Options
Baseball has a BIGGER scumbag than Barry Bonds!
carew4me
Posts: 3,464 ✭✭✭✭
Randy Johnson!
All real fathers should spit on this man.
if this doesn't make you sick...what will
Sure, Randy Johnson may earn $16 million annually pitching for the New York Yankees, but that hasn't stopped the baseball star from trying to legally nickel and dime a woman with whom he had a "secret" child out of wedlock.
The child was born in September 1989, but it wasn't until nearly nine years later that Johnson and Laurel Roszell, 46, entered into a custody/support agreement and the so-called Big Unit began making payments.
Asked if Johnson, whom she lived with early in his Major League career, has ever acknowledged their daughter, Roszell replied, "Nope. Nothing. Never."
All real fathers should spit on this man.
if this doesn't make you sick...what will
Sure, Randy Johnson may earn $16 million annually pitching for the New York Yankees, but that hasn't stopped the baseball star from trying to legally nickel and dime a woman with whom he had a "secret" child out of wedlock.
The child was born in September 1989, but it wasn't until nearly nine years later that Johnson and Laurel Roszell, 46, entered into a custody/support agreement and the so-called Big Unit began making payments.
Asked if Johnson, whom she lived with early in his Major League career, has ever acknowledged their daughter, Roszell replied, "Nope. Nothing. Never."
Loves me some shiny!
0
Comments
pa da da......(drums)
2000 Bowman Chrome
2002 Topps Heritage NAP
2003 Topps Heritage chrome and seat relics
2006 Topps Heritage refractors and relics
2007 Topps Heritage refractors and relics
2008 Topps Heritage refractors and relics
2006 Topps Heritage and Topps Chrome football
Ron
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
<< <i>That is disgusting and truly appaling, much more disturbing to me then bonds etal.
Are you talking about Randy Johnson or TZAHL's reply?
In addition to $5000 monthly in child support , Johnson agreed to pay $750-a-month to cover a portion of Roszell's day care expenses, according to an April 1998 California court agreement governing custody
HE FREAKING PAYS $60,000 a year already in child support. That day care is an additional $9,000 a year. I don't know who the f* can't raise a kid on $60,000 a year. The vast majority of this country earns less than that, before taxes, with kids to boot, to feed an entire freaking household.
In Randy's case, he's been paying since the money was asked for. (Filed in 1997, agreement reached in 1998). Now, I agree he should have been providing for the kid a LOT sooner than that on his own... As for his asking for $750/mo back...yeah, pretty ridiculous unless he's been paying for something that she wasn't using the money for. He should probably just eat it since he's filthy rich I suppose and he hasn't even acknowledged the child...
Maybe I'm just not as offended as some others because I had a step-father who had a dysfunctional ex-wife and I saw what kind of bs she put him through. I think if he's paying $750 / mo for day care and the kid hasn't been in day care for 5 years (which you would assume since she's now 16) then he shouldn't have had to pay that. My stepdad's ex-wife used to call up to try and get money for Dr. bills, Dentist bills and all kinds of stuff and it turned out she was buying pull-tabs with the money and the kids hadn't even been to the dentist or the doctor in months...
I still think Bonds is a bigger scumbag.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
I guess some people are angry Randy Johnson is taking offense to having to support the child's mother in addition to supporting the child.
Fortunately, I've never had to support a child from another relationship, but I do know of others who have. To say some parents don't get along is an understatement, especially when one of them is using the child support payments for something other than the child.
I don't care if Randy Johnson is a millionaire. I think he has a right to know why he was paying $750 a month for child support for more than four year when the child was no longer in child care.
GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
<< <i>I'm with MS on this one.
I guess some people are angry Randy Johnson is taking offense to having to support the child's mother in addition to supporting the child.
Fortunately, I've never had to support a child from another relationship, but I do know of others who have. To say some parents don't get along is an understatement, especially when they try using the child as leverage to pay for things that have nothing to do with the child.
I don't care if Randy Johnson is a millionaire. I think he has a right to know why he was paying $750 a month for child support for more than four year when the child was no longer in child care. >>
Couldnt agree more, but this is in the "he said, she said" stages right now. I'd just like to know how and where he gets $30,000 interest on $70,000!!
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>Didn't Barry Bonds go to court to get his child support reduced during the '94 strike? >>
yes
randy and his mistress are setting fine examples of capitalism and true competition!
Julen
RIP GURU
Sure, Johnson can afford it, but the ability to do something doesn’t make it a duty or responsibility. I can afford to get bagels and coffee for everyone in my office every Monday, but it is by no means a duty or responsibility of mine to do so.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
That's always the case. Some reporters report what they know, but even they don't know everything and can't truly get both sides of the story. Other reporters are out to make a name for themselves with sensational stories.
