The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Chesapeake Juvenile Family Courts Judge Larry Willis Injustice The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts JDR Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts Child Support The Chesapeake JDR Courts COURTS The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts RIPOFF The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts
Virginia State Senator Tim Kaine - Senate Mark Warner - Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe - President Barack Obama
Judge Larry D. Willis The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts
The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District CourtI have been in contact with The OBAMA Administration, Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe, Senator of Virginia Mark Warner and Virginia State Senator Tim Kaine. I have also contacted WAVY TV TEN, members of the Virginia General Assembly,Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner of The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and supervisors with The Chesapeake Division of Child Support Services district office.
The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
With the evidence that I have submitted to all of them it is clear that The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has violated multiple State and Federal laws. I have all of the documentation as well as solid proof to back up all of my statements on this report. All of the reply letters that I have received from some of the highest members of government elected officials both on a State and Federal level all mentioned that they DO not have the authority to interfere with a State Judge at The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Instead they sent me legal resources and information on Civil Rights groups.
Now if they know that my rights are being violated as a US citizen is it not part of their job to make sure that this does NOT happen??
Below is my reply from
Vicki Turetsky -The Federal Commissioner of Child Support Enforcement in Washington D.C. and The United States President Barack Obama.
Senator of Virginia Mark Warner and Virginia State Senator Tim Kaine
Both of the State Senators of Virginia replied to my letters however Virginia State Senator Mark Warner and Virginia State Senator Tim Kaine both have stated that their authority is over federal matters. Both Mark Warner and Tim Kaine have said that they do not have the authority to interfere with a State Judge.
Well, if my Civil Rights are being violated and Federal laws are being violated should this be just cause to get involved and invoke federal authority over a state court??
Here are the reply letters from the Virginia State Senators below:
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe
Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe did intervene and he launched two investigations into my case with The Division of Child Support Enforcement of Virginia, he sent complaints to my local district office of The Chesapeake Division of Child Support Enforcement and he also reversed an administrative order to suspend my license which I am grateful for. This was the limit of the involvement of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
Virginia Governor, Terry McAuliffe does the right thing he can to help people and he is the only one that has took action and looked into my case with The Chesapeake Division of Child Support Enforcement District Office. I am sure that there are limits the authority of a Virginia Governor The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
This is the letter from DMV below:
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe reversed an order to suspend my drivers license so that I could work! Virginia State Governor Terry McAuliffe responded to my letters and took action but he was the only one that did.
Judge Larry D. Willis of The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
For years now Judge Larry D. Willis of The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has ordered me to pay more child support than I make. This is a violation of State and federal laws. I have solid proof and documentation that proves that at least four State and federal laws are violated in the Chesapeake JDR Courts.
Furthermore, I have a list of case law quotes that show a history of where this is happened before in the State of Virginia and in many States across the country. Every court that has committed these same type of Illegal actions in the past were either deemed to be in ERROR or the Child Support orders were reversed. I will post a full list of case law below.
I never have made enough to pay the child support ordered by Judge Larry D. Willis of The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. I have pay check stubs showing that I took home an average of $50.00-$100.00 a week.
There were some pay weeks were I received NOTHING at all. Zero dollars and zero cents! Even when I was unemployed for months or my income had legitimately dropped, (I had proof but he never looked at it!) I have been to court multiple times and he would not lower my child support.
It's almost like he purposely wants to put you in jail, be in debt the rest of your entire life or draw you into committing suicide by ordering you to pay a child support amount that exceeds your income. This has caused me to live in great poverty and fear. I see no way out, either I will be a slave for the rest of my life or a criminal for the Illegal actions taken against me by Judge Willis of The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
The Social Security Act
When Judge Larry D. Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile Court ordered me to pay a child support amount that is more than my income, a child support order that I can not possibly pay, he willing and knowingly violated the Legal Statutes below:
As it is written both in the Federal and State Statute:
(b1) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed:
(1) Sixty percent of such individual's disposable earnings for that week; or
(2) If such individual is supporting a spouse or dependent child other than the spouse or child with respect to whose support such order was issued, 50 percent of such individual's disposable earnings for that week.
The 50 percent specified in subdivision (b1) (2) shall be 55 percent and the 60 percent specified in subdivision (b1) (1) shall be 65 percent if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce an order for support for a period which is more than 12 weeks prior to the beginning of such workweek.
