The Homeless Dads: The Bad Deal Divorce

John McElhenney still tries to see the balance in his divorce decree. But after losing everything twice, he’s convinced we men need to fight for equal consideration after the marriage has ended.

The typical divorce is actually pretty painful. The standard DEAL is almost an assault to fatherhood, and we need to fight to change it. In the most common arrangement, Mom gets the kids and house, dad gets the child support payment. It’s how things used to work. But today, unfortunately, the courts still go by this structure unless there is significant fight to something difference.

There are a few problems with this pattern.

The non-custodial parent is assumed to be a deadbeat when they are calling the AG’s office. You are segmented into custodial or non-custodial parent at the beginning. If you are the non-custodial parent the only reason you’d be calling is you are behind on your child support.

When we complain about unavailable dads, or dads that check-out after divorce, here are a few of the reasons why.

1. The child support burden is a lot of money.
2. Dads might be resentful of the “money only” role they are being put in.
3. When dad is asked to leave the marital home they are often forced to move in with family members or friends, this is largely because of the cost of child support.
4. In addition to $500+ per kid in child support (estimate) the dad is also asked to pay for health insurance. (Today, in my case this is an additional $1,200 per month with two kids.

So let’s see, I’ve got no home. I’m paying $1,200 a month for child support and $1,200 a month for health care. How can I afford an apartment? If I don’t have a killer job ($2,400 after tax expenses before I get a dollar for myself or my survival. Well, that’s a pretty steep hill to climb.

IF the playing field were equal, I would guess a lot more divorces would be negotiated in good faith. Today, even if you declare a collaborative divorce, the issue of money is liable to strike the dad in the pocketbook in a way the mom, to start out with, does not even have to consider. RARE is the case where the dad is given full custody and the mom pays child support.

Shouldn’t we start with 50/50 in both financial responsibility AND parenting time? This is the fight we are fighting in the courts today. I’m considering going back to court to reset the arrangement. I was attempting a collaborative divorce, but in the end I was handed this lopsided deal. I have to earn over $3,000 per month (taking taxes out BEFORE I pay the mom) before I have a chance at even putting food on the table.

This leaves a lot of dads as deadbeats, not because they are actually trying to shirk their responsibility, but because the mom and the court have saddled them up with so much financial liability that they cannot afford to make the payments each month. At that point the dad is subject to financial liens, foreclosure, and checking account freezes.

You know what happens when the AG’s office freezes your account?

1. The bank charges you $57 – $150 for the freeze.
2. The bank processes no further payments (rent, car payments, even your child support payments)
3. You bounce checks.
4. You’re credit get’s screwed.
5. You end up with an additional $200 – $400 in fees.

And you know what the AG’s officer will tell you? (The Humans Of Divorce, Dear AG’s Office Special Cases Officer Mr. McK!)

Fair treatment of fathers begins at the beginning of the relationship. BEFORE you have kids, you can agree to parent 50/50. If that’s the deal, you should have the discussion about if things don’t work out. (I’m not talking prenuptial, just an understanding) In my marriage we started out 50/50, but as soon as she decided she wanted a divorce (yes, it was her idea) the arrangement went to the cutting floor and I was handed the dad deal. A bad deal for everyone.

As the dad can’t afford a nice place for the kids to come visit, they want to come visit less. As mom’s house maintains some of its status and comfort (important for the kids) the dad is left in the cold to fend for himself AFTER he makes all the payments to help the mom stay in the house and live within the lifestyle the couple achieved TOGETHER. Except now it’s not together. And the cooperation you started with before you had kids, becomes a longterm ground war between “the money you owe me” and the money you can afford to pay without suing your ex.

Dad’s are just as important as moms. Even with young kids, the loss of either parent (my dad left when I was 5) is on of the most painful aspects of divorce. For the dad it is doubly devastating: the no longer have a house, and the courts and the AG’s office have now put their credit at risk, making employment and ability to pay even more difficult.

Consider the dads. If you’re a dad consider the courts and get an attorney who can show  you examples of winning in court for fair arrangements.

The money after divorce should be divided equally. Anything else puts man men at risk for debit issues, credit issues, and put them at risk of suicide and depression. Let’s put the balance back in divorce. Give both parents the benefit of the doubt. And both parents should be advocating for a 50/50 split in the same spirit they entered parenthood, with expectations of a 50/50 partnership. That partnership doesn’t end at divorce. But if we load up the man with all of the financial obligations and punish him for being late on a payment or two, we are hurting all the members of the family. The mom loses when the dad’s account is frozen. Even if the mom didn’t want it to happen. Once you’ve asked the AG’s office into your divorce, they never leave. (Inviting the Dinosaur Into Your Divorce)

We need fair divorce laws. We need courts that will listen to the needs of both parents and consider 50/50 parenting as the desired outcome. Until we stand up and fight for equality AFTER marriage we will continue to be on the losing side of the post-marriage equation.

original article

Social Media Attack: Arizona Is Enemy of ‘Deadbeat Dads’

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey announced yesterday the state would begin publicly shaming fathers who owe child support by posting on Twitter their names, photos, and the amount of child support they owe. The Twitter account, run by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), has already shamed its first dad — and Ducey plans to shame a whole lot more.

“For too long, you’ve been able to remain anonymous, able to skirt your financial and legal responsibilities with no shame,” Ducey said during his State of the State address on Monday. “Well here’s a new one for all the deadbeat dads out there: effective immediately, the state is going to begin posting the photos, names and money owed by these losers to social media, with the hashtag ‘#deadbeat.’”