Does a story about Joe Montana and his help on getting to people to see doctors for high blood pressure sell newspapers or get viewers on TV? NO.
But a sensationalized, one-sided story about Joe Montana wanting $100K to show up at the Super Bowl halftime show gets gobbled up by everyone. Even if the story turns out to be one-sided.
So I don't need to read the Randy Johnson story to know that it is probably not complete and thus the information is useless to me. Do you know if the woman is a woman from hell? Maybe she is. Maybe she is an angel. You don't know that, and the reporter either doesn't know either or he won't tell you the truth...how well could he know her by interviewing her for a couple of hours.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
<< <i>Johnson knows what the right thing to do is...I don't care if he is paying 60K already, he isn't spending one damn minute with the girl. That is flat out wrong. Sharing time and energy with the girl would count for far more than an extra $750 per month. Pay up Randy. The born-again part is pathetic to me. If he truly was born-again, he would not act this way toward his own flesh and blood. >>
Looks like someone beat me to it. If he has, in fact, essentially ignored his daughter since her birth then that trumps all these other considerations. He should take a play out of Gary Payton's playbook. He's got a few kids scattered here and there, but apparently he makes more than just a token effort to be part of their lives.
<< <i>Johnson knows what the right thing to do is...I don't care if he is paying 60K already, he isn't spending one damn minute with the girl. That is flat out wrong. Sharing time and energy with the girl would count for far more than an extra $750 per month. Pay up Randy. The born-again part is pathetic to me. If he truly was born-again, he would not act this way toward his own flesh and blood. >>
Wow. Someone understands the main point. Some of you clowns actually justify this scumbags action because of some dollar amount (which adjusted for income is paltry),
but it wasn't until nearly nine years later that Johnson and Laurel Roszell, 46, entered into a custody/support agreement and the so-called Big Unit began making payments.
The point is he didnt even acknowledge the friggin kid.
Anyone that can stick up for this kind of beahvior is a rpime example of the pitful shape the american male is in. So keen to be on your knees for a jack*ss ballplayer that you cant even make a clear moral judgement when the facts are obvious.
by the way, you only think Bonds is a bigger scumbag because of what the Reporters tell you.
Thats a sorry response on so may levels.
Loves me some shiny!
-- Yogi Berra
<< <i>Have you guys read the whole story.!?!?!?!?!!?!
In addition to $5000 monthly in child support , Johnson agreed to pay $750-a-month to cover a portion of Roszell's day care expenses, according to an April 1998 California court agreement governing custody
HE FREAKING PAYS $60,000 a year already in child support. That day care is an additional $9,000 a year. I don't know who the f* can't raise a kid on $60,000 a year. The vast majority of this country earns less than that, before taxes, with kids to boot, to feed an entire freaking household. >>
It's about risk management to me. Johnson could have bit his toungue and payed out a likely $1M over the first 18 years of the childs life. If he gets into legal fight and she finds a sympathetic judge he could be on hook for several times that amount. Maybe the law is different for the rich, but it's pretty much a 25%-30% of salary where I'm at.
I've seen friends who never made a late payment for child support and actually participated in their childs life get nailed for back child support payments due to their salary increasing.
The point is he didnt even acknowledge the friggin kid.
Anyone that can stick up for this kind of beahvior is a rpime example of the pitful shape the american male is in. So keen to be on your knees for a jack*ss ballplayer that you cant even make a clear moral judgement when the facts are obvious.
These kinds of stories are just to grab headlines and get responses from all levels. He could have been paying in the early years and just wanted to get a court ordered amount so there would be no extortion of earlier monies. Maybe he wasnt in the picture at all. Maybe both agreed he shouldnt be a part of the childs life. Maybe he tried but was denied unless he paid for it. There are way too many missing pieces to this puzzle that it isnt even worth putting together....
Another little tidbit some of you left out was the $50,000 a year trust fund set up for the now 16 year old for 5 years equaling $250,000 for her education, and coverage of any health,educational needs.
This may come back to bite Randy. Even though she has violated the contract, she could re-negotiate the settlement and she would be currently entitled to $800,000 per year under current statutes. If i was Randy i would just shut up over this thing. $92,000 just doesn't seem worth the headache if this backfires on him.
The 16-year-old "love child" of New York Yankees pitcher Randy Johnson said her star father coldly responded to letters she sent to him and that she cannot bear to watch him pitch on TV anymore, the New York Post reported Wednesday.
"I would get cards back from him with just his signature — 'Randy,' " said Heather Renee Roszell, who sent the letters in an effort to meet Johnson.
Johnson broke off his relationship with the girl's mother, Laura Roszell, 46, while she was pregnant, and he has seen Heather only once, shortly after she was born. He does have "reasonable visitation rights" from a custody agreement, Roszell told the Post.
