How to destroy a nuclear physicist
In 1976 Anthony W. Laine married Mary Ann Phillips and they resided in Georgia.
However, after their marriage Mary Ann made frequent trips back to the Clinton
area of Tennessee, ostensibly to see her family. Often these trips extended for
several months.
A first child, a boy, was born in
October 1977.
In January 1978 Mary went back to
Tennessee again to "see her family." She left a note for Tony
ordering him not to call her or ever try to contact her again. In September
1978 she gave birth to a second child, a girl, but never told Tony she was
pregnant or had any further contact with him.
By late 1978 Mary Ann had found a
new love and filed for divorce in Tennessee. She arranged for Tony to be
stripped of his parental rights (assuming he was the father of her children) by
claiming that her husband-to-be, David Jarnigan, intended to legally adopt both
her children as soon as they marry. As a result Mary Ann is not awarded any
spousal or child support. Her divorce from Tony is finalized in 1979, after
which Tony is notified of the proceedings. It is only after the divorce that
Tony discovers that he supposedly has a daughter.
Tony never sees Mary Ann again.
Despite the breakup of his
marriage to Mary Ann and the loss of his(?) children, Tony, who has a
Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of
Minnesota, goes on to earn his M.S. and
Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Nuclear Physics from Century
University in 1985. After completion of
his doctorate Tony began a career in aircraft avionics investigating such areas
as radio frequency interference, electromagnetic interference, electromagnetic
pulses from nuclear events, electronic countermeasures, lightning strikes, and
nuclear event hardness for both commercial and government aircraft. As is
common with research scientists and consultants, Dr. Laine's work takes him to
many locations:
1986-1987 - Fort Wayne,
Indiana
1987-1989 - Litchfield Park, Arizona
1990-1995 - Phoenix, Arizona
1996 - Ontario, Canada
1997-1999 - St. Louis, Missouri
2000 - Chesterfield, Missouri
2000-2001 - Phoenix, Arizona
2002-2003 - Lakehurst, New Jersey (they still have a
home there)
late 2003-early 2004 - Huntsville, Alabama
2004-present - Baltimore, Maryland
In 1983, Tony met and married Donna, his current wife.
Conversely, Mary Ann's marriage to Jarnigan has problems as
he apparently refuses to work . In 1988 she goes on welfare in
Tennessee where she had been living in Anderson County. She received welfare
benefits between 1988 and l990, at which time she got a divorce from Jarnigan
and went to school to get a nursing degree. During and after her marriage to
Jarnigan, she has two more children but does not go on welfare again.
It was Tony's belief that David Jarnigan had adopted Mary
Ann's two oldest children but there was no proof. Adoption records are sealed
in Tennessee and rarely opened.
In 1991, Tony was contacted by Maximus/ Child
Support Enforcement of Tennessee demanding that he pay child support for
Mary Ann's children. Note that if child support has not been previously ordered
in the state in which the recipient receives welfare, support orders must
be established on behalf of a former spouse, sometimes without written or even
oral consent. Thus, Maximus found it necessary
to establish such orders demanding that Tony pay $2,000 per month in child
support.
Maximus/Child Support Enforcement also demanded that Tony pay for the two years Mary Ann
Jarnigan was on welfare even though she was married to David Jarnigan during
that entire period and her brief marriage to Tony had ended 10 years before she
went on the dole. Maximus also demanded a "reimbursement" from
Tony in the amount of $11,489 for Mary Ann, her two children from 1977 and
1978, and for David Jarnigan's two children. This included $1,000 per
month for child support ($250 per child), full-service medical insurance,
spousal support (even though Mary Ann had remarried immediately after divorcing
Tony), and reimbursement for the state.
Tony and his wife, Donna, were living near Phoenix, Arizona
at the time. Reacting to this demand from Maximus/Child Support
Enforcement of Tennessee, the Superior Court of Maricopa
County, Arizona, stated that the case "smells like a bad kettle of
fish" and awarded only $300/per month in child support ($150/per
child for the two children that are presumptively his) and $50/per month for
reimbursement in lieu of full-service medical coverage to be held in trust in
case the children needed medical care. The support order was only in
effect until the children were emancipated, the youngest in 1996.
Tony paid the child support faithfully as ordered until the
children reached majority. However, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement did not
allow any communication of any kind between the parties and Tony never gets to
know these children.