The issue dates back to a 1999 law requiring the DES to post names and photos of individuals who owe child support to its website. Ducey, who said he’s referred to as the “hasthtag governor,” apparently wants to take it a step further for 421 parents who owe what the state considers to be a significant amount in overdue child support, a DES spokeswoman told CNN Monday. Ducey ended the announcement with a stern ultimatum: “If you don’t want your embarrassing — unlawful — and irresponsible behavior going viral: man up, and pay up.” (Doesn’t all the hubris seem strange in light of all the trouble the state of Arizona is having dealing with property liens and back child support issues?)

from the Verge

Sure, this is unconstitutional, but the downward-spiraling United States doesn’t care about that. Are you worried about an online confrontation? You should be. First, if you are stupid enough to blog and use social media with your real name, perhaps you deserve what you are getting when they find your account and start sending you messages. My advice is to close your current accounts if they are in your legal name and open others – or simply try changing your name on your current account. That just might do the job, but it won’t stop them from broadcasting your name. I can imagine that some hackers like Anonymous are going to go after Arizona’s public accounts and social media. After all, these bullies aren’t all that savvy – just bullies with an attitude. – MJR

Texas Can’t Get It Together: Tech Contractors Dismissed

The Federal Government has cut off funding for a massive and long-troubled project aimed at upgrading the system by which Texans make child-support payments. Federal funding makes up two-thirds of the project’s budget. The lifting of the funding freeze is contingent on the state submitting a Corrective Action Plan and updated project schedule that is acceptable to federal officials. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has dismissed 11 technology contractors amid delays in upgrading the state’s child-support data system.

The shakeup of this white elephant comes as state House members are set to begin an investigation into how the costs for a project known as T2 climbed to $310 million. Initial estimates said the project would cost just over $202 million. The project was intended to streamline the data system used to process child-support payments and support investigations.

The dismissals come after reports of failures by state officials and vendor, Accenture, to deliver promised work on time. A spokes for the company said that Accenture is receiving only $79 million and has won multiple awards for its work.

The project started in 2009. The child support division at the attorney general’s office handles more than 1.5 million cases and collects more than $3.5 billion per year, but relies on paper case files, lacks real-time data, is difficult to research, and requires time-consuming workarounds without any centralized security infrastructure to manage access to information.

Hurting for money

The child-support project has drawn criticism because it employs 100 people based in India (getting around US employment law and wages). Paxton’s office said it was hopeful but somewhat uncertain about the future.

“We are currently seeking clarification with (federal officials) regarding the scope and duration of the temporary suspension,” Wise said, “and we anticipate (they’ll) review our responses and release the suspension as soon as they possibly can.”

Texas Plays Dumb

While the future of the eight-year, $310 million project is in the air, the Attorney General’s office insisted it was “nearly finished” with the Corrective Action Plan. It claims to be working with federal officials and the contractor chosen to lead the effort. Paxton was clueless as to why the project was costing more than expected.

The issues have ballooned the costs by more than 50 percent, from an initial estimate of $203 million to the current estimate of $310 million. The project is now expected to have completion delayed in 2017.

Although cost-overruns are not infrequent in state government, the project has drawn special scrutiny because of its size, the nature of the work and the contractor, Accenture, which has had a series of blunders on other major technology contracts. Bad choice Texas – all at taxpayer expense. There’s a saying: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

Some States Are Cutting Poor Dads A Deal On Unpaid Child Support

Many states have opted for oppression when it comes down to child support debt. A few wiser minds are prevailing in a few places. When the state of Maryland wanted to reach dads who were behind on their child support payments, it started in the boarded-up blocks of West Baltimore, in neighborhoods marked by drugs, violence and unemployment.

In just four zip code areas, the state identified 4,642 people who owed more than $30 million in back child support. Most of that was “state-owed,” meaning that rather than going to the child through the custodial parent, it’s supposed to reimburse taxpayers for welfare paid to the child’s mother.

This is a source of great resentment for many men, who say they want their money to go to their children. But most who owe it can’t pay anyway, as they earn less than $10,000 a year.

“So even if we use taxpayer dollars to chase ’em down, and we catch ’em, right, and we go into their pockets, there’s nothing in there,” says Joe Jones of Baltimore’s Center for Urban Families.

Are they deadbeat?

Joseph DiPrimio, head of Maryland’s child support enforcement office, doesn’t like that expression. “I think that’s vulgar. I don’t use it,” he says. DiPrimio prefers “dead broke.”

“We’re talking about individuals that are economically challenged, they’re underemployed, but they want to do the right thing,” he says.

Unpaid child support in the U.S. has climbed to $113 billion, and enforcement agencies have given up on collecting much of it. They say too many men simply don’t have the money.

What’s more, research shows that high child-support debt can leave parents feeling so hopeless that they give up trying to pay it.

Breaking Through The Distrust

Like a growing number of state government officials, Maryland’s DiPrimio wanted to make parents an offer. But he needed their trust, and that was a problem.

Research shows high child support debt can leave parents feeling so hopeless that they give up trying to pay it.

And sting operations to round up parents who owed child support have happened all over the country, including Baltimore. In a typical ruse, agencies have sent fake letters telling parents they won tickets to a football bowl game, for instance — but when they showed up to collect, they were arrested instead.

To break through years of distrust, Maryland sent letters to parents with the logo of the Center for Urban Families, a nonprofit in West Baltimore that provides job training and other help to poor families.

They made this offer: If the parent takes the center’s month-long employment training course and lands a job, the state will forgive 10 percent of his or her child support debt. If they complete a Responsible Fatherhood program, the state will write off another 15 percent. One of the first persons to sign up was a mother, though the vast majority of noncustodial parents are men.

In a separate “debt compromise” program, Maryland will also write off 50 percent of a parent’s child support debt if they maintain monthly payments for a year.

Response has been slow. In two years, slightly more than 100 parents have signed on. Many of them attend fatherhood meetings like one held on a recent Wednesday night. Two dozen men — 20-something to middle age, in sweats and in suits — sit in a large square.

Some complain their exes won’t let them see their child if they haven’t paid child support. Others don’t understand why it doesn’t count as support when they take their kids out to eat, or buy them clothes — or say they would do those sorts of things for their kids if their child support obligation wasn’t so heavy.

Mostly, like 30-year-old Lee Ford, they say it’s so hard to find work

“You telling me no matter what, I gotta pay. But I can’t get a job to work to save my soul,” he says.

Group leader Eddie White cuts no slack. “If you know you got a criminal record, sure it’s gonna be hard for you to get a job. But it don’t mean you can’t work,” White says.

A big part of this class is also educational. White asks the men what a person who is paying child support should do if he gets laid off or loses his job.

“There you go, that’s the word. Immediately,” White says. “Immediately ask the court for an adjustment.”

Other Approaches To Debt Relief

Maryland’s program is part of a larger effort to keep impoverished parents from racking up child support debt in the first place.

