Why Was This Website Created?

This website was created to generate public interest in a subject that most would choose to just bury under the rug because state agencies gain from the numerous flaws generated by a system that is supposed to declare fairness, justice and law compliances, but in fact, takes advantage of those flaws whereby equal rights for men have been compromised, denied and manipulated - and woman reap the benefits of a severely flawed system.

This is not Roe v. Wade - This is about 2 adults who engage in an act of coitus whereby the woman has "other intentions" without informing her partner of such intentions [of intended pregnancy]. You may say to yourself that a man, as well as a woman, should protect themselves from such intended conceivance, but in my particular case, I was informed that Pauline Tata [Plaintiff] was taking oral contraceptive (the "pill") and was never an issue - The Plaintiff didn't even like male condoms. No one has the right the right to take anything from you without consent - this is simple law on moral and legislative levels. (Case Reference is Public Record: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHBFA880432921S)

Pregnancy is a conscious adult choice which is between two (2) individuals – not just one; but when a male is found to be liable for paternity for a conscious choice he did NOT make or consent to, then he should not be forced to pay the terrible, life-altering price for this occurrence! Inequities may always exist between females and males in every society, but in my view, this one's the most hideous. Until our legal system mandates that women are equally and mentally responsible for these "entrapments" (one-sided intentions of pregnancy), men will continue to be brutalized by governing bodies that persistently ignore this travesty. Furthermore, if we sanction a woman's "right to choose," how is it even remotely fair that a man's denied this same liberty (Assuming that a woman has the right to choose to violate a man's right to consent)? How is it even possible that a woman has the right to choose to rape a man and still be legal due to system flaws?! - this is insane...

Females determined to impregnate themselves without a partner's consent, lack adult emotional development--which means their capacity for empathy (ability to identify with another's feelings and needs) is extremely limited. Accompanying moral deficits allow them to premeditate conception, which is diabolical, unconscionable behavior that's akin to criminal theft and should be punished accordingly.

This cold-hearted act is sickening and mentally disturbing – to blatantly lie to man to get pregnant is without a doubt – a crime of rape and theft.

Once a Victim - Now a Defendant

I was informed, at the barely legal age of 18, that the Plaintiff was pregnant - at a time when my life should just be beginning, it had ended. Shock and awe doesn't even describe what I was feeling and thinking at that time. Why, on God's great earth, would I, at the barely legal of 18, even THINK of having a family?! If the Plaintiff cared about me, which she claimed, then why would she do this to me? If I had seen the clues and listened to her close friends at that time, this [alleged pregnancy] would have never happened. NEVER did I consent to such an act or a decision to father any child (that's just insane), but nonetheless, it spread us apart...I was betrayed, decieved, lied to...scarred for life indeed.

The Plaintiff, after the child was born, sought out state assistance and provided the State of Connecticut my name and address....but I didn't know this. I only found out after receiving a letter in the mail to arrive at the State of Connecticut Child Support Division or I would risk incarceration if I didn't - even further devasted by this action from the Plaintiff, I had no choice. I arrived there and was intimidated by state workers and coerced into signing an Acknowledgment of Paternity - I can't even tell you the thoughts going through my head of how someone could do this to me...what did I do to deserve this?!

When I confronted the Plaintiff about this action, she produced excuses such as "well, you can't expect me to take the pill everyday...I do forget"...and then another excuse of "obviously, the pill didn't work" - These are common terms and phrases used by women who intend to trap men into fatherhood without consent - thinking the excuses are valid over reasons of trust and morality - elements which I grew up with...to trust people you care about, but alas....

Since the Plaintiff and I had some of the same friends, I was later told that the Plaintiff was obsessed with me....obsessed with the fact and possibility that she could become pregant with someone who she was obsessed with - not to mention in part that she was mentally unstable and very self conscience; thinking that she'll never get anyone because of the way she looked (overweight) and took advantage of the ideal situation. I even sat at the table with her and her parents (she was living with her parents at the time and never left home to create her own life) and told them this was not supposed to happen, never intended for it to happen and to abort this child because it was wrong. She said she didn't believe in abortion and later said that the female child [name withheld] would never know she was an accident....excuse me?!....AN ACCIDENT?!....lies on top of lies, story changes, intent changes - these are acts of an unstable woman without a doubt. The Plaintiff also informed me that she had to seek out assistance from the state because she couldn't do afford it herself - yet, she made this decision to get pregnant herself, so indeed it should be her burden. She made a decision without me and wants me to be held liable for HER decision....are we serious?!

