"The
Truth"
"Time limits
would protect the criminal
and violate 14th
amendment"
Opinion by Carnell Smith
Citizens Against Paternity Fraud Freedom Fighter, April/2001
What would happen to the crime rate,
if criminals were told "if you take money under false pretences",
don't worry about it -- there's no problem as long as it's not discovered for
xx number of years? So, take the money and disappear. And if you do get caught,
you'll get a tap on the wrist and you can still keep the money.
Would that deter others from pursuing
the same criminal acts? Absolutely, not!
We, the Citizens Against Paternity
Fraud agree with the following US Supreme Court ruling about violations of the
14th Amendment. There should NOT be a time limit on the paternity fraud cases,
if this is done -- men's civil rights will be violated.
The US constitution requires Equal
protection for all citizens, since there is no time limit on when mothers can
seek child support or arrears. It would be equally fair for men to have the
same amount of time to discover paternity fraud, in the absence of any laws
that require moms to tell the TRUTH about paternity (i.e. full disclosure of
all possible fathers).
How
can 60 days for challenging paternity be equal to 18+ years of paying child
support? The math does not add up, no matter what calculator is used.
The United States Supreme
Court:
Excerpt
from U. S. Supreme Court decision:
03/21/32
HEINER v. DONNAN ET AL. 1932.SCT.210, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S. Ct. 358, 76 L. Ed.
772
A rebuttable presumption clearly is a
rule of evidence which has the effect of shifting the burden of proof, Mobile,
J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 43; and it is hard to see how
a statutory rebuttable presumption is turned from a rule of evidence into a
rule of substantive law as the result of a later statute making it conclusive.
This court has held more than once
that a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity
to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For
example, Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 238, et seq.; Manley v. Georgia, 279
U.S. 1, 5-6.
"It
is apparent," this court said in the Bailey case (p. 239) "that a
constitutional prohibition cannot be
transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more
than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions
is not a means of escape from constitutional restrictions."
The
paternity fraud issue is not about the best interests of the child, mom and
Child Support Enforcement wants money with no regard about true paternity,
anybody picked by mom that is unfortunate enough to believe her accusation,
will do just fine. This keeps the matching federal tax dollars coming in, so
what if 30% of men tested for paternity were not the bio-dads?
Using the new enforcement measures,
Make em' pay or go to jail & assess arrears while he's in jail!
Just try and get a contempt ruling
against mom for non-compliance of visitation (it's a roll of the dice).
But if a man gets behind in child
support payments (regardless of reason), justice can be swift and unmerciful.
The child support enforcement agencies and the courts will haul you to jail,
yank your driver's/business licenses, seize your assets.
We have been contacted by men that
will testify to this treatment as a hunted animal -- then discover they've been
tricked and are not the bio-dad. Yes, the mom always knows of her other
intimate relations then makes a conscious decision to conceal this information
from the guy that she picked as dad.
Is there anybody here willing to go to
jail when you have prima facie evidence that you did NOT commit the
crime(pregnancy) ? The DNA results will prove the innocent man is NOT GUILTY!
Now, let's fight paternity fraud to
free the victimized men from the fraud perpetrators.
Carnell Smith – Director
Citizens Against Paternity Fraud
(CAPF-GA)
P.O. Box 372632
Decatur,
GA 30037
(404)
289-3321
Email: director@paternityfraud.com
Web:
http://www.paternityfraud.com/
Carnell
Smith is a paternity fraud victim and self-avowed advocate for legislation that
protects men's rights.