Some states are trying to speed up the cumbersome process of adjusting an order when a parent loses a job. Ohio has experimented with sending simple reminders — by phone, mail or text — to parents who need to send in monthly payments. Texas has reached out to newly incarcerated parents, to let them know they can apply to have their payments reduced while in prison — something not all states allow.

“We sent out a teaser postcard trying to combat the ostrich effect,” says Emily Schmidt, a research analyst with the U.S. Administration for Children and Families, who helped with the Texas effort.

Schmidt says there was concern that someone going through the emotional transition of incarceration wouldn’t likely be thinking about child support, and may not even open a letter from the state. So they printed the postcard on blue paper to stand out, and, taking a cue from marketers, it said, “Four easy steps to lowering your child support.”

After 100 days, the response rate among parents was up 11 percent, “a very low-cost intervention for a fairly dramatic effect,” Schmidt says.

The Obama administration wants to “right size” child support orders from the start, and has proposed regulations to make sure they are set according to what parents actually earn. Officials say some jurisdictions base orders on a full-time minimum wage, even if a parent earns far less. They say this can backfire, leaving so little money after a parent’s wages are garnished that he or she quits and works underground instead.

The White House’s proposals also would provide more job training for parents with child support debt — something Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution says is a good investment.

“More fathers will get a job, more fathers will have earnings, and more fathers will use those earnings to pay child support,” he says.

So far, that’s what’s happened in Baltimore. The numbers are small. But the amount of child support that’s been paid is more than double the amount of debt written off.

Maryland wants to expand its child support debt forgiveness program, hoping to help more parents to pay what they can.

The Birth Certificate Scam

ABSTRACT. Long form, short form, birth pledge, estate, cestui que trust, birth bond, BC bond, Treasury account, SSN, SS bond, DTC…

This article explains the series of transactions that comprise the birth scam whereby governments convert the birth of a child into a financial asset to underwrite the public debt and the issuance of substance-shy currency. Dubbed by the author the Uniform Securitization Scheme or USS, this universal pattern of “legalization,” registration, certification, securitization and general deposit is revealed to be a blueprint for virtually every event of our lives involving government, from simple purchases to the most complex banking, economic and Court transactions, in particular the metamorphosis of loan applications into salable securities. The article suggests that a comprehensive understanding of the birth schematic will provide the reader with a new plateau to address the complications when constitutors of the government face enticements to become its subjects. The author states that the article is offered to elevate discussion to a new plateau and assist concerned people in explaining their positions to friends and relatives.

THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME

INTRODUCTION.

There was a time when the joyous event of childbirth was recorded in the family Bible to signify the child’s status as a member of the family’s posterity with implied rights of an heir. To this day, the family Bible remains a lawful record that is recognized in the “legal” system. In 1933, when most privately-held gold was confiscated by the Federal Reserve System under Executive Order 6102 and obligations payable in gold were outlawed under H.J.R. 192 (Public Law 73-10), the substance-backed economy was replaced by a financial system based upon credit (IOU’s) which is currently failing under the weight of it’s own nature. What is that nature?

Like “Seinfeld,” very simply, nothing. Empty promises to pay backed by fraudulent presumptions of informed consent. It’s an economy where the books always add up to zero, where the very nature of bookkeeping had to be altered to disguise the void (double-entry bookkeeping), where the notion of a single entry to explain your purchase of a pack of gum was apparently inadequate to hide the theft of your money, where every asset is also entered as an offsetting liability, where the law itself had to be replaced by commercial hypocrisy, where the sum total of all activity in every government licensed institution, bank, Court and corporation
equals zero each and every day, where transactions which once involved the exchange of goods and services of equal value now involve the exchange of “securities” of equal “value” (nothing) as the term “value” is defined in inferior statutory “law.”

Like “Seinfeld,” the world suffers not so much an economy, as a comedy of errors. Perhaps more correctly, a comedy of frauds wherein the concept of “value” is established by words on the page instead of the perceived value of goods, services and labor at hand; where up is down, black is white, and timeless immorality is perfectly “legal.”

It is a well established fact that the United States is defined as a corporation in Section 3002 of the Judiciary Code. Meaning that the United States judiciary operates under the global presumption that the United States is a corporation, notwithstanding periodic attempts by learned attorneys-at-law to treat this fact casually.

What is a corporation? In essence: nothing. A construction of words on pieces of paper. A contrivance without a soul, sentience or conscience. The question becomes, How does an unconscious paper corporation operating in an economy without substance control the population of living people under the original public trust charter? The answer is self-evident. Organized commercial fraud which applies ancient edifices of commercial sleight-of-hand such as legal fictions, certification, registration and securitization to achieve outcomes which would otherwise be impossible (and certainly repugnant to the Founders). Translation: the machines harness the people’s commercial energy through a Matrix of scripted distractions and diversions wherein fraud, falsehood and fallacy supplant the law until amnesia has become endemic. That system is known as the “legal” system, a profit-inspired veneer for THE universal system of voodoo accounting explained in this article: the Uniform Securitization Scheme which runs invisibly as the operational schematic that underlies all public events be it the birth of a baby, the issuance of currency, economic “bailouts,” a court case, a purchase, a loan, a mortgage or a real estate transaction. Without your awareness, virtually every event of your life which involves a public institution has been covertly superimposed on the underlying Uniform Securitization Scheme (“USS”) revealed in this article, so that the actual events are invisible.

The USS is the EXACT SAME PROCESS used by banks to PLEDGE your credit card and loan applications as the surety for certificates and notes issued by their subsidiaries and sold to investors. Patriot mythology has held that these loan applications are actually securities. As will be revealed, in this instance the legend is true. The evidence is contained in every Rule 424(b)(5) prospectus filed by every bank with the SEC. A Bank of America flowchart published in a 2010 SEC prospectus is included in Appendix B to graphically demonstrate the universality of the USS. This chilling roadmap to the Uniform Securitization Scam may be helpful to review as you read about the pledges, certification, re-deposit and various techniques that comprise the USS.

To understand the Uniform Securities Scheme is to understand the commercial world around you, and the banks, government agencies and Courts that seek to control your life. The author has no objection if a copy of this article is sent to every JUDGE TRUST on the Federal and State benches, and every political prisoner in America.