(c) No court of the Commonwealth and no state agency or officer may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.
THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE FEDERAL CODE AND THE STATE CODE.
Judge Larry D. Willis of The Chesapeake JDR Courts has knowingly and willfully violated State and Federal law more than once but is protected by Judicial Immunity. Well I think not because case law can prove that Judicial Immunity is NOT absolute.
In the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, God only knows how many laws are broken and ignored. I will proceed to FEDERAL COURT!
It is awful bad when as many as 25,000 fathers commit suicide every year over child support and in many cases the media will cover this up. They find other reasons like mental disorders or depression to rule in as the reason for the fathers committing suicide.
Many fathers on The Fathers Rights Movement Facebook page are going through the same thing. They have posted images of pay check stubs where they make very little to nothing to live on. These fathers want to support their children but they do not want to live as a slave and struggle for many years without a place to stay, food, gas and bus fair since many fathers loose their drivers license. To force a working father that wants to pay his child support into slavery should be a crime in The United States of America.
By being in the same position I now understand why some fathers just are not able to find a way out and unfortunately commit suicide.
Under Federal Regulation Code Title 45 Section 302.56 (g) (f), 42 U.S. Code § 667 and the Code of Virginia (§ 20-108.1) the correct amount for child support must be calculated first using the statutory child support guidelines. No additions or subtractions to gross income may be made before the initial figure is computed.
The amount of the award which would result from the application of the guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded.
If there are findings or facts for a deviation from the statuary child support guidelines, the amount of the award that would have been awarded must be documented in writing.
Then also reason for the finding must be documented in writing even if it's just incorporated by reference so that the child support amount is not deemed unjust or inappropriate.
Virginia Child Support Orders
In Virginia, there is an area designed for this on the child support order itself. This is not only State law but Federal Law as well.
This area on all of my Child Support orders is blank!
Child Support in Virginia is supposed to be calculated by your proven income and State guidelines as pursuant to (§ 20-108.1.) and (42 U.S. Code § 667).
When a person is ordered to pay more than 65% of his disposable income it is a violation of (15 U.S. Code § 1673 B) and (§ 34-29 b1). As it states in the law Statute it is totally prohibited.
Any deviation must have REASON, especially a deviation that takes more than 65% of disposable income that which violates (§ 34-29 b1) and (15 U.S. Code § 1673 B).
I have posted some case law below that will prove that the same unlawful actions have occurred in the past and they have rendered courts in error!
There are even some cases in which the child supports orders have been reversed.
• "We hold that the trial court erred in failing to calculate the presumptive amount of child support and in failing to provide a written explanation for a deviation from the child support guidelines, and we reverse and remand with directions to comply with Code 20-108.1 and 20-108.2. ."See – * HYLTON VS HYLTON Record No. 2307-96-3 VA 1999 ; JUDGE DONALD W. LEMONS
• "trial court gave legally insufficient reasons for deviation from child support guidelines"; See – Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
• "court may not deviate from the amount of the child support yielded by the guidelines without a written finding that the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under specific criteria"; See – In re Marriage of Lux, 489 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); Shaddox v. Schoenberger, 19 Kan. App. 2d 361.869 P.2d 249 (1994); Genusa v. Genusa, 30 So.2d 775 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009)
The Chesapeake Juvenile Courts
Even the attorney for The Division of Child Support Enforcement admitted in court that this my child support amount was extreme and well above the State's child support guidelines. It was an extreme deviation from the child support guidelines without REASON.
There was NO evidence to support such a drastic deviation from the guidelines. There is no legal reason for this deviation from the guidelines and NO explanation, reason or findings have ever been documented in writing which is required by law.
NO reason has ever been expressed orally or in writing as pursuant to § 20-108.1., 42 U.S.C. sec. 667(b)(2) and Federal Regulatory Code U.S. Title 45 Section 302.56 (g).
There is an area of the child support order to document any deviation even if it is only incorporated by reference. This area is blank on all of my child support orders that were created by Judge Larry D. Willis of the Chesapeake JDR Courts.
There is no reason given in writing on the child support order which is a violation of § 20-108.1. under Virginia State law and Federal Regulatory Code U.S. Title 45 Section 302.56 (g). See also (42 U.S. Code § 667)
This is also a violation of § 34-29 (b1) and 15 U.S. Code § 1673 (B) because the order exceeds more than 65% of my disposable income.
