Thursday, March 10, 2011
Labels: Miscellaneous, Wasting Court Time
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Labels: Custody, Wasting Court Time
Monday, May 04, 2009
Labels: "Deadbeat Dads", Child Support Collection, Family Court Reform, Wasting Court Time
Sunday, March 29, 2009
ANOTHER RIDICULOUS WASTE OF COURT RESOURCES IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Granted, the lawsuit discussed in Re/Max says local agency's logo too similar to its own is not a Family Court case. However, this ridiculous case is tying up precious court time and resources that could be better utilized for child abuse cases, juvenile criminal cases, domestic abuse cases, custody cases, child support cases, paternity cases, domestic kidnapping cases, parental interference cases, visitation cases--you get the picture.
What makes this nonsense particularly egregious is that South Carolina now has an unemployment rate of 11% and there are literally thousands of non-custodial parents who have been paying their child support religiously, but now need some relief from that obligation and need access to Family Court to obtain that releif.* As reported in "Fighting Over Child Support After the Pink Slip Arrives," "Since January [Family Courts across the nation] have been overwhelmed with urgent requests...alarming judges and overwhelming calendars with what are known as modification cases. In Clark County, Nev., which includes Las Vegas, the district attorney’s family support division has received an unusually high number of calls from parents who previously paid diligently but are now having trouble."
Our suggestion is that the Courts advise all Re/Max Realtors and Brokers who are seeking an adjustment in their child support payments that they need to go to the end of the line. They have used their collective court time allotment for this quarter.
*See, "Economy Could be Affecting SC Child Support Payments," wherein it was written:
The economy and South Carolina’s high unemployment rate appear to be affecting child support payments in the state. Larry McKeown, child support enforcement director for the state Department of Social Services, says, "I can’t specifically attribute it to the economy, but we have seen a decrease of about a little over two percent in collections, when comparing January of ‘09 to January of ‘08'."
We note that, because South Carolina does such a poor job of collecting child support, there may not be much of a statistical drop off in collection rates during difficult economic times. However, that does not change the fact that there are those who want to pay their child support, but are unable to do so because they cannot find employment. And they cannot get into Family Court to obtain a reduction because the dockets are filled with nonsense cases.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Non-custodial Parents, Problems at DSS, Wasting Court Time
Friday, December 19, 2008
An appeals court turned down a request for a new trial from a former District of Columbia judge who sued his dry cleaner for $54 million over a lost pair of pants. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected the request from the former judge, Roy L. Pearson, above, to overturn a 2007 ruling that denied him damages. Mr. Pearson had argued that the cleaners failed to live up to its promise of “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” Three judges said Mr. Pearson failed to show fraud and said his argument defied logic.
Labels: Wasting Court Time
Monday, September 29, 2008
The multi-million-dollar legal battle over a pair of missing pants that put a D.C. dry cleaner out of business is headed back to court, shocking many in the dry-cleaning and legal communities.
A three-judge appellate court panel has agreed to hear an appeal of the case next month, more than a year after a judge ruled against the plaintiff, former D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson.
Pearson sued the owners of Custom Cleaners for $67 million in 2005 after it misplaced a pair of his pants. Pearson demanded the family pay $1,000, the cost of the entire suit, according to Pearson. The family refused initially, but eventually offered him $12,000 to settle the case. Pearson refused that, but later reduced the amount of his lawsuit to $54 million.The case ended in June, 2007, when a judge ruled against Pearson and in favor of the Chung family, which owned the cleaners. The judge also ordered Pearson to pay the Chungs' legal fees. The Chungs ended up raising money to cover legal costs.
"Now, a year later, we have a new mountain forming -- all in relation to one pair of pants," said Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney. "We are hoping that we are victorious in appeal, but the important thing to take away is that no one wins, everyone loses in a case like this."
Pearson also lost his job as a judge. He filed a $1 million lawsuit against the District in May 2008, demanding compensation and his job back.
The lawsuit's return has many dry cleaners distraught.
"To me, it doesn't make any sense to me at all -- it's just nonsense," said Alison Lee, of Sun Cleaners.
