It's Me Again Soc

[TPK]

Soc,

Still no word from the judges yet on jurisdiction.


There is a person I know who is wanted in another country for a horrible crime. This person is somewhat involved in my custody case (not on my side). The information I have is solid. I would like to bring this up at the custody hearings but I don't know if it would be considered slander.

1. If I bring this situation up regarding me not wanting my child around this person, is it considered slander?

Yes it seems vengeful, but I know if I was the person in question they would use it against me.

If you'd like to hear the facts on this issue, please do email me.

TPK

[socrateaser]

>1. If I bring this situation up regarding me not wanting my
>child around this person, is it considered slander?

If you are testifying under oath to facts material to your case, then you are immune from a defamation action. However, I can't say whether your testimony would be material, i.e., whether it tends to prove or disprove a  fact at issue before the court.

>
>Yes it seems vengeful, but I know if I was the person in
>question they would use it against me.

This is not a rationale for using the information against the other person. The only reason to testify is to provide evidence that tends to prove or disprove a fact at issue before the court. If your goal is to simply to question the character of the other party, but not to show that the party's character has a material affect on some aspect of your case, then you are wasting the court's time and making yourself look bad at the same time.

Your goal is to show that you should be the preferred caretaker for the child, because you will not interfere with the other parent's exercise of substantial custody, and that it is in the child's best interests to have close and consistent contact with both parents, or at least, with you. If you can show a reason why the child should not have close and consistent contact with the other parent, all the better, but your evidence must be pretty compelling. And, just remember, being accused/wanted for a crime, is not the same as being convicted of it. The person you are about to defame may not be guilty.

[TPK]

But can I use it for leverage pre-trial by letting them know I may try to bring it up,  or is that blackmail?

It might make then cooperate pretty quick.

Just for reference, it is not my wife we're talking about.

I have confronted a person  related to this person about it a month ago. The person in question seemed to have become as quiet as a mouse since then.

We're talking about a serious crime here. A serious skeleton in the closet.


TPK

[socrateaser]

>But can I use it for leverage pre-trial by letting them know
>I may try to bring it up,  or is that blackmail?

Negotiations towards settlement are generally inadmissible to prove liability, but may be offered as evidence to prove other matters. A certain amount of legal coercion, that outside of a settlement negotiation might otherwise be deemed extortion, is permissible.

Example: Let's suppose, that your wife's father murdered someone and you could prove it. Your threat to expose it, unless your wife gives you custody, made behind closed doors would have nothing to do with your case, therefore it would NOT be a negotiation towards settlement, rather it would be purely intended to cause your wife to act or forebear from action at the threat of force or intimidation, and that is the essence of extortion/blackmail. Using this as a threat to silence your wife could subject you to criminal prosecution.

However, if your CHILD lived with your wife in her father's home, you could testify under oath that you know wife's father is a murderer and why, and assuming that the testimony tends to prove that wife's father is a danger to the child, that would be completely relevant to proving that your wife may be affirmatively placing the child in harm's way, and therefore, that she should not be permitted to exercise custody.

So, it all depends on how and for what purpose you use your evidence -- whatever it may be.

[TPK]

Gee Soc, it's almost like you read the police reports.

I already told you who she claims to be "living" with and indeed a subject in that household is the fugitive.

There were actually 2 fugitives involved, one has past away and you already guessed who that was.

I have contacted the Embassy of this country in Washington DC and was told there is an extradition treaty with this country. I tried to call the Justice Dept in this country but let's just say the conversation was short as I didn't speak the language.

A police chief who I will not name urged me to give him the info to pass on to an FBI pal. I gave him the info but who knows what he did with it.

So, the child does reside in a dwelling where there is a fugitive and this person was involved in a criminal act that you guessed.

1. Now, knowing what you know, can I bring this up in court??

2. I'm reading nothing but lies in my wife's filings, can I suggest we both take a lie detector test??


TPK

[socrateaser]

>1. Now, knowing what you know, can I bring this up in court??

If you can show that the purpetrator is a dange to the child, either directly or indirectly by way of association with other dangerous people, then yes, otherwise no.

>
>2. I'm reading nothing but lies in my wife's filings, can I
>suggest we both take a lie detector test??

