18 YEARS of Retroactive Child Support – SUPREME COURT FRAUD

Topic by joelaw

Joelaw

Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › 18 YEARS of Retroactive Child Support – SUPREME COURT FRAUD

Tagged: 

This topic contains 7 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by Harpo-My-"SON"  harpo-my-“SON” 4 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • 2015-02-14 at 12:00 AM#22666
    Joelaw
    joelaw
    Participant
    6

    After his kid turned 18 years old, a CHILD SUPPORT agency sued a man for $52K in retroactive child support.

    > Trial court made the $52K award.  

    > An appellate court reversed the ruling, saying the trial court exceeded its authority.

    > Then the OHIO SUPREME COURT committed fraud to overrule the appellate court and re-instate the $52K award.

     

    SUMMARY:  In a 5-2 decision written by Justice Francis E. Sweeney Sr., the Court held that the Auglaize County Juvenile Court was acting within its jurisdiction when it ordered Barrett Kemp II to pay more than $52,000 in retroactive child support to Jessica Schaefer, his biological daughter. (To read entire summary of the case, see footnote [1])

     

    [Opinion][2] …..  In what can only be described as a FRAUDULENT ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court has misconstrued the intent of the Ohio Legislature when it wrote:

    SYLLABUS OF THE COURT:  A juvenile court has jurisdiction to award retroactive child support payments to an adult emancipated child if a parentage action is filed prior to the child’s 23d birthday. [R.C. 3111.05 and 3111.13(C), construed.]     [3]

    At the heart of the FRAUD is the fact that the court in its ruling stated:

    The certified issue before this court is: “Does a court have subject matter jurisdiction to award retroactive child support payments in a paternity action initiated after the child has reached the age of majority?” For the following reasons, we answer this question in the affirmative and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

    However, the  lack of statutory authority of the court to award retroactive child support payments in a paternity action initiated after the child has reached the age of majority, was ignored.

     

    The scope and nature of the FRAUD is made very clear by the dissenting justice:

     I respectfully dissent because I believe that a juvenile court lacks authority to award retroactive child support to a child who files after reaching the age of majority. There may be a strong emotional appeal to allowing the result fashioned by the majority today. However, these arguments are better directed to the General Assembly.

    Note: A court must have both jurisdiction and statutory authority to award retroactive child support, therefor the SYLLABUS OF THE COURT of the Ohio Supreme Court Decision [Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-Ohio 7107] is a FRAUD made upon the people of Ohio!

     

    NEXT BIG QUESTION:  Did the Ohio Supreme Court, in committing a FRAUDULENT act,  exceed its authority under the Ohio Constitution?

    Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 18  — Powers and jurisdiction of judges.

    The several Judges of the supreme court, of the common pleas, and of such other courts as may be created, shall, respectively, have and exercise such power and jurisdiction, at chambers, or otherwise, as may be directed by law.

     

    I seriously doubt that Ohio law authorizes the several Judges of the supreme court to commit FRAUD.

    Thus, I would argue that the  Ohio Supreme Court Decision [Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-Ohio 7107] is unconstitutional and void.<

     

     

    Footnotes:

    [1] https://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/summaries/2004/1230/032116.asp

    [2] This blog post constitutes the opinion of the author; and shall not be construed as legal advise. The author is not a attorney-at-law.

    [3] http://www.cornwell-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Carnes-v.-Kemp-back-support-paternity1.pdf

     

    2015-02-14 at 12:48 AM#22678
    Joelaw
    joelaw
    Participant
    6

    “R.C. 3111.05 expressly provides that a paternity action may be commenced up to age 23, five years after the child has reached age 18. R.C. 3111.13(C) provides that a juvenile court has the authority to make a support order once a parentage determination is made. Thus, R.C. 3111.05 extends the length of time in which to bring a parentage action, while R.C. 3111.13(C) is couched in broad language and does not limit a juvenile court’s jurisdiction in a parentage action to award retroactive support to minor children only,” Justice Sweeney wrote.

    “Not only does the statutory language dictate this result, but we also believe that since the law specifically allows a child age 18 to 23 to file a paternity action, noncustodial parents should be accountable to their children up until the child’s 23rd birthday and should not be able to shirk their responsibility as parents simply because the child may not have contacted or found the parent during the child’s younger years,” he concluded.

    Justice Sweeney’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer and Maureen O’Connor.      (   https://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/summaries/2004/1230/032116.asp   )

     

    Justice Sweeney’s opinion seems to be a classic example of LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH.

    Specifically, creating laws regarding what people SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be able to do, is the FUNCTION of the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, not the judicial branch.

    When performing judicial interpretation of the law, the focus of the judges should be on the intent of the acts of the legislative branch; and NOT on the personal beliefs and attitudes of the judges regarding the behavior of the people.  In legal fact:  a parent has no responsibility to shirk; unless the legislative branch acts to create such responsibility.  No statutory law exists, under the Ohio Revised Code, which mandates that a man must pay his adult son or daughter retroactive CHILD SUPPORT.  Thus the attempt to legislate from the bench in Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-Ohio 7107, is a fraud upon the people of Ohio.

