There are tens of thousands of deadbeat parents in America -- men and women who refuse to support their children. This classification would not apply to those men and women who have recently been hit by the current economic crisis. It wouldn’t be fair to call those people deadbeats.
There are tens of thousands of men and women -- mostly men -- who owe tens of thousands of dollars in child support which has accrued prior to this economic crisis, when the economy was good. How about a deadbeat dad that owes $90,000 and equates himself to Gandhi and Martin Luther King?
Meet John Murtari of Lyons, NY. Murtari doesn’t think or believe that he should pay child support because he did not get either full custody or joint custody of his son when he got divorced in 1997. Ever since then he has embarked on what he calls a “civil rights action” which has resulted in him trying, and repeatedly succeeding at getting himself thrown in jail. Today he owes $90,000 in child support.
Murtari is required to pay $120 per week in child support. He claims that he can’t afford to pay that amount. In one of his many postings on his website, he posits: “Suppose your former spouse’s family are almost millionaires -- your kid doesn’t want for material things, just you.”
In a court filing in 1999, Murtari made the following declaration:
Since the Spring of 1999 I have committed myself to an effort to Reform the Family Law System and to regain an equal relationship with my son… This has become a “full time” effort and it will not cease until I am restored as an equal parent to my son and can give him the personal support he deserves and which is my obligation & duty.
In the Fall of 1999 I ceased full time employment and only work at a consulting level at the family owned Company. My monthly income since November of 1999 has been approximately $400.
What Murtari is effectively saying is “if I don’t get my way, I’m not going to play by the rules.” To date, almost a decade after his declaration, his efforts to reform the family law system have produced zero results, other than him having been jailed numerous times on various criminal charges.
In fairness to Murtari, he does have one partially valid complaint about his case. After the divorce was final, his wife was allowed by the court to move from New York to first Colorado, and then to California. He was not granted any child support credits for expenses that he might realistically incur in maintaining a relationship with his son.
Whether Murtari should be given credits for maintaining a relationship with his son is another issue. Just prior to his divorce, he quit his $40,000 a year job and took a job paying 55% less, ostensibly so he could spend more time with his son. No doubt the court looked at that and decided that Murtari was trying to avoid paying child support, and his child support was set at what his previous employment was paying. Because of this, Murtari claims that he cannot afford to pay what he has been ordered to pay. He has numerous rationalizations as to why he cannot go back to earning what he used to earn. One of those rationalizations now is his civil rights activities.
Rational or Irrational?
On Murtari’s website, AKidsRight.Org, he repeatedly equates his protests of the family law system to the efforts of Martin Luther King. He would like to see federal legislation granting people who are going through divorces certain “civil rights” which would be similar to the Civil Rights Act. In attempting to travel down this avenue, he has been attempting to secure a meeting with his Senator, Hillary Clinton at her Syracuse, NY office. In pursuing this, Murtari has repeatedly been told that his issues are not Federal issues, but instead State issues. The Federal Government does not have any involvement in divorce or custody issues as those matters are decided at the State level.
Murtari believes otherwise. As a result, he kept on returning to Senator Clinton’s office seeking a meeting. Eventually her staff became concerned about his continual presence and asked that he be banned from the building. Upon being banned, Murtari then began writing in chalk on the sidewalk outside the federal building -- “Sen. Clinton, please help us.” He has subsequently been arrested numerous times; jailed and fined for various misdemeanor criminal charges. The fines have never been paid because Murtari is voluntarily living at or below the poverty rate.
Murtari has also been jailed twice for failure to pay child support. The last time he was jailed in late 2006, he decided that he would take “civil disobedience” to a new level by refusing to cooperate with his jailors. Part of his refusal to cooperate, is refusing to eat or drink. Murtari claims that this is not a “starvation strike” but instead just civil disobedience. His rationale is that if he is going to be jailed for what he considers to be an unjust law, the State should go to extraordinary lengths to keep him alive. As a result, during that six month jail term (less time for good behavior) Murtari spent his time on the hospital ward being fed with a nasal-gastric tube.