NO explanation, reason or findings where documented or expressed on the child support order as pursuant to § 20-108.1, §42 U.S. Code § 667 and Federal Regulatory Code U.S. Title 45 Section 302.56 (g).
This is not an error of the court; this is a willful disregard for the law motivated by bias favoritism.
When a Judge orders a garnishment that is more than 65% of a person's disposable income it is a violation of Code of Virginia § 34-29 (b1) and the Federal Statute 15 U.S. Code § 1673 Section B.
My child support orders prove that there was no written findings even incorporated by reference as pursuant to § 20-108.1, Federal Statute §42 U.S. Code § 667 and Federal Regulatory Code U.S. Title 45 Section 302.56 (g).
The area on the Child Support order is blank. I cannot appeal because he makes it thousands of dollars in bonds to appeal my case.
There were some weeks that I did not have a 40 hour work week and I received a paycheck for 0.00 (zero dollars and zero cents). In my personal option this is judicial modern day slavery.
There is also NO evidence that suggests that my ex-wife's income was also calculated in the child support order as pursuant to § 20-108.1.
Judge Larry Willis of The Chesapeake Juvenile Court has never laid eyes on any income documents that I bring with me to court. He never asks to see any documents or any evidence of any kind. All evidence presented or words spoken by me have been ignored.
I have filed two judicial complaints. TheJudicial Inquiry and Review Commission denied to investigate both complaints that were filed even with solid evidence.
Judge Larry D. Willis served on the Judicial Inquiry Review committee in the past and I believe that he is protected. He has clearly shown bias favoritism in regard to my Child support case.
This statement is virtually impossible to prove but I have witnessed him act on my ex-wife's behalf as an attorney. I have seen him remove a court reporter from the court room and I have talked to many attorneys that have expressed statements which I would plainly describe as misconduct in the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
I pray for Justice involved my child support case. There have been acts of an Illegal and unlawful manner taken against me by officers in the State judiciary court system. This is an Injustice deep within the court system that is ruining my life. Do to the injustice plagued upon me by a State officer of authority I have been denied the means to an appeal so that this matter could have been resolved through litigation.
This has caused me to think about ending my life by suicide many times. I live in poverty, sometimes not even having food. I am basically homeless having to live with whoever will help me. I suffer from great depression and mental disorders from this being done to me. I lack the money to go see a doctor and I am immediate denied Government medical assistance because in the State Government system I make enough to pay thousands a year in Child Support.
I already have been through severe traumatizing events as a child. This is a separate story that was broadcasted all over the world on CNN News and other large news outlets.
He has took away my RIGHTS for any government benefits. I have been immediately denied Government Medicare and the food stamp program because my income in the State Government system shows that I can pay thousands a month in child support so my income in the State system is too high to receive any government benefits. This is false and untrue.
I have proof and documentation of everything stated in this report.
JUDGE LARRY D. WILLIS of THE CHESAPEAKE JDR COURTS HAS DESTROYED MY LIFE AND CONTINUES TO DO SO MAKING ME A SLAVE FOR THE REST of MY LIFE!
I have a Civil right to a fair hearing. There was no evidence or REASON for the deviation which violates § 34-29 (b1) and the Federal Statute 15 U.S. Code § 1673 Section B.
I have documentation proving that Judge Larry David Willis of The Chesapeake Juvenile Court orders excessive amounts of child support that is impossible to pay. Judge Larry D. Willis deviates from the guidelines without cause or reason.
Judge Larry Willis orders a child support amount that is more than a person's Income. This is modern day judicial slavery.
- "Any deviation from the presumptive amount must be supported by written findings of the trial Judge specifying why the application of the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate."See – *Richardson, 12 Va. App. at 21, 401 S.E.2d at 896.
- In any proceeding determining child support, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount determined through application of the statutory child support guidelines is the correct amount. See – *Code §§ 20-108.1(B) and –108.2(A).
- "This amount is computed by considering the gross income of both parents and the number of children involved. No additions or subtractions to gross income may be made before the initial figure is computed."See – *Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 21, 401 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1991).
- "a conclusory written statement of [the circuit court's] findings"is not sufficient to justify deviating from the presumptive guideline amount. Id. If the circuit court fails to provide sufficient explanation for any deviation it decides to make, its actions will be deemed error."See – *Pharo v. Pharo, 19 Va. App. 236, 450 S.E.2d 183 (1994).
