Ron C. # 12

[atherella]

There is a reason why people that are not convicted are allowed to annul one's arrest record. Then those arrests never show up any longer in searches.

Not everyone knows that is an option.

 

[azwriter]

IMHO you have described Ron C perfectly...IMHO he has proven he is abusive, spiteful, not to mention diabolical and manipulative.. He has also proven he is very irresponsible...JMO

Emeralgem, you took the words right out of my mouth. You don't have to put them back. I'm just glad you wrote this post, cause it does indeed sum up Ron IMO.

 

[azwriter]

Cowboy Fan, you are SO RIGHT! Speaking as someone who has been in that position, I will tell you that my ex didn't really want custody, he wouldn't have known what to do with the kids if he had them 24/7. BUT, almost a year after we split up and I met someone else (he was already with someone else, himself) he decided that he wanted custody ...go figure.. ..ANYWAY HE fought me tooth and nail (he had money, I didn't) only because he knew that the only way to hurt me was thru the kids. It took me 8 years and I don't know how many thousands of dollars to divorce the man, but he NEVER won custody, as the judges and Guardian ad Litems saw right thru his BS. As a matter of fact once he realized that he wasn't going to win he pretty much quit seeing the chidren at all sadly (I guess) and in the last 10 years has seen them and my 5 grandchildren ONCE and only then because we went to see him. It's ALL about POWER and CONTROL with some men and IMHO Ron is one of them. It happens ALL of the time, sadly. Obviously there will always be some that fall for Ron's BS, nothing you can do about it but shake your head. Ron's 'type' counts on it and as you can see, he doesn't get let down. Truly is sad. :sick:

Hey Pondering: sounds like we were both married to the same man.

 

[Whisperer]

I have not the patience to keep pointing out this seems to be the normal age appropriate relationship for the area and other members of HaLeighs family. I have to say the issues some seem to be hung up on have no evidential value to finding Haleigh IMO. How is there relationship and choice to smoke a cause for HaLeighs abduction or these issues you are outraged over and scrutinizing are going to find HaLeigh?

The fact that anyone is pointing out that it is normal for the area that a 25 yr. old male have "S" relations with a sixteen yr. old may need to be sent to the judicial department who prosecutes the men who do this. They may not be aware of this information and need to change the law in Florida.

Yes, I am outraged the Ron Cummings bedded a minor. I am also outraged that people approve of the act and support him for doing it. The man's morals come into play in this case and he does not look good as a father or a man of integrity. I have said it before and will repeat it again. RC married M because the spotlight was on him and people were going to have his head on a platter and scream "P" (apparently we are not allowed to use the legal term)

 

[Baznme]

I just thought of a good example on a record check. A person writes worthless checks, they pay the checks off but the record shows worthless checks, dismissed.

I would know from that record that this individual wrote worthless checks but paid them off prior to court. This would indicate the integrity of that person, not that they didn't write those checks.

Gee, this sounds like someone else we're familiar with, doesn't it? I believe Baez took care of that little detail for her before her upcoming trial. Let's see, did it restore her "integrity"? .......mmmmmm........"nope".

 

[Whisperer]

There is a reason why people that are not convicted are allowed to annul one's arrest record. Then those arrests never show up any longer in searches.

Not everyone knows that is an option.

Well, they do now. They also have found out they can change the address records on some sites too, because that was done in the past few months.

 

[curvecuti]

I can personally testify that not all judges are good judges, period. There are rotten judges just as there are rotten people in every profession.

That's why the words MOSt and MAJORITY are in caps in my post. Thanks.

 

[curvecuti]

you are right, sometimes there are circumstances that would allow leniency. But the bottom line Curvi, is that its against the law. Most people could arrange for food for their families without writing worthless checks, whether it be thru Church, family or friends. See, the law is black and white.

If you don't have a speedometer on your car, its not against the law, but if you speed, you get a ticket. Sad that you didn't have a speedomenter, but you still are penalized for speeding.

There are exceptions to everything. That's why we have judges and juries, becasue there are gray areas. That's why the are PFJ's, plea bargins and dismissed charges. IMO. ANd I didn't give food as the only reason for writing a worthless check.

 

[PorcineGranny]

There are exceptions to everything. That's why we have judges and juries, becasue there are gray areas. That's why the are PFJ's, plea bargins and dismissed charges. IMO. ANd I didn't give food as the only reason for writing a worthless check.

Curve In district court there are no juries.