Family Court

At my first hearing in family court, my court appointed attorney informed me, at that time, said there was nothing I could do because "too much time had lapsed" (The Plaintiff hadn't applied for assistance until 1.5 years later after the birth of her daughter) - I'm not sure what he meant by this because I had never been in court before for anything and didn't understand court/attorney jargon, laws, etc. I just trusted what he said. I don't have much memory of that event that day (many years had passed since then). I was informed that I have to make weekly payments, submit my entire list of assets, provide my employer's address and a host of other requirements. Since that time, I did what the court said because, in my own thinking, the court has followed and addressed laws and I should comply with the court order; which I did for years until I got sick and tired of being harrassed by the State, threatened with incarceration (due to non-payment because of employment gaps), numerous license suspensions, credit destruction, tax return interception and more. My research uncovered more than what the State and court wanted me to know...

Since the time passed of being informed I was a father and complying with the State of Connecticut (to avoid threats and incarceration), the Plaintiff and I no longer had relations of any kind. I never thought another human being could do that against me when I did nothing to ask for that - I was filled with anger/hate, thoughts of betrayal and being taken advantage of - even raped; something taken from me the purpose of pro-creation without my consent. How could I possibly continue any relations with a human being who did this to me...

Entrapment by a woman to a man is CLEARLY a crime in itself and NOT recognizable by the Family Support Division of Connecticut – The arrogance of the State Department clearly demonstrates the need to re-evaluate the morals of this crime to recognize AND acknowledge the difference between fault and intention.

Connecticut, The Courts and Law

Connecticut state law permits a plaintiff to petition paternity up to a child's 18th birthday (but yet the punitive father only has 3 years to contest - this is fair?!), but the Plaintiff never did...neither did the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement. After I reviewed the laws pertaining to the Acknowledgment of Paternity for Connecticut, here is how it is written:

CHAPTER 815y - Sec. 46b-172. Acknowledgment of paternity and agreement to support; judgment. Review of acknowledgment of paternity. (a)(1) In lieu of or in conclusion of proceedings under Section 46b-160, a written acknowledgment of paternity executed and sworn to by the putative father of the child when accompanied by (A) an attested waiver of the right to a blood test, the right to a trial and the right to an attorney, and (B) a written affirmation of paternity executed and sworn to by the mother of the child shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of the Superior Court.

Where do I begin with laws regarding the above?

Coercion

Coercion (the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats) of any kind, without regard to the situation or matter, is illegal. I was threatened by the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcent Division to sign the Acknowledgment of Paternity or I would face incarceration. A signature on an Acknowledgment of Paternity MUST BE VOLUNTARY according to Connecticut State Law.

Waiver(s)

A waiver of right to a blood test, counsel, trial, etc. MUST ACCOMPANY an Acknowledgment of Paternity - a waiver which doesn't exist because one (or more) was never signed. As a matter of fact, the court is unable to produce any transcript at that time because the court's never recorded sessions at that time [1988], so there is no existing evidence of any "voluntary" acknowledgment(s) to reference.

DNA (Blood Test)

A DNA/blood test is undoubtably, the only non-contesting element to determine and factuate paternity - a test which was never conducted and/or requested by the Plaintiff or The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement.

Docket Tampering

In a motion filed by me, I indicated that a document existed within the current docket whereby an alleged second child was announced and that a court order was in effect for this second child. This document had the alleged second child's name crossed off [male] with a notation at the bottom of the paper indicating that the defendant (myself) could not be found and was therefore dismissed. When I attempted to locate that document at a later time, it was found "missing" and I had not made a copy of that document (I shouldn't have to if it's in the state's hands, but then again....). I contacted the Attorney General's office to launch an investigation, but was never lauched - if it were a constituent that was accused of this suspicion, the constituent would already be incarcerated for docket tampering - but not even considered because it may be a member of the State or court system...) My claim to this document can be validated to the fact that no attorney was present at that time (defendant's rights) nor represented on my behalf and no change in arrears or support occurred (last time I checked, a punitive father does not get x amount of kids for one great low price...this isn't Wal-Mart). To further support this claim, I can reference the missing law elements to the alleged first child of no counsel, no trial, no waiver, no DNA, etc (yawn.....)....moving right along....