- ‘Supreme Court urged trial courts to enter written findings on the record in all child support cases, with one justice specially concurring on the point". 2242 U.S.C. § 667(b)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 302.56(g); e.g., Hepburn v. Hepburn, 659 So. 2d 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995); In re Marriage of English, 757 P.2d 1130 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988); Castro v. Castro, 31 Conn. App. 761, 627 A.2d 452 (1993); Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d 1197 (Del. 1989); Wood v. Wood, 632 So. 2d 720 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); People ex rel. Browing v. Melton, 180111. App. 3d 519, 536 N.E.2d 133 (1989); Beardsley v. Heazlitt, 654 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995); Manila v. Bower, 634 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994); In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013)
- [T]o rebut the presumption of correctness of the guidelines, a trial court must make written findings of enough detail and exactness to allow for effective appellate review of the findings. Specifically, these findings must identify the factors that justified deviation from the guidelines, and explain why and to what extent the factors justified the adjustment. See – *Richardson, 12 Va. App. at 22, 401 S.E.2d at 897; see also Solomond v. Ball, 22 Va. App. 385, 391, 470 S.E.2d 157, 159-60 (1996); Pharo v. Pharo, 19 Va. App. 236, 238, 450 S.E.2d 183, 184 (1994). See also Farley v. Liskey, 12 Va.App. 1, 4, 401 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1991).
- Under normal circumstances, a party seeking modification of an existing child support obligation needs show there has been a material or substantial change in circumstances which justifies the change. This discourages people from flooding the courthouse with requests to modify the current amount unless something which would drive the support amount (income, health insurance, daycare, etc.) has changed considerably. However, existing Virginia case law suggests that the imposition of new guidelines, even with nothing else, justifies changing the support amount, where the change in amount is significant. (See Milligan v. Milligan, 12 Va. App. 982 (1991), see also Slonka v. Pennline, 17 Va. App. 662 (1994) and Head v. Head, 24 Va. App. 166, 176, 480 S.E.2d 780 (1997).
- "Only if [circuit courts] follow the statutory requirements will Virginia child support awards conform to the federal and state legislative mandates designed to create uniformity in support awards between parents and children similarly situated. [Circuit courts] must make the requisite specific written findings, not solely for the purposes of appellate review, but, more important, to enable . . . judges in future hearings to decide whether and how to increase, decrease, or terminate support. Only by having specific written findings will . . . judges in subsequent proceedings be able to make informed decisions on how a change in circumstances may justify modification or may justify continued deviation from the guidelines."See – *Hiner v. Hadeed, 15 Va. App. 575, 581-82, 425 S.E.2d 811, 815 (1993) (internal citations omitted).
- "required the states to create a rebuttable presumption that the amounts recommended in the child support guidelines are the correct amounts to be awarded. Turner v. Turner, 219 Conn. 703, 714, 595 A.2d 297 (1991)."(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 711 n.15; see also id., 710 n.13., Favrow v. Vargas, 231 Conn. 699,(1994)
- ¶7] Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to a de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Bladow v. Bladow, 2005 ND 142, ¶ 19, 701 N.W.2d 903 (citing Buchholz v. Buchholz, 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11, 590 N.W.2d 215).
- "In short, "where a trial court is required to make written findings supporting its decision, its failure to do so constitutes reversible error." Robinson v. Robinson, 50 Va. App. 189, 194, 648 S.E.2d 314, 316 (2007).
