This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Michael Krichevsky, Respondent. JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE COURT
Notice to the court under the authority of the constitutions of the United States and the State of New York; authority of the United States Supreme Court and Demand for this court to follow the Supreme Law of the Land.
Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, (KRICHEVSKY) by special appearance UNDER DURESS
and without submitting to the jurisdiction of this court hereby puts this court on judicial notice to cease and desist any further unlawful assault against him. 2. KRICHEVSKY hereby challenges the jurisdiction of John Fasone and hereby puts him
on judicial notice that the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly established that once jurisdiction has been challenged, it is presumed that the court lacks jurisdiction unless or until the evidentiary sufficiency is provided and submitted to the record. 3. The presumption is that a court lacks jurisdiction on a particular issue until it has been
demonstrated that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists. The facts showing the existence of jurisdiction must be affirmatively in the record. 4. If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to
demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The limits upon jurisdiction
must be neither disregarded nor evaded. The requirement to submit admissible evidence upon the record proving jurisdiction once jurisdiction is challenged is mandatory. 5. The Supreme Court of the United States as well as lower courts have consistently
reaffirmed the requirement that once jurisdiction is challenged those who claim jurisdiction must submit the evidence to prove the validity o/the claim. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct 14, 24 (1908), Old Wayne Mutual Life Association v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S. Ct. 236 (1907), Scott v. McNeai, 154 U.S. 34, 14, S.Ct. 1 108 (1894), Pennoyer v.Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 733 (1877), Hagen v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, at 535, 39 L.ed. 577, 94 S.Ct/ 1372 (N.Y. March 28, 1974), United States v. Ruger, 23 F. 658 (W.D. Ark. (1885), State of Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 900 S. Ct. 2502 (1980),Mc/Yw# v.Geneml Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, Inc. , 298 U.S. 178, 80 LJBd. 1135, 56 S.Ct 780 (9136), (jurisdiction may never be presumed), Special Indemnify Fund v.Pruitt, 225 R2d. 308, 201 Okl. 308, (jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown), United States v.Chairito, 69 F. Supp. 3 17 (D. Or. 1946) (jurisdiction cannot be presumed), Standard v.Olesen, 98 L. Ed. 1151, 74 S.Ct 768 (1954), Garcia v. Dail, 586 S.W. 2d. 524, at 528, (Tex. C.A. 1980) (lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal), Burks v. Laskar, 441 U.S. 471 (1 979) and Title 5 U.S.C. §§55tf & 558(b). 6. Generally, there is no requirement for one subjected to a "void" judgment to do anything
more than call the trial court's attention to the mistake or fraud with a request to correct its record and order. 7. CPLR 5015(a) provides grounds and procedure for relief in this action. John Fasone had
fiduciary duty to provide justice and relief. 8. John Fasone has failed and refused to provide relief or dispute KMCHEVSKY3 s claims.
Child support hearing was a sham hearing where every attempt by respondent and his
attorney to establish admissible evidence on the record, which would prove Fraud Upon the Court and perjury by petitioner and her attorney, Yonatan Levoritz, was not allowed by John Fasone. 10. All of respondent's and his attorney's pleadings have been ignored. This court is hereby
ordered to cease and desist this unlawful attack in this proceeding and rebut with particularity anything in the judicial notice that you disagree with which is your duty. 11. In United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 (1970) judge stated: "silence can only be
equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading". 12. This court must take mandatory judicial notice of legal maxim: "Silence is
Acquiescence." 13. order). 14. This court must take mandatory judicial notice of hearing officer's JohnFasone contempt This court must take mandatory judicial notice of Exhibit A (Judge Paula Hepner' s
of the higher court by continuous refusal to comply with this order. 15. John Fasone is deprived of subj ect matter and personam jurisdiction to hear this case
because of the fraudulent and contemptuous behavior exhibited by John Fasone in these proceedings. 16. Supervising Judge Paula Hepner in her order dated October 24, 2011 (Exhibit A), inter
alia, put the child support order aside, and ordered John Fasone to issue written denial with explanation to KPJCFIEVSKY's motion to Recuse John Fasone. Because he did not comply with
