# Federal Title IV 'Welfare' Part D 'Child Support' (Law) Education & Awareness



## Brick Layer (Jan 1, 2018)

TO ALL SUNDRY BY THESE PRESENTS,

I am a divorced Michigan father of three boys (now adults) who have experienced Parental Alienation after I was abandoned by my ex spouse and her taking my children along for the ride her.  The children and I have suffered untold damage at the hands of the Federal Title IV-D Program and the duty of care administered at the state and local county level.  I am creating this thread to bring awareness and education for discussion to this 'Title IV-D Program' topic in hopes of keeping families together, bring families together, and so that children may be raise by both parent (if not together at least equal time) - AFTER MATH.

I offer this personal information as my first attempt at starting this thread was censored and deleted.
*Reason: You must have some content of your own with every OP."
I am guessing OP means opening post?*  Anyway life is good and it is an honor to bring you this thread....
Please stay on topic (education and awareness) Title IV-D discussion for practical application.  My point of this thread is not to hash out family matters; or solve anyone's legal wows-child support or otherwise; nothing here is to be considered legal advice.

Kindest regards,
Brick Layer

_____________________________________








_Hihil tam proprium imperio quam legibus vivere._
*Nothing is so becoming to authority as to live according to the law.*
*
 CONGRESSIONAL INTENT*
The federal Child Support Enforcement program in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act was created as a program designed to recover taxpayer money spent on several federal welfare programs.

1910: The Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act made it a crime to *willfully abandon* or neglect to provide support for children under the age of 16.
The History of Child Support in the U.S.

1950: Social Security Act Amendments which added 402(a)(11) to the Act, 42 U.S.C. 602(a)(11), requiring state AFDC agencies to notify appropriate law enforcement officials when a child received AFDC because of *abandonment or desertion by a parent*. The intent was that these parents be held responsible for the support of their minor children, not thrusting that cost upon the government and, ultimately, the taxpayer.
SupportGuidelines.com | Article: Child Support Enforcement in the United States and the Role of the Private Bar

The intent of federal IV-D legislation is supposed to be to recoup taxpayer money already spent on providing these welfare services to children who have been *willfully abandoned by a parent *[or parents] and left to rely on the government to self-sustain. 
http://achildsright.typepad.com/followthemoney.pdf
http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/jan07/The Money flow USA.pdf

1975: THE CREATION OF THE GOVERNMENT CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Injecting the Federal Government into domestic relations; President Ford signed the Social Service Amendments of 1974. The measure gave SSA the responsibility to locate *deserting parents of their children*.
Social Security History

The CSE program was passed by Congress in 1975 (P.L. 93-647) with two primary goals. The* first goal was to reduce public expenditures *for actual and potential welfare recipients by obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial parents. The *second goal was to establish paternity* for children born outside marriage so that child support could be obtained. The December 1974 Finance Committee report on the CSE legislation stated, _“The problem of welfare in the United States is, to a considerable extent, a problem of the non-support of children by their _*absent parents*_”_ (U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Finance, Social Services Amendments of 1974, report to accompany H.R. 17045, 93rd Cong. 2nd sess., S.Rept. 93-1356, p. 42). It also stated that the result of a new federal-state CSE program would be to *lower welfare costs to the taxpayer and to deter fathers from abandoning their families*. Both welfare and nonwelfare families are eligible for CSE services.
https://greenbook-waysandmeans.hous...house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL33422_gb.pdf

On January 4, 1975, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1974, which, among its other provisions, created a state-federal child support enforcement program under a new part D of title IV of the Social Security Act. This is now generally referred to as the "IV-D program." The purpose of this new partnership between the states and the federal government was directly tied to the existing federal program of cash assistance, or "welfare," under the Title IV-A, "Assistance to Families with Dependent Children" (AFDC). Specifically, the new IV-D program was designed to accomplish two welfare system-related goals through the enforcement of child support: *(1) recover for state and federal governments the costs of public assistance paid out to families ("cost recovery")*; and (2) help families on welfare leave the public assistance rolls and help families not yet on welfare avoid having to turn to public assistance ("cost avoidance").  Because the* intent of Congress was that the IV-D program [establish paternity and] reduce expenditures *for public assistance; in order to limit the growth of the public assistance rolls, Congress made IV-D services available to families not on AFDC. These non-public assistance families could *voluntarily apply for IV-D services*; they could, also, close their IV-D cases at any time.
*INDUSTRY REPORTS:* Child Support Enforcement in the United States and the Role of the Private Bar «  Child Support Enforcement Council http://www.csecouncil.org/pdf/role_of_bar.pdf

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) to *(1) reduce public expenditures *for welfare recipients by obtaining ongoing support from noncustodial parents that could reimburse the state and federal governments for part of their expenses (i.e., welfare cost-recovery) and (2) [Cost-avoidance]… .  While welfare cost-recovery still remains an important function of the program, its other aspects include service delivery and promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility. *The CSE program has different rules for welfare and non-welfare families*.
https://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-Program-Basics-5-2014.pdf

*Child Support Enforcement is a welfare service for needy children (by definition ) which is regulated by Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.  *According to the law, Federal Title IV-D dollars can only be spent on Title IV-D services. Title IV-D services include all child support services provided in Michigan with the exception of custody and parenting time [those services are paid for with State and local dollars]. A case qualifies for Title IV-D services when children are receiving public assistance or a custodial party or non-custodial parent has requested Title IV-D services.

