Sperm Donor: Stupid is as Stupid Does

by Moody Jim Rathbone

Life is often full of “unintended consequences” – consequences that aren’t so unintended after all is said and done. Enter the “sad plight” of a lesbian couple that long for a child of their own, advertising for a sperm donor for “their child.” In this case, a lesbian couple places an ad on Craigslist, in a effort to fill a hole in their life.

For many women, having a child seems to be a natural longing. However, this longing is often rooted in a personal lack of sufficiency rather than “hormones” or a real need. They want a person to act as their drug of choice, a little long-term “crack cocaine” to sedate their personal pain. They long to fill a void in their heart – a hole in the soul – an act that rarely works without hurting someone else. It’s also an act that is no less selfish than the worst personal philandering of any rogue male.

Since homosexual relationships and single people cannot produce a child on their own, they need a little outside help to do so. What will these people do to have their personal “drug fix” of control? They will look for someone to fill the need, preferably some “Dudley Do-Right.” In the end, someone will control a child and the man that provided the child. The “law” says so. The “law” will control them all, as it enriches a corporate system of plunder.

That is where people like William Marotta step in – where angels would fear to tread.

Marotta claims that if he had a nickel for every time it has been said that he’s the sperm donor in the past three years, he’d have enough money to pay off the amount the state of Kansas wants in back child support.

Revolting. I’m not sure who is sicker here – the women, the man (in this case William Marotta) or the politicians that enforce immoral law that creates so much opportunity for abusive profit at taxpayer expense.

In this case, two women pretended to be open about their needs (as in an advertisement). They could have done as many single women have done, which is to lie to get what they want. All they need is to profess love to get what they want, or try a few one-night stands without birth control. There are enough willing men. The effect is the same as an advertisement and a written contract. In such a dire situation, the kind of personal drama where any man chooses to involve himself in such a way is accomplished at great personal risk.

He risks owing politicians, a corporate government and the “innocent women” that have been impregnated through an illicit web of lies. In effect, he risks his life. What’s worse, in many cases, he brings what is really an unwanted child into the world, “a crack baby” of another sort, a child that will become a tool of the devil in the worst way.

Politicians have set the law up to enrich themselves under the pretense of morality and right. The state will place itself between the product of any relationship where it can benefit. In today’s insane age of legal pedantics, the state of Kansas claims the right to govern all human stock, despite a contract that gave all parental rights of the child to a lesbian couple. The lesbian couple have spoke up, making a vain attempt to fight the state for their rights, but the Department of Child Services won’t hear it. They told the lesbian protester that the matter was none of her business, and that she should go away – even when it involved her directly.

The state and federal government own you now – and you’re pretty little offspring too.

Remember, anyone that has your sperm for any purpose (or the product of that sperm) has power or the potential of power over you – possibly until you die. That’s the “law” – even if you’re as “rich as Croesus” and without a lick of sense.

The system “that politicians built” holds all the cards – and the rights to all the wealth behind every child produced in the States. This is the “new morality.” Your civil right is to support the state and political psychopaths. It’s government exploitation at its worst. It must be stopped. What will do you about it?

Original Article

A Different Look on Law: Why Punish People for “Speeding”?

by Eric Peters

Why should anyone be subject to punishment merely for driving “x” speed? Is it not of a piece with punishing someone for merely consuming alcohol?

The justification usually given is that “speeding” might cause harm.

Ok, sure. The same is true about drinking beer. Someone (generally) might drink beer and beat his wife. But we do not presume (for now) that everyone who drinks beer willbeat his wife – and thus, drinking beer must be forbidden. And violators of this policy punished.

What about punishing (hold onto that thought) people when – and only if – they actually do cause harm? Not before – and not because they might. Or because “someone” else has.

It’s a crazy idea, I realize.

Imagine: You’d only have to sweat cops or face a judge if you (and not some other person you never even met) could plausibly be charged with having caused harm to an actual victim or damaged the actual property of someone else. Mark that. A flesh and blood victim would have to be presented.

And it would be the obligation of the courts to prove that harm was done to establish guilt before requiring restitution (much preferable to punishing people, which smacks of house training a puppy).

There would be an end to this business of people being put through the system who’ve harmed no one. Who are punished for manufactured offenses against the state.

Can the state be a victim?

Is the Tooth Fairy real?

It’s absurd – and vicious.

Do you feel guilty of wrongdoing when pulled over by a cop for not wearing a seatbelt? Who have you harmed? What justification – other than “it’s the law” – is there for punishing you?

How about driving faster than an arbitrary number plastered on a sign? You get pulled out from a crowd of others doing the same thing; none of you harming anyone or even plausibly threatening it. It’s merely your unlucky day. Your time to pay.

As the cop slides in behind you, does your internal monologue run along the lines of, “well, yeah… I did a bad thing… I deserve this.”

Or do you feel disgust, anger – and resentment?

Of course.

This has serious implications.

Laws without a moral basis are just arbitrary rules. They have no moral force – and that makes people subjected to them feel abused. Which they have been. Meanwhile, it also makes it more difficult to deal with the relatively small number of people in society who actually do cause harm to others. If you doubt this, take a drive into a “bad” neighborhood; where are all the cops?

They’re manning radar traps and safety checkpoints in the “nice” neighborhoods!

Remember the “Drive 55″ idiocy that lasted from about 1974 to 1995? Overnight – and for the next 20 years – it became illegal “speeding” to drive 70 when the day before it had been legal to do that and – presumably (being legal) “safe.” How does it become “unsafe” to drive 70 on the same road today that it was (apparently) “safe” to drive 70 on yesterday?

What was it Bob Dooole used to say? You know it, I know it, the American people know it.

Millions of people were simply ripped off – had their money stolen from them under color of law.

The contempt and corruption this bred is incalculable. It festers to this day. Because while “Drive 55″ is history, the same rigmarole exists on secondary roads. Every day, thousands of people are pulled over and literally robbed. Issued what amount to ransom notes – state-sanctioned extortion – for driving at reasonable and prudent velocities that happen to have been codified as illegal “speeding.” The fact that virtually every one “speeds” – this includes cops – is the clearest, most inarguable proof that the laws are absurd. And their enforcement a sort of low-rent sadism that also happens to be very profitable.

What’s the solution?

Speed limits as such ought to be thrown in the woods. They are arbitrary, morally indefensible – and most of all, one-size-fits-all.

People are individuals and some people are better at certain things than others. This includes driving. Tony Stewart is a better driver than I am. But I am a much better driver than my mother-in-law. Why should Tony Stewart be dumbed-down to my level?

And why should I be dumbed-down to my mother-in-law’s?

Imposing arbitrary, one-size-fits-all limits on anyone for anything is by definition unfair.

Arbitrary man-made “speeding” laws based on a dumbed-down/least-common-denominator standard amount to ugly and stupid people punishing the good-looking and smart ones.

The people who support such laws support anticipatory and pre-emptive punishment. That is, laws that assume something bad will happen if “x” is not punished.

And which punish the “offender” as if something bad had actually happened.

Even if it never did.

Innocence of having caused harm is (currently) no defense. It’s not necessary for the government to produce a victim. All that’s necessary, legally speaking, is for the state to prove that “the law” was violated.

Comrade Stalin would approve.

Cue the keening wail that, absent speed limits, people will drive excessively fast and lose control.

Yet they do exactly that already – speed limits notwithstanding. Just as people still drive soused (and senile, too).