According to Mary Ann and her daughter Amanda (in 2004,
after reconciliation of Tony and his daughter) she never received a dime
in support after 1994 even though Tony was still paying Maximums. Since
both Amanda and her brother were both grown when this information was
offered, Tony feels they had no reason to lie about the situation for they would
not receive any money in this matter. Mary Ann claims she had
received only a small portion of the child support prior to 1994 even
though Tony was actually ahead in his payments.
In 1998, two years after Tony's youngest child was
emancipated, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement created a case in which Mary Ann
was alleged to have had a male child two (2) months before that she claimed was
Tony's. At this point Tony had had no contact with Mary Ann for
20 years.
Notice of this action by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement
of Tennessee was served via a package from Missouri Child Support Enforcement
where Tony was living at the time. Coincidentally, Missouri is another
Maximus/Child Support Enforcement-controlled state. Enclosed in this package
was a copy of a forged prenatal bill, a forged hospital bill, and a summons
requiring Tony to appear in St. Louis County Superior Court to decide upon
terms of child support. At this point his youngest child had been
emancipated for the past 2 years and this was an apparent attempt to
force payment for the next 18 years for a non-existent child. This appeared to
be a "recycling" of the original 1991 case without providing
justification for the action. Tony requested a DNA paternity test but that was
immediately denied by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee on the
basis that the "mother" would not allow a paternity test to be
done.
Eventually, Tony was able to avoid this obligation by
proving to the Missouri Court that he could not have been anywhere near
Mary Ann at the time of the conception and the case was dismissed.
In addition, in 2004 he learned that the alleged child never existed. The last
child that Mary Ann had was in 1991, after which she had her Fallopian tubes
ligated. This information surfaced in conversations between Mary Ann, Tony, and
Amanda in 2004.
As is common in cases such as Tony's, child support
enforcement never gives up. According to Maximus/Child Support
Enforcement, a "Final Administrative Order" was filed in the St.
Louis County Circuit Court in July 1999 claiming an "arrearage" of
$11,000. A Tennessee case number was assigned in violation of federal law
(one state cannot amend another state's original court order for child support
and make a new case out of it) and this practice is illegal per decree of
the U. S.. Supreme Court.
The new claim against Tony was made approximately two
(2) months prior to the time Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in
Tennessee asked the original court, the Superior Court in Maricopa County,
Arizona (not a Maximus-controlled state) to close the case for enforcement if
they had not already done so.
Unbeknownst to Tony, and after he moved out of Missouri, in
2001, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Missouri amended the 1999
administrative order from Tennessee to now state that there is an
"arrearage" of more than $13,000 for child support. The amended order
claimed that the original order was filed in "Maricopa, Tennessee," a
place that does not exist. Further, the amended order
stated that it is a Tennessee case, something it never has been. Recall that
the original case was adjudicated in 1991 in Arizona, not Tennessee, and that
Missouri never had jurisdiction in this case.
Tony received no notice that any
further court or administrative proceedings were taking place in this matter,
which should come as no surprise to readers of this newsletter. At the time of
the claimed 1999 administrative order, Tony's son (?) was 22-years old and his
daughter(?) was 21, married with one child of her own. Neither child ever
went to college, yet Maximus/Child Support Enforcement obviously calculated the
"arrearage" up until June 1999.
Most readers will have anticipated
the next event. Based on the bogus arrearage, Tony's wages were garnished
and liens placed on his property by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in
Missouri, even though they had no jurisdiction, he had moved out of the state
in 2000, and the support order issued by an Arizona court had expired in 1996.
A Missouri Attorney General's investigation
eventually proved that Maximus/Child Support Enforcement had no
jurisdiction to enforce in July 2004 and they finally closed their case against
Tony. His case was then returned to Tennessee.
Note that Tony has never lived in
Tennessee or had any court order entered against him there.
In April 2004 Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee
went to Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in New Jersey and asked them to start
enforcement proceedings against Dr. Anthony Laine claiming an arrearage
in excess of $10,500. The order used as a base in this case was the
fraudulent "Maricopa, Tennessee" one from Missouri that was closed
nearly a year before after an investigation by the Missouri Attorney General.
