HECTOR MONTALVO FOR STATE REPRESENTIVE (I) METHUEN

First let me be clear, Those who know me and those who have dealt with me, knows me well enough to know, 
I speak my mind. Contexts in some of these pages will show that.  This Election will be No different.

Linda D Campbell is our State Representative for Methuen,  Let me be clear, I have the up most respect for Mrs Campbell, for the work she does, and has done for the people of Methuen. I want to thank Mrs Campbell and wish her luck in this Election. 

When someone decide to run for office, It has to be one of the toughest decision one can make, You think about support, how to raise money, how to get the message out, You have to worry about personal attacks.
On the other hand, You keep saying to yourself, why leave it to somebody else. 

I understand what it's like to send a letter to either your State Representative or State Senator, and not get a response, when you keep sending them letters you become hostile, unreasonable, and then they just ignore you, It's only when an election is near that now you become important and they want to work on your issues.   

Let me make this very clear, Issues that needs to be reformed must be reform for the good of the law, For every woman, man and child in the commonwealth, So that they are able to get due process, equal protection that everybody is entitled to under the Constitution. 
 
Laws are suppose to work for everybody, regardless of who you are,
This election if elected, I will send that message loud and clear,
Let's bring a  broom and  clean up Beacon hill.   A Vote for me is a Vote to Hold Government Accountable for their actions.
 
This election is about 
Open and Transparency
Open Meeting laws
Public Work documents made public under state records law, and public records law
Voting when not been present 
Not reading the bills before they vote.
Holding Judges Accountable
Bills to cut  Wasteful spending. 

Intrusion of the Government on family unit, and the Maintenance of the family union 
Abuse with in the system.
Lawyers ruling on bills that effect their income when the are practicing Attorney's
Voting when not been present 
Not reading the bills before they vote.
Holding Judges Accountable/ Bill to make Judges Elected vs appointed.
Parents going to jail for being broke.
 
A Vote for me will send a strong message that the people have had enough. A Vote for me will protect All Women Man and Child from being able to be abused by the same system that is design to protect o
Hector Montalvo For State Representative (I) Methuen, The people"s Voice. 
This will save the State Millions.   A vote for Hector Montalvo is needed, if you truly want to clean up Beacon Hill. My name is Hector Montalvo, I am seeking your support in my bid for State Representive for Methuen. I seek to make changes in how Goverment operates.
I seek to be held accountable to the voters of Methuen on my first term.
I seek to reform Goverment, And this election I ask for your vote,
A Vote for me, Is a vote to tell Goverment enough is enough.
Time to listen to the people who voted you in

Meeting with my State Sen. and State Rep. Topics covered

1100 - 1105: introductions
11:00:00 - 11:00:30: Hector
11:00:30 - 11:01:00: Rafael
11:01:00 - 11:01:30: Joe
11:01:30 - 11:02:00: Bob
11:02:00 - 11:02:30: Tim
1105 - 1140: MGL 209a reform
11:05:00 - 11:15:00: existing law problem statement
11:15:00 - 11:30:00: proposed solution(s)
11:30:00 - 11:40:00: summary section review
1140 - 1215: alimony reform
11:40:00 - 11:50:00: existing law problem statement
11:50:00 - 12:05:00: proposed solution(s)
12:05:00 - 12:10:00: summary section review
1215 - 1250: equal shared parenting legislation
12:15:00 - 12:25:00: existing law problem statement
12:25:00 - 12:40:00: proposed solution(s)
12:40:00 - 12:45:00: summary section review
1250 - 1300: wrap-up
12:50:00 - 12:55:00: action item review
12:55:00 - 13:00:00: next steps

Section 1106.  Abuse Prevention Act Proceedings


In all civil proceedings under the Abuse Prevention Act, G. L. c. 209A, the rules of evidence should be applied flexibly by taking into consideration the personal and emotional nature of the issues involved, whether one or both of the parties is self-represented, and the need for fairness to all parties.

NOTE

Introduction. This section is derived from G. L. c. 209A and Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 597–98, 651 N.E.2d 1206, 1210–1211 (1995). Civil proceedings under G. L. c. 209A are commenced by filing a civil complaint. G. L. c. 209A, § 3A. Violations of orders issued under G. L. c. 209A are punishable as crimes. G. L. c. 209A, § 7. The remedies that may be ordered by the court are set forth in G. L. c. 209A, § 3. Initially, a temporary order may be issued, ex parte, if the plaintiff demonstrates a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse. G. L. c. 209A, § 4. When courts are closed, emergency relief is available to any person who demonstrates a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse. G. L. c. 209A, § 5. Whenever a court issues a temporary order, the defendant has a right to be heard no later than ten business days after such order. This hearing constitutes a civil, jury-waived trial. At the temporary hearing and at any subsequent trial or hearing, the Supreme Judicial Court has observed that “the rules of evidence need not be followed, provided that there is fairness in what evidence is admitted and relied on.” Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 597–598, 651 N.E.2d at 1211. For additional information, see Guidelines for Judicial Practice, Abuse Prevention Proceedings, available at http://‌www.mass.gov/‌courts/‌formsandguidelines/‌domestic/‌dvtoc.html.

