Divorce Support Forums: PATERNITY FRAUD

Subject: Public Corruption and Crimes of Fraud
From: soboski@bellsouth.net
Reply To: soboski@bellsouth.net
Date: 4 November 2006, 5:32 AM
To: South Carolina Attorney General’s Office info@scattorneygeneral.com
Cc: LENSKIP@SCSENATE.ORG; soboski@bellsouth.net

The Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC) mailed me an unsolicited complaint form concerning the upcoming reappointment of Paul W. Garfinkle to the family court bench. I am providing your office with a copy of a report I composed as a consequence of the JMSC complaint form.

This report contains criminal issues and public corruption which I believe are better placed before your office. If I am in error, would you please provide me with the appropriate office / contact for this report?

Regards,
Mrs. Richard Stanley Collette
F/K/A/ Miss Lillian C. Smith

---

In The Matter of: Paul W. Garfinkle, et als.

A complaint against the reappointment of Paul W. Garfinkle, et als., to the Charleston County family court bench based upon a sham / fraudulent divorce from a sham / non-existent marriage with criminal intent to defraud a disabled person. See, case file no’s.: 1987-DR-10-0294; 1990-DR-10-002881; 1996-DR-10-005482; 2001-DR-10-000721. All of which stand in evidence of an ongoing scheme of public corruption and fraud impacting all officers of the court inclusive of Garfinkle and the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC).

Given the failures of the JMSC to heed my prior complaints, I am at a complete loss in understanding why the JMSC now solicits my complaint concerning the reappointment of Garfinkle to the Charleston County family court bench.

Nonetheless the JMSC is herein served notice and provided with an outline of events and subsequent outrages perpetrated on the property and disabled person of Mr. Richard Stanley Collette in the complete absence of all jurisdictions.

Had any officer of this purported court observed any of their / sworn oaths / obligations / duties / under the constitution / laws of this state / laws of the United States / Rules of Court / Code of Professional Conduct / the following events and circumstances would have been discovered as evidenced by the fact that they were discovered by a lay person.

Events:
1. It is believed and alleged that Susan Lee Rice (hereinafter Susan) became aware or had the opportunity to become aware of both the financial circumstances and psychological disabilities of Mr. Richard Stanley Collette (hereinafter Richard) during a temporary stay in his residence from late October through early December of 1983.

2. It is believed and alleged that Susan bore animosity for Richard after he forced her to vacate his home because of her failure to seek her own abode as promised.

3. It is believed and alleged that Susan became pregnant late in January 1984 as evidenced by her full term delivery date of October 25, 1984.

4. It is believed and alleged that Susan returned to Richard sometime in March of 1984 and materially misrepresented her time of conception and did knowingly falsely accuse Richard of paternity.

5. It is believed and alleged that Susan coerced her reentry into Richard’s home based upon her false accusations of his paternity and some references to previously aborting a child of C. M. Attaway, who would have been deemed her common law husband under the laws of this state had her mother put that matter before the court.

6. It is believed and alleged that Susan was employed and had access to health insurance and had an additional undeclared source of income.

7. It is believed and alleged that Susan had local family members and access to a home for unwed mother’s both of which were capable of providing her shelter during her pregnancy and she was in no way forced to seek shelter with Richard.

8. It is believed and alleged that Susan made demands of marriage based upon her false accusations of paternity.

9. Richard who had just completed a divorce in early October 1983 has no recollection of any desire or intent to marry or evidence of having applied for a marriage license with Susan.

10. It is believed and alleged that Richard did not appear in person and present his identification, did not affix his Social Security number and signature to an application for a marriage license with Susan as required under the laws of this state.

11. What purports to be a marriage license with Susan documents a misspelling in Richard’s name and does not match any other sample of his handwriting -- ever.

12. It is believed and alleged that Susan did knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state forge or cause to be forged the name of ‘Richard Stanely [sic] Collette’ to a marriage license, dated April 21, 1984, believed to have been improperly issued in reckless disregard of the laws of this state.