- "court may not deviate from the amount of the child support yielded by the guidelines without a written finding that the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under specific criteria"; In re Marriage of Lux, 489 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); Shaddox v. Schoenberger, 19 Kan. App. 2d 361.869 P.2d 249 (1994); Genusa v. Genusa, 30 So.2d 775 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009)
- "after determining the presumptively correct child support amount using the child support worksheet, the trial court must consider whether to rebut the presumed correct child support amount, as found by the court, as being unjust or inappro-priate after consideration of all relevant factors"; Scoggins v. Timmerman, 886 S.W.2d 135 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994); Hajenga v. Hajenga, 257 Neb. 841, 601 N.W.2d 528 (1999); Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. 546, 779 P.2d 532 (1989);Gowing v. Gowing, III N.C. App. 613,432 S.E.2d 911(1993); O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 515 N.W.2d 821 (N.D. App. 1994); Marker v Grimm, 65 Ohio St. 3d 139, 601 N.E.2d 496 (1992); Fitzgerald v. Shanun, 857 P.2d 92 (Okla. App. 1993); Elias v Spencer, 449 Pa. Super. 359.673 A.2d 982 (1996); Lembo v. Lembo, 624 A.2d 1089 (R.I. 1993); Schwab v. Schwab, 505 N.W.2d 752 (S.D. 1993); Mayers v. Mayers, 15 Va. App. 587, 425 S.E.2d 587 (1993); Richardson v. Richard-son, 12 Va. App. 18,401 S.E.2d 894 (1991); In re Marriage of Booth, 114 Wash. 2d 772, 791 P.2d 519 (1990); Bellinger v. Bettinger, 183 W. Va. 528, 396 S.E.2d 709 (1990). 23 Roosth v. Roosth, 889 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994). See also O'Brien v. O'Brien, 138 Conn. App. 544, 53 A.3d 1039 (App. Ct. 2012)
- "a trial court must make an on-the-record finding of the presumptive child support amount before applying deviation criteria in order to facilitate appellate review in those cases in which the trial court finds that a deviation is justified; the finding will enable an appellate court to compare the ultimate order with the guideline amount and make a more informed decision on a claim that the amount of the deviation, rather than the fact of a deviation; court failed to do so which constituted an abuse of discretion"; Mayfield v. Mayfield, 2013 IL 114655, 989 N.E.2d 601 (III. 2013)
- "trial court must apply the child support guidelines, unless it finds that a deviation is appropriate based on the evidence presented by the parties on various factors, and if it does, it must explain why"; In re Marriage of Kent, 245 III. App. 3d 575, 615 N.E.2d 402 (1993)
- "so long as court explains reasons for deviation, court does not have to use words "unjust"or "inappropriate"to deviate". 23 Burnside v. Somerville, 202 A.D.2d 1064. 609 N.Y.S.2d 127 (1994). See also In re Marriage of Upson, 991 P.2d 341 (Cob. Ct. App. 1999)
- "trial court gave legally insufficient reasons for deviation from child support guidelines"; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
- "record was silent as to rationale for deviation". 26 E.g., Smith v. Snyder, 671 So. 2d 752 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)
- "lack of written findings to support deviation was fatal to court's decision"; Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Ha. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); Boruff v. Boruff, 602 N.E.2d 180 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); 67 Wn. App. 378, 835 P.2d 1054, MARRIAGE OF GLASS. But see Draper v. Draper, 40 Conn. App. 570, 672 A.2d 522 (1996)
- "deviation for private school was error where court failed to make particular findings as to why deviation was necessary"; Roberts v. Roberts, 391 S.W.3d 921 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)
- "record was silent as to rationale for deviation". 26 E.g., Smith v. Snyder, 671 So. 2d 752 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995); Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996
- "lack of written findings to support deviation was fatal to court's decision"; Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Ha. Dist. Ct. App. 1994);
- "We hold that the trial court erred in failing to calculate the presumptive amount of child support and in failing to provide a written explanation for a deviation from the child support guidelines, and we reverse and remand with directions to comply with Code 20-108.1 and 20-108.2. ."See – * HYLTON VS HYLTON Record No. 2307-96-3 VA 1999 ; JUDGE DONALD W. LEMONS
- "trial court gave legally insufficient reasons for deviation from child support guidelines"; See – Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
- "court may not deviate from the amount of the child support yielded by the guidelines without a written finding that the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under specific criteria"; See – In re Marriage of Lux, 489 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); Shaddox v. Schoenberger, 19 Kan. App. 2d 361.869 P.2d 249 (1994); Genusa v. Genusa, 30 So.2d 775 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009)
- This statutory requirement obligates the trial court to "identify the factors that justified deviation from the guidelines"and to "explain why and to what extent the factors justified the adjustment."Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 22, 401 S.E.2d 894, 897(1991); cf. Pilati v. Pilati, 59 Va. App. 176, 182, 717 S.E.2d 807, 810 (2011)
- (interpreting the analogous "written findings"requirement for spousal-support orders and stating the need for the trial court to explain "its resolution of any significant underlying factual disputes"). This is because there must be "enough detail and exactness to allow for effective appellate review of the findings."Princiotto v. Gorrell, 42 Va. App. 253, 260, 590 S.E.2d 626, 630 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