It should not surprise our readers that Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in
Tennessee never bothered to tell their New Jersey branch that Tony's
case was closed by Maximus in Missouri.
Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in New Jersey
automatically gave Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee what they
wanted in June 2004 without ever allowing Tony to defend himself. He was
not permitted to question his accusers, present evidence showing that he does
not owe any child support, or even speak in the "Hearing Officer's"
court. She automatically "finds for the state" and alters the
tape of the session to reflect that the"defendant declined to present any
evidence that the debt is not owed." No court reporter is ever present in
these hearings .
Tony has been trying to get someone in authority to listen
to him. No one will hear him because everyone in the divorce industry,
from the judges on down, all have something to gain by creating new cases to
enforce. The judges consistently rule for Maximums/Child Support
Enforcement no matter what the facts of the matter are, or what civil liberties
are violated.
Following the Star Chamber hearing in July 2004, Ocean
County, New Jersey, Probation Department, the entity that handles child support
enforcement, started harassing Dr. Laine about the $10,000+ he allegedly owed
in "back child support." He tried to get someone to listen to him
when he says he does not owe anything, but to no avail, and his pleas fall on
deaf ears. Dr. Laine then filed a RICO
lawsuit against Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Federal Court. That case
is dismissed due to a technicality.
A paternity test is finally ordered by the Superior Court of
New Jersey in July 2004. This information gives Amanda Laine Crowley , via the Internet, the ability to
locate the man she believes to be her father. They finally meet and spend
some time together.
Amanda at this time is 25 years old. This was the first opportunity
Dr. Laine has ever had to actually meet or talk with his daughter and
many long-standing questions are answered. Tony's son, however, will not
even attempt to contact the man who is possibly his biological father.
Under constant harassment from New Jersey about the alleged
debt , Dr. Laine began a publicity campaign, taking his story to the media
(both nationwide and worldwide), the U. S. District Court, the President of the
United States, Senators and Representatives, and fathers' rights groups. He has
started numerous criminal investigations against Maximus through the FBI,
Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission (because their
stock is traded on the Exchange), the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, New
Jersey State Police, Central Intelligence Agency (Maximus is in other
countries) and the Administrative Office of the Courts, to name a few.
In retaliation, Maximus has become more relentless in their
efforts to force Dr. Laine to pay their unwarranted claims.
In January 2004 Dr. Laine filed a civil rights violation
lawsuit against Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in federal court. That
case is still proceeding. Maximus/Child Support Enforcement tried to use the
same excuse as in the RICO matter to get that case dismissed but the judge
would not allow it.
In March 2005 two people posing as police detectives came to
Dr. Laine's home in New Jersey saying they had a warrant for Anthony Laine's
arrest. They refused to identify themselves or produce the
"warrant" saying it was a "privacy issue." After Mrs. Laine
persisted in asking who they were, they produced two badges that had the word
DETECTIVE written across the front. These were obviously costume props. It was
later discovered that there was no warrant at that time for Dr. Laine's arrest
and the "detectives" were actually from the Ocean County Probation
Office. Since they were unable to obtain the information they wanted from Mrs.
Laine, they went to the neighbors and asked them to call if Dr. Laine should
show up again. One of the neighbors reported him on April 15, 2005 and Anthony
Laine was handcuffed and held for "ransom" in the Ocean County jail.
At the time of his arrest, a warrant had been obtained from Judge Barbara
Villano who was supposedly checking into his case at that time. Dr. Laine had
believed that at last someone was looking at the evidence and making a decision
based on the facts. He was wrong.
On April 21, 2005, after six days in jail, Dr. Laine was
given a hearing before Judge E. David Millard. The hardship that this matter
placed upon the Laine's was not a matter of consideration. The only question
was how much money Dr. Laine would be obligated to pay and when.
Mrs. Laine had taken evidence to Judge Millard personally,
showing that monies were not owed, but the documents were turned over to the
judge's paralegal who returned them to Mrs. Laine without the judge having
reviewed them. Judge Millard then ruled for Maximus/Child Support
Enforcement. Dr. Laine's testimony and evidence that he did not owe child
support was never heard or examined.
Note that Dr. Laine is bounced from judge to judge, not one
of whom looks at the evidence or hears testimony. That is characteristic in
these cases.
