|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....the state might not meet federal requirements on collecting child support payments, putting California at risk of losing $40 million in federal funds.
The source of this bogus argument is Steve Eldrid. He is an attorney who claims to represent The Child Support Directors Association of California. He brought up this exact argument in a hearing before the Senate Committee of Judiciary. Senator Escutia and Roderick Wright specifically added amendments to AB2240 to avoid the risk of failing to comply with federal law. AB2240 is in full compliance with federal law. We know this to be a fact. If this argument continues to be repeated, there is something seriously wrong. Davis has no business bringing this argument to the table.
As for personal service, again it was Steve Eldrid that opposed this in addition to Valerie Ackerman of the National Center for Youth Law. One must wonder why personal service is mandatory in a divorce or custody hearing and yet somehow it is faulty in a paternity issue. The level of sophistry here is beyond belief. Clearly, they are negotiating in bad faith to continue opposing this bill on this basis after all the compromises that were made.
My take is that a group of liars lobbied Davis and that Davis believes in their lies, or Davis is just another one of those that advocates for victimizing men through institutionalized discrimination and fraud. In other words, Davis believe that state sponsored paternity fraud is acceptable because it is in the best interest of a state supported child. He doesn't care if innocent children are victimized. He buys into the feminist agenda of women being immune from criminal activities.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 30, @07:13AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
When Davis took office, the first thing he did was reverse legislation that his predecessor had implemented that put a limit on the length of time alimony would be allowed to occur. The feminists have him in their pocket.
Davis does NOT represent men. He is clearly an enemy of men and has allied himself with the "powerful" women's lobyists.
Unfortunately the person running against him is disliked even more, so Davis will most likely win in November as the "least of two evils".
I think California would be much better off even with his opponent Simon.
Men will never get a fair break with Davis in office. He is our enemy. We should use this final month to create an all out effort to let Davis' veto of this legislation become public, and the fact that he is the enemy of men. At the same time he vetoed this bill, he signed a bill that allows sexual assault victims - even if their attackers are acquitted - to sue in civil court ala the VAWA.
Davis will continue to support radical feminist dogma, and will continue to be an enemy of men and protector of women.
All of us who live in California, and even those that don't, should work to ensure he is NOT elected next month. Time is of the essence! He is 8 points ahead!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the objection to the personal service provision. It is not explained in the article why this would be a problem. Does anyone know the rational behind this.
Also, it seems to me the bill was doomed by the retroactive nature of the bill. Couldn't the wording be changed to go into effect henceforth and affect only situtions AFTER the bill is signed, for example, applying to all children born AFTER the bill is signed into law? Tactically speaking, this seems more likely to pass than a retroactive law. Anyone know why this avenue was not pursued?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
I don't understand the objection to the personal service provision. It is not explained in the article why this would be a problem. Does anyone know the rational behind this.
Who would object to personal service and why? I'd love to hear your best guess.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea. I was hoping someone from CA who is keeping up with events there could explain it more fully. I don't see why this would be a sticking point with the governor and the reasons are not spelled out in the article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Monday September 30, @10:45PM EST (#6)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
I can see arguments against it. It's costly (you have to pay process servers) and it can be evaded easily in some cases, especially in densely-populated low income areas like parts of L.A. where people are hard to track down, let alone getting them to sign papers. I'm not taking a position on whether we should or shouldn't require personal service, but given the fierce opposition to this bill I believe the personal service requirement should not have been put in there. The real issue is not service but RELIEF when it is not their child. Without a law providing them relief then YES we should require personal service. But if we get the law passed, then service is a side issue. And since it is likely to be used against the bill, it shouldn't be in there. Even Rod Wright's office eventually saw that it may be a "poison pill" that was added on later in the confusion and the opposition doesn't object strongly to it because they knew it could hurt the bill.
Bottom line though is that it was more likely federal funds and not the personal service thing that really killed the bill. David admitted afterwards that federal dollars had lots to do with it.
But groups are re-organizing for the fight. It's not over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 30, @11:36PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
As I once said before;
Misandry wouldn't be so rampant, if it were'nt so PROFITABLE!
I'd say this lesson teaches us that big money and Wussy-pooies (like Davis) DON'T mix!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey! It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 01, @06:58AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
We might as well not even waste our time if Davis is elected again.. which he will be.
No matter what he will have an excuse for veto of any bill.
And why not personal service? If a letter is sent to the last "known address" and you miss it - you are instantly, and irrevokably in debt for the next 18 years. It is absolutely ridiculous.. yeah some would evade the service if they can.. but that is why we have rights! You can't say because some people will evade, that you can relax the service law with a debt that could be this HUGE and impossible to discharge! What kind of logic is this? Why not just randomly assign paternity?
As long as Davis is in office there will always be an excuse.. it isn't just federal money - though that does make a difference. Davis wants to win the "popular" feminist vote.
We will simply never win on his watch. He feels guilty for being a man, so it influences his decisions... he is simply a feminist who feels guilty for having a penis...
We must remove him!!
Considering the other business groups he pissed off in his last round of signing/vetoing, we might actually be able to organize a "STOP DAVIS" campaign....