The difference between the harm-caused/actual victim approach – and the “it’s the law” approach – is that the former only holds those who actually do lose control – for whatever reason – accountable. Everyone else is free to go about their business. To live as adults – rather than be treated as presumptively unintelligent children.

What a concept!

Speed advisories would be fine. For example a sign letting you know that there is a sharp curve ahead and maybe reducing speed would be good. Drivers unfamiliar with that road – and never having driven that curve before – may find this information helpful. But why should the local who is familiar with that road – and who drives that curve everyday – be subject to punishment for taking the curve at a higher speed?

Assuming, of course, that he does so competently, without causing harm to anyone in the process?

That was once the American Way. Not “do as you please” – the dishonest, demagogic bleat of Clovers. But rather, do as you please… so long as you don’t cause harm to others.

The false choice offered by Clovers is total control in exchange for total safety – the “risk free” world. But this is a quixotic quest that can never end, because risk cannot be removed from this life. We all get sick – and die eventually. Entropy happens.

What can be excised, however, is the risk to our liberties, our peace of mind, our enjoyment of life – presented by random and arbitrary interference and punishments based not on what we’ve done, but on what “someone” might do.

original article

It’s Never Enough: Pay Child Support, You’re Still a Deadbeat

by Moody Jim Rathbone

One of the worst examples of the discrimination that men face is with child support. Canada is no exception.

A Canadian judge has called a Nova Scotia businessman and developer one of the “worst deadbeat” dads in Canadian history. The judge sentenced him to four years in prison, adding a court fine of $384,000. Gotta make sure the corporate court has a little extra owed to it. Eh?

The National Post claimed that family court judge Theresa Forgeron (obviously an offended opportunistic feminist) said Vrege Armoyan’s “defiance spanned many years.” He owes a “shameful amount of arrears” racked up in a deliberate plan to hide money and to avoid paying support for his three children, ages 20, 18 and 15. (Shouldn’t two of those be emancipated?)

In typical fashion the judge aims at your heart strings – “His children struggle to survive while Mr. Armoyan has millions of dollars.” They are starving on a mere $9000 a month in child support that they have received like a slot machine. They don’t sound too hungry to me! What do you say?

As usual, the court debt is mostly imaginary. Armoyan was originally ordered to pay $29,000 a month in child support and alimony in 2012. He never paid the full amount. As a self-employed man of business, he is one of the few to claim that right. Instead, he opted to pay $9000 a month. The total arrears is $1,714,684.04, as well as owing over $1 million in court costs. I know who isn’t going to be in Canada – ever.

Naturally, a blood-sucking lawyer was quoted as being in full agreement with the court. Lawyers depend on the good favor of the court. They kiss the ring of a judge, a legalized mobster. Surprised? So why are you paying your lawyer so much to represent you? He must be good in bed, for someone anyway.

Armoyan reportedly notified the court via email (they actually admit receiving it) that he was no longer a resident of Canada but he failed to say where he had moved. Surprise. The email source indicated that the post was sent from the Middle East.

Originally, Armoyan reportedly fled from Florida to Canada because a court had sentenced him to 60 days in jail for failing to obey a child support court order.

The greed of the ex and the court is unrivaled, supported by the attorney of ex: “My client can’t afford groceries. She can’t afford to fly here for this hearing.” Perhaps she couldn’t afford the gas money to drive her limosine either. The bottom line? $9000 wasn’t enough for anyone. They pushed the issue and lost, putting themselves through some suffering.

To me, Mr. Armoyan is a hero. First, he’s self-employed and independent. He isn’t a slave to the court or a country. He isn’t afraid to make bold choices instead of simply caving to the state and an angry and ‘entitled’ ex-wife. Apparently, mom is a terrible money manager if she can’t manage on $108,000 a year, tax-free. The 18 and 20 year “children” should be emancipated. To the uninitiated, that means “on their own.”

The judge declared that Armoyan was guilty of “contempt of court.” Neither he, nor his attorney showed at a hearing last Friday. Doubtless, the attorney wasn’t paid to show, yet, his defiance is declared by his absence (not the attorney, he’s still kissing the ring). He “strategically and tactically” avoided payment and fled the country to avoid the unbounded greed of his ex-wife and the courts. Good for him. It’s a freakin’ gravy train against men in this part of the world.

Being in the Middle East in an unknown location in an Islamic state should be protection enough. I hope he finds a better life than being constantly stressed out by courts and a nasty ex-wife. Nobody deserves that lot.

original article

 

Obama & New Police Reform

reposted from Canada Free Press by Moody Jim Rathbone

Mayors and city councils—in office largely courtesy of public apathy—are President Barack Obama’s boots on the ground in the ongoing, carefully orchestrated racial riots coming soon to a city near you. In their bid to rescue America from total Marxist eclipse, patriots, as it turns out, have been knocking on the wrong door.

Republicans, who surrendered to the Democrats even after taking over House and Senate in last Midterm elections, have no dog in the racial riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities, but Mayor Stephanie Rowlings-Blake, who ordered a police stand down in Baltimore, and a bevy of other Democrat mayors, do.

With the undercover help of activist municipal mayors and councils, Obama seeks not to reform the nation’s police—but to totally replace them.

While diverting public attention by snubbing senators, and overriding both Constitution and Congress, Obama is now hammering the final nail in the Fundamental Transformation of America coffin.

It’s a mission aided and abetted by mercenary ‘civil rights‘ activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and one largely conducted out of sight with White House help.

Local civic elections consistently have the lowest voter turnout, yet represent the level of government that poses the biggest threat to liberty and freedom. It is through complicit mayors and councils that the United Nations has been able to forge the road to Agenda 21 for all of Western society. here

As incredible as it may seem, it is with the cooperation of municipal politicians that Obama will get to replace every police force in the United States with a more military styled one that is answerable only to him.

‘We the People’ should have seen Baltimore and Ferguson coming on July 2, 2008, when Obama boasted in Colorado Springs, CO:  “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Most assumed he was talking about the military, which he soon began to hollow out.

Few realized the most anti-American president ever elected had his sight fixed on replacing thousands of police forces across the country, whose job it has always been to keep the public peace, with his own military-style police.

It’s the return of Fidel Castro, only this time in America.

By ridding the nation of its traditional police forces, Obama and his army of activist municipal politicians will be tossing into the trash can first responders who happen to wear the Serve & Protect badge.

Getting there has been Marxist Community organizing all the way.

First came the smear job spreading the fallacy that police deliberately profile only young blacks, and are addicted to the habit of randomly shooting them. Marxist propaganda leaves the disingenuous impression that racist rogue cops dominate most police forces.

Within days of the Baltimore riots, Obama made it clear he wouldn’t be surveying the damage; wouldn’t be lifting a finger to call for calm.

He didn’t have to with the mayor doing his dirty work.

One hundred police officers were injured in the Baltimore riots. Businesses up and running only the day before were left in burnt-out rubble, facts carelessly written off by Obama.

Obama’s reaction to what’s going on in Baltimore has been expressed in words as casual as they are well crafted:

“The communities in Baltimore that are having these problems now are no different from the communities in Chicago when I first started working” as a community organizer, Obama said. “I’ve seen this movie too many times before.” (National Journal, April 29, 2015)

The difference now is that it’s Obama directing the racial riot movie.

With the Republicans snoozing at the switch, and most unsuspecting folk not knowing that Obama’s boots on the ground are the municipalities, what’s going to stop him from accomplishing his latest mission?