A West Virginia man accused of passing gas and fanning it toward a police officer no longer faces a battery charge. The Kanawha County prosecutor's office requested that the charge be dropped against 34-year-old Jose Cruz.
According to a criminal complaint, Cruz passed gas and made a fanning motion toward patrolman T.E. Parsons after being taken to the police station for a breathalyzer test. Cruz denies fanning the gas and says his request to use a restroom when first arriving at the station was denied.
An assistant says Magistrate Jack Pauley signed a motion to dismiss the charge Thursday.
Cruz, who was arrested Tuesday, still faces driving under the influence and other charges.
Labels: Wasting Court Time
Friday, August 10, 2007
On August 12, 2007 the New York Times reported "A judge who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner is fighting the cleaners’ efforts to collect legal fees from him. The judge, Roy L. Pearson, filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion for fees Friday, saying he should not have to pay the $82,907.50 that the owners of the business, the Chung family, owe from defending themselves against his lawsuit."
Labels: Wasting Court Time
Monday, February 12, 2007
SOMEONE IS IN FAVOR OF "ROE V. WADE FOR MEN"
We would like to know who posted the comment to the March 10, 2006 Post. We would also like a response to the questions [If the father wins the case]:
- How should we determine which fathers should be required to support their children and which should not be required to support their children?
- Should husbands be allowed to opt out of supporting their biological children?
- What if a child has disabilities that increase the cost of raising the child, but decrease the likelihood of a successful adoption--should the father be allowed to opt out under those circumstances?
- How much would you be willing to increase your taxes in order to support all those children whose fathers opt out of supporting them?"
Until these questions are answered, we do not understand how anyone could logically support allowing fathers to opt out of the duty of support. We note that this is especially true given the fact that the AP reports that, according to U. S. Census figures, out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. are at an all-time high of nearly 40%. This is because, if the fathers are allowed to opt-out, the rest of us will have to help shoulder the financial burden of raising these children.
Labels: Wasting Court Time
Sunday, July 23, 2006
The so-called “Roe v. Wade for Men” case has been dismissed by a Michigan Federal Court Judge. We agree with Roger Sinasohn at http://www.bloggingbaby.com/., who wrote "What Mr. Dubay fails to realize is that he has--and, more importantly, had--the right to avoid procreation. He failed, unfortunately, to exercise that right when he had sex without wearing a condom. Because he did not take steps to prevent the pregnancy, he is fully responsible for it....Luckily, U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson agreed and dismissed the case in federal court. Dubay won't even get a chance to waste taxpayers' money on a trial, a good thing in my opinion." However, for an opposing view click on http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page9.shtml.
Labels: Wasting Court Time
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
The New York Times is reporting that singer/actor/producer/businessman P. Diddy is appealing what could be the largest child support order in New York state history.
Last month, the New York State Supreme Court's Appellate Division approved an increase from about $5,000 to $21,782 per month to P. Diddy's ex-girlfriend, Misa Hylton-Brim. Representatives of both P. Diddy and Hylton-Brim say it's the highest child support payment in state history.
In an interview with The Associated Press Tuesday, the hip-hop mogul vowed to appeal, saying the case was "an attack on his character."
''It's not about money. I don't care how much money I have,'' he said. ''If you come at me and say I don't take care of my child, I'm going to take care of that to the end.''
He said the courts should not have negated the previous, years-old agreement between the pair, which stipulated a $5,000 monthly figure. ''The law would be saying that contracts are null and void. I don't think that it would be like that with someone else,'' he said.
Hey P. Diddy, get a clue. Granted, this is a lot of money. And your "baby mama" may be seeking ''adult support'' as you claim. But, you are just making other fathers look bad by raising these same tired old arguments. This is no sweat for you--chump change. And your silliness undermines the argument that there are actually people who object to the amount of child support they have been ordered to pay because they can not pay it, not because they are insulted at being asked to pay it.
Besides, did your lawyer not tell you that child support agreements are unlike most contracts and they are subject to constant monitoring and adjustment?
Labels: "Deadbeat Dads", Child Support, Responsibility, Wasting Court Time
