19 – Father imprisoned for violating illegal court orders.
Either they pay or go to jail. This is why jury trials are needed and fathers be allowed to prove that the court orders are illegal.
Next is Peter. The judge, Peter’s attorney and the mother’s attorney all conspired to defraud Peter out of almost $60,000. After defrauding Peter, they had Peter illegally sentenced to jail as the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as there was no referral from the supreme court to the family court and court order of support did not comply with the law. There were two appeals in 1999.
Peter has 4 children. The mother threw out the oldest child who went to live with Peter. During the divorce, they got Peter to agree to pay child support to the mother in the amount of $128.82 based upon his income of $25,000 and 3 children. When I met with Peter, what he was stating to me didn’t make sense. Do you see the problem with the agreement? Nobody told Peter he was entitled to receive child support for the child residing with him. The mother made over $50,000 per year and should have been paying $150.95 per week to Peter and after deducting his $128.82 the mother would owe $22.13 per week child support to Peter. This put Peter thousands of dollars in debt. He was finally put in jail for violating an illegal court order.
There was a total of 395 weeks from the time of the agreement to the court proceeding. Peter should have paid $50,884 to the mother (128.82 x 395). The mother should have paid 59,309.63 to Peter. They held the Peter responsible to pay the $50,884 to the mother, even though he was going into arrears. The court was not going to hold the mother responsible for her payments by requiring her to reimburse the father for all the monies he paid and eliminate his arrears. Peter ended up in jail for 6 months because of the illegal actions by family court judge, his attorney and the appellate court judges. Click on links for supporting documents.
Family Court Act § 454 requires a “lawful order of support”. If the order does not comply with the law, how can it be a lawful order? The supreme court held it was not lawful as it violated the law.
Village of St. Johnsville v. Triumpho, 220 A.D.2d 84 (3rd Dept. 1995)
“[A]n order of a court must be obeyed, no matter how erroneous it may be, so long as the court is possessed of jurisdiction and its order is not void on its face“.
Liska court documents – Read the Brief
Liska v Clark, 262 A.D.2d 721 (1999) (1st appeal)
According to the terms of the Supreme Court child support stipulation, respondent agreed to pay petitioner $128 per week based upon respondent’s yearly income of $25,000.Both parties were represented by counsel at the time the Supreme Court child support stipulation was placed on the record, which included the following language: “The parties acknowledge that the child support provision has been computed in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act, which presumptively will result in the correct child support figure. Both parties have been apprised by their attorneys of the Child Support Guidelines and the computations required under the Child Support Standards Act.” (How could Peter know that judge and his attorney were lying to him about his support obligation and mother paying him child support? The required information was NOT given.)
Petitioner commenced this proceeding sub judice in Family Court by petition dated March 26, 1997 alleging that respondent had willfully violated his child support obligation. …in his answer he asserted for the first time that the child support provisions of the judgment of divorce violated the requirements of the Child Support Standards Act … respondent sought, by cross petition, to have the child support portion of the 1992 Supreme Court judgment declared null and void By a separate petition respondent also sought a Family Court order directing petitioner to pay him child support for the child residing with him. After a hearing, Family Court entered a violation of support order against respondent, dismissed his petition for child support and dismissed his cross petition, holding that Family Court had no authority to overturn an order made in Supreme Court. Respondent then appealed from Family Court’s orders.
By a separate petition respondent also sought a Family Court order directing petitioner to pay him child support for the child residing with him. After a hearing, Family Court entered a violation of support order against respondent, dismissed his petition for child support and dismissed his cross petition, holding that Family Court had no authority to overturn an order made in Supreme Court. Respondent then appealed from Family Court’s orders. (Notice, mothers do not pay support!)
(If the family court had no jurisdiction to modify the supreme court order as stated by Spain, then how does the family court have the authority to enforce the supreme court order? It doesn’t.)
Thereafter, raising the CSSA violation issue, respondent moved in Supreme Court, Clinton County, for an order vacating the child support provisions of the 1992 judgment of divorce and awarding him child support for the child who resides with him. Supreme Court (Dawson, J.) agreed with respondent, concluding that the parties’ 1992 stipulation did not comport with the CSSA.
Where, as here, Supreme Court does not expressly retain jurisdiction to enforce or modify a judgment of divorce, Family Court may entertain an application to enforce or modify. Inasmuch as the 1992 Supreme Court judgment of divorce—which incorporated the parties’ stipulation did not retain exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of child support, Family Court had jurisdiction to enforce the child support to which the parties agreed in their 1992 stipulation. (They lie!)
(The New York State Constitution Art 6 §13 requires that the supreme court tyo REFER the issues of custody and child support to the family court. The Constitution does not require that the supreme court retain jurisdiction as Spain states. If the family court had jurisdiction to enforce the supreme court order then it had jurisdiction to modify the supreme court order. It did not have the authority to do either as there was no referral. The issues on appeal were jurisdiction, matter should have been transferred to supreme court, supreme & family court support orders did not comply with CSSA, Peter should have received support for his son. These judges do not follow the law.)
