Screwed Kenosha Style



Branch 6

January 5, 2004


Petitioner, Bernard Tocholke, appeared in person.

Respondent, Shereen Tocholke, appeared in person and by Attorney Thomas Anderson, Jr.

Wiesia Bullamore
Court Reporter

I have edited out the jibber jabber to not waste your time reading it. If you want a complete transcript you can ask the courts for a complete copy of your own.


MR. ANDERSON: I can also report that, and the Court may recall, this is the case in which there are seven minor children, five of which are in the primary care of Mrs. Tocholke, two of which are in the primary care of Mr. Tocholke. Mr. Tocholke, at the time that we stipulated to the provisions for judgment--for the Judgment of Divorce, and again I believe it's important for the Court to remember that this was a stipulated agreement, Mr. Tocholke had plans on moving from Wisconsin up to--

T-HE COURT: Minneapolis or--

MR. ANDERSON: --the state of Minnesota and he didn't do that. He spent a significant amount of time still around here. The two boys were moved up to Minnesota that are in his primary care.

THE COURT: To his dad's house, was it?

MR. ANDERSON: To his father's house somewhere. As I understand it now, he's reported that he's quit the tree cutting business, which is what he had done for position is he made some choices, and perhaps; they haven't been the smartest choices, but he has to live with those choices.

a number of years during the course of the parties marriage, and is now working for a meat cutter. His motion for de novo review essentially says-- And there was a period of time where the court entered an order saying if you don't pay your regular support and if you don't have a job get a job. Mr. Tocholke's, I think, of the opinion now that since he's obtained employment that that means that his obligation ought to be modified at this point because he's no longer doing the tree cutting work.

You know, our position is that this is a stipulated judgment that is now just a year old. We've been back in court on this and this is, I believe, the second or third motion to modify since the judgment was granted. It's been denied each time for primarily a lack of change of circumstances. And again we would take the position that there isn't a lack of change of circumstances but for, I guess, Mr. Tocholke's decision making.

The child support amount- - This was a long-term marriage. The parties were married 17 years. Mrs. Tocholke received no maintenance under the terms of this Judgment much Divorce even though she had worked very little during the course of their marriage. The child support amount was calculated based upon assumed income to Mr. Tocholke of $40,000 annually and assumed income to Mrs. Tocholke based upon approximately $13,000 annually.

MR. ANDERSON: For five kids in Mrs.Tocholke's care, two in Mr. Tocholke's care. There was, as I indicated, an offsetting adjustment that was done to come up with that dollar amount. I don't know what Mr. Tocholke has been doing in terms of trying to obtain either other employment or doing the work that he had previously done. I guess our question is he made some choices and decisions to move up to Minnesota. Mrs. Tocholke had nothing to do with that. In fact, she does not--she did not want that to happen because her two oldest children are quite a bit a ways away from her and she has not seen those children of any substance besides maybe a meeting here or there.

THE COURT: They're away from their brothers and sisters.

MR. ANDERSON: Since July, yeah, and that is also the case. Whether or not, you know, Mr. Tocholke is making the type of money that he was in the past, I guess our

So, we also believe that his income earning potential is greater than what he is, I guess, indicating to the Court that he can earn at this point. And to relieve him or reduce his support obligation, in our opinion, is not fair and is not appropriate.

THE COURT: How did the income get imputed to Mrs. Tocholke?

MR. ANDERSON: We imputed it by agreement.

THE COURT: Is she a teacher?

MR. ANDERSON: She had done some work in the past. Basically, what it comes out to is seven dollars an hour working 40 hours a week. That comes out to $14,560. We imputed 40,000 to Mr. Tocholke.

MR. ANDERSON: Feed, clothe, etcetera. The other issue that we're here on the purge review is the placement situation, because he was under an order from Commissioner Pious to continue to keep up with the placement. He ends up coming down here most of the time and, in fact, he had the kids over Christmas break or during his weekend to see the five kids. However, he--

THE COURT: Doesn't bring the two.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, we set it up in two distinct weekends so there would be two trips a month, one where the boys would be brought down and stay with the kids here with their mother and one where the children would--

THE COURT: See dad.

