Matter of law?

"spr" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Dusty" wrote in

I believe that by not being properly served, it places the court in a
very
poor light, establishing the courts disregard for due process and
thereby
either having the case retried in another court, or by having the case
thrown out. It would depend on the type of case and other circumstances
involved, but I am of the opinion that the case should be thrown out.

I know that if you are properly served in a legal civil suit and they have
the documentation to prove that you received a summons and you don't
appear,
they can carry out a judgement by default in which case you are
automatically found guilty.
Even when they do this, they are still required to send out a notice of
the
court's final decision.

This was not the case for my friend who did not live in this country at
the
time the court was held.
How the hell do you sue a foreigner who does not reside in the United
States?

I get quite a kick out of how you and I are "playing in the same
orchestra,
playing the same music, but using different instruments." Which is not
a
bad thing. Just shows we have slightly differing perspectives of the
same
subject. But that we both want the same goal - our children and our
freedom
back.

Yes, we have a different appoach at solving the same issues!
We both know what the issues are and what caused them, but now it's a
matter
of shedding light in the proper perspective, so the average American can
relate or understand the issues at hand and how it can affect them too.

If people realize that the courts are out of control and answer to no one,
do you think somebody might take a second look at thie power issue and
start
getting concerned?

Ah, but there-in lies the problem - getting people to open their eyes to
take that much needed look at the problem.

For the most part, people have gotten far to complacent. Unless a given
person is actually down there in the trenches, fighting for their rights,
there's every chance that no one will bother themselves to see and hear just
what is going on around them - much less actually -do- something about it.

Case in point - if you feed the people very small amounts of gruel each day
and gradually increase the amount of gruel in their bowl (while removing the
same proportion of soup), eventually they will accept the gruel (lies) as
factual and the soup (truth), what's left of it, becomes very distasteful
and they won't eat it.

This is exactly what liberals and their man-hating friends the feminazis
have done to the public for nearly 40 long years. The public accepts their
drivel and they allow it to happen because they know no better.

Oh, you can try to pry their eyes open, you can shout and yell at them to
wake up, but it will be meet with staunch resistance. In short - they've
become comfortable with our misery.

The question becomes less of how to show the problem to the public, but more
about how to get them to see through their eye lids.

Unless we start to see courts ordering cops to start up public executions of
fathers for not paying their court-ordered extortion (C$), the vast majority
of the sleeping public will never wake up to what is really going on.

"Dusty" wrote in

For the most part, people have gotten far to complacent.

Yes, the typical American has become spineless when issues like personal
freedoms are at stake.
They deserve the $3.00 a gallon gas that they fill up their SUV's with and
will probably still do nothing when gas is $4.00 a gallon.

Lets face it, Americans have become soft bellied sheep, as anyone that
speaks out against the system is considered a rebel and outcast. I lost all
faith in this country when a helpless woman was left to die, because it
wasn't in the best interest of the politicians to get involved!

Well that was yesterdays news, now they'll all be more concerned about who
wins the American Idol contest!

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"spr" wrote in message
ink.net...
Is it proper to assume that the courts are following standard procedure
in
regards to serving proper notice or summons to appear in court.

Many Distant NCP's are never notified of any court proceedings against
them until they are physically arrested for exceeding the financial
arrearage limit. Summons are often sent to old addresses and not
properly
served as require by law.

I have one friend who was considered served while he was not residing in
this country?
Even in a small claims court summons, the recipient has to received the
summons before any case can proceed.

Why is it different for CS cases?

This is one that sticks in my craw, too. My husband was "notified" about
a
proceeding by "publication" in a "major newspaper" in a place that we
hadn't
lived for 2 years! Fortunately, we found out that, because he did not
appear, he had been declared the father, and owed arrearages back to the
birth of the child--we found out 2 days before the 6 month now-we-gotcha
period was over, and rushed from Northern Ca to San Diego to file a
proof-of-paternity demand in the nick of time. Otherwise we would never
have been able to dig out of the hole. As it turned out, he is the
child's
father--though he didn't find out about her until she was almost 13. But,
because of the proof of paternity filing, they could only go back 2 years
with the arrearages rather than back to her birth plus all medical
expenses.
What really makes me mad is that they had our address all along--I have
the
proof. They did the publication thing precisely because they knew he
would
NOT get it.

And contrast what happens about legal notification in other, much more
minor, matters. Several years ago, when my daughter was still in a wild
phase, she called me up in tears from a shopping center to ask me to come
and get her. A police officer had stopped her and told her she was driving
on a suspended license.

It turned out that, months before, and unknown to me, my daughter had
racked up quite a few speeding tickets. Without saying anything to me
(although she was living with me at the time) she had gone to court and paid
several significant fines. She thought that was the end of the matter, and
so didn't stop driving.

However, a week or so after her last court appearance, the state DMV had
sent her a registered letter saying that she had now exceeded the number of
points for moving violations, and thus her license was suspended. The fact
that she had paid the fine counted for nothing in that context. She never
picked up the DMV letter, although a notice came from the local post office
saying it was waiting for her. At her trial on the driving on a suspended
license charge, her lawyer successfully argued that, since she had not
picked up the DMV letter, she had not been appropriately notified of the
license suspension. She got off.

Then think about this. A man is sent a letter, quite possibly to an
outdated address, telling him that he has been named as the father of some
woman's child, and if he wants to avoid a child support obligation, he must
go in immediately for a DNA test. He never gets the letter, never goes in
for a test, and is then subjected to a CS order. Much later, he finds out
about the CS order and challenges it. He is found NOT to be the father.
However, he will then be told that he's too late to challenge the CS order,
and must pay the woman involved up to 18 years worth of CS -- and the time
limit for challenging a CS order is imposed by the federal government, as a
condition of the state getting federal welfare funds.

If, on the other hand, the claim against the man was merely that he had
been driving on a suspended license, much more care would have been taken to
ensure that he had received proper notification.

The plain fact is that, in matters where the interests of the two sexes
are in conflict, in the U.S. today men's rights to elementary fairness count
for nothing. It's just like what used to happen to blacks in the Jim Crow
days in the south. And, unlike those days, there's absolutely no coverage
in the media of what's going on.