__________________
I.
THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCAM

The fuel behind the United States Federal corporation, the underlying premise behind every transaction in which you have participated, is the presumption that your labor has been voluntarily pledged to pay the debts of the United States (the public debt). Is this presumption factual or the wild concoction of misguided conspiracy theorists? Is it even remotely possible that the Founders’ descendants are captured as sureties for the escapades of their public officials?

The answer will soon be clear. It will be found by exploring a series of legal maneuvers known as “legalization,” registration, certification, securitization and general deposit which comprise the essence of the Uniform Securitization Scheme (“USS”). That same scheme is used at every stage of the Matrix, from the construction of the birth account to the reverse mortgage you sign on your death bed. To understand the birth certificate scam, is to understand loans, mortgages, purchases, deeds and all the other mirror-image substitutions for good old fashioned truth.

II
THE PLEDGE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE; SECURITY FUTURES

Almost immediately, the blessed event of the delivery of an infant is marred by using its right foot to make an impression on a hospital birth record (HBR). The HBR provides public testimony of the baby’s “birth” on the continent and status as an “owner” of the United States.

Contrary to popular opinion, ownership is not control. In the “legal” system, ownership is defined as a pledge to act as surety for the debts incurred by the property. In the case of the United States, that doctrine is enshrined in Article VI of the Constitution which says:

“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

In other words, the act of registering the child with the United States Federal corporation through a government-licensed hospital comprises THE OWNER’S PLEDGE OF FUTURE LABOR, the “full faith and credit” that underwrites all U.S. currency and public debt under the ancient doctrine that ownership equals liability. After all, who else but the owners would be motivated to pay the bills?

For the sake of skeptical friends and family, here are the sound bites: Who else but the people of the United States stand behind U.S. currency? Does the issuance of a U.S. hospital birth record signify one’s responsibility to pay taxes and underwrite the public debt?

III
OPENING AN ACCOUNT

The HBR is delivered to the incorporated County for the purpose of transmitting the infant’s pledge into the “legal” system. What happens when you transfer property? What must you do when you make a purchase on the internet? What’s the first step in creating a commercial relationship with your doctor, bank and phone company? They open an account in your name.

As with any asset, the incorporate County as the receiving institution must open an account and log it in. The County Registrar opens an account in the County’s books. As you will discover, the sole purpose of every account that has ever been opened in your name is to leverage (issue) future securities. You are unaware of this because you are unaware of the definition of securities.

Opening an account is a boilerplate event in the Uniform Securitization Scam when any bank, Court, corporation or government institution seeks to assess the owner with a portion of the public debt and tap into your Estate to pay the assessment.

IV
REDUCING STATUS TO A NUMBER

As with any account, the County birth account is assigned a number, typically in the format: 123-45-654321. The first number group identifies the corporate State, the second group identifies the year of delivery, and the third group identifies the transaction. This birth identification number will follow the infant throughout his life. The implications are well documented in Scripture.

“And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1).”

You may wish to read about the consequences of that event to the people of Israel. When we participate in a census for purposes other than to glorify the Lord, we can expect to be condemned.

V
RECORDING A GENERAL DEPOSIT; RELINQUISHING TITLE

The registrar then records the HBR in the account as a general deposit, meaning the State takes title to the funds (your future labor/commercial energy) the same way a bank takes title to your deposits when you use the bank’s endorsement stamp to print “PAY TO THE ORDER OF ACME BANK” on the back of a check before depositing it in “your” account. Haven’t you ever wondered why checks are made payable to the bank instead of to your account? The PAY TO THE ORDER OF notation is not just a material alteration under the Uniform Commercial Code.

It creates a brand new security wherein the bank takes your funds for its own purposes and disguises the acquisition by issuing credits to your account. This one act is the mechanism by which the State steals the infant’s Divine right to her own labor and converts it into a numbered account to act as surety for it’s portion of the public debt owed to the banking cartels under the Constitution. The United States now holds the pledge of the minor child’s future labor deposited “voluntarily” by the child’s mother as the foundation for all the future securities it will attempt to issue in your name.

The HBR is then placed into a vault at City Hall or the County Seat or a subsidiary such as Vital Records. Those who are skeptical might wish to examine their own birth certificates alongside a stock or bond certificate and read the definition of securities in Section 78c of Title 15 of United States Code (subparagraph (a)(10)). The internet provides immediate access.

VI
LEGALIZATION OF YOUR PUBLIC ESTATE

Your estate here on earth consists of your inheritance from the Creator: your body, the air you breath, your possessions, the fruits of your labor. However, as with your name, churches, money, law and courts of record, U.S. Inc. intends to create a fictional mirror-image counterpart of your estate in the public venue. This process is known as “legalization.”

Depositing your presumed security future pledge into a public account for the creation of securities “legalizes” your labor into a public estate (“Estate”), a vast account which holds the pledge of your future labor (an IOU) to act as surety for your portion of the public debt.

Every time your straw man is “charged,” the government is seeking to tap into your Estate to pay the assessment. Your Estate is merely a trust which has been designated as insurance to underwrite the public debt and create profits and proceeds for public officials who seek to convert you from a member of the posterity they are sworn to serve into a subject that exists to provide them with commercial energy and position.

VII
CERTIFICATION

The Registrar certifies the deposit of the pledge by issuing a Certificate of Live Birth or Certificate of Birth (so-called long form) which identifies the child, the parents, the date of birth and the date of certification. This one act legalizes the pledge by converting the presumption of pledged labor into a security. Section 8-102(a)(4) of the Uniform Commercial Code defines a “Certificated Security” as “a security that is represented by a certificate.” By issuing the Certificate, the Registrar is confessing
that the hospital birth record is a certificated security, and the County is the depository institution which has taken title to the “funds.”

Certification is the same process used by banks to launder your credit application into an “asset”to be sold to investors. The BOA flowchart in Appendix B provides a graphic confession of thecertification scam. Notice that the BA Master Credit Card Trust II is the certificating subsidiary that certificates your credit card application. What is a credit card application? A pledge. It’s your pledge (security future) to pay the line-of credit that the bank “creates” when they approve your credit card application.