MR. ANDERSON: --see dad, and that was designed to allow all of them to have time together at least two weekends out of the month. But the boys haven't been coming down and there has been problems with the boys. We can get into the litany of different problems that have occurred when the boys came down. The boys have taken on an attitude at least previously with their mother in terms of defiance. it's the whole thing that is back to Mr.

Tocholke's of the opinion that the church and religion that is being practiced by Mrs. Tocholke constitutes a cult and is bad for the kids and the two older boys have taken on that position from dad. It's quite a mess.

THE COURT: How old are the oldest boys?

MR. TOCHOLKE: 17 and 15.

MR. ANDERSON: 17 and 15.

THE COURT: Okay. A-nd they're enrolled in school and what school?

MR. TOCHOLKE: Yes, they are. They're in Hinckley, Minnesota, and they've been there--this is the second year for them there. I've been supporting them. I'm living on my dad's property right now in one of his trailers. I have gotten myself when I was-- In September I was told to either be current on child support, have 10 job applications, or have a job. By the time December 5th came around I went and had looked for a job, I couldn't find anything here above eight, nine dollars an hour and there were a few offered to me at nine. I went up north. I can live free rent through the winter until I get back on my feet again. I don't own any equipment anymore. I went bankrupt, basically.

THE COURT: Where'd your equipment go?


THE COURT: Where did your equipment

MR. TOCHOLKE: Okay. depreciated down to like--

THE COURT: I don't care if it depreciated. Everybody uses depreciated equipment.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Just got rid of it. Just got rid of it.

THE COURT: You gave it away?

MR. TOCHOLKE: It was worth 17,000. I still owe 18,000 on it. So I sold it to the saw mill. That's all it was worth. I got it appraised and that's what it came up to be worth about 16,500, 17,000, something like that and I still owed--

THE COURT: Where'd you have this equipment?

MR. TOCHOLKE: I had the equipment down here.

THE COURT: To cut trees.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Yeah. I lost it all.

THE COURT: You didn't lose it. Youcold it.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I didn't sell it for a nickel.

THE COURT: I'm just saying-- You sold it. You decided that that was not the business you wanted to be in anymore.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Because I couldn't make the payments on everything what I was framed for, the 40,000. I never made $40,000 income ever.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Tocholke--

MR. TOCHOLKE: And I went bankrupt.

THE COURT: You did. Why would you have agreed in the beginning to not having made--to pay on 40,000 and $197 a week or 198, whatever this little figure is right now, to feed five children, isn't a lot of money. And you had seven children. You made a choice to have seven children. You have seven children and five of them are with her and they have to eat and she has never had a history of working.

MR. TOCHOLKE: She has a college education. There's a daughter in the house that's 14 years of age. The pastor's wife, her daughter--

THE COURT: What's the 14 year old got to do with it? Is she supposed to go get a job or what?

MR. TOCHOLKE: As far as-- Okay.

THE COURT: Is the 14 year old supposed to go earn a living?


THE COURT: Then what do you mean by the daughter being there.

(I was forcefully cut off from trying to make the point that there should not be a good excuse for Shereen not to get a full-time teaching job. A first year teacher in Kenosha makes about $26,000. All five children are school age. The 14 year old and the pasors daughter pictured in the Child Abuse Tolerance article on page four, who is almost constantly at their house could handle any vacancy if any of the difference in schedules of students vs. teachers.

I ws cut off from making the point that Shereen should be labeled as a teacher and under employing herself if she is not.)

MR. TOCHOLKE: What I'm saying-- Okay. I have five attorneys. No, no. Okay.

