Advertisement
wpconsulting

motion

Feb 20th, 2019
97
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 24.54 KB | None | 0 0
  1. CASE NO. 6CRO1698
  2. IV-D NO.: 19-012.755.990
  3.  
  4. DECLARATION OF KARL M. ROWE
  5. 1. I am the Defendant in the above-entitled action. I know the facts contained in this Declaration and if called to testify, I would and could competently testify thereto.
  6. 2. On June 17, 2006, this Declarant received a letter from County of Los Angeles, Child Support Service Department, dated June 15, 2006, indicating that a warrant had been issued for his arrest on June 28, 2002, in Case No. 19-012.755.990 (People v. Karl M. Rowe). A true and correct copy of this letter is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "1." Declarant is reminded how something similar occurred on or about March 5, 2001, when he received a letter from the US Department of State essentially rejecting his application for a passport, at which point he learned that he had been in arrears for nonpayment of child support payments "in excess of $5,000.00" pursuant to a default judgment that had been taken against him and that a warrant had since been issued for his arrest although he had not been aware that any such proceeding had taken place..
  7. 3. That this Declarant may now be in violation of Summary Probation in, in part, due to actions taken by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, back in December of 2001, which led to the issuance by the DMV of a Notice of Intent to Suspend, which forced Declarant to surrender his California Driver License to the DMV on May 18, 2002, and the suspension of Declarant's license has not only hampered his ability to generate income, but has driven him from time to time to violate California Vehicle Code ยงยง 14601, et seq., and other statutes proscribed in the Vehicle Code forbidding the driving of a motor vehicle with a suspended license (before May 18, 2002) or driving without one (on and after May 18, 2002) in order to generate income to meet my financial obligations. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Intent to Suspend is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "2."
  8. 4. It is as if Your Honor were the co-owner of a bus company with only two buses in your fleet, but neither you or the co-owner can generate any income for your company because your Class C license as well as the co-owner's Class C license have been revoked. But more than this, Your Honor is in violation of an agreement to pay child support and so cannot legally earn money in your business to meet your financial obligations pursuant to an agreement you had entered into due to adverse actions taken by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, making it an impossibility to do so, so even if your co-owner of the business has his or her Class C license restored, you have to hire a bus driver if you are to generate any income to meet your financial obligations; only Declarant's computer consulting practice is a sole proprietorship.
  9. 5. The actions taken by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, have caused an immediate hardship to Declarant in that he has become unable to meet his financial obligations, including his obligations pursuant to the terms and conditions agreed to in the Sentence & Order executed on August 20, 2001. A true and correct copy of the Sentence & Order is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "3."
  10. 6. Declarant contacted the Department of Child Support in Commerce, California, to obtain a release, but was informed that his only recourse was to contact the DMV, and when Plaintiff did so, was informed by the DMV that it could not issue an Order of Reinstatement until the Department of Child Support had submitted a release. Nevertheless, Declarant continued to pay the agreed-upon sums pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Sentence & Order as he was financially able to do so until July 25, 2003, when this Declarant remitted all amounts, including amounts in arrears, up to and including the July 1, 2002 payment, as indicated in the following table:
  11. Date Due Payment Amount Date Paid
  12. 09/15/2001 173.00 09/14/2001
  13. 10/01/2001 173.00 09/30/2001
  14. 10/15/2001 173.00 10/14/2001
  15. 11/01/2001 173.00 10/31/2001
  16. 11/15/2001 173.00 11/14/2001
  17. 12/01/2001 173.00 06/25/2002
  18. 12/15/2001 173.00 12/14/2001
  19. 01/01/2002 173.00 07/22/2002
  20. 01/15/2002 173.00 08/20/2002
  21. 02/01/2002 173.00 02/09/2002
  22. 02/15/2002 173.00 02/14/2002
  23. 03/01/2002 173.00 08/30/2002
  24. 03/15/2002 173.00 11/15/2002
  25. 04/01/2002 173.00 11/15/2002
  26. 04/15/2002 346.00 06/02/2003 (173.00)
  27. 05/01/2002 06/02/2003 (173.00)
  28. 05/15/2002 692.00 07/25/2003 (173.00)
  29. 06/01/2002 07/25/2003 (173.00)
  30. 06/15/2002 07/25/2003 (173.00)
  31. 07/01/2002 07/25/2003 (173.00)
  32. 3460.00
  33.  
  34.  
  35. 7. In addition, further actions taken by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, led to the issuance by the Franchise Tax Board of a "Continuous Order to Withhold - Effective For One Year - Child Support Collections" demand being served on one of Declarant's former clients (who hired Declarant back in September 25, 1993), which directed that 25% ($230.00) be withheld from the amount billed by Declarant for technical consulting services rendered to the law firm of Levine & Unger and remitted to the Franchise Tax Board, which eventually led not only to Levine & Unger becoming a former client of Declarant's, but to other clients of Declarant's for whom he also worked within the same suite no longer seeking to avail themselves of Declarant's services. Declarant contacted the Franchise Tax Board and was informed that he had to take the matter up with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division. A true and correct copy of the Child Support Collections demand as well as a copy of the check setting forth the $230 deduction "per Order" is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "4."
  36. 8. This Declarant requests this Court to grant him due process of law to which he believes he is entitled as a matter of law, since his motion to set aside the default judgment entered against him in LASC Case No. BD 0191291 was dismissed with prejudice, leaving him no one to whom he can turn for relief. As a result of actions (described below) that were taken by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, Declarant's business has been caused irreparable harm in that he has not only lost many of his clients. Declarant is self-employed and works as an on-call computer consultant, meaning in his case that his occupation requires that he be able to travel to the offices of his clients when called and especially when computer-related emergencies arise, making possession of the privilege to drive a motor vehicle in his occupation very necessary in the day-to-day running of his business.
  37. 9. Declarant has a son, Timothy Curtis Rowe, by the plaintiff in the above-entitled case, Lesa P. Wells, Timothy's mother, who caused a complaint to be filed and an uncontested judgment to be entered against Declarant for child support when she misled the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, into believing it had served the Summons to appear in connection with the hearing that had been set by the Family Law Division to hear the matter on or about September 19, 1995, on Declarant at his mailing address, when, in fact, service of the Summons was made at a box rental address, which provided a vital service to Declarant for accepting Fed Ex and UPS deliveries, rather than being effected at his home mailing address, which mailing address plaintiff did not provide presumably so that Declarant might not receive notice of the then-pending action as plaintiff presumably hoped that his absence from the hearing would lead to her obtaining a default judgment against defendant (which it did). Lesa (the plaintiff) had previously been Declarant's girlfriend, and so knew intimate details about Declarant, things that very few people knew about him, so there must be a strong inference in the record as to what might have occurred here, and however it was that she was able to use the court process to achieve whatever was her reasons for pursuing such a course began with those who, in association with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, she convinced their help was needed to force the father with whom their son was conceived to assume a portion of the financial responsibility of raising him, when one of the things a child needs is nurture, which means addressing, not just the child's physical needs, but its emotional and spiritual well-being.
  38. 10. It is noteworthy that plaintiff would have others believe that Declarant, who has four (4) daughters, aged 33, 25, 22 and 20, did not want to be involved in how his son, his only son, was being raised and to bond with his son, but Declarant was denied access to Timothy by plaintiff when he was born, and is still being denied access to him as he now approaches his 13th birthday and has no legal right to see him while plaintiff has every right to deny Declarant access to his own son. No, the world is not fair, but no one associated with the Family Support Division has as yet ever taken the time to interview Declarant, but he supposes that assuming the defendant in such a proceeding is a "dead beat" dad (or a "dead beat" mom, in very rare cases) is where these adversarial proceedings begin, and that there is no real interest is discussing why a government agency should think that its mandate of obtaining a judgment for child support based on the unconfirmed allegations of a litigant that could have an agenda should trump either the truth or the rights of the other parent that isn't its client. Declarant doesn't know that this child support case is any different than other child support cases that are litigated in the Family Court, but this Declarant should have been heard, but the motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed with prejudice.
  39. 11. It was in January or February of 1993 that Lesa Wells informed Declarant that she was pregnant with his child and wanted to know if he wanted her to carry it to term. It had been Declarant's recollection at that time that his sexual relationship with Lesa had ended in September of 1992 due to a lack of trust based on repeated instances of infidelity on her part; however, based on a paternity test, it has been become apparent that their breakup must have occurred in November of 1992 instead. At any rate, Declarant had informed Lesa that he had no interest in renewing their sexual relationship, and that if she was pregnant with his child and had decided to have the child, that he would require a paternity test and would not just assume that she, in this particular instance, was telling the truth. It was at this time that Lesa informed Declarant that she was going to have an abortion, which she evidently decided against, as Timothy Rowe was born on August 16, 1993. Upon leaving the hospital, however, Lesa would not permit Declarant to come to her home to see Timothy, and informed Declarant during a telephone conversation one evening (he was home and Lesa was at hers) that she didn't think his seeing Timothy to be a good idea since she and he weren't going to be raising the baby together, and that she was going to be raising him alone, while Declarant is telling Lesa at the same time that there is no need for them to be together to be able to raise Timothy together.
  40. 12. Declarant voiced his objection to this "arrangement" as he still wanted to establish paternity, but other than two visits to a neighbor's apartment to drop off money, there had been no contact at all between Declarant and Timothy since August 16, 1993, at the hospital, and there had been no telephone contact between Lesa and Declarant until the following summer of 1994, when Lesa informed Declarant that it would be "inconvenient" for her to permit Declarant to come to her home in view of the fact that she was at that time dating someone. Lesa did not inform Declarant that she had planned to file a complaint for child support against him, so when Lesa telephoned Declarant in the winter of 1994, asking him to pick up a coat that she had placed on layaway at a department store in Fox Hills Mall, Culver City, California, and that he should drop it off at a neighbor's home, Declarant did so and bided his time, not knowing at the time that Lesa had already filed an action against him for child support.
  41. 13. In 1995, Declarant contacted Lesa about letters he had received from the Bureau of Family/Child Support Operations, at which time he was told that she had been required to sign some documents in order to receive public assistance, but Declarant ignored the letters as "junk mail" since he did not realize that these letters had any legitimacy nor was he aware that a legal proceeding had taken place, which proceeding is what led to a default judgment being entered against him for child support. In fact, as indicated in the moving papers filed by Declarant's then-attorney, Kwasi A. Asiedu, Declarant did not even become aware that these letters had had any legitimacy until on or about March 5, 2001, when he received a letter from the US Department of State indicating that he was "ineligible to receive a passport" due to his being "in arrears of child support in excess of $5,000.00." A true and correct copy of this letter dated February 14, 2001, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "5."
  42. 14. Unfortunately for Declarant, Mr. Asiedu caused the dismissal of the motion to set aside default judgment that he had filed on Declarant's behalf on March 14, 2001, because he had advised Declarant that he did not have to appear at the hearing of this motion, and apparently, when he realized his error, was unable to obtain a continuance. On the day of this hearing, Declarant had been working on a project at the office of one of his former clients (Levine & Unger) in Beverly Hills, had removed the hard disk drive of Mr. Unger's legal secretary from her PC and was in the process of cloning it to a new hard drive, when Mr. Asiedu contacted and informed him about the hearing, but Declarant was unable to get to the courthouse in time, and would have scheduled this cloning project for a later time or day had Declarant been informed in advance that his presence at this hearing was required.
