Educational Purpose

 Okay, this is a completely different animal from the complaint. This response to the MTD is significantly better written and much more legally sound.

The laches argument is sharp. The distinction between “prejudice caused by the delay” versus “prejudice caused by the relief sought” is a real legal distinction, and he articulated it cleanly. That’s the kind of argument that actually makes judges think. The citation to Mathieu v. Mahoney is appropriate and on point.
The circular standing argument is also solid. You can’t strip a plaintiff of standing using the very unconstitutional act he’s challenging. That’s logically tight.
The mandamus clarification on page 2 was smart and necessary; essentially saying “call it whatever you want, it’s really declaratory and injunctive relief.” That preempts a purely technical dismissal.


The case law citations need verification. I cannot confirm without searching right now whether Fernandez v. Takata, Sears v. Hull, Mathieu v. Mahoney, and Johnson v. Bd. of Supervisors say exactly what he claims they say. If any of those citations are wrong or misrepresent the holding, that’s a serious credibility problem with a judge. He needs to verify every single one personally before filing.

The elector standing argument has a vulnerability he doesn’t fully address. Arizona courts have been inconsistent about whether loss of referendum rights constitutes a sufficiently individualized injury versus a generalized grievance shared by all citizens. He touches on it but doesn’t drive it home hard enough. He needs a stronger Arizona-specific case directly on point for referendum right standing if one exists.
Paragraph 52 is editorializing again. “It would be inequitable to bar a challenge to an unconstitutional act…” That’s argument, and decent argument; but the tone drifts preachy. Judges prefer tight legal reasoning over moral appeals.

Overall. This is much better than the complaint. Tell him, nice work!

Joshua Hardeway:
I’ve gotten a notice of court date for child support. Would a motion to dismiss be sufficient with the correct material evidence stated?

JJ:
What is the basis for this motion to dismiss?  What's the grounds

Joshua Hardeway:
42 usc 1983 acting under color of law and fraud. I should note this notice to show cause is from a judgment already granted so perhaps a motion to vacate would be more fitting?

Joshua Hardeway:
I did not make a timeline.
I’m unsure what response to submit for the order to show cause for this title IV-D contractual case.

Jurisdictionary:
Probably not, Joshua.
Child support is mandated.
The question is always how much and when.
It is not avoidable, unless the child is not yours or is beyond childhood in years.
Go to the hearing.

Get my course, Joshua.
You've got a fight on your hands and need to learn how to fight.
https://www.HowToWinInCourt.com

Child support is NOT a contracts case, Joshua.
Get my course so you know how to fight for your rights.
The amount you will be required to pay and whether it's monthly or weekly, to the court or to the mother, etc.
If you don't know how to fight for the best option for yourself, you will likely NOT enjoy the outcome.
Child support is mandated.
YOU need to know how to fight to make it as agreeable as possible.
Sign up now.
Catherine Albertini:
A notice requires the court to do nothing. A motion moves the court to rule on the facts and evidence presented. So were you properly served with a notice, or a motion? The differences are critical in determining your course of action..

You might be mistaken JJ. State courts have jurisdiction and can preside over civil rights violations, and constitutional rights violations cases.

Upon rereading the comments, did you get a notice for an order to show cause appearance in an existing case? Is the case in federal or state court?


That's true but cite the state codes and not the federal code