{"id":260,"date":"2020-07-29T15:43:18","date_gmt":"2020-07-29T15:43:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/paternityfraud.com\/newsite\/?page_id=260"},"modified":"2020-07-29T15:43:18","modified_gmt":"2020-07-29T15:43:18","slug":"time-limits-support-paternity-fraud","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/paternityfraud.com\/newsite\/time-limits-support-paternity-fraud\/","title":{"rendered":"Time limits Support Paternity Fraud"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“Time limits would protect the criminal and violate 14th amendment”<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Opinion by Carnell Smith <\/p>\n\n\n\n

for CAPF Freedom Fighter, “The Naked Truth”
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

April 2001<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What would happen to the crime rate, if criminals were told “if you take money under false pretences”, don’t worry about it — there’s no problem as long as it’s not discovered for xx years? So, take the money and disappear. And if you do get caught, you’ll get a tap on the wrist and you can still keep the money. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Would that deter others from pursuing the same criminal acts? Absolutely, not!<\/strong>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We, the Citizens Against Paternity Fraud agree with the following US Supreme Court ruling about violations of the 14th Amendment. There should NOT be a time limit on the paternity fraud cases, if this is done — men’s civil rights will be violated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US constitution requires Equal protection for all citizens, since there is no time limit on when mothers can seek child support or arrears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be equally fair for men to have the same amount of time to discover paternity fraud, in the absence of any laws that require moms to tell the TRUTH about paternity (Ie. full disclosure of all possible fathers). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

How can 60 days for challenging paternity be equal to 18+ years of paying child support? The math does not add up, no matter what calculator is used. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

See the excerpts from the highest court in North America, US Supreme Court: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

——————————————————————————————– <\/p>\n\n\n\n

03\/21\/32 HEINER v. DONNAN ET AL. 1932.SCT.210, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S. Ct. 358, 76 L. Ed. 772 A rebuttable presumption clearly is a rule of evidence which has the effect of shifting  the burden of proof, Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 43; and it is  hard to see how a statutory rebuttable presumption is turned from a rule of evidence into a rule of substantive law as the result of a later statute making it conclusive. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This court has held more than once that a statute creating a presumption which operates to deny a fair opportunity to rebut it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 238, et seq.; Manley v. Georgia, 279 U.S. 1, 5-6. “It is apparent,” this court said in the Bailey case (p. 239) “that a constitutional prohibition  cannot be transgressed indirectly by the creation of a statutory presumption any more than it can be violated by direct enactment. The power to create presumptions is not a <\/em>means of escape from constitutional restrictions.”
<\/em>——————————————————————————————–
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paternity fraud issue is not about the best interests of the child (BIC). The mom and Child Support Enforcement want money with no regard about true paternity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sadly, anyone picked by mom that is unfortunate enough to believe her accusation, will do just fine. This keeps the matching federal tax dollars coming in, so what if 30% of men tested for paternity were not the bio-dads?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n