The American Expatriot Primer

A growing number of Americans are frustrated with the way in which their economy has been managed and are becoming increasingly concerned about future measures the government may take to keep its coffers full.

A question that is arising with increasing frequency is: does expatraition offer a viable protection to those concerned about a more financially-intrusive US system?

The answer is ‘yes’, it does offer a completely legal solution for ending your obligation to pay US income, capital gains, and gift taxes on your worldwide income. But it is certainly not for everyone and should only be pursued after lengthy and diligent consideration.

And before you begin dreaming of a tax-free future, you should realize that the United States imposes taxes on a broader basis than any other country. The United States is one of two countries, and is the only major country, that imposes significant income, capital gains, gift, and estate taxes on its non-resident citizens.

In virtually all other countries, individuals end their liability to pay income tax after a sustained period of non-residence, generally one year or longer. But to legally and permanently end U.S. tax liability on their worldwide income, U.S. citizens must also give up their U.S. citizenship and passport. This process is called “expatriation.”

Yes, it’s a radical step. However, if you’re a U.S. citizen, you can make nearly all of the preparations for a possible future expatriation without permanently leaving the United States. This is a four-step process:

Phase 1. Relocate your assets from the United States to other jurisdictions, preferably where the assets won’t be taxed.
Phase 2. Identify foreign countries where you would consider living,
Phase 3. Obtain a suitable second passport
Phase 4. Expatriate – give up your U.S. citizenship and passport

Once you’ve accomplished the first three phases, summarized here in Part I of this report, the final step – expatriation – is much easier than if you’re starting from scratch. Part II of this report describes the expatriation process.

Are you a good candidate for expatriation? You are, if:

You are comfortable living outside the United States, or are already doing so-
Your spouse and children are comfortable living outside the United States, or are already doing so; and
You have already or are capable of shifting the majority of your income and assets outside the United States.

Phase 1: Relocate Your Assets Outside the United States

With a few exceptions, the IRC imposes taxes on both U.S. source income and foreign source income of U.S. citizens. Non-resident, non-U.S. citizens (also known as “non-resident aliens”) pay tax only on U.S. source income, although some U.S. sources of income (e.g., most capital gains) are tax-free.

To prepare for this more favorable tax treatment in anticipation of expatriation, begin moving liquid assets outside the United States to more tax-friendly jurisdictions. Begin selling assets that can’t be relocated (e.g., real estate) so that you may reinvest the proceeds overseas.

Invest only in countries and investments with which you are comfortable. If you are accustomed to buying and selling U.S. securities, consider using offshore bank or brokerage accounts to target non-U.S. securities. If you are an experienced real estate investor, investigate real estate purchases outside the United States. Keep in mind that a targeted investment or real estate purchase may also qualify you for legal residence in some countries (Phase 2) or even a second passport (Phase 3). If you have substantial domestic investments in precious metals, consider moving the metals offshore.

The vast majority of foreign banks and brokerages now refuse to accept new U.S. citizen clients, especially U.S. citizens resident in the United States. However, banks and brokerages in a handful of countries still accept new U.S. citizen and resident clients and allow them to purchase non-U.S. securities. A few banks in Austria, the Bahamas, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Switzerland are suitable for this purpose. The minimum deposits in these banks start at $100,000. Minimum deposits in offshore brokerages start around $5,000. Fees are much higher for banking services and securities trading than in the United States.

Both the accounts you hold offshore and the income derived from them must be reported to U.S. authorities. The penalties for failing to make these disclosures are draconian. Consult with an expert familiar with the tax and reporting rules for international investments when you file your annual tax return.

Offshore real estate is a non-reportable asset for U.S. investors if owned individually or jointly with your spouse or other individuals. Income or gain from foreign real estate investment is reportable and taxable. Countries offering first-world infrastructure and where real estate is relatively affordable include Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Panama, Spain, and Uruguay.

Numerous potential “land mines” exist in offshore real estate investments. Among them are the lack of a multiple listing service in many countries, difficulty in establishing good title, and legal provisions giving squatters the right to live on your property. Retain a knowledgeable real estate attorney in the country in which you purchase real estate to avoid problems.

You may transport precious metals you own in the United States to another country and store the metals in a safety deposit box, bank vault, or private vault. One option for doing so is to use a secure shipping service. Make certain the service not only promises secure transport but also assists with completing non-U.S. customs and tax declarations. Another option to transport precious metals out of the United States is a like-kind exchange under Sec. 1031 of the IRC. If you move the metals yourself, the best option can be to hire an import agent in the country to which you’re taking them to handle the import formalities. You will generally post a bond through the agent covering taxes due (if any) plus the agent’s fee.