Regarding general deposit and certification, the County and Bank of America are birds of a feather. Both seek to interpret your signature as a pledge of future performance, a security future. The act of certificating the hospital birth record legalizes the infant’s pledge as a security future “asset” for posting as tangible funds in various public accounts as you will see. This is the scheme by which the obligation to perform is transferred from public officials who are sworn to act as
trustees of the public trust, to the hapless “legal” Citizen “strawman” created (as you will see later) to act as a substitute trustee through the process of “legalizing” the infant’s pledge into the public venue.

VIII
REDEPOSIT

The Secretary of the Treasury is notified of the pledge presumably by the transmission of a certified copy of the pledge certificate or electronic record of the County deposit, thereby beginning the Uniform Securitization Scam (create an account, make a general deposit, certificate the “asset,” issue derivative securities as if they’re tax exempt original issues) once again.

The Secretary’ delegates open an account identified by the previously assigned birth certificate number for the sole purpose of leveraging (issuing) securities against your Estate. The infant’s pledge represented by the Certificate of Live Birth is deposited, again generally, providing the “funds” against which future securities will be issued.

THIS IS HOW THE CORPORATION TAPS INTO THE ESTATE TO UNDERWRITE EVERY SECURITY THAT IT ISSUES, every indictment, citation, bill, bond, charging instrument, complaint, summons, arrest warrant, promissory note, assessment and mortgage.

THIS IS WHY THE GURUS HAVE TOLD YOU EVERYTHING IS PREPAID. Under the
UCC, the term “for value” is defined as a pre-paid account. The birth account at Treasury is the prepaid account against which all such assessments, and your setoffs and acceptances “for value” will be drawn. The pre-payment is the long form Certificate of Live Birth representing the security future pledge of future labor.

This is the account that supplies the funds when you mark a bill “charge the same toJOHN HENRY DOE 123-45-6789.”

This is the elusive “Treasury account” prosecutors love to ridicule when prosecuting a patriot. For many patriots, this may be the first time you have understood what you’ve been writing in your acceptances. Without this understanding, how could you possibly hope to enforce them? The potential damage to themselves and the technology when thousands of people issue acceptances without adequate understanding of the processes and cheer each other on in internet groups is self-evident.

IX
CREATION OF A TRUST

When property is transferred, a trust relationship is created. The recipient has an obligation to perform in some fashion such as processing an instrument, protecting the property or delivering a bill. The recipient is therefore a trustee. Section 401 of the Uniform Trust Code confirms that a trust is created upon transfer of property.
SECTION 401. METHODS OF CREATING TRUST.

A trust may be created by:

(1) transfer of property to another person as trustee…

As with any conveyance of property, the deposit of the pledge creates a trust in which the recipient has a trustee obligation to process the instrument. This is the so-called Birth Certificate
trust. It is not the result of some bureaucrat recording a trust, but the natural consequence of a transfer. The birth trust is identified by the original birth number assigned by the County registrar. As you will see, this number represents a variety of accounts, trusts, securities and certificates all derived from the original pledge.

X
RE-ISSUE OF SECONDARY SECURITIES; THE BIRTH BOND

The first security issued from the Treasury account is the birth bond which the United States uses to underwrite its currency. Like the pledge, the birth bond is a certificated book-entry security future, a bet against your future performance, which is re-presented (noticed) into the public by a certificate: the short form Birth Certificate. Like any bond, the birth bond is nothing more than evidence of debt; evidence that the Estate (your labor) is the surety for the infant’s portion of the public debt.

As you may suspect, the purpose of the birth bond is to leverage more securities using the USS template described in this article. The profiteering begins when the birth bond is traded dollar for dollar for money issued by the Federal Reserve, permitting Treasury to place the money into circulation under the premise that it is backed by the people’s “full faith and credit.” The bond is transmitted by the Fed to The Depository Trust Company where it is placed into “safe keeping” for the purpose of re-issuing a vast array of derivative securities, each one written against the pledge and designed to elicit your consent for profiteering.

XI
REGISTRATION

One of the most seemingly benign cogs in the Uniform Securitization Scam, registration, is the process by which a creditor registers a security interest against the owner. Registration is a pernicious method used to take control of “legalized” property by a genuine or presumed secured party under protection of the “legal” franchise and it’s incorporated judiciary. Here are some excerpts from the twelve paragraph operational arrangements published by The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) to govern DTC Direct and Indirect Participants:

“The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, NY, will act as securities depository for the securities (the “Securities”). The Securities will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede & Co. (DTC’s partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC.”

“Purchases of Securities under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Securities on DTC’s records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Security (“Beneficial Owner”) is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants’ records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase.”

There it is in black and white. The birth bond is “registered” to the benefit of DTC. DTC will not even mention the “Beneficial Owner”—the beneficiary—in its records. By combining the terms “beneficiary” (the sole party with the right to enjoy the fruits of the security) with “owner” (the party that’s liable for all of the debts and injuries caused by the security), you have been reduced to the lowest common denominator: an owner. Forget the adjective “Beneficial,” you don’t matter at all. Your only right is to order the sale of the security to the next hapless owner. If this is hard to accept, ask yourself who suffers when the value of a stock certificate registered to DTC suddenly falls. The owner. Who pays the margin? The owner. Who sells at a loss? The owner. Who makes a profit on the sale by having locked in its position as holder of the security?

The Depository Trust Company.

Conversely, as stated by DTC, the Direct Participant (the financial institution that made the deposit, in this case, the Fed) will be credited with the value of the security. This means that DTC will post the birth bond on its books as a credit to the Direct Participant, not you, allowing the Direct Participant to enjoy the increase in net worth, to borrow against the value, to post between 3 and 10 percent of the bond’s value to the Direct Participant’s reserves thereby allowing the Direct Participant to lend out at least nine times the value of the securities using YOUR pledge as the source of credit.

So while your Estate pays all of the bills assessed against the straw man, the Fed enjoys the value of your pledge. IT IS THROUGH THE BOOK-ENTRIES DESCRIBED IN THIS ARTICLE, IN PARTICULAR THE POSTING OF VALUE IN THE RESERVE ACCOUNTS OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS, THAT THE PUBLIC TAPS INTO YOUR ESTATE WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE. In other words, if a Court wishes to assess your Estate, it deposits the indictment security into an account opened in the name of your straw man, and charges the Estate by issuing an arrest warrant security to bring you in for the purpose of consenting to the assessment.