Needy by definition:
the “Assignment” of debt under 408 (a)(3) of the Social Security Act should ONLY be valid if the child is receiving or has received public assistance; the key is section 301.1 of the definitions in title 45 CFR. Title 45 Section 302 says all child support recovery assignments in which the custodial parent receive TANF comes from a assignment from 301.1, which states the assignment came from 408 (a)(3) when the family receives assistance.  Prohibitions; Requirements (A) General.— “*…not exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family*, which accrue (or have accrued) before the date the family ceases to receive assistance under the program, which assignment, on and after such date, shall not apply with respect to any support (other than support collected pursuant to section) which accrued before the family received such assistance and which the State has not collected.”
Social Security Act §408
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
45 CFR 301.1 - General definitions.

*Child support payments enable parents who do not live with their children to fulfill their financial responsibility to their children by contributing to the payment of childrearing costs*; and paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order, federal law requires an affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily [Section 466(a)(5)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(5)(D)) stipulates that an unmarried woman cannot put a man’s name on a child’s birth record/certificate unless the man has voluntarily acknowledged that he is the father of that child…] acknowledging paternity and entitles the affidavit to full faith and credit in any state.  A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  *In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.*

_Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle._
*A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).*

*A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.*

_Consensus facit legem.
*Consent makes law. • A contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.*_

*The 'PUBLIC INTEREST' does not solely lie with assuring children receive support in so much as the Title IV-D Child Support Program is a two part facet: *

*(1) WILLFUL ABANDONMENT OR DESERTION, and; *
*(2) SUPPORT, along the way of WELFARE and or INFORMED CONSENT.  *


Brick Layer

*Please do not post a thread title in all caps. Also please read the Rules. Post a snip/link/and comment only. Yours is entirely too long. Thanks.*


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 1, 2018)

Normally one goes to the introduction thread before posting elsewhere...


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 1, 2018)

Social Security Act §458
Social Security Act Title IV

*Social Workers acting in public under the umbrella of Social Security*

Social Security is not an insurance policy instead it is a social policy “trust” and was part of the New Deal introduced (national debt/based currency) and sold to the American people with the historic declared emergency and has been back in front of Congress again and again voted on to raise the borrowing ceiling; Social Security was always designed for the needy; backed by the faith and credit of the American people.

Title IV-D Contractors (Child Support Enforcement Agencies) are the driving factor for the creation of a non-custodial parent and the creation of a child support order.
Federal Title IV-D Program dollars is what is keeping state and local county government budgets afloat (feeding the statists).

Grant programs are being used for revenue generation by the states as opposed to solving legitimate societal problems. States being able to use the Title IV-D / Child Support Enforcement Program as a tool for State Revenue Generation instead of Aid for Actual Needy Families.

Michigan Analysis,
"Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."

Government for the people by the people; the state and local governments need to find a new source of funding without destroying families for their actors acting as the de jure government via private for profit public contacts; contractual agreements; civil servants.


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 1, 2018)

*TITLE IV -D*
*The State receives 3 to 5 dollars for every dollar they extort from a **non custodial** parent from the federal government!!!*

*There are five funding streams for the Child Support Enforcement Program; *
*Each budget expands off the previous budget’s expenditures; *
*The child support program generates income for both the federal government and the states; *
*Cash Flow Generated by the Child Support Program exceed Child Support Enforcement program costs!!!*
https://greenbook-waysandmeans.hous...house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL33422_gb.pdf
https://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-Program-Basics-5-2014.pdf

Six Accounts for Incentive-related Funds are:
1) Prosecutor IV-D Incentive Fund
2) Clerk IV-D Incentive Fund
3) Title IV-D Incentive Fund (previously the “county general” fund)
4) Prosecutor IV-D ARRA Fund
5) Clerk IV-D ARRA Fund
6) Title IV-D ARRA Fund (previously the “county general” ARRA fund).
http://www.in.gov/sboa/files/SBOA_M...6-2011_-_Child_Support_Title_IV-D_Handout.pdf

“Money that is paid to the children are collected for the children (child support money) are matched by the federal government [66% reimbursement] AND THEN [Plus] THERE ARE INCENTIVES for DIFFERENT types of enforcement activities (matching funds at state and local levels as well), and so the judges each time that they grant or approve The Friend of the Court up someone’s child support collection their actually what they’re doing is padding their own pockets because that comes back to them, it indirectly comes back to them.” ~ Carol Rhodes 6:24
Title IV-D Family Court kleptocracy (judicial malfeasance of office).wmv

"The Child Support Industry is the darling of the circuit court and that we actually made money for the judge and the court unlike the Sheriff's Department and so many agencies; our county our state was not an exception to the rule..." ~ Carol Rhodes 1:21
Title IV-D Family Court kleptocracy (judicial malfeasance of office).wmv

Title IV-D Contractors 
Federal Title IV-D Program 'Duty of Care' administered at the state level; 
Office of Child Support (OCS) who then contracts the legal services of local prosecutors, sheriffs, and foc offices; 
How has this term impacted your life?