this order, he did not meet condition precedent to gain jurisdiction over this case, and child support order still stands aside. 17. Unless, this court has subject matter/personam jurisdiction any order rendered by John
Fasone in this instant case is null and void and has no force of law. 18. Accordingly, Judge Hepner's order to KMCHEVSKY to appear on December 12, 2011
before John Fasone to reargue this case was void for Mr. Fasone's contempt and noncompliance with her order. According to evidentiary "admission by action" doctrine, John Fasone is not only biased toward KRICFJJBVSKY, but is shamelessly and openly hostile toward him. 19. John Fasone is personally benefiting though his pension fund and/or salary paid to him by
the State of New York from his own unfair child support orders against unsuspecting people. This scheme consists of keeping people in the state's "deadbeat father" list by issuing extremely high child support orders, which people cannot comply with. Thereafter, state gets billions of dollars from Federal Funding to prosecute "deadbeat fathers." 20. Therefore, Mr. Fasone's orders after December 12, 2011 hearing without KRICFffiVSKY
present are void as well. 21. 22. KRICJdEVSKY objects to these orders and appear as belligerent claimant under duress. As one anonymous attorney stated: "To put it bluntly, why would you ever rely upon
those who have been torturing you for so long to show you the way to find relief from the torture? All they are doing is moving you from the room with the rack to the room with the thumbscrews and the nail pullers. You are still going to be bent over, shafted and tossed onto the dung heap for the dogs to sniff at and pee on while "they", once again, laugh all the way to the bank"
THEREFORE, Michael Krichevsky, declare that child support order by John Fasone in this case is null and void as it stands for lack of jurisdiction. He demands that this court establish jurisdiction on the record with verifiable information and documentation that would contradict his above stated FACTS. In the same breath, he demands that this court pursuant to its inability to prove jurisdiction to dismiss its child support order in this case for want of jurisdiction.
I, Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, under penalty of perjury declare that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: Brooklyn, New York July 18, 2013
Michael Knchevsky, Pro Se, under duress, without prejudice
At a Term of the Family Court of the State of New York, held in. and for the County of Kings at 330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, New York, 18th.day of October 2011. P R E S I D I N G : HON. PAULA J. HEPNER Acting Justice of the Supreme Court
In the Matter of a Proceeding, for Support under Article IV ' of the Family Court Act,
DECISION AND ORDER ELENA SVENSON,
Petitioner, - against - • MICHAEL KRICHEVS.KY, Respondent.
(After filing of Objections) Docket Number Objection #1 Objection #2 Objection #1 F-28901-08/10A/B/C & 2 on Supp "A" & 3 on Supp "B" on Supp n C"
YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY, AFTER A COURT HEARING, RESULT IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR A TERM NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS, FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. PURSUANT TO §11-11 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN30 DAYS OFRECEIPT OFTHE ORDERBYAPPELLANTIN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF THE ORDER TO THE APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, OR 35 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR LAW GUARDIAN UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.-
The parties have engaged .in continuous litigation in Kings CoTinty Family "Court "tref'ore'Support •"Magistrate" Fas one since '2008 and
have had a lengthy history -before the undersigned. 1 On February 3, 2010, 2 the Support Magistrate issued 'a Final Order of Support and directed the Respondent to pay $ 2 , 0 4 5 . 0 0 monthly3 toward the support of the subject child, David Svenson ( d . o . b . 8/14/94) , and set the arrears from the date of filing at $31,599.42. The
.Respondent was directed to enroll the child in his health insurance _. ,o.f _P.e±±tian.er ' s .Counsel fees. Less than four, months after the entry of the Final Order of Support, on April 22, 2010, Respondent filed Supplemental "A
1 This is. the fourth objection before the undersigned. The first objection.was filed by the Petitioner on August 18, 2009 to an interim order of support.. On October 9, 2 0 0 9 , Petitioner withdrew the Objection. The second objection was filed by the Respondent on April 2, 2010 to the Final Order of Support issued by Support Magistrate Fasone on February 3, 2010. The undersigned denied the Objection on procedural grounds due to the untimely filing of the Objection on June 2, 2010. The third Objection was filed by the Respondent on August 9, 2010 to the Support Magistrate's, verbal' refusal to recuse himself. The Objection was denied on procedural grounds as the Objection was not ripe for review. •