Please help us keep California a democracy, and remove the socialist, feminist that hates his own manhood....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We might as well not even waste our time if Davis is elected again.. which he will be.
Nobody ever gets anything worthwhile by giving up so easily. We need to persist, and rephrase all of our arguments in terms that Davis can understand. We need to win his support should he be re-elected. If Davis said no then it’s probably because we didn’t ask the question right.
Only losers give up. Never take no for an answer where there is a real injustice. Always fight back.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc;
I worked for a company that routinely sent summons for small claims court to known wrong addresses, conveniently "losing" letters notifying a change of address. They would also wait long enough where the mail would no longer be forwarded before they would file.
Naturally, in 99 falls out of a hundred, they won default judgements. This was on the advice of their attorney, who, of course, said "I never said that."
There is another edge to that knife. The system in place can be abused by both sides.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
The real issue is not service but RELIEF when it is not their child. Without a law providing them relief then YES we should require personal service. But if we get the law passed, then service is a side issue.
I find myself in reluctant agreement. Much as I would like to see paternity not dealt with in such assembly-line fashion, it's more important and achieveable to provide relief from the worst mistakes of that process. I guess I'm gradually being swayed to the pragmatic, incrementalist camp.
Bottom line though is that it was more likely federal funds and not the personal service thing that really killed the bill. David admitted afterwards that federal dollars had lots to do with it.
I think the two are pretty intimately related. Even though, as Warble has informed us, the bill is compliant with federal law, it would still reduce performance on the criteria that the Feds hand out money for.
In addition to the direct costs of adding personal service, the child support officials must be having nightmares over the wrench it would throw into their system. "More than 70 percent of Los Angeles County men who pay child support were ordered to do so by default judgment."
How long does it take to complete a default judgement in court? Five minutes maybe to write a man's name into some boilerplate documents and ship it over to collection officials. A court could do 20-100 in one day. If men are personally served, they just might start showing up in greater numbers. Actual cases with questions and answers and stuff could reduce the caseload to 10 or 12 a day.
That would be a nightmare for the officials personally in terms of increased work. Institutionally, it's a nightmare because federal money comes from getting the highest number and highest percentage of child support orders into the system.
Articles by K.C. Wilson and Roger Gay at MND have made me aware of the extent to which Federal law is the 800-pound gorilla the driving the child-support system.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/kcwilson_1.ht m
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive_index/gay_arc hive.htm
It gives us a catch-22 in that we are more likely to be able to effect state-by-state changes, but the primary obstacle is at the Federal level, where we have no voice to speak of.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not taking a position on whether we should or shouldn't require personal service, but given the fierce opposition to this bill I believe the personal service requirement should not have been put in there. The real issue is not service but RELIEF when it is not their child.
My take on this is a bit different. I believe that the burden of proving paternity and all of the costs of that proof should be upon the accuser. So, if the state wants to assign somebody paternity then let them give the defendant every notice and every possibility of contesting that claim up front.
Contesting claims on the back end are always more costly. Once paternity is assigned, the person is on the hook for payment and cannot get any arrears dismissed. Nor is there any means of getting reimbursed. Further, the costs of child support in addition to fighting a default paternity judgment is too costly for most people. Child support is by no means cheap!
By failing to properly server notice of the hearing, there is a new class of victims created that would not otherwise exists. Then they are required to prove innocence, and proving innocence is a financial burden that many cannot easily absorb. It is common for these proceedings to take 1-2 years. That means that a family that is a victim of a default paternity judgment must pay upwards of $24,000 for child support (at $1000/mo) plus attorney fees and the costs of the paternity test.
It is like assuming that when a woman fingers a man that they are guilty. Then L.A. County goes through a couple of formalities involving substitute service to get the default judgment. They are guaranteed federal funds and the money they extorted from the innocent victims.
For example, NCFM, LA got a letter from a 64-year-old impotent male that was being victimized by L.A. County. They were trying every form of trickery to nail him with a default judgment. They literally picked his name out of a phone book. He was lucky that the papers got to him; otherwise, he'd be on the hook.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of default judgments are naming the wrong people. We don't know how high the numbers go. We do know that the child protectors are terrified of the default judgment rate going down. They are very dependant on making money by naming the wrong people.
On the Senate Committee of Judiciary hearing dated 8/13/2002, it became clear that there were literally upwards of 10's of thousands of victims of state sponsored paternity fraud that have accumulated over the years. The idea that the state might loose money because they named the wrong people really scared the opposition. They want very badly to be able to name the wrong people with impunity.
I would love to see some of these extortionists go to jail over this crime. I have no doubt but that it is intentional. They cannot claim that this is being done innocently at this point. They have had every chance to correct this issue of state sponsored paternity fraud. Yet they continue to defend the practice in the name of the children’s best interest.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne,
You asked a question. You got answers. Has this cleared it up for you or is opposition to personal service still an opaque mystery to you?
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I understand now that objection to the bill because of personal sevice is based on cost of doing this. I'm still unclear why it was put into the bill in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
I'm still unclear why it was put into the bill in the first place.
Are you clear on the concept of "default judgement?" I think the "why" follows in a pretty straightforward line from that.
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's an opportunity to preach to more than just the choir, on Plastic.
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
