Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution?

Folks, House Bill 1382/Senate Bill 788 have been passed and signed
into law by Governor Timmy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This
legislation was introduced by the Attorney General of Virginia,
fascist Bob McDonnell and the Subcommittee and Committee meetings were
literally impossible for NCPs to attend because the meetings never
carried the dockets until AFTER the meetings occurred.

This legislation was introduced in DIRECT response to my federal
lawsuit against Virginia, where the federal court dismissed the
lawsuit because, in part, NCPs could seek relief from almost 20 years
of vid and unenforceable court orders that were obtained by non-
attorney employees of DCSE engaging in the unauthorized practice of
law, rendering the orders void under Virginia law.

The newly-amended law here in Virginia gives non-attorney employees of
DCSE an unprecedented ability to engage in the practice of law in that
they are now allowed to sign legal pleadings relating to child
support...but, unlike attorneys who are accountable to the Virginia
State Bar (yeah, right), the DCSE employees have no accountability.

But a special treat, thrown in because Virginia has 20 years of
problems of bad orders caused by the Attorney General's systemic
failure to exercise it's statutory mandate to "provide all legal
services for the Division of Child Support Enforcement", Virginia's
General Assembly has thrown this wording into the newly-passed
legislation:

"Orders entered prior to July 1, 2008, shall not be deemed void or
voidable solely because the petition or motion that resulted in the
order was completed, signed and filed by a nonattorney employee of the
Department of Social Services."

In other words, the General Assembly has granted Virginia's JDR and
Circuit Courts subject matter jurisdiction where such jurisdiction
never existed at hearings that took place as look at TWENTY YEARS AGO.

The legislation was signed into law on Sunday, which caused the
legislature's website to be updated with that information yesterday
afternoon...

Yesterday, I filed a petition to reopen my lawsuit against the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

wrote in

Yesterday, I filed a petition to reopen my lawsuit against the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

Isn't there a conflict of interest where the state changes the law to
protect their ass?

Yep...the state cannot pass such laws...they can pass a law that
impairs the rights of the state, but not the substantive rights of the
individual.

On Mar 7, 2:14*am, "DB" wrote:
wrote in



Yesterday, I filed a petition to reopen my lawsuit against the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

Isn't there a conflict of interest where the state changes the law to
protect their ass?

wrote in message
...
Yep...the state cannot pass such laws...they can pass a law that
impairs the rights of the state, but not the substantive rights of the
individual.

On Mar 7, 2:14 am, "DB" wrote:
wrote in



Yesterday, I filed a petition to reopen my lawsuit against the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

Isn't there a conflict of interest where the state changes the law to
protect their ass?


So by chnaging the law, they recognise their flawed policy and admit guilt!
Perhaps they would care to settle out rather than admit the disgrace tothe
bass association!
BTW, should the Bar Association be the ones suing the state or enforcing
their own authorization for those who practice law?

The Virginia State Bar didn't speak against this bill and permitted
the conduct to cover the Attorney General saying a statute which gives
DCSE standing to intervene in child support matters gives non-attorney
employees the ability to practice law.

In retaliation, my attorney just got a letter from DCSE tell me that
if I don't pay my child support in full by the 10th of the month, they
will ask DMV to suspend my drivers license and I will be charged with
contempt again...but they've had wage withholding in place with my
employer since last August and they won't resciend the agreement.

By the way, on the day this was passed by the Virginia state senate,
the Attorney General and the Governor of Virginia announced a lawsuit
against SUPPORTKIDS.COM saying that it is a violation of Virginia law
not to pay your child support through the state agency. [No, I'm not
kidding].




On Mar 7, 11:30*am, "DB" wrote:
wrote in message

...
Yep...the state cannot pass such laws...they can pass a law that
impairs the rights of the state, but not the substantive rights of the
individual.

On Mar 7, 2:14 am, "DB" wrote:

wrote in

Yesterday, I filed a petition to reopen my lawsuit against the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

Isn't there a conflict of interest where the state changes the law to
protect their ass?

So by chnaging the law, they recognise their flawed policy and admit guilt!
Perhaps they would care to settle out rather than admit the disgrace tothe
bass association!
BTW, should the Bar Association be the ones suing the state or enforcing
their own authorization for those who practice law?

wrote in message
...
Yep...the state cannot pass such laws...they can pass a law that
impairs the rights of the state, but not the substantive rights of the
individual.

Do you have a cite for your claim this new law is unconstitutional?

It is my understanding the concept of ex post facto laws prevents the
government from creating laws to make something illegal retroactively. The
issue you have raised is one where the government is passing a law to make
something legal retroactively. Also the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled ex
post facto laws are prevented for criminal law changes. In the case of the
Virginia DCSE the laws are being changed for civil law. I believe the
Virginia legislature has the legal authority to pass legislation to remedy
administrative procedures and apply the remedy retroactively to correct
previous oversights in civil law.

