COURT OF
APPEALS
STATE OF
NEW YORK
|
____________________________________
-- against -- John
Murtari, |
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 500.2
Index No. |
(1). The title of the action is as set forth in the caption. There has been no change in the parties since the commencement of this action.
(2). This appeal is taken from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Fourth Department.
(3). The Notice of Appeal to this Court was served on 20 May 1998 and filed on 20 May 1998.
(4). The original Judgments appealed from were serviced by U.S. Mail from the Appellate Division , dated September 29, 2000, and the Judgment was entered on September 29, 2000.
(5). The name and address of the attorney for the
Petitioner-Respondent is:
Ms. Maureen Walsh, Esq.
472 S. Salina Street, Suite 602
Syracuse, NY 13202-2480
(6). Appended to
this statement are copies of the following papers:
Notice of Appeal/Proof of Service ……………………… Tab A
Decision of Appellate Division ………………………… Tab B
Decision of Trial Court ………………………………… Tab C
Brief of Defendant-Appellant ………………………….. Tab D
Brief of Plaintiff-Respondent ………………………….. Tab E
(7). This Court has
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review the questions raised since
they involved the construction of the Constitution of the United States.
I will speak in “plain english” in these brief paragraphs to communicate what I feel is the essence of this Appeal, and why it fall as a matter of “right” to the Court of Appeals.
Given the evolution of Matrimonial Law since the time of the founding fathers, I believe it is time we realize that a parent has a right to be with their child (and same for the child). Again this is a right preserved to the people. If a party wishes to challenge that, they must convince a Jury beyond a reasonable doubt. While this may appear “revolutionary”, I feel its time has come. The need to convince a Jury would reduce the horrendous amount of groundless allegations that get made. And it also recognizes the equality of both sexes.
To help your understanding of this case I have included
all the Appellate Briefs filed in this matter as separate attachments. They contain extensive references/excerpts
from the record, and should give you a “flavor” for the entire proceeding.
(7a) Constitutional References
1. Fifth Amendment - . . . nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .
2. Seventh Amendment - In suits at common
law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of
trial by jury shall be preserved . . .
3. Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in
the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people. . .
Declaration of Independence - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness.
4. Fourteenth Amendment - . . . No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. . .
(7b) Point Headings
Was there enough evidence to support the Custodial finding
of the Trial Court, were not the Defendant’s and Child’s Constitutional right’s
violated when a determination was made on just a “preponderance of the
evidence” versus a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”, and without an
option for a Jury.
Dated:
November 3, 2000