Heather, who lives with her mother in Langley, Wash., told the Post that she stopped writing letters because "I never got [more of] a response, so it got to the point where I didn't want to deal with not getting the response.
"I don't have a relationship with him."
Johnson is suing Laurel Roszell for $97,000 for child-care payments he made for Heather, according to court documents revealed by the New York Daily News and New York Post on Tuesday.
According to the documents, Johnson first agreed in 1997 to pay Roszell $5,000 per month in child support for Heather, and another $750 in monthly day care expenses, the Daily News said.
Laurel said Johnson balked last year after she asked the 3-time Cy Young Award winner to buy a truck and computer for Heather and pay for her community college classes, the Daily News said.
Johnson then demanded that Laurel return $71,000 in day-care payments and $26,000 in interest because the teen was too old to be in day care, according to legal papers.
"My daughter is 16 and has not been in day care for at least five years," Johnson said in a Feb. 3 affidavit. "[Roszell] should not receive a windfall for expenses she did not incur."
Johnson fathered Heather with Laurel Roszell, whom he started dating in 1988 when she was working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in northern California, the Daily News said.
"I do acknowledge that I have a daughter from a previous relationship, which ended years before my marriage," Johnson, 42, said in a statement. "I have fully financially supported her and have made every effort to protect her privacy."
By the way, I thought Bonds was a putz long before the reporters told me so. I'm not a lemming, I don't need ESPN to tell me someone is a douchebag.
My eBay Store
BigCrumbs! I made over $250 last year!
In California I believe lawsuits get 10% interest. I assume it's that kind of theory!? 10% a year can build pretty quick. Not taking sides though. Just answering the interest question.
The lawsuit has been filed in the State of Washington where i live. Again this going to backfire with the current statutes are in place here. If Laurels lawyer is any good, he should re-do the settlement. She could take him for 10x what she is receiving now. The hearing is May 17th,2006.
<< <i>Johnson not acknowledging the child is pathetic, distasteful and surely regrettable...I don't see how anyone could argue that point. The point I was trying to make, and I think at least a few others agree with, is that the $750 / month, while paltry considering his salary is not the money at all but rather the point that "just because I make a lot of money doesn't mean you're somehow entitled to more" if the $750 was supposed to go to daycare and it isn't, then he shouldn't have to pay it. If you were divorced from your ex-wife and were paying child support and $100/mo was paid to specifically pay for allergy medications and for the last 9 years you found out your child wasn't taking allergy medications anymore, and that the $100/mo was going to the mom for a new dress, a night out or whatever else, wouldn't you be a little pi$$ed off? I agree that the negative publicity and his lack of involvement is well worth the $90k penance, but the principal is the same.
By the way, I thought Bonds was a putz long before the reporters told me so. I'm not a lemming, I don't need ESPN to tell me someone is a douchebag. >>
Yeah, I pretty much see it the same way. Johnson's a turd for not taking a more active part in his daughter's life. Hell, I would have fought for custody. In any case, I agree the ex-girlfriend is just using every possible angle to milk more $$$ from him.
There are still plenty of people out here who "spread their seed" and leave the taxpayers with the bill.
<< <i>what makes him a bigger scum bag is how he tried to shake down ned flanders in the 3-19-06 episode of the simpsons. >>
-- Yogi Berra
if she had saved all of those cards she could have consigned those to mastronet and made a fortune. probably more than what the unit owes. it would be a win-win situation.
<< <i>by the way, you only think Bonds is a bigger scumbag because of what the Reporters tell you. >>
No, he's a F**KING scumbag, period, always has been !!!! (I live in the S.F. Bay Area)
All jerkoffs have their day coming eventually.
Randy Johnson will pull his "Big Dufus" back out entirely this year and become worthless. Then he can spend his retirement in f**king agony as payback for his lack of compassion as a father.
Barry's elbow and knee, like Giambi's "intestinal parasite", are proof that without the juice they will crumble !!
Can't wait to see Bonds go down
Sorry, do I sound bitter?.........I AM !!!!!
TC
For the love of the game
And the cards that go with it
Mike
MS,
Well stated.
dgf
The one thing I DO remember is one of the guys saying this:
"...now Randy Johnson, what a miserable human being..."
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>Not to paint Randy Johnson as a good guy or anything, but in my mind two words put this whole thing into a bit more perspective - Rae Carruth.
Mike >>
BRAVO!
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11731580/
Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Wed Mar 8, 10:37 PM
NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit _ nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men _ to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have _ it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Mich.
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that _ because of a physical condition _ she could not get pregnant.
Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.
"What I expect to hear (from the court) is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.
"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.
Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.
"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government _ literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."
Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.
"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."
"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."
Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.
"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
<< <i>Not to paint Randy Johnson as a good guy or anything, but in my mind two words put this whole thing into a bit more perspective - Rae Carruth.
Mike >>
For the love of the game
And the cards that go with it