LiamsDad.orgU.S. Flag

Memorandum & Motion in response to cross-motion of March 1, 2006 for a psychological evaluation & void orders & Remand case back to JDR court.

RAJAN JAGANNATHAN Appellant /Plaintiff

In Chancery NO. 182927; 182928
In Re: Sveta Jagannathan, Lisa Jagannathan
CASE NO: JJ352771-01-01; JJ352762-01-01

On March 10, 2006 at 11.30am or as soon thereafter as he may be heard, Appellant/Plaintiff will Responds to the Cross motion for a psychological evaluation and
A Show why a psychological evaluation of the appellant/plaintiff is unnecessary.
B Provide additional evidence and information showing:
    Why Judge Gaylord Finch should be recused.
    Why various child support and visitation and other orders are void.
    Why this case should be remanded to the Fairfax Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
    Why Attorney Stephen Armstrong should be disqualified.
C Provide a Guardian due to my legal disability being in Jail and not having access to a law library and the courts. In support thereof Plaintiff states the following:

1 On or about July 2003, a Clinical Psychologist, Dr. Charles Burt, met with me in his office and had written a report that I ( Ron Jagannathan) is of a sane mind and character and of higher than average intelligence. Dr. Burt had also stated that I do not have any thought disorder or any other disorder that was apparent. After making a detailed analysis of the various statements made in court motions, he recommended that Valeria Jagannathan is either duped by her a! ttorney into making the false claims of national Security allegaions against Ron Jagannathan or that she may be delusional.

2. The Clinical Psychologist ( Dr. Charles Burt was sued by Mr. Machen as the attorney for the Defendant Valeria Jagannathan in 2004 for over 600,000 because he suggested that Valeria Jagannathan may be in need of a psychological evaluation) The said lawsuit was non-suited a few months later by Mr. Machen.

3. In or about June 2004 a Psychiatrist from the Fairfax Adult Detention Center, Dr. Awedlkarem met with me and was of the same opinion that other than suffering distress due to the protracted child custody litigation, I was of a sane mind and had nothing to worry about.

5. On November 14th, 2004 Order ( Exhibit 1), ( Final Order for Child Custody, Visitation and Support ) was a FINAL order and only the Support and Award costs issues was Suspended until to February 17, 2004 at which time this issue also become part of the! final order. Yet Judge Finch allowed the Child Custody and Visitation to be modified over the next two years several times without a 1) Material Change in circumstance, 2) and without a hearing and modified the Support order on September 10th, 2004 without a hearing. There were three modification of visitation orders entered, including the on 16th of April, multiple orders were entered that substantially changed the court ruling, including adding Supervised visitation for which no motion was filed or hearing held.

*See: A party seeking modification of a support award, whether of child or spousal support, or modification of custody has the burden to show a material change in circumstances warranting a modification of support. See Furr v. Furr, 13 Va. App. 479, 481, 413 S.E.2d 72, 73 (1992) *and See MacNelly v. MacNelly, 17 Va. App. 427, 430, 437 S.E.2d 582, 584 (1993).

6. On 12th March 2004, ( Exhibit 1B) An Order was issued by Judge Finch w! ithout a motion ever being filed at the March 12th 2004 Status Hearing to transfer all funds ( including $ 60,345.00 and any other checks sent from Northrop Grumman Information Technologies and Litton PRC Inc to Strategic Enterprise Technologies to be deposited into the Guardian ad Litem's account.

7. On April 16th 2004, ( Exhibit 2) Ron Jagannathan was jailed and ordered to pay $ 25,000 to the GAL. No motion was filed, Neither the GAL or Mr. Machen filed any motion to escrow $ 25,000 with the Guardian ad Litem. Yet, Judge Finch jailed Ron Jagannathan and ordered to pay $ 25,000. This $ 25,000 was obtained in advance for future child support payments.

8. On June 9th, 2003, Judge Finch issued an order for an additional $ 25,000 to be deposited into the GAL's account. ( This is in addition to the $25,000 already obtained a month earlier.)

9. On 30th July 2004, ( Exhibit 3) at a status hearing, a support modification order was issued signed by J! udge Finch on September 10th, 2004. There was no motion filed before the court for this "Support modification". No hearing held, No evidence was present. Ron Jagannathan was not questioned as a witness. Valeria Jagannathan was not present for this hearing. There was NO MOTION FILED. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO ORDER ENTERED.

10. Judge Finch's Order to award attorney fees of $ 5000.00 to Attorney Robert Machen was entertained at a status hearing without a motion being filed.

11. Judge Finch's Order to award attorney fees of $ 3380 in October 22, 2003 should not have been heard as the relief was asked for after the final hearing. ( As outlined by Attorney Edward Culbertson in his Objections to that ruling.

12. Judge Finch's Order to impute income and award Spousal and unreasonable Child support was in error and contrary to the evidence Ron Jagannathan had presented including IRS tax filings for 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002. Imputing an income based o! n Gross company earnings instead of Ron Jagannathan's salary was is a flagrant violation and in error. It is not plausible to view company gross earnings as disposable earnings to Ron Jagannathan. Ron presented evidence in the form of a cross motion to recalculate Support ( Exhibit 4) where he outlined outrageous inflation of earnings including:(Page 3 line:10) Two entries in the first column are multiplied by 10, overstating payments by more than $ 14,000. A June 18th 2001 payment of $ 782.17 becomes $ 7820.00. and a August 10, 2001 payment of $ 795.70 is listed as $ 7957. In the second column, two November 3, 2001 payments, of $ 6,480 and $ 9,855 combine to create a additional payment stated for November 5, 2001, for $ 16,335. further.... Page 3, 4 of exhibit 4.... Two positive $ 7200 amounts, and two negative $ 7200 amounts result in a net of Zero. Yet Mr .Machen's memorandum turns this into THREE positive $ 7,200 figures, for an overstatement of $ 21,000. Even with such ! examples of exaggeration, Judge Finch ruled to award Child and Spousal support based on an imputed income derived from the inflated company gross figures.

13. In the Last TEN (10) Years up to September 2003 ( Circuit Court Child Custody, Support Hearing). Ron Jagannathan has never been found to be in contempt of any court. He had had a marathon case in Texas from 1992 until 2000 and was never found in contempt by any Judge. In the Fairfax JDR Court, Ron Jagannathan was found to be a model parent based on the testimony of witnesses, Judge Grodner awarded him sole physical and Legal custody of his children Lisa Jagannathan ( 1 Year) and Sveta Jagannathan ( 2 Years). Ron Jagannathan had been in front of these Judges who had no issues whatsover with Ron Jagannathan, Honorable Judges Shell, Judge Daniels, Judge Maxfield, Judge Valentine, Judge Carr, Judge Grodner, Judge Kasabian had all had no issues with Ron Jagannathan.

14. All that has changed after entering ! Judge Gaylord Finch's Court the last Two and a half Years. Judge Finch has found Ron Jagannathan in civil contempt several times ( Each and every issue was a financial issue). Each and every issue was beyond the means for Ron Jagannathan to comply.

15. For example, Judge Finch must know that to order $ 60,345.00 money transaction between Northrop Grumman and Strategic Enterprise Technologies to be ordered transferred into the Guardian ad Litem's account was not possible for Ron Jagannathan to comply. Ron is a employee of Strategic Enterprise Technologies. He has a obligation to the IRS and the Commonwealth of Virginia and to his contractors to pay the taxes, the equipment and other expenses out of a contract. His Child Support payments are made from his earnings. Judge Finch's order to turn over $60,345.00 and any future funds to Strategic Enterprise Technologies and hinder Ron Jagannathan's means of earning a living and running his company had the effect of creating non-compliance in a number of areas including Child Support in connection to the March 1, 2006 order.

Ron Jagannathan Pro Se Plaintiff
VSB No: Not yet available.
1520 Northgate Square # 22
Reston, VA 20190
Robert Machen
4101 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 102
Fairfax VA 22030
phL 703-246-0064, Fax: 703-246-0065

Stephen Armstrong
10521 Judicial Drive # 307, Fairfax VA 22030-5160
Tel:703-385-4466/ Fax 703-385-8520

I caused a copy of the foregoing Response to Cross-Motion to be faxed to attorney Robert Machen and attorney Stephen Armstrong on Thursday March 09, 2006
Ron Jagannathan