Meanwhile, it is trading against the reserve posting by issuing and trading a Case bond issued from the same account.

XII
RE-ISSUE OF SECONDARY SECURITIES; THE SOCIAL SECURITY BOND

The next security issued by Treasury against the pledge is the master Social Security bond. The purpose of the bond is to create a trust (upon redeposit) which will be used as a vessel to transmit public debt, entice the Estate to act publicly as surety for your portion of the public debt, and transmit funds to the English Crown trust.

XIII
OPENING AN ACCOUNT; SOCIAL SECURITY

Following the Uniform Securitization Scam blueprint, Treasury authorizes the opening of an account to receive the Social Security bond for the customary purpose of leveraging securities.

XIV
REDUCING STATUS TO A NUMBER; SSN

Unlike the birth account maintained by the County and the Secretary of the Treasury, the SS account is assigned a new name and number: JOHN HENRY DOE, SSN 123-45-6789 for the purpose of identifying various derivative bonds to be issued from the account against your Estate (your pledge).

XV
RECORDING A GENERAL DEPOSIT; RELINQUISHING TITLE TO THE SS BOND

As previously described regarding the birth bond, the master Social Security bond is deposited generally into the SS account.

XVI
CREATING A TRUST; SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST

As with any transfer of property, the deposit of the SS bond creates a trust relationship. Over the years, the SS trust, JOHN HENRY SMITH ID # 123-45-6789, has become notorious. But the purpose of the trust is worth repeating: The SS trust will be used as a vessel to transmit public debt, entice the Estate to act publicly as
surety for your portion of the public debt, and transmit funds to the English Crown trust.

The SS trust is a manifestation of debt. It is debt, and nothing more. Internalizing that understanding is helpful to returning control from public officials to the rightful beneficiary that issued the pledge. The trust directives (the terms of the trust) are all the rules and regulations compiled in United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. And guess who is obligated to obey them?…

XVII
PRESUMPTIONS

The Social Security trust is the vehicle used by public officials to plunder the Estate. Upon deposit of the Social Security bond, the Department of the Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service is the trustee of record. But the government bank would rather be the beneficiary. In order to presume that the United States is the beneficiary, Treasury presumes that the straw man account is also a trustee of the SS trust with the obligation to perform all of the trustee’s duties under the public trust. After you accept offers to operate as the trustee on three occasions, the presumption is fulfilled. From then on, the straw man will be treated as a vehicle for transmitting public debt assessments to the Estate by “charging” the straw man for the liability

The stranglehold of the Uniform Securitization Scheme on our lives is BROKEN when we reverse the process and use the SS trust to transmit funds from the Estate to the assessing party upon our express authorization. The name of this process is “setoff.”
__________________
THE UNIFORM IN UNIFORM

Every public transaction mimics the Uniform Securitization Scam. During the $700B bailout of 2008, Treasury issued $700B in bonds, the Fed issued $700B of U.S. money, the bonds were exchanged for the funds and then deposited with DTC following the USS model.

When a prosecutor lodges an indictment with a Court, the Court opens an account, the indictment or information is deposited generally, and an arrest warrant is issued against the indictment which is presumed to be backed by the pledge as manifested in the Estate.

When an attorney lodges a complaint with a Court, the Court opens an account, the complaint is deposited generally, and a summons is issued against the indictment which is presumed to be backed by the pledge as manifested in the Estate.

When you make a withdrawal from at a bank, the bank endorses your draft “PAY TO THE ORDER OF” thereby creating a new security which it posts in its books and exchanges for Federal Reserve Notes, securities of equivalent value.

When you issue a mortgage (promissory) note, the bank opens an account, deposits the note generally thereby taking title to the funds, posts it as an asset and offsetting liability at the full value of the note to the bank (which includes the value of all future interest), and issues a bank check to the seller in the lower face value of the note (uneven exchange), thereby leaving a balance owed to the maker which usually goes unclaimed. the purchase of groceries is also a well-disguised exchange of securities, Federal Reserve Notes, a bank draft or a credit card invoice (security futures) for a cash receipt. In the present economic system of credit swaps, the theft of the groceries without providing equal value is ignored. “It’s the securities, stupid.”

All of these transactions are examples of how the USS manifests in our lives.

CHARGING

To “charge” is to draw funds. How does the public levy the Estate to pay an assessment? The answer is right in front of our face. They charge the strawman account 123-45-6789. Might we follow the same approach if we intend to draw the funds for an acceptance from the Estate?: CHARGE THE SAME TO John Henry Smith ID # 123-45-654321 (birth name and # as they appear on the long form Certif. of Birth) or CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789 (the SS trust as used by the public customarily to transmit debt to the Estate) The latter form more closely mimics the customary business practices of public institutions.

Notice, a patriot favorite, the “exemption number:” 123456789, is not mentioned. It is strongly suggested that the reader does NOT consider this an invitation to start issuing acceptances. The contents of this article is merely scratching the surface regarding such transactions.

EXEMPTION NUMBER
When the redemption movement began in the last millennium, our knowledge was considerably less. While we believed that a private account must appear on the books to receive the funds and property that had been confiscated in 1933, the identity of that account was elusive. The exemption number was a convention to represent that account in our paperwork. We now understand that the birth number is universally applied to all accounts, trusts, securities and certificates associated with the infant’s pledge of our one true commodity, our future labor.

So it appears that the value of the Exemption ID Number has lapsed.

CREDITING

Regarding our setoffs, to “credit” is to apply the funds where desired. If we wish to credit the straw man, we might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789

If we wish to credit a vendor’s account, we might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO ACCOUNT # 123456

We might say: CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789 FOR FURTHER CREDIT TO ACCOUNT # 123456

Or we might say none of that.

CHARGING AND CREDITING

To specify an entire transaction, we might say:
CHARGE THE SAME TO John Henry Smith ID # 123-45-654321
CREDIT THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789
CHARGE THE SAME TO JOHN HENRY SMITH 123-45-6789”
CREDIT THE SAME TO ACCOUNT # 123456

A creditor might also choose to use none of those statements and simply rely upon our acceptance in the manner of a standard banker’s acceptance. It all depends on the circumstances and one’s understanding of the accounting.