13. Susan did thereafter knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state file an action in Probate Court, August 14, 1985, falsely purporting to be the wife of Richard, and seeking his emergency commitment to the S. C. state mental hospital on rambling and disjointed written allegations of drug abuse which are believed to have been contrived to support grounds for her later planned divorce from her sham nonexistent marriage.

14. Susan did therein document to Probate Court on August 14, 1985 that (a) Richard did not hold her to be his wife; and (b) some awareness of as yet undiagnosed psychological disabilities all in wanton / reckless disregard of the rights of Richard to timely and appropriate psychiatric care.

15. It is believed and alleged that Susan with the assistance of atty. Lon Shull did knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state cause Richard to be falsely imprisoned in the state mental hospital on the signature of only one physician of dermatology, Marianne W. Rosen, who had graduated in June 1985 and was not yet licensed under the laws of this state (license 012888, issued August14, 1986).

16. While Richard was falsely imprisoned in the mental hospital on Susan’s allegations of drug abuse, Susan continued her on-going relationship / contact with C. M. Attaway who is believed and alleged to have been her undivorced common law husband and the person who supplied the drugs that Susan sold and Susan also had her brother William L. Rice a known drug abuser move into Richard’s home with her and her child.
i. C. M. Attaway was murdered in a drug involved situation on December 25, 1992.
ii. William L. Rice committed suicide in 1996, and Susan is documented on the coroner’s report saying he had been involved in drugs for years.

17. March 21, 1986, Susan did knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state have Richard illegally and permanently removed from his property by one purporting to be a sheriff’s deputy without benefit of a court order on unsupported allegations that she ‘found drugs in his closets’.

18. Susan unilaterally ended any / all potential parental association between her seventeen (17) month old John Doe child alias Richard Prentiss Collette and Richard on March 21, 1986 precluding any allegations of paternity by estoppel.

19. Susan did knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state falsely file an action for divorce from her sham nonexistent marriage on January 10, 1987, using the same drug allegations of August 14, 1985.

20. The prayer for relief filed by Susan in this fraudulent divorce from her sham nonexistent marriage to Richard documents and verifies the full extent of her criminal intent to defraud one she knew to be psychologically disabled as evidenced by her August 14, 1985 Probate action.

21. Susan did knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state falsely allege that the property of Richard ‘was acquired during her marriage’ (to Richard) and ‘her name was on the title’ to said property.

22. The property title documented the name of ‘Richard Stanley Collette’ as sole owner and that it was acquired in July 1979, four (4) years prior to the April 21, 1984 sham nonexistent marriage of Susan.

23. Susan did knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state falsely allege that Richard was the natural / biological father of her full term child born October 25, 1984.

24. Both witnesses and photographic evidence confirm and verify the John Doe child of the White female Susan to be fully and completely Asian / Oriental in features bearing no resemble or features of the blue eyed blond White male Richard rendering all possibility of paternity a physical impossibility.

25. Susan, self-declared, photographed and known to be White, offered the explanation to Richard that her father is White and her mother is Japanese and her child looks Asian / Oriental solely because of ‘her mother’s genes’ -- genes that were not dominant enough to produce a Japanese Susan.

26. For the genes of Susan’s ‘mother’ to have caused the complete Asian / Oriental features of Susan’s child, Susan would have had to bred with a male off-spring of her ‘mother’ -- one can only hope that this is another of Susan’s many lies to conceal her knowledge of the father of her child.

27. The only medical possibility for the genes of Susan’s alleged Japanese mother to have come into play and overridden the White features of Susan was for Susan to have bred with an Asian / Oriental man and Susan had that type of access through her employment.

28. It is believed and alleged that Susan overcame all of the impediments in her fraudulent divorce through collusion / conspiracy with officers of the court.

29. It is believed and alleged and evidenced by certain court documents that officers of the court, Bernard J Warshauer, Lon Shull, David Crawford, and W. Robert Kinard, did jointly / severally in knowing willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state aid and abet Susan in frauds upon the court and upon Richard.

