|
Edited on Thu Mar-15-07 09:52 PM by rumpel
:grouphug:
The hearing today was about the Child Support Services here closing my case, and I appealed that decision, because I believe they are wrong to do so, in addition to that they had a duty to do a few more things.
The judge is an administrative law judge sent by Sacramento, and the hearing took place in a standard conference room.
The case goes all the way back to '93. In '95, after many delays initiated by my ex I got my judgment in trial. For stealing money from the community property and wiring the money overseas etc. and half of that was awarded to me. (cashing out of equity on the home and rental properties) We also had a temporary order that lasted until the trial day, which he did not comply with and that was tacked on as arrears. And then, of course child support.
Because he did not obey the temporary order all properties foreclosed, our cars were repo'd, even one year before the final trial date. I had $1,500. My daughter was 5.
Now since '93 when my ex fled to Japan he said to my friend there, he does not give a shit and &#^%$ US courts and law, he is beyond jurisdiction.
This is theft, not only from community property but in fact I found bank fraud.
I had to file bankruptcy because I had 2.5 Mil in community debt that I knew of. Probably there was more..that I did not know of. (He embezzled money from an investor client at his business - my main reason for divorce)
He also stole money from my mother and she has a judgment, too.
In '96 I asked child support to be enforced. They closed it in late '98 because there are no treaties between the US & Japan even though US Title 18 Section 228, makes willful non-payment of support (at the time) a misdemeanor. Nowadays it is a felony. With huffing and puffing and the help of the County Supervisor and Waxman the case was referred to the US Attorney. Ultimately they could not do anything either, unless I find that he works for a US company or I find him living here again.
In 2003 I find that my ex DOES work for a US company and not only that, he is a high level exec. So I asked them to reopen the case. They did, and they send a wage garnishment to the company. There were all sorts of this and that but lastly, last summer, the company outside law firm responded to the Child Support agency, that while my ex is an officer with a very important role on a global scale, he is technically not an employee, in legal terms.
Now this is a 15 Billion dollar privately held company, a Limited Liability Company which buys commercial properties around the globe, by creating limited partnerships with investors and investment funds. My ex is "principal" of this limited liability company registered in Delaware. (the business friendly state)
What it boils down to is that this company is shielding their own, and the agency with all the powers of government should be able to compel information from the company, but no - they said ok - if you say so, and as of today in front of the judge, they said because nothing showed up on any government databases that is as far as they can go.
Later, in a sense, he admitted that it is likely that the company is lying, because of tax issues (not reporting)
but they have no evidence.
This is a case of the small guy going against money and power which buys the justice system and gets away with it. It is called the corporate veil, and Levin introduced a bill last year relating to offshore companies etc.
Now the chairman of this company got Ed Meese, confirmed as AG during Reagan, and he himself was awarded the role as Undersecretary of the Interior thereafter. He has very close ties to Saudi Arabia. You get the picture. So a staff attorney at a local child support office understandably soils his underwear, and his superiors ordered the case closed.
They did not file an employer contempt, but instead closed the case. I believe, they also could have filed a judgment lien, in case my ex exercises his stock options - but that was not done either.
I also offered them the assistance of an attorney in Japan and she is in fact part of the delegation of Japan to the Hague convention currently negotiating the language to make it a one stop process to enforce child support orders across international borders. I have been commenting to the US delegation, and trying to make a difference there, too. So others in the future do not have to go through this runaround.
But the support office did not want to work with her.
There was a chance to establish a unique precedent of cooperation between US-Japan.
For some time now - it was no longer about support alone - as you see.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