THE COURT: Doesn't matter. You can have one, you can have none, you can have five.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I'd like to make an explanation. I had five attorneys that looked at the situation. One sent me a letter and said they won't take the case. One begged me to get off this case. There were several of them that looked and said if everything was punched in into the computer according to what I actually made and according to what her potential actually is this is what it would show up to be. They punched into the state of Wisconsin computer and said these are the numbers it would be, and I'm wondering why--

THE COURT: But that's not the agreement you got into. You didn't agree to that. You signed an agreement saying I will base what I will pay in child support on 40,000. You signed an agreement.

MR. TOCHOLKE: But I never made 40,000.

THE COURT: Well, then you lied. I can't -- You either lied then or you lied now I don't know. But you said we will set this support at about $200 a week and we'll call it fair. And now because you don't wantto consider it fair or you're having some trouble with it, you're saying, you know, it was all based on lies. Your lies, not mine. I didn't make up the 40,000.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I didn't either.

THE COURT: Well, where do you think that came from?

MR. TOCHOLKE: It originated from judge-Commissioner Pious.

THE COURT: No, he didn't make up the number.

MR. TOCHOLKE: He made up $430 with him.

THE COURT: He made up the support order, but he didn't make up the 40,000. Somebody told him that. You. And the other part is is probably a lot of your work is tax free when you were cutting trees.


THE COURT: Come on, Mr. Tocholke. I know a lot of tree cutters in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and the always want cash, no checks. Now, I don't dispute that whole deal. It's not my business. And when you've got seven kids there's certain things that people have to do to be able to support them, but $200 a weeks isn't an outrageous amount to support five kids, whether you go get two jobs or three jobs. I mean, I grew up there were people I knew who had three jobs to try to support their family.

Now, it's a sad thing. You've got a dispute about this religion. That's not my bag. I mean, I don't have anything to say about what people believe or what they do with their own personal beliefs. The belief I have to have is what the statute says is that people have to support their kids. You signed an agreement. You said you'd pay this 197 a week based on the fact that she could earn 13 and you could earn 40. That was your agreement. I didn't make it up. Now you have to stick with your agreement.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I went bankrupt and I no longer have that job.

THE COURT: You made a choice to not cut trees anymore.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I make $279 a week.

THE COURT: Get another job.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I can't find another job.

THE COURT: Yes, you can. You can call some tree cutter up there and say if you need some help I'll come out and help you.

MR. TOCHOLKE: It's wintertime. Everybody's laid off I am struggling trying to pay for the boys and their school expenses.

THE COURT: Mr. Tocholke, I'm not interested in putting you in jail. I will if I have to, but I'm not interested in putting you in jail. I'm interested in you making a honest effort to meet your contract. You promised to pay her $197. She isn't getting maintenance. She would have gotten-- In a trial she'd have gotten maintenance for the next I don't know how many years. I can't be speculative about it, but she'd be getting maintenance and child support and she's not getting maintenance. She signed, she said I'll take care of myself, I need the money to support the kids, 200 a week. That's not a lot of money for five children.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I paid $17,000 so far.

THE COURT: That's doesn't come out to 200 a week.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Plus I take care of my two boys.

THE COURT: Right. And if you didn't have the two boys it'd be probably 300 or 400 a week. So that's where we're at. I mean, I'm not trying to be unfair to you. I'm not trying to-- You write me these letters going on about everybody is all goofed up and you have seven children. You worked as a saw man or a tree man and you were able to support these seven. When people get divorced they have two houses that they have to support.

Now, I'm not saying-Clearly, based on the fact that she's not getting maintenance there was an assumption that she ultimately would have to go to work, but that's why you don't have to pay maintenance.

MR. TOCHOLKE: She has a teaching degree, four year college degree.

THE COURT: If she didn't have that you'd be paying maintenance. You aren't paying maintenance. You are paying child support. And there's five kids. And are they 14 and under? Is that the--14 and under?

MR. TOCHOLKE: All the way to six.

MR. ANDERSON: All the way down to age six.