I just gave food as an example because someone else mentioned that, but it could have been any reason, I don't want to nitpick and argue. I am trying to present a different thought to you. Worthless checks are always dismissed if they are paid off prior to court. Leniency in such a case is being placed on probation and given time to pay those costs or consolidating court costs on a certain number of cases.

 

[curvecuti]

Curve In district court there are no juries.

I just gave food as an example because someone else mentioned that, but it could have been any reason, I don't want to nitpick and argue. I am trying to present a different thought to you. Worthless checks are always dismissed if they are paid off prior to court. Leniency in such a case is being placed on probation and given time to pay those costs or consolidating court costs on a certain number of cases.

Porcine, honestly, no offense, but I'm not stupid. And I didn't say there were juries in district court. I think we should just agree to disagree and I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

There is a reason why people that are not convicted are allowed to annul one's arrest record. Then those arrests never show up any longer in searches.

Not everyone knows that is an option.

Or has the money to pursue that option. And many young men have records and juveniles and young men and eventually straighten out.

For what it's worth, the judge in this case asked some good questions and seemed to be paying attention, based on the transcript. I think he had a very hard call to make as clearly neither parent was ideal. But I would never put a special needs child with someone who had trouble keeping the children's appointments with the doctor. That's life or death stuff right there.

 

[Whisperer]

And so it was the magistrates decision to place a child with a man who was dangerous instead?

....big difference in missing Dr's appts (when you don't drive) and someone who has a Loong history of drugs (with recent convictions and arrests).

....Point is that judge could not have cared less. He gave RC the kids because RC already had possession and CS was not there. CS was not there because RC gave a phoney address to the court system. This happens and is a known trick when you want to have it go your way. File and get a court date when the other person is out of town or give the courts a wrong address....common game. RC knows games and plays them often.

 

[elle1919]

And so it was the magistrates decision to place a child with a man who was dangerous instead?

....big difference in missing Dr's appts (when you don't drive) and someone who has a Loong history of drugs (with recent convictions and arrests).

....Point is that judge could not have cared less. He gave RC the kids because RC already had possession and CS was not there. CS was not there because RC gave a phoney address to the court system. This happens and is a known trick when you want to have it go your way. File and get a court date when the other person is out of town or give the courts a wrong address....common game. RC knows games and plays them often.

BBM....If people take issue with the outcome of the State of Florida's decision to place the children with their father, fine. I can completely understand that and there may be a number of reasons for concern by those that believe the magistrate made an error. But, to say that it is Ronald's fault is false and I hope that concerned people sincerely take the time to research the laws and procedures in the family courts in Florida.

The magistrate assigned to each corresponding hearing does not rely upon the petitioner to provide the address for the respondent. If you are suggesting that Crystal was never personally served a summons to appear at the hearing I would be very interested in the facts that you are using to arrive at that opinion. I truly would, perhaps you have uncovered something that I haven't seen because I do not believe for a second that Crystal was not handed the summons to appear. That has to be done. To offer that this is a tactic that is used to manipulate the system doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Each magistrate is required to follow the rules of procedure as any judge overseeing a hearing would. These Rules For procedure can be found here and downloaded to your computer for reference:

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBLe...e1a89a0dc5248d1785256b2f006cccee?OpenDocument

It is a number of pages long so for those downloading it may take a few minutes. : ) Additionally, I just wanted to also point out that there was eventually a hearing where all parties were present and testimony was given. The recommendation of the magistrate could have been appealed at any time and a new hearing or petition could have been made.

 

[curvecuti]

BBM....If people take issue with the outcome of the State of Florida's decision to place the children with their father, fine. I can completely understand that and there may be a number of reasons for concern by those that believe the magistrate made an error. But, to say that it is Ronald's fault is false and I hope that concerned people sincerely take the time to research the laws and procedures in the family courts in Florida.

The magistrate assigned to each corresponding hearing does not rely upon the petitioner to provide the address for the respondent. If you are suggesting that Crystal was never personally served a summons to appear at the hearing I would be very interested in the facts that you are using to arrive at that opinion. I truly would, perhaps you have uncovered something that I haven't seen because I do not believe for a second that Crystal was not handed the summons to appear. That has to be done. To offer that this is a tactic that is used to manipulate the system doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Each magistrate is required to follow the rules of procedure as any judge overseeing a hearing would. These Rules For procedure can be found here and downloaded to your computer for reference:

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBLe...e1a89a0dc5248d1785256b2f006cccee?OpenDocument

It is a number of pages long so for those downloading it may take a few minutes. : ) Additionally, I just wanted to also point out that there was eventually a hearing where all parties were present and testimony was given. The recommendation of the magistrate could have been appealed at any time and a new hearing or petition could have been made.

