Correspondence: suggestions for the Commission (2 of 2), 1977-1991, p. 61 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 61 of 314 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
'it
that if venue were to be changed, Mr. Deeter would he forced to
return to court each year for modifications. In the event that
he was ordered to pay his ex-wife's attorney fees, he would ln
reality be forced to pay horrendous amounts to support not his
children but his wife's ri^MM jmswmm attorney Zel Center.
Mr. Deeter has nothing to gain and a great deal to lose if lt
Is made convenient to file suit against him in Santa Barbara
County. Addressing the questions of child support, Mr. Deeter
has already voluntarily Increased child support payments on one
occasion and would have increased them again this year if
financial losses had not made that impossible. Mr. Deeter is
currently borrowing money at 12# interest to make the current
child support payments. All this has been done without havirg
been threatened with court action. Mr. Deeter is currently ln
arrears eight (8) months on his house rent but has not been so
much as one month late on his Increased child support payments.
Concerning visitation modifications they would surely be detrimental to Mr. Deeter. Already he has lost virtually all weekend
visitation rights. To see the children in his home during the
weekend means a six hundred mile (600) drive for him. To see
the children for the one summer month that he was awarded has
always been made difficult by his ex-wlfe. In August 1977 he
had to request the assistance of the Santa Barbara Co. Sheriffs
Department Just t^o pick the children up for vacation. In order
to prevent problems this year, Mr. Deeter*s mother had to pick
up the children.
When considering the motion for change of venue please
consider Mr. Deeter's concern not only for himself but also for
his children. His financial losses are being caused by his
attempt to provide college funds for his two daughters. His
parents provided the money to buy a piece of property ln a poor
neighborhood as an Investment. While rehuli&lng the dilapidated
building he fell and injured his back. The remaining building
funds and others were used to try to pay bills. Payments have
continued to be made for the property while no income has been
forthcoming. Mr. Deeter's ex-wlfe has been kept informed of
these developments but has let her misdirected trust and love
for attorney Zel Canter interfere with her good reason.
n .- r
k!J~ -/' #■ (y-
Object Description
Description
| Title | Correspondence: suggestions for the Commission (2 of 2), 1977-1991, p. 61 |
| Format (imt) | image/tiff |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Full text | 'it that if venue were to be changed, Mr. Deeter would he forced to return to court each year for modifications. In the event that he was ordered to pay his ex-wife's attorney fees, he would ln reality be forced to pay horrendous amounts to support not his children but his wife's ri^MM jmswmm attorney Zel Center. Mr. Deeter has nothing to gain and a great deal to lose if lt Is made convenient to file suit against him in Santa Barbara County. Addressing the questions of child support, Mr. Deeter has already voluntarily Increased child support payments on one occasion and would have increased them again this year if financial losses had not made that impossible. Mr. Deeter is currently borrowing money at 12# interest to make the current child support payments. All this has been done without havirg been threatened with court action. Mr. Deeter is currently ln arrears eight (8) months on his house rent but has not been so much as one month late on his Increased child support payments. Concerning visitation modifications they would surely be detrimental to Mr. Deeter. Already he has lost virtually all weekend visitation rights. To see the children in his home during the weekend means a six hundred mile (600) drive for him. To see the children for the one summer month that he was awarded has always been made difficult by his ex-wlfe. In August 1977 he had to request the assistance of the Santa Barbara Co. Sheriffs Department Just t^o pick the children up for vacation. In order to prevent problems this year, Mr. Deeter*s mother had to pick up the children. When considering the motion for change of venue please consider Mr. Deeter's concern not only for himself but also for his children. His financial losses are being caused by his attempt to provide college funds for his two daughters. His parents provided the money to buy a piece of property ln a poor neighborhood as an Investment. While rehuli&lng the dilapidated building he fell and injured his back. The remaining building funds and others were used to try to pay bills. Payments have continued to be made for the property while no income has been forthcoming. Mr. Deeter's ex-wlfe has been kept informed of these developments but has let her misdirected trust and love for attorney Zel Canter interfere with her good reason. n .- r k!J~ -/' #■ (y- |
| Filename | indep-box23-14-03~059.tif |
| Archival file | Volume78/indep-box23-14-03~059.tif |