The question I have is how far back can the legislature reach in making a
retroactive change to civil law? Any challenge to the new law should be
focused on whether or not the legislature over-stepped its authority by
going back too far.

This is no different than any other civil law changes regarding
marriage/divorces. A person can get married with knowledge of the divorce
laws in effect at the time. But if they get divorced, the divorce law
changes that were created or changed during the marriage are applied
retroactively to the marriage. The same is true for CS. The CS guidelines
and rules that are in effect at the time of divorce, or a divorce decree
modification, are applied. And in some cases, current CS guidelines and
rules can be applied behind the date they were created, i.e. where CS is set
using current incomes and guidelines but applied retroactively to timeframes
where income was lower and before the CS guidelines being used were updated.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Yep...the state cannot pass such laws...they can pass a law that
impairs the rights of the state, but not the substantive rights of the
individual.

Do you have a cite for your claim this new law is unconstitutional?

It is my understanding the concept of ex post facto laws prevents the
government from creating laws to make something illegal retroactively.
===
And, as we have told Brigg before (years ago, I think)--Most states have
always allowed CSE
workers to sign these documents. There is no "new law" in the Virginia
procedures (which is probably what the federal court told him).

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]

..
..
wrote in message
...
Yep...the state cannot pass such laws...they can pass a law that
impairs the rights of the state, but not the substantive rights of the
individual.

They have bigger guns that say they CAN!



On Mar 7, 2:14 am, "DB" wrote:
wrote in



Yesterday, I filed a petition to reopen my lawsuit against the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

Isn't there a conflict of interest where the state changes the law to
protect their ass?

On Mar 7, 10:58*pm, "Gini" wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

...

wrote in message
...
Yep...the state cannot pass such laws...they can pass a law that
impairs the rights of the state, but not the substantive rights of the
individual.

Do you have a cite for your claim this new law is unconstitutional?

It is my understanding the concept of ex post facto laws prevents the
government from creating laws to make something illegal retroactively.

===
And, as we have told Brigg before (years ago, I think)--Most states have
always allowed CSE
workers to sign these documents. There is no "new law" in the Virginia
procedures (which is probably what the federal court told him).

Actually, Gini, DCSE had an appeal from a JDR Court to Circuit Court
DISMISSED solely because a non-attorney employee signed the Notice of
Appeal, which is just a one-page form.

And if it is illegal, then why, in November of last year, would the
A.G.'s Office have told DCSE to stop letting non-attorney employees
sign such pleadings?

On Mar 7, 4:04*pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
wrote in message

...
Yep...the state cannot pass such laws...they can pass a law that
impairs the rights of the state, but not the substantive rights of the
individual.

Do you have a cite for your claim this new law is unconstitutional?

Bob, here are a couple of citations:

Furthermore, neither the Supreme Court of Virginia or the United
States can cure the void orders, and their orders are also void,
Morrison v. Bestler, 387 S.E.2d 753, 239 Va. 166, 170 (1990)

Finally,relevant to the above referenced issue void orders could not
even be cured and validated by a subsequent action by either Congress
or the General Assembly. See Scilley v. Red Lodge-Rosebud Irr. Dist.,
272 P. 543, 83 Mont. 282 (1968). See also 50 C.J.S.§ 548.


It is my understanding the concept of ex post facto laws prevents the
government from creating laws to make something illegal retroactively. *The
issue you have raised is one where the government is passing a law to make
something legal retroactively. *Also the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled ex
post facto laws are prevented for criminal law changes. *In the case of the
Virginia DCSE the laws are being changed for civil law. *I believe the
Virginia legislature has the legal authority to pass legislation to remedy
administrative procedures and apply the remedy retroactively to correct
previous oversights in civil law.

The ex post facto aspect of the retroactive application of this law
would apply to all of those who have been found guilty of criminal
contempt, however, we also have a statute which prohibits laws of this
type:

§ 1-239. Repeal not to affect liabilities; mitigation of punishment.

No new act of the General Assembly shall be construed to repeal a
former law, as to any offense committed against the former law, or as
to any act done, any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred, or
any right accrued, or claim arising under the former law, or in any
way whatever to affect any such offense or act so committed or done,
or any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment so incurred, or any right
accrued, or claim arising before the new act of the General Assembly
takes effect; except that the proceedings thereafter held shall
conform, so far as practicable, to the laws in force at the time of
such proceedings; and if any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment be
mitigated by any provision of the new act of the General Assembly,
such provision may, with the consent of the party affected, be applied
to any judgment pronounced after the new act of the General Assembly
takes effect.

What it sounds like to be that you're trying to say, Bob if tha you
believe a legislature can grant a court subject matter jurisdiction
where non existed at the time of the court hearing?

Prospectively, I believe it's stupid to grant these idiots the ability
to sign pleadings, with no accountability as attorney have, but to
enact legislation to block NCPs from having such orders vacated is
beyond me.

Such cases are being routinely tossed out now throughout Northern
Virginia solely on grounds that non-attorneys had signed the motion
for rule to show cause.