Thanks fro the great info. elle! I have never heard of any court system relying on the petitioner for the respondent's address. That would seem ludicrous. Folks could just make up addys all day long and hand 'em over and no petitioner would ever lose, because the respondents would never know they had to be in court. Thanks again for clearing that common (here) misconception up!

 

[Malesherbes]

Thanks fro the great info. elle! I have never heard of any court system relying on the petitioner for the respondent's address. That would seem ludicrous. Folks could just make up addys all day long and hand 'em over and no petitioner would ever lose, because the respondents would never know they had to be in court. Thanks again for clearing that common (here) misconception up!

No, its not cleared up- Ron gave a wrong address for Crystal, he is the one who went to the courts and filed papers and provided a bogus address, thats a fact-

 

[elle1919]

No, its not cleared up- Ron gave a wrong address for Crystal, he is the one who went to the courts and filed papers and provided a bogus address, thats a fact-

While it may be a fact that Ronald provided a false address there are Rules For Procedure that must be followed to be in accordance with the law. The magistrate of record would not rely upon information received by the Petitioner. If on the date that the hearing was scheduled to be heard and Crystal was not present nor did she have representation present the magistrate would then ask for a receipt of service and if there were no receipt of service Due Process would not have been followed and a new hearing would have been scheduled. There was in fact another hearing heard before the magistrate of record and both parties were present for that hearing. The magistrate made his recommendation to the court as to custody of the children, actually in the State of Florida it isn't even termed as "custody" anymore it is actually termed as "parental responsibility" and there are various degree's of responsibility that will be awarded based upon each case and it's unique circumstances.

Another good website to educate yourself before a hearing here : http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=115&state_code=FL&open_id=11022#content-13178

snip~ In Florida, the courts have moved away from using the term “custody.” Unlike in the past, neither party will be “awarded custody.” Instead, the courts will assign "parental responsibility" for the children, either shared or sole, and will provide for a timesharing arrangement. The responsibility for raising a child ends upon the child's 18th birthday or upon graduating from high school - by age 19. ~end snip

 

[debs]

Thanks fro the great info. elle! I have never heard of any court system relying on the petitioner for the respondent's address. That would seem ludicrous. Folks could just make up addys all day long and hand 'em over and no petitioner would ever lose, because the respondents would never know they had to be in court. Thanks again for clearing that common (here) misconception up!

I wasn't sure if you were just being flippant, but the court seemed to feel that Crystal had a legitimate claim at least to hold the second hearing, even though the judge had already ruled and was not of a mind to really listen to her case. So apparently, in this instance, there is support for the fact that it DOES happen.

 

[Malesherbes]

While it may be a fact that Ronald provided a false address there are Rules For Procedure that must be followed to be in accordance with the law.

Right, I know the law, but thats not my issue, the fact he played dirty to get his kids makes me sick and should make any mother sick-

 

[KOOL LOOK]

I wasn't sure if you were just being flippant, but the court seemed to feel that Crystal had a legitimate claim at least to hold the second hearing, even though the judge had already ruled and was not of a mind to really listen to her case. So apparently, in this instance, there is support for the fact that it DOES happen.

bbm, why is this necessary, when the poster was replying to another member in agreements?

No one gets to hold court without the other party being served properly. The court uses its own court serving processors. Only do the private attornies for the litigants use their processors when a known address is filed and on the court record will the courts accept an individual attornies paperwork, affidavit stating this person was served and signed by that processor as the attorney is an officer of the courts.

Crystal was not hard to find, or incognito. Easily her or a close family member could be had to inquire further a newer address if a court servor couldn't process at the given address by the plaintiff. That's all they do, is serve papers for a living.

This is a non issue, doesn't have anything to do with the situation concerning Haleigh's disappearance, and is a crock for this mis-information to be continually repeated throughout the threads of Haleigh's forum. Members have responded continually as to it's nature of being false and wrong.

To my knowledge Crystal has not brought this up, and has no complaints about serving process, why is it an issue for those who are trying to force that it's a fact in the custody case? My issue with this is it's just flat out not true and having to read it as fact almost daily.

 

[debs]

bbm, why is this necessary, when the poster was replying to another member in agreements?

*snipped*

There was no offense intended. It is an acknowledgment that at times people use sarcasm/flippancy/turns of phrase in order to make a point, and I wasn't sure if that was the poster's intent, but I thought I would explain my serious response to the post. That is all.