judicial notice to the court addressed to john fasone. he ignored it

7/29/2019 Judicial Notice to the Court addressed to John Fasone. He ignored it.

1/18

FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKCOUNTY OF KINGS INDEX N O.F-28901-08/10/A/B/CElena Svenson,

Petitioner,JUDICIAL NOTICE TOv. THE COURT

Michael Krichevsky, Respondent.

Notice to the court under the authority of the constitutions of the United States and the State ofNew York; a uthority of the United S tates S upreme Cou rt and Dem and for this court tofollow the Supreme Law of the Land.

1. Michael Krichevsky, Pro Se, (KRICHEVSKY) by special appearance UND ER DUR ESSand without submitting to the jurisdiction of this co urt hereby puts this cou rt on judicial notice tocease and desist any further unlawful assault against him.2. KRICHEV SKY hereby challenges the jurisdiction of John Fason e and hereby puts himon judicial notice tha t the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly established that once jurisdiction hasbeen challenged, it is presum ed that the court lacks jurisdiction unless or until the evidentiarysufficiency is provided and sub mitted to the record.3. The presumption is that a court lacks jurisdiction on a particular issue until it has beendem onstrated that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists. The facts showing the existence ofjurisdiction must be affirmatively in the record.4. If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction todemonstrate that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. The limits u po n jurisdiction


2/18

must be neither disregarded nor evaded. The requirement to submit adm issible evidence upo n therecord proving jurisdiction once jurisdiction is challenged is mandatory .5. The Supreme Court of the United States as well as lower courts have consistentlyreaffirmed the requirement that once jurisdiction is challenged those who claim jurisdiction mustsubmit 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 1 08 (1894), Pennoyer v . N e f f , 95 U.S. 714,733 (1877), Hagen v. L avine, 415 U .S. 528, at 535, 39 L.ed. 5 77, 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, 44 8U.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 m ay never be presumed), SpecialIndemnify Fund v.Pruitt, 225 R2d. 308, 201 Okl. 308, (jurisdiction must be affirmativelyshown), United States v.Chairito, 69 F. Supp. 3 17 (D. Or. 1946) (jurisdiction cannot bepresumed), 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 jurisd iction requires dism issal), Burks v. Laskar , 44 1U.S. 471 (1 979) and Title 5 U.S.C. 55tf & 558(b).6. Generally, there is no requirement for one sub jected to a "void" judgment to do anythingmore than call the trial court's attention to the mistake or fraud with a request to correct itsrecord and order.7. CPLR 5015(a) provides grounds and proced ure for relief in this action. John Fasone hadfiduciary duty to provide justice and relief.8. John Fasone has failed and refused to provide relief or dispute KM CHEVSKY 3 s claims.


3/18

9. Child support hearing was a sham hearing where every attempt by responden t and hisattorney to establish adm issible evidence on the record, which would prove Fraud Upon theCourt an d perjury by petitioner and her attorney, Yona tan Levoritz, was not allowed by JohnFasone.10. All of respondent's and his attorney's pleadings have been ignored. This court is herebyordered to cease and desist this unlawful attack in this proce eding and rebut with pa rticularityanything in the judicial n otice that you disagree with which is your duty.11. In United States v. Prudden , 424 F. 2d 1021 (1970) judg e stated: "silence can only beequated w ith fraud wh ere there is a legal or m oral duty to speak or where an inquiry leftunanswered would be intentionally misleading".12. This court must take manda tory jud icial notice of legal maxim: "Silence isAcquiescence."13. This court must take m andatory judicial notice o f Exhibit A (Judge Paula Hepner'sorder).14. This court must take man datory judic ial notice of hearing officer's JohnFasone contemptof 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 casebecause of the fraudulent and contem ptuous behavior exhibited by John Fasone in theseproceedings.16. Supervising Judge Pau la Hepner in her order dated October 24, 2011 (Exhibit A), interalia, put the child supp ort order aside, and ordered John Fason e to issue written den ial withexplanation to KPJCFIEVSKY's motion to Recuse John Fasone. Because he did not comply with


4/18

this order, he did not meet c ondition prece dent to gain jurisdiction over this case, and childsupport order still stands aside.17. Unless, this court has subject matter/personam jurisdiction any order rendered by JohnFasone 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, 2011before John Fasone to reargue this case was void for Mr. Fasone's contempt and noncompliancewith her order. According to evidentiary "admission by action" doctrine, Joh n Fasone is not onlybiased toward KRICFJJBVSKY, but is shamelessly and openly hostile towa rd him.

