ruling by the California Appellate Courts is the next best thing to having the law rewritten. If the judge refuses to acknowledge the evidence the next step would be to recuse the judge. If the judge refuses to recuse himself the last step would be to file a complaint for judicial misconduct with the judicial commission which would possibly not only open the door to suing the judge but may also result in having the judge rightly removed from the bench. By the way, you don't have to be a party to the original judgement to file a complaint against the judge. This would be a good time for the parents rights groups to step up and file a complaint. A concerted attack would be the best move to have judges like Kreber removed.

• Feminuts thought the system needed to punish men (and reward women) since feminutism was never about equality, it was always about female superiority

• FamilyLawCourts.com is funny. She's for family law reform for the benefit of women, yet doesn't have a basic understanding of how child support is calculated. Discretionary income does not enter into the equation. Muckraking like this is laughable. What's even more telling about her is that she accepts what a mother says on its face. Not so with men. She's a part of the Old Guard - families survive only on the blood and sweat of men.

• Thanks, Charles! I'm glad you understand that one bad apple should not condemn the whole orchard.

• I agree with your post but, that Judge has absolutly no common sense, telling someone with no job, living with his sister to pay that amount. He may as well have said pay $ 10,000.00 per month, can't pay what you don't have.

• Now that Jim Lockington's Porn addiction is plastered all over the internet, that could greatly hinder his chances of landing a half decent job when the prospective employer runs a background check. Good idea bringing that to light Tricia...LOL!

• What is there to be gained by generalizing in such a grotesque manner?  You could have easily said the salient point of your message (child support courts are biased against men, so "insist on protection" with a pre-nup) without painting all women as gold-diggers. 

• I don't think this has much to do with bad judgement or bias on the judge's part.  He's simply acting in the best interest of the state, which is to maximize as much Title IV-D Child support funds paid out by the federal government.  This pays his salary and funds the state family court, as well as provide additional revenue for the state fund. Child support revenue is a key federal income generator for states.  The more child support is awarded, the more the states make.  Reducing child support awards between parties would in turn reduce state revenue.  I would have to agree with some of the previous posters, not a good idea to have kids right now not just if you are a man, but for anyone who happens to make significantly more than your spouse.  The state will interfere once you get divorced and most likely order you to be a non-custodial parent.  That way they can order child support from you and in turn increase their own federal revenue share.

• Why doesn't the child stay with the person who has more time available (father) and the higher earning parent (mother) then pays the child support? Isn't that what typically happens in "the lifestyle they had before"?

• Her "significant loss" was from 11K per month to 7.5K per month, I don't consider that "significant" I do consider 14.5K down to 300.00 per month significant . Family law has a nack to spin the facts.

• Reading comprehension not your strong suit?

• "But don't let the facts get in the way of a good bias." You have nothing to say about the actual facts. Just the supposed porn addiction. Sounds like you're talking about yourself. You just keep making the same post over and over. Still doesn't make any of it true.

• Because it has nothing to do with the subject of him not having a job currently. Plus how do you know that he has a porn addiction? Because his ex who is trying to make him look bad says so?

• Of course no such decision for women, all they want is the money, whether the children gets to see some of that money is questionable. " America, land of the free" my ass!!!!!!!!

• The suck part is this is my judge in my current custody battle were in I can't afford an attorney and am pro se and the ex has her father paying her legal fees for her $375/hr attorney. She makes $3000/month I make $1100/month and I have to pay her $300 in child support. She lives with her mother rent and bill free. I have to live in an apartment with two roommates and because of that I am denied overnights with our child. 

• Actually you realize that he probably was thinking of the states income? For every dollar the state brings in under child support enforcement the feds pay them $3.00 in funding. It is all about the money. And the lawyers in family court always want to keep the two people fighting so they can make their $300 per hour. 

• The only reason there was any mention of a "porn addiction" at all was because the ex wife made the accusation. The opinion was about the support issue, and the judge misusing his power. The article states the mother was making more than $7500 a month. the ONLY reason her income decreased was due to the downward support modification. This is about the misuse of judiciary authority. NOT about a supposed porn addiction that was made by a mother trying to gain an upper hand in family court. If the situation was reversed, I would guess your reaction would be vastly different

• Umm...so one woman's idiocy gives you license to paint us all with the same "all women are money-grubbing shrews" brush? Were you just itching for any excuse to post some misogynist diatribe? I make my own money, thank you very much. I would also like to point out that perfectly nice women get tricked into marrying loser men all the time, but they all should have known better, right? And only women enter into marriage under false pretenses? Please.

