Pregnant With Opportunity: Mom Still Wins

by Moody Jim Rathbone

In the mainstream media, you’ll read headings that titillate or that simply state “New Jersey Man Ordered to Pay Child Support for 1 Twin After DNA Test Shows 2 Dads.” The truth is that this kind of behavior is a national embarrassment! So potentially embarrassing that the lawsuit represents the plaintiff and defendant only as initials. The ‘mother’ should certainly be embarrassed. The details and headlines for child support continue to get stranger as time wears on. That is what happens in a nation without standards.

In a precedent-setting case, a Superior Court judge ruled that a man who was believed to have fathered twin girls actually only fathered one of them. It’s the sick stuff of legend and a new low for the ‘prostitutes’ of the nation. But this case isn’t a precedent for the reason you might think. It’s the first paternity case in New Jersey – and the third nationwide to showcase two different fathers for a single set of twins.

A man identified only as “A.S.” was off the hook for child support payments to one of the twins after DNA testing determined that he fathered one twin, but could not have been the father of the other.

The mother, identified only as “T.M.” gave birth to twin girls in January of 2013 and named “A.S.” as a romantic partner and the father of both kids when applying for public assistance. Of note is that she admitted that she had sex with another unidentified man ‘within a week’ of having had sex with “A.S.”  Obviously, the woman couldn’t keep her legs together and wisely, social services ordered a DNA test with the “surprising results.”

“A.S.,” obviously poverty stricken, represented himself in court, and has been charged to pay $28 a week in child support payments to his offspring. An academic study published in 1997 found that different fathers occurs in about one out of every 13,000 reported paternity cases involving twins. Either way, the “hoes” and judges of America still have the power. At least, the father hasn’t been taken to the cleaners if he hasn’t been late with the child support. “A.S” likely is late and the Bradley Amendment will apply. What a way to start the life of a child, or children, as the case is here. So now that you’ve heard all this, is the mainstream media telling you what you really need to know? Hardly! The lawsuit is just the beginning. Both parents, especially the father, will continue to experience all kinds of personal invasions and persecutions in the name of taking care of children. These mainstream articles don’t discuss the abuses that non-custodial parents face because of government policy that is nothing less than unconstitutional. Once the lawsuit dies down, good old dad will be without due process, completely at the mercy of government policy that has no mercy. Even worse, all Americans are paying dearly with their privacy and banking information so that big government can quickly snap up cash for kids.

For example, in United States statute, the Bradley Amendment (1986, Public law 99-509, 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c)) requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations. Specifically, the amendment:

• automatically triggers a non-expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due.
• overrides any state’s statute of limitations.
• disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges.
• requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to promptly document changed circumstances or regard for his awareness of the need to make the notification.

Texas Court Clerk Grouches About Money

Here is the latest scuttlebutt about corporate discomfort in dealing with child support provisions, and as usual, it’s always about the money for the corporate system. It’s certainly isn’t about privacy or about who really wants the information, some of it highly personal and confidential.

State Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Republican from north Harris County, Texas, filed a bill last week that claims to make court records more accessible to the public and save people money. This provision would allow the public to print non-certified court records at no charge.

It is claimed that Senate Bill 967 would allow people to access and print at no charge non-certified copies of electronic court records. They now pay 15 cents for each page they copy, and sometimes court records number in the hundreds of pages. “If you can get government records on the internet, you should be able to download them for free.”

“If people are accessing the District Clerk’s online documents on their own computers and want to print them out on their own printers, using their own toner, there’s no reason why the government should be seeking a fee,” Daniel said. “The public’s money was already used to buy equipment to create the records and hire the workers needed to complete the process. Let’s look out for taxpayers and the public.”

“In the 21st century, we shouldn’t be charging people 15 cents a page like we did in the 20th century.”

Watch out when corporate government wants to look out for taxpayers and the public.