19. John Fasone is personally benefiting though his pension fund and/or salary paid to him bythe State of New York from his own unfair child support orders against unsuspecting peop le.This scheme consists of keeping people in the state's "deadbeat father" list by issuing extremelyhigh child suppo rt orders, which people cannot com ply with. T hereafter, state gets billions ofdollars from Federal Funding to prosecu te "deadbeat fathers."20. Therefore, Mr. Fasone's orders after December 12, 2011 hearing without KRICFffiVSKYpresent are void as well.21. KRICJdEVSKY objects to these orders and appear as belligerent claimant under duress.22. As one anon ym ous attorney stated: "To put it bluntly, why wou ld you ever rely upo nthose who have been torturing you for so long to show you the way to find relief from thetorture? All they are doing is moving you from the room w ith the rack to the room with thethumbscrews and the nail pullers. You are still going to be bent over, shafted and tossed onto thedung heap for the d ogs to sniff at and pee on while "they", once again, laugh all the w ay to thebank"


5/18

THEREFORE, Michael Krichevsky, declare that child support order by John Fasone inthis case is null and void as it stands for lack of jurisdiction. He demands that this court establishjurisdiction on the record with verifiable information and documentation that would contradicthis above stated FACTS. In the same breath, he demands that this court pursuant to its inabilityto 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 declarethat the foregoing is true and correct.Dated: Brooklyn, New YorkJuly 18, 2013

Michael Knchevsky, Pro Se, under duress, without prejudice


6/18

At a Term of the Family Court ofthe State of New York, held in.and for the County of Kings at330 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NewYork, 18th.day of October 2011.

P R E S I D I N G :HON. PAULA J. HEPNERActing Justice of the Supreme Court

- x

In the Matter of a Proceeding,for Support under Article IV 'of the Family Court Act,ELENA SVENSON,

Petitioner,- against -

MICHAEL KRICHEVS.KY,Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

(After filing of Objections)

Docket Number F-28901-08/10A/B/CObjection #1 & 2 on Supp "A "Objection #2 & 3 on Supp "B"Objection #1 on Supp nC"

NOTICE: YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY, AFTERA COURT HEARING, RESULT IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO JAILFO R A TERM NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS, FOR CONTEMPT OFCOURT.

NOTICE: PURSUANT TO 11-11OFTHE FAMILY COURTACT, ANAPPEAL MUSTBETAKENWITHIN30 DAYS OFRECEIPT OFTHE ORDERBYAPPELLANTINCOURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF THE ORDER TO THEAPPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, OR 35 DAYS AFTERSERVICE BY A PARTY OR LAW GUARDIAN UPON THE APPELLANT,WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST.-

The parties have engaged .in continuous litigation in KingsCoTinty Family "Court "tref'ore'Support"Magistrate" Fas one since ' 2 0 0 8 and


7/18

have had a lengthy history -before the undersigned.1 On February 3,2010,2 the Support Magistrate issued 'a Final Order of Support anddirected the Respondent to pay $2,045.00 monthly3 toward thesupport of the subject child, David Svenson (d.o.b. 8/14/94) , andset the arrears from the date of filing at $31,599.42. The

.Respondent wasdirected to enroll the child in his health insurance_ . ,o.f_P.etian.ers .Counsel fees.

Less than four, months after the entry of the Final Order ofSupport, on April 22, 2010, Respondent filed Supplemental "A

1 This is. the fourth objection before the undersigned. The firstobjection.was filed by the Petitioner on August 18, 2 0 0 9 to an interim orderof support.. OnOctober 9, 2 0 0 9 , Petitioner withdrew the Objection. The secondobjection was filed by the Respondent on April 2, 2010 to the Final Order ofSupport issued by Support Magistrate Fasone on February 3, 2010. Theundersigned denied the Objection on procedural grounds due to the untimelyfiling of the Objection on June 2, 2010. The third Objection was filed by theRespondent on August 9, 2010 to the Support Magistrate's, verbal' refusal torecuse himself. The Objection was denied on procedural grounds as theObjection was not ripe for review. - 2 On that same date, the Support Magistrate denied the Respondent's

motion filed on September 9, 2 0 0 9 to quash the subpoenas that Petitioner,served on third parties and to-pay all counsel fees related to the motion. Inthe Support Magistrate's order on the motion,- he denied the application as^unnecessary as the Court rules that objections to admission of proffereddocuments not previously disclosed to opposing counsel will be considered atpoint of trial."

