Some readers may have noticed various formatting and/or font errors in yesterday's posts, (particularly in the footnotes and in my Motion for Rehearing).
Be assured, I have attempted to fix these, and this does not appear in my original (filed) briefs, but for some reason these errors appeared upon copying and pasting into the blog. I have no idea why they did so, and can only think they may have something to do with the original program in which they were created, (I generally use Open Office or similar freeware, which has caused me no end of difficulty in the past, but who can afford Microsoft's products?!)
However, rather than spend any more time trying to fix these cosmetic errors, (I have already spent hours on this!), I have decided my time will be better spent further examining the opinion(s) of the Court itself and posting new material and commentary.
However, I did want to make one clarification, in case some may have misunderstood some of my comments in yesterday's posts.
By saying the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in my case was a "doozy" (or any of my other comments) I in no way meant any disrespect for the court; In that regard, while I do find many of its holdings contradictory, the Court, like many State Courts, are overworked and laboring under, in many instances, significant budget cuts and understaffing.
And of course, it is quite possible that the (and/or its clerks) merely overlooked many inconsistencies and its own precedents, (hence my motion for Re-hearing under Vermont R. App. Proc. 40).
In light of my intent to continue to examine the Court's decision, I wanted to make it clear that I have no animus for the Court, (and will, of course, abide by its decision on rehearing, whatever it is, or exercise my lawful right to take an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, frankly a long shot).
Nor is it my intention to try and influence the Court's actions in my case, (as if any members of the Court will even read my little blog here!)
Indeed, while I could only hope the Court would understand the basis of my criticism of its decision, (and the weaknesses thereof), I do so more as a public service from an academic perspective to illustrate how easily it is for a court to things wrong and how difficult it is to overturn trial court decisions once they are entered, (even clearly wrong ones) and, as alluded to yesterday, for a non-custodial father representing himself to get justice in this day and age. (I shall have more to speak on the former in the future).
In that regard, and speaking to my case specifically, I fear that the die is cast, if for nothing else than certain telling statements of the Court yesterday indicating how easily (and how much!) the "politics" of issues dealing with child support can influence Court decisions against fathers, even in the best of circumstances, (and, as alluded to yesterday, a non-custodial father representing himself certainly cannot be considered the "best" of circumstances!)
Indeed, the court's "unfortunately for mother" comment, as well as its dicta (and presumption) that my moving various times over thirteen years and the return of various pieces of mail in that same period of time indicates I was intentionally attempting to avoid service over the years, (when not even the trial court made such determinations!) are prime examples of this.
On the merits, as I point out in my Brief and Reply Brief, (which I will post shortly) this of course assumes I was expecting an action of this sort from my ex wife, (which due to our Off record Agreement re support and the fact she got everything she wanted from our divorce, including all appliances, furniture, my guns, and even my grandmother's wedding ring (which I presented to her on the night I proposed and had sentimental value to me but which she refused to return when I asked), I had no reason to.
Of course, from a legal perspective, it is irrelevant that I failed to update my address, as absent proper notice and service upon me of her motion, or the "emergency" custody hearing in this case going back to 2000, I believed, and still do, that I had no legal duty to update the court on a current mailing address every time I moved.
Now whether I should have or not from a moral perspective is an altogether 'nother question; But keeping in mind the way she has completely brainwashed my kids and alienated them from me, the thousands of dollars in support she received through Pahnke family sources, (including the very home she still lives in!) and like matters, I feel comfortable in all but one respect mentioned yesterday.
And that is if I had joined the battle sooner, perhaps I could have stopped her alienation of our kids and preserved a relationship with my four beautiful children from that marriage.
That is my biggest and prime regret, and, as stated yesterday, my main impetus for sharing my experiences now in the hopes I might encourage other fathers to not make that same mistake.
I can only hope that I might have some small measure of success in that respect to bring some good out of all the "bad" I have experienced.
And let's face it, my story is interesting, or you wouldn't be reading any of this, right? ;) jp
jp
No comments:
Post a Comment