A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘support’

Fed Creates Fugitives From Multitudes of Disadvantaged Dads

Just as Georgia parents begin to challenge the law, the Federal government steps up to bat with parading a new initiative.

violation of due process and civil rightsThe federal government is stepping up its efforts to track down parents who refuse to pay child support through a program inappropriately named “Project Save Our Children,” which targets anyone that owes more than $5,000. If you know of any children this program will save, you can post this information below. You can also let us know why you believe this program is inappropriately named.

This glorious program includes listing names on a new website specifically to track them down. “Strengthen and Vitalize Enforcement of Child Support (SAVE Child Support) Act,” was introduced by New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez and Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa. Now you know who the enemies of Constitutional freedom really are. This doesn’t count those that passed the bill.

This law is reportedly designed to:

• Create a national registry to make liens against property easier to track
• Make it easier for states to intercept income and revoke licenses and permits
• Deny passport reinstatement until a parent has paid their arrears in full
• Encourage state support agencies to communicate with corrections agencies to better collect on orders

“You’re talking about a willful intent to avoid paying for your children, for their livelihood, for providing the basics that they so deserve,” said Health and Human Services Deputy Inspector General Gerald Roy. The program is reported have seen some success, and they have been able to get a few parents who owed more than $100,000 to pay up. The matter of oppressing the disabled, underemployed and unemployed isn’t considered. It’s corporate and state exploitation on a grand scale… and most Americans are completely ignorant.

While federal employees themselves don’t go out on the hunt for child support ‘evaders,’ the government does play a key role in requiring that states take certain measures. Title IV-D of the Social Security Act of 1975 mandates and funds corporate enforcement offices. These offices are responsible for helping custodial parents locate ex-spouses, establishing paternity, establishing support orders and enforcing those orders. The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, provides centralized resources for the states, by collecting information from the IRS, Social Security Administration and other agencies. This website believes that this money would be better spent buying down the national deficit or actually benefiting Americans instead of imprisoning and harassing citizens under the pretense of helping children.

Fathers Challenge Child Support Orders

by CBS Atlanta

captiveA group of fathers in Georgia is targeting the state’s practice of putting parents who can’t afford to pay child support in jail. Rightly, they should, as current law in merely an inquisition, having eliminated any rights that a non-custodial parent has per the much heralded national Constitution.

The five fathers claim in a lawsuit that jailing parents who can’t afford to pay child support creates a modern day debtor’s prison because parents. They say parents who are put behind bars lose their jobs, making it even more difficult to pay up.

The fathers want to force Georgia to provide them attorneys at child support hearings. They say that could prevent the incarceration.

Attorneys for the state say the judges are just using the law for the worst offenders.

The dads recently won a court battle when a judge allowed thousands of other parents who were imprisoned for failing to pay the child support join their lawsuit.

For more on the appeal by state attorneys click here.

Right to Trial in Contempt Cases

These are some thoughts to consider about surviving federal child support as you live out your life in the USA.

You can not be held in contempt for child support if you can not afford to pay. The burden of proof that you can afford to pay is on the other side, but judges ignore this fact every day by playing ignorant unless you bring this up.

Contempt is supposed to be to get compliance. Jail will not get compliance. Demand immediate reduction in support amount if jailed.

Jury trial:

Demand it. If criminal you have an absolute right. Civil if over $20.

The Sixth Amendment provides the right to ‘…trial by an impartial jury…’ Also under Article II, Section 2, the trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury. The power of the jury acts as a check and balance related to criminal charges and the enforcement of criminal laws. The jury is theorized to gives the people absolute power over the enforcement of criminal laws. (note: criminal)

Ask about jurisdiction:

Supreme Justice Court had Common Law Jurisdiction until 1877 and exclusive jurisdiction until 1889 on divorce and custody issues. Wrong venue and jurisdiction voids all orders.

* BLOOM V. ILLINOIS, 88 S.Ct. 1477

in Bloom v. Illinois, 73 the Court announced that ”[o]ur deliberations have convinced us . . . that serious contempts are so nearly like other serious crimes that they are subject to the jury trial provisions of the Constitution . . . and that the traditional rule is constitutionally infirm insofar as it permits other than petty contempts to be tried without honoring a demand for a jury trial.”

* DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA, 88 S.Ct. 1444

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 153, 155-156 (1968).

in the Eighteenth Century, Blackstone could commemorate the institution as part of a ”strong and two-fold barrier . . . between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown” because ”the truth of every accusation . . . . [must] be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbors indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion.”

Contempt of Court is quasi-criminal, merits all constitutional protections:

* EX PARTE DAVIS, 344 SW 2d 925 (1976)

update per reader: the correct reporter cite for Ex Parte Davis is 344 S.W. 2d 153 (Tex. 1961)

A civil action to collect statutory penalties and punitive damages, although not technically criminal, has been held to implicate no right to jury trial. (1) But more recently the Court has held denationalization to be punishment which Congress may not impose without adhering to the guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, (2) and the same type of analysis could be used with regard to other sanctions.

(1) Id. See also Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.S. 320 (1909); Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103 (1909).

(2) Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).

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

Creative Commons License
Right to Trial in Contempt Cases 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.

Child Support: A Case Against Arrest

unconstitutional law must goChild support is a civil matter and there is no probable cause to seek or issue body attachment, bench warrant, or arrest in child support matters because it is a civil matter. The use of such instruments (body attachment, bench warrants, arrests, etc) is presumed to be a method to “streamline” arresting people for child support and circumventing the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It  is used as a debt-collecting tool for unlawful arrests and imprisonment to collect a debt or a perceived debt.

The arrest of non-custodial parents in which men make up significant majority of the “arrestees”, is “gender profiling”, “gender biased discrimination” and a “gender biased hate crime” in that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A man, pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States, cannot be arrested in a civil matter as a woman is not.

There is no escaping the fact that there is no probable cause in a civil matter to arrest or issue body attachment. “Probable cause” to arrest requires a showing that both a crime has been, or is being committed, and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. In the instant case, no probable cause can exist, because the entire matter has arisen out of a civil case. Therefore, seeking of body attachment, bench warrant, or arrest by the Petitioner (and her attorney), and/or issuing of the same by the court, in this civil case would be against the law and the Constitution.

Under U.S. v. Rylander ignorance of the order or the inability to comply with the [child support] order, or as in this case, to pay, would be a complete defense to any contempt sanction, violation of a court order or violation of litigant’s rights.

Every U.S. Court of Appeals that has addressed this issue, has held that child support is a common, commercial (and civil) debt, See, U.S. v. Lewko, 269 F.3d 64, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2001)(citations omitted) and U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1997).

Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232 (9th Cir. 1995), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (citing cases from the U.S. Supreme Court, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits)“by definition, probable cause to arrest can only exist in relation to criminal conduct; civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause”; Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 435 (3rd Cir. 2000) (Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from arresting citizens without probable cause. See, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), therefore, no body attachment, bench warrant or arrest order may be issued.

If a person is arrested on less than probable cause, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the aggrieved party has a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 87 S.Ct. 1213 (1967).

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (there can be no objective reasonableness where officials violate clearly established constitutional rights such as–

(a) United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment (including Warrants Clause), Fifth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection), Ninth Amendment (Rights to Privacy and Liberty), Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection).

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

Creative Commons License
Child Support: A Case Against Arrest 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.

Garnishment Subject to Certain Protections

slavery to childrenThis is knowledge that may be of some value to you as you live out your life under child support laws in the USA.

The use of garnishment is governed by federal statutes (there may be some state codes as well) such as 15 USC 1673, and its companion law, 15 USC 1675 pertaining to the very existence, or potential existence of enforcement of any order violating the maximum certain percentages of actual disposable income– rendering the support and/or garnishment order in violation of the law,– (particularly see paragraph C therein). Whichever statute provides greater protection to the Respondent, prevails.

These [state, if any in MA– there are some in IN] federal statutes guarantee protection (to the Respondent) from having “imputed income” orders.

These statutes provide protection (to the Respondent) regarding his rights to be free from unlawful child support or any kind of garnishment.

§ 1673. Restriction on garnishment

Title 15 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 7, 2011, and it is this version that is published here.

(a) Maximum allowable garnishment

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed

(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or
(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206 (a)(1) of title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable,
whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week, the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).

(b) Exceptions

(1) The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of

(A) any order for the support of any person issued by a court of competent jurisdiction or in accordance with an administrative procedure, which is established by State law, which affords substantial due process, and which is subject to judicial review.
(B) any order of any court of the United States having jurisdiction over cases under chapter 13 of title 11.
(C) any debt due for any State or Federal tax.

(2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the support of any person shall not exceed—

(A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; and
(B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.
(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited

No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this section.

§ 1675. Exemption for State-regulated garnishments

The Secretary of Labor may by regulation exempt from the provisions of section 1673 (a) and (b)(2) of this title garnishments issued under the laws of any State if he determines that the laws of that State provide restrictions on garnishment which are substantially similar to those provided in section 1673 (a) and (b)(2) of this title.

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

Creative Commons License
Garnishment Subject to Certain Protections 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.

 

Fair Child Support: The Audacity of Hope

Not a few of us have come to personally wonder, even mourn the loss of our true national identity. The personal identity of Americans is even more challenged. We have come to a place of oppression and circumstances over which we have no control, but we are going to have it all rubbed in our faces by oppressive law and unfettered government application. Mistakes aren’t permitted unless you have influence and a hefty bank account. Justice is bought and sold like a revel at Bourbon Street. It’s cheapened the nation and weakened the fabric of society instead of strengthening it. We are a nation that encourages vile and predatory behaviors which reject the core of what builds and strengthens the strong nations of the past for the rhetoric of despots that seek to wield unlimited power.

But …social conservatives…want a return to a bygone era, in which sexuality outside of marriage was subject to both punishment and shame, obtaining a divorce was far more difficult, and marriage offered not merely personal fulfillment but also well-defined social roles for men and for women. In their view, any government policy that appears to reward or even express neutrality toward what they consider to be immoral behavior whether providing birth control to young people, abortion services to women, welfare support for unwed mothers, or legal recognition of same-sex unions-inherently devalues the marital bond. Such policies take us one step closer, the argument goes, to a brave new world in which gender differences have been erased, sex is purely recreational, marriage is disposable, motherhood is an inconvenience, and civilization itself rests on shifting sands.

In this missive posted in his book Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama pretends to be reasonable by acknowledging the feelings of the opposition. He spends a chapter acknowledging the beauty of the Constitution, while dismissing it for something better, likely because of his status as a attorney that specializes in constitutional law. Instead, he talks around it as if to say, the Constitution is nice to study and a great document to thump on when you want to make a point, but it is a quaint tool of the past. Too bad the nation didn’t read his books before they voted him into office, not that it really matters anyway. John McCain, with ties to banking fraud, wasn’t a better choice, just a different one. Presidents have become cheerleaders of what sounds good while allowing Congress to pass predatory legislation without so much as a wimper. They have become complicit with the criminals that pretend to protect the nation.

Many politicians say that they see life as an issue of sexual behavior instead of the ability to maintain relationships, which government is loathe to do. It reinforces the negative instead of the good. It lies and distorts for the powerful and well-to-do. It favors mothers over fathers based on the timeworn models that it seeks to reject through the politics of empowerment. It has transferred this evil to divorced or rejected non-custodial parents. They are simply work horses that will sustain the children of the state as the elite look after their own interests.

“But all in all, I have little sympathy for those who would enlist the government in the task of enforcing sexual morality. Like most Americans, I consider decisions about sex, marriage, divorce, and childbearing to be highly personal-at the very core of our system of individual liberty. Where such personal decisions raise the prospect of significant harm to others-as is true with child abuse, incest, bigamy, domestic violence, or failure to pay child support-society has a right and duty to step in. (Those who believe in the personhood of the fetus would put abortion in this category.) Beyond that, I have no interest in seeing the president, Congress, or a government bureaucracy regulating what goes on in America’s bedrooms.

Moreover, I don’t believe we strengthen the family by bullying or coercing people into the relationships we think are best for them-or by punishing those who fail to meet our standards of sexual propriety. I want to encourage young people to show more reverence toward sex and intimacy, and I applaud parents, congregations, and community programs that transmit that message. But I’m not willing to consign a teenage girl to a lifetime of struggle because of lack of access to birth control. I want couples to understand the value of commitment and the sacrifices marriage entails. But I’m not willing to use the force of law to keep couples together regardless of their personal circumstances.” – (Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama, page 335)

No Mr. Obama, instead we bully them after the fact with law that only the most wealthy can manage. In the article “Deviance and Society in Child Support Law,” I detail how behavior has been stigmatized and grouped into types of addicted behavior. Politics ignores the truth about its’ role in the process as it seeks the “common good,” pretending to be above all matters of humanity. It treats single mothers and their children as wards of the state and celebrates its’ role in the matter. It treats fathers as workhorses, slaves which must forever pay for the mistakes of the relationship without due process and the standards that built the nation. Remember that these standards only apply to criminal law. The possibility of innocence only applies to criminals, but not to the non-custodial parent of children that the  government owns.

Family law has carefully been maintained as civil law, the law of lying ex-spouses and courthouse escapades, even though the non-custodial behavior has been criminalized in a world without the assurance of justice on any level. Judges can’t stand the irreverent carping of the ‘human trash’ they serve. Government has sanctioned the same predatory behavior in families and relationships that it holds as precious in its worldview of control. Manipulation has become the reality of all relationships, while soft words such a diversity and peace are espoused. They sell the virtues of sacrifice without possessing that virtue. Diversity and peace are the watchwords of society, as that society is gripped by social engineers that claim “common good.” We don’t need society. Government is the holder of punishment and shame.

You know the solution. Be a good slave, stay employed at all costs in the name of fear and don’t make waves- or face the consequences. Economics don’t matter, nor does unemployment. Good men and women know what they have to do. Playing into the system isn’t necessarily the best answer. Otherwise, there isn’t even the audacity of hope, the kind of hope that President Obama claims to live by.

Creative Commons License
Fair Child Support: The Audacity of Hope 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.

Deviance and Society in Child Support Law

One way of distinguishing between the different kinds of behavior is whether they are perceived as socially acceptable or socially deviant behavior. Behavior that is perceived as socially deviant is highly stigmatized, which often causes as many or more problems for the person engaging in the behavior than the addiction itself — if there even is an addiction.

Non-custodial parents have been placed by government into this category of stigmatized behavior, most probably under the category of exploitative sex. Nothing could be further from the truth, since this exploit works both ways. There is no excuse for a jezebel, a whore, male or female, to hold an axe over someone else’s head for twenty years or life, with a never-ending debt to the state. This action is no different from murder or other crimes of passion. To make matters worse, non-custodial parents have lost their right to due process and Constitutional law on several counts. Non-custodial parents aren’t typically predators engaging in predatory behavior. Most often, the reality is the opposite. However, predatory controlling behavior continues to be rewarded, especially on the part of the state. Legal precedence says that the Constitution no longer matters. Let’s face it, this nation has ceased to be a land of freedom, but is a land of oppressive law; a rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, as President H.E. Bush so aptly put it in his acclaim for the New World Order. Some order.

The deviants are in fact, in charge of oppressive law that relegates men and women to slaves, without the right to a fair hearing or adjustment by a judge no matter the circumstances. This is truth, no matter how some are benefited from this oppression. The largest benefactor is the corporate state and the corporations that perform the odd jobs of collecting the child support while hiring the lowest possible level of employee for the job at the lowest possible rate. The big loser is the American taxpayer, who pays a substantial award for collection, which motivates the further proliferation of corporate power within the nation. We have become part of numbing enslaving system that isn’t smart enough to ask questions.

The Continuum of Social Acceptability
Social Acceptability
Addictive Behavior Socially Deviant Socially Problematic Socially Acceptable
Alcoholism Binge drinking Occasional/social drinking
Underage drinking Public drunkenness
Drinking at the wrong time/place Drinking in “drinking establishments”
Illegal drug use Methadone maintenance
Medical marijuana
Painkiller over-use Appropriate painkiller use
Cigarette smoking
Binge eating Moderate eating
Overeating
Excessive gambling Losing a lot of money in a gambling binge Bingo, lotteries, trips to Las Vegas
Sexual abuse Promiscuity Sex within a relationship
Exploitative sex Sex work
Hard core pornography
Sexual harrassment

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

Creative Commons License
Deviance and Society in Child Support Law 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.

Tag Cloud