2 On that same date, the Support Magistrate denied the Respondent's motion filed on September 9, 2009 to quash the subpoenas that Petitioner, served on third parties and to-pay all counsel fees related to the motion. In the Support Magistrate's order on the motion,- he denied the application as ^unnecessary as the Court rules that objections to admission of proffered documents not previously disclosed to opposing counsel will be considered at point of trial." •
3 The Support Magistrate did not deviate from the full amount required under the Child Support Standards Act. The Petitioner's adjusted gross'income was determined t o - b e $ 2 0 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 and the Respondent's adjusted gross income ' $145,145.40. The combined parental income was determined to be $165,945.40 of which the Petitioner's pro rata share was calculated at 13% and the Respondent's pro rata share at 87%. Pursuant to the Child Support-Standards Act, the Support Magistrate determined the annual child support obligation for the parties' child was 17% of their adjusted gross income or $ 2 2 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 for the combined income up to $ 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . The Respondent's share of the first $ 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 is $1,602.25-monthly. The Support Magistrate applied the statutory percentage of 17% to the income over $ 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 , which was $ 3 5 , 9 4 5 . 4 0 . The Respondent's pro rata share was $443.03 monthly. The Respondent's share for the income below $ 1 3 0 , 0 0 0 ( $ 1 , 6 0 2 . 2 5 ) when combined with 'tlTe~~R~el3ponden^'s;^ ($443.03} , resulted " in a monthly order of $2045.28 for the Respondent. • -
seeking a downward modification on the grounds that he lost his job, could not afford the health insurance premium and was ' . disputing the amount of arrears owed. On June 21, 2010, Petitioner filed Supplemental
alleging that Respondent violated the Order
of Support that directed him to pay $2,045.00 per month and Respondent failed to maintain the subject child on his health insurance. Subsequent motion practice ensued. On—July—2-6-,-—2-0441,-- •-Res-pendent- fiiedr-an—Grder to Show Cause (filed as Supplemental nC") for a Temporary Restraining Order to stay the current Order of Support and for the entry of an Order of Support in the amount of $315.90 per month based upon his receipt of unemployment benefits. On August 5,_. 2010, Support Magistrate Fasone declined to sign the Order to Show Cause and dismissed Supplemental "C." His Findings of Fact'indicated that he did not
sign the Order to Show Cause because the issuance of a temporary restraining order was beyond the scope of his authority. The case continued with multiple appearance dates on August 12, 2010, November 18, 2010, March 16, 2011, April 13, 2011, June 1, 20114 and ultimately concluded on July 6, 2011. On July 6, 2011.,. the Support Magistrate dismissed supplemental UA," Respondent's downward modification petition, because the Respondent "made-it impossible to conduct any meaningful inquiry into the totality of his financial circumstances" and entered a money judgment on supplemental "B," Petitioner's violation petition, .in the amount of
4 The Order'of Support remained in effect throughout the pendency of the proceeding with the exception of the modification entered on Supplemental "A" to $298.00 monthly entered on June 1, 2011.
$21,916.34. On July 5, -2011, one day prior to the last hearing date, Respondent filed an "Objection, Notice of Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment" on Supplemental "A" and papers were ever filed. ".Bv" 5 No answering
The papers were recorded as an Objection The "Objection, Notice of
and sent to the undersigned for review.
Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment"6 essentially argues the following: '
. (1) The Final Order of Support entered on February 25, 2010 is void and the subsequent decision on the Objection of the undersigned entered on June 2, 2010 is void. • ( 2 ) Supplemental' "B" should be dismissed. (3) Respondent seeks an award of costs, disbursements and
reasonable attorney's fees.
5 Attached to the "Objection, Notice of Motion to dismiss, and for Summary Judgment" is an affidavit of service indicating that the Semyon Furmanov, a person over the age of 18 and not a party to the action, mailed a copy to Elena Svenson at her residence.
