Joe Walsh is a United States Congressman, and should not have to appear in court

[brentspeak]

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Judge-orders-Rep-Walsh-to-explain-child-support-2170791.php

Judge orders Rep. Walsh to explain child support
Updated 05:42 p.m., Wednesday, September 14, 2011

CHICAGO (AP) — Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh will have to prove he doesn't owe about $100,000 in back child-support payments to his ex-wife in their legal fight over money, a Cook County judge ruled Wednesday.

Judge Raul Vega also questioned why the Illinois congressman wasn't in court for the hearing. Vega said he expected Walsh, a tea party favorite who has gained national attention for lambasting President Barack Obama, to make an appearance at the next hearing in November.

Walsh's attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega why her client had to be in court, saying "Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman."

The judge replied: "Well, he's no different than anyone else."

[Richardo]

1. +1 for Judge Vega.

:patriot:

[teddy51]

4. Agree! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Pass it on

[Warpy]

3. Thanks to the corrupt and partisan USSC in the 90s

even a US president has to appear in civil court to answer charges. A mere Congressman has no legal leg to stand on.

The judge is correct. He owes this money to his children. Stiffing your kids is low, man. Really low.

[Booster]

5. And since he's no different that anyone else, he should be in

the slammer right now.

[Tx4obama]

6. Here's a link to an article with additional info and a copy of the filing

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/judge-scolds-rep-joe-wals_n_962633.html

[krispos42]

7. "rule of law". "strict constitutionalist"

:rofl:

[Historic NY]

8. +1

[LiberalFighter]

9. I would suggest that the judge require the attorney to show up every day

until her client shows.

[TeamsterDem]

10. What an effing scumbag. nt

[lonestarnot]

11. Guess the deadbeat motherfucker won't self-surrender when ordered to the clink either.