- [T]here shall be a rebuttable presumption in any judicial or administrative proceeding for child support that the amount of the award which would result from the application of the guidelines set out in § 20-108.2 is the correct amount of child support to be awarded…. In order to rebut the presumption, the court shall make written findings in the order, which findings may be incorporated by reference, that the application of such guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. The finding that rebuts the guidelines shall state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines, shall give a justification of why the order varies from the guidelines, and shall be determined by relevant evidence pertaining to [certain enumerated statutory factors] affecting the obligation, the ability of each party to provide child support, and the best interests of the child… See also Farley v. Liskey, 12 Va.App. 1, 4, 401 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1991). Herring v. Herring, 532 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). Brody v. Brody, 432 S.E.2d 20 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). Walter Edward Saxon, Jr. v. Angela LeSueur, 0516132 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). Kirk T. Milam v. Shelia J. Milam, 0837124 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). James Jospeh Ledwith v. Beth Faber Ledwith, 0154042 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). Deborah C. Sproles v. Robert K. Lowry, IV, 0134983 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). Zubair A. Saleem v. Afshan Ghias Saleem, a/k/a et a, 0443974 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
- Code § 20-107.2(2) vests discretion in the trial court in awarding child support and such awards will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.'"Auman v. Auman, 21 Va. App. 275, 277, 464 S.E.2d 154, 155 (1995) (quoting Young v. Young, 3 Va. App. 80, 81, 348 S.E.2d 46, 47 (1986).
ALSO SEE SOME OTHER SUPREME COURT CASES
Berge v. Berge 710 NW2d 417, Knobs v. Jacobson, 707 NW2d 803, Brandner v. Brandner 698 NW2d 259, Christoffersen v. Giese 691 NW2d 195 and again in Minar v. Minar 625 NW2d 518.
THIS IS AN ABUSE of POWER BY JUDGE LARRY DAVID WILLIS OF THE CHESAPEAKE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT
He is on the list of bad Judges which can be seen here:
Posted by citizens
LINK and Here
"Larry Willis had been the Chairman of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission for years up until a new chair was chosen about a month ago. He was personally responsible for keeping bad judges on the bench by sweeping their misdeeds under the rug. Of over 2100 complaints filed in 2008, he only saw fit to investigate 20.
He probably ignored their misdeeds because his own were usually much worse. Sleeping through trials, playing on his computer instead of following the proceedings, making his decisions before the testimony is completed, refusing to listen to litigants who were pro se, acting as the attorney for litigants that he liked, and the list goes on.
I'm calling on all "victims" to contact me. If we have sufficient numbers, maybe we can challenge his reappointment. Unless we have numbers, there is no need to waste our time."
Mr. Thea Artis
VA EQUAL Parents, Inc.
Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has violated multiple federal and State laws.
I have sold proof and yet nothing is done about it!!
I have asked for help from any resources. I have already sent my documented proof to the Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, members of the general assembly, Wavy TV Ten, and many other news media resources.
Judge Larry D. Willis of the Chesapeake JDR Court may retaliate however I have many civil rights groups standing by my side. I am a member of The Fathers Rights Movement and this organization is all too familiar with my case. I have the hacktivist group Anonymous helping me get the word out about my online. The Fathers Rights Movement, Anonymous and other civil rights groups stand ready to rally in Protest on my behalf if this Judge takes out his vengeance.
We all stand together as one in this matter of Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
I ask for only one thing, for Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court to DO his job and follow the law! I call out for an investigation into my case at the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Judge Larry D. Willis needs to be held accountable for his crimes against fathers who have cases in the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
I ask for help from any attorneys so that I can seek Justice in Federal Court. I ask for any media outlets to contact me to get my story to the public. I will take this matter to FEDERAL COURT myself if needed for a violation of my RIGHTS as a US citizen of the United States of America.
Response from President Barack Obama, the Governor Terry McAuliffe, the State Senators of Virginia, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine
After I contacted President Barack Obama, The Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine I have received a few letters of response. They are baffled about my child support case and The Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe has done what he can to help me with my child support case at The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
I have exchanged letters with The Obama Administration, The Governor's office, Mark Warner's office and Tim Kaines office. I have sent documentation to all of them that provides one hundred percent proof beyond any doubt that Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has violated multiple State and Federal laws. The Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe has launched an investigation into my case and has sent my complaint information to the local Division of Child Support Enforcement here in Chesapeake, VA. I have been on the phone with the supervisor of this office.
The Chesapeake Division of Child Support office is located at:
814 Greenbrier Cir Chesapeake, VA (757) 548-7900
I am highly grateful that The Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has looked into my case and investigated the details of my child support case however The Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, Virginia State Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine have all informed me in writing that they DO NOT have the authority to overturn a State Judges Decision. Even if Judge Larry D. Willis violates both federal and State laws.
The Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe did reverse an administrative order to suspend my driver's license so that I can work. I am thankful for this and I think that Governor Terry McAuliffe is awesome!! He cares about the little people whether they are felons, male, female, rich, poor, white or black. I would like to thank Governor Terry McAuliffe personally for helping me however more needs to be done.
I have also send documentation to President Obama, members of the General Assembly, Civil Rights Groups and National and local media resources. I ask that people gather with me in protest against this injustice. I call out to fathers and other victims of The the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. I am in contact with a tleast five other fathers, three families who are victims of The the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. The Fathers Rights Movement and other Civil Rights groups stand ready.
Other Victims of Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
I am in contact with other fathers that claim that they have been treated unfairly by this court just because of their gender.
What I can do is tell you what other licensed attorneys have told me about this court and I can provide documentation with solid facts that prove beyond any doubt that Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has violated at least four State and Federal laws.
I have been in contact with other fathers that feel that they are victims of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Fathers who have lost their visitation and custody rights in the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Fathers who are like me and are victimized by The Chesapeake JDR courts by Judges that violate federal and State laws.
Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts
Only a few of these fathers have had the courage to post information online about their cases in the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
I once was talking to an attorney about this. She said that for people to post negative things about a Judge or certain court online is perfectly normal. That it's going to happen. Well I did some research and this statement is FALSE. It really is not that common for litigates to feel so victimized by a Judge that they post their information online.
Most of the victims of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court lack the courage to stand up and fight. They also seek help only with their individual cases rather than fighting for other victims of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.
The Fathers Rights Movement
The Fathers Rights Movement is a civil rights group for fathers however many of the Facebook followers and members of the Fathers rights Movement are women. They also have children, both boys and girls who take the microphone to stand in protest against Social services and family courts all over the country.
They protest wrongful practices and unlawful actions by family courts nationwide. The Fathers Rights Movement stands by my side as they also are familiar with my case and documentation.
Divorce Father, Tom Ball, 58 years old, wrote a 15 web page statement earlier than committing suicide by setting himself on fire found on the steps regarding a New Hampshire household court. It showed how present unconstitutional insurance policies of Family Court docket influenced by the Violence Against Girls Act destroys fathers and hurts kids and other women too - understanding that men should stand by this virtual warfare on fathers. The PC media has ignored this information, for which Tom sacrificed his life, to conceal the court injustice that is involving each father and family across this country.
Tom Balls scenario is not unique. The Fathers Rights motion is all very accustomed to it. Maybe 24,000 males 1 year commit suicide as a result of unconstitutional denial of basic rights of fathers in family courts. Some 250,000, or more, guy are supposed to falsely and unlawfully placed into debtor’s prisons each day.
Tom found himself subject to the ‘greater good’ excuse laws which the family courtroom makes use of to disenfranchise a parent of his kids and his money. These are generally the interests of the kid excuse and the security of ladies (and kids) abuse excuses. They’re ‘greater good’ legal guidelines as they definitely abridge the fundamental rights and protections the U.S. was shaped to secure.
The feminist-inspired and maintained Violence Towards Ladies Act has allowed feminists to commandeer women’s issues – and that features ‘family’ – to both set up and preserve legal guidelines or excuses that privilege women. This privilege, though, comes while eliminating denying men and fathers their constitutional rights – together with their right to parent. Underlying these privileged laws is that men are bad and women are very reasonable – and victims of men.
These ladies-privileged legal guidelines have shown within the creation of the powerful divorce and domestic violence trade (DDVI) that relies upon the unconstitutional denial regarding a fit father’s parental rights, extorting funds from him by the state and mom- kidnapping of his kids, and straightforward incarceration of him for either unproven abuse or lack of ability to agree to pay the extortion.
