A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘civil rights’

Child Support Lacks Accountability

burning the constitutionDiscrimination [against non-custodial parents] is rationalized for the same reason that slaves, ethnic minorities and women were oppressed in an earlier era: free labor and arbitrary empowerment. Unlike dictatorial regimes, however, our government has perfected this oppression through legislative propaganda, which exploits the child into a multi-billion dollar industry, fleecing parents of finite resources and discouraging income productivity.

Quotes and sound bites to a vast audience unfamiliar with a complex case could not hope to overcome decades of stereotypes and draconian laws designed to perpetuate this child control industry. My best hope, therefore, existed in a news conference at my home where genuine child support could be observed first hand. A father’s mortgage, taxes, play areas and holiday enjoyment are a father’s child support, made impossible when a third of income goes to taxes, and another third to a support collection unit.

My point continues to be this: a self-sufficient father has the same right to enjoy a family unit as a self-sufficient mother. An American form of government encourages each to grow those units. Under the current socialist form, I nevertheless satisfied years of one-sided obligations until they were abused without any child payments in return. This showed not only that I was a responsible parent, but prepared to commit my career to enforce God given rights to raise my children.

Unlike the 1950s, a vast majority of today’s parents are raising their children in separate households. If we can bus 5-year-olds to school, we can certainly allow fathers in the same communities to enjoy equal time with their offspring. Such logic, however, would negate the need for lawyers and child support transfers as the engine behind federal grants and collection unit interest revenues to a dysfunctional state government.

In short, the privacy right which I have been compelled to secure through the courts is a meaningful father-child relationship free from joint power abuses by the state and a superior creature of law known as the “custodial parent.” It may be analogized to the woman’s privacy right established in Roe v Wade.

For those still clinging to the current antiquated system, however, child support is a welfare payment because it lacks accountability. Abuses such as drug or gambling addictions, lawyer-generated controversies, partner support, income destruction and father replacement agendas are highly disguised in our overburdened courts. Still unanswered by my government is how I am supposed to raise my children without a 23-year law license.

Leon Koziol is a Utica attorney. On Feb. 11, the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division suspended his law license because he has not made child support payments for his two children.

Governmental Megalomania

violation of due process and civil rights

Welcome to the government that puts itself first. That’s the sad news for Americans because the land of freedom becomes more fascist every day. If the shoe fits, wear it. This fascist label includes the corporate judges and officials that think nothing of civil rights. Instead the Feds have invented a new special right for children, referenced as the right to be supported. This sounds good on the surface, but the draconian and offensive laws that this attitude perpetrates touches every American, especially in their privacy. Foreigners complain about this American attitude constantly, but we ignore them as foolish idiots. They may be more right than wrong. Check out this website for details on how your rights are declared “non compus mentis” in the name of innocent children, where a corporate government and corporate hacks create an office full of  underemployed data compilers for each court, where shareholders rake in the profits 2 to 1 for every dollar collected. A child has more rights than you do in the name of the USA, but for the benefit corporate business. The national megalomania is not new. The new video shows it. Even Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor winces a little at the boldness of this fantasy.

Megalomania is a psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs. The government steals from themselves without a second thought, but it is all supported by your work, sweat and tears. They steal from you with the same disregard. If they are so concerned about money, they should actually work to be fair. Imagine my saying that. Anyhow, I’d say the government is pretty close to megalomania, if not a classic case. (Consider the word: ‘psychopath’) Well, we are no longer at the top of the political power chain, so what does that tell you? They would happily put derogatory labels on you, but I know that in general, this is hardly the case. With this in mind, the Third Reich thought itself infallible, but anyone that knows history know that nations rise and fall. It’s been happening since the beginning of governance. So too, this glorious nation sees itself in the same light. I just thought you should know why the nation is where it is. Judges call it federalism. The sane call it federal megalomania. Money says, “In God We Trust.” Really now. How you choose to react is up to you.

Creative Commons License
Governmental Megalomania 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.

US Child Support: The Loaded Gun

child support loaded gunWhere child support law is concerned skeptics abound. However, the attitude of the court flies in the face of the law ideal that you are “innocent until proven guilty.” You are guilty because the court log says you are. You are late in paying support, no excuses accepted. The nation in the grip of an economic crisis has no bearing in their view on your personal situation. Your ability to afford an attorney even though the cost is prohibitive at best is not their concern. Even after the court has determined that a “payor” has legitimately lost his job or suffered an involuntary decrease in salary for any reason, the court system of oppression is not content. They assume you are a shiftless, lazy, deceptive person that wants to take every opportunity to leach money from others and that you purposefully intend that you will not pay child support unless they squeeze you hard enough. The inquiry into your work condition and personal circumstances never ends once the child support amount is NOT received exactly on time.

The system doesn’t care about your personal difficulties, or even if you have a place to live or the means to get a job to support the government child support industry. However, if you fail to make a payment or do anything that is insisted that you do, you do yourself an injustice by letting them rake you over the coals without any opposition, or without so much as a response or communication. Giving up is giving up on yourself. Negatively speaking, they intend to bring the full burden of law against you if they can, to make the prospect of your life worse. The idea is that they intend fill you with fear, and that fear is what will get you to comply whether you are able or not. They will inquire continually as to what steps the child support “payor” has taken to secure new employment or to address the reduction in income. In other words, once you have a court order for child support, they expect you to pay the full amount no matter what or there will be hell to pay with financial and physical oppression as they deem appropriate. The court will be unsympathetic and skeptical, even when the “payor” has become disabled and cannot work. The contempt the court has for “payors” who were unable to reverse the downturn in their financial position is aptly demonstrated by the trial judge’s choice words for the “payor”:

“The court finds that the defendant has no intention of finding substantial employment in his or any other field. This court finds that defendant has found his niche in this world, in that he is maintaining a high lifestyle without having to work for it. To use the vernacular, he has made it. This court finds that defendant is content to sit back and become a complete human parasite…permitting a succession of fiancées, friends and relatives to provide for him so as to enable him to live in and maintain a lifestyle commensurate with his self-imposed high standard of living, while his children are reduced to the status of virtual beggars. He professes love and concern for them, yet this court finds a complete lack of same. Defendant’s application for modification of child support is denied.” (Harris v. Harris, 235 NJ Super 434 (Ch.Div. 1989)

Proving a legitimate decrease in income is not enough. The “payor” must show that he has actively sought to redress the situation and that he continues to do so:

“[O]ne cannot find himself in, and choose to remain in, a position where he has diminished or no earning capacity and expect to be relieved of or to be able to ignore the obligations of support to one’s family. We do not scold defendant for the loss of his previous job. What we do say is that this apparently able-bodied defendant cannot sit back and allow his child to go without support, while he somewhat complacently waits for a job only in his field.”

In cases where the “payor” has been terminated from his job, the “payor” is expected to provide a list of all employers to which he has applied since the termination. Copies of job applications should be attached as exhibits, together with call back or rejection letters from potential employers. They intend to make your non-compliance and life-reversal as painful and difficult as possible. Business owners who have suffered from decreased business should explain with specificity the steps they have taken to foster new business through advertisement, solicitation, and client incentives, or to decrease business expenses by making across the board cuts. “Payors” who were employed in a specific niche should explain the limitations on their employability and why they may not be attractive to various employers outside their given field. In the event a “payor” totally abandons his prior field and changes careers, the “payor” must be ready to justify this career change as the best alternative under the circumstances, and only after attempting unsuccessfully to find employment in his prior field and at his prior income.

loaded gun

A well-worded acquaintance of mine referred to United States law making in this way: “If a certain ideology wants unauthorized Constitution power, or wants to overcome rights forbidden by the Bill of Rights, then let the faction obtain a consensus and change the law under Article Five. It is unacceptable to use rationalization and sophistry for judicial activist law-making from the bench. It is unacceptable to establish progressive precedence and then capriciously use stare decisis to persist with an unconstitutional agenda.”

As it stands, when deciding modification applications for even the most just purposes, judges will demand more than “conclusory statements” about the state of the economy without any detail as to how the economy has specifically affected a particular applicant’s job or business. You will have to walk the plank. When you find yourself in difficulty, you will find yourself on trial in the face of bad attitudes across the board. You are useless trash to the system because you have not delivered the required demands of the system in place. This and actions like it against American citizens are part of an ongoing eugenics movement that wants to control not only what they view as undesirables, but also to control the children of the nation as much as possible. You may want to live a peaceful life, but that isn’t what they want. They seek to eliminate the slum elements of society or those that refuse to comply eagerly with their demands. They want you to be eager to satisfy their demands. The rights of an American citizen and the protections afforded him or her are ignored, and disregarded wholesale. That is the dark legal world that Americans live in since the advent and corruption of the legal system through the ‘myth of legal precedence.’  The terms of the past is exactly what is required for all time until your obligation is spent. As far as adherents of legal precedence are concerned, you are a slave of the system without a way out, no matter what. After all, it’s your life, not theirs. You exist to be exploited based on whatever terms the system deems fit. Whether this is ‘legal exploitation’ or not matters not a whit. The Constitution no longer matters. We live in a brave new world. That is the legal spawn of the Bradley Amendment and legal precedence.

Human Slavery & Trafficking in the USA

Creative Commons License
US Child Support: The Loaded Gun 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.

Anniversary of Bradley Amendment Continues Child Support Discussion

by Killeen Gonzalez

May 5, 2011, marks the 25th anniversary of the controversial Bradley Amendment. In 1986, the Bradley Amendment was enacted into federal law as an amendment to Title IV of the Social Security Act thanks to the likes of then-Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley.

What is the Bradley Amendment?

The Bradley Amendment is a series of laws that were designed to prohibit non-custodial parents from having their child support arrears reduced or eliminated regardless of the circumstances. In addition, the amendment allowed child support enforcement workers to disregard changes in a non-custodial parent’s circumstances like job loss, incarceration, military service or physical disability in certain instances.

Furthermore, it gave the same workers the ability to pursue legal remedies against the non-custodial parent the moment a payment was missed without having to first go through a quasi-judicial or judicial proceeding. These legal remedies included asset seizure, un-expiring property liens, driver’s license suspension, professional license suspension, suspension of voting privileges and incarceration.

Why is the Bradley Amendment Controversial?

Opponents believe that, in part, by granting such capabilities to child support workers, the Bradley Amendment effectively disregarded the non-custodial parent’s constitutional rights of due process and equal protection as well as disregarded the unconstitutionality of what equates to nothing more than a “debtors’ prison.”

The rights of due process and equal protection were given to Americans after the Civil War as part of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although 14th Amendment violations are most often cited by social advocacy groups, arguments have also been made that the Bradley Amendment violates the fifth, eight, ninth and 10th amendments as well.

Due process essentially ensures that all Americans are entitled to be heard in their own defense, have a right to legal representation even if they cannot afford a lawyer on their own, have a right to a fair and public trial with a jury of one’s peers and property taken by the government may only be done for public purposes and the government must reimburse that person the fair market value for that property.

The right of equal protection goes hand in hand with the right to due process and is designed to keep states from unfairly applying its laws to individuals under their jurisdiction. In this case, opponents of the Bradley Amendment believe that the laws are unfairly applied against the poor.

According to the Southern Center for Human Rights, in the state of Georgia alone there are over 500 non-custodial parents who are incarcerated over failure to pay child support. Of those non-custodial parents currently incarcerated, the majority were not given legal representation and are considered indigent.

The group’s website also cites that 70 percent of outstanding child support debt in this nation is owed by non-custodial parents who make less than $10,000 a year. According to the federal government’s poverty guidelines for 2011, an individual making $10,890 or less a year in most states is considered poor. This gives credence to the argument that the Bradley Amendment unjustly targets people living at or below poverty level.

Furthermore, another item that has been called into question related to the Bradley Amendment and the child support system as a whole is the money trail associated with child support enforcement. What many people may not realize is that not all money collected by child support enforcement workers goes to the custodial parent; some of it goes to the state and federal government to pay welfare debts.

Moreover, the state receives matching federal funds. Those matching funds then go, in part, to pay the salaries of the child support workers, as well as the law enforcement and legal representatives who assist them in collection efforts.

In addition, once a person is incarcerated, some prisons charge fines and fees to the inmates for such things as room, board and medical costs. Such was the case in Clinch County, Georgia, where detainees at the Clinch County Jail were unlawfully charged $18 a day for room and board regardless of whether they were later found innocent and released. A civil class action lawsuit was eventually filed on behalf of those detainees; the judge ruled that the sheriff had to return all illegal fees.

Challenges to the Bradley Amendment, Past and Present

Since its inception, the constitutionality of the Bradley Amendment, and child support in general, have been repeatedly called into question throughout the nation. Early cases in point include one from the Massachusetts District Court, one from Florida’s Sixth Judicial Court as well as the case of Michelle Sweat, which was heard in Georgia by Superior Court Judge C. Diane Perkins in February 2002. The judges in each of those cases found aspects of child support laws to be unconstitutional.

From 2004 through 2006, there were moves made on behalf of the American people to get both the courts and the U.S. Congress to repeal the Bradley Amendment entirely on the basis that it is unconstitutional. The case was ultimately dismissed in February 2006. That, however, was not the end of the discussion by any means.

In July 2008, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama and Sen. Evan Bayh came under fire for their introduction of the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, which was also seen as unconstitutional by some groups. The introduction of the act revived the earlier arguments against the Bradley Amendment, which brings us to the most recent challenge made to the constitutionality of the law.

On March 22, the Southern Center for Human Rights filed a civil rights class action lawsuit on behalf of six non-custodial parents from several Georgia counties. At this time, the case is still pending.

Sources:

Congressional Research, “The Bradley Amendment: Prohibition against Retroactive Modification of Child Support Arrearages” Congressional Research

Associated Press “Parents Sue Ga. Over child support jail time” The Augusta Chronicle

The Law Office of the Southern Center for Human Rights, “Debtor’s Prison” Southern Center for Human Rights

The Law Office of Southern Center for Human Rights, “Georgia Deprives Children as Indigent Parents Languish in Debtor’s Jail for Inability to Pay Child support” Southern Center for Human Rights

William Akins, “Why Georgia’s Child Support Laws are Unconstitutional” Georgia Bar Journal

Cornell University Law School, “Equal Protection” Cornell University Law School

E Manning, “Obama Attacks Constitutional Rights of Non-Custodial Parents” Newsvine.com

Center for Law and Social Policy, “Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Family Act of 2007” Center for Law and Social Policy

Christine Vestal, “Child Support Enforcement Takes a Hit” Stateline.org

U.S. Department Health and Human Services, “The 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines” ASPE.hhs.gov

Phyllis Schlafly, “Repeal the Bradley Amendment” Restoring America

Alliance for Non-Custodial Parent’s Rights, “U.S. District Court of MA Civil Docket” ANCPR.com

Divorcenet “The Bradley Amendment: How Does it Affect Men’s Child Support” Divorcenet.com

Unemployment: The Plight of Non-Custodial Parents

plight of non-custodial parents

The concept of child support was originally designed to be dynamic and flexible, going up and down as parental income changed. Child Support has become a national battleground for civil rights that is being ignored. You can make a difference.

The Plight of Non-Custodial Parents During Unemployment

on Associated Content.

The Reality of Parental Alienation Blight

by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist

“I don’t care if the judges and the lawyers die of heart attacks in the process of getting their job done. They are corrupt, inefficient, lazy, stupid — they’re the most God-awful people.” These are the words of popular actor Alec Baldwin after a minefield experience in the U.S. family courts. Regardless of how many men have felt the same way, Alec Baldwin finally lends a voice to abused men in the court system.

According to ABC News, Baldwin believes that many family court lawyers and their manipulations and delays make the child custody duel much worse than it needs to be. “The judges are like pit bosses in Vegas casinos. Their job is to make sure everybody stays at the table and keeps gambling.”

The casino reference is based on the fact that the family court debacle is neverending: a heartrending, expensive and impossible situation for most men, particularly when the “little ex” proves to be vindictive and abusive, even turning children against fathers.

Most divorced dads have become strangely familiar with a national disease referred to as parental alienation syndome. In most cases, nothing could have prepared newly divorced dads for what they would face in the land of the free and home of the brave.

Yet, neither freedom or bravery come to mind as men are continually beat down by a system that dispassionately disregards men as nothing more than beasts of burden. Thoughts of leaving the country, sinking into the mires of endless depression or ending life are common responses to the negative reenforcement that the federal government and judges across the board show divorced men. Baldwin was so distraught that he lashed out hysterically at his daughter in a famous phone call promoted by the national media. While Baldwin might have been a little over the top, he creates a national identity for abused dads in a system that favors only women and children coupled with the political expedience that continues to destroy the family long after the family is dissolved.

This tale is not one of complaint, but one of real hope and change. Men are not debris in a maternally-ordered society. America has built itself up as a champion of freedom. Recent years of corruptive politics and negative press have turned politics and family courts into a socialist regime, undermining the freedom and civil beauty that made the idea of the United States great. Society has corrupted itself, fashioning the tools of order into weapons of abusive emotion and policy grounded in nothing more than entitlement attitudes. Feminists and other socially-oriented individuals and corporate bodies have promoted children’s rights over any other in the vain attempt for power and influence to radicalize the political scene in their favor.

Insane jealousy and hatred always need vindication. For the last thirty years, America has become a hotbed of everything it used to hate: unconstitutional laws and hurtful abusive policy that eliminate human and civil rights instead of promoting them. Until America resolves these laws and works to reverse the blight of parental alienation, the nation has no right to promote itself as a lover of freedom and human rights to the world regarding the lack of freedom and oppression that it actively promotes. Until this blight of parental alienation is reversed and the Bradley Amendment is repealed, we are a nation of hypocrites. ~ E. Manning

Read an excerpt from Alec Baldwin’s new book.

No Stimulus Checks for Parents Behind on Payments

Because of the 2008 Economic Stimulus, child support collections are way up. The Bradley Amendment has made it possible for the states and the federal government to collect on late payments. For a large number of non-custodial parents behind on their support, stimulus checks were intercepted and forwarded to custodial parents.

The recent economic stimulus checks have paid off for mothers and children across the nation who have not had consistent support. Most states can divert monies if a parent is more than $500 behind on Bradley debt as well diverting federal tax refunds and lottery winnings.

“Too many of our delinquent parents do not file tax returns or they go into hiding; but for the ones that do file, this is one method we can use to help children and families,” a Virginia representative was quoted as saying in the July 17 news release.

The economic stimulus has made attorneys general across the nation look very good indeed with a captive workforce in place. None of this really mattered to the terminally unemployed and severely underemployed American parents that have been plowed under by state and federal law sponsored by the Bradley Amendment. This is the lower income segment of an American subclass heavily impacted without choice or recourse in America, an element whose civil rights have been stripped away in the name of civil rights for moms and kids. They didn’t qualify for a stimulus payment even if they were fortunate enough to have a home address.

Tag Cloud