Trial Denial

According to the Acknowledgment of Paternity (CT), EVERY defendant has a right to trial (unless waived), yet I never had a trial and was denied this right by the lower courts. Even our Constitution says a defendant has a right to trial - apparently, the lower courts feel they above our constitution, above the U.S. Supreme Court Justices and above God. The lower courts (or any other court for that matter) does not have the right to permit nor deny any trial to any defendant because that right was already privileged to each and every defendant in every case in the United States.

So let's summarize this

The State of Connecticut collected an Acknowledgment of Paternity which was so enemic, it only had a signature which was coerced [illegally] and no accompanying waivers (also required by law) and then submitted to the court for ruling. The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement did not check all the documents to ensure that all laws were complied with to ensure they did not violate any laws, statues or defendant's civil and/or constitutional rights. The state also laid claim to an alleged second child, but has yet to produce any court order, any waiver of right, any attorney that was present on my behalf....shall I continue?! The presiding magistrate (magistrates are not judges because they are governor-appointed attorney's who act as magistrates in the lower courts and do not share the same privileges reserved for judges), then ruled in favor of the State without validating the State's submission of the Acknowledgment of Paternity which resulted in Connecticut and Statute(s), civil and constitutional violations. Neither the State nor the Court even bothered to validate documents to ensure law compliances and even denied the right to trial, because let's face it...Teenagers [generally] do not possess the necessary knowledge to contest any action of the State or Court (unless represented) and cases (such as mine) could easily be ruled upon without any consenquence(s) or questioned to the courts (yes, courts do take advantage of the less fortunate and less knowledgeable)...until the unraveling of the facts began with me...

Motions in Motion

In recent years, I began unveiling all sorts of violations - on civil and constitutional levels. I then educated myself on drafting motions with the court (unable to afford counsel or other representation - turned down and not even acknowledged when seeking counsel for representation). My first motion indicated fraud on many levels, but the magistrate on the case attempted to apply a law which only pertains to CONTESTING paternity, whereby my claim was fraud which has no statute of limitation. Magistrates do NOT have approval from any legislative member, group or entity to amend laws which do not exist or apply laws to a claim which do not exist - yet, this is what the magistrate's have done.

This past January (2018), I filed the following motion:

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL FOR APPELLATE COURT'S DECISION TO DENY MOTION TO OPEN JUDGMENT

Judge Carbonneau, Family Court Magistrate [New Britain, CT] indicated in family court that a "Defendant by his signature declared that he freely and voluntarily signed the acknowledgment" which became the factor in denial of defendant's motion. No such declaration was ever made by the Defendant as the defendant has made multiple declarations in ALL prior motions and in ALL prior hearings that the signature the State of Connecticut obtained was coerced. For Judge Carbonneau to falsify this fact questions the court's conduct/ethics and judiciary responsibilities to declare factual statements made by the Defendant and/or Plaintiff regardless of whether to court agrees to the statements or not and is construed as perjury.

Judge Carbonneau also declared that "On October 25, 1990 the defendant repeated this same acknowledgment process with the same forms for a boy born in 1990". What Judge Carbonneau willfully refuses is to verify that there is no child support order for the alleged second child [no changes in arrears or support] and, as with the first child, there is no waiver of right to a blood test which is required by laws mandated by our legislature; an attested waiver of the right to a blood test and no such document exists that pertains to any declaration of such waiver for either child¹. A court appointed attorney was never assigned to Defendant for this alleged second child [boy] and no public defender was assigned per Defendant's rights; as previously stated in prior motions, no support order was issued or ordered by the court.

To support the prior statement, On April 4, 2017, Defendant reported a missing document from Dkt# 880432921 to the state attorney's office which had the alleged 2nd child [boy] with his name crossed off and a reference on the bottom of the document that Defendant could not be found to be served. This document was not copied from the Defendant because it was entrusted to the Superior Court clerk's office and existed within the docket which the Defendant observed at a previous time/visit and was going to be disputed. This action declares document tampering by an existing party to also include all magistrates who presided on the above case. The states attorney's office never launched an investigation into the matter.