• For Heaven's Sake, sounds like you're "getting off" on pointing out a supposed porn addition, more than Mr. Lockington might have been getting off at all. WHO CARES?!?!  Healthy adults watch porn on occasion.  Ms. Russell, unless YOU WERE THERE watching him beat off to hours upon hours of porn nightly, leave the subject alone.  Sounds like someone's jealous to me...or projecting her own porn addition or sexual frustration onto someone else?  Time to back off, lady.  No one cares that this guy's ex-wife accused him of watching porn.  Unless he was shown to be negatively impacting the children, directly, because of porn, it is a completely NON-RELATED subject and an unprovable point. Point is, even if the parents had remained married, there is a strong likelihood at at some point one of the parents losing his/her job and suffering a reduction in income would have affected the children anyway.  They, and the ex-wife, DO NOT have the right to "enjoy" a lifestyle based on the income level of the FATHER before the divorce.  Everyone involved needs to live within their means, whatever those means are.  If Dad loses his job by no fault of his own, or his business goes belly-up, or he gets in an accident and has to collect disability instead of a full paycheck, well, THAT'S LIFE.  Mom is perfectly capable of working, and clearly does.  The judge in this case completely overstepped his bounds when he told the man to go and get multiple jobs so he could keep forking over money to his ex-wife.  That was inappropriate and unfair.  In many other cases, the father would have filed for a modification and if his income really were that far below his ex-wife's level, depending on how much parenting time he had SHE would be legally obligated to pay HIM child support.  Oh, Ms. Russell, try not to piss yourself with anger at the thought.  It happens.  And it's right to happen.  Fair is fair. I hope Mr. Lockington is able to get some restitution for the pain he's been through for the last year.  Lord knows 2011 must have been a penny-pincher for him.

• She needs the money to continue weekend stays at expensive spa's in Palm Springs...

• So why does the father have to pick up the mothers slack? why isnt she out working 3 jobs?

• Who cares if he watched porn? If the man was still married and lost his job there would be no one to force him to hand over $2000+ each month! Penalising NCP`s dosent make anything better for anyone, anyway why wasnt the mother working? And where on earth do you live that it actually costs $4000+  to raise a couple of kids?

• Facts: A) Jim is the same man Tricia married (and divorced), she should have known about his addictions. B) Jim does not have the income to pay $ 2,074.00 per month...period. C) It is not Jim's facult the economy and to a bigger extent, the construction industry imploded. D) Tricia currently makes $ 90K per year, her kids attend one of the best School districts in So. OC. which includes living in the same area. Perhaps it's time she step off her ivory tower and live within her means, Jim's salary will never be close to what it was, so deal with it. E) Her whining about an issue that entails checks and balances is futile, to make an assinine statement about Starbucks and Target to make up the difference is sophmoric at best.

• Since we are all assuming here, I would assume a Project Controller for a large development Company would make a salary in the 90K range. As far as his Porn addiction, she married the same guy she divorced.

• Don't be the judge yourself unless you know ALL the facts!  There is a lot left out of this article and he is not a "poor guy"

• Tricia is no doubt a money hungry cold person. Even if Jim did work multiple jobs at places like Starbucks or Target, the money he would earn would be minimal. She earns 90K a year and is upset that her lavish lifestyle is no more. Then again, most overweight women are cruel.

• Hello, there are situations where the judge can impute income.  Here, however, there did not seem to be any evidence that Father had the ability to replace his earlier income.  Again, however, there may have been some evidence that Father pissed alot of his money away thus loosing sympathy with the judge.  I WILL KNOW MORE WHEN I READ THE CASE.

• Uhhhh, read much? The FOURTH SENTENCE of the article mentions the pornography allegation. But so what? What does porno have to do with the court of appeal ruling for the husband? NOTHING! That is why the court DIDN'T calculate it into its decision. It's a sensational side issue raised by a money hungry woman (with help from her money hungry lawyer) who rightfully lost HER UNCONSCIONABLE GRAVY TRAIN! XXX

• Really?  Then I wonder why I ended up saddled with all the debt and raising my 3 boys on my own without help from their father?

• as far as the kids living how they had it before the divorce, I'm sure the kids didn't only get to see their dad's on every other weekend, they got to see him everyday, ya know what I mean? The judge doesn't think about that though, its all about the money!

• "...to supply her money."  as if the children need no support from the other half that created them.  this article, along with the writer, is a load of chit.  sure, his child support should be modified, clearly, but to imply that he's provider her money when she now makes more than him is stupid.

• The Exhaustion the man was going to drop dead from, was from his porn addiction.  Which was mentioned in the Court's opinion, but not Moxley's piece.  Wonder why.  Oh, and the mother also experienced a significant loss of income in her field.  But don't let the facts get in the way of a good bias.