AGAIN, READERS ARE CAUTIONED AGAINST UNDERTAKING BRAIN SURGERY WITHOUT A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF PROCESS, ENFORCEMENT AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. DO YOU REALLY WISH TO BECOME ANOTHER STATISTIC WHO LOST THE FAMILY HOME, HAD HER WAGES GARNISHED, OR WOUND UP IN FEDERAL PRISON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS?

Now you can see the tyranny that all men are under.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:10

But enduring it is not enough.

State Admits to Being Dependent on Child Support

reviewed by Moody Jim Rathbone

As the state of Delaware faces fiscal challenges, one area lawmaker, Tim Dukes, says the impact of delinquent child support should not be overlooked. Federal figures indicate nearly $337-million in child support went unpaid in Delaware in Fiscal Year 2014.

Not only does the state collect and hold child support for distribution, but the state corporations receive federal money for successfully collecting child support.

“Unpaid child support is a crisis for thousands of Delaware families affecting our most vulnerable population. Children not receiving support may lack even basic essentials, impacting every aspect of their lives, from their performance in the classroom to their relationships with other children.”

What he isn’t saying is that most of the debt is imaginary. The debt that is legitimate is placed on the backs of the poor population that he claims to be so concerned for.

What he isn’t saying that the state is losing out on approximately $667 million in federal subsidies because they can’t collect $337 million in child support. Are you crying for them yet?

Dukes says the GOP is working in a bipartisan way to develop legislation that would withhold money from court settlements and other financial awards and direct that money to child support obligations.

Write Dukes and tell him to get off the hand-wringing corporate gravy train of pretense. He needs to tell the truth about child support instead of telling half of it, profiting from the ‘goodwill propaganda’ that he makes up. Profiting from child support that often robs and destroys, even from a bankrupt nation that cannot afford federal subsidies for child support,  is the worst kind of tyranny.

Yet, the state can come to depend on it.

State Takes Child Support for Dead Wife

from Channel 9 WFTV

Well after the death of Dave Hernandez’s estranged wife Michelle, the state continues taking child support money from his paychecks. It is doing that despite the fact that his four sons now live with him

Nearly four months after Hernandez gave the state a copy of his estranged wife Michelle’s death certificate money is still being taken from him.

“The answer that I would get from them was, ‘We’re going to continue taking the money out until this case is closed,'” Hernandez said.

Hernandez said the state is taking more than $800 a month from his checks.

He said the loss of that money is making it difficult to care for his children.

“It’s been pretty rough. It’s been rough,” he said.

The state owes Hernandez nearly $3,000. Hernandez said $6,000 would be a more realistic estimate. He said it is money he needs to buy food, clothes, and beds for the boys.

“The way they treated me was really bad,” Hernandez said. Clearly, the civil rights of this family have been violated. Will the state repent?

Any of you want to get on the band wagon with the state of Florida? Have a go!

 

The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships

by Jake Morphonios

Congress would feign admit its own dubious contribution to the suffering of America’s children. Rather, these politicians promulgate the myth that they are helping children through federal and state welfare entitlement programs. It is, in fact, these very programs which are responsible for the out of control rampage against children. Here is how the scam works.

The federal government levies taxes against citizens to redistribute as welfare entitlements among needy applicants. Congress created the Social Security Act, a section of which is called Title IV. Title IV describes how tax dollars will be distributed among the States to subsidize their individual welfare programs. In order for States to tap into the federal treasure chest, containing billions of dollars, they must demonstrate that they are complying with Title IV mandates to collect child support revenues. In other words, to get money from the federal government, each State must become a child support collection and reporting agency.

Every unwed or single mother seeking welfare assistance must disclose on her application the identities of the fathers of her children and how much child support the fathers have been ordered by a family court to pay. She must also commit to continuously reporting the father’s payments so that the State can count the money as “collected” to the federal government’s Office of Child Support Enforcement. As with all bureaucracies, this process has developed into a monstrosity that chews up and spits out the very people it was designed to help.

States have huge financial incentives to increase the amount of child support it can report to the federal government as “collected”. To increase collection efforts, States engage in the immoral practice of dividing children from their fathers in family courts. Have you ever wondered why family courts award custody to mothers in 80%-90% of all custody cases, even when the father is determined to be just as suitable a parent? It is because the amount of child support ordered by the State is largely determined by how much time the child spends with each parent. This means that the State “collects” less child support if parents share equal custody. By prohibiting fathers from having equal custody and time with their children, the State’s child support coffers are increased and federal dollars are received.

Opponents try to paint loving fathers as “deadbeat dads” for daring to challenge the mother-take-all system of family law. This is nothing more than diversionary propaganda. The concern of fathers is not that they are unwilling to support their children financially. This is not an argument against paying child support. Any father that cares about his child will do everything in his power to provide for the child. The concern is, rather, that children are being separated from their fathers by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of the father’s loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect – even if the amount ordered by the court far exceeds the reasonable needs of the child or if the father is required to take second and third jobs to keep up with outrageous support orders and escape certain incarceration. The truth is that most fathers don’t care about the financial aspects of these family court verdicts nearly as much as they care about having their time with their children eliminated for nefarious government purposes.

The root of this evil is a State-level addiction to federal tax dollars being doled out as entitlement monies by a monolithic federal government. In the wake of this horror are millions of children drowning for lack of the care, guidance, and companionship of their fathers. Statistics and empirical evidence universally confirm that children forcibly separated from their fathers by family courts are considerably more likely to suffer anxiety and depression, develop drug addiction, engage in risky sexual activity, break the law, and commit suicide. This travesty must end.

Unconstitutional federal bureaucracy creates many of the societal ills it claims to be trying to solve. There are several steps incremental steps that could be taken to restore a child’s right to the companionship of both parents. For example, citizens should insist that States abide by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No father should be automatically deprived of his fundamental right to the custody of his children without due process of law. Being a male is not a crime. Absent a finding of true danger from a parent, family courts should order shared parenting rights and equal time sharing for divorcing parents. These rights are fundamental and should not be abridged. The automatic presumption of custody-to-the-mother is unconstitutional.