Finally, although it was within Family Court’s discretion to treat respondent’s child support petition as an application to modify the child support provisions of the judgment of divorce, respondent never alleged any significant change in circumstances which would have provided Family Court with a basis upon which to modify Supreme Court’s child support order. (Yes, he did, the supreme & family court orders did not comply with the CSSA as required as nothing was done about the mother paying support to him.)
(Peter just found out his court order did not comply with the law from me. His “so-called” attorneys never told him. Why? The judge and the attorneys covered this up. The Supreme Court Judge was the only honorable one as he stated the stipulation and supreme court order did not comply with the law. So, Peter is to be punished for their illegal actions against him. The court then affirmed the family court orders.)
Terrorist Judges Spain, Cardona, Mercure, Peters and Graffeo as they lie about the facts and the appropriate case law. Why are these judges above the law? They have violated penal law §175.40 Issuing a false certificate
A few months later, Peter is again in court.
Liska v Clark, 263 A.D.2d 640 (3 rd. Dept. 1999) (2nd appeal)
Defendant’s (Peter) counsel stated on the record that defendant’s child support was established in accordance with the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter CSSA) (see, Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]; Family Ct Act § 413 ) and that both parties had been apprised by their attorneys of the child support guidelines.
Initially, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined in its 1997 order that the 1992 stipulation failed to comport with the CSSA because it did not “specify the amount that such basic child support obligation [from plaintiff to defendant] would have been and the reason or reasons that such agreement or stipulation [did] not provide for payment of that amount“. (Why didn’t they determine this in Peter’s first appeal above as it was argued?)
Courts are generally prohibited from vacating accrued child support arrears (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][b]; Matter of Dox v Tynon, supra, at 175-176), unless strict application of the statute undermines the legislative intent and causes a `grievous injustice’.
Terrorist Judges Spain, Cardona, Mikoll, Crew and Yesawich
After this ruling, Peter was sentenced to jail for violating the illegal family court orders. I believe he got the maximum of 6 months. Probably in a closed court and he was deprived of his constitutional right to a jury trial and competent assistance of counsel by a court that had no jurisdiction.
(Note: Dox v. Tynon is different in that it was not based upon a court order that did not comply with the law. At the time of this ruling, there was another ruling on point. What more can be a `grievous injustice’ than being order to pay support in violation of the law and where you are defrauded of over $50,000. They were not going to make the mother repay the father.
Phillips v. Phillips, 245 A.D.2d 457 (1997)
Since both the original order of child support and the stipulation upon which it was based violated the Child Support Standards Act (hereinafter the CSSA) in that they failed to include provisions stating that the parties had been apprised of their rights under the CSSA, the amount that would have been awarded under the CSSA, and the reason for deviating from the CSSA amount, the original child support order was invalid and not enforceable.
In another appeal, I did, Usenza v. Swift, 52 AD2d 876 (3rd Dept. 2008) held:
As relevant here, this provision requires that all such agreements or stipulations contain an acknowledgment that the parties have been advised of the CSSA, a statement “that the basic child support obligation provided for therein would presumptively result in the correct amount of child support to be awarded” and a specification as to what the amount of support would have been under the statute (Family Ct Act § 413  [h]). “The requirement that the agreement so provide cannot be waived by either party” and, therefore—contrary to the mother’s assertions and the findings of Family Court—the father’s failure to raise this defect by way of a timely objection to the July 2005 order is not fatal.
Indeed, “it is clear that the statutory intent is to ensure that a party be aware of all of the relevant provisions of the CSSA . . . in order to knowingly and intelligently waive those rights” … Further, the stipulation fails to establish that the parties were apprised that the application of the statute “would presumptively result in the correct amount of child support to be awarded” (Family Ct Act § 413  [h]; see Matter of Sievers v Estelle, 211 AD2d at 176). Thus, the omission of these statutory catechisms renders the stipulation and resulting order unenforceable (cits omitted]) and, consequently, the court was required to disregard it and address the support issue de novo (cits omitted). The matter must, therefore, be remitted to Family Court to determine the amount the father must pay in child support pursuant to the provisions of the CSSA.
Further, since the July 2005 order of support was invalid since its inception, we must vacate Family Court’s finding that the father was in willful violation thereof (People v Bleau, 276 A.D.2d 131 ).
(As a note in the Usenza case, the matter was referred back, a new support magistrate was appointed who just happened to be the mother’s new husband’s ex law partner. He required to disqualify himself as his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He screwed the Usenza over again.)
(As a note, several years later Peter stopped by with his daughter who was in college in Boston working 3 jobs in order to go to school. She wanted to stop her child support from going to the mother as she stated the mother would not give her any money or help with her schooling. She stated her father would try to help as much as possible with his limited income as they were collecting child support plus the arrears he owed.)
In my video, I address several cases of fathers being railroaded by the court. After watching the video, you determine if the fathers are “dead beat” fathers or “beaten dead fathers”. From what I have seen, 70% of the support orders issued DO NOT comply with the law and 99% are in the mother’s favor.
Dead Beat or Beaten Dead Dads (45:43)
Justice4NY – Exposing Judicial Corruption & the Violation of Constitutional Rights
Charles E. Colllins
Facebook – justice4ny – makedivorceeasy
Like me on face book. (Charles Collins – American Flag waving)