Daniel also urged passage of House Bill 1636, which would restore about $1.3 million in fees that used to be paid by the state Attorney General’s Office when it filed certain court documents in unpaid child support cases in Harris County.

The federal government has previously mandated that state and local courts crack down on child support scofflaws. Corporate courts dedicated to handling these child support cases, known as U.S. Title IV-D courts, were created as part of that mandate.

State lawmakers passed a bill allowing the state A.G.’s Office not to pay a handling fee for some child support case filings. The District Clerk’s Office has lost $1.3 million in the process and they want the money restored to them. Never you mind that they already make a profit. Government institutions would have you believe that they are cash strapped. Hardly. Plenty of money has been and continues to be generated with fees.

It’s always about the money to keep their corporations running smoothly, that is, unless they are robbing from poor parents, the only group of “scofflaws” that currently exist in this computer age. Anyone that can be plundered by child support laws are already being plundered.

original article

 

Know Your Rights & Flex Them

You risk losing your legal rights when you don’t use them. Know when you shouldn’t consent. When ticketed and when signing, place “without prejudice” above your signature and after your name “U/D” for under duress. If you’re pulled over, chances are you are under duress, because you will be compelled or threatened in some way. In this way, you can take some additional measures to protect yourself legally.

When pulled over in traffic always be calm and cool. Check your ego and avoid digging a hole for yourself.

Per the 4th Amendment you are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Per the 5th Amendment a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. The best way to do this is to keep your mouth shut. You have the right to remain silent, whether that makes you feel better at that moment or not. The 6th Amendment states that you have the right to counsel for your defense. It’s up to you to make smart choices.

The police may make false promises to you. Don’t let them fool you into waiving your rights. (Don’t you see this on cop shows? It happens all the time.) Your refusal to allow a search is not evidence of guilt and doesn’t give the officer legal right to search or detain you. Before an arrest, you may terminate your encounter at any time. Ask if you are free to go. “Officer, are you detaining me or am I free to go?” Avoiding a search may be best since you don’t what a previous owner may have left in your car. You also avoid waiving damage to your property.

You have the right to refuse. “I don’t consent to searches.” In fact, you have legal advantages to refusing a search. If you are searched without consent, your lawyer can challenge this. Remember that police must have evidence or clear cause that you are involved in criminal activity. Being tricked into consent is how most people lose their rights.

Don’t expose yourself by acting irresponsibly or being a public nuisance. However, living in a low-income community doesn’t waive your rights. Don’t give them probable cause or create suspicion. They can pat you down to see if you are armed. You aren’t required to empty your pockets as this is waiving your right against a search without cause. You aren’t required to consent. “Officer, I’m not resisting, but I don’t consent to searches.” Don’t physically resist. If you are cuffed and threatened with arrest or police try to get you to admit to any activity you are not involved in, you can say: “I’m going to remain silent. I’d like to see a lawyer.” When you are under arrest or being interrogated, these words are your best protection. Keep your mouth shut. You can’t expect to talk your way out of a police interrogation. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. Don’t sign anything without a lawyer except a promise to appear in court.

Carrying an ID is only required by statute when driving. Otherwise, some states may require you to give your name. Police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. Simply ask if they are detaining you and if you’re free to go. If they don’t physically detain you, you are free to go. However, withholding your identity often leads to a detention or an arrest. If your goal is to quickly get on your way, then identifying yourself may be your best option. If you are willing to go to court, you can deny frequent ID requests.

Fighting against police misconduct is never easy, but it’s easier when you know your rights and act appropriately. You can file a legitimate complaint. If an officer has too many, he can removed from the streets. However, you will likely do yourself harm by threatening a complaint, so don’t make this mistake.

During any encounter pay close attention to details and events. Remember as much as you can about the officers: what they look like and names. Remember exactly what the officers said. If anyone witnessed the event, get with them about their recollection. Use whatever device you have to collect your thoughts and information. The longer you wait, the more you will forget. If you are injured by a police encounter, have photos made when you are at your worst and as soon as possible. Collect records for any medical treatment.