THE COURT: So, I know you're in a tough spot and I don't want to see you go to jail. I don't like people who aren't criminals to go to jail. Sut it is a contempt of court to not make your best effort to pay your child support, and $197 a week isn't a lot of money.

MR. TOCHOLKE: The reason I'm still behind is because of that 430 a week that I could never pay. I have never made 40,000.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I have nothing to live on anymore. You brought them into the world. The state doesn't say to me I have to look at what the kids ought to pay you so you can stay alive. The state says to me I have to look at whether kids can live on support. They have a right to have food, a roof over their head. Divorce is a terrible thing. I don't like it any more than anybody else does and it ruins kids' lives, but this is where we're at and I can't make it change.

The statutes say she's entitled to support. You have to pay the support and you have to figure out somehow, a clever man like you are, to do it. That's what-- That's the way it is. And you're fortunate you got your mother and dad, o your dad to help you. You're a very lucky man. And you've got friends to help you. But you've got to figure out that there's no way with seven children anybody can take a job, only one job that pays 297 a week. You have to get a second job that pays chat.


THE COURT: And if you get six hours of sleep at night, there's many people that have been in business themselves that have done that--

MR. TOCHOLKE: Okay.. Well--

THE COURT: --trying to get their kids

MR. TOCHOLKE: I got a question then. Why do other people sit here right in the court the same way I do and they take their wages, figure out what they made, and garnish their wages?

THE COURT: Because they didn't enter the agreement to pay 197 a week with a waiver of maintenance. That's why. They didn't get the deal. You made a deal for her not to get maintenance and you said I'll pay this child support.

Now, is it because of that agreement? No, not exactly. But you said you'd pay it and now you're saying, well, my circumstance changed, I only make $300 a week now, so I can't stick with my agreement. Well, you made the choices that changed that. That's what this Court is finding. You made the choices that made that difference.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I never made $40,000 in my life ever.

MR. ANDERSON: That's just not true. That's not true. I can show you the 2001 tax return, Mr. Tocholke, that Commissioner Plous worked off of and we worked off of, your 2001 tax return, which I have.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I got the 2002 right here.

MR. ANDERSON: 2002 is not--

THE COURT: --the one that was used.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Okay. 2001 then.

MR. ANDERSON: 2001. Shows business income wages of $14,191 on line 13. And you go to schedule C and it shows depreciation and section 179 expense $25,400.

THE COURT: Add them together and you got forty.

MR. ANDERSON: Add them together you got a little over forty, to be honest with, Your Honor, and the gross receipts from the business were $64,225 that year. There was almost 4,000 in advertising. There was some expenses for interest. I mean, that is right from the tax return that were filed. That's where the $40,000 a year came from. So to say I never earned $40,000 a year and keep saying it is not correct.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Okay. The thing is right here. For the 2002 it goes along with the 2001, equipment payments, the payments that you make on equipment is a direct expense.


MR. TOCHOLKE: The only way you write it off on taxes is through depreciation. If that was not true, then you should be able to find the $5,700 on the write off I paid on 2002, $5,774.06, and I paid that on equipment. There is nowhere that you will find it anywhere on the forms except on depreciation. I paid two equipments that overlapped that year of 2001. One was $500 • month, the other one was 630 a month, plus I had. a $4,000 down payment. That reflects on the depreciation.

I have a letter here from my tax accountant that he used an accelerated depreciation for that year because I needed it. The amount of depreciation that was reported on the federal tax return was 25,400. This includes section 179 depreciation and it should not be included in calculation of income. The correct amount of add back depreciation is $12,248, which raises the 2001 federal AGI to $20,677. It is clearly understood by Mr. Tocholke that depreciation is added back as income by courts and financial institutions to help determine an individuals annual actual income. What should not be added back as income is accelerated section 179 depreciation that was taken on the 2001 federal tax return. That amount, after considering what normal depreciation would have been, is $13,152. It may be that Mr. Tocholke's income for the fiscal year end December 31, 2001, was overstated by $13,000." And I only read the last two paragraphs. It goes ahead and describes the whole thing. Depreciation is a total reflection of the income.