     

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
    This material in this post is the opinion of the author and shall not be construed as legal advise.

    2015-02-14 at 5:49 AM#22729
    +1
    Puffin Stuff
    Puffin Stuff
    Participant
    24979

    Yes, it may be judicial activism but that’s not really the point from our perspective.

    The point is to never ever, ever, ever, ever stick it in without a bag on it. Give up on any plans to have children. There have been many times in history where having children was problematic.

    Look at your bank account then figure out the risk benefit relationship of a vasectomy versus 23 years of slavery.

    Men today can no longer “have” children. Women have made it abundantly clear that they would rather slave away in a cubical than have to pretend to love a man. Also, any help an woman may need, financial, housing, child care, protector have all been out sourced by our feminist overlords.

    Men are getting exactly what women said they would get in 1965 and nothing has changed except woman are much more successful today than they even ever expected and are now going for world hegemony (read: Hillary Clinton, woman with her finger on the trigger, president of the one superpower in the world).

    Women don’t care about borders or causes, they only care about themselves, today, right now.

    The first law of Fembotics: The world revolves around each and every woman seperately.

    So realize the freedom us MGTOW guys have today versus many periods in the past. Nobody is sending us to war, crime is down, being single was never easier and being married after 45 is now seen as strange.

    Soon we will be the new normal.

    #icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

    2015-02-14 at 9:46 AM#22801

    Anonymous
    11
    Puffin Stuff wrote:

    Hillary Clinton, woman with her finger on the trigger,

    We’d all be better off with a chimpanzee at the trigger.

    2015-02-14 at 10:57 AM#22817
    Joelaw
    joelaw
    Participant
    6

    SUMMARY:  In a 5-2 decision written by Justice Francis E. Sweeney Sr., the Court held that the Auglaize County Juvenile Court was acting within its jurisdiction when it ordered Barrett Kemp II to pay more than $52,000 in retroactive child support to Jessica Schaefer, his biological daughter. (To read entire summary of the case, see footnote [1])

     

    Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick was among the 4 other justices who concurred with Justice Francis E. Sweeney Sr in this 5-2 ruling, which was decided on December 30, 2004.

    A month later, the people of Ohio find out the true character of this justice.

    On January 31, 2005, she [Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick] was arrested by the Ohio State Highway Patrol for DUI. Several motorists had used cell phones to call in a Jeep Grand Cherokee showing erratic driving. State police confronted her in a gas station and she refused a field sobriety test, resulting in the one-year automatic suspension of her license. After refusal, she ignored police orders to remain at the gas station and drove off. She was pulled over a few minutes later and failed a sobriety test. Justice Resnick registered a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.22, nearly three times the legal limit in the state of Ohio. A dashboard camera recorded the incident, and much of the audio showing Justice Resnick trying to use her office to get out of the DUI charge appeared on the internet. She was convicted of DUI, a first degree misdemeanor, required to take a three-day alcohol education program, and her license was suspended for six months, overriding the automatic suspension of one year. She was not charged with failure to comply with a police officer, resisting arrest, or fleeing from police. A new state law also implemented a mandatory jail sentence for offenders who refuse a sobriety test and show greater than a 0.17 BAC. The incident and penalty sparked a wave of public criticism, especially after portions of the 90-minute videotape surfaced on various internet video websites.  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Robie_Resnick

     

    We can only wonder- if she was drunk on the bench when deciding Carnes v. Kemp, 104 Ohio St.3d 629, 2004-Ohio 7107.

     

    VIDEO:   Drunken Ohio Supreme Court Justice Threatens Highway Patrol

     

    .

    2015-02-14 at 12:53 PM#22850
    +2
    Stargazer
    Stargazer
    Participant
    12505

    Legal authority is a sham. The law can and will be bent, broken, ignored or changed as it suits the agenda of those in power to do so. Good luck arguing with the police and the courts when you feel justice has not been done… as a man you may think of law like a gridiron with clearly demarcated lines, end zones and goal posts but for modern society, the law is fluid and is constantly under pressure to be reshaped to serve the needs of people who aren’t you.

    2015-02-14 at 1:15 PM#22857

    Anonymous
    42

    Well said DocFenderson, May I add: Am I living in a vacuum? NO! All around us we see the unwise being fleeced into poverty, jailed for the slightest offense, Robbed “left and right”! Whoever is free, is not embroiled, saturated, and permeated, by the atrocious and merciless beast of JUSTICE! It’s time to wise up! opt out! ADIOS AMIGO! Were not responsible for the irresponsible and unwary fools of feminisum! Let them starve in their misery.

    2015-02-14 at 7:24 PM#22943
    Harpo-My-"SON"
    harpo-my-“SON”
    Participant
    2410

    Doc  I have to agree about the law. I once heard it put this way. The Nature Of Law: We hold the nature of the law similar to “silly putty“. We may bend, stretch or reshape the law to say what fits our purpose.
    SECRET CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

    I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

©2020 by www.mgtow.com | All Rights Reserved.