A polygraph examination is generally not admissible as evidence to prove truthfullness unless both parties consent to the report's admission. However, you can offer to submit to a polygraph exam and your offer is admissible to show your willingness to cooperate. Also, a negative inference as to someone's truthfullness may be drawn from the fact that the person refuses to agree to submit to an exam.

The above statement of admissibility may vary substantially by jurisdiction. I don't know about NY specifically, and I don't have time to research it at the moment -- ask your attorney.

[TPK]

Soc,

I now see what's going on here. Apparently a law was repealed on 12/13 which defines home state. That's why they filed in NY on 12/13.

Being that we filed in October the law was different at the time as to defining home state.

1. Should the law that was in effect be applied when we filed, or should the law that went into effect on 12/13 be applied?

2. What experience do you have when a law is repealed but yet you filed when it was different?

I believe the law was N.J.S.A 2A:34-30

TPK

[socrateaser]

It appears that NJ has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Enforcement and Jurisdiction Act, and repealed the older Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. This makes NJ statutory law substantially identical to NY law with regard to child custody, jurisdiction and enforcement of same, and the law did in fact go into effect on 12/13/04.

>1. Should the law that was in effect be applied when we filed,
>or should the law that went into effect on 12/13 be applied?

It depends on the specific application of law to the facts. If it's a jurisdiction matter, then the NJ court obtained personal jurisdiction of your wife on the date that she was served, which was prior to 12/13, so the new law is irrelevant as applied to this issue.


If the issue is custody, then the law in effect on the date of filing would probably control, unless the parties agreed to use the new law, or unless the parties hadn't plead anything where the outcome of the case would be altered under the new law.

Also, there is the possibility that the court could rule that the NJ legislature intened that the law operate retrospectively and that the court would therefore be obliged to adopt it in the current case. Civil law is not subject to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on application ex post facto laws -- that prohibition only applies to the criminal law.

From what I can see, however, there is little that would apply to your case, but even if there were, by filing in NY, your wife is showing by conduct, that she prefers the new law passed in NJ, because as previously-mentioned, the new law is substantially the same as NY's existing law.

And with regard to the outcome of your case, the new law is probably more strict with regard to parents running off with a child than the old, so from what I can tell by the few facts you present, this is most likely a smoke screen excuse to charge you more money, or to give an extrinsic rationale for yours or your wife's attorneys miscues, which might othrewise result in having to give you some free representation to make up for a mistake.

[TPK]

A few things have happened already today.

The NJ judge is allowing the NY 12/23 to go forward as an evidentary hearing to decide jurisdiction only. I knew the NJ judge was spineless.

In an odd twist, my wife called me today at my shop. She obviously was given notice around the same time I was the NY was doing the 12/23 jurisdiction hearing.

She was an emotional mess and hinted she wanted to get back together with me.  There was no real arguing, just discussing the fact I haven't seen daughter in so long. She claims if I have NJ visitation that child will have "seperation anxiety" and that's not good for the child.

I told her that any court in the country will give me my visitation and she agreed. She offered me no visitation.

I offered her to put these hearings on hold and to do mediation. I told her I would consider joint legal with her having primary custody. She didn't respond to this offer. I told her that we can either burn thru a mountain of money in the courts, or do mediation.

Frankly, I sick of all this legal crap and want to come to an agreement as soon as possible. I only want to see my daughter. I told her we should put our differences aside for the sake of our daughter.

My guess the reason she called is cuz it's now time to "step up to the plate". She's squirming cuz she knows she'll lose jurisdiction at the hearing. I informed her of the parade of witnesses that I intend to bring along with me if there is a hearing and the mountain of evidence I have prooving she lived here. I told her she's gonna get embarassed in court and would be proven to be a liar.

We intend to ask for a continuance on the 12/23 to better prepare ourselves, witnesses, paperwork etc. Based on not being served I think we'll get it.

I did not admit to or incriminate myself during the phone conversation.


TPK

[TPK]

Soc, you're last post was just quoting me, was there supposed to be a response by you??

We've decided to go to the 12/23 evidentary NY hearing, even though I haven't been served.

I have 2 lawyers for this hearing, many witnesses and mounds of paperwork evidence. Might as well get this out of the way, maybe I'll get some parenting time.

My NY lawyers seem to think that the divorce she filed in NY should be thrown out. Being that we can prove she lived in NJ which was the marital residence, any divorce action should be in NJ.

TPK