Obama counts on the same kind of apathy that dogs municipal elections about racial riots that are being staged, right down to including outside protesters being rushed in to the scene of the riots.

Like in televised episodes of Hill Street Blues, when the Black Arrows, Shamrocks and Los Diablos came together when there was something in it for them, the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam came together in Baltimore.

That coming together of the three parties was unprecedented.

Yet, instead of asking why the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam would come together during the Baltimore riots, Rowlings-Blake thanked the Nation of Islam.

Talk show radio giant and patriot Mark Levin points out that Rowlings-Blake was in constant touch with chief Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett throughout the riots.

By throwing gasoline on the racial discord gathering steam in American cities, is Obama sending a message to America’s foreign enemies that the U.S. is now at its most vulnerable for a strike?

Are internet commenters like Richard Jackson who posits: “I think the riots are simply programming people to get used to a military presence (instead of police) and curfews, etc. for something bigger later on”, on the right track?

Should edgy folk be watching the Jade Helm 15 large-scale military exercise to be played out from July 15 to November 15, across seven states, with thousands of locals “participating or role playing in the exercise” wearing I.D. markings be watching the military instead of passively letting the military watch them?

Meanwhile, speaking to a group of schoolchildren at the Anacostia Library in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Obama said he might return to community organizing.

In truth, his plans to nationalize America’s police forces, prove he’s never left it.

Taxpayers Pay for Road Signs to Shame ‘Deadbeats’

by Moody Jim Rathbone

If you are a non-custodial parent, you’ve probably heard it before. When you find yourself behind in child support you are automatically labeled a deadbeat by certain authorities and those with an axe to grind. After all, they are ‘entitled’ to your cash any way they can get it.

Nationally, some ‘public officers’ have taken it on themselves to disgrace the public ‘deadbeats’ in their jurisdiction at your expense. In a new program, those in Northumberland County Pennsylvania are likely to find their faces on a billboards. The county may lease four billboards for $700 a year and post photos to shame those who owe the courts nearly $20 million in fines and child support. Commissioner Vinny Clausi loves the idea.

“I am 100 percent supporting this. These guys have been doing everything they can to collect this money. We have tried for years to get these people to pay, and I believe that the efforts between the cost collections team and the constant pressure the group is applying to the deadbeats who refuse to pay is something we need in this county.”

You remember who is paying for the signs, regardless of any perceived return on investment. The taxpayer is paying for the signs. Regardless of whether it comes from federal money or state money, they are pulling it from the tax base somewhere. This is because corporate government supposedly doesn’t make any money, even though this is a cultural lie. Corporate government is all about making money since virtually all government offices and courts are incorporated. They make money, even when they don’t. That is why they believe they can afford billboards with the intent of shaming local residents into submission.

Just remember, regardless of what Vinny and others in ‘public service’ say, taxpayer money is being used to fund the venture for a measure that is Constitutionally illegal. Due process has been vacated. No matter. Child support law is unconstitutional, but Federal family law statute has overcome that. Officials believe it is their God-given right to oppress those that owe them – publicly, and at your expense. This is also at the expense of your grandchildren as well, since the nation is running a budget deficit. That’s just good business. Right?

Technically, Vinny and his ilk are the deadbeats.

People with outstanding warrants can avoid arrest or jail for failure to pay child support if they surrender, court officials say in Pennsylvania. The amnesty program will not forgive outstanding child support, but will give parents a chance to make arrangements to pay what they owe.  Some amnesty. It’s illegal and lawful. How’s that for American jurisprudence?

The American Expatriot Primer

A growing number of Americans are frustrated with the way in which their economy has been managed and are becoming increasingly concerned about future measures the government may take to keep its coffers full.

A question that is arising with increasing frequency is: does expatraition offer a viable protection to those concerned about a more financially-intrusive US system?

The answer is ‘yes’, it does offer a completely legal solution for ending your obligation to pay US income, capital gains, and gift taxes on your worldwide income. But it is certainly not for everyone and should only be pursued after lengthy and diligent consideration.

And before you begin dreaming of a tax-free future, you should realize that the United States imposes taxes on a broader basis than any other country. The United States is one of two countries, and is the only major country, that imposes significant income, capital gains, gift, and estate taxes on its non-resident citizens.

In virtually all other countries, individuals end their liability to pay income tax after a sustained period of non-residence, generally one year or longer. But to legally and permanently end U.S. tax liability on their worldwide income, U.S. citizens must also give up their U.S. citizenship and passport. This process is called “expatriation.”

Yes, it’s a radical step. However, if you’re a U.S. citizen, you can make nearly all of the preparations for a possible future expatriation without permanently leaving the United States. This is a four-step process:

Phase 1. Relocate your assets from the United States to other jurisdictions, preferably where the assets won’t be taxed.
Phase 2. Identify foreign countries where you would consider living,
Phase 3. Obtain a suitable second passport
Phase 4. Expatriate – give up your U.S. citizenship and passport

Once you’ve accomplished the first three phases, summarized here in Part I of this report, the final step – expatriation – is much easier than if you’re starting from scratch. Part II of this report describes the expatriation process.

Are you a good candidate for expatriation? You are, if:

You are comfortable living outside the United States, or are already doing so-
Your spouse and children are comfortable living outside the United States, or are already doing so; and
You have already or are capable of shifting the majority of your income and assets outside the United States.

Phase 1: Relocate Your Assets Outside the United States

With a few exceptions, the IRC imposes taxes on both U.S. source income and foreign source income of U.S. citizens. Non-resident, non-U.S. citizens (also known as “non-resident aliens”) pay tax only on U.S. source income, although some U.S. sources of income (e.g., most capital gains) are tax-free.

To prepare for this more favorable tax treatment in anticipation of expatriation, begin moving liquid assets outside the United States to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. Begin selling assets that can’t be relocated (e.g., real estate) so that you may reinvest the proceeds overseas.

Invest only in countries and investments with which you are comfortable. If you are accustomed to buying and selling U.S. securities, consider using offshore bank or brokerage accounts to target non-U.S. securities. If you are an experienced real estate investor, investigate real estate purchases outside the United States. Keep in mind that a targeted investment or real estate purchase may also qualify you for legal residence in some countries (Phase 2) or even a second passport (Phase 3). If you have substantial domestic investments in precious metals, consider moving the metals offshore.

The vast majority of foreign banks and brokerages now refuse to accept new U.S. citizen clients, especially U.S. citizens resident in the United States. However, banks and brokerages in a handful of countries still accept new U.S. citizen and resident clients and allow them to purchase non-U.S. securities. A few banks in Austria, the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Switzerland are suitable for this purpose. The minimum deposits in these banks start at $100,000. Minimum deposits in offshore brokerages start around $5,000. Fees are much higher for banking services and securities trading than in the United States.

Both the accounts you hold offshore and the income derived from them must be reported to U.S. authorities. The penalties for failing to make these disclosures are draconian. Consult with an expert familiar with the tax and reporting rules for international investments when you file your annual tax return.

Offshore real estate is a non-reportable asset for U.S. investors if owned individually or jointly with your spouse or other individuals. Income or gain from foreign real estate investment is reportable and taxable. Countries offering first-world infrastructure and where real estate is relatively affordable include Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Spain, and Uruguay.

Numerous potential “land mines” exist in offshore real estate investments. Among them are the lack of a multiple listing service in many countries, difficulty in establishing good title, and legal provisions giving squatters the right to live on your property. Retain a knowledgeable real estate attorney in the country in which you purchase real estate to avoid problems.