Furthermore, it was also declared that "On December 2, 2016 Magistrate Dee held a brief hearing to consider defendant's motion. The Magistrate, relying solely on the three-year statute of limitation in C.G.S. Section 46-b172 in effect at the same time of the acknowledgments, denied the motion". Contrary to Judge Dee's decision, Judge Dee's decision was not based upon state laws that declare that "an acknowledgment cannot be challenged except in court upon showing of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact"² which does not declare any time period for such challenging. The three-year rule does not, nor has ever been applied to challenging an acknowledgment showing fraud, duress or [Sec. 46b-172. (Formerly Sec. 52-442a); subsection (A) 2 Sec 46b-172] material mistake of fact. Coercing a signature is considered fraud and is illegal in the highest order when also combined with no waiver of right to a blood test – an order so high in regard that a superior court judge ruled in favor of allowing the challenge to move forward.³

Judge Dee's ruling is considered unlawful as no governor appointed attorney who acts as magistrate is permitted to create or amend existing laws – Judge Dee applied a three-year rule to his ruling which does not exist because there is no expiration or time limitation on contesting an acknowledgment where fraud, duress or material mistake of fact is eminent and ruled illegally. Judge Carbonneau supported Judge Dee's unlawful ruling which could predicate conspiracy and compromised ethics and conduct.

Judge Carbonneau's statement also declared "…because an unknown and unnamed Support Enforcement Officer or Officers threatened him with incarceration". For a magistrate to demand a name from the Defendant in regards to threats of incarceration for the purpose of signing an acknowledgment, which spans back over 25 years is not only considered preposterous, but also unreasonable. Yet, Judge Carbonneau declared that "Evidence and witnesses from 25 years ago is understandably lost" – a witness for which the court demanded from the Defendant who coerced him into signing the acknowledgment – contradictory, hypocritical and unreasonable. The conduct and ethics behind the actions of Judge Carbonneau is unacceptable and demands reprimand and disciplinary action. Judge Carbonneau, who is expected to be a fair and impartial jurist, was not fair and impartial and considered unreasonable for his request.

Furthermore, Judge Carbonneau continued to state "…He did not deny that the documents were signed before a Notary Public who sealed them as defendant's free act and deed". This statement, as contradictory as it is, is untrue in its entirety as Defendant has no control to what a Notary's actions are after signing an acknowledgment which was coerced by the State of Connecticut and cannot be considered a "free act and deed" by the Defendant. If this statement bared any truth, the Defendant would not be requesting a motion to open judgment for fair trial and challenging fraud.

ARGUMENT

CHAPTER 815y - Sec. 46b-172. Acknowledgment of paternity and agreement to support; judgment. Review of acknowledgment of paternity. (a)(1) In lieu of or in conclusion of proceedings under Section 46b-160, a written acknowledgment of paternity executed and sworn to by the putative father of the child when accompanied by (A) an attested waiver of the right to a blood test, the right to a trial and the right to an attorney, and (B) a written affirmation of paternity executed and sworn to by the mother of the child shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of the Superior Court.

Connecticut state law (mandated by legislature) grants every defendant a right to trial where accusation of paternity is present. The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement Bureau in conjunction with multiple family court magistrates having illegally denied this right to trial. An accused defendant has not only civil rights, but also constitutional rights to a trial for which the above aforementioned have been denied to defendant.

Furthermore, a waiver of right to a blood test is also required by state law⁴ whereby The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement Bureau in conjunction with multiple family court magistrates have not produced to support the court's illegal rulings.

Establishing paternity means legally determining the biological father of a child. The signing of an Acknowledgement of Paternity does not establish such paternity and through the coercion of signing such document from the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement through means of threatening and intimidation is not only illegal, but does not validate any document to make the declaration of paternity as all Acknowledge of Paternities must be [signature] acquired voluntarily.

To further support the preceding statements, no DNA testing was ever conducted to validate said paternity and the signature obtained on the alleged Acknowledgement of Paternity was coerced. Coercion of any type conducted by any party who represents the State of Connecticut or the Family Court Magistrates who are required to cite law in findings [rulings] is illegal in all regards whereby a Super Court judge previously granted the right to a trial on another matter whereby ANY possibility of a coerced signature demands trial⁽⁵⁾

1: [Sec. 46b-172. (Formerly Sec. 52-442a); subsection (A)
2: Sec 46b-172
3: Delgado v. Martinez, No. FA 78-0434989S (July 3, 1990) – the court stated: "it would be fundamentally unfair for the law to imply a waiver of procedural due process rights merely because a person has signed an uncounseled and possibly coerced written acknowledgment of paternity" – Donald T. Dorsey Judge, Superior Court
4: The Fourteenth Amendment; No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

