AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute over a child support order, where the respondent, Aaron Green, appeals pro se from a district court order affirming the report of a child support hearing officer. The hearing officer had imputed income based on Santa Fe's minimum wage for the purposes of calculating child support, despite the respondent's refusal to answer questions regarding his income, claiming his Fifth Amendment right. Additionally, the respondent raised jurisdictional arguments, claiming to be a "sovereign citizen of the land" and not subject to the court's jurisdiction.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the lack of signatures on the worksheet attached to the hearing report invalidated the report, claimed that his actual income should have been used instead of imputing income based on Santa Fe's minimum wage, invoked his Fifth Amendment right in refusing to answer income-related questions, claimed to be a "sovereign citizen" not subject to the court's jurisdiction, and alleged bias on the part of the hearing officer.
• Petitioners-Appellees: The summary does not provide specific arguments made by the petitioners-appellees.

Legal Issues

• Whether the lack of signatures on the worksheet attached to the hearing report renders the report invalid.
• Whether the hearing officer should have used the respondent's actual income instead of imputing income based on Santa Fe's minimum wage.
• Whether the respondent's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right justified his refusal to answer questions regarding his income.
• Whether the respondent's claim of being a "sovereign citizen" affects the court's jurisdiction over him.
• Whether the hearing officer exhibited bias against the respondent.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court order affirming the report of the child support hearing officer.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring):
  The court found that the respondent did not preserve the issue of the lack of signatures on the worksheet for appeal and failed to demonstrate that the worksheet contained errors or that he suffered prejudice as a result (para 2).
  The court supported the hearing officer's decision to impute income based on Santa Fe's minimum wage, given the respondent's refusal to answer questions about his income, indicating a lack of good faith effort to secure income for the children (para 3-4).
  The court dismissed the respondent's jurisdictional arguments, finding no authority to support the claim of being a "sovereign citizen" and not subject to the court's jurisdiction (para 5).
  The court found no evidence of bias on the part of the hearing officer, noting that adverse rulings do not necessarily indicate personal bias or prejudice (para 6).
  The court concluded that the respondent's claim regarding the non-adherence to the rules of civil procedure was a reiteration of his previous claims, which did not establish reversible error (para 7).