Child Support and Custody cases combined

[gatorguy3]

Can anyone tell me why this would be necessary? If child support and custody are two separate issues...what would the benefit be in doing this? Who would it benefit and who would it harm?

I believe it was done for the following reason. The Department of Revenue has had the responsibility of the child support part of this case since the beginning. Shortly thereafter, my ex retained a private attorney who was identified as "co-counsel" to the Department of Revenue. So, to have control over the child support issues I believe they had to combine the cases. I can be wrong but that is how I see it.

Anyone know for certain?

[squirrel]

Child support is a Federal issue. If you look into title 42 USC sec 656 "I think" it's been so long since I last looked, which will lead you to sec 666 which says the United States gives the State the autority to withhold child support.

You see these degenerate sick minded criminals THINK that child is theirs because the mother signed the child up for the Bankruptcy when she filled out a
1. Certificate of indebtness.
2. Warehouse reciept.

A.K.A. Birth Certificate..

How nice of them to inform the mother what she had just done to her child !!!

[gatorguy3]

Thanks for the info. I will read that however, I am still in need of information on why the courts would combine the cases?

[Akira]

From my reply in the Guardian Ad Litem thread here.

Originally Posted by Akira

Regardless of what is best for the child, or the parents, you can rest assured, their decision will be what is best for the state, first.

Why have the expense of two court sessions, when one will do?

The answer is the same.... It's what's best for the STATE. :mad:

Honestly, I wish it were otherwise...

On another note.... You may want to check your states rules of evidence.

I know lawyers can't testify (Trinsey v Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647) and I believe, in most states, only the injured party, or a competent 3rd party witness (with first hand knowledge), may enter evidence against you, into the court record, unless both parties agree to allow it, and you should not. So, when the Department of Revenue's employee tries to, object !

Look it up, so you can quote the rule, when the time comes.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[gatorguy3]

much appreciated. looking up now.

[gatorguy3]

what chapter of title 42 is that under?

[gatorguy3]

Originally Posted by Akira

On another note.... You may want to check your states rules of evidence.

I know lawyers can't testify (Trinsey v Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647) and I believe, in most states, only the injured party, or a competent 3rd party witness (with first hand knowledge), may enter evidence against you, into the court record, unless both parties agree to allow it, and you should not. So, when the Department of Revenue's employee tries to, object !

Look it up, so you can quote the rule, when the time comes.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

So please explain what the significance is with this ruling? I read it thoroughly. What I read was that it had to do with "dismissing an action or other cause". I do not understand fully. I do not believe her attorney is trying to dismiss anything. Now, I would like to dismiss all this nonsense though, this would not fall under rules of evidence.

[Akira]

Trinsey v Pagliaro, 229 F.Supp. 647 "statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightning to the court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment".

It means lawyers can't testify or offer evidence, because they have no first hand knowledge.



RULES OF EVIDENCE

RULE 602. LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.

however.....

Here's the rule that hurts you....

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
RULE 43. TAKING OF TESTIMONY

(g) Copies of Corporate Records. Copies of any votes or other records upon the books of a corporation or of any papers in its files may, when attested by its clerk, be received in evidence unless it appears that the adverse party has been denied access to the originals at reasonable hours.

Make sure any clerk brings proof of employment and/or copy of oath.

You can always ask the magistrate who he/she represents... since it's the state, this would be a conflict of interest. The magistrate will do backflips to keep from answering.

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[gatorguy3]

sorry to be so stupid...but I have been reading for hours...

how would it be a conflict of interest?

and how would that statute hurt me?

[gatorguy3]

and...

who should the magistrate be representing, if not the state?