• Too bad Moxley didn't include all the facts.  Like his Big porn addiction and the tons of money he spent on that.  Or that the mother also experienced significant monetary loss in her employment.  Wonder why Moxley didn't include that?

• The way Scott reported would lead all father's rights guys to jump on the Moxley bandwagon of really bad reporting.  He left out the guy's terrific porn addiction, how much he spent on that, and that the mother also experienced significant loss of income.

• Not mentioned in the story?  Lockington's Extreme PORN addiction and how much money he spent both on his addiction and his treatment.  Which uh, might have failed.  Not mentioned in the article?  That Lockington was represented by his sister.  Not mentioned in the article?  That the mother had also experienced significant monetary losses in her field of employment.  Get it together Scott.

• That is why I hate family law judges... They are playing GOD with people.. when themselves are nothing but power hungry dirtbags

• That is the wrong queen, and an erroneous quotation. 

• Wow $2,074.00 a month in Child Support I wonder how much of that money the child ever saw?  Tricia  by my understanding earns $7,500.00 a month before child support in my opinion she is not entitled to any child support and what is this thing called equal rights that woman have been given except when it comes to divorce because men are treated like it is 1940 by are elected judges    

• Yes, child support really is a simple concept.  Give custody back to men, and you have NO child support problem.  The parent who can afford them won't need to pay ransom to see his own children.  That's what Marxist-feminism has created.  Break up families.  Get dad out of the way.  Make dad pay ransom for his own children. Simple.  If the law deems child support enforceable, why aren't perjury laws deemed enforceable in family court trials, especially if it is the female "testi-lying"?  Check your state statutes.  I bet you can find a statute that says that females can't be arrested in civil matters.  NJ has one.  So do about half the other states that I've researched so far.   If perjury is not enforceable in family courts, get rid of the statute altogether otherwised family courts are aiding and abetting in criminal and civil frauds.  None of the orders coming out of family court are valid anyway. That's what Karl Marx envisioned--the state as "superdad".  Let the state pay support if they want control of my children.

• I ran for public office and lost because I was too honest.  My simplicity of the topic is idealistic?  You need to get your head out of the nether regions and brush up on the subject my "friend".  I've been involved in family rights for over 27 years as a litigant and constitutional law paralegal.  This information is a fact.  Since you can't disprove it, your claim to fame is to try and shoot the messenger.  Your intelligence belies your brains.

• I agree with the other poster.  Men should not marry, get women pregnant, live with them, or mix credit or money with them.  Most marriages end in divorce and the man gets ripped off.  This is just the way society is.  Any man who gets married these days is a fool.  It was not that way two decades ago, but now it is.  Men are at a terrible disadvantage in divorce court.  Fortunately this sort of ripoff never happened to me.

• Jimmy, who sais anyone was concerned about the same style of life he had before. This is more of an issues of obligors and obligees as oppose to moms and dads. People all know there are mothers who are Defendants as well. I have seen them as I work in the child support arena. Why would we be concerned that the obligee have the lifestyle he previously was able to afford? We all know that children cost money, husbands and wives or any other partnership know this when they bring a child home. If child support is an industry, then whoeever invented it should be shot as we all know many child support Orders go unpaid, many obligees will never see their money, lt alone the children who outlive them when the arrears are reduced to Judgment due to death of the obligee (say when the child turn 35 to 40) Child Support is really a simple concept and the law deems it to be enforcable. Have kids, pay money.

• Well, since you know all of the answers why aren't you running for public office? LOL! You're simplicity of the topic is idealistic!

• Aren't some of the judges in OC elected (or confirmed)? Can we go after this one?

• If anyone believes child support is for the children, you're living in a fantasy world.  Child support and its enforcement is all about government bureaucracy growth and turning it into an industry.  The head of the CA Child Support Enforcement Division in 1998 testified before Congress how all states need to include the "never welfared" middle class and upper class orders to maximize the federal funding the states get as reimbursement incentive for the most amount of support (and now alimony) ordered, collected & enforced upon.  Under Title 42 USC Section 658(a) the State submits how much money it awarded, collected and enforced at the end of each fiscal year. The feds send the State a check with "no strings attached".  The money is put into the General Treasury.  Who gets paid out of the Treasury  first?  State employees, specifically judges and child support employees that have a financial interest in the outcome of such cases.  Check your state treasury reports and find how much child support is directly and indirectly linked to judicial pensions and state employee pensions.  It's in the hundreds of billions.  States need to the money to offset their liberal spending habits because they've run out of taxpayers monies.  The US Supreme Court has held, since 1927, that judges cannot sit on cases where they have a financial outcome in the case before them (Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Gibson v. Berryhill, In re Murchison, Aetna Life Ins. v. Lavoie, etc.), otherwise their orders are null & void and the judges can be charged with felony official misconduct and/or impeached. Some will cry "how can we collect child support if judges are taken off the cases?"  Simple answer: Eliminate the $10 BILLION per year child support enforcement industry, get rid of the "deadwood" nasty, arrogant & obnoxious child support enforcement workers, and send the monies saved each year by eliminating the bureaucracy directly to the child support recipients via a Social Security-style check or wire transfer--since child support laws fall under Social Security laws (and Social Security makes disabled parents account for how they spend the SS monies on their children under 18; whereby we can use the Social Security forms, SSA-6230 and convert them for child support accountability).  The "deadbeat dad" hysteria would be solved once and for all.