30. This court of record inexplicably failed to have the required court reporter present at this final hearing creating the appearance of collusion / conspiracy in a joint effort to obstruct justice should any of their deeds be discovered.

31. In knowing willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state said officers of the court jointly / severally did collude / conspire in a false allegation that Richard had entered into an Agreement with Susan.

32. There is no written Agreement signed by Richard and Susan as required by the laws of this state.

33. The purported Agreement is believed and alleged to have been prepared by Shull for Susan and is documented nowhere except upon the facially defective sham decree of divorce which has been signed by no one except B. J. Warshauer who is not an authorized agent of Richard and could not lawfully be an agent of Susan.

34. Said fraudulent Agreement alleged that Richard had agreed to sign over ‘his interest and ownership’ in the ‘marital’ home to Susan ‘as of the date of this order’ that being September 22, 1987.

35. No evidence of any hearing on this sham nonexistent marriage and any equitable interest in the falsely alleged marital property has ever been entered into the record.

36. The referenced ‘Veteran’s Administration mortgage loan’ on the sham divorce decree could only serve as evidence that there was no marital property.

37. Said fraudulent Agreement stated that Richard had agreed to ‘directly pay Petitioner (Susan) two hundred ($200.00) dollars per month as child support’ with no evidence of any hearing or adjudication of paternity ever being entered on the sham divorce decree or anywhere in the entire record.

38. Said fraudulent Agreement stated that Richard had agreed to ‘continue providing health insurance for the minor child’ with no evidence or hearing that he had ever provided any health insurance for the child of Susan ever being entered into the record.

39. The sham decree of divorce and the entire record of this case confirms and verifies that (a) the court has never named any child as being a child of this alleged marriage; and (b) has never named any child as being the child of Richard or one entitled to the support of Richard verifying that paternity has never been adjudicated.

40. Through wanton disregard / reckless indifference to the law by this purported court and the vengeful greed driven Susan, John Doe Rice alias Richard Prentiss Collette remains ‘John Doe Rice’ and his mother’s mere selection of a name accomplishes nothing in the legal determination of his paternity.

41. Richard was never married to Susan and Richard, obviously not the biological father of child, has never signed an acknowledgment of the paternity of Susan’s child, Richard never filed for adoption of Susan’s child and had no association with John Doe Rice after March 21, 1986 when John Doe Rice was seventeen (17) months of age.

42. Officers of this purported court have to establish a marriage / a child of a marriage / property acquired during a marriage to establish SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION all of which are missing in this case.

43. Officers of the court have a duty to know and do know that the falsely alleged Agreement as documented on the sham decree of divorce from this sham nonexistent marriage is in knowing willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state and unenforceable.

44. Susan did not file a Rule to Show Cause (RTSC) seeking enforcement of this sham order until November 6, 1989, that being twenty seven months after the fact (case file no. 87-DR-10-0294).

45. Based solely upon the facially defective sham decree of divorce purported to be “The Agreement” Larry R. Patterson knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state did illegally force Richard under duress of imprisonment to sign over the sole-ownership of his property to Susan as evidenced upon public record.

46. Based solely upon the facially defective sham decree of divorce purported to be “The Agreement”, Patterson knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state did illegally order Richard under duress of imprisonment to pay $200.00 dollars per month through the court as child support plus a three (3%) court handling fee with no adjudication of paternity ever having occurred.

47. The court therein created the appearance of Racketeering / Extortion in collecting a monthly fee as enforcers of Susan’s fraud.

48. This illegal order was not signed and filed by Patterson until April 1, 1990 that being four (4) months after the allotted thirty (30) days for signing and filing orders.

49. The RTSC and the illegal order of April 1, 1990 both show the proper case file no. of 87-DR-10-0294 as would be required in the clerk of court Policy and Procedures Manual.