He was kept in the Ocean County Jail in New Jersey until he
was able to come up with a minimum payment of $2000 cash for his release. Child
Support Enforcement believed the $2000 to be "chump change" for him
because of his advanced degrees. Unfortunately, he does not have the income
level that most people are misguided enough to believe. As a result of this
excessive payment and loss of wages while in jail, he and his wife ran
the risk of having their electric, gas, and other utilities shut off and most
of their bills were left unpaid, resulting in yet more harassment from
collection agencies.
Incredibly, on April 29, 2005, Dr. Laine's wife received yet
another notice from the Ocean County Probation Office stating that Dr. Laine
was delinquent in his "child support payments." The $2000 he had paid
just the week before to get out of jail was never posted to his account. Donna
also received a letter from Judge Barbara Villano requiring Dr. Laine to appear
in court for a hearing on May 4th where a "hearing officer" employed
by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement would allegedly look at his evidence
and decide if he indeed owed child support.
Donna Laine attempted to appear in place of her husband with
power of attorney since Tony was unable to miss additional time from his work
and is extremely leery of returning to New Jersey. She was not
permitted to present any evidence and was told that only Dr. Laine or an
attorney would be acceptable, otherwise she would be "practicing law
without a license."
Dr. Laine and his wife already know the answer to the
question of what happens if Tony goes back to New Jersey. The
"hearing officer" will rule in Maximus/Child Support Enforcement's
favor. If he had appeared for the hearing that his wife went to in his
stead, he would immediately have been thrown back in jail for an undetermined
amount of time to extort even more money from him.
Child Support Enforcement routinely does business this way.
They create arrearages that have no basis in fact and then abuse the fathers to
the point that they have no hope. The only way out for all too many of them is
suicide. Then Child Support Enforcement tries to force the obligor's
survivors to pay for the "outstanding debt" and they are soon driven
to despair as well.
The saddest thing is that the only thing unusual about this
story is that it involves a Ph.D. nuclear physicist whose work on nuclear,
biological, and chemical agents is used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and other government agencies to thwart terrorism against the United States of
America. When Dr. Laine was confined in Ocean County, New Jersey for
"bogus" child support the FBI called the jail immediately to see what
they could do. Two New Jersey state police detectives came to the Ocean County
Jail to see Dr. Laine, and stated "we do not know why you are here."
There is no Maricopa, Tennessee.
Our special thanks
to Mrs. Donna Laine and Mrs. Elaine Weiss
for their help in
compiling and editing this report.
Disclaimer
NOTE: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list
please respond to this message with REMOVE in the subject line. Comments
or criticisms of our policies or Web sites should be addressed to
mailto:comments@ejfi.org.
You are
receiving this message because (1) you asked to be added to our mailing list;
(2) you sent the EJF an e-mail or requested help from us; (3) you are known to
work on issues related to men's or father's rights; (4) you are known to be
interested in civil liberties and equal justice for all; (5) your name and
address appeared as an addressee on email sent to us; or (6) you are a member
of or contribute to the Equal Justice Foundation.
The Equal Justice
Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation supported by members and
contributions. Dues are $25 per year and you may join at
http://www.ejfi.org/Join.htm
Contributions
are tax deductible and can be made on the Web at http://www.ejfi.org/join2.htm
or by sending a check to the address below.
Federal
employees in Colorado can contribute to the EJF through the Combined Federal
Campaign. We are listed in all five Colorado regions and in the Denver region
our agency number is 4086. In the Pike's Peak region it is 6024. In Larimer
County # 8032. In Weld County # 4022. In SW Colorado (Mesa Verde-Durango) #
A003.
The mailing list of the Equal Justice Foundation is not
distributed to third parties. Occasionally members are put in touch with other
individuals on our mailing list when there are known common interests or
problems. In normal circumstances permission is requested of the third party
before disclosing their e-mail address. Prior permission is not sought if
referral is made to another group or individual working on the same, or related
problems, and that group or individual is known to seek such referrals.
______________________________________________
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
President, Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/
455 Bear Creek Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820
Telephone: (719) 520-1089
Domestic violence against men in Colorado: http://www.dvmen.org
Personal home page: http://corry.ws
Curriculum vitae:
http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/charleselmocorry/Default.aspx
The good
men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.
Benjamin
Franklin
|
|
|