Civil Servant Child Support Specialist from Developing Capacity to Senior Capacity Operations.... 
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ChildSupportSpecialist_12394_7.pdf
Capacity

Title IV-D Sheriff Agreements
Sheriff and or Sheriff's Deputies handle warrants (along with other non-traditional enforcement duties) and is a IV-D employee of the Friend of the Court. 
https://www.accesskent.com/Courts/FOC/pdfs/FOC_deputies.pdf

"Federal policy, 
[federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)-AT-79-3, Availability of Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for Making Arrests Pursuant to Appropriate State Process, and OCSE-AT-87-9, Child Support Enforcement Program; Prohibition of Federal Funding of Costs of Incarceration and Counsel for Indigent Absent Parents.
Availability of FFP for Making Arrests Pursuant to Appropriate State ProcessFinal Rule: Prohibition of FFP for Incarceration/Counsel for Indigent Absent Parents

Federal policy restricts the expenditures of IV-D funds spent for “arrest activity.” Further guidelines regarding federal approval of purchase of service agreements and fees for service agreements for arrest activities may be found in OCSE-AT-79-3, and by referring to OCSE Policy Interpretation Question (PIQ)-81-02, Fee for Service in Sheriff’s Agreements (Ref: Exhibit 2010-003E3) and PIQ-81-13, Eligibility for FFP – Inclusion of Deputy Sheriff in the Unit Cost Rate Computation in South Carolina (Ref: Exhibit 2010-003E4).
Regardless of whether OCSE approval is needed, all Cooperative Reimbursement Program (CRP) subcontracts require prior written approval from OCS staff and must meet other requirements as outlined in the CRP. FOC staff can subcontract with the sheriff for full-time or part-time services. In both instances, FOC staff must submit a copy of the agreement with the CRP application. In a part-time agreement, the officer must provide the court with a time sheet (per pay period) that shows the hours spent on IV-D activity and the hours spent on sheriff department activity. If the bench warrant officer reports to the FOC (is directly supervised by FOC staff), then no subagreement is necessary." 
https://dhhs.michigan.gov/ChildSupport/policy/Documents/2010-003.pdf

CPS Corruption? Attorneys, Professors, and Judges Speak Out!

Child Support is a Crime Against Humanity | Georgia Senator (former) Nancy Schaefer


----------



## westwall (Jan 1, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> TO ALL SUNDRY BY THESE PRESENTS,
> 
> I am a divorced Michigan father of three boys (now adults) who have experienced Parental Alienation after I was abandoned by my ex spouse and her taking my children along for the ride her.  The children and I have suffered untold damage at the hands of the Federal Title IV-D Program and the duty of care administered at the state and local county level.  I am creating this thread to bring awareness and education for discussion to this 'Title IV-D Program' topic in hopes of keeping families together, bring families together, and so that children may be raise by both parent (if not together at least equal time) - AFTER MATH.
> 
> ...










Yeah, your first thread wasn't censored silly boy.  It was deleted because you broke the rules.  Another rule is you don't publicly question Moderator actions but I'll let that one go in the interest of getting your thread going.  So good luck, read the rules, and you won't have a problem.  Ignore the rules and you won't be posting here for long.


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 1, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  *In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.
> 
> A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.
> 
> ...



In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.

In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.604

*A signed divorce decree is just one form of stipulation.*
Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).
A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles.
If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification.

Search the following two PDFs for the word 'stipulation':
http://www.montcalm.us/document_center/Courts/Stipulated Motion to Change Support Order.pdf
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/publications/Friend_of_the_Court-WEB.pdf


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 1, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> ....experienced Parental Alienation


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 1, 2018)




----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 2, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> These non-public assistance families could voluntarily apply for IV-D services; they could, also, close their IV-D cases at any time.
> 
> The CSE program has different rules for welfare and non-welfare families.
> 
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> A case qualifies for Title IV-D services when children are receiving public assistance or a custodial party or non-custodial parent has requested Title IV-D services.



*Title IV-D due process Timeline... *
A case qualifies for Title IV-D services when children are receiving public assistance or [absent equal parenting time 'joint physical' and 'joint legal' custody] a custodial party or non-custodial parent has [*upon informed consent* each [parent] has *first yielded to an agreement/stipulation* together producing the 'custodial non-custodial' arrangement, in effect a form of 'voluntary partial abandonment by their agreement in writing to fractionalize the amount of time the children spend with each', that written agreement [*required to make 'custody' and 'support' orders valid'*] between parents (both parties), and then *secondly one of them*]] *requested Title IV-D services*.

* Hint:* the key is in the contractual arrangement, an '*ex parte*' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'  lacking the wet ink signature of both parents 'written agreement' giving birth to [that] contract; 'contract law' and then the possibility of a breach of agreement, court action to enforce that agreement [enforcement order], and eventually contempt of court for failure to comply with court's oversight of the stipulation of that  'written agreement', so ordered enforced!

Taking your child without consent 'in law' is kidnapping
*Parentage* [posterity - standing tall and looking good]
*Natural Rights are Lawful Rights
Rights untimely claimed are deemed to be waived; 'rebuttable presumptions'; silence is consent; wherefore simply object.*

42 USC § 1301 - Definitions
(d) Nothing in this chapter [Public Health and Welfare] shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this chapter, to take charge of any child over the *objection of either of the parents of such child*, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.
42 U.S. Code § 1301 - Definitions
Objecting to Title IV-D services in your case, “42 USC 1301 d Parental Objection Notice”
03 4 1301 D 8x11 FORM

*552.505 Duties of friend of the court*
Sec. 5.
(1) Each office of the friend of the court has the following duties:

(a) *To inform each party to a domestic relations matter that*, unless 1 of the parties is [on welfare and is] required to participate in the title IV-D child support program, *they may choose not to have the office of the friend of the court administer and enforce obligations that may be imposed in the domestic relations matter*.

(b) *To inform each party to a domestic relations matter that*, unless 1 of the parties is [on welfare and is] required to participate in the title IV-D child support program, [neither party on welfare] *they may direct the office of the friend of the court to close the friend of the court case that was opened in their domestic relations matter*.