I talked to a different attorney and they--and to a different accountant here in town and they said that, sure, depreciation should be added back in, but there's two different types of depreciation. The' a depreciation on property, property you pay the bank a thousand dollars, the thousand dollars goes to-- You owe a little more on the property. The bank owes a little less. At the end of the 30 years, or whatever it's been financed out at, you still have the equipment and you have it totally paid for and you depreciated it along the whole time of the loan. That is depreciation. That's not-- It's actually an appreciating--

THE COURT: Where'd you get $64,000? Mr. Tocholke, where'd you get the 64,000 in wages from?

MR. TOCHOLKE: Individuals. We lived together. (My Ex. and I made that money)

THE COURT: No. I understand that. Individuals, and you reported 64,000.



MR. TOCHOLKE: I have receipts of only-- out of that 64,000, probably receipts of only about 55,000. I added the cash into that.

THE COURT: Well, you're an honest man, but that still makes it 64,000.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Yes. Yes. I made 64,000.

THE COURT: So, it's 64,000.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I was honest. When we lived together yet as a family I struggled to support $100, $125, $150 a week. She would beg me for money. I says, well, this is what we have. This is all we have. The rest went just payments and insurance and stuff like that. We lived on $100, $125 a week is what we lived.

THE COURT: What was your rent? MR. TOCHOLKE: 400. THE COURT: Well, then how could you

live on 125 a week? MR. TOCHOLKE: I'm talking about grocery

bills. I'm talking about groceries.

THE COURT: What is she living in? MR. TOCHOLKE: She's living in the church house. THE COURT: And do you think she's supposed to pay rent? MR. TOCHOLKE: No, because the whole property is paid for. THE COURT: She doesn't pay for it. MR. TOCHOLKE: No. No, no. The property, the church-THE COURT: But that doesn't mean the

people don't pay the costs. There's heat. There's lights. There's all kinds of things that go on in maintenance of a building. You don't get to live there for free.

MR TOCHOLKE They got the whole church property. It's a half million dollar property. They got the whole thing for about--

THE COURT: Mr. Tocholke, she doesn't own the church property, does she?

MR. TOCHOLKE: No, no, no.

THE COURT: So I don't care if it's a half a million.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Okay. They got it for 20,000. There's a house, a church, everything like that.

THE COURT: What, the church is supposed to raise your children?


THE COURT: Well, I don't think so. I mean, that's your moral obligation. And, you know, I understand you're in a tough spot.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Okay. Back to the depreciation, though, the property, as far as property, real estate, that appreciates during the time. Equipmcnt does not.

THE COURT: Depreciates.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Depreciates, totally depreciates. By the time you have it rolled off depreciation and payments, you go get a $50,000 piece of equipment, you finance it out over five years. You can rarely finance it over any longer than that, five, that's $10,000 a year. You can depreciate it roughly $10,000 a year. You can balloon it out one way or the other way, but at the end they will equalize themselves out. The only thing you can actually deduct off taxes is the interest. At the end of the five years the equipment might be worth $5,000 when it's totally paid for, where real estate is the opposite.

THE COURT: Sometimes.

MR. ANDERSON: I don't disagree with hardly anything he says, you know, but really it's neither here nor there at the present time. As the Court has already indicated, because we're talking about a stipulated agreement, choices that Mr. Tocholke made to leave his employment. We're talking about five kids. I don't know what to do with the situation because, you know, he's got a new job. I don't think there's a wage assignment in effect. It certainly isn't going to cover the number that we're talking about here. We're just going to end up further in arrears at this stage.

MR. TOCHOLKE: It's impossible for me to pay that amount.

THE COURT: Get another job. Get two more jobs. That's the way the world is. It's a tough world. Your kids have to eat and you've got to do it. That's the way it is. And people have had to face that decision for eons. And you decided to get out of a lucrative job. That was a choice you made. You made it. I suppose, thinking you could do better.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I went bankrupt.