The history of America is brim with examples of the federal government denying basic rights to its citizens. Women were denied the right to vote until the women’s suffrage movement secured the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Black Americans also were denied the right to vote and suffered myriad other cruel and humiliating indignities under the law until the civil rights movement brought about desegregation, put an end to Jim Crow legislation and compelled the enactment of the 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution. In each of these examples, society was slow to recognize that a problem even existed or that some of our laws were unjust. It took considerable time, concerted effort, self-sacrifice and perhaps even divine providence to realign concurrent societal paradigms with the principles of liberty and justice for all.

Our generation is not exempt from similar assaults on liberty. While many just causes may stake claims for redress of grievances, one group, more than any other, pleads for immediate support. The need to defend the rights of this group of American citizens, reeling from the unjust consequences of state-sponsored oppression, is before us. It is time to stand up for the rights of children and demand their equal access to both parents.

Owe Money? You’re A Deadbeat

by Moody Jim Rathbone

these are the ‘good guys’

They want you shaking in your boots. If you owe child support in the United States, authority claims you are a “deadbeat.” People owe money for all kinds of debts, but that doesn’t make the person a deadbeat, nor are they called one. In fact, the current Administration wants you in debt to grow the economy, but most “deadbeat” parents with an average or less income don’t have any money to spend to support the dreams of the state. In fact, they don’t even have the mythology of the “American Dream” that American Presidents push like candy. They are too busy supporting the state and Federal government to prop up unconstitutional child support. It’s all about “justice” they say.

For example:

Early Wednesday morning, a group of Montgomery County sheriff’s deputies went around the county seeking “deadbeat” parents who have failed to appear in court for failing to pay child support. The nine parents taken into custody owe a total of $66,382.90 to nine children.

In fact, as far as these authorities are concerned, you owe them money. That is because according to Federal Law, you do owe the state. Child Support is federal debt per the Bradley Amendment for Social Security Administration. The Federal government pays the state corporations handsomely for collecting what debt they can, all backed and funded by federal taxpayer funds. It’s Constitutionally illegal, but justified by fed and state alike (as statute or policy) as they work together to pry money from “deadbeats” any way they can. The Feds may be financially bankrupt themselves, but you won’t have that privilege, if and when you decide to file bankruptcy. That is because President Bush signed eternal child support into law by modifying bankruptcy code. The state has all the rights. There is no way out in their eyes… you know, the death and taxes sort of thing. That is the sad path that this nation has taken – the path of exploitation, extortion and tyranny.

In this day, depending on the local authority around you, the sheriff is seeking to shame anyone that is behind on child support for any reason. They post your name, address and face on a billboard or online with your local newspaper. To authorities, your debt of child support is a public issue that is all your fault. The reality is entirely different. The state persecutes you because of corporate policy. You see, each court, each government department is a corporation that seeks to make money off of you. Many of them have decided that you will be cuffed and slapped in jail, with the expectation of coercing you to pay up your child support. The court doesn’t even need to be right. Much of the time, the ‘judge’ isn’t right – not even close.

Actually, these “family courts” are wrong 100% of the time. American ‘citizens’ are supposed to have Constitutional guarantees that preclude evil treatment by the authority of courts, family judges and those that take their orders from them. Due process has become fiction. Most attorneys are fearful of standing up for real justice. That justice certainly isn’t oppressing non-custodial parents, even if they are ‘guilty’ before the law (that means what they want it to mean). For that matter, human rights have become fiction too – even as the Feds point a finger of accusation at China or Russia. The Feds have made themselves the holy arbiter of ‘human rights,’ the church of morality. In the case of any court-ordered child support, your human right is for you to pay up and shut up. That is called tyranny.

Everyone is affected. Nobody is immune. They just think they are – immune that is. The only vaccination is to overthrow the tyranny.

What America’s Child Support Problem is Really About

by JJ Feinauer, Deseret News

How much does it cost the average parent to rear three children from birth to age 18? Upward of $750,000, according to this nifty CNN calculator.

But Anne Dias Griffin, ex-wife of the hedge fund billionaire Kenneth Griffin, thinks the number lands closer to $1 million a month.

Griffin made headlines last month when she claimed that in order to keep up with the expenses of her three children, her ex-husband should be forced to pay a monthly six-figure sum in child support.

The Griffins’ legal battle has thrust the issue of unpaid alimony into the news once again, sold to readers with titillating headlines and expected outrage. Child support problems, from Janet Jackson to Dennis Rodman, make for perfect tabloid fodder. Spoiled celebrities, deadbeat millionaire dads and trust-fund children. That’s who doesn’t pay child support.

But FiveThirtyEight’s Mona Chalabi has shined a light on a far more complicated part of the narrative. Over $14 billion of child support funds went unpaid in America in 2011, according to Chalabi, and women are more likely to struggle with payments than men.

“In 2011, 32 percent of custodial fathers (meaning fathers who have legal custody of the children) didn’t receive any of the child support that had been awarded to them,” Mona wrote in her “Ask Mona” column on FiveThirtyEight. According to her analysis of the 2011 Census data, the number drops to 25.1 percent for custodial mothers.

Chalabi, who was understandably surprised by her finding, provided a few explanations as to why such a counterintuitive statistic might be true.

So many children, so many fathers.

First off, women with custody of their children are more likely than men to be living in poverty. These women are more likely to have part-time jobs, or no job at all. The implication here seems to be that men are slightly more likely to help their ex-wives out with child support because it’s more likely that women will desperately need the financial help.

There are other interesting elements that play into why child support might not get paid, such as racial differences (which are closely related to economic differences in her analysis); actual marital status (Chalabi points out that “custodial moms and dads who have never been married or are in their first marriages are much less likely to get any of the payments they’re due”); and prenuptial agreements.

All of these factors, however, speak mostly to the struggle of mothers — and fathers — in poverty, and how divorce or lack of marriage in the first place contributes to economic struggles. Chalabi’s analysis acts as a stark reminder that the issue of child support isn’t about celebrity tabloid disputes. Poverty and marriage trends are the real headlines.

——-

The state and the greed of so called custodial parents are at the center of this offensive media bloodlust. – MJR