50. That number was inexplicably changed to new case file number of 90-DR-10-002881 upon filing it.

51. Case file no. 90-DR-19-002881 does not show the required cross-referencing back to case file no. 87-DR-10-0294.

52. This creates an appearance of an attempt to conceal / bury the file and raising the issue of collusion / conspiracy by the clerk of court in the appearance of a Racketeering / Extortion scheme of the court.

53. The record of this case shows a multitude of fraudulent and malicious RTSC hearings filed for by Susan.

54. The court has a continuing duty to review the files of the cases before them and with each RTSC filed by Susan they had a new opportunity and duty to review the files of this particular case.

55. No reasonable person can be expected to believe that those trained in the law and court procedures would have consistently failed from January 10, 1987 through to December 27, 2000 to recognize the frauds so obvious to a lay person not benefiting from that experience and training.

56. December 27, 2000 I, Lillian C. Smith, did file a 60(b) motion for Relief From Judgment (case file no. 01-DR-10-000721) on behalf of Richard who’s health had again degenerated causing the need to file for Social Security Disability (SSD).

57. A request for an emergency Ex parte hearing was also filed to inform the court of Richard’s failing health and inability to work and continue paying the extortion under guise of child support in the desire to prevent a repeat performance of the 1995-96 RTSC hearings held by Garfinkle.

58. Garfinkle had shown bias and prejudice against Richard (1995-96) in accepting unsupported ranting allegations of drug abuse from Susan and not acting on the testimony of his licensed Psychiatrist that he was diagnosed with Bi polar disorder and his disorder and prescriptions prevented him from holding down employment at that time.

59. Garfinkle, who gave the appearance of being intent on jailing Richard and holding him for ransom until his aged and bedridden father paid off Susan’s financial demands, was reversed by the higher court.

60. The request for the emergency Ex parte hearing filed on December 27, 2000 was denied by Garfinkle.

61. The 60(b) motion was heard by Jack A. Landis on April 25, 2001, who had a record of $27K in tax liens against him when the JMSC inexplicably selected him for appointment to the bench.

62. Susan did not appear (April 25, 2001) and was represented by Jack Sinclaire who merely alleged Res judicata as grounds for dismissal despite the documentary evidence contained in the divorce decree and case files that Richard had been defrauded by officers of the court out of any / all opportunity to have his case heard.

63. Landis paraphrased an acknowledgment of some the issues raised in Richard’s 60(b) motion in his order of dismissal:
i. A lack of jurisdiction of this court over the person of Mr. Collette,
ii. An allegation of fraud supposedly perpetrated on the Petitioner and the Family Court in 1987,
iii. The propriety of the execution of the settlement that was included in the original Order of Divorce, including the equitable division of property and child support, and
iv. The possibility that the child for whom the support was paid is not the child of the Petitioner.

64. Richard had also raised issues about the validity of this sham and fraudulent marriage of Susan’s.

65. Landis being in full knowledge that a 60(b) motion for extrinsic fraud upon the court can be raised at any time then improperly dismissed Richard’s 60(b) motion on Sinclaire’s unsupportable allegation of Res judicata creating an appearance of prior Ex Parte communication with Sinclaire.

66. Landis exhibiting bias and prejudice then improperly placed all responsibility / blame upon the disabled Richard for failing to take measures that he had never been informed of and would not have been allowed as the decree of divorce was Null and Void ab initio through extrinsic fraud upon the court rendering it nonexistent.

67. Quoting Landis, “He (Richard) also had the right to file motions under Rules 59 and 60 of the South Carolina Rules of Practice. The time for appeal and the time for making those motions under the Rules have passed.”

68. In wanton disregard / reckless indifference to the law Landis falsely created an implication that some form of bizarre default paternity had evolved from Susan’s prior successes in extrinsic fraud upon the court.

69. The Social Security Administration (SSA) in wanton disregard / reckless indifference to both Richard’s notification that paternity had never been adjudicated and the rules found in the Social Security Handbook: 411. What is the definition of "child" for Social Security purposes; 1710. Does a court decree of paternity prove a child is yours; 1711. Does a court order for support prove a child is yours, improperly allowed Susan to fraudulently place her child on auxiliary benefits under the SSD award of Richard without any of the proofs required of all persons of similar circumstance.