3 The Support Magistrate did not deviate from the full amount requiredunder the Child Support Standards Act. The Petitioner's adjusted gross'incomewas determined to-be $20,800.00 and the Respondent's adjusted gross income '$145,145.40. The combined parental income was determined to be $165,945.40 ofwhich the Petitioner's pro rata share was calculated at 13% and theRespondent's pro rata share at 8 7 % . Pursuant to the Child Support-StandardsAct, the Support Magistrate determined the annual child support obligation forthe parties' child was 17% of their adjusted gross income or $22,100.00 forthe combined income up to $130,000.00. The Respondent's share of the first$130,000.00 is $1,602.25-monthly. The Support Magistrate applied thestatutory percentage of 17% to the income over $130,000.00, whichwas$35,945.40. The Respondent's pro rata share was $443.03 monthly. TheRespondent's share for the income below $130,000($1,602.25) when combined with'tlTe~~R~el3ponden 's; ($443.03} , resulted "in a monthly order of $2045.28 for the Respondent. -


8/18

seeking a downward modification on the grounds that he lost hisjob, could not afford the health insurance premium and was '

. disputing the amount of arrears owed. On June 21, 2010, Petitionerfiled Supplemental WB" alleging that Respondent violated the Orderof Support that directed him to pay $2,045.00 per month andRespondent failed to maintain the subject child on his healthinsurance. Subsequent motion practice ensued.

OnJuly2-6-,-2-0441,-- -Res-pendent- fiiedr-anGrder to Show Cause(filed as Supplemental nC") for a Temporary Restraining Order tostay the current Order of Support and for the entry of an Order ofSupport in the amount of $315.90 per month based upon his receiptof unemployment benefits. On August 5 , _ . 2010, Support MagistrateFasone declined to sign the Order to Show Cause and dismissedSupplemental "C." His Findings of Fact'indicated that he did notsign the Order to Show Cause because the issuance of a temporaryrestraining order was beyond the scope of his authority.

The case continued with multiple appearance dates on August12, 2010, November 18, 2010, March 16, 2011, April 13, 2011, June1, 20114 and ultimately concluded on July 6, 2011. On July 6, 2011.,.the Support Magistrate dismissed supplemental UA," Respondent'sdownward modification petition, because the Respondent "made-itimpossible to conduct any meaningful inquiry into the totality ofhis financial circumstances" and entered a money judgment onsupplemental "B," Petitioner's violation petition, .in the amount of

4The Order'of Support remained in effect throughout the pendency of theproceeding with the exception of the modification entered on Supplemental "A"to $298.00 monthly entered on June 1, 2011.


9/18

$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 forSummary Judgment" on Supplemental "A" and " .Bv " 5 No answeringpapers were ever filed. The papers were recorded as an Objectionand sent to the undersigned for review. The "Objection, Notice ofMotion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment"6 essentially argues thefollowing: '

. (1) The Final Order of Support entered on February 25, 2010 isvoid and the subsequent decision on the Objection of theundersigned entered on June 2, 2010is void.

( 2 ) Supplemental' "B" should be dismissed.( 3) Respondent seeks an award of costs, disbursements and

reasonable attorney's fees.

5Attached to the "Objection, Notice of Motion to dismiss, and forSummary Judgment" is an affidavit of service indicating that the SemyonFurmanov, a person over the age of 18 and not a party to the action, mailed acopy to Elena Svenson at her residence.6Affixed to the Objection are the following Exhibits. Exhibit A:Objection to Reply Affidavit of Rebuttal dated May-15, 2010, copy of envelopefrom NYS Child Support Processing Center, notice from NYS Child Support -Processing Center dated February 17, 20-10 , undated transcript of proceedingsbefore Support Magistrate Fasone, undated Affidavit of Merit from action inKings County Supreme- Court between Petitioner, Respondent, Victoria Edelsteinand Boris Kotylar, undated transcript 'of proceedings before Support MagistrateFasone, page 5 of the Final Order of Support without Clerk's endorsement, page5 of the Final Order of Support with Clerk's endorsement, Decision onObjection entered by undersigned on June 2, 2010; Exhibit B: summons for ElenaSvenson under docket F-28901-08/10A to appear on May13, 2010, Respondent'smodification petition; Exhibit C: Yonatan Levoritz, Esq.'s e-courts Web familywebpage for appearances; Exhibit D : Petitioner's violation petition, Order ofSupport entered on February 3, 2010,' Division of Child Support Enforcementstatement from May 1, 2010 through June 16., 2010, Verified Answer/ Jury TrialDemanded dated September 21,-2010, Respondent'sFirst 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: Affidavitof Witness by Semyon Furmaov dated July 1, 2011.