If officers knock at your door, do not consent to let them enter. You may ask if they have a warrant while keeping your door chain on. Their entrance may be a way to get you to consent to search your property. The 4th Amendment requires police to obtain a search warrant signed by a judge to search your home. Unless a serious emergency exists, police cannot enter your home without a search warrant. They don’t need a warrant if you invite them in. If you must talk with an officer, take your keys, lock your door and talk to them on the porch or sidewalk.

If police come to your door and you don’t need their help, you can simply decline to open the door, removing yourself to a more private place in the interior of your home.

7 Rules for Recording Police

This article by Steve Silverman originally appeared April 5, 2012 in Reason.com. It’s been updated to include new information regarding the 7th Circuit’s recent ruling in favor of citizens’ right to record.

Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.” The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.

Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected First Amendment activity. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing just that. So if you’re an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops.

If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.

Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)

Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police.

The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation. But do not despair if you live in these states: All but 2 —Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

UPDATE: As mentioned earlier, the First Circuit Court of Appeals covering Massachusetts declared the state’s ban on recording police to be unconstitutional. On May 8, The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals covering Illinois also declared the state’s harsh recording ban unconstitutional, ordering authorities to stop enforcing it.

Rule #2 Don’t Secretly Record Police

In most states it’s almost always illegal to record a conversation in which you’re not a party and don’t have consent to record. Massachusetts is the only state to uphold a conviction for recording on-duty police, but that conviction was for a secret recording where the defendant failed to inform police he was recording. (As in the Glik case, Massachusetts courts have ruled that openly recording police is legal, but secretly recording them isn’t.)

Fortunately, judges and juries are soundly rejecting these laws. Illinois, the state with the most notorious anti-recording laws in the land, expressly forbids you from recording on-duty police. Early last month an Illinois judge declared that law unconstitutional, ruling in favor of Chris Drew, a Chicago artist charged with felony eavesdropping for secretly recording his own arrest. Last August a jury acquitted Tiawanda Moore of secretly recording two Chicago Police Internal Affairs investigators who encouraged her to drop a sexual harassment complaint against another officer. (A juror described the case to a reporter as “a waste of time.”) In September, an Illinois state judge dropped felony charges against Michael Allison. After running afoul of local zoning ordinances, he faced up to 75 years in prison for secretly recording police and attempting to tape his own trial.

The lesson for you is this: If you want to limit your legal exposure and present a strong legal case, record police openly if possible. But if you videotape on-duty police from a distance, such an announcement might not be possible or appropriate unless police approach you.

Rule #3: Respond to “Shit Cops Say” 

When it comes to police encounters, you don’t get to choose whom you’re dealing with. You might get Officer Friendly, or you might get Officer Psycho. You’ll likely get officers between these extremes. But when you “watch the watchmen,” you must be ready to think on your feet.

In most circumstances, officers will not immediately bull rush you for filming them. But if they aren’t properly trained, they might feel like their authority is being challenged. And all too often police are simply ignorant of the law. Part of your task will be to convince them that you’re not a threat while also standing your ground.

“What are you doing?”

Police aren’t celebrities, so they’re not always used to being photographed in public. So even if you’re recording at a safe distance, they might approach and ask what you are doing. Avoid saying things like “I’m recording you to make sure you’re doing your job right” or “I don’t trust you.”

Instead, say something like “Officer, I’m not interfering. I’m asserting my First Amendment rights. You’re being documented and recorded offsite.”

Saying this while remaining calm and cool will likely put police on their best behavior. They might follow up by asking, “Who do you work for?” You may, for example, tell them you’re an independent filmmaker or a citizen journalist with a popular website/blog/YouTube show. Whatever you say, don’t lie—but don’t let police trick you into thinking that the First Amendment only applies to mainstream media journalists. It doesn’t.

“Let me see your ID.”

In the United States there’s no law requiring you to carry a government ID. But in 24 states police may require you to identify yourself if they have reasonable suspicion that you’re involved in criminal activity.

But how can you tell if an officer asking for ID has reasonable suspicion? Police need reasonable suspicion to detain you, so one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you’re free to go. You can do this by saying “Officer, are you detaining me, or am I free to go?”

If the officer says you’re free to go or you’re not being detained, it’s your choice whether to stay or go. But if you’re detained, you might say something like, “I’m not required to show you ID, but my name is [your full name].” It’s up to you if you want to provide your address and date of birth if asked for it, but I’d stop short of giving them your Social Security number.

“Please stop recording me. It’s against the law.”

Rarely is it advisable to educate officers about the law. But in a tense recording situation where the law is clearly on your side, it might help your case to politely present your knowledge of state law.

For example, if an insecure cop tries to tell you that you’re violating his civil liberties, you might respond by saying “Officer, with all due respect, state law only requires permission from one party in a conversation. I don’t need your permission to record so long as I’m not interfering with your work.”

If you live in one of the 12 all party record states, you might say something like “Officer, I’m familiar with the law, but the courts have ruled that it doesn’t apply to recording on-duty police.”

If protective service officers harass you while filming on federal property, you may remind them of a recently issued directive informing them that there’s no prohibition against public photography at federal buildings.

“Stand back.”

If you’re approaching the scene of an investigation or an accident, police will likely order you to move back. Depending on the circumstances, you might become involved in an intense negotiation to determine the “appropriate” distance you need to stand back to avoid “interfering” with their work.

If you feel you’re already standing at a reasonable distance, you may say something like, “Officer, I have a right to be here. I’m filming for documentation purposes and not interfering with your work.” It’s then up to you to decide how far back you’re willing to stand to avoid arrest.

Rule #4: Don’t Share Your Video with Police

If you capture video of police misconduct or brutality, but otherwise avoid being identified yourself, you can anonymously upload it to YouTube. This seems to be the safest legal option. For example, a Massachusetts woman who videotaped a cop beating a motorist with a flashlight posted the video to the Internet. Afterwards, one of the cops caught at the scene filed criminal wiretapping charges against her. (As usual, the charges against her were later dropped.)

On the other hand, an anonymous videographer uploaded footage of an NYPD officer body-slamming a man on a bicycle to YouTube. Although the videographer was never revealed, the video went viral. Consequently, the manufactured assault charges against the bicyclist were dropped, the officer was fired, and the bicyclist eventually sued the city and won a $65,000 settlement.

Rule #5: Prepare to be Arrested

Keene, New Hampshire resident Dave Ridley is the avatar of the new breed of journalist/activist/filmmaker testing the limits of the First Amendment right to record police. Over the past few years he’s uploaded the most impressive collection of first-person police encounter videos I’ve ever seen.

Ridley’s calm demeanor and knowledge of the law paid off last August after he was arrested for trespassing at an event featuring Vice President Joe Biden. The arresting officers at his trial claimed he refused to leave when ordered to do so. But the judge acquitted him when his confiscated video proved otherwise.

With respect to the law Ridley declares, “If you’re rolling the camera, be very open and upfront about it. And look at it as a potential act of civil disobedience for which you could go to jail.” It’s indeed disturbing that citizens who are not breaking the law should prepare to be arrested, but in the current legal fog this is sage advice.

“Shut it off, or I’ll arrest you.”

At this point you are risking arrest in order to test the boundaries of free speech. So if police say they’ll arrest you, believe them. You may comply by saying something like “Okay, Officer. But I’m turning the camera off under protest.”

If you keep recording, brace yourself for arrest. Try your best not to drop your camera, but do not physically resist. As with any arrest, you have the right to remain silent until you speak with a lawyer. Use it.

Remember that the camera might still be recording. So keep calm and act like you’re being judged by a jury of millions of your YouTube peers, because one day you might be.

Rule #6: Master Your Technology

Smartphone owners now outnumber users of more basic phones. At any moment there are more than 100 million Americans in reach of a device that can capture police misconduct and share it with the world in seconds.

If you’re one of them, you should consider installing a streaming video recording and sharing app such as Qik or Bambuser. Both apps are free and easy to use.

Always Passcode Protect Your Smartphone

The magic of both apps is that they can instantly store your video offsite. This is essential for preserving video in case police illegally destroy or confiscate your camera. But even with these apps installed, you’ll want to make sure that your device is always passcode protected. If a cop snatches your camera, this will make it extremely difficult for her to simply delete your videos. (If a cop tries to trick you into revealing your passcode, never, never, never give it up!)

Keep in mind that Qik and Bambuser’s offsite upload feature might be slow or nonexistent in places without Wi-Fi or a strong 3G/4G signal. Regardless, your captured video will be saved locally on your device until you’ve got a good enough signal to upload offsite.

Set Videos to “Private”

Both apps allow you to set your account to automatically upload videos as “private” (only you can see them) or “public” (everyone can see them). But until police are no longer free toraid the homes of citizens who capture and upload YouTube videos of them going berserk, it’s probably wise to keep your default setting to “private.”

With a little bit of practice you should be able to pull your smartphone from your pocket or purse, turn it on, enter your passcode, open the app, and hit record within 10 seconds. Keep your preferred app easily accessible on your home screen to save precious seconds. But don’t try to shave milliseconds off your time by disabling your passcode.

Both apps share an important feature that allows your video to be saved if your phone is turned off put to sleep—even if you’re still recording. So if you anticipate that a cop is about to grab your phone, quickly tap the power button to put it to sleep. Without your passcode, police won’t be able to delete your videos or personal information even if they confiscate or destroy your phone.

With the iPhone 4 and Samsung Galaxy Android devices I tested, when the phone is put to sleep the Qik app immediately stops recording and uploads the video offsite. But if the phone is put to sleep while Bambuser records, the recording continues after the screen goes black.

This Bambuser “black out” feature is a double-edged sword. While it could easily trick cops into thinking you’re not recording them, using it could push you into more dangerous legal territory. As previously mentioned, courts have shown a willingness to convict citizens for secretly recording police. So if you’re somehow caught using this feature it might be easier for a prosecutor to convince a judge or jury that you’ve broken the law. It’s up to you to decide if the increased legal risk is worth the potential to capture incriminating police footage.

Other Recording Options

Cameras lacking offsite recording capability are a less desirable option. As mentioned earlier, if cops delete or destroy your footage—which happens way too often—you might lose your only hope of challenging their version of events in court. But if you can hold on to your camera, there are some good options.

Carlos Miller is a Miami-based photojournalism activist and writer of the popular Photography is Not a Crime blog. While he carries a professional-end Canon XA10 in the field, he says “I never leave home without a Flip camera on a belt pouch. It’s a very decent camera that’s easier to carry around.”

The top-of-the-line Flip UltraHD starts at $178, but earlier models are available for $60 on Amazon. All flip models have one-button recording, which allows you to pull it out of your pocket and shoot within seconds. The built-in USB then lets you upload video to YouTube or other sharing sites through your PC.

Small businessman and “radical technology” educator Justin Holmes recommends the Canon S-series line of cameras. In 2008, his camera captured a police encounter he had while rollerblading in Port Dickenson, New York. His footage provides an outstanding real-life example of how a calm camera-toting citizen can intelligently flex their rights.

“I typically carry a Canon S5-IS,” Holmes says. “But if I was going to buy one new, I’d go for the SX40-HS. If I were on a budget and buying one used, I’d go for S2-IS or S3-IS.” The features he regards as essential include one-touch video, high-quality stereo condenser microphones, fast zoom during video, and 180×270 variable angle LCD. But the last feature he regards as “absolutely essential.” With it the user can glance at the viewfinder while the camera is below or above eye level.

Rule #7: Don’t Point Your Camera Like a Gun

“When filming police you always want to avoid an aggressive posture,” insists Holmes. To do this he keeps his strap-supported camera close to his body at waist level. This way he can hold a conversation while maintaining eye contact with police, quickly glancing at the viewfinder to make sure he’s getting a good shot.

Obviously, those recording with a smartphone lack this angled viewfinder. But you can get a satisfactory shot while holding your device at waist level, tilting it upward a few degrees. This posture might feel awkward at first, but it’s noticeably less confrontational than holding the camera between you and the officer’s face.

Also try to be in control of your camera before an officer approaches. You want to avoid suddenly grasping for it. If a cop thinks you’re reaching for a gun, you could get shot.

Becoming a Hero

If you’ve recently been arrested or charged with a crime after recording police, contact a lawyer with your state’s ACLU chapter for advice as soon as possible. (Do not publicly upload your video before then.)  If your case is strong, the ACLU might offer to take you on as a litigant. If you accept, your brave stand could forever change the way police treat citizens asserting their First Amendment right to record police. This path is not for fools, and it might disrupt your life. But next time you see police in action, don’t forget that a powerful tool for truth and justice might literally be in your hands.

Seventh Circuit Says Citizens Have a Right to Record the Police

Governmental Megalomania

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.

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.

USA: New Federal Laws & Child Support Privacy

A host of new laws related to child support take effect this week, according to the State Department of Human Services. These changes are designed to help track down people not paying their child support obligations.

Under the law, sponsored by Representative Jeff Hayden (DFL-Minneapolis) and Senator Don Betzold (DFL-Fridley), a public authority attempting to collect child support can request addresses, home and work telephone numbers, mobile telephone numbers and e-mail addresses from a payee. Previously, only a place of residence, employment status, wage and benefit information and a Social Security number had to be provided.

Additionally, a child support public authority will be permitted to administratively reassign basic support, medical support and child care support under certain conditions. The law also changes the enforcement of judgments to provide child support. Judgments are now enforceable 20 years after the entry of the judgment.

Some Parents Want to Misuse IRS Data

Parents of missing children and the child rights lobby are calling on the IRS to change its privacy laws regarding federal income tax returns. Apparently some parties claim that IRS laws are blocking data that could be helpful in tracking down thousands of missing children in the U.S. At least that is the angle they are using. Do you actually believe it?

Current privacy laws contain exceptions which allow the IRS to relinquish taxpayer information in child support cases. This is less accommodating in domestic disputes, which is a good way to protect private information that should be protected. The child support terror lobby doesn’t see it that way.

“It’s one of those areas where you would hope that common sense would prevail,” says Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “We are talking about people who are fugitives, who have criminal warrants against them. And children who are at risk.” That all of this only affects fugitives and those with criminal warrants is completely in error, a straw man.

Under current law, a judge’s order is required to release the information. This is totally reasonable. However, advocates and parents of missing children hope for legislative changes in the future.

On average the IRS receives over 200,000 requests for this information annually, mostly by estranged spouses and abductors using false identities. The stand of any sensible American is that estranged spouses and abductors using false identities have no right to the private information of others for any reason. The consent of a judge for private information makes perfect sense.

The validation for this invasive conduct is that a third of the missing children allegedly show up on tax returns. This says nothing about the two-thirds of other tax returns that have no useful information in this regard. Are the IRS and the Federal government of the United States going to sell out private information without the approval a judge when an alleged 33% of tax returns contain information that might be useful? Where is the common sense in that Mr. Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children? The children rights lobby is on the march to steal more rights in the name of ‘common sense’ and children.

Americans have already given up enough of their Constitutional rights under the notion that children would be helped. This notion that children must be supported and assisted at all costs has steadily eroded the rights of Americans and even the well-being of the American family.

It’s time to write your lawmaker once again or reap the consequences of your apathy!