6 Affixed to the Objection are the following Exhibits. Exhibit A: Objection to Reply Affidavit of Rebuttal dated May- 15, 2010, copy of envelope from NYS Child Support Processing Center, notice from NYS Child Support Processing Center dated February 17, 20-10, undated transcript of proceedings before Support Magistrate Fasone, undated Affidavit of Merit from action in Kings County Supreme- Court between Petitioner, Respondent, Victoria Edelstein and Boris Kotylar, undated transcript 'of proceedings before Support Magistrate Fasone, page 5 of the Final Order of Support without Clerk's endorsement, page 5 of the Final Order of Support with Clerk's endorsement, Decision on Objection entered by undersigned on June 2, 2010; Exhibit B: summons for Elena Svenson under docket F-28901-08/10A to appear on May 13, 2010, Respondent's modification petition; Exhibit C: Yonatan Levoritz, Esq.'s e-courts Web family webpage for appearances; Exhibit D: Petitioner's violation petition, Order of Support entered on February 3, 2010,' Division of Child Support Enforcement statement from May 1, 2010 through June 16., 2010, Verified Answer/ Jury Trial Demanded dated September 2 1 , - 2 0 1 0 , Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories ..for-.Response--by--Petitioner--dated-September--23-r-2010-, First-Respondent-'s Combined Demands for Discovery dated September 24, 2010; Exhibit E: Affidavit of Witness by Semyon Furmaov dated July 1, 2011.
(4) Respondent seeks leave to renew and reargue his recusal motion to disqualify the Support Magistrate from his case. (5) Respondent asserts he is entitled to Summary Judgment on Supplemental UB" because no questions of law. or fact exist. (6) Respondent seeks to be relieved from the underlying order of support pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules 5015 (a) because of lack of jurisdiction. TUpbn furtKer inspection/ it appears that Respondent's motion is actually an omnibus motion rather than an Objection and was mistitled. "Objections are the equivalent of appellate review, and
this Court [may not]' consider matters which were not brought before the Support Magistrate or preserved by proper objection" (JAE v AB, 10 MiscBd 446 [Fam Ct Ulster County 2005]; see also Rzemieniewska •Bugnacki v Bugnacki, 51 AD3.d 1029 [2d Dept 2008-]; Green v Wron, 151 Misc2d 9 .[Fam Ct New.York County. 1991]) . While the record seems to reflect that Support Magistrate Fasone attempted to curtail the motion practice, 'the motion should have been heard by Support Magistrate Fasone during the pendency of the hearing instead of being referred to the undersigned. However, since the Support
Magistrate does not have the authority to revisit the. undersigned's .decision of June 2, 2010, and In the interest of judicial economy, the undersigned will entertain.solely #1 of the Respondent's motion. All other matters in this omnibus motion are respectfully referred'to Support Magistrate Fasone for decision. Respondent seeks to argue that undersigned's denial.. of his Objection entered on June 2, 2010 based upon the untimeliness of filing is void,Essentially, Respondent asserts that his position
is based upon newly discovered evidence.
Respondent argues that he
never received a copy of the Support Magistrate's decision from February 3, 2010 in the mail. He seeks to demonstrate that there
is a discrepancy between the Order in the Family Court record and a. copy of the Order he reviewed that was annexed as an exhibit in the Civil Court action brought against him by the Petitioner. The
.Order—in— the- l^ami-ly—Getta-^3?eeo3?d --eenteaias^fefee- - date s tamp o f February 25, 2010, bears the initials of the Part Clerk, and is endors.ed that it was mailed to "P, R, and P attny. " The exhibit in the Civil Court action lacks these markings. The exhibit in the ' • Civil Court is not a certified copy of the Family Court Order. While it is stamped by the- Clerk of. Civil Court, Nancy Sunshine, .the Civil Court cannot certify the Family Court's records. There are innumerable ways that an incomplete copy of an Order can be obtained.' Therefore, the undersigned's decision of June 2, 2010 is not.void and that argument is denied.7 On August 18,' 2011, the Respondent filed-an actual "Objection"8 to'Support Magistrate Fasone's final order and findings of fact entered on 'July 6/ 2011.. No rebuttal was received. In his Objection, Respondent argues that he did not
7 Furthermore, the record reflects that the Respondent has.taken an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, from the Court's June 2, 2010 decision.' ' , .' . •'
8 Attached to the 'Objection, Notice of Motion to dismiss, and for .Summary.. Judgment".-is .an. affidavit ...of-service-indica-ting that the -Semyon. Furmanov, a person over the age of 18 and not a party to the. action, mailed a copy to Elena Svenson at her residence on August 12, 2011.
consent to have the case adjudicated before Support Magistrate Fasone and that Support Magistrate Fasone is.acting in a corrupt and punitive way" and is not following the law. He requests that all orders be vacated, Supplemental
be dismissed, and
Petitioner be sanctioned for frivolous conduct. The Orders on Supplementals "A" -and
were mailed on July
1-1, --2-9-3rl-- Sin-cc the • QJyg-eeM-on- -was-^-i^ed---ear-Aagnis-te- 18 , 2 Oil, more than thirty five days from the date of mailing, the Objection is deemed untimely (Family Court Act § 4 3 9 ( e ) ; Russell v Git tens, 81 AD3d 652 [2d Dept 2011]; Sanabria v Medina, 69 AD3d 947 [2d Dept . 2010] ;' Hodges v HodgesJ 40 AD3d 639 [2d Dept , 2 0 0 7 ] ; Mazzilli v
Mazzilli, 17. AD3d 680 [2d Dept 2005] ; Pedohe v Corpes, 24 AD3d 553' [2d Dept 2 0 0 5 ] ; Herman v Herman, 11 AD3d 536 [2d Dept 2 0 0 4 ] ; Chambers v Chambers, 305 AD2d 672,. 673 [2d Dept 2003 ] ; • Mayeri v
Mayeri, 279 AD2d 473 [2d Dept 2001]; Werner v. Werner, 130 AD2d 754' [2d Dept 1 9 8 7 ] ) . Therefore, the Objection to the Court's orders of July 6, 2010 is denied on procedural grounds. 9 Currently, this case is a procedural quagmire with numerous . motions filed on different supplemental petitions. 10 To 'enable the
9 Furthermore, the Objection is moot since the final orders on Supplemental "A"and Supplemental *B" are set aside pending the decision on Respondent's omnibus motion.
On July 5, 2010, Respondent filed a motion for the Support Magistrate • to recuse. himself because he "reasonably believes that Support Magistrate Fasone is biased and prejudiced against him." There was no written' decision on this motion. _ . _ , On'July 12, '2^010", "Respondent 'filed"" a cross motion for" sanctions for a frivolous motion to hold Petitioner and her attorney in contempt. This was labeled as Motion #1 on Supplemental *C." Support Magistrate Fasone noted that it should have been'filed on Supplemental "B" and was identical to Motion #1 on Supplemental *B." Support Magistrate Fasone entered an Order denying the motion on -July 26, 2010. It was also denied as Motion #2 on Supplemental U C" on August 12, 2010. On July 12,2010, Respondent filed a motion to have a court reporter
Support Magistrate to decide the omnibus motion in an orderly way, accordingly it is '
ORDERED that the Objection filed on August 18, 2011 is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the "Objection, Notice of Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment" filed on July 5, 2011 be undocketed as an Objection and calendared as an omnibus motion before Support Magistrate Fasone for him to decide; and it is further ..
ORDERED that should the Petitioner submit answering papers, any answering papers are to be submitted by November 9, 2011; and it is further • • .
present. This was labeled as Motion #2 on Supplemental "C," but should-have been filed as a motion under Supplemental "A" and WB" as Supplemental *C" was not yet filed. However, Support Magistrate Fasone denied Respondent's application"on July 13, 2010 as Motion #1 on.Supplemental *B." This is .inconsistent with Support Magistrate Fasone's Order dated July 26, 2010 indicating that Motion #1 on Supplemental "B" and Motion #1 on Supplemental 1VC" were Respondent's application for sanctions. The Order dated July 13, 2010 was mistaken when it says that Respondent's application for a court reporter was filed on July 26, 2010 and 'decided on July 13, 2010. Support Magistrate. Fasone denied a motion seeking to void a child support order obtained by fraud and to .issue a restraining order filed on August 9, 2010. He denied this as Motion .#3 on the underlying support docket of F-28901-08 on August 12, 2010. The Court could not find a record of the August 9th motion and it is unclear why any Order would be entered on the underlying support petition when only Supplementals -"A," and *B" were active. It appears this sought the same relief as the Order to Show Cause filed on July 26, 2010. • There- d-s -no indication- from -the- cou-rt- fil-e- that -any-of these-orders--were • mailed to the Petitioner or the Respondent. '
ORDERED that Support Magistrate Fasone's decision on Supplemental
is set aside; and it is further
ORDERED that Support Magistrate Fasone's decision on Supplemental UB" is set aside; and it is further
ORDERED that Support Magistrate Fasone provide a detailed written decision on the U0bj.ection, Notice of Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment"; and it is further
ORDERED should Support Magistrate Fasone reach the same decision as he did on Supplemental "A" on July 6, 2011, he is to provide detailed written Findings of Fact to explain how he reached the result he did; and -it is further •
ORDERED that Supplemental UC" was appropriately dismissed as a Supplemental petition, but the Clerk is directed to refile it as a motion under Supplemental "A, " and the Support Magistrate is directed to proceed under that docket; and it is further
ORDERED that- Support Magistrate Fasone explain the basis of
his entry of a modification of the child support order on June 1", 2011 to $298.00 per month under Supplemental MA, " how he arrived at that' amount, and whether it was a temporary modification; and it is further • .'
,. . ORDERED should Support Magistrate Fasone reach the same decision as he did on Supplemental "B" on July 6, 2011, he is. to provide detailed written Findings of Fact to explain how he reached the result he did and how he arrived at the amount for the money judgment; and it is further
ORDERED should Support Magistrate issue new decisions on Supplementals "A" and
after entertaining .Respondent'.s motion, '
he should issue final orders and detailed written findings of fact; a n d i t i s further . ' ' . • • • ' ' ' .. •
ORDERED that in addition to deciding the Respondent's application for leave to renew and reargue his motion .to recuse, the Support Magistrate is to include a written decision on Respondent's initial motion to recuse from July 26, 2010 to complete the record so it will be clear why he did not grant the application; and it is further 10 .'
'ORDERED that Support Magistrate Pasone is to review his record to'make sure -that motions were filed on appropriate supplementals and that all motions have been decided; .and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent is to refrain from filing any motion 'papers to the undersigned's attention when appearing before the Support Magistrate; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall not file any new motions until all of these outstanding issues have been resolved and the Support Magistrate has ruled on each.one. Upon receipt of a final decision determining each .of these "outstanding issues, Respondent may- timely file an objection should he feel aggrieved by the result; and it is further • • . • ' .
ORDERED that all decisions on motions, Final Orders and Findings of Fact.be mailed to the Petitioner and Respondent upon completion; and it is further • '
ORDERED that oral'argument on the motion will be held before Support Magistrate Fasone on December 12, 2011 at 2 PM and parties are directed to. appear on that date; and.it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner and Respondent are to submit any
documents for consideration to the Support Magistrate ten days in, advance of the hearing date; and it is further
ORDERED that any documents not received, in advance will not be considered; and it is further
ORDERED that each party will have 15 minutes to present their oral argument; and it is further • . .
ORDERED that Petitioner and Respondent are to be prepared-to proceed on that date-and should they--ehoos-e to be represented—by Counsel, Petitioner, Respondent and Counsel are to be prepared to proceed on that date; and it is further —
ORDERED that no adjournments are to be granted by the Support
Magistrate in the absence of extraordinary circumstances; and it is further " •
ORDERED that all Counsel of record are to receive notice of this decision; and it is further
' ORDERED that the Court is to notify Petitioner, Respondent, Support Magistrate Fasone and the Support Collection Unit of its decision.
PAULA j. HEP:
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.