THE COURT: But you're doing worse and you're going to go to jail if you don't start doing better. This is nonsense. And writing me letters saying am I going, I got to know if I'm going. I don't make decisions ahead of time. You come to court. We. hear what the facts are. So don't write me any more of those letters unless you send a copy to Mr. Anderson.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I wrote one to let my boss know does he need to look for somebody else, will I be hauled off to jail, can I have permission to look for at least a week being so he can find another guy to replace me? That's all I asked about.

THE COURT: I can't make those decisions without being in court. I can't say, oh, yeah, okay, sure,

MR. TOCHOLKE: I only wrote one letter.

THE COURT: Well, you got lots of things written on everything in this file it seems like. 1'm just telling you--

MR. TOCHOLKE: I wrote just one letter.

THE COURT: --whenever you send it

You've got to send it to him and me. Okay? You can't send something to me without sending it to him. Do you  understand? Because you're--


THE COURT: --you're representing yourself. He has to send-- Anything he sends to me he sends to you. NOW, secondly, what are you going to do about getting another job?

MR. TOCHOLKE: I have to find some kind of weekend--

THE COURT: You know, when people are in jail they still have to pay child support and it just collects.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Yeah, I know.

THE COURT: They do. It adds up.

MR. TOCHOLKE: It's very depressing.

THE COURT: I'm sure it is.

MR. TOCHOLKE: It's a very depressing thing when I was falsely framed for 40,000 I did not make. You take the numbers off the 2001 because I had the highest depreciation, but I had the highest payments too. I cannot pay child support when I make equipment payments of $500 or a thousand dollar equipment payment. I cannot take that same thousand dollars and get penalized again and pay it.

THE COURT: I understand that you can't do that.

MR. TOCHOLKE: And that's what I've done. And that's what's actually happened with that 40,000.

THE COURT: Then you go to the bank and you try to renegotiate a payment schedule so you can support your kids. Because the whole goal of having the equipment, the whole goal of cutting down trees, the whole goal of doing all the stuff that parents do to feed their kids is to feed the kids. It's not to have the equipment. It's not to cut down the tree. It's to support their family. And your family's been ripped apart. You know, you filed for divorce.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Okay. The reason-- Okay. I'd like to please-- Please give me the opportunity to explain why I filed for divorce.

THE COURT: It makes no-- Mr. Tocholke, it doesn't make any difference.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Please, please.

THE COURT: It has nothing to do with today.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Yes, it does.

THE COURT: No. What we're here-- The only thing it'd have to do with today is why you're not making more effort to try and support them at 197 a week.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Can I even please explain?

THE COURT: No, you can't, because we're not here about that. I don't have the time to listen to all of it. That's why we have no fault divorce in Wisconsin. People can get divorced if they want and I haven't got anything to say about whether they get divorced other than that they meet the statute. The same thing about child support. Now, I'm telling you, what are you going to do to meet your obligation of $200 a week, 197, to pay support for these kids? What are you going to do?

MR. TOCHOLKE: I have to have a $40,000 job. I can't do that without having equipment.

THE COURT: You can get a second job. You can get a second job, which is what people do. I mean, I'd prefer you to have two or three jobs than to have you sitting in the county jail for about $200 a day.

MR. TOCHOLKE: But we'll be back here again because I cannot make it. I cannot make it.

MR. ANDERSON: S0 I see that we're going to be essentially in the same position six months from now.

And I know Mr. Tocholke wants to tell you all about his tale of woe. He's told it to everybody in terms of why I can't pay this and why I shouldn't have to pay this, this is why I have to file for divorce. And to me that's the problem in that he continues to resist paying his support with the idea in mind that he shouldn't have to because this was all not his fault. This was the responsibility of the church and all of the attendant problems, and I think that's at the heart of why he doesn't want to pay.

MR. TOCHOLKE: That's not true. That's not true. The thing is if it would have been accurately adjusted according to my income. I make $20,000 a year income. You can add the depreciation back in. I'm not so concerned about that.