1 | 2
www.oldcodger.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
Legal Statement
Nothing in this article invades the privacy of John Murtari. Mr. Murtari has made his entire life public through his website, www.akidsright.org All information in this article was gleaned from his web site. By publishing a web site exposing himself as a deadbeat dad, Murtari has waived all claims to privacy. As a result, he is "fair game." The opinions expressed about Murtari are of course, those of The Old Codger who was one of the founding fathers of the private child support enforcement industry in 1991 that is dedicated to chasing down deadbeat parents and forcing them, thorugh whatever legal means are available, to provide financial support for their children. Unfortunately, Murtari is a deadbeat that no one can do anything with. He would rather be a martyr than provide financially for his son. by The Old Codger (32 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 285 comments [198 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:37:37 PM  (0+)
|
|
Get your facts straight!
I am so tired of people outside the parents rights movement trying to tell people who and what we are. How hard would it have been for you to dig a little deeper? You almost got it right. All you had to do was ASK JOHN. You didn't even interview him. This isn't about the truth at all. It's quite clear what your agenda is. All you want to do is criticize and defame our movement. And no, John has not been alone. He has thousands behind with him. How dare you slander this man of honor. Do your research! teri by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:36:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: My facts are straight.
There was no need to interview or talk to Murtari. He has made his entire life an open book on his web site, which I have spent many years reading and re-reading. In interview, he would only repeat what is already on his web site. My opinion(s) of the so called "parent's rights movement" is not addressed in this article at all. You state that my article is not about the truth at all, yet you do not dispute any of the facts that are stated. All that you do is attack me for what you perceive to be attacks on a movement. You claim that Murtari has "thousands behind him," yet in the mailing lists that he sends out, he countinually laments that he is the only one that is doing anything. He often questions if it is all worth it. Only one person has appeared with him during his numerous appearances at the federal court house writing on the sidewalkwith chalk. Where are the 'thousands of others' -- and what are they doing? No evidence of them doing anything other than simply sending him e-mails of support. The message that you and Murtari would like to have spread is that emotional involvement with a child is more important than money. Reality tells rational people that both are important. If Murtari had tried to be responsible and contributed something worthwhile to the financial support of his son -- more than the $50 a month that he pays --then his message, and the message that you would like to see, might be worth repeating. Without that, the message you would like to see is hollow when it applies to Murtari. by The Old Codger (32 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 285 comments [198 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:01:55 AM (0+)
|
|
you missed quite a bit
Wow. Not what I expected. Don't you want to get it right? Here we have a man who is honest and sincere, who welcomes questions from the media. Yet you think it unimportant and unnecessary to ask him any questions at all before you slander him. You didn't even have to make a call. John has been interviewed on the radio a few times. Have a listen: click here Need more? click here He has the support of thousands. He'd have more participants if he didn't live in an isolated area. Donald Tenn is another daddy activist who is willing to be arrested for the cause. click here It's all about civil rights. Listen to John on the audio above. Get the rest of the facts. I'd like to know your thoughts after. by Teri Stoddard (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 16 comments) on Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:25:11 AM (0+)
|
|
A Supremely Stupid Article
I detest the term "Deadbeat Dad"; shame on you for using it. I detest your shallow, uninformed judgement of a very complex legal issue you know apparently know almost nothing about. This was a supremely stupid article - I'm incredulous that OEN published it. JP by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Debtors prison
"(Wiki)'In the United Kingdom, the Debtors Act of 1869 abolished imprisonment for debt, although debtors who had the means to pay their debt, but did not do so, could still be incarcerated for up to six weeks.'" To imprison a person for failure to make a payment is a violation of common sense. If a person has money or property and they owe a debt, the civil courts can extract the value in that way. If a person is unable to pay, there is no intent to do wrong, which is a necessary element in the commision of a crime. If there is no crime, there should be no imprisonment. by Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 519 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:00:05 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