70. Susan and Sinclaire knowingly and maliciously proceeded with a fraudulent RTSC before Landis on June 13, 2001 falsely alleging Richard’s failure to provide child support, etc.

71. Susan testified on record that the SSA was paying five hundred seventy four ($574.00) dollars per month in auxiliary benefits directly to her through the mail for the support of her child under the award of SSD granted to Richard.

72. During a recess of this hearing, outside of the presence of Landis and Sinclaire:
Susan informed Richard in front of me and other witnesses that she had been informed by some unremembered SSA employee that she was entitled to take Three hundred ninety eight ($398.00) dollars per month out of the $574.00 per month in auxiliary benefits provided under Richard’s award as “reimbursement” for the $398.00 dollars per month she had previously provided in auxiliary benefits under her own SSD award. Once she took her $398.00 dollar per month “reimbursement” out of the $574.00 per month provided under Richard’s SSD award there would only be One hundred seventy six ($176.00) dollars per month left for her child and this was Twenty four ($24.00) dollars per month less than the ordered Two hundred ($200.00) dollars per month child support.

73. This outrageously illegal contention is in direct conflict with established law.

74. Sinclaire did not present this contention / machination to Landis nor did Sinclaire present any law in this hearing.

75. Landis had a duty to know and did know that if there were any grounds for his bizarre implied belief in some inexplicable form of default paternity through Susan’s successful frauds that he had a duty to make a determination of paternity and grant Richard full credit for the auxiliary benefits paid under his award of SSD. Landis did neither.

76. Richard having no control over the SSA policy of directly mailing auxiliary benefits to recipients was illegally held in contempt by Landis ‘because those funds were not being paid through the court’.

77. Landis in knowing willful wanton violation of the law illegally ordered Richard to pay Three hundred fifty ($350.00) dollars per month plus three (3%) court fee through the court from his One thousand one hundred forty eight ($1,148.00) dollar per month SSD award:
i. $200.00 per month extortion under guise of child support;
ii. $50.00 per month extortion under guise of arrearages;
iii. $100.00 per month extortion under guise of providing Richard an opportunity to purge a fraudulent contempt charge for failure to provide a ‘policy of insurance’ referenced in the 1987 order of Warshauer -- when the 1990 order of Patterson showed Susan was ordered to provide this insurance through her employment. Landis based this $100.00 dollars per month on approximately ten (10) years of medical expenses which Susan had never presented for reimbursement despite her many malicious RTSC hearings before this purported court. The medical bills clearly show that Susan had not purchased insurance for her child until May of 1995 even though the court had been extorting One hundred thirty nine ($139.76) 76/100 dollars per month out of Richard for her to pay for this insurance.
iv. $10.50 per month court fee.

78. Richard who had not yet started receiving Medicare was left with Seven hundred eighty seven ($787.50) and 50/100s dollars per month to meet his medical and living expenses.

79. Susan who was fraudulently receiving $574.00 dollars per month in auxiliary benefits under Richard’s SSD award for the support of her child was to fraudulently receive an additional $350.00 dollars per month through the court raising her profit margin in this fraudulent enterprise to Nine hundred twenty four ($924.00) dollars per month without ever having to file a Substantial Change of Circumstances as Landis had improperly required of Richard.

80. Landis had by all appearances contrived / colluded / conspired with Sinclaire to provide Susan with her privately contended rights of “reimbursement”, which had never been presented to him -- at least not in court where Richard would have had an opportunity to address it.

81. A motion for Reconsideration was filed with the court on June 29, 2001 which was ignored by the court.

82. An additional official document from the SSA was filed with the court on August 27, 2001 attesting to the fact that $574.00 dollars per month in auxiliary benefits was being provided for the support of Susan’s child under Richard’s SSD award.