(c) *To provide an informational pamphlet*, in accordance with the model pamphlet developed by the bureau, to each party to a domestic relations matter. The informational pamphlet shall explain the procedures of the court and the office; the duties of the office... *The informational pamphlet shall be provided as soon as possible after the filing of a complaint or other initiating pleading*. Upon request, a party shall receive an oral explanation of the informational pamphlet from the office.
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.505

FRIEND OF THE COURT HANDBOOK
FRIEND of the COURT DUTIES ......................................................... 2
OPTING OUT OF FRIEND OF THE COURT SERVICES................... 3
http://courts.mi.gov/administration/scao/resources/documents/publications/manuals/focb/focb_hbk.pdf

_[Object to standing in Equity given to that which has NO STANDING IN LAW!" The court uses equity / civil jurisdiction to circumvent constitutional protections... (did the judge take an oath?); taking your child without consent 'in equity' is protection?  Laugh-out-loud (it's treason!).  In law, to impinge a lawful right, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" (90%).  In equity, to impinge a lawful right, "guilt?" must be proven by a "preponderance of the evidence" (51%).  What "defendant" would knowingly allow that?  Administrative law is the false King.]  _
Brick Layer gives a special thank you to 'For HIS Glory, Joel Akira' ~ Sui Juris Club Forum

*The children (no welfare) equally with both parents - no need for child support.
Joint Physical & Joint Legal Custody, Equal Parenting Time, and without welfare for tax payer recoupment - no need for child support.*


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

Who benefits from Title IV-D CHILD SUPPORT....





3 Ways the Child Support System Rips Apart Families | HuffPost



Brick Layer said:


> TITLE IV -D
> The State receives 3 to 5 dollars for every dollar they extort from a non custodial parent from the federal government!!!
> 
> There are five funding streams for the Child Support Enforcement Program;
> ...



http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/interest-on-child-support-arrears.aspx

Title Iv-D | Parental Rights

http://achildsright.typepad.com/achildsright/titleivd.html

How it is done:

[The feds blamed it on "an overall lack of ... understanding" of federal forms.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/...-000-crime-victim-funds-audit-says/999375001/

...NOTHING NEW HERE.
]

Plausible Deniability
Plausable Deniability Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

12:10
“….our agency has no rights to custody visitation we don’t deal with those issues we deal with child support issues alone.”

12:25
“The bureaucrat’s plea, we didn’t take your children the office down the hall took your children, then the next office down the hall takes your bank account, the next office takes your savings, and the next office along they take you.”


TAKEN INTO CUSTODY (Book) [Brick Layer, non affiliated]
The War Against Father, Marriage, and the Family
Stephen Baskerville - Politics, Book on Politics

A FAMILY’S HEARTBREAK (Book) [Brick Layer, non affiliated]
A Parent’s Introduction to Parental Alienation
A Family's Heartbreak: A Parent's Introduction to Parental Alienation

The New Politics of Sex (New Book 2017) [Brick Layer, non affiliated]
Sexual Ideology - Stephen Baskerville
How "no-fault" divorces laws have allowed the intrusion of federal and state government so far into our private lives that "privacy" no longer exists. Single-parent families, in essence, have been promoted by government intrusion and the star chamber demands of "child support" which can so easily end up with the incarceration of fathers by ideologically-driven family courts. Both the government and the divorce industry have a financial interest in the increasing growth of single-parent families and the removal of the father.  Title IV-D / Child Support Enforcement agencies are the driving factor for the creation of a non-custodial parent and the creation of a child support order.





http://achildsright.typepad.com/followthemoney.pdf

“The authors find that a low-income noncustodial parent must have earnings 50 to 100 percent higher than the custodial parent in order to pay child support and taxes and enjoy the same standard of living as the custodial family.”
Noncustodial Parents, Child Support, and the Earned Income Tax Credit

And let us not forget the PRIVATE BAR.... it's just business!
THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE BAR
http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/arti.../art200009.html
Other provisions of the Act greatly expand the state and federal data resources to which a state IV-D agency may have access for child support enforcement (including public and private records of various kinds) and bestow upon the IV-D agency administrative authority to undertake a number of legal actions "without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other judicial or administrative tribunal."

"injecting the Federal government into domestic relations [law]," President Gerald Ford signed H.R. 17045 into law on January 4, 1975, and the Title IV-D program was born.

Child support provisions were incorporated into H.R. 17045, a bill redesigning federally funded social services.

Regulatory mechanisms and the statutory mandates it imposed upon the states, changing the character of family law in most matters affecting the parent-child relationship.

Plan provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 654, were amended to require IV-D agencies to provide bonding for employees receiving, handling, and disbursing cash and to separate accounting and collection functions within the state IV-D agency. Changes were made to federal incentive payment.

Under provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 federal matching funds for the administrative expenditures of state IV-D agencies in providing services to non-AFDC families were made permanent. Up to this point, such funding had been tentative, being periodically renewed, because of the belief that, in time, services to non-public assistance families could be entirely funded out of fees for services.

Both AFDC and non-AFDC cases were made subject to the same
mandatory practices and case processing standards.

....birth of the federal presumption (CSE).

In 1988, the federal government required the states to enact mandatory (“presumptively correct”) child support guidelines, in order to continue to receive federal funding of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Family Support Act of 1988, Pub.L. 100-485, codified primarily at 42 U.S.C. §§ 654, 666-67. The federal government also required the... states to require provision for a “child[ren]’s health care needs, through health insurance coverage or other means.” See 45 C.F.R. § 302.56(c)(3).

http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/article.html

Child Support amount presumed to be correct each week due and owing a new order and not subject to retro modification....

