It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by greenovni
I would love to see you go into a courtroom and say "hey Judge, you're not a real judge" and see how fast the contempt charge hits....
Seriously... the BS meter went way off on this one..
Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by greenovni
That would be ONE State however, and not all states, Just because in New Jersey something is so, doesn't make it so across the board.. I still call BS on anyone that is trying to teach anyone how to subvert a legal proceeding, heck you told this poor person they didn't have to tell the court about their finances, when in fact failure to disclose is a felony. I mean c'mon really.. It's one thing to be mad at the system and want change, it's another to encourage people to try and perform illegal acts to subvert it..
The old two wrongs do not make a right meme...
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution;/b], which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase due process (also found in the 14th Amendment) both trace their origin to Magna Carta.
Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by greenovni
And no I have nothing to say about the paternity fraud, somewhere along the line you must have signed off on supporting the child, or there's no way in any state they would say "Even though it's proven by DNA you still have responsibility"
You're also leaving out how long you DID live with the child, did the child call you daddy, etc, all of these things weigh into a decision. There is certainly more to your story than you are telling, and that's ok, but don't expect everyone to just roll over and take it as absolute fact when you do withhold information that may explain the way it's being done.
The system is broken, no doubt, I agree, I see it daily, but i said it above and i'll say it again, subverting the system does not fix the system.
And don't refer to me as "The Lady Above" as if my gender somehow is weighing into my total loss of respect for your postings.. It doesn't.. My husband died, I am a single parent, does not mean I hate men..
ETA: I called new Jersey to find out how their system works, they have hearing officers that try to work it all out before it hits a judge to save time, however the hearing officer can recommend a contempt charge or criminal charges if it is so warranted, to the presiding judge, it's kind of like the Foreclosure Mediation system in Connecticut, the mediators try to work it out in a conference room of the courthouse, but it ultimately is overseen by a sitting judge..
And no I have nothing to say about the paternity fraud, somewhere along the line you must have signed off on supporting the child, or there's no way in any state they would say "Even though it's proven by DNA you still have responsibility"
You're also leaving out how long you DID live with the child, did the child call you daddy, etc, all of these things weigh into a decision. There is certainly more to your story than you are telling, and that's ok, but don't expect everyone to just roll over and take it as absolute fact when you do withhold information that may explain the way it's being done.
Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by greenovni
Now I can renew my BS claim..
You claim this happened in Waterbury Connecticut? Seriously? Connecticut the state that has laws about this sort of thing? The facts that if you are proven beyond a reasonable doubt that if the DNA does not match you are not responsible? And some "hearing officer" in Connecticut got a judge to go along with this?
So I called up GA13 to ask them if this was possible.
The clerk almost fell off her chair at the sheer stupidity of my question, and reiterated, there's more to this than we're being told.. A one night stand, person claiming you're the daddy, DNA says no, would have under Connecticut State Law ended it there and then.. our state Legislature may be moronic at times, but they do try to protect people who need protecting.
So this is what the Clerk said: If this is indeed the case, then the "hearing officer (and she has NEVER heard of a hearing officer in a support case in Connecticut unless it's at DCF and not the courts, in which case, it's an entirely different system and not the state's legal system per-say)" and the Judge who signed off on it, as well as any State employees that were part of this would all be fired, and arrested by the CSP for violation of the CGS-Revised. In other words... ain't something that would have happened in Connecticut in this lifetime.
So c'mon sir.. level.. there's something else here..
Modifying Judgment: “When presented with a motion for modification, a court must first determine whether there has been a substantial change in the financial circumstances of one or both of the parties . . . . Second, if the court finds a substantial change in circumstances, it may properly consider the motion and, on the basis of the § 46b-82 criteria, make an order for modification . . . . The court has the authority to issue a modification only if it conforms the order to the distinct and definite changes in the circumstances of the parties.” Crowley v. Crowley, 46 Conn. App. 87, 92, 699 A.2d 1029 (1997).
Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by greenovni
File a motion with the CONNECTICUT court (GA?) that happened to make the ruling, ask for a reconsider/reopen of the case, you will have to come back to CT to deal with it, but another state cannot release you if a judge in the initial state made a ruling. In all of your "research" I'm surprised you didn't come across that.
Clerk in GA13 says it's quite easy to reopen a case in Connecticut, as long as you have some pertinent evidence that was not available at the time of the initial ruling that would have had another bearing on it.
Modifying Judgment: “When presented with a motion for modification, a court must first determine whether there has been a substantial change in the financial circumstances of one or both of the parties . . . . Second, if the court finds a substantial change in circumstances, it may properly consider the motion and, on the basis of the § 46b-82 criteria, make an order for modification . . . . The court has the authority to issue a modification only if it conforms the order to the distinct and definite changes in the circumstances of the parties.” Crowley v. Crowley, 46 Conn. App. 87, 92, 699 A.2d 1029 (1997).
That’s because, once paternity is established, either by genetic testing or by acknowledgement by the man, Connecticut law only allows the matter to be revisited (reopened) in the case of “fraud, duress or material mistake of fact.” In short, it’s next to impossible for a man to change his mind at a later date and get the court to order testing. Once he agrees, he’s stuck with his decision.
If the man doesn’t show up, a default judgment will be issued against him, establishing his paternity and assessing an amount of child support.
That’s it in a nutshell. The good news is that these guys have an opportunity to be tested. That’s in marked contrast to the process in many states in which Attorneys General seem to stop at nothing to deny men the opportunity to learn for certain whether they fathered the child in question or not.
My recent posting about Keddrick Clemons in Texas is a perfect example. There, the Texas AG’s office knew to a certainty that Clemons wasn’t the father, but lied to the him and the judge for the sole purpose of tagging him with support for a child who wasn’t his.
there’s nothing to prevent the fraudulent taking of default judgments against men who aren’t the father and may have nothing in common with him apart from a name. The article doesn’t say what the safeguards are against those orders, so that expedient for states to falsely establish “paternity” apparently still exists.
So when Mom gives the nod to the assistant AG to reopen the case because she likes the guy who’s been found to be the father, the case is reopened without a blink. If the man who’s been found to not be the father wants to do the same, all of a sudden “the threshold is very high.” Funny how that works.
Originally posted by greenovni
Also, this is what is going on in CT at this time
That’s because, once paternity is established, either by genetic testing or by acknowledgement by the man, Connecticut law only allows the matter to be revisited (reopened) in the case of “fraud, duress or material mistake of fact.” In short, it’s next to impossible for a man to change his mind at a later date and get the court to order testing. Once he agrees, he’s stuck with his decision.
Remember that I was "daddy" by default. and after the fact, my mother forced my minor butt to sign for the birth certificate...