10/18

(4) Respondent seeks leave to renew and reargue his recusalmotion to disqualify the Support Magistrate from his case.

(5) Respondent asserts he is entitled to Summary Judgment onSupplemental UB" because no questions of law. or fact exist.

(6) Respondent seeks to be relieved from the underlying orderof support pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules 5015 (a)because of lack of jurisdiction.

TUpbn furtKer inspection/ it appears that Respondent's motionis actually an omnibus motion rather than an Objection and wasmistitled. "Objections are the equivalent of appellate review, andthis Court [may not]' consider matters which were not brought beforethe Support Magistrate or preserved by proper objection" (JAE v A B,10 MiscBd 446 [Fam Ct Ulster County 2005]; see also Rzemieniewska -Bugnacki v Bugnacki, 51 AD3.d 1029 [2d Dept 2008-]; Green v Wron, 151Misc2d 9 .[Fam Ct New.York County.1991]). While the record seems toreflect that Support Magistrate Fasone attempted to curtail themotion practice, 'the motion should have been heard by SupportMagistrate Fasone during the pendency of the hearing instead ofbeing referred to the undersigned. However, since the SupportMagistrate 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'smotion. All other matters in this omnibus motion are respectfullyreferred'to Support Magistrate Fasone for decision.

Respondent seeks to argue that undersigned's denial.. of hisObjection entered on June 2, 2010 based upon the untimeliness offiling is void,- Essentially, Respondent asserts that his position


11/18

is based upon newly discovered evidence. Respondent argues that henever received a copy of the Support Magistrate's decision fromFebruary 3, 2010 in the mail. He seeks to demonstrate that thereis 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 theCivil Court action brought against him by the Petitioner. The.Orderinthe- l^ami-lyGetta-^3?eeo3?d --eenteaias fefee- - ate s amp o fFebruary 25, 2010, bears the initials of the Part Clerk, and isendors.ed that it was mailed to "P, R, and P attny. The exhibit inthe 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. Thereare innumerable ways that an incomplete copy of an Order can beobtained.'Therefore, the undersigned's decision of June 2, 2010 isnot.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 andfindings of fact entered on 'July 6 / 2011.. No rebuttal wasreceived. In his Objection, Respondent argues that he did not

7 Furthermore, the record reflects that the Respondent has.taken anappeal 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. ction, mailed acopy to Elena Svenson at her residence on August 12, 2011.


12/18

consent to have the case adjudicated before Support MagistrateFasone and that Support Magistrate Fasone is.acting in a corruptand punitive way" and is not following the law. He requests thatall orders be vacated, Supplemental W B " be dismissed, andPetitioner be sanctioned for frivolous conduct.

The Orders on Supplementals "A" -and W B " were mailed on July1-1, --2-9-3rl-- Sin-cc the QJyg-eeM-on- -was- -i ed---ear-Aagnis-te- 18 , 2Oil, morethan thirty five days from the date of mailing, the Objection isdeemed untimely (Family Court Act 439(e); Russell v Gittens, 81A D 3 d 652 [2d Dept 2011]; Sanabria v Medina, 69 A D 3 d 947 [2d Dept

. 2010] ; ' Hodges v HodgesJ 40 A D 3 d 639 [2d Dept ,2 0 0 7 ] ; Mazzilli vMazzilli, 17. A D 3 d 680 [2d Dept 2005] ; Pedohe v Corpes, 24 A D 3 d 553'[2d Dept 2005]; Herman v Herman, 11 A D 3 d 536 [2d Dept 2004];Chambers v Chambers, 305 A D 2 d 6 7 2 , . 673 [2d Dept 2 0 0 3 ] ; Mayeri vMayeri, 279 A D 2 d 473 [2d Dept 2001]; Werner v. Werner, 130 A D 2 d 754'[2d Dept 1987]). Therefore, the Objection to the Court's orders ofJuly 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 onSupplemental "A"and Supplemental *B " are set aside pending the decision onRespondent's omnibus motion.