You may transport precious metals you own in the United States to another country and store the metals in a safety deposit box, bank vault, or private vault. One option for doing so is to use a secure shipping service. Make certain the service not only promises secure transport but also assists with completing non-U.S. customs and tax declarations. Another option to transport precious metals out of the United States is a like-kind exchange under Sec. 1031 of the IRC. If you move the metals yourself, the best option can be to hire an import agent in the country to which you’re taking them to handle the import formalities. You will generally post a bond through the agent covering taxes due (if any) plus the agent’s fee.

Phase 2: Identify Foreign Countries Where You Would Consider Living

Once you give up U.S. citizenship and passport, you no longer have the right to live in the United States. You may generally make brief visits, but in most cases, you won’t be able to stay more than approximately four months annually without becoming subject to U.S. tax on your worldwide income based on the IRC’s “deemed residence” rules discussed in Part II of this report. Finding another country to live in is therefore an essential part of any expatriation exit strategy.

Even if you have no plan currently to leave the United States permanently, finding a country that you may wish to relocate to in the future is a prudent safeguard. If economic or political conditions deteriorate in the United States and reach your personal breaking point, having legal residence in a suitable offshore jurisdiction provides a valuable “insurance policy.”

If you merely want the right to live in another country in the form of a residence permit, but don’t necessary want to be physically resident there, a number of countries can accommodate your needs. These include Belize, Costa Rica, Malta, Mexico, the Dutch Caribbean territories, and Panama. In most cases, you can qualify for residence (although not the right to work in the country) by either making an investment or demonstrating a minimum guaranteed pension payment. Residence rights may be purchased in some countries by making an investment of $80,000 or more in real estate or other assets. A guaranteed pension payment of $1,000 or more may also qualify you for residence. In other countries, you may need to qualify on a points system. Some countries have multiple programs to consider.

Phase 3: Obtain a Suitable Second Passport

To end your responsibility to comply with U.S. tax and reporting obligations, you must give up your U.S. citizenship and passport. Without a second nationality in place and passport in hand, however, giving up your U.S. passport would render you a “stateless person.” Avoid this status, as it makes it difficult or impossible to legally live or travel internationally.

A second passport also conveys numerous other benefits:

It gives you the right to reside in the country that issued the passport, and possibly other countries. For instance, a passport from a member of the European Union conveys the right to live and work in any other EU country.
It gives you a way to travel internationally if your primary passport is lost or stolen, or if the issuing government confiscates or refuses to renew it.
It provides you with the opportunity to travel to countries blacklisted by the government that issued your primary passport. For U.S. citizens, this includes countries such as Cuba, North Korea, etc.
It avoids disclosing your primary nationality, should you ever need to keep that a secret. This can be useful if you’re ever confronted by militants who oppose the government that issued your primary passport.

You may qualify for a second citizenship and passport by ancestry, marriage, religion, or extended residence in another country. If not, a handful of countries offer “instant” citizenship in return for an investment or contribution. The Commonwealth of Dominica and the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis are the only countries with an official, legally mandated, economic citizenship. (Note: Dominica and the Dominican Republic are different countries.)

Dominica is the least expensive option. The nationality law of Dominica authorizes the government to waive the normal requirement of seven years of legal residence to acquire citizenship in exchange for a cash contribution. Total costs including all fees for a single applicant come to about $105,000. Add $25,000 for your spouse and up to two children under 18. The Dominican passport holders can travel without a visa, or obtain a visa upon entry, to nearly 90 countries and territories.

The Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis offers two options to obtain economic citizenship. One option is to make a direct contribution to a charitable foundation set up to support displaced sugar workers: the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF). Total costs including all fees for a single applicant under this option come to about $285,000 or $335,000 for an applicant with up to three dependents.

The second option is to purchase “qualifying property” with a minimum investment of $400,000. Fees and closing costs add a minimum of $100,000. Total costs for a single applicant come to at least $500,000 and close to $600,000 for a family of four. The St. Kitts & Nevis passport provides visa-free entry, or visa upon entry, to more than 120 countries, including nearly all of the 27 member countries of the European Union.

In all cases, applicants must pass a strict vetting process that includes a comprehensive criminal background check.

Bogus second citizenship offerings abound. In recent years, I have received offers to purchase passports from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Ireland, and Lithuania, among other countries. Some of these offers are outright scams. Others involve illegally purchased or stolen documents. Even if you succeed in obtaining a passport on this basis, it may be revoked at any time and you could be subject to arrest and/or deportation.

Conclusion

Once you’ve completed Phases 1, 2, and 3 of your four-step plan to disconnect from the United States, you’re ready for Phase 4: expatriation. While you may never take the final step of giving up your U.S. citizenship and passport, taking the preparations summarized so far at least gives you that option.

Mark Nestmann is a journalist with more than 20 years of investigative experience and is a charter member of The Sovereign Society’s Council of Experts. He has authored over a dozen books and many additional reports on wealth preservation, privacy and offshore investing. Mark serves as president of his own international consulting firm, The Nestmann Group, Ltd. The Nestmann Group provides international wealth preservation services for high-net worth individuals. Mark is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association (member of subcommittee on Foreign Activities of U.S. Taxpayers, Committee on Taxation) and member of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2005, he was awarded a Masters of Laws (LL.M) degree in international tax law at the Vienna (Austria) University of Economics and Business Administration.

Copyright © 2012 Chris Martenson

The Death of the Birth Certificate

by Jaro Henry Smith

Killing a Birth Certificate should be easy, since there was deception involved. When your parent signed it, he thought you would be a natural-born state Citizen, one of the People of your state. But instead, this twisted deception made you a federal citizen, which is a citizen of the federal zone. Remember, the 14th Amendment makes you a US citizen ONLY when you’re subject to jurisdiction of United States. The United States is 1 of 51 state sovereigns in this country, with jurisdiction ONLY over the federal zone, i.e. the Washington DC and territories, so it has no jurisdiction over people in states of the Union (the 50 sovereign states). They can only claim such jurisdiction if you admit to it, or by use of federal ZIP codes.

When your parent signed the BC, there was no meeting of minds, since she was trying to secure for you Citizenship in the Republic, but instead it took you away from the republic and made you a federal citizen of a ‘democracy.’ Your parent, or now you, can rescind that signature on the birth certificate because of deception, or at the very least, a misunderstanding.

On top of that, you can simply rescind that signature simply because you don’t want to be a US citizen. That’s because you didn’t sign that BC, that your parent did it on your behalf, which makes it binding upon you, but only as long as you’re a minor. When you become an adult, you have a choice what to sign, and you can exercise that choice regarding the BC as well, by rescinding the signature as if it was yours.

And if they give you any bull*hit that you can’t expatriate when in US, that’s just a smokescreen since by rescinding that signature, you’re not expatriating, just ending your corporate US citizenship. You are a natural-born state Citizen by birth, and federal US citizen by the BC. When you cancel that BC, the hospital record of birth will be your proof of natural-born state Citizenship. Alternatively, you can show them your Declaration of Domicile, which puts you OUTSIDE of the federal United States, on the land of a state of the Union, so technically you ARE outside of United States, and so can expatriate your federal/corporate US citizenship and retain your dejure USA Citizenship.

Now I’m not suggesting that everyone should kill their BC, just showing a way to kill it for those who’d eventually want to return to the Republic, when you get tired of the corporate Democracy crap.