• The husband won't get back the child support he overpaid.  At least he can get it credited.  Child support is the Great American Entitlement Scam that is currently flying under the radar.  Given we've had all these scams with banks, mortgages, Wall St., welfare fraud, Social Security Fraud, etc., child support fraud has been given a pass.  There are too many women making more than men that are getting tax free child support.  The way to stop it is to tax child support.  We'll see how many women want custody of the children then.

• I hope the husband will get all that back child support money he had to pay out.  It should be reinstated to the moment his income dropped.  Yes, children need support, but we should not teach our children that their father's have to become homeless so they can have brand name clothes and better toys. 

• The child support "industry" in the USA as reached a point where it will cause a civil war! Pol-lie-ticians are failing to address the injustices that are waged against fathers.  the children are entitled to the same lifestyle that they had before.  <----------BullSh**t

• http://www.checkonchildsupport.com if you are having issues with child support/alimony payme nts!

• one of the few occasions in which i have to side with the man. the wife was being vengeful. the same can be said of her. let her go get multiple jobs to keep her in the lifestyle she thinks the kids/she should have. judges are suppose to amend the support payment if the man can show his income has dropped. at the rate the judge/ex-wife were going, the man was going to drop dead from exhaustion.

• But perhaps they are likely old school Catholics and only divorce by death.  LOL

• I understand the term Attributed, a person once informed me of the facts in this case, I googled & confirmed. hence when I have an opportunity to inform a person of the facts, I do so, who knows perhaps the French will put her head back on and say, "oopsie, Sorry bout that chief"!

• Dweezle, I didn't know that about Rousseau, so thanks, but 'attributed' is often used as shorthand for 'it is commonly believed X said Y', but didn't (or there is doubt)'

•  "It is like they imagine we still live in an era where a man supported the family on his own a woman stayed home made babies, " They do if they are named Jose and Rigoberta.

• Judges do not seem to have any common sense in this area, It is like they imagine we still live in an era where a man supported the family on his own a woman stayed home made babies, cooked and cleaned house. I remember my first divorce in 1978, my wife did not want anything, She was making good money, while I was disabled, fresh out of the Army, $0 in income, living with friends and our daughter lived with ME. Still the Judge was going to order me to pay her $300. a month in alimony.  but my attorney got her to tell the judge she did not want anything, As far as deciding "the children are entitled to the same lifestyle that they had before.", umm look out the window judge, people are being booted from their homes, jobs are scarce, few people are living the "lifestyle that they had before". Do the mortgage companies & banks consider the children maintaining a lifestyle they are used to? Hell NO! Starbucks, McDonald's, Target or Walmart will not hire this guy, they will take his application tell him how he would be a great asset to their team, then promptly throw the application in the "Overqualified" bin as they realize when the economy upturns, he will be gone, (or perhaps more likely take the interviewers job)...

• Actually, Marie Antoinette never uttered those words.They were written when she was 9 or 10 years old still in Austria. The words were attributed to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in "Confessions".

• The judge needs a slap on the head, and the ex a kick in the center-line!

• Guys, don't get married under any circumstances.  It's a trap and will end badly for you as it did for this poor guy.  Women are only out for your cash.

• What a BITCH!  And I am referring to "Tricia"...not the predicament.

• It's a shame the judge can't be prosecuted for contempt of common sense. It sounds like this Kreber creep should have been left in traffic where the abuse is at least of benefit to the county and the state. His decision in this case cost the court in public opinion and is just one more example of the state of fathers rights in the court. Its really a shame we have to pay this sob for his opinions, we deserve better than this. We could hire a five year old who would be more fair than he has in this case. Next election vote this guy out and put anyone in the office.

• Uh, 'let them eat cake' is attributed to Marie Antoinette, the mere wife of a king. You are picturing an actress portraying Elizabeth I, a true monarch and kicker of culo espanyol.

TotalComments: 87