Evidentiary Principles Applicable in G. L. c. 209A Proceedings. In determining whether and how to apply the law of evidence, the Supreme Judicial Court in Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 597–598, 651 N.E.2d 1206, 1210–‌1211 (1995), offered the following guidelines.

“[First, t]he burden is on the complainant to establish facts justifying the issuance and continuance of an abuse prevention order. The court must on request grant a defendant an opportunity to be heard on the question of continuing the temporary order and of granting other relief. That opportunity, however, places no burden on a defendant to testify or to present evidence. The defendant need only appear at the hearing.” (Quotation omitted.)

Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 596, 651 N.E.2d at 1210, quoting G. L. c. 209A, § 4.

Second, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 597, 651 N.E.2d at 1210.

Third, an adverse inference can be drawn by the court from the defendant’s failure to testify in a G. L. c. 209A proceeding. The fact that the defendant may refuse to testify on the ground of self-incrimination does not bar the taking of an adverse inference. However, the adverse inference alone is not sufficient to justify the issuance of an abuse prevention order. Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 596, 651 N.E.2d at 1210. See also Smith v. Joyce, 421 Mass. 520, 523 n.1, 658 N.E.2d 677, 680 n.1 (1995) (a judge may not issue a restraining order “simply because it seems to be a good idea or because it will not cause the defendant any real inconvenience”).

Fourth, “[b]ecause a G. L. c. 209A proceeding is a civil, and not a criminal, proceeding, the constitutional right to confront witnesses and to cross-examine them set forth in art. 12 of the Declaration of Rights has no application.” Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 596 n.3, 651 N.E.2d at 1210 n.3.

Fifth, “[t]he right of the defendant to be heard includes his right to testify and to present evidence.” Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 597, 651 N.E.2d at 1210–1211. It is not sufficient to hear from the defendant’s attorney and to deny the defendant the opportunity to present evidence. C.O. v. M.M., 442 Mass. 648, 657, 815 N.E.2d 582, 590–591 (2004).

Sixth, with respect to cross-examination, “[t]he judge’s discretion in restricting cross-examination may not be unlimited in particular situations.” Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. at 598 n.5, 651 N.E.2d at 1211 n.5. The Supreme Judicial Court cautioned against “the use of cross examination for harassment or discovery purposes. However, each side must be given a meaningful opportunity to challenge the other’s evidence.” Id. See C.O. v. M.M., 442 Mass. at 656–658, 815 N.E.2d at 589–591 (defendant’s due process rights were violated when the court refused to permit him to cross-examine witnesses or to present evidence).

 

Behind the Scene wants to thank DOR for visiting our website on
Feb 5 2010 at 11:26:05 am and for spending 25 minutes 38 seconds and visting 4 pages

Domain Name   state.ma.us ? (U.S.) IP Address   170.63.96.# (Massachusetts Department of Revenue) ISP   Massachusetts Department of Revenue

In addition to a child support obligation, the noncustodial parent may also be incurring a debt to the state for public assistance given to his family. "State debt" is distinct from "child support" but the two are often confused. 
 

When a child support order has been established, many states (e.g. North Carolina ) have (and all states should) adopt a policy that the state debt can be no larger than the child support obligation. So, if the child support obligation is set under the guidelines at $50 per month and the father pays that amount, no state debt accrues. If the order is $50 and the father doesn't pay, then the state debt is $50 per month. The viability of this approach is recognized by federal regulations. 45 CFR Sections 302.50(a)(2) and (b)(2). 

 A more difficult issue arises when there is no court order. In many states, the state establishes a "state debt" equal to the amount of assistance provided to the family for the period when there was no order in place. The state then tries to collect this state debt through the IVD system. A number of courts have found this to be illegal. Jackson v. Rapps, 947 F.2d 332 (8th Cir. 1991); Mushero v. Ives, 949 F.2d 513, 517 n.1 (1st Cir. 1991). 

 Federal law requires states to take an assignment of support rights from TANF families "not exceeding the total amount of assistance provided to the family". 42 USC Section 608(a)(3) (1996). This language places a ceiling on the amount of money a state can claim under the assignment but not a floor.

IN OTHER WORDS STATE CANNOT TAKE/EXPECT  ARREARS FROM YOU THAT EXCEED WELFARE BENEFITS PROVIDED TO EX