O n July 5, 2010, Respondent filed a motion for the Support Magistrate to recuse. himself because he "reasonablybelieves that Support MagistrateFasone is biased and prejudiced against him." There was no written' decision onthis motion. _ . _ ,On'July 12, '2^010", "Respondent 'filed""a cross motion for"sanctions for afrivolous motion to hold Petitioner and her attorney in contempt. This waslabeled as Motion #1 on Supplemental * C . " Support Magistrate Fasone noted thatit should have been'filed on Supplemental "B" and was identical to Motion #1on Supplemental *B." Support Magistrate Fasone entered an Order denying themotion on -July 26, 2010. It was also denied as Motion #2 on Supplemental U C "on August 12, 2010.O n July 12,2010, Respondent filed a motion to have a court reporter' 7


13/18

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 andfor Summary Judgment" filed on July 5, 2011 be undocketed as anObjection and calendared as an omnibus motion before SupportMagistrate 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; andi t i s further .

present. This was labeled as Motion #2 on Supplemental "C," but should-have beenfiled as a motion under Supplemental "A" and WB" as Supplemental *C" was not yetfiled. However, Support Magistrate Fasone denied Respondent's application"on July13, 2010 as Motion #1 on.Supplemental *B." This is .inconsistent with SupportMagistrate Fasone's Order dated July 26, 2010 indicating that Motion #1 onSupplemental "B" and Motion #1 on Supplemental 1V C" were Respondent's applicationfor sanctions. The Order dated July 13, 2010was mistaken when it says thatRespondent's application for a court reporter was filed on July 26, 2010and'decided on July 13, 2010.Support Magistrate. Fasone denied a motion seeking to void a child supportorder 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 onAugust 12, 2010.The Court could not find a record of the August 9th motion andit is unclear why any Order would be entered on the underlying support petitionwhen only Supplementals -"A," and *B" were active. It appears this sought the samerelief 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. '


14/18

ORDERED that Support Magistrate Fasone's decision onSupplemental UA" is set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that Support Magistrate Fasone's decision onSupplemental UB" is set aside; and it is further

ORDERED that Support Magistrate Fasone provide a detailedwritten decision on the U0bj.ection, Notice of Motion to Dismiss andfor Summary Judgment"; and it is further

ORDERED should Support Magistrate Fasone reach the samedecision as he did on Supplemental "A" on July 6 , 2011, he is toprovide detailed written Findings of Fact to explain how he reachedthe result he did; and - i t is further

ORDERED that Supplemental UC" was appropriately dismissed as aSupplemental petition, but the Clerk is directed to refile it as amotion 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


15/18

his entry of a modification of the child support order on June ",2011 to $298.00 per month under Supplemental MA, " how he arrived atthat'amount, and whether it was a temporary modification; and it isfurther . '

,. . ORDERED should Support Magistrate Fasone reach the samedecision as he did on Supplemental "B" on July 6, 2011, he is. toprovide detailed written Findings of Fact to explain how he reachedthe result he did and how he arrived at the amount for the moneyjudgment; and it is further

ORDERED should Support Magistrate issue new decisions onSupplementals "A" and WB" 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'sapplication 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 tocomplete the record so it will be clear why he did not grant theapplication; and it is further

1 0 . ' . :


16/18

'ORDERED that Support Magistrate Pasone is to review his recordto'make sure -that motions were filed on appropriate supplementalsand 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 theSupport Magistrate; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall not file any new motions untilall of these outstanding issues have been resolved and the SupportMagistrate has ruled on each.one. Upon receipt of a final decisiondetermining each .of these "outstanding issues, Respondent may- timelyfile an objection should he feel aggrieved by the result; and it isfurther . ' .

ORDERED that all decisions on motions, Final Orders andFindings of Fact.be mailed to the Petitioner and Respondent uponcompletion; and it is further '

11


17/18

ORDERED that oral'argument on the motion will be held beforeSupport Magistrate Fasone on December 12, 2011 at 2 PM and partiesare directed to. appear on that date; and.it is further

ORDERED that Petitioner and Respondent are to submit anydocuments 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 beconsidered; and it is further

ORDERED that each party will have 15 minutes to present theiroral argument; and it is further . .

ORDERED that Petitioner and Respondent are to be prepared-toproceed on that date-and should they--ehoos-e to be representedby Counsel, Petitioner, Respondent and Counsel are to be prepared toproceed on that date; and it is further

ORDERED that no adjournments are to be granted by the Support

' 1 2


18/18

Magistrate in the absence of extraordinary circumstances; and it isfurther "

ORDERED that all Counsel of record are to receive notice ofthis decision; and it is further

' ORDERED that the Court is to notify Petitioner, Respondent,Support Magistrate Fasone and the Support Collection Unit of itsdecision.

PAULA j. HEP:

13

judicial notice to the court addressed to john fasone. he ignored it

Documents