Tom experienced it all. A social employee threatened to possess the shape take their youngsters if his wife didn’t file an abuse complaint in opposition to him for slapping his child. So, she did and he was arrested and prevented from seeing his children. When he was discovered harmless of abuse, he was nonetheless prevented from seeing them. A legal split ensued.
Divorced from his children by the legal court, he was extorted to pay cash weekly. This a child support obligation fee is generally some huge cash which might impoverish a father but can be used by the female for whatever she would like to invest it on. If he doesn’t pay it all he’ll be despatched to jail. Excuses for incapacity to pay are, largely, ignored through courts. That is unconstitutional, too. It drives fathers into debt and then into jail – as Tom was facing.
Tom had served 21 years in this firm and then went within the Nationwide Guard. He had also sign up and native chief within a fathers rights group to attempt to publish concerning the unconstitutional processes that deny fathers their rights and children. He was simply an everyday guy.
He understood that some huge cash was built off the entire divorce and home violence trade – a system based around denying fathers their rights. And he testified that a large part of its unconstitutional processes were devised by man-hating people who have been destroying fathers in addition to many ladies and children. He additionally knew that it is well known that a substantial amount of cowl-up of this example both in the courts and in the media.
Others June 17, 2011, when going through jail for getting a kid support cost of underneath $3000 also in debt at age 58 and unemployed for the past 24 months after purchasing the past a decade, he chosen to have a stand against the system. In his phrases:
“I may contain make a call or two and borrowed the money. But I'm carried out being bullied for being a man. I am unable to imagine people in Washington is so silly to believe that they can govern Individuals which includes an iron fist. Twenty-a few years ago, the national government declared warfare on men. It's time in an effort to see just how committed they are as a concequence of their cause. It is time, boys, to allow them to have a taste of war.”
After dousing himself with gasoline, Tom burned himself alive on the household courtroom steps to attempt to power educational insitutions to expose the injustice that they and most other father faces underneath the current anti-man family courtroom and then to inform others to get up towards complying. It’may be a most painful strategy to die.
The PC Media Cover-up
Tom had mailed his assertion to an area newspaper – the Keene Sentinel newspaper in NH. It printed it on its on-line version. Fathers rights groups became the owners of a hold of it. Comments on Tom’s Self-immolation as well as anti-father implications unfold rapidly all through males’s and rights-related web sites – although not the foremost or most minor media either.
Tom Ball’s public suicide, his cogent and revealing statement, add the virtually common points he addresses would provoke great public interest and concern yourself with household court rules and procedures – togerher with its rampant anti-father feminist sexism. But, in fact, that’s precisely what the feminists and the rest of the divorce and domestic violence don’t need exposed. To ensure the feminist/PC media methodically ignores any information that may reflect badly on the women-privileged ‘larger good’ laws that depend on denying fathers their constitutional and parental rights.
Holding the general public unaware of how the feminist household courts repeatedly deny a father’s parental right and other of his constitutional rights is the primary job whatever the PC media. Failing that, it’ll find specialists that will declare which the ‘Tom Balls’ are mentally ill. However, in fact, all tyrannical ‘isms’ – similar to state imposed feminism - proclaim that those that object as a result of their tyrannical procedures are mentally ill.
Tom Ball just isn't the first father who has committed suicide situated on the steps of America’s household courts. And quite a few fathers have dedicated suicide quietly and alone because of the family courts’ denial of their infants and the rights.
A free press doesn’t guarantee its news coverage is unbiased. Though a press that’s strongly involved with all its retailers can dominate what views and tales will and won't be covered. Understanding that’s what our predominantly PC press does. Its feminist slant suppresses the idea that the general public should be aware about.
- Chesapeake Juvenile Courts
- Juvenile Justice
- Chesapeake JDR Courts
- Juvenile Courts
- Judge Larry Willis
- Child Support Suicides
- Court Justice
- Typepad Chesapeake Courts
- Chesapeake Weebly
- Chesapeake JDR Courts
- Juvenile Cases
- Ripoff Report
- Video Resources
- Legal Video
- Video Channels
- Another Video
- Child Support Deaths
- Other Video
- Child Support Videos
- Fathers Rights Video
- Chesapeake Juvenile Family Courts
- The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
- PDF Chesapeake Child Support Enforcement
- PDF Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
- PDF Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
- PDF Chesapeake Juvenile Court Service
- PDF City of Chesapeake Juvenile Court