83. I was assured in person by the clerk of court office on November 9, 2001 that there had been no hearings of any type scheduled in this case.

84. The fact that Garfinkle held a RTSC on Richard on November 11, 2001 without verifying service of notice to Richard raises the issue of the clerk’s office colluding / conspiring with Garfinkle / Sinclaire / Susan to keep this hearing secret.

85. Garfinkle knowingly willfully and wantonly in violation of the law did illegally issue a bench warrant for the arrest of Richard for failure to provide support as evidenced by his reference to Richard being on SSD and his access to the August 27, 2001 entry of SSA documentation that $574.00 dollars per month was being provided under Richard’s SSD award.

86. I only discovered these events through a rumor heard on November 16, 2001.

87. Motions were filed to Quash the bench warrant of Garfinkle and to Dismiss / Make More Clear the order of Landis.

88. Judy C. Bridges held a hearing on November 21, 2001 to address these motions.

89. Without regard for any of Richard’s disabilities or his legal rights Sinclaire did in knowing willful and wanton violation of the law and all human decency have Richard taken into custody and placed in a cell under Garfinkle’s illegal bench warrant, when Richard had voluntarily appeared for the hearing on his motions before Bridges, returning him to court in full body chains when Bridges finally appeared.

90. Sinclaire argued that:
Susan had previously provided $398.00 dollars per month in auxiliary benefits under her SSD award for the support of her child. Now that she was receiving $574.00 dollars per month in auxiliary benefits under Richard’s SSD award, she was entitled to take $398.00 dollars per month as “reimbursement”. This would only leave $176.00 per month for the child which was $24.00 dollars per month less that the ordered $200.00 dollars per month child support. Richard had failed to comply with the previous order of Landis and arrearages had accrued. Sinclaire argued that Richard should be confined to jail until such time as the arrearages were paid up.

91. It can be properly presumed based upon the resulting illegal order of Landis (June 13, 2001) and the illegal bench warrant of Garfinkle (November 11, 2001) that this was not the first time Sinclaire voiced Susan’s argument to the court -- even though it was the first time Sinclaire had made it in front of Richard -- creating a crystal clear picture that Sinclaire has been allowed free reign in Ex parte communication with this court.

92. Bridges Quashed the bench warrant of Garfinkle and ruled that the child support record should be audited and it was the law that Richard should receive full credit for the auxiliary benefits provided for the support of the child until the matter could be scheduled for a hearing on the merits on February 11, 2002.

93. I am informed and believe that the law mandates when crimes are discovered in civil cases they shall be transferred to a court of proper jurisdiction for criminal prosecution. I find it most curious as to why this has never occurred in such an obvious case as this one.

94. February 11, 2002, Francis P. Segars-Andrews knowingly in willful and wanton violation of the laws of this state and the United States illegally garnished Fifty (50%) per cent of Richard’s SSD under guise of child support arrearages which she illegally increased to Sixty five (65%) per cent ($797.00 dollars per month) in October 2002.

95. Susan and John Doe Rice jointly / severally were fraudulently receiving Seven hundred ninety seven ($797.00) dollars per month through the illegal garnishment plus Five hundred ninety ($590.00) dollars per month in fraudulent auxiliary benefits equaling One thousand three hundred eighty seven ($1,387.00) dollars per month all based solely on a falsely alleged Agreement to pay Two hundred ($200.00) dollars per month for John Doe Rice where the court inexplicably never saw any need to establish Subject Matter / In Personam / In Rem Jurisdiction.

96. This Racketeering / Extortion scheme against Richard did not end until after June 3, 2005.

In summation
There is no Family Law case here. This is about Criminal Law, acts of fraud and subsequent crimes involving the moral turpitude of Susan Lee Rice, officers of this purported family court and even John Doe Rice, all of whom can be shown to have knowingly willfully and wantonly violated the laws of this state and the United States.

Mrs. Richard Stanley Collette
F/K/A/ Lillian C. Smith
27 October 2006
soboski@bellsouth.net