Birth of the federal child support enforcement program and the Federal Title IV-D funding incentives programs!

*THE BEAST '666'*
42 U.S. Code § 666 - Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement

SEC. 409. PENALTIES (7) Failure of any state to maintain certain level of historic effort.--
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0409.htm


*CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES*
*Imputing IV-D Status*
The CPS does not indicate whether a child support recipient receives IV-D services. Therefore, this information is imputed onto the file.
Child Support Cost Avoidance in 1999, Final Report


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

*For your information (FYI) - this may be insignificant but nonetheless...*

Title IV-D of the Social Security Act- Federal Child Support laws substitute a number 6 for the number 4 that each section begins with = USC, United Stated code sections. e.g. Section 454 in Title IV-D of Social Security Act is the same as United States Code USC Section 654.

Examples:
Social Security Act §454
42 U.S.C. § 654 - U.S. Code Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare § 654 | FindLaw


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

A child support payment is a payment from a parent to meet the child's needs for food and shelter. Child support can be in cash or in-kind; it can be voluntary or court ordered.
SSA - POMS: SI 00830.420 - Child Support Payments - 07/13/2017

*Social Security in lieu of child support *

http://aaml.org/sites/default/files/using social security benefits-16-1_0.pdf

3.07 Social Security Benefit Credit
3.07(A) Credit Social Security Retirement, Survivor's, or Disability Insurance benefits paid for the children based on the support payer’s earnings record against that parent’s support obligation as follows: (1) Determine the total child support obligation. (2) Determine the monthly benefit amount that is attributable to the payer and that the support recipient receives for the children and then subtract that amount from the total child support obligation. (a) If the children’s payer-based benefit exceeds the total support amount, then no additional support amount should be ordered. (b) If the children’s payer-based benefits are less than the payer’s total support amount, then the difference between the benefits received for the children and the total support amount becomes the ordered obligation.
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/Publications/Manuals/focb/2013MCSF.pdf

3.07 Dependent Benefit Credit
3.07(A) Credit government insurance program retirement, survivor’s, or disability benefits that were counted as the support payer’s income under §2.01(I) or §2.01(K) against that parent’s support obligation as follows:
(1) Determine the total child support obligation.
(2) Subtract the monthly benefit amount that the recipient receives for the children and that is attributable to the payer from the total child support obligation owed by the payer. (a) If the children’s payer-based benefit exceeds the total support amount, then no additional support amount should be ordered. (b) If the children’s payer-based benefits are less than the payer’s total support amount, then the difference between the benefits received for the children and the total support amount becomes the ordered obligation.
(3) Under federal law, the administering agency, like the Social Security Administration, holds the sole authority to designate the person who controls the benefits for a minor child (representative payee), therefore, a State’s legal processes cannot be used to alienate federal benefits from a child’s representative payee. A court should not use a child support order to transfer the children’s benefits from a representative payee to a parent or another individual. Payer-based benefits that exceed the total child support obligation owed must remain under the control of the representative payee.
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/Publications/Manuals/focb/2017MCSF.pdf

3.07(B) The following cases discuss how Social Security benefits affect support obligations: Frens v Frens, 191 Mich App 654 (1990); Jenerou v Jenerou, 200 Mich App 265 (1993); Paulson v Paulson, 254 Mich App 568 (2002); and Fisher v Fisher, 276 Mich App 424 (2007).

http://www.elizabethsilverman.com/p...ioner-needs-to-know-about-social-security.pdf

http://www.alacourt.gov/docs/CreditForSocialSecurityRetirement.pdf

*THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ON CHILD SUPPORT*
SupportGuidelines.com | Article: The Effect of Social Security

In Re Marriage of Henry


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

*"Title IV-D contains no private remedy-- either judicial or administrative--through which aggrieved persons can seek redress."*
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> “The authors find that a low-income noncustodial parent must have earnings 50 to 100 percent higher than the custodial parent in order to pay child support and taxes and enjoy the same standard of living as the custodial family.”
> Noncustodial Parents, Child Support, and the Earned Income Tax Credit



CHILD SUPPORT: Helpful or Hindrance? - YouTube


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES*
> *Imputing IV-D Status*
> The CPS does not indicate whether a child support recipient receives IV-D services. Therefore, this information is imputed onto the file.
> Child Support Cost Avoidance in 1999, Final Report








Ron Paul, Stop V.A.W.A. & Title IV d


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

*The law automatically recognizes two legal parents, 
paternity is assumed when the child is born to a married couple.

Paternity Fraud*


*
*


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Government for the people by the people; the state and local governments need to find a new source of funding without destroying families for their actors acting as the de jure government via private for profit public contacts; contractual agreements; civil servants.



Newaygo Friend of the Court is a privately held company in White Cloud, MI .
Categorized under County Government Courts.
https://www.manta.com/c/mmq0lj9/newaygo-friend-of-the-court

Sheriff's Office is a privately held company in White Cloud, MI .
Categorized under Sheriff.
https://www.manta.com/c/mmq0ljk/sheriff-s-office

Newaygo County Jail is a privately held company in White Cloud, MI .
Categorized under County Prisons.
https://www.manta.com/c/mmq0l2n/newaygo-county-jail

Newaygo County Circuit Court is a privately held company in White Cloud, MI .
Categorized under County Government Courts.
https://www.manta.com/c/mtw5n38/newaygo-county-circuit-court


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > Government for the people by the people; the state and local governments need to find a new source of funding without destroying families for their actors acting as the de jure government via private for profit public contacts; contractual agreements; civil servants.
> ...



5050Parenting


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 6, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


>


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 14, 2018)

*Parent Facing Imprisonment for Non-support Entitled to Counsel or Equivalent*
Family law related question decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, a decision on whether a person facing incarceration for non-support during a civil contempt hearing is entitled to appointed counsel was decided by _Turner v. Rogers_, 546 U.S. ____ (2011); provides justification for court-appointed counsel in such a case.
*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf*


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 14, 2018)

*STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CHILD SUPPORT) 
Statutes of limitations serve important purposes in our criminal justice system. Not only do they protect defendants from having to defend against stale claims, they pressure law enforcement officials to act promptly. The public is served by them in that wrongdoers are brought to justice more quickly. Also, an accused is less likely to be deprived of evidence or witnesses lost through the passage of time.*

Although the felony-nonsupport charge is related to an order of support pursuant to the support and parenting time act, it is a distinct criminal action.

MCL 600.5809, this statute as a whole clearly applies only to civil actions, not criminal charges, and sets forth a ten-year period of limitations addressing support orders, a ten year period of limitations for civil claims seeking enforcement and collection of a non-contractual money obligation, the period of limitations is 10 years from the date that the last support payment is due under the support order.

The Michigan legislature did not specify carrying a support arrearage as a means by which an individual could violate MCL 750.165(1). Because a person is subject to conviction and punishment each time the statue is violated, separate violation of the statute cannot constitute a single continuing offense. The legislature did not intend that a violation of MCL 750.165(1) continue until an individual's monetary support obligation is fully discharged.

The CRIME of nonsupport under MCL 750.165(1) is complete at the time that an individual falls to pay the ordered amount at the ordered time, a prosecutor has only six years from that point in which to charge such violations.

MCL 767.24[(5)] is the appropriate statutory limitations period for the criminal offense of not paying child support, _"All other indictments shall be found and filed within 6 years after the offense is committed. [Emphasis added.]" _

*PEOPLE v. MONACO*
FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Michigan case and opinions.


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 14, 2018)

*Imputation of Income (Child Support)
Actual resources of each parent factual assumptions... *

The Legislature directed that the formula be *based on the children's needs and the actual resources of each parent*. 
“The award of child support rests in the sound discretion of the trial court [and] . . . is presumed to be correct.” Morrison v Richerson, 198 Mich App 202, 211; 497 NW2d 506 (1992). The party challenging a child support order must demonstrate the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Kosch v Kosch, 233 Mich App 346, 350; 592 NW2d 434 (1999). But the proper application of the state friend of the court bureau’s child support formula, as required by the Legislature, is a question of law reviewed de novo. Paulson v Paulson, 254 Mich App 568, 571; 657 NW2d 559 (2002), citing *Burba v Burba* (After Remand)
FindLaw's Supreme Court of Michigan case and opinions.

Court Must Find Parent Capable of Working to Impute Income for Child Support Calculation
In an unpublished decision released by the court of appeals on July 17, 2012, that court held that *the trial court must find that a parent is actually capable of working before the court may impute income* to the parent for the purposes of calculating and assessing child support.
http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/Michiga...nt Opinions/11-12-Term-Opinions/141154-OP.pdf


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 14, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *"Title IV-D contains no private remedy-- either judicial or administrative--through which aggrieved persons can seek redress."*
> FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.


 
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with Title IV-D. Justice O'Connor wrote for the court that parents cannot sue merely because a state fails to be in "substantial compliance" with federal collection standards.
*Blessing v.Freestone*
{{meta.pageTitle}}

*Contemporary civil rights issues... *
Finally, jurisdiction over all remaining state law claims will be declined. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
All claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 are DISMISSED
Any remaining state law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice;
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/6:2010cv01361/83067/8/0.pdf

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER that all of the defendants' motions to dismiss are GRANTED; All of the defendants' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED; All claims pursuant to 42 U for Koziol v. Lippman et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings

Title IV-D and Corruption - Page 6 - Sui Juris Club Forum


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 14, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *INFORMED CONSENT*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Vide: pages 5 & 6 FOC HANDBOOK 'Opting Out' and 'Starting a Case, plaintiff's complaint'
http://courts.mi.gov/administration/scao/resources/documents/publications/manuals/focb/focb_hbk.pdf
Information provided by the state may be misleading:
*
[Absent welfare] Regarding the need of both parents to be in some form of agreement in order to 'opt out' of Title IV-D services; and or that...
The state only requires one parent requesting Title IV-D services, for them 'all' [Title IV-D Contactors], to obligate the other parent to such services [absent welfare] even if it is against (his or her) will, [to abandon the child(ren) in any form].*


*[Without Welfare] 42 U.S. Code § 1301 - Definitions (d) objection of either of the parents of such child, is all that is needed!!!!!!  If the family is not on welfare or state health insurance, one parent's objection to Title IV-D Child Support Services is all that is needed to 'opt out'.*


*Federal regulations that supercede state law specifically state that a guideline award shall be rebutted when shown to not be economically appropriate. *
[Code of Federal Regulations under 45 CFR 302.56.]
The U.S. Court of Appeals – among other Federal courts – has published opinion that, when states engage in program agreements with the federal government, federal regulations supercede not just state rules and regulations but also related state statutes. A key opinion is *Jackson v. Rapps*, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, October 17, 1991. 947 F.2d 332. *This case specifically addressed child support program regulations. *http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983307P.pdf

*“Presumptive” means only default.*

By federal regulation, state child support guidelines must be “rebuttable.” They are not absolute. One must be able to give arguments for doing something else for the award than the mindlessly apply the default formula. Federal regulations that supercede state law specifically state that a guideline award shall be rebutted when shown to not be economically appropriate. [Code of Federal Regulations under 45 CFR 302.56.]

If case circumstances do not fit the assumed circumstances of the underlying economic basis of the guideline, then the existence of the differing circumstances rebut the appropriateness of the presumptive award.

Further, states are required to enact presumptive guidelines that are economically appropriate (see 45 CFR 302.56).

A number of court opinions have specifically stated general requirements for economically appropriate child support awards, and for child support guidelines to pass constitutional muster. One of the earliest opinions to articulate how to derive an economically appropriate award was Smith v. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Or. 1980). This opinion specifically stated that it is economically inappropriate and unjust to apply a welfare case guideline to non-welfare cases. That case then delineated how one should allocate child costs between parents. Cases that have defined constitutionally sound child support award processes are Meltzer v. Witsberger, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984) and Conway v. Dana, 318 A.2d 324 (Pa. 1985).

These cases established several key principles. There is equal responsibility for both the father and mother.
Presenting Your Case Introduction - CSPlus

*NOT JUST WELFARE CASES 
ALL CASES
I would dare say it is economically inappropriate to turn every child support case in Michigan into a Title IV-D case.... 
[Increasing cases, more cases with every case than if cases were just welfare cases alone] where the cost avoidance of paying welfare to the families in need is surpassed by welfare expenditures for the services on every account.  Duping the American taxpayer into paying more for services than actual welfare to needy families!*

*Purpose of Child Support to recoup taxpayer monies paid out in welfare and or welfare services to needy families and not to create non-custodial parents for the purposes of exploiting the accounts (services) to generate revenue for the county and or Title IV-D agencies slash contractors... Title IV-D Contractors acting in public. *

This Action Transmittal (AT) provides information regarding the use of MiCSES’ IV-D Case Number as Michigan’s single case identifying (ID) number on all IV-D cases and court orders that are sent to the FCR as required for federal reporting and other activities. With the MiCSES 4.0 Release, Michigan will report MiCSES’ IV-D Case Number to the FCR.

[In MiCSES, these are court orders associated to non-IV-D cases]

https://dhhs.michigan.gov/ChildSupport/policy/Documents/AT2006-025.pdf


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 19, 2018)

My ex-wife abandoned me after a working injury no fault of my own and was paid well from my workmans comp checks [the set amount was more than they could legally take so I was going in the arrears every month], paid well prior to a workmans comp settlement with a lump sum at the time of my workmans comp settlement catching up on the arrears.  After the workmans comp settlement and prior to any disability determination I was still obligated to pay the support amount determined as though I was still working even though I was not nor could not and had not since prior to her filing her complaint (divorce).

*BEWARE, *It is not uncommon to find the Title IV-D contractors allow the custodial parent to receiving both the Child Support and Social Security Disability (double dipping).  In my case even though the local Friend of the Court knew my situation-they on their own refused to make any adjustments, even after this was brought to their attention.

I had to go to the United States Department of Health and Human Resources and tell them before any oversight adjustments were made.  For over a year without retromodifcation the custodial parent received both the awarded amount of child support plus disability payments from my Social Security Portfolio  based on the amounts contributed over my years of working.... over $1, 300.00 a month in total every month for over a year when she should have only been receiving $750.00 a month from the portfolio with no child support; the amount at which it stayed until the children reached 18 years of age.  My ex-wife was so mad when I finally got it straightened out that she hauled me to court where even the FOC worker was confused about who changed the amount and what went on [I played dumb].  All I know is after filing my complaint it was fixed internally; but in my Michigan case for whatever reason (reasons I do not know) the discharge papers for my children's Child Support Case Closure did not occur until after my youngest child aged out.

To this very day my ex-wife tells people I never paid child support for my children, that the checks she received [out of my portfolio totaling more than she would have received from the child support formula had I not been disabled] was just welfare.... her  giving no credit to me  whatsoever.



Brick Layer said:


> A child support payment is a payment from a parent to meet the child's needs for food and shelter. Child support can be in cash or in-kind; it can be voluntary or court ordered.
> SSA - POMS: SI 00830.420 - Child Support Payments - 07/13/2017
> 
> *Social Security in lieu of child support *
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> *Imputation of Income (Child Support)
> Actual resources of each parent factual assumptions... *
> 
> The Legislature directed that the formula be *based on the children's needs and the actual resources of each parent*.
> ...



*Court must find that a parent is actually capable of working!*
CASE CLOSER procedures are mandated by federal regulations and require a 60-day written notice to the custodial parent before case closure is accomplished.

The Child Support Hustle


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *Hello, I AM, Brick Layer*
> I support family rights and 50/50 parenting; Title IV-D practical application research and remedy.  I hope that with my postings that I am able to reach at least one...
> 
> A situation or condition that results from the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic qualities, identities, or activities: _the national schizophrenia that results from carrying out an unpopular war. _
> ...





Ringel05 said:


> Everyone should have a hobby.





*ACTION!!!! (seeking no money damages)
The Friend of the Court, Sheriff, and the County are the named defendants.*
....this is a Pending Case I helped co author with the plaintiff (a close friend of mine); access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.  
Please pray for my friend [Title IV-D Poster Child], a victim of the divorce industry, devastated by the Title IV-D corruption; he is having health issues and needs prayers for strength and healing as we see this Title IV-D Case make its way through the wheels of our American justice system; waiting remedy. 
NOTICE there is nothing for sale here, I with permission am simply sharing, for others.....
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/michigan/miedce/2:2017cv11789/320733


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *The law automatically recognizes two legal parents,
> paternity is assumed when the child is born to a married couple.
> 
> Paternity Fraud*





Brick Layer said:


> *STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CHILD SUPPORT)
> Statutes of limitations serve important purposes in our criminal justice system. Not only do they protect defendants from having to defend against stale claims, they pressure law enforcement officials to act promptly. The public is served by them in that wrongdoers are brought to justice more quickly. Also, an accused is less likely to be deprived of evidence or witnesses lost through the passage of time.*
> 
> Although the felony-nonsupport charge is related to an order of support pursuant to the support and parenting time act, it is a distinct criminal action.
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> *Imputation of Income (Child Support)
> Actual resources of each parent factual assumptions... *
> 
> The Legislature directed that the formula be *based on the children's needs and the actual resources of each parent*.
> ...



*This touches on statute of limitations, and imputations.... *

*A June 27, 2017 article by Kenya N. Rahmaan 
"ARE YOU A 'DAD BY DEFAULT'"*
*http://thechildsupporthustle.com/are-you-a-dad-by-default/#WednesdayWisdom*
An issue that almost always arises when men are declared a ‘Dad by Default’ in a child support order can be the amount of the order.  Because the obligor is not present during the hearing, he cannot provide necessary financial documents needed when deciding a payment amount.  The judge can then impute his income to decide a monthly payment amount.
It is important to mention that there are different statutes of limitations, based on the state, when dealing with child support judgments.  For example, the statute of limitations to enforce a child support order in Michigan is 10 years after the last obligation due while Alabama enforces a 20-year statute of limitations, (Child Support Collections).  Florida has a more complex statute of limitation when dealing with child support enforcement as it may apply ‘laches of defense’ if claimed by the defendant.  States such as Ohio and Massachusetts do not have a statute of limitation when it comes to child support orders.

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/child_support_glossary.pdf
Statute of limitations for child support by State.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *Hello, I AM, Brick Layer*
> ...


Like I said.......

Oh and I already have too many hobbies.......


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> _[Object to standing in Equity given to that which has NO STANDING IN LAW!" The court uses equity / civil jurisdiction to circumvent constitutional protections... (did the judge take an oath?); taking your child without consent 'in equity' is protection?  Laugh-out-loud (it's treason!).  In law, to impinge a lawful right, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" (90%).  In equity, to impinge a lawful right, "guilt?" must be proven by a "preponderance of the evidence" (51%).  What "defendant" would knowingly allow that?  Administrative law is the false King.]  _
> Brick Layer gives a special thank you to 'For HIS Glory, Joel Akira' ~ Sui Juris Club Forum
> Title IV-D and Corruption - Page 2 - Sui Juris Club Forum



*Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a court of equity’s creation of private law. *

*Title IV-D is strictly a federal matter, clear of state supplemental jurisdiction!
Definition of CLEAR OF*
This is where Leon R. Koziol went wrong arguing state law claims.


Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *"Title IV-D contains no private remedy-- either judicial or administrative--through which aggrieved persons can seek redress."*
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> _[Object to standing in Equity given to that which has NO STANDING IN LAW!" The court uses equity / civil jurisdiction to circumvent constitutional protections... (did the judge take an oath?); taking your child without consent 'in equity' is protection?  Laugh-out-loud (it's treason!).  In law, to impinge a lawful right, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" (90%).  In equity, to impinge a lawful right, "guilt?" must be proven by a "preponderance of the evidence" (51%).  What "defendant" would knowingly allow that?  Administrative law is the false King.]  _
> Brick Layer gives a special thank you to 'For HIS Glory, Joel Akira' ~ Sui Juris Club Forum
> 
> *Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a court of equity’s creation of private law. *
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> *Parent Facing Imprisonment for Non-support Entitled to Counsel or Equivalent*
> Family law related question decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, a decision on whether a person facing incarceration for non-support during a civil contempt hearing is entitled to appointed counsel was decided by _Turner v. Rogers_, 546 U.S. ____ (2011); provides justification for court-appointed counsel in such a case.
> *https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf*



The distinction between civil and criminal contempt is critical, because criminal contempt triggers additional constitutional safeguards. Civil contempt must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In a criminal contempt proceeding, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Intent for purposes of criminal contempt is subjective, not objective, and must necessarily be ascertained from all the acts, words, and circumstances surrounding the occurrence. Prosecutions for serious criminal contempts [in which the court wishes to sentence the defendant to imprisonment of more than six months] are subject to the jury trial protections of the Sixth Amendment.


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order, federal law requires an affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily [Section 466(a)(5)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(5)(D)) stipulates that an unmarried woman cannot put a man’s name on a child’s birth record/certificate unless the man has voluntarily acknowledged that he is the father of that child…] acknowledging paternity and entitles the affidavit to full faith and credit in any state.  A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  *In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.*
> 
> _Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle._
> *A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).*
> ...



I have spared you from 'Amen Osiris' thus far until now.


Georgia Constitution Article I, Sec. II, Par. IX. (c)
Paragraph IX. Sovereign immunity and waiver thereof; claims against the state and its departments, agencies, officers, and employees.
(c) The state's defense of sovereign immunity is hereby waived as to any action ex contractu for the breach of any written contract now existing or hereafter entered into by the state or its departments and agencies."

Child Support and the Contracts that void it!


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 19, 2018)

*TITLE IV-D REPOSITORY THREAD*
Well in all seriousness we have to have humor!!!

 Title IