|
he following US Supreme Court Petition for Certiorari was
entirely researched and written by Robert A. Hirschfeld, JD,
on behalf of the self-representing Petitioner, Carnell Smith.
It is Hirschfeld's eleventh Supreme Court Petition. His
prior US Supreme Court work includes two Petitions for
Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release of the Cuban Boy,
Elian Gonzales, to the boy's Cuban father. Hirschfeld, who
was for ten years a prominent Father's Rights attorney,
is available on contract to draft Federal and State
Appellate and Supreme Court briefs at:
Robert Hirschfeld, JD, PO Box 696, Lukeville AZ 85341 or
Email: certhelp@nolawyer.com
-------------------------------------------------------
(ascii version: Cites at end instead of page bottoms)
-------------------------------------------------------
No. 01-1520 (Filed 4/9/02)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________________
October Term, 2001
_________________________
CARNELL A. SMITH
Petitioner
v.
TONI W. ODUM
Respondent
______________________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the State of Georgia
______________________________________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
______________________________________________
CARNELL A. SMITH
(address and phone redacted)
Petitioner, Pro Se
April 9, 2002
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Is every cognizant State Court, when
presented with uncontroverted, credible
genetic testing evidence of non-paternity,
required to render void for want of subject
matter jurisdiction, the previous, underlying,
judgment of paternity?
2. Upon a finding by the cognizant State Court
that a previous judgment of paternity is void,
must that Court Order the refund to the
newly-proven non-father, of all child support,
whether court ordered or voluntarily paid
while under mistaken belief of paternity,
collection expenses, and court expenses?
LIST OF PARTIES
Petitioner Carnell A. Smith, is a resident and citizen of
the State of Georgia and of the United States of America.
Respondent Real Party in Interest Toni W. Odum was
at all pertinent times, a resident and citizen of the State of
Georgia and of the United States of America.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED i
LIST OF PARTIES ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iv
TABLE OF STATUTES AND ACTS OF vi
CONGRESS ...
OPINIONS BELOW 2
JURISDICTION 2
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
STANDARD OF REVIEW 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS 5
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 7
I. Every cognizant State Court, when presented with 7
uncontroverted, credible genetic testing evidence of non-
paternity, is required to render void for want of subject
matter jurisdiction, the previous, underlying, judgment of
paternity.
II. Upon a finding by the cognizant State Court that a 11
previous judgment of paternity is void, that Court must
Order the refund to the newly-proven non-father, of all child
support, whether court ordered or voluntarily paid while
under mistaken belief of paternity, collection expenses, and
court expenses.
CONCLUSION 16
Georgia Supreme Court Order Appendix A
Court of Appeals Order Appendix B
Superior Court Order Appendix C
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
AG Edwards & Son v. Norwest Rlty Co.,340 NW2d 15
187,189 (S.D.1983)
Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman, 419 U.S. 20 (1974) 17
American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 12
17-18 (1951);
Barret v. Independent Order of Foresters, 625 F.2d 73 10
(5th Cir. 1980).
Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126, 127 (1804) 12
Clements v. Phillips, 235 Ga.App. 588, 510 S.E.2d 12,14
311 (Ga.App. 12/03/1998)
De Filippis v. United States, 567 Fed.2d 341, 343-44 15
(7th Cir. 1977)
Department of Medical Assistance v. Presbyterian 11
Home, Inc. 200 Ga.App. 885, 887.
Dixon v. Punchy, 979 P.2d 520, 526 (Alaska 1999) 15
Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) 12,13
Gary v. E. Frank Miller Construction Co., Inc., 208 10
Ga.App. 73 (1993)
Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Pinter, 14
241 Ga.App. 10, 525 S.E.2d 715 (Ga.App. 11/18/1999)
Haynes v. Fincher, 241 Ga.App. 179 (1999).
Human Resources v. Browning, 210 Ga.App 546, 547 7
(1993)
In re Ashmore, 163 Ga. App. 194, 195 (1) 14
(293 SE2d 457) (1982)
Jenkins v. MAB and JB, 723 So.2d 649 (Ala. 7/17/98) 15
Kohl v. Amundson, 620 NW2d 606 (S.D. 1/3/2001) 15
Langston v. Riffe v. Langston, Daniel R. v. Tyrone W. 15
359 Md 396, 754 A.2d 389 (June 28, 2000)
Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 2985 (1983) 15
Libro v. Walls, 103 Nev. 540, 543, 746 P.2d 632, 634 15
(Nev. 1987)
Love v. Love, 114 Nev. 572, 959 P.2d 523 (Nev. 5/19/98) 15
Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 12
82 (1884)
Morton v. W.T. Tharpe & Co., 41 Ga.App 788 (1930). 11
Price v. Mitchell, 154 Ga.App. 523 (1980) 11
Roddenberry v. Roddenberry, 255 Ga. 715, (1986) 7
Smith v. Department of Human Resources, 8,14
226 Ga. App. 491, 493 (487 SE2d 94) (1997)
United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114-15 , 15
52 S.Ct 460 (1932)
White v. Armstrong, 1999 WL 33085 (Tenn. Ct. 15
App 1/27/99)
Wise v. Fryar, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, U.S. 15
Supreme Court No. 01-562, cert.den. (Current Term, 2002)
WY. Dept. of Fam. Serv.,MJJ v.PAG & MJA, 15
934 P.2d 1257 (Wy.1977)
TABLE OF STATUTES AND ACTS OF CONGRESS
O.C.G.A. 19-7-40 (Georgia Paternity, Child Support) passim
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________________
October Term, 2001
_________________________
CARNELL A. SMITH
Petitioner
and
TONI W. ODUM
Respondent
______________________________________________
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the State of Georgia
______________________________________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
______________________________________________
CARNELL A. SMITH
(Address and phone redacted)
Petitioner, Pro Se
______________________________________________
Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to
review the Decision entered herein by the Supreme Court of
the State of Georgia on January 9, 2002.
OPINIONS BELOW
The 1/9/02 Memorandum Decision of the Supreme
Court of the State of Georgia appears as Appendix A. The
decision of the Georgia C
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:44:39 -0700, "Wizardlaw" <wizardlaw@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The following US Supreme Court Petition for Certiorari was
entirely researched and written by Robert A. Hirschfeld, JD,
and is pretty much gibberish.
Which is why it was DENIED.
**Dan Evans
**I post information, not advice.
|
| |
| |
Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> writes:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:44:39 -0700, "Wizardlaw" <wizardlaw@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The following US Supreme Court Petition for Certiorari was
entirely researched and written by Robert A. Hirschfeld, JD,
and is pretty much gibberish.
Which is why it was DENIED.
How do we define gibberish?
Would you argue that the brief of the Attorney General of Georgia, filed
in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), was not gibberish?
--
Rahul
|
| |
| |
|