FINAL STATEMENT

Judge Carbonneau undoubtedly committed perjury to dismiss Defendant's motion. As a governor appointed attorney who acts as a magistrate in a Connecticut Judicial Branch, said magistrate is required to uphold judiciary ethics and law. The privileges that these judges have been granted have been abused and such privileges should be revoked immediately. Judge Carbonneau and Judge Dee failed to live up to those expectations as fair and impartial jurists and blatantly and willfully committed perjury in conjunction with amending laws without approval from state legislature for the sole purpose of denying Defendant's right to a trial for which Defendant has been denied since inception. Judge Dee ruled against Defendant applying a three-year rule which does not exist in any Connecticut state legislative law for the purpose of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact and is considered unlawful to do so – magistrates are not permitted by any governing official to amend laws or create them for the purpose of motion denial. Every defendant has the right to a trial as expressed and stated in civil and constitutional laws.

Judge Carbonneau committed perjury in his ruling announcing multiple false statements which can be contradicted by accessing transcripts and ANY prior motion(s) filed by the Defendant. A magistrate's ethics are not upheld when a Defendant has made the same declarations in multiple hearings and motions and said magistrate declares otherwise. This practice demands disciplinary action as perjury has been committed by Judge Carbonneau and unlawful applications applied by Judge Dee's ruling as no judge or magistrate can amend laws or create them for motion denial. Defendant would even consider imposing sanctions upon the above aforementioned magistrates for their ill-willed and illegal actions.

The fact that an investigation was never launched into the missing public document from the docket regarding the alleged second child would suggest a conspiracy to rid evidence for which the Defendant would have provided on his behalf for defense – to further support this would be the fact that no support order was ever established for the alleged second child and could never be proven because there are no existing documents that pertain to a change in arrears or support for a support order never entered.

Case Reference

In Roberts v. Greaves, supra at 5, Judge Covello stated: "implicit in every determination of support is the necessary finding that the defendant is the part of the child in question. Therefore, jurisdiction to determine paternity is implicit whenever there is jurisdiction to determine support" (1989) Delgado v. Martinez, 25 Conn. App. 155, 159, 593 A.2d 518 (1991). "Accordingly, we hold that the statute of limitations enunciated in General Statutes 46b-172 (a) is not enforceable against a party who has not validly waived his procedural due process rights and where a judgment of paternity has been entered without notice and an opportunity to be heard."

Statute Reference

P.A. 91-391 amended Subsec.(a) by adding requirement that acknowledgment of paternity be accompanied by attested waiver of right to blood test, right to trial and right to an attorney and amended Subsec. (b) Effective July 1, 1993; P.A. 93-329 added Subsec. (c) re refund to petitioner of money paid by the petitioner to the state during period child supported by state where acknowledgment of paternity is reviewed and court finds petitioner is not father of the child.

Annotations to former section 52-435a: - 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 179. Former statute cited. Id., 581, 582. Defendant's paternity of plaintiff's child must be proved by plaintiff by a fair preponderance of evidence, as in any other civil case; evidence of substantive facts is essential and they cannot be proved by corroborative evidence consisting only of constancy of accusation.

Magistrate Dismisses Own Allegations

How does this happen?! A magistrate who denied a motion pointing out his own illegal actions is permitted to dismiss his own allegations in the Appellate Court?! Since this decision cannot be challenged (according to the court), an appeal must be filed with the State Supreme Court. Magistrate Carbonneau is not, nor ever has been, a fair and impartial jurist in any case (history of cases speaks for itself). I can further support this by his actions of agreeing with another Magistrate (already construed as a conspiracy) that the 3-year rule/law applies to my case when in fact there is no possibility of it - you cannot challenge that which does not exist; much less apply a 3-year rule which is challenging paternity. This case if pure fraud and no proof - it's that simple. Carbonneau then continued to state in his response that I wilfilly signed the Acknowledgement of Paternity - if that were so, I would have not claimed coercian in ALL of my motions filed with court and in ALL the transcripts one would request. A magistrate is going to tell me what I did yet is unable to prove any of it? This is a complete fabrication to my defense and this magistrate has compromised his conduct and integrity to the oath he took when he accepted the position of magistrate to uphold and cite laws mandated by legislature. His ruling is cowardly and without any basis.

In Closing

The content of this website and text herein is pure fact and law - it is all in documentation in a court docket with all the facts. The content you have read is non-arguable because it points out law and facts - you can deny them, but you cannot argue them.

In the 1950's, paternity laws were created and passed by legislature without regard to the many loopholes that exist - these loopholes have created an opportunity for the State of Connecticut to embrace women who engage in coitus with several males only to become impregnented and apply for financial assistance from the state - while at the same time, permitting women to produce only a name to the State to qualify for assistance to pursue the alleged punitive father for support - even if he isn't the father.

Women, as well as the State of Connecticut, have taken advantage of a system which has been flawed for many decades - destroying a man's innocent life to pursue child support for which the state, nor the woman who has applied for assistance, without proof...without DNA....without waivers (in accordance with Connecticut State laws). In essence, the State of Connecticut (and the lower courts) embrace and support women who engage in coitus with many men and hold the innocent man guilty of support. This life-destroying system has produced animosity, destroyed relationships, parentless children, Department of Children and Family intervention, depression, anger, suicides and homicides. When we will wake up to this?! Paternity Fraud MUST end...it has to end - women MUST be disciplined and subject to incarceration and monetary/punitive damages for their illegal actions - yes, ILLEGAL! - then we can deal with the magistrates and judges who willfully engage in civil and consitutional rights violations and illegal rulings because they have assumed the risk of taking the position of a U.S. Supreme Court judge and decided upon their own laws, findings and rulings without regard to the law and our legislature.

In my particular case, it's even more illegal because not only did the State of Connecticut submit the most enemic Acknowledgement of Paternity in the history of Connecticut (a signature that was coerced illegally), but submitted this to the court who failed to validate the State's submission to ensure that laws and rights were complied with and ruled illegally against me. Because both parties realized they faulted so badly (and knowingly), they have and are now producing a conspiracy to cover this case up by violating laws, civil/constitutional rights, committing perjury, tampering with court dockets (removing files to eliminate proof to my case whereby an investigation was never launched by the Attorney General's Office) and amending laws without approval from our legslature - and these people are only magistrates who are only appointed from the governor to the lower courts - they share no privileges of that which is reserved for an actual judge; a true abuse of privileges given to them. Can you say CONSPIRACY AND COVER UP?!

To further soil this case, the illegal allegations against Magistrate Carbonneau were dismissed by HIM in Appellate court regarding my appeal outlining the illegal allegations - REALLY?! Since when does a magistrate get to dismiss his own allegations?! So now this case is before the state supreme court - unnecessarily!

Yes, I was a victim before this case ever began - my life ended when it was supposed to be starting, then brutalized by a court system which was devasting in itself - my life turned upside down...all of it illegal and no one is paying the price for it except for the victim - me.

I have been forced to educate myself on drafting motions, following court procedure(s), dealing with EVERY jurist that was unfair and partial, dealing with the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement who knowingly demonstrates illegal actions against me (the only reason why they are "getting away with it" is because of the illegal actions of the court), dealing with my civil and constitutional rights being denied, dealing with the destruction of my credit for decades, dealing with the Assistant Attorney General (Jonathan Harding) who shamelessly represents such an agency and who should also be disbarred for his actions) - not to mention my personal life...

Since I was a teenager (after the events occurred), I have never been able to trust another woman again (I still don't). How could I after all I've been through?! I have never been in a meaningful relationship and denied this God-given privilage because of the trust factor. I will never have kids of my own (that I consent to) and still do not have to this day. And how can I trust the court system anymore? - they are nothing more than conspirators...like the plaintiff, full of lies, deciet, manipulation, distrust, unfairness...the list goes on.

I will say this - Karma exists for a reason. God exists for a reason...he can see right straight through everyone's hearts and he knows what's going on. For those who don't believe in God, yet can believe destroying someone's life for your own personal gratifications cannot be validated or justified. YOU will be judged for your actions in this life and it may not be right for me to say because I have moral and christian values, but I will have NO PITY upon your putrid souls as I watch the hounds of hell rise to swallow your souls - you will deserve nothing more.

I pray that the Supreme Court has a judge that is fair and impartial - one that will cite laws as they are written by legilslature - one who will ensure that my rights are exercised and not denied or infringed upon - one who will see the wrong-doings of the lower courts, the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement and the Assistant Attorney General who has compromised his integrity, ethics and conduct despite his contradictory statements in court.

I will right the wrong, I will level the playing field - even if it ends in my own demise - I promise you that!

As of 2/14/2019

The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement, The Legislative Commissioner's Office and the Attorney General's office was faxed the following document to be provided with the option of settlement or trial - no reponse has been received yet...

SETTLEMENT OR TRIAL

THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPOSED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN OPTION OF CLOSURE TO A CASE THAT HAS FALLEN VICTIM OF A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL FRAUD COMMITTED BY THE LOWER COURT MAGISTRATES AND THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT BUREAU OF CONNECTICUT. YOU [STATE OF CONNECTICUT CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT] WILL BE PROVIDED TWO (2) OPTIONS:

SETTLEMENT

• You will contact any/all national credit reporting agencies and remove this alleged, frivolous and illegal debt from my credit profile.
• You will contact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and remove the offset currently placed on my social security number.
• You will refund me ALL monies extracted from me since inception of this case as dictated by state law:
  Effective July 1, 1993; P.A. 93-329 added Subsec. (c) re refund to petitioner of money
  paid by the petitioner to the state during period child supported by state where
  Acknowledgment of Paternity is reviewed and court [jury]finds petitioner is not father
  of the child.

• You (State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement) will take/assume the initiative of requesting trial for a jury to determine [ascertain] paternity as required by law [citing defendant’s right to trial for which it was illegally denied and infringed upon].

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE ABOVE OPTIONS TO SETTLE THIS MATTER.

THE FACTS STATED ARE AS FOLLOWS:

• The only existing element linking me to the alleged paternity is a coerced signature by the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement. This allegation was already made against the State (Jonathan Harding representing State) without denial or contesting such allegation – this is considered a confession. Coercion is illegal in Connecticut as the threat of incarceration provided the reason for my signature and is hereby (and still is) considered invalid and illegal.
• The State of Connecticut neglected to check/validate all documents pertaining to the Acknowledgement of Paternity resulting in multiple state, civil and rights violations. The lower court then followed suit and failed to validate the documents submitted by the State also resulting in multiple state, civil and rights violations.
• The Plaintiff and the State were allowed eighteen (18) years to petition paternity (according the Connecticut state law) and opted not to exercise this option. DNA, being the most valuable piece of paternity evidence that could ever be introduced in court, was not an option for the State to hold against me for liable paternity.
• The State and the lower courts have failed to produce any recorded transcript of the original hearing commencing in 1989 because they didn’t record hearings at that time period and therefore have nothing to reference any liability on behalf.
• The lower courts indicated in a recent hearing that an alleged second male child was also held against me for child support. I was never served to appear in court. There was no judge I faced for this allegation. There was no court appointed attorney to reference. There was no change in arrears or support.

The above statement is also supported by a missing file in the docket reported by me. This file (document) had the alleged second child’s name CROSSED OFF with a reference at the bottom of the document indicating that the defendant could not be found to be served. I inquired with the Attorney General’s office to launch an investigation into the matter, but it was quickly dismissed to support the conspiracy to conceal fraud committed by the State and/or the lower courts.

• There are no waivers signed or acknowledged by me as required by state law (Sec. 47b-172 including subsections).
• There is no waiver of right to trial.

TRUTH IS A DEFENSE – LAW IS A DEFENSE – FACTS ARE A DEFENSE

Final Statement

There is a reason why my civil and federal right to trial has been denied and infringed upon – it is because the State as well as the courts do not want conspiracy to conceal fraud surfaced in open court. The allegations against the State as well as the courts are so severe; they will open up ridicule and incrimination for the multiple violations (civil and federal) committed by the State and the lower courts.

It would be suggestive to settle this matter and not opt for a trial – A trial opens up many doors for which you want to stay closed forever. A trial, upon my victory, will also “open up a can of worms” resulting in a public announcement of such victory – law firms and attorneys will undoubtedly salivate at the opportunity to open up old paternity cases referencing the victory of my trial for which, I could be mistaken, you would want to avoid at all costs and avoid the media.

So hang onto that signature that you hold in the highest order to claim paternity against me, because it was coerced – it’s illegal and NEVER has been proof of paternity in this state. You have no waivers, no DNA, no transcript of ANY hearing that commenced on the original court date and you (and the courts) violated laws and civil/federal rights [trial] willfully in your feeble attempt to conceal fraud. The courts do NOT govern laws mandated by legislature, but they are REQUIRED to cite them in their findings/rulings – it’s shameful to our judiciary system that magistrates compromise law for their own personal gratifications and agenda.
But then again, maybe you want a jury to hear all of this – your decision will predicate your intelligence…or lack of it.