Here’s a Declaration of Domicile:

Jaro Henry Smith, sui juris

Main Street 1422

Costa Mesa, Orange county

California, U.S.A.

Phone: 714-531-3450

PUBLIC                                                                                   

THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMUNICATION TO ALL             

Notice to agent is notice to principals

Notice to principal is notice to agents

Applies to all successors and assigns

All are without excuse

Declaration of Domicil

I, Jaro of the family Smith, a natural man, hereby make this declaration of domicil that I am making for the purpose of establishing my California domicil in accordance with the California Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and state as follows:

I hereby declare that I have had and maintained the place of my domicil on land of Orange county, California (a state of the Union), since the year  _______.

My current home and domicil is on land of Orange county, California (a state of the Union), and within the  home being my place of abode and domicil; and having the following physical location:

Main street 1422

Costa Mesa, California

United States of America

which home I recognize and intend to have and maintain as my permanent home and domicil and if I have or obtain another house or houses in some other state or states of the Union, I hereby declare that the above-described house in California constitutes my predominant and principal home, and that I intend to continue it permanently as such.

I was formerly domiciled since the year ________, in a home on land of Orange county, California, at

Bushard street 542

Stanton, California

United States of America

I have not maintained, during said times, any house outside of California, a state of the Union.

I hereby declare that, pursuant to the foregoing, I am domiciled on land of Orange county, California and am not: a “resident” of the State of California, a “citizen of the United States” or a “U.S citizen. Furthermore I declare that I am NOT located in, or resident of, any area that is subject to jurisdiction of the United States, but am domiciled on the land of a state of the Union. All unalienable rights of the undersigned are hereby reserved.

Please note that there are no ZIP codes and two-letter State abbreviations in states of the Union. Those designate federal areas and not areas in states of the Union, therefore mail sent to address with those federal designations, will NOT reach me. You must send your communications to my domicil location, EXACTLY as printed above.

As section 602 1.3 e(2) of the USPS Domestic Mail Manual declares, ZIP codes are NOT required: “Unless required above, ZIP Codes may be omitted from single-piece price First-Class Mail (including Priority Mail), single-piece price Parcel Post, and pieces bearing a simplified address.”

Executed on this ______ day of  _____________, 2012. Signed ___________________________, sui juris.

On land of state of the Union: _____________________________   _______________________ county

NOTARY PUBLIC

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, by the above-signed Jaro Henry Smith,

 

This ______________ day of _____________________, 2012

 

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:_______________         ______________________________

Notary Public

Common Law, Parental Rights & Indentured Servitude

Last Friday night I watched the series “Who Do You Think You Are?” about celebrities finding their ancestors. In this case, Reba McEntire discovered that one of her male ancestors in the 1690’s was shipped to the American colonies as an indentured servant at the tender age of 10. His mother died and his father presumably had a “hard time” taking care of him by himself, so he “sold him off” in the hope of his son having a better future. This contract would pay the kid’s ticket from England to America, and would only last until the child became an adult at 21 years. This case demonstrates that under common law, children were considered PROPERTY of their parents until they became adults, and the State had NO AUTHORITY to interfere with the rights of a father.

This wasn’t slavery, since the boy wasn’t sold, just the right to his work was. This shows that under common law, people are considered sovereign and the State has no authority to tell them what to do, unless there is an actual INJURED party, which includes a violation of one’s unalienable rights. Only in corporate Democracy that we’ve been under since 1933, the government doesn’t recognize our natural rights, and can dictate what we can and can’t do, as if we were THEIR property.

Here’s Wikipedia about indentured servitude.

“Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture. Usually the father made the arrangements and signed the paperwork.^[1] They included men and women; most were under the age of 21, and most became helpers on farms or house servants. They were not paid cash. It was a system that provided jobs and—most important—transportation for poor young people from the overcrowded labor markets of Europe who wanted to come to labor-short America but had no money to pay for it. The great majority became farmers and farm wives.^[

In colonial North America, farmers, planters, and shopkeepers found it very difficult to hire free workers, primarily because cash was short and it was so easy for those workers to set up their own farm.^[2] Consequently, the more common solution was to pay the passage of a young worker from England or Germany, who would work for several years to pay off the travel costs debt. During that indenture period the servants were not paid wages, but they were provided food, room, clothing, and training. Most white immigrants arrived in Colonial America as indentured servants, usually as young men and women from Britain or Germany, under the age of 21.^{[citation needed]}

Typically, the father of a teenager would sign the legal papers, and work out an arrangement with a ship captain, who would not charge the father any money.^[1] The captain would transport the indentured servants to the American colonies, and sell their legal papers to someone who needed workers. At the end of the indenture, the young person was given a new suit of clothes and was free to leave. Many immediately set out to begin their own farms, while others used their newly acquired skills to pursue a trade.^{[3] [4][5]}

Indenture contract signed with an X by Henry Meyer in 1738

Workers, usually Europeans, including Irish,^[6] Scottish,^[7] English, or German immigrants,^[8] immigrated to Colonial America in substantial numbers as indentured servants,^[9] particularly to the British Thirteen Colonies.^[10] In the 17th century, nearly two-thirds of English settlers came as indentured servants, although indentured servitude was not a guaranteed route to economic autonomy.”

Can You Defend Yourself Against Civil Contempt & Non-Compliance?

Judges abuse their power daily and the use of civil contempt is one of their greatest weapons. This is not simply because this action is powerful in its own right, but because people do not know how to defend themselves against its limits. If you do not speak up and demand your rights, you lose them. Most people don’t know their rights and most lawyers will not “fight” what the judge wants. This is our legal system today, especially in the kangaroo family courts.

Civil contempt in law today is authorized to compel someone to obey a court order in present tense whether in direct view of the court or indirect view of the court. The difference in regard to child support is the remedy of incarceration. This is intended to compel compliance to the court order, however only if you have the ability to comply and are not doing so. You may be held until you no longer have the ability to pay . When that happens, it is grounds for immediate release. In a civil contempt per the view of U.S. law, the punishment is viewed as a remedy, and for the benefit of the complainant, which can be and often is the court. In the event of criminal contempt, the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court. A contempt proceeding is considered to be criminal in nature, with possible penalties that include a jail sentence. Fear is the tool.

Civil contempt is for something that is current that you may purge yourself of, while criminal contempt is seen as a past wrong you have committed. Under the civil contempt you must be provided with the option to purge yourself of the contumacious act. With regard to child support enforcement, most states have built into the statutes that civil contempt  and incarceration is a specific remedy for violation of the court’s order. This is not for the civil debt, but for specifically for the act of “willfully disobeying an order of the court while having the capacity to comply.” Even when the order is unjust, you must comply unless a stay of enforcement is granted, while you are challenging the “unjust” order. (Child Support: A Case Against Arrest)

Proof of Contempt

While the court’s power to punish through contempt is broad, contempt is meant to be exercised rarely and is presumed not to exist in many states, such as Texas. Three elements must be satisfied to prove contempt:

1) a reasonably specific order,

2) a violation of the order, and

3) the willful intent to violate the order.

To be specific enough to support a constructive contempt finding, an order must spell out the details of compliance in clear, unambiguous terms so that a person knows exactly what she must do to comply with it. Some courts have held that an oral order is never sufficiently specific; thus, only a written court order may support a constructive contempt finding. An oral order may support a direct contempt finding, but it must still be clear what the court has ordered the person to do. Finally, the person must be able to comply with the order.