THE COURT: What would that make your payment? No, you tell me. Just tell me. What would that make-- Sit down. Mr. Tocholke, sit down and tell me. What would that make your payment?

MR. TOCHOLKE: I can afford--

THE COURT: No, don't tell me what you can afford. What would the 20,000 make your payment?

MR. TOCHOLKE: About $100 a week.

THE COURT: And do you think that

anybody can support kids on a hundred dollars a week, five of them?

MR. TOCHOLKE: We've been living like that for the last 18 years and it's a struggle.

THE COURT: I don't suppose for the last 18 you had five of them.

MR. TOCHOLKE: The thing is I'm capable of making 20,000. I've made 20,000, 25,000 a year. Logging I actually did better. I actually did 25,000. Here I have gross receipts of 60,000, yes, but actual workable income, I have it all itemized, this is the form that I gave to my tax accountant. These are the expenses. This is what I lived on. Income all included. That includes the cash money added into it, this is what I make. And there's nowhere that you can make $40,000 except if you falsely identified what I already explained, that it was accelerated depreciation added into it to be able to come up with that 40,000. 1 have made consistently about 20,000, 25,000. That is it. And I was framed for 40,000. I started out--

THE COURT: Framed. Who are you talking about framing you? You were framed for forty. You signed the agreement. Nobody framed you at all. I mean, if you're accusing this Court of framing you, I didn't make up the 40,000 and neither did they. You signed it. You said it. You filed it. So don't use that framing to me one more time unless you're talking about going out and framing a house which you're also capable of doing and you ought to get a job doing it. They're building like crazy all over the place. Go get work.

MR. TOCHOL1KE: Which would be about $20,000, $25,000 a year.

THE COURT: Which isn't what you're doing now.

MR. TOCHOLKE: That's what I'm capable of paying, but still-

THE COURT: You could be capable of doing your wood cutting. You could be capable of getting a second job if you had to. You could be capable of paying support of $200 a week and you ought to get doing it. So, if you're going to tell me you aren't going to do it, then we'll just go to jail today for six months and because you're in contempt of the Court's order, clear as a bell

MR. TOCHOLKE: Then why is this form that would be punched into the regular computer--

THE COURT: Whose regular computer?

MR. TOCHOLKE: The computer that's plugged into the state. These are the numbers that would be spit out.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know who-what state computer there is. I don't have a state computer. I have a circuit court computer and I have different programs that if I put the numbers in it'll multiply things the way I want them to.


THE COURT: But, you see, when somebody is living at this kind of level there's nothing that says you have to stick to the formula. There's nothing that says that. And there's a minimal amount, when you look at five children, at about $200 a week, minimal.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Does she pay anything on the two?


MR. ANDERSON: What I'm saying-- What he's saying-- Just so you understand what he's talking about--

THE COURT: He's saying if you use the FIN plan or something.

MR. ANDERSON: He's used the FIN plan and put in $25,000 income for him and $25,000 income for her.

THE COURT: 25,000 for her when she's never earned--

MR. TOCHOLKE: She's a teacher. She's a teacher, certified teacher, four years--

THE COURT: When did she ever earn 25,000?

MR. TOCHOLKE: A first year teacher--

THE COURT: Mr. Tocholke, when did she ever earn $25,000 a year? What year? Tell me the year she did. She didn't, did she?

MR. TOCHOLKE: She was home.

THE COURT: Okay. Because the two of you made a choice to have a lot of kids and she was going to stay home and take care of them. And that teaching degree is just as valid to be a home maker as it is to be teacher. These are choices that the two of you made and now the choice has been that you're divorcing. You are divorced, almost a year.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Over a year.

THE COURT: Okay. And so now you're still arguing about what ought to be and it isn't. I mean, it just isn't that way. You've got to support your kids. Now, tell me if you want to go get another job, come back here in two months and show me that you have a second job and you're paying 197 a week, or if you want to just go to jail for six months now? I don't want you to go to jail. Then the other two boys will have to come back home. They'll have to come back home and live at their mother because nobody else has custody of them. Take them out of school.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I don't want to go to jail, but on the other hand, I believe I will be going.

THE COURT: You aren't going to go if you go get another job and start paying 197 a week.

MR. TOHOLKE: That's going to be very difficult.

THE COURT: Well, it is difficult. MR. TOCHOLKE: It is very difficult to do.

THE COURT: You made your life difficult.

MR. TOCHOLKE: When I'm doing a hundred percent, when I'm totally paying a hundred percent on the boys, their school expenses, all that stuff.

THE COURT: Right, I know. I'm not saying that it's an easy task.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I looked around. I was told in September I either got to be current on child support, which was impossible, I got to either have 10 job applications a week, or I have to have a job. I looked around. I had 10 job applications for several weeks looking for work right away in September. Forget it. I can't take this business anymore. There's no way. There's just too many expenses. I do not get the credit for when I have equipment payments so I just can't make it. And I had 10 job applications. The typical job out there which I could get into was eight, nine dollars an hour. That's all I could get. I looked around.

I went up north. At least I could get a nine dollar-- 8.75 is what I was making, what I could find right there, meat cutting. It's a different type of occupation. I have a logger that would hire me at ten dollars an hour or have just a percentage or just a production type of thing, but then I'd be right back stuck again, that if I have any chain saw equipment, anything that I depreciate, that would be added in back as income. I spent that money, that dollar already once, and then I got to spend it again on child support, and there's no way. So I'd rather take it by the hour, ten dollars an hour. That would be an increase. I have some other loggers that probably I could get work for twelve dollars an hour, but I was told that if I take that position right there that it would be right away considered. You're still in tree cutting, you're still making $40,000, but I'm not.

THE COURT: Well, now you're in meat cutting and the Court still considers you capable of earning $40,000 a year, so not as a meat cutter, probably.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I never have made 40,000 is what--

THE COURT: No, don't say that, Mr. Tocholke. The tax papers and the agreement you entered say it. I didn't make it up and I didn't frame you and I didn't create your tax return. You did. So here's the question. What do you want to do? Do you want to try to pay 197 a week or not? I mean, pay it. I don't mean mail it every six weeks and then wait for the tax intercept and then get some friend of yours to bail you out.

MR. TOCHOLKE: That's all borrowed money too I still got to pay back.

THE COURT: That's right.

MR. TOCHOLKE: I got $11,000 borrowed money there.

THE COURT: So, why don't you have another job already to pay your friends back that loaned you the money? You know, some guys would say, geez, you know, I've got this job, I've got to get a second job so I could at least start making a few payments to my friends.

MR. TOCHOLKE: Five days of the week right now I'm going out at daybreak and I'm coming back at dark.

THE COURT: Well, that doesn't take much.

MR. TOCHOLKE: And Saturday and Sunday I'm working getting the trailer, trying to get some heat in there and stuff like that.

THE COURT: You're saying your kids are living without heat?

MR. TOCHOLKE: Electric heat. Electric heat.

THE COURT: And what do you have?

MR. TOCHOLKE: Electric bill is $269 a month. My van payment is $400 a month.

THE COURT: It's terrible.

MR. TOCHOLKE: It's a struggle.

THE COURT: Right. But your kids have to eat.


THE COURT: And you have to pay for it.

MR. TOCHOLKE: The two I'm feeding there



Home | Story | Chain of Events | Letters from Prison | Cult
NO justice in Kenosha, Wisconsin | My Income
Once upon a time there was a Family | In the Newspaper
Child Abuse Tolerance in Kenosha | You Can Help | Wisconsin Law
Transcripts | eMail

Contact me at:

Bernie Tocholke
41391 Little Sand Rd.
Hinckley, MN 55037




© 2004 copyright Bernie Tocholke. All rights reserved.