A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘contempt of court’

It’s Never Enough: Pay Child Support, You’re Still a Deadbeat

by Moody Jim Rathbone

One of the worst examples of the discrimination that men face is with child support. Canada is no exception.

court in Halifax NSA Canadian judge has called a Nova Scotia businessman and developer one of the “worst deadbeat” dads in Canadian history. The judge sentenced him to four years in prison, adding a court fine of $384,000. Gotta make sure the corporate court has a little extra owed to it. Eh?

violation of due process and civil rightsThe National Post claimed that family court judge Theresa Forgeron (obviously an offended opportunistic feminist) said Vrege Armoyan’s “defiance spanned many years.” He owes a “shameful amount of arrears” racked up in a deliberate plan to hide money and to avoid paying support for his three children, ages 20, 18 and 15. (Shouldn’t two of those be emancipated?)

In typical fashion the judge aims at your heart strings – “His children struggle to survive while Mr. Armoyan has millions of dollars.” They are starving on a mere $9000 a month in child support that they have received like a slot machine. They don’t sound too hungry to me! What do you say?

kangaroo courtAs usual, the court debt is mostly imaginary. Armoyan was originally ordered to pay $29,000 a month in child support and alimony in 2012. He never paid the full amount. As a self-employed man of business, he is one of the few to claim that right. Instead, he opted to pay $9000 a month. The total arrears is $1,714,684.04, as well as owing over $1 million in court costs. I know who isn’t going to be in Canada – ever.

mob-rule-child-support-governmentNaturally, a blood-sucking lawyer was quoted as being in full agreement with the court. Lawyers depend on the good favor of the court. They kiss the ring of a judge, a legalized mobster. Surprised? So why are you paying your lawyer so much to represent you? He must be good in bed, for someone anyway.

Armoyan reportedly notified the court via email (they actually admit receiving it) that he was no longer a resident of Canada but he failed to say where he had moved. Surprise. The email source indicated that the post was sent from the Middle East.

Originally, Armoyan reportedly fled from Florida to Canada because a court had sentenced him to 60 days in jail for failing to obey a child support court order.

groceriesThe greed of the ex and the court is unrivaled, supported by the attorney of ex: “My client can’t afford groceries. She can’t afford to fly here for this hearing.” Perhaps she couldn’t afford the gas money to drive her limosine either. The bottom line? $9000 wasn’t enough for anyone. They pushed the issue and lost, putting themselves through some suffering.

To me, Mr. Armoyan is a hero. First, he’s self-employed and independent. He isn’t a slave to the court or a country. He isn’t afraid to make bold choices instead of simply caving to the state and an angry and ‘entitled’ ex-wife. Apparently, mom is a terrible money manager if she can’t manage on $108,000 a year, tax-free. The 18 and 20 year “children” should be emancipated. To the uninitiated, that means “on their own.”

court orderThe judge declared that Armoyan was guilty of “contempt of court.” Neither he, nor his attorney showed at a hearing last Friday. Doubtless, the attorney wasn’t paid to show, yet, his defiance is declared by his absence (not the attorney, he’s still kissing the ring). He “strategically and tactically” avoided payment and fled the country to avoid the unbounded greed of his ex-wife and the courts. Good for him. It’s a freakin’ gravy train against men in this part of the world.

Being in the Middle East in an unknown location in an Islamic state should be protection enough. I hope he finds a better life than being constantly stressed out by courts and a nasty ex-wife. Nobody deserves that lot.

original article

 

Advertisements

Right to Trial in Contempt Cases

These are some thoughts to consider about surviving federal child support as you live out your life in the USA.

You can not be held in contempt for child support if you can not afford to pay. The burden of proof that you can afford to pay is on the other side, but judges ignore this fact every day by playing ignorant unless you bring this up.

Contempt is supposed to be to get compliance. Jail will not get compliance. Demand immediate reduction in support amount if jailed.

Jury trial:

Demand it. If criminal you have an absolute right. Civil if over $20.

The Sixth Amendment provides the right to ‘…trial by an impartial jury…’ Also under Article II, Section 2, the trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. The power of the jury acts as a check and balance related to criminal charges and the enforcement of criminal laws. The jury is theorized to gives the people absolute power over the enforcement of criminal laws. (note: criminal)

Ask about jurisdiction:

Supreme Justice Court had Common Law Jurisdiction until 1877 and exclusive jurisdiction until 1889 on divorce and custody issues. Wrong venue and jurisdiction voids all orders.

* BLOOM V. ILLINOIS, 88 S.Ct. 1477

in Bloom v. Illinois, 73 the Court announced that ”[o]ur deliberations have convinced us . . . that serious contempts are so nearly like other serious crimes that they are subject to the jury trial provisions of the Constitution . . . and that the traditional rule is constitutionally infirm insofar as it permits other than petty contempts to be tried without honoring a demand for a jury trial.”

* DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA, 88 S.Ct. 1444

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 153, 155-156 (1968).

in the Eighteenth Century, Blackstone could commemorate the institution as part of a ”strong and two-fold barrier . . . between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown” because ”the truth of every accusation . . . . [must] be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion.”

Contempt of Court is quasi-criminal, merits all constitutional protections:

* EX PARTE DAVIS, 344 SW 2d 925 (1976)

update per reader: the correct reporter cite for Ex Parte Davis is 344 S.W. 2d 153 (Tex. 1961)

A civil action to collect statutory penalties and punitive damages, although not technically criminal, has been held to implicate no right to jury trial. (1) But more recently the Court has held denationalization to be punishment which Congress may not impose without adhering to the guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, (2) and the same type of analysis could be used with regard to other sanctions.

(1) Id. See also Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320 (1909); Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103 (1909).

(2) Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).

Notice: This article is not legal counsel. You will need an attorney and your own wits to supply you with the details of your case.

Creative Commons License
Right to Trial in Contempt Cases by E.J. Manning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com.

Tag Cloud