by Abi D. Marketing

February 19, 2018

THE MATTER: The law in this case involves issues that affect thousands of potential Family Court litigants each year who are involved in Paternity, Custody and other Family Court related matters that cross state lines. These cases occur due to individuals easily moving from state to state and children raised by various family members across state lines. Questions of paternity may be raised in one state, followed by subsequent paternity actions in other states, as the child moves between relatives.

History: The instant paternity action caused the court to find out both subject matter and personnel jurisdiction were lacking where the Trial Court and Appellate Division ignored key evidence of fraud and attorney collusion used to hide and/or shield defendant

These issues are of general public importance, by raising questions such as if the Appellate division erred, and, by creating new rules with regards to the issues of collateral estoppel and res judicata, namely, reliance on a vacated judgment in a neighboring State Action as preclusive of issues of paternity, the Appellate Division conflicted with substantial precedent.

By granting Full Faith and Credit to a vacated judgment of a different jurisdiction, the Appellate Division ignored precedent in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the alternate forum. Such a decision will have substantial implications for countless, future litigants in paternity, custody and other family related matters, as more and more family court litigants are forced to institute and defend actions in different jurisdictions.

THE SECOND PART: The error of law has occurred in allowing a Pennsylvania (PA) vacated order/judgment  to have legal standings in New Jersey(NJ) with merit, when the order no longer exist in its home state.  And, error of law also occurred when the defendant who has contacts with state and owns New Jersey properties did not abide by the laws of the State in avoiding jurisdiction.  These errors of law simply underscore the damage that will be done to New Jersey jurisprudence, if the court of appeals’ opinion is not corrected.  And this Court’s intervention is required to correct the matter.

 The error of law cause by Appellant Division by allowing the actions of trial court presents Federal Constitutional questions, if not corrected by this Court. Necessary claims and rebuttals regarding personal and subject jurisdiction to all courts. The hearing was based on Subject and Personal Jurisdiction but the Judge only ruled on Subject Jurisdiction.

For more read below

Sponsor Ads

About Abi D. Committed   Marketing

256 connections, 2 recommendations, 1,038 honor points.
Joined APSense since, July 11th, 2014, From Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Created on Feb 20th 2018 18:34. Viewed 379 times.


No comment, be the first to comment.
Please sign in before you comment.