Phase 2: Identify Foreign Countries Where You Would Consider Living

Once you give up U.S. citizenship and passport, you no longer have the right to live in the United States. You may generally make brief visits, but in most cases, you won’t be able to stay more than approximately four months annually without becoming subject to U.S. tax on your worldwide income based on the IRC’s “deemed residence” rules discussed in Part II of this report. Finding another country to live in is therefore an essential part of any expatriation exit strategy.

Even if you have no plan currently to leave the United States permanently, finding a country that you may wish to relocate to in the future is a prudent safeguard. If economic or political conditions deteriorate in the United States and reach your personal breaking point, having legal residence in a suitable offshore jurisdiction provides a valuable “insurance policy.”

If you merely want the right to live in another country in the form of a residence permit, but don’t necessary want to be physically resident there, a number of countries can accommodate your needs. These include Belize, Costa Rica, Malta, Mexico, the Dutch Caribbean territories, and Panama. In most cases, you can qualify for residence (although not the right to work in the country) by either making an investment or demonstrating a minimum guaranteed pension payment. Residence rights may be purchased in some countries by making an investment of $80,000 or more in real estate or other assets. A guaranteed pension payment of $1,000 or more may also qualify you for residence. In other countries, you may need to qualify on a points system. Some countries have multiple programs to consider.

Phase 3: Obtain a Suitable Second Passport

To end your responsibility to comply with U.S. tax and reporting obligations, you must give up your U.S. citizenship and passport. Without a second nationality in place and passport in hand, however, giving up your U.S. passport would render you a “stateless person.” Avoid this status, as it makes it difficult or impossible to legally live or travel internationally.

A second passport also conveys numerous other benefits:

It gives you the right to reside in the country that issued the passport, and possibly other countries. For instance, a passport from a member of the European Union conveys the right to live and work in any other EU country.
It gives you a way to travel internationally if your primary passport is lost or stolen, or if the issuing government confiscates or refuses to renew it.
It provides you with the opportunity to travel to countries blacklisted by the government that issued your primary passport. For U.S. citizens, this includes countries such as Cuba, North Korea, etc.
It avoids disclosing your primary nationality, should you ever need to keep that a secret. This can be useful if you’re ever confronted by militants who oppose the government that issued your primary passport.

You may qualify for a second citizenship and passport by ancestry, marriage, religion, or extended residence in another country. If not, a handful of countries offer “instant” citizenship in return for an investment or contribution. The Commonwealth of Dominica and the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis are the only countries with an official, legally mandated, economic citizenship. (Note: Dominica and the Dominican Republic are different countries.)

Dominica is the least expensive option. The nationality law of Dominica authorizes the government to waive the normal requirement of seven years of legal residence to acquire citizenship in exchange for a cash contribution. Total costs including all fees for a single applicant come to about $105,000. Add $25,000 for your spouse and up to two children under 18. The Dominican passport holders can travel without a visa, or obtain a visa upon entry, to nearly 90 countries and territories.

The Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis offers two options to obtain economic citizenship. One option is to make a direct contribution to a charitable foundation set up to support displaced sugar workers: the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF). Total costs including all fees for a single applicant under this option come to about $285,000 or $335,000 for an applicant with up to three dependents.

The second option is to purchase “qualifying property” with a minimum investment of $400,000. Fees and closing costs add a minimum of $100,000. Total costs for a single applicant come to at least $500,000 and close to $600,000 for a family of four. The St. Kitts & Nevis passport provides visa-free entry, or visa upon entry, to more than 120 countries, including nearly all of the 27 member countries of the European Union.

In all cases, applicants must pass a strict vetting process that includes a comprehensive criminal background check.

Bogus second citizenship offerings abound. In recent years, I have received offers to purchase passports from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Ireland, and Lithuania, among other countries. Some of these offers are outright scams. Others involve illegally purchased or stolen documents. Even if you succeed in obtaining a passport on this basis, it may be revoked at any time and you could be subject to arrest and/or deportation.

Conclusion

Once you’ve completed Phases 1, 2, and 3 of your four-step plan to disconnect from the United States, you’re ready for Phase 4: expatriation. While you may never take the final step of giving up your U.S. citizenship and passport, taking the preparations summarized so far at least gives you that option.

Mark Nestmann is a journalist with more than 20 years of investigative experience and is a charter member of The Sovereign Society’s Council of Experts. He has authored over a dozen books and many additional reports on wealth preservation, privacy and offshore investing. Mark serves as president of his own international consulting firm, The Nestmann Group, Ltd. The Nestmann Group provides international wealth preservation services for high-net worth individuals. Mark is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association (member of subcommittee on Foreign Activities of U.S. Taxpayers, Committee on Taxation) and member of the Society of Professional Journalists. In 2005, he was awarded a Masters of Laws (LL.M) degree in international tax law at the Vienna (Austria) University of Economics and Business Administration.

Copyright © 2012 Chris Martenson

The Power of Executive Orders

by Liberty Anderson

Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power…

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the “legislative veto” represented “the exercise of legislative power” without “bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President.” The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.

For many years, the average American was completely unaware of the existence of Executive Orders. They operated quietly in the background of government operation as ‘useful tools’ in the hands of a capable executive for the administration of his employees. Recent attention has been focused on Executive Orders because they no longer operate only on the employees of the administrative agencies of the Federal Government but on average citizens who perceive what appears to be an end-run around the Constitution. This paper will look at the evolution, or development of the Presidential Executive Order and attempt to place it, conceptually, within its constitutional boundaries. Obviously, the text of the Constitution will be the first source of authority to be examined. When the text of the Constitution is unclear or ambiguous, the next most authoritative source is in the writings of the founders themselves. Other sources in the hierarchy of probable reliability may be found in early Supreme Court decisions and works of legal scholarship by contemporaries of the framers.

Essentially, there are three different types of presidential proclamations that may have force of law: (1) those which are directed to the employees or agents of the executive branch; (2) those which result from specific authorizations of Congress; and (3) those in connection with his role as commander-in-chief. The latter are neither numbered nor published and are not considered Executive Orders within the context of this paper.

The first Presidential Executive Order was issued by George Washington in 1789, but no numbering system or uniformity was applied until 1907 when the Department of State retroactively designated an EO issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 as Executive Order 1. Certainly Lincoln used the Executive Order in some unique ways due to the Civil War and history has not judged him harshly for that discretion. By 1873, President U.S. Grant had established the form of the Executive Order which is similar to the one used today.

The American Civil War marked a turning point in American law and government. The realization dawned that American was not a land of inexhaustible natural resources, but rather, could be, and was being, stripped of its raw wealth by powerful interests. The role of government shifted from one of promoting exploitation and development to that of regulator and trustee. While this shift does not necessarily do injury to the Constitutional principle of “Balance of Powers,” it was a stepping-stone towards the degradation of the original notion of “balance” of powers. The much more pronounced shift towards Socialism emerged largely as a result of the Great Depression in the 1930’s when, “. . . [t]he concept became widely accepted at all levels of American life- ‘downtrodden masses’ as well as the educated elite- that it was desirable for the government to take care of its citizens and to protect them in their economic affairs.” It was within this time frame that the seeds of Socialism began to take root. Americans placed their confidence and hope in a “benevolent” government whose control of the marketplace might alleviate their economic woes.

“The revolutionary generation had been suspicious of any governmental power. The generation of the Gilded Age was still suspicious of imbalance of power. But significant segments of the public saw danger, not merely from one but from various sides: not only from government, but from populists, or trusts, or farmers, or the urban proletariat.” There is debate among scholars as to whether this shift was driven by an ideological agenda to change government or simply a natural response to the changing dynamics of national growth. To be sure, enterprising politicians read the handwriting on the wall and capitalized on the public sentiment.

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States Which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Art. 1, §1 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall have the power. . .To make rules for the government. . .” Art. 1, § 8, para 14, U.S. Constitution Congress shall have the power. . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.” Art. 1, § 8, para18, U.S. Constitution

From the foregoing, it is evident that the express language of the Constitution authorizes Congress to “make” the laws both “necessary” and “proper” to execute “all other powers” which are properly the domain of the federal government.

Article 1, § 9 contains a short list of restrictions which may be read to apply either to Congress, the President, or both. It follows immediately after the “necessary and proper” clause and immediately before Article 1, § 10 which specifically limits certain actions of the various states so it is obviously intended to place limitations on the federal power whether directly exercised by the branches or indirectly, through delegated authority.

Article II describes the authority of the Executive and a careful reading of this section is very illuminating. Given the clear description of the law-making process in article 1, we see the President’s role in that law-making process as having the veto power in order to force “marginal” laws to be more fully considered. The President does not have authority to “make” laws that are “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” the laws passed by Congress. That is the responsibility of Congress alone. The president is to carry out (execute) the laws within Constitutional limitations pertaining to ALL federal authority, NOT just the Executive branch. However, within the narrow language of the document, very little actual power is expressly granted to the President of the United States by the Constitution for peacetime, domestic administration of government. This is not meant to suggest that the President is a mere figurehead, for it was anticipated that he would be a man of considerable knowledge and influence. Additional powers may be inferred from the scope of diplomatic functions which fall upon the President. For example, his office meets with dignitaries and foreign heads of state and American foreign policy is principally his to formulate and carry out. His most important domestic functions, at least those functions to which the Constitution expressly alludes, are subject to “advice and consent” of the Senate. That phrase is designed to properly check the executive power. Otherwise, America would more closely resemble a monarchy; the very form of government our founders were trying to prevent. In any event, every exercise of authority by the president is subject to the oath of loyalty the president is required to utter, the language of which is specifically stated in Art.2, § 1, para 7.

No exact formula for defining the Presidential power is crystal clear from the Constitution itself and the conclusions drawn must rely on the context of the document and the extrinsic evidence. In the latter category, it is fortunate that we have preserved the original articles written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay in which the arguments for, and against, the Constitution were discussed. One can do no better than to turn to the sources who helped write, or greatly influenced, the original document.

On the subject of federal authority, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

But what if the Federal Government, under the guise of national emergency and with nothing but the pseudo-authority of Executive Orders, were to attempt to circumvent the Constitution? Who could imagine such a preposterous thing? Well, the likes of Patrick Henry, to name one, and other anti-Federalists of the day who raised the specter of such an event. Madison was incredulous at this paranoid assertion and responded to such a “hypothetical” situation by writing, “But ambitious encroachments of the federal government on the authority of the state governments would not excite the opposition of a single state, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. . . Plans of resistance would be concerted.” Madison obviously thought the idea of a runaway federal government was ludicrous! Besides, he reasoned, the state militias are armed and ready to fight such an obvious act of tyranny. Not just one or two States, but ALL of them would certainly rise up with force of arms and resist! He rebuffed his detractors by saying, “[t]hat the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm and continue to supply the materials until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads must appear to everyone more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy. . .than the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.”

The very idea that the entire federal government might act in concert to circumvent the Constitution was scarcely imaginable to James Madison. America had been born by the blood of the Patriots and the wounds of that great war could not be soon forgotten. The great cost of freedom from tyranny would be preserved by the careful dividing of the powers of government into such parts as may find themselves in tension with one another that only the most important national legislation could be passed. “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny”

Modern political commentators often argue that in today’s fast-paced political climate, where decisions of great magnitude must be made quickly, a more efficient mechanism is necessary. They argue the political process inherited from the founders is too cumbersome; the President needs more authority to deal with emergency situations. But order and efficiency must be balanced against liberty for the two concepts are frequently at cross-purposes. Madison, quoting Montesque, wrote, “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” The mood in Colonial America was one of independence- not just political independence from King George and Parliament, but one of more fundamental individual liberty. While modern Americans profess that they also desire liberty, they are unwilling (or unable) to accept the economic, social, and political consequences of that liberty. Rather, special interest groups have exerted influence far beyond their numbers and have succeeded in circumventing Constitutional processes by judicial activism or Executive Orders.

Garnishment Subject to Certain Protections

This 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.

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.

 

Indefinite Detention: Political Washington Abolishes Due Process Protections

On December 14, the House passed the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). On December 15, the Senate followed suit – ironically on Bill of Rights Day.

Obama will sign it into law. The measure ends constitutional protections for everyone, including US citizens. Specifically it targets due process and law enforcement powers.

With or without evidence, on issues of alleged terrorist connections posing national security threats, the Pentagon now supplants civilian authorities. It’s well beyond its mandate.

Under Obama and the 112th Congress, inviolability no longer holds (even though we know the Bradley Amendment and subsequent law already changed this ‘inviolability.’). America is no different than other totalitarian states. As a result, no one challenging state power is safe. Not complying with any law can be seen as challenging that the state.

When President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his ‘legacy’ and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. Too bad the world doesn’t consider the Bradley Amendment against the ‘rule of law.’ The US Congress is adding more bad law to the ‘rule of law.’ The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era. President Truman had the courage to veto that bill.

Ron Paul Speaks About Indefinite Detention Act…

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.

Indefinite Detention: Political Washington Abolishes Due Process 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.

US Child Support: The Loaded Gun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Slavery & Trafficking in the USA

US Child Support: The Loaded Gun by E.J. Manning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://bradleyamendment.wordpress.com.

Human Slavery & Trafficking in the USA

by E.J. Manning

To define slavery on any level is a hot topic, whether forced labor, labor in bondage, slavery or trafficking. Today, several standards are used.

CNN claims that “slavery occurs when one person completely controls another person, using violence or the threat of violence to maintain that control, exploits them economically, pays them nothing and they cannot walk away.” This is a nice general definition except for the part about paying nothing. Underemployment and underpayment, which is robbery through force or coercion is not addressed. Nations love legalized slavery that can be justified. Even the “generous and freedom-espousing” United States has become a robber baron of the people while pretending to be interested in the rights of citizens and democracy. Other modern nations mandate similar policies in the name of what is often an arbitrary degree of fairness.

The United Nations has made themselves a political authority on the topic of human slavery and trafficking. What is interesting is that they try to deny any definition of slavery and instead focus on human trafficking, particularly against women.

Human trafficking is defined in the U.N. Trafficking Protocol as “the recruitment, transport, transfer, harboring or receipt of a person by such means as threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of adbuction, or fraud or deception for the purpose of exploitation.”

The definition on trafficking consists of three core elements:

1) the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons

2) includes threat of or use of force, deception, coercion, abuse of power or position of vulnerability

3) trafficking which is always exploitation. In the words of the Trafficking Protocol, article 3 “exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.

legal rights and lawbreaking

The United Nations already knows that a number of modern nations are on the fence where their definition of human trafficking is concerned. How? This is simply based on how they treat and handle their own citizens. However, this is simply ignored as legal behavior where space-holding nations are concerned. While these definitions are fairly broad by design, you can see that using the United Nations protocol, even the major sponsor and shareholder of the United Nations, the United States, is riding the borders of the  illegal human trafficking of its citizens through the repeated violations of Constitutional Rights of citizens through a kangaroo court system based on unequal representation, through the adversarial execution of the Bradley Amendment for Social Security which results in jailing, punitive fines, enforcement of poverty (economic oppression) and removing the ability of citizens to make a living.

When you haul a man or woman to jail with the intent to coerce him or her into paying child support or any other civil obligation, you satisfy the first, second and third definitions of human trafficking. The government is transporting, transferring, harboring and receiving citizens into custody in order to exploit them against the guaranteed rights of an American citizen. They seek to coerce and bully, to exploit into forced labor and servitude against their will and against the original provisions of the nation. This doesn’t matter, however, because of “legal precedence,” the current standard of justice in the United States.

The United Nations says that this matters. Too bad nobody is listening.

It has been said that slaves are not allowed to walk away from their jobs. This is hardly the case. Many cannot work. In wealthier nations, these poor souls may be on disability through no real fault of their own. Even with slavery “outlawed,” estimates are that 27 million slaves fit the classical definition of slaves by world authorities, even though that definition is not crystal clear. More and more, citizens are becoming bonded laborers in their own nations as the leaders spend money like water to pander and garner influence. Poverty is cast upon the people as if it is a badge of honor to sacrifice for the better of the nation.

Nations like the United States pretend to help as they play political and social slight of hand.

Consider this. For those that are not at the bottom of the social ladder, ending poverty and oppression would be a disaster. If there were no poverty or oppression in the world, who would plow the fields? Who would harvest our vegetables and pick blueberries? Who would work in the rendering plants? Who would clean our toilets? Who would pay the bills even though nobody really does, preferring to borrow to pay another day?  No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the poverty and oppression. The authorities and many with influence benefit from poverty and oppression, even by violating the rights of other human beings. For many, poverty and legalized oppression is not a problem, but an asset.

Human Slavery & Trafficking in the USA 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.

 

“Obama Care, Disability & Child Support”: Time to Rare Up America

It’s long overdue to do something useful. Americans sit like a stack of toads as their personal Constitutional rights are stripped away from them. In a time of unprecedented national and financial crisis, the federal and state governments work diligently to concoct kangaroo courts in the name of collecting child support from indigent and jobless members of society. It’s extortion of the populace on a grand scale to support an out of control element of American society in the name of child worship and responsibility.

If you have managed to live through life-changing illness into the land of disability, you are a target ripe for plucking and harassment. You are likely to lose your license if you still have managed to keep a car and you won’t be able to get to the doctor to take care of yourself, unless you have someone to help you. Friend, that better be because you need friends, real ones.

Once a little government disability cash starts to roll, if you owe on a school loan, the U.S. Treasury will be after your butt post-haste. It wasn’t enough for a judge to certify you as disabled, and never mind that the government has all records they need to show a scant touch of mercy without continuing to put you through hell. Then again, if you are disabled, you can take matters into your own hands and have your doctor sign off on your life changing condition, thus nullifying the callous efforts of the Education Department. If you find yourself in this space of life, you’d better get moving while you can since they are likely to close any loophole that could benefit the poor, oppressed and indigent in America. Get started.

That still doesn’t solve the problem with the kangaroo courts, who are happy to try you in your absence, since you probably can’t get to court. Even if you could, you are destined for a shellacking. They hold all the cards. It’s called lawful extortion, more of what nations, kings and governments have been doing throughout history because they have the authority to do as they please. You, Mr. and Mrs. America, are slaves, serfs to that reality. Let’s face it. The land of free and home of the brave is no different from any dictator element of any third world oppressor. The American kangaroo court system that claims to worship children flies in the face any ideal for human rights. They pretend that they are legislating morality and honor, while none exists.

That is the nation that we live in. What are going to do about it? Can you pick up a pen and write a corrupt Congress? Sure you can! Make them feel your wrath while you still have the freedom to do so! Can you stop multitudes of cheap whores from taking down hard-working Americans that deserve better? (Yes, a whoredom has little to do with sex, it’s a lifestyle, a way of life!) Of course, you can!

Remember that making men responsible for children is big business. Making women responsible is far less profitable. The political pay back for “responsibility” is huge except that the very people preaching are beyond moral bankruptcy. It’s Elmer Gantry preaching to the simpleton hordes. But you have to decide to do something outside of sitting around in a heap and feeling sorry for yourself.

Tough times call for tough solutions. Congress and the new America need to be in their rightful place or you and every man, woman and child will forever be enslaved to a system that is out of control, with only itself to feed. The nation is on a path to self-destruction as it decimates families and supports bad attitudes. The system does nothing for children except to make them less than what are. Shame on the United States!

Obama Care, Disability & Child Support 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.

Legal Child Abduction: How the U.S. Government Profits by Stealing Your Children

by Dr. Mercola

Child abuse is a horrific act, no matter how you define it.

That’s why we have so many laws, and public and private agencies, set up specifically with the charge to protect children and maintain their safety. It’s exactly why so much funding is directed toward this goal.

But did you know that the money funneled to states and child protective services actually encourages them to accuse you of child abuse and even murder, and to take your children, even if you’re not guilty, and even though they have absolutely no proof that you harmed your child?

The Legal Abduction of Children

Horrendous as it sounds, it’s true: child abuse has become a business – an industry of sorts – that actually pays states to legally abduct your children and put them up for adoption!

Even more unbelievable is that, instead of pumping the money back into child protective services programs, some states actually are putting it into their general funds to help balance their budgets.

A number of groups have tried to reform this shady practice, but it was a California politician who caught media attention this past summer, when he said that, if elected, he would expose how local governments were amassing billions of dollars in annual reimbursements, in exchange for what amounted to legal abduction of children.

“Most people are not aware of how much profit many of these services provide the county,”John Van Doorn told a San Diego newspaper. “These profits are hard to ignore and even more difficult to pass up.

Counties can bring in thousands of dollars in excess revenue for each child in foster care, Van Doorn said – which means they have more incentive to remove children from their families than to keep families intact.

“As such … our county government is a major factor in the dismantling of families and/or destruction of children’s lives,” he said.

He then cited San Diego CPS for “egregious behaviors” that included accusing parents of child abuse without any evidence.

The ugly truth is that San Diego isn’t the only community where false accusations of child abuse occur. Across the nation, the practice has become so blatant that some of the leading experts on child abuse and foster care have started to cry “foul.”

About the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal law on which almost all state and local legislation and funding for child protective services are based.

Enacted in 1988, CAPTA directs the U.S. Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children & Families to provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention programs.

As a federal mandate, CAPTA mandates states to implement child abuse laws on their own, so they can align themselves for the massive funding and grants that go along with the law.

In theory as the years went by, if the goal for this law – to reduce child abuse in this country – had been successful, then today we should need less funding for these programs, not more. Success also should have resulted in fewer children in foster care and even fewer being put up for adoption.

But in reality, the opposite happened. Instead of less children in foster care, the numbers went up for nine years after CAPTA was passed. And, layers and layers of state and federal government programs and agencies whose funding depends solely on child abuse occurring were created.

In 1999 foster care numbers started dropping – but only because of new laws that encouraged states to move children out of foster care and into adoptive homes.

Of course, that legislation came with funding too, giving CPS a new avenue for making more money and creating more jobs and more programs.

The tragedy is what Van Doorn pointed out in his campaign: the financial incentives for rooting out child abuse actually encourage agencies to make false accusations against parents, and to tear families apart for something that did not occur.

How this Law Actually has Increased Child Abuse Reports

What happened in San Diego is not an anomaly, nor is it new.

In 1991, the bi-partisan National Commission on Children had already figured out that children were being taken from their families “prematurely or unnecessarily” because federal formulas give states “a strong financial incentive” to do so rather than provide services to keep families together.”¹

As a result, the federal government and a number of states created legislation that was supposed to keep more families together. But as the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) reports, those efforts only disrupted more families, and encouraged more adoptions.

Again, the reason is financial: the new laws give “bounties to states of up to $8,000 or more per child  for every adoption they finalize over a baseline number,” NCCPR reports.

And again, all the help goes to foster and adoptive parents. “About the only parents the federal government won’t help indefinitely are birth parents,” NCCPR found.

But the injustices don’t stop there, because in order to get that money, states have to have children to take away and place – and therein lies the incentive to falsely accuse parents of harming their children and to forcibly remove children even when there is no evidence to do so.

“CPS nationally are doing a job they’ve never been trained to do,” says Kim Hart, a trial strategist and facilitator who has been assisting attorneys in defending persons accused of child abuse for more than 18 years.

They’re investigating people who have never been charged, and calling them child abusers, and taking kids away, and they get paid to do it.

This mechanism is bigger than what most people know. It goes all the way back to the 1980s with legislation that told states they had to develop registries with mandatory child abuse reporting.”

The money that follows a child abuse accusation and subsequent placement of the so-called endangered children into foster care or adoption is the real catalyst for the epidemic of child abuse accusations, Hart said.

“And there is no incentive for any physician or anybody involved to be intellectually honest about this because the law also gives them immunity if they’re wrong,” she said.

“So what happens is that the minute CPS is involved – or the second the EMTs are called (for example, in sudden infant death or alleged shaken baby cases), parents are already labeled as child abusers.”

How are States Spending this Extra Money?

According to NCCPR, in FY 2010 the federal government is expected to spend at least $7 more on foster care and $4 more on adoption for every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification.

This is based on President Obama’s $4.681 billion foster care budget for FY2010 – an increase of $21 million over FY2009. The number represents a decrease of 4,300 children a month in foster care.

But this decrease is based on “placement of children in more permanent settings.” In other words, states are getting more money to take care of fewer children by placing more of them in adoptive homes.

The law also increases incentives for adoption by paying out $1,000 to $8,000 extra for certain types of children who are placed for adoption.

The twist is that states are not required to put this money back in to keeping families intact or even for preventing child abuse. Instead, by law, they can use it for non-child-related things, such as delivering meals to senior citizens or for transportation services, or a range of other home-based services!

In San Diego, Van Doorn couldn’t get a direct answer when he demanded that city officials tell him where their $4,000 per adopted child was going.

But a look at any state’s budget – from Minnesota to Florida to Connecticut and back to California – can tell you that local governments and states are cutting back or flat-lining children’s services and using these extra federal dollars to balance their budgets .

Not Enough Abused Children? Change the Definition of Child Abuse

This certainly is a convoluted way to stop child abuse, if for no other reason than it’s a form of child abuse to tear families apart and take children away from parents who are accused of doing something they didn’t do.

It also doesn’t explain one of the newer definitions of child abuse that came along after CAPTA was enacted, Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS).

Reliable statistics on SBS do not exist, but according to the National Shaken Baby Coalition (NSBC), as many as 1,500 babies a year are shaken by their parents, and either severely injured or killed.

While the numbers don’t seem large, they still add another arena in which CPS can seize children from their parents, and place them in adoptive homes – and claim the booty that the federal government gives them for doing this.

On the Backs of Children, an Industry Based on Child Abuse has Arisen

In San Diego, CPS proudly announced that due to their efforts, child abuse reports had gone down.

But again, Van Doorn busted them – the numbers went down, he said, because the public had begun to catch on to the county’s recent court cases they’d lost in conjunction with false child abuse allegations.

When you apply this same thinking to the national statistics, it makes you wonder how many other states and local municipalities are dealing with false allegations.

The truth is staggering, according to Hart, and is so prevalent that countless blogs have popped up addressing the problem, as well as entire websites devoted to helping people who’ve been falsely accused of child abuse.

Shaken Baby Syndrome – A Convenient Catch-All to Steal Babies Away?

Shaken Baby Syndrome has become an industry in itself, according to Dr. Edward Yazbak, a physician who has devoted the past 10 years to studying the issue and testifying as an expert witness on behalf of parents he believes are innocent of this crime.

“This is an inverted pyramid,” Yazbak says. “It’s an idea that has been added to and added to, but does not stand to science.

This shaken baby business has come out of nowhere and become an epidemic, and it’s the other side that’s making money – the child protective services, the funding, the grants that all these people get.

It’s obviously a very popular and passionate thing with them. But they’re literally convicting people before they’re even accused. It’s the only crime in the world like this, and many of these parents are perfectly innocent.”

A short Internet search can show you what Dr. Yazbak is talking about. Hundreds of private adoption agencies around the nation are totally dependent on public welfare services supplying them with children – and funds – to keep their “businesses” going.

Likewise, hundreds of state, county and community agencies and governmental jobs are dependent on the same thing – legally abducting children to pay for the programs that have sprung up in the name of protecting children.

Again, the numbers tell the story:

In 1990, two years after CAPTA was created, nearly 2.6 million children nationwide were reported as abused and/or neglected, and referred for investigation.  Despite the law, six years later, in 1996, 3 million children were reportedly abused, and under CPS “investigations.”

Today the number varies, depending on how federal authorities define child abuse. Under one definition, statistics show that the numbers have dropped by nearly a third.

But with a “more inclusive” definition, the numbers have stayed the same at about 3 million – or about 1 in every 25 children. In a 2010 report to Congress, the Administration on Children & Families explained how the numbers figure in the face of other data showing a decline in child abuse.

But no matter how you interpret them, or whether the numbers have the stayed the same or dropped, the Congressional report doesn’t explain why the President and Congress have continued to inflate budgets with more money to take children away from their families.

So what can you or I do about it?

According to Hart, this is an issue that can’t be fixed with a single article or a few phone calls. It’s a national problem that’s gone on for decades, that needs local and federal pushes to change the laws that made these injustices possible.

Coincidentally, CAPTA is up for renewal in 2011, with billions more of your money proposed for the kinds of child abuse “prevention” that I’ve talked about here.

In an effort to change this, I encourage you to study the links I’ve included in this article, and then contact your legislators and ask them to take a closer look at the monster that CAPTA has created.

While sunsetting the law or stopping its funding is probably only a dream, Hart believes it’s possible that with enough pressure, you can lobby to have the “immunity” clause removed from this, so that at the very least, agencies who falsely accuse parents of child abuse can’t do so without being held responsible.

References

National Commission on Children, Beyond Rhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and Families, (Washington, DC: May, 1991) p.290.

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.

Disability Income & Child Support

Can a custodial parent collect overdue payments from social security recipients of disability? Yes, according to case 79-4. The SSA can retain a percentage that could hold the IRS responsible to pay delinquent income tax debt. However, state laws may prohibit this from happening.

§6331 of the Internal Revenue Code gives the Secretary of the Treasury the right to collect or seize control disabilities. §6305 of IRS Code authorizes the Treasury, after receiving a certification by the Minister of Health, Education and Welfare under section 452 (b) of the Social Security Act on the amount of delinquent child support obligation for assessing and collecting the individual ‘ amount in the same way, the same limitations as if such amount were income tax collection.

The IRS Code provides that no interest or penalties  are to be assessed or levied, and observations by the IRS must be disabled for delinquent child support debtor 60 days before the garnishment of benefits. In other words, if payments are being made, the IRS cannot double dip those payments by collecting more.

What does  this mean for you? This depends on what side you are on. If you believe that the non-custodial parent has filed for social security disability, you or your lawyer should be to contact SSA with evidence of delinquency. If you live in the country of the debtor’s mother, then it may be necessary to work through the child support agency in your locale which issues statements in any state child support.

You must be aware that the SSA (social security) does not reveal whether the other parent filed for disability since that would be a violation of privacy laws.