  43. 15. As the record shows, the motion Declarant had Mr. Asiedu file on his behalf was dismissed with prejudice, and, not knowing what to do, when advised by Mr. Asiedu that he should go ahead and execute the Sentence & Order dated August 20, 2001, Declarant did so, agreeing to pay child support through the Court Trustee in the sum of $246.00 per month, plus $3,600.00 at $100.00 per month over a 36-month period, as provided by the terms and conditions of said Sentence & Order. Declarant fully expected to fulfill his obligations with respect to the Sentence & Order so that he might be discharged from Summary Probation and the case filed against him by plaintiff dismissed, but having since had to dismiss Mr. Asiedu for not representing his interests in the matter for which his services had been contracted, Declarant has, until now, been unable to know how to proceed after the DMV suspension took effect on May 18, 2002.
  44. 16. In a letter Declarant received from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, dated October 12, 2001, an amended Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support changed the amount set forth in item #3 of the Sentence & Order from $100.00 to $102.19, and this letter also included a Notice to Withhold for Health Care Coverage (Part A) and a Medical Support Notice to Plan Administrator (Part B) ordering that Timothy "be enrolled in any health coverages available," which was also not among the agreed-upon terms and conditions in the Sentence & Order. A true and correct copy of the Order/Notice to Withhold Income for Child Support dated February 12, 2001, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "6." Also, a true and correct copy of these two notices (Parts A and B) is attached to this Declaration as Exhibits "7" and "8," respectively.
  45. 17. Of the many accounting anomalies that Declarant has noticed on one of the statements from the Child Support Services Department dated "11-01-01," under "New Charges," is a charge of $246.00 that was added after the agreed-upon payments of $246.00 and $346.00 were made on "10/03" and "10/25." Further, the statements from the Child Support Services Department add an interest charge in excess of $200, and indicate a "Minimum Payment Now Due" of almost $400.00 instead of the $346.00 set forth in item #2 and item #3 in the Sentence & Order. The Court explained on the date that the Sentence & Order was executed that "child support arrears" were to be paid "at the rate of $100.00 per month," and Declarant would never have agreed to pay the additional $100.00 per month had he been aware that this $100.00 would only have been applied to interest accrued on the arrearage since this would amount to interest being calculated on Declarant's own money. It would be grievous enough to have to satisfy a debt that one didn't know had been legally incurred like when a child breaks a window or dents a car with his bicycle, but to be adding interest to such a debt having no knowledge whatsoever that such a debt has been legally incurred and is accruing interest while it remains unpaid would be an especially grievous circumstance. A true and correct copy of this statement dated November 1, 2001, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "9."
  46. 18. Declarant contemplated that an amount less than $23,987.00, or $20,387.00, would remain unpaid after 36 months, but with interest accruing on the unpaid arrearage, this would amount to taxing Declarant's own money, money that he had not even earned, and putting that money into the pocket of someone that intentionally concealed Dcclarant's real mailing address from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, and knowingly gave the district attorney an address she knew Declarant did not use as his mailing address, in order to obtain a default judgment "in stealth," to borrow a word used by Mr. Asiedu, Declarant's former attorney.
  47. 19. Timothy has only been permitted to spend about 10 days with Declarant since he started making child support payments to his mother pursuant to the Sentence & Order, and about five days since July of 2003 when Declarant has been in no financial position to make them any longer, and on only three of these occasions was he afforded the opportunity to have his son meet and spend the day with some of his cousins, which is the way Lesa has orchestrated things since his birth. It doesn't cost very much to get him a haircut, but Lesa has not permitted Declarant the opportunity to at least do that much for Timothy and his grooming doesn't seem to be an issue she takes as seriously as does Declarant. Declarant has never required Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division's assistance to provide child support for his son, but it has now inserted itself into Declarant's relationship with his son and with Lesa based on representations made by Lesa that simply were not true. Before Declarant was ordered to pay child support, Lesa repeatedly refused to cooperate with numerous requests to have a paternity test done, but despite this, Declarant had made himself available whenever Lesa would communicate to him that Timothy needed something, including money not sent though the Court Trustee for something Timothy needed, and birthday and Christmas gifts.
  48. 20. When Declarant's mailing address changed on June 15, 2002, from 701 South Gramercy Place #223, Los Angeles, to 6709 La Tijera Blvd., Declarant notified the Court Trustee pursuant to item #6 of the Sentence & Order, the DMV and Lesa to this effect. When Declarant's mailing address subsequently changed on May 1, 2004, from 6709 La Tijera Blvd., Los Angeles, to 8726 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #A62, Declarant also notified the Court Trustee, the DMV and Lesa to this effect. Declarant's telephone number is owned by Declarant so the same telephone number that was his at the Gramercy Park mailing address remained unchanged at the S. Sepulveda Blvd. mailing address.
  49. 21. Today, Declarant is struggling to run a business and to build his client base again after losing so many clients as a result of actions taken by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, that have caused irreparable harm to his business, and Declarant may not ever get any of his lost clients back. However, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, has taken liberties in connection with administering the terms and conditions of the Sentence & Order executed by Declarant on August 20, 2001, which have resulted in Declarant having to carry a burden that no one should be forced to carry in order to care for their child. For example, a week after the Sentence & Order became effective, an attempt was made to garnishee the wages of Declarant in the amount of $24,123.58, with interest, in a modified Notice of Wage and Earnings Assignment for child support dated August 27, 2001, although the amount set forth as item #3 in the Sentence & Order is $23,987.00, and interest isn't even mentioned, and the Sentence & Order indicates in item #2 and item #3 that the first payment was to begin on September 15, 2001, not August 27, 2001. Also, in this same August 27, 2001 letter, a Notice of Order for Health Insurance Coverage was included, which was not among the agreed-upon terms and conditions in the Sentence & Order. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Wage and Earnings Assignment dated August 27, 2001, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "10." Also, a true and correct copy of the Notice of Order for Health Insurance Coverage is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit "11."
  50. 22. This Declarant, therefore, requests that this Court please grant him due process of law to which he is entitled as a matter of law, in view of the fact that his motion to set aside the default judgment entered was dismissed with prejudice, and he has no one to whom he can turn to obtain relief from the burdens that encumber the relationship between he and his son and his ability to meet his financial obligations as the Sentence & Order now operate as a yoke upon Declarant's neck as the result of actions taken by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division.
  51. 23. The said Sentence & Order has been unilaterally amended by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, and due to the actions it has taken against Declarant since the date on which it was executed, Declarant has been and is currently unable to comply with its terms and conditions, as amended, to generate income that will enable him to survive and meet his financial obligations, permit him to run his business, and pursue his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a right that every American citizen ought to enjoy, even as does Lesa have these same rights, except that she has no right to manipulate the facts and use the conception of a child to extort money from Declarant as and for child support by swearing an oath that Declarant was unwilling to provide support for their child knowing such an oath would be false, or to use the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, and this Honorable Court, as the instruments of the extortion she is practicing upon her former lover due to being spurned as such and who now suffers scorn due to her failure to exercise self-control and be honest, knowing that any statement she made as to Declarant's unwillingness to provide support for his own son was false, and the help plaintiff received from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, serves a very different purpose than what she managed to persuade the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, and this Honorable Court to believe! Why would plaintiff have permitted Declarant to spend less than 20 days with his own son over the past 12, going on 13, years? Why would plaintiff not want her son to spend any real quality time with his father?
  52. 24. Declarant requests that Your Honor review the Sentence & Order executed on August 10, 2001, and make a further order that all of its terms and conditions as agreed upon be reinstated, and that only Your Honor will reserve to itself the determination of whether to suspend Declarant's driver license since without it, he will not be in a position to carry out the terms and conditions set forth in the said Sentence & Order.
  53. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
  54. Executed on June 18, 2006, at Los Angeles, California.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement