A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘constitutional rights’

The War on Fatherhood in the United States

The South Carolina Killing & the Child Support Racket

by Phyllis Schafly

Scott-police-fatal-shootingWhy was Walter Scott running away from a policeman who tried to stop him because of a broken tail light? The media are trying to make a South Carolina policeman’s killing of a black man, Walter Scott, another sensational case of racism, but the media have missed the point of the tragedy.

The problem wasn’t racism, or even dangerous driving or stolen property. It was caused by the obnoxious anti-father rulings of the family courts and Scott’s fear that he would be returned to debtors’ prison. Scott had already been jailed three times for failure to pay child support, and he didn’t want to be sent to prison again.

captiveDebtors’ prisons were common in England in the colonial period. You can read about them in the writings of Charles Dickens, who wrote from firsthand knowledge; his own father spent time in a debtors’ prison.

We kicked out British rule by the American Revolution and abolished some of its trappings, such as royalty and its titles, primogeniture and bowing to our top national official. We thought we abolished debtors’ prisons even before we abolished slavery, but they continue to exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely labeled “child support.”

We say “falsely” because the money collected from the poor guy usually doesn’t go to his kid or her mother. It just supports the welfare-state bureaucracy.

Of course, it wasn’t wise to try to outrun the policeman’s gun, but this sad event should make us re-evaluate the policy of repeatedly sending a penniless man to jail for failure to pay so-called child support.

These guys don’t have the money to hire a defense lawyer, which he should be given when jail is the cost of losing the case.

burning the constitutionWhen corporations can’t pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar over many years. But a man can never get an alleged “child support” debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless, homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly), can’t afford a lawyer, serving in our Armed Forces overseas, isn’t the father, or never owed the money in the first place.

The reason “child support” debt can never be reduced by the court is the Bradley Amendment, named after a Democratic senator from New Jersey and one-time presidential candidate. That law should be repealed.

Fifteen years ago, a family court judge threw Scott in jail because he hadn’t made his child support payments on time, and that meant he lost his $35,000-a-year job at a film company, “the best job I ever had.” He then found some odd jobs but couldn’t make enough money to make the support payments the government demanded.

indigent in AmericaThe whole idea that a poor man is expected to support two households, including one with a child he never sees and may not even be his, is contrary to common sense and to all human experience. In too many cases, DNA investigations revealed that the poor guy is not the father of the kid for whom he is ordered to pay child support.

Scott seemed to turn a corner, but after making a couple of payments he fell behind again and was sent back to jail. He said, “This whole time in jail, my child support is still going up.”

Walter Scott’s older brother, Anthony Scott, told the Charleston Post and Courier, “Everybody knows why he ran away.” A bench warrant had been issued for his arrest for failure to pay enough child support.

A survey of county jails in South Carolina found that at least one out of every eight incarcerated people is there for not paying so-called child support. All this imprisonment is imposed without any jury trial, due process, or the benefit of a lawyer to defend the guy.

According to CUNY Law School professor Ann Cammett, an expert on incarcerated parents who owe child support, “We have zero evidence that it works. If the goal of the child support system is to get support for children, parents can’t do that if they’re incarcerated.”

kangaroo courtOne case on this issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, but it didn’t produce much relief. Michael Turner of South Carolina argued that his constitutional rights had been violated because he didn’t have a lawyer at his hearing, even though jail was the penalty if he lost. The Court ordered some minimal “procedural safeguards,” but didn’t tackle the issue of giving a father the fundamental right of due process before sending him to jail.

We hope Walter Scott’s death may help some dads in the future who are unfairly treated by the family courts, not given a lawyer, denied due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Advertisements

Police, Courts & Your Constitutional Rights

by Scott Morgan

debtor's prison - tyrannySan Francisco Examiner reported on a series of controversies surrounding constitutional violations by SFPD officers last year.

Private attorney Robert Amparan said at a news conference at Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s office that a judge had just thrown out his client’s felony marijuana possession for sale case because video evidence contradicted the officers’ testimony in court and statements on the police report.

Amparan said 23-year-old McLaren Wenzell did not consent to letting the officers inside his apartment at 33rd Avenue and Geary Boulevard on March 1. He said the officers did not immediately identify themselves as police and did not have a constitutional basis to search the apartment. This issue isn’t about drugs, it’s about your Constitutional Rights versus the current execution of statutes and policies.

In the course of my work to educate the public about how to properly exercise constitutional rights during police encounters, a reaction I hear frequently is, “What’s the point? They’re just going to search me anyway.” Well, as you can see in the story above, police can get busted for bad behavior, and when they do, the evidence is often declared inadmissible. Think about this: if the suspect had instead given consent for the search, there wouldn’t have been any question about the legality of the police entry, and he would have been convicted. The only reason things worked out for him is because he refused the search and relied on his constitutional rights for protection.

But the critical point here goes beyond what happened to this particular suspect in this particular case. Keep in mind that the legal significance of refusing a police search applies whether or not you’ve broken the law, and whether or not police break the law. If officers plant evidence, damage your property, or otherwise disrespect your home, it’s almost impossible to challenge their actions if you gave them permission to come inside. That’s how the law works, and the fact that police sometimes violate it gives you more reason to know and assert your rights, not less.

 

Paternity Fraud and the Law

dna-paternityIt’s a sad sight in society when a man must ask if a child is his. This reflects on both the plight of men and women. Yet, more and more, that is exactly the question that must be asked because of rampant infidelity and the outright moral collapse of the nation and perhaps the modern world.  This sad morality has become the norm.

Naturally, when confronted by the reality of feminine moral ownership, the little woman typically takes the easy way out.  How would some women know anyway in many cases? The man believes her, often because of his lack of moral ownership or naivety.  He pays to support the child, often taking the child as his own and later finds out the child isn’t his seed, sometimes after years of marriage and a bitter divorce that just as often involves maternal infidelity. To make matters worse, children are commonly stripped from their real or provisional fathers to satisfy the maternal lust for power and control. In many  states, after two years, the man is stuck with paternity whether true or false. The Bradley Amendment guarantees that legal corruption of reality. As a result, a man is often legally obligated to support the child of another man without recourse of any kind.

dad-slavery-2What is worse, Americans have come to accept the fact that this nation no longer operates by the Constitutional Law that the nation was founded on in favor of the ‘myth of legal precedence’. ‘Who cares as long as life is good for me?’ is the chief attitude across the board, extending into the realm of politics.

UNICEF and liberal interpretation has further muddied the waters as politicians seek to work compassion in their personal favor. Federal legislation in family law commonly tramples on the rights of Americans and prevents correction of law that flies in the face of Constitutional Rights of now civilly-impaired citizens. As a result, America has a new subclass of adult Americans in the name of mock moral outrage.

While this legal situation in America might make a great case for abstinence, in the married realm and in a perfect world, such legislation should be unnecessary. I don’t need to tell you that we don’t live in a perfect world: far from it. The American Association of Blood Banks notes a 30% false paternity rate.

paternity-testing1Paternity fraud is one example where laws must change for the better where balance is concerned.  As it stands, in many states, a man named as the father must contest paternity within a statutory period of time whether he has any reason to doubt his paternity or not.  Every man involved in a divorce and every single man that may have fathered a child needs to have DNA testing for each child.  As I said, this is a great case for abstinence and certainly a better case for decent and fair law that complies with Constitutional Rights since a man cannot trust the woman he loves in modern America.

Unfortunately, the U.S. government is empowered by single women, the welfare state, support collection and family tax law through social engineering and architecture. It is time to get serious. Petition your representatives and state legislatures to enact laws allowing men to file suit to establish paternity when they come to know or discover that a child is not theirs. Currently, the federal Bradley Amendment abolishes this possibility, thus violating the states’ rights as well as civil and human rights across the board: all in the name of money and political power. Congress won’t even correct the blight against the nation’s military men in service to the country. You can change that. Do you care or does the nation face moral oblivion?

~ E. Manning

Losing Dad; Losing Children the "Legal Way"

Generally, when children of divorce are losing a parent, they are losing their dad. Studies still show that social acceptability of divorce does not stop the ravages of family breakdown and damage to children, let alone the damage to society as a whole.

The fact that divorce happens at all when children are young has proved that the life damage results in unemployment, unskilled citizens, large welfare rolls as adults and depression.

The federal Bradley Amendment helps to cement this issue in place. Mothers can easily cut dads out of the lives of their children, receive welfare, public services and child support simultaneously while living a life of wanton abandon if they choose. Fathers are often forced to work multiple jobs without relief to support a system that is broken and fails to address anything beyond the superficial needs of children. These superficial needs are considered as “rights” while many women relish in the feeling of power and control.

Recently, a man in Texas was awarded 50 years of jail time for the failure to pay child support. The article says nothing about the case or cause, simply a headline for vindictive characters to rally around.

Mothers often parade around “children’s rights”. Men say something different.

“Family court corruption is real. There are good fathers and they are bad ones. I find it funny that there is no talk about bad mothers. The cost of living isn’t because of bad fathers. This is not about the kids; this is about money, tax money. I love my son and I always been there for him until the day the courts came into our lives. My son would never go without… The courts pushed me out of my sons’ life and made me a pay check. I hate the Judges and the people who back them up. They know they are hurting the kids. You make me pay money and allow me to see my son every other weekend. After 12 years of all I have done. The late night feedings, diaper changing, trips to the park. I have invested my life into him. The government took it all away.”

“Because of the horror of what DHS has done to me and my family I must do what others in similar situations have done throuhout the ages. We must either flee the tyranny or fight for our God-given rights. Because I have no right to have any money, because I have no right to operate a motor vehicle I can not flee. Because I have no right to competent legal counsel, because I have no right to plead in court for my rights or the rights of my children I must fight the only way I have left for I am in the corner.”

Barack Obama Attacks Non-Custodial Parents

Senators say men must take responsibility for raising their children.

Back on Father’s Day, Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama made what was supposed to be inflammatory comments against absentee fathers, notably African-American ones. Barack Obama, like many Democrats, seems to have plenty on his mind that he isn’t saying clearly.

Democrats are sponsoring an effort through Senators Barack Obama and Evan Bayh to intensify child support enforcement. On the surface, this appears to be a good idea. However, what is not said is that major areas of child support law are absolutely unconstitutional, sponsored by Democrats and others as far back as the Bradley Amendment in the 1980s. None of the federal law has been repealed.

The country has a national epidemic of absentee fathers. This much may be true as statistics reveal, but Senators are looking at a symptom rather than a cause. However, creative Democrats have designed “The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 as their latest social engineering effort.

The legislation claims to offer support for fathers trying to do the right thing while cracking down on men that avoid “parental responsibility”. The bill is designed to provide fathers with “innovative job training” and other nameless economic opportunities while using a typical social engineering tool called the “Earned Income Tax Credit.” Hillary Clinton favored the same kind of tactics. The idea is to “help” non-custodial parents to support their families.

Combined with the unconstitutional Bradley Amendment and other similarly-styled state laws, the idea is designed to encourage the idea of outright slavery to government authority in the name of doing the right thing because, after all, the government is always there to help honest men. The track record of politicians since the Clinton presidential daze has proved otherwise as feminists took advantage of opportunities to oppress men in the name of child law, welfare reform and rightful propriety.

The “Bayh-Obama legislation” is designed to strengthen violence prevention services, once again looking at symptoms rather than causes. The proposed law is supposed to ensure that money paid for child support goes “directly to children and their mothers”, without loss of food assistance for eligible families. The same old stinking thinking that mothers are without cause in the whole process of divorce and child-rearing is offensive. The fact that politicians want to green-stamp domestic violence by supporting negative parental attitudes, including sexual immorality is even more reprehensible. Women and men are not saints and law needs to stop treating them like saints.

Senator Evan Bayh stated, “Fatherlessness is an issue many politicians would prefer to avoid, but elected officials have a moral obligation not to sit idly by while communities crumble because of the epidemic of absentee fathers. I am not naïve enough to believe that government alone can solve this problem, but together we can play a constructive role in crafting policies that attack the root causes of this epidemic.” Unfortunately, government tactics of the past have not and do not encourage family-building, but rather societal destruction.

It can be argued that the welfare system and even child support measures are a wonderful thing for many. However, the cost to the country cannot be unconstitutional state and federal laws that are supported by politicians. For example, the federal Bradley Amendment along with a flotilla of state laws that support the violation of a number of Constitutional Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Currently these Constitutional Rights are actively violated as well as other civil rights:

1. violation of due process under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
2. deprives equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment

In a typical multi-pronged attack, the U.S. House of Representatives has companion legislation that is being introduced by Democrats Julia Carson and Danny Davis. Earmark spending is certain to follow as the legislation is crafted and agreed upon between the two legislative bodies.

Last year, Congress passed legislation based on a proposal introduced by Senator Bayh that provided up to $50 million each year for the next five years in funding for responsible fatherhood programs nationwide as part of a spending reconciliation bill to prepare for future legislation that is on the board now.

Does this political scene sound like the new politics of hope to you?

Did Senator Obama Bash Men on Father's Day?

There has been attention in the media and by many of my fellow bloggers that state that presidential candidate Barack Obama bashed black fathers and fathers in general. Recently discovered is a social engineering agenda that he has recently revealed. He has proved that beyond the “hope” platform, he is a true blue Democrat. How?  Democrats cannot stay away from social engineering of child support legislation. He has picked up a large measure of Hillary Clinton’s agenda masquerading as the The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act.

“Still, I know the toll that being a single parent took on my mother – how she struggled at times to the pay bills; to give us the things that other kids had; to play all the roles that both parents are supposed to play. And I know the toll it took on me. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle – that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls; that if I could give them anything, I would give them that rock – that foundation – on which to build their lives. And that would be the greatest gift I could offer.”

…“The first is setting an example of excellence for our children…It’s up to us – as fathers and parents – to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It’s up to us to say to our daughters, don’t ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It’s up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we live glory to achievement, self respect, and hard work. It’s up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives.”

…”The second thing we need to do as fathers is pass along the value of empathy to our children. Not sympathy, but empathy – the ability to stand in somebody else’s shoes; to look at the world through their eyes….And by the way – it’s a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers are doing their part; if they’re taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and empathy, then our government should meet them halfway.”

…“We should take all of these steps to build a strong foundation for our children. But we should also know that even if we do; even if we meet our obligations as fathers and parents; even if Washington does its part too, we will still face difficult challenges in our lives. There will still be days of struggle and heartache. The rains will still come and the winds will still blow.”

“And that is why the final lesson we must learn as fathers is also the greatest gift we can pass on to our children – and that is the gift of hope.”

And he concluded with what it means to have a life worth living. It isn’t a life trying to beat all others in the game of acquiring more and more. It is much more important that that:”

“When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me – how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want.”

“But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. And what I think about is what kind of world I’m leaving them. Are they living in a county where there’s a huge gap between a few who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day? Are they living in a county that is still divided by race? A country where, because they’re girls, they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do? Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don’t cooperate effectively with other nations? Are they living a world that is in grave danger because of what we’ve done to its climate?”

The bottom line is this: millions of devoted dads need nothing more than access to their kids, fair treatment and equal protection of their fundamental parental AND CONSTITUTIONAL rights. The court system has violated those rights ALMOST ACROSS THE BOARD, including basic constitutional rights. Some states, like West Virginia, are beginning to see the truth regarding their unconstitutional laws and repealing them. Could the pendulum of oppression be swinging the other way? The federal government needs to do the right thing: repeal the Bradley Amendment and restore order to America.

So far, politicians have ignored the Bradley Amendment and harm done by anti-fatherhood laws. What will you do? Will you take up your pen and tell what you think?

Tag Cloud