Noncompliance with an unambiguous order of which a person has notice raises the inference that the violation was willful. But a person is in contempt only if he has the ability to comply with the court’s order but chooses not to. A person may not, for example, be jailed for failing to turn over property not in his possession. But for this exception to apply, the inability to comply must be involuntary. If a person puts himself in a position where he is unable to comply with the order, then he may still be held in contempt. Disability and mental capacity can impact the ability to comply.

During the past twenty years, both state and federal courts have examined the issue of whether parents who are seriously delinquent on their child support payments may be jailed for their failure to support their children. Nearly half of the state supreme courts and at least ten of the 11 federal circuit courts of appeals have heard cases concerning criminal penalties for failure to pay child support. As legislators and other policymakers debate the value and appropriateness of criminal sanctions for nonsupport, a review of the court holdings from state supreme courts and high level federal courts offers a legal perspective to the policy discussions in this area. Below, we examine some of the most commonly asked questions and how the courts have answered them.

Q. Why are states and the federal government using criminal penalties for delinquent child support obligors?

A. State and federal laws aimed at criminally penalizing parents for not paying child support are gaining backing for several policy reasons. First, child support experts and state policymakers are detecting fundamental differences among parents who are delinquent in child support – dividing them into “can’t pay” and “won’t pay” parents. While millions of dollars nationwide are being invested into programs to help the very low-income “can’t pay” parents, states are developing more aggressive enforcement tools to pursue the “won’t pay” parents who simply refuse to acknowledge their child support obligation, despite having the financial resources to do so. The increasingly common use of criminal statutes and court contempt orders in child support cases reflects society’s growing frustration with “won’t pay” parents. A recent opinion by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals aptly captured the prevailing judicial sentiment toward parents who evade child support obligations:

“It is just as much a violation of the CSRA [Child Support Recovery Act] for a non-custodial parent to fail to pay child support where his refusal to work is motivated by sloth, a change of lifestyles or pursuit of new career objectives. For most people, bringing children into the world does limit life choices by imposing certain long-term financial obligations.” [U.S. v. Ballek, 1999 WL 125955 (9th Cir. (Alaska), Mar. 11, 1999) (NO. 97-30326)].

State and federal prosecutors are selectively using their state criminal nonsupport laws to target parents who purposely hide assets, avoid employment or otherwise contrive to shirk their child support responsibilities. Some states, such as Kentucky, Ohio and Virginia, have conducted high profile trials and “sting” operations to locate and prosecute parents with large child support debts – in some cases several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Federal prosecutions are also becoming more common as federal officials crack down on wealthy child support obligors in interstate cases. The Inspector General’s Office and the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, created Project Save Our Children (PSOC), “to create a nationwide comprehensive and coordinated health and human services and criminal justice response to unresolved child support enforcement cases.” PSOC investigates and prosecutes high-profile criminal nonsupport cases with interstate circumstances, typically under the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. By focusing on high-profile cases, PSOC hopes to deliver a strong public message to delinquent obligors who consistently avoid paying child support. Most of the parents arrested and prosecuted by PSOC are wealthy individuals with substantial assets.

Q. Isn’t child support a matter of civil, not criminal, law?

A. Laws concerning child support guidelines and most child support enforcement mechanisms are civil in nature, but failure to pay child support may subject a parent to criminal sanctions in three situations: 1.) prosecution under a state criminal “failure to provide support” statute, 2.) prosecution under the federal Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 (CSRA), or 3.) a finding of contempt of court for failure to obey the court’s child support order.

All states have criminal laws setting felony or misdemeanor penalties for failure to support a child or family. Most of these laws were not specifically written with child support in mind, but were originally intended for parents who abandoned or neglected their children. Classifications of these statutes range from “desertion and nonsupport” (Michigan) to “nonsupport of a child or spouse” (Kansas) to “failure to meet an obligation to provide support to a minor”(West Virginia). Likewise, maximum penalties under these laws vary greatly, from 14 years in prison for a felony conviction in Idaho to six months in prison for a misdemeanor in Rhode Island.

Parents who willfully avoid child support payments for a child in another state and owe the greater of a year’s worth of child support or $5,000 may be prosecuted under the federal Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. When the statute originally was written, the crime was classified as a misdemeanor, and delinquent parents risked a maximum jail term of six months. With the passage of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, this federal crime was upgraded to a felony and now carries a maximum prison sentence of two years for parents who owe at least $10,000, or are at least two years behind in their child support obligation and possess two contempt citations for failure to obey their child support order. The original offense also was expanded to include delinquent parents who cross state lines to evade child support responsibilities, in addition to those living in different states from the children.

Because child support orders are official court orders – with the same weight as orders such as subpoenas to appear in court – a parent disobeying the terms of the child support order risks a finding of contempt of court. Based on this, a contempt of court order is probably the most common avenue for a delinquent child support obligor to find himself or herself behind bars.

Q. Is contempt of court a civil or criminal violation?

A. Contempt of court orders can be either criminal or civil in nature, and criminal and civil contempt proceedings differ in several regards. Although most states have many laws concerning contempt of court powers, courts do not need explicit statutory authorization for issuing a civil contempt of court order and subsequent penalty for violation of a child support order; this contempt power is typically inherent in the court’s basic authorization to enforce its orders. Civil contempt of court may be punishable by jail time, restitution, or fines. Under a civil contempt order, the person guilty of contempt of court “holds the jailhouse keys” in that he can cure the contempt and gain release from jail by abiding by the order, e.g. by paying the overdue child support. In a civil contempt of court proceeding, the violation of the order must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant in some circumstances.

Despite carrying a criminal penalty of incarceration, civil contempt of court orders are not classified as criminal actions; criminal contempt is a different matter in several respects. Unlike in a civil contempt situation, under a criminal contempt order, the contemnor does not “hold the keys to the jailhouse door” — he or she cannot shorten the imprisonment period simply by paying the fine or complying with the order. Criminal contempt, rather, is a form of punishment; a penalty imposed and required to be served to its completion. Because of the punitive nature of these orders, they generally are accompanied by many of the same due process requirements as a criminal trial (e.g. right to notice, right to counsel, right to a jury trial, etc.), and criminal contempt powers must be statutorily authorized by the legislature. Finally, in criminal contempt hearings, the government bears the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Courts differ in their characterization of contempt orders for failure to pay child support. The lines between civil and criminal contempt are often blurred in failure to pay child support cases, particularly if the court does not explicitly clarify the charge facing the delinquent parent. Michigan’s supreme court decided that even though child support contempt proceedings were statutorily intended to be civil in nature, the proceedings become criminal if the defendant does not have the present ability to pay, and the defendant is then entitled to representation by an attorney [Mead v. Batchlor, 435 Mich. 480, 460 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. 1990)]. New Mexico’s state supreme court ruled that a jail sentence, which is typically considered a criminal punishment, could be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay child support [Niemyjski v. Niemyjski, 98 N.M. 176, 646 P.2d 1240 (N.M. 1982)]. The Supreme Court of Tennessee, however, held that child support contempt was a criminal offense with a criminal penalty; therefore, the obligor could not be incarcerated without a jury trial and a conviction [Brown v. Latham, Walker v. Walker, 914 S.W.2d 887 (Tenn. 1996)].

The issue is further muddled by court decisions that not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial [see International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) [jury trial not constitutionally required for criminal contempt proceedings]]. For example, in a criminal prosecution under the CSRA, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a jury trial was not necessary because the restitution penalty was not so severe as to convert the petty offense – a misdemeanor – into a serious one deserving of a jury trial [U.S. v. Ballek, 1999 WL 125955 (9th Cir. (Alaska), Mar. 11, 1999)(NO. 97-30326)].

State supreme court cases suggest that additional limits on the use of the contempt power in the child support context exist. At least one state supreme court has decided that if the delinquent parent proves he is financially unable to “cure” the contempt, the court may not continue the incarceration [Hughes v. Dept. of Human Resources, 269 GA. 587, 502 S.E.2d 233 (Ga. 1998)]. The California supreme court adopted a more narrow reading of this concept, holding that a delinquent parent’s incarceration may continue “when the parent’s financial inability to comply with the order is the result of the parent’s willful failure to seek and accept available employment that is commensurate with his or her skills and abilities” [Moss v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 396, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998)]. Finally, the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the contempt order must consist of a written judgment of contempt or written order of commitment before a parent may be incarcerated [Ex parte Strickland, 723 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1987)].

The only U.S. Supreme Court case to examine the issue of contempt for failure to pay child support pivoted on this very question of whether the contempt was criminal or civil in nature [Hicks v. Fieock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988)]. The Court held that the California statute in question, which had a legal presumption that the obligated parent was able to pay the required child support, was an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution if the proceeding was a criminal contempt proceeding. The statute’s legal presumption reduced the burden of proof on the government and transferred that burden to the delinquent parent, which is not permissible in a criminal trial. On the other hand, the Court reasoned, if the statute were being applied in a civil proceeding, the transfer of the burden of proof would be constitutionally valid. Therefore, the Court remanded the case back to the lower court to determine whether the contempt proceedings were civil or criminal in nature. The Supreme Court also offered guidance to the lower court by more clearly delineating some of the characteristics distinguishing civil and criminal contempt orders and outlining examples of both.

Q. Does the child support obligor always have the right to an attorney during contempt proceedings?

A. State courts have reached conflicting conclusions regarding the question of the delinquent obligor’s right to counsel in child support contempt proceedings. Several state supreme courts, including Delaware, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas, and Vermont, have ruled that noncustodial parents facing incarceration for contempt of a child support order have the right to be represented by a lawyer during the contempt proceeding [Black v. Division of Child Support Enforcement, 686 A.2d 164 (Del. 1996)[civil contempt]; Mead v. Batchlor, 435 Mich. 480, 460 N.S.2d 493 (Mich. 1990) [civil contempt]; State v. Gruchalla, 467 N.W.2d 451 (N.D. 1991) [civil contempt]; Ex parte Gunther, 758 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1988) [unclear whether civil or criminal]; Choiniere v. Brooks, 163 Vt. 625, 660 A.2d 289 (Vt. 1995) [civil contempt]. The Delaware supreme court specifically found that “the presumption that an indigent defendant has the right to appointed counsel applies when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his personal liberty,” but did not apply if the state sought punishment of something less than incarceration.

Other state supreme courts, including Florida, Missouri, New Mexico and North Carolina, have decided that parents subject to child support civil contempt sanctions are not entitled to legal representation [Andrews v. Walton, 428 So.2d 663 (Fla. 1983); State ex rel. Sterling, 719 S.W.2d 455 (Mo. 1986); State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. Rael, 97 N.M. 640, 642 P.2d 1099 (N.M. 1982); Jolly v. Wright, 300 N.C. 83, 265 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. 1980)]. The Florida Supreme Court found that in a situation where the father had the ability to pay the child support but willfully refused to do so, and thus was not indigent, the father’s due process rights were not violated when the trial court ordered incarceration without appointing counsel for him in the civil contempt proceeding.

Even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer. The North Carolina court ruled that “since the nature of nonsupport civil contempt cases usually is not complex, due process does not require that counsel be automatically appointed for indigents in such cases” and that counsel would only need to be appointed in cases where it was “necessary for an adequate presentation of the merits [of the case], or to otherwise ensure fundamental fairness” [Jolly v. Wright, 300 N.C. 83, 265 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. 1980)].

Proving indigency in order to obtain court-appointed counsel can place the delinquent parent in a potentially self-incriminating position if the he or she is not found to be indigent. If the court rules that the parent is not indigent, that ruling could lend credibility to a charge that the parent had the resources to pay the child support and chose not to. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court of North Dakota required that a father found in contempt for failure to pay child support should have had the opportunity to prove his indigence for purposes of appointment of counsel in private meetings with the judge and lawyers, rather than in open court, since the disclosure of facts relative to proof of his indigence could have been used against him in the contempt proceedings [State v. Gruchalla, 467 N.W.2d 451 (N.D. 1991)].

Even if the defendant is entitled to counsel, he may not be entitled to have the state pay for it. Missouri’s Supreme Court held that the trial court in a civil child support contempt proceeding “could not compel the state to expend public funds by appointment of a public defender to represent the alleged indigent father” [State ex rel. Sterling v. Long, 719 S.W.2d 455 (Mo. 1986)]. Similarly, the Delaware supreme court ruled that the Office of the Public Defender could not be appointed to represent an indigent defendant in criminal contempt proceedings arising out of child support orders [Black v. Division of Child Support Enforcement, 686 A.2d 164 (Del. 1996)].

Q. What if the child support obligor claims that he or she doesn’t have the resources to pay the required child support?

A. Many parents delinquent in their child support payments and subject to contempt citations claim that they are unable to financially meet their support obligations. At least three state supreme courts – California, Oregon, and Texas – have ruled that it is the obligor’s responsibility to raise an inability to pay as a defense, and to prove that inability by a preponderance of the evidence [Moss v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 396, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998); State ex rel. Mikkelsen v. Hill, 315 Or. 452, 847 P.2d 402 (Or. 1993); Ex parte Roosth, 881 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. 1994)]. It is not, according to the courts, the responsibility of the custodial parent or the state to prove that the noncustodial parent has the financial resources to meet his or her child support obligation. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Fieock, also found that allocating the burden of proof in this manner was constitutional and reasonable in child support contempt proceedings.

Whether or not a parent has the financial ability to comply with the child support order is particularly important in prosecutions under the CSRA, which requires that the parent’s failure to pay support must be “willful” in order to warrant a conviction. In other words, in order to obtain a conviction under this federal law, the government must prove that the parent has the resources to comply and simply chose not to do so. See U.S. v. Mathes, 151 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Brand, 163 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 1998). The Ballek court examined the CRSA and Congressional legislative history in order to clarify the willfullness requirement and determined that “a noncustodial parent who does not have the funds to satisfy the child support award, and who does not obtain a reduction or remission of the award because of inability to pay, will almost certainly be engaged in willful defiance of the state court’s child support order” [U.S. v. Ballek, 1999 WL 125955, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2325 (9th Cir. (Alaska), Mar. 11, 1999)(NO. 97-30326)].

Noncustodial parents who truly lack the ability to meet their child support obligations have the right in every state to request a downward modification of their child support order based on a change in circumstances. Also, many states offer parents who cannot meet their obligations and have amassed arrearages the opportunity to negotiate a payment plan and avoid severe sanctions, such as prosecution, revocation of certain licenses, or liens on their property. With these alternatives available, many courts and state agencies are adopting a tougher stance against parents who ignore their child support obligations.

Q. Isn’t it unconstitutional for the court to order a person to work just to pay off a child support debt?

A. Some delinquent parents have argued that requiring an obligor to meet a court-ordered child support obligation, without consideration of his or her current employment status, is unconstitutional because it violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude or because it creates a criminal penalty for a civil debt. In a recent case, the California state supreme court examined this argument in detail and ruled that enforcement of a child support order did not run afoul of the Thirteenth Amendment’s slavery and involuntary servitude prohibition [Moss v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 4th 396, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998)]. Specifically, the court found that “there is no constitutional impediment to imposition of contempt sanctions on a parent for violation of a judicial child support order when the parent’s financial inability to comply with the order is the result of the parent’s willful failure to seek and accept available employment that is commensurate with his or her skills and ability.” In reaching this conclusion, the court distinguished child support from other types of family support and narrowed 100 years of the state’s common law in this area. California’s highest court also reviewed U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases, Congressional legislative history, the state constitution, and analogous areas of common law in order to reach its holding. Based on this review, the court determined that the crucial element in slavery or involuntary servitude is the requirement that the oppressed person be bound to one employer or one form of employment. Since child support orders do not require the obligor to work for a specific person or in a particular line of work, the court held that enforcement of such orders does not rise to the level or slavery or involuntary servitude. The court also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has outlined exceptions for the performance of other civil duties, such as jury service, military service, road work, and enforced labor as punishment for a crime, such as work camps.

In March 1999, the Supreme Court for the State of Colorado likewise ruled against a father’s claim that a criminal contempt sanction for failure to pay child support violated the state constitution’s prohibition against imprisonment for debt [In re Marriage of Nussbeck, 1999 WL 112188 (Colo., Mar 01, 1999) (NO. 97SC540)]. In this case, the father argued that because his child support arrearage was converted automatically to a judgment against him under Colorado child support law, he was being imprisoned for a standing debt. The court rejected this argument, holding that the father may be imprisoned for failure to pay child support because the contempt order was predicated on his failure to comply with the order, not on the existence of a judgment against him. The fact that the arrearage converted to a judgment against him, the court stated, was immaterial to the contempt order for noncompliance.

At least one federal circuit court of appeals has also ruled that enforcement of a child support order is not akin to slavery [U.S. v. Ballek, 1999 WL 125955, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2325 (9th Cir. (Alaska), Mar. 11, 1999)(NO. 97-30326)]. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited three reasons for distinguishing child support enforcement from involuntary servitude and slavery: 1.) “the relationship between parent and child is much more than the ordinary relationship between debtor and creditor”; 2.) “the state’s strong concern for the welfare of minor children is…manifested by the fact that parental obligations at the dissolution of marriage are not left to private agreement”; and 3.) “the state has an interest in protecting the public [funds] by ensuring that the children not become wards of the state.” Furthermore, the court declined to “interpret the Thirteenth Amendment in a way that would so drastically interfere with one of the most important and sensitive exercises of the police power – ensuring that persons too young to take care of themselves can count on both their parents for material support.” This holding illustrates courts’ reluctance to create a constitutional loophole in child support enforcement.

Q. Did Congress have the constitutional authority to enact the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992?

A. Many parents with delinquent child support obligations have challenged Congressional authority to enact the CSRA in the first place, but none have been successful. At least ten of the 11 federal circuit courts of appeal have heard cases of this kind. The most common claim is that Congress exceeded its Constitutional authority when it enacted the CSRA, violating the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in the process. All ten U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal rejected this argument and further found that passage of the CSRA was a proper exercise of Congress’ broad authority under the Commerce Clause [U.S. v. Bongiorno, 106 F.3d 1027 (1st Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Sage, 92 F.3d 101 (2nd Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28 (3rd Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 476 (4th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Bailey, 115 F.3d 1222 (5th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Black, 125 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397 (8th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Mussari, 95 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Hampshire, 95 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Williams, 121 F.3d 615 (11th Cir. 1997)].

Q. Can parents be prosecuted under the Child Support Recovery Act for any arrearage that accrued before the federal law was enacted in 1992?

A. A few obligor parents have argued that prosecutions under the CSRA for child support arrearages that accrued prior to enactment of the federal law violate the U.S. Constitution’s protection that a person not be found criminally liable for an action that was not criminal when it was committed. These challenges to an ex post facto application of the CSRA have generated limited success in the courts. In at least five of the cases at the federal court of appeals level, the courts ruled that the prosecutions did not violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution [U.S. v. Rose, 153 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Black, 125 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Crawford, 115 F.3d 1397 (8th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Hampshire, 95 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Muench, 153 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 1998)] Only the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that the retroactive application of the CSRA, which subjected the defendant to federal criminal penalties for failure to pay support without differentiating between delinquencies alleged to have occurred before and after the CSRA’s date of enactment, was an unconstitutional ex post facto enforcement of the CSRA [U.S. v. Mussari, 152 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1998). Ex post facto challenges are examined in the context of the circumstances giving rise to the case; therefore, any of these courts, given different circumstances, could rule differently.

Notice: This article is not legal counsel. You will need an attorney and your own wits to supply you with the details of your case.

Can You Defend Yourself Against Civil Contempt & Non-Compliance? by E.J. Manning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com.

Government Invasion of your Parental Rights

“For the first time in American history, the majority of the Supreme Court no longer treats a parent’s right to control and direct the upbringing of their child as a fundamental liberty,”  former U.S. magistrate judge William Wagner. “We now have a new situation where government itself becomes the standard and whoever’s in power gets to say what your liberty is.” That is, after all, what legal precedence says.

This warrants concern for former Michigan congressman Peter Hoesktra: “There are people each and every day who are scheming to take away parental rights to start to destroy the family structure,” he said. “What we’ve seen over the last 40 to 50 years is continual legislative and judicial overreach going into areas that we never thought they would reach into.”

This overstepping of the states’ role can be traced to oppressive European regimes of the not-so-distant past.

“Karl Marx said that in order to establish a perfect socialist state, you have to destroy the family,” said family psychologist and author John Rosemond. “You have to substitute the government and its authority for parental authority in the rearing of children.”

One of the vehicles to usher in socialist policies over children is an international treaty known as the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, or the UNCRC. Adopted by the UN in 1989, this essentially says that anytime there is a conflict or dispute between a child and a parent, a government bureaucrat gets to decide what is in the best interest of the child instead of the parent deciding what is in the best interest of the child. Do you see how the Bradley Amendment plays into the UNCRC?

The Supremacy Clause says that a treaty becomes a part of the supreme law of the land, which overrides state laws and overrides state constitutions. Almost all of American law of parenting kids is state law, so this treaty becomes supreme over virtually all American law of parents and children. Bill Clinton approved the treaty during his administration, so all it takes is two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to approve it in order for it to become a part of the supreme law of the land. Your child, as evidenced by law on all sides is that your child, as property, is important political capital.

American parents are losing their rights and don’t even know it. Featuring 3 reenactments based on real cases, “Overruled” (see below) is a 35-minute docudrama that exposes how the rights of parents in America are being eroded.  The fact is that legal precedence has continually eroded the rights of all Americans based on judicial decisions. This has been ongoing since the 1930’s. Surprise. Now, if the state wants this responsibility, then certainly, they are responsible for dissolving the human family as we know it, whether it is understood or not. Also, if this is the case, parents are no longer responsible for the children that they ‘sire.’ They have become tools for state endorsed ‘breeding.’ Your responsibility in the matter, in the eyes of the state, is increasingly dubious at best, and they would rather you have little to say on the matter.

Notice: This article is not legal counsel.
You will need an attorney and your own wits
to supply you with the details of your case.

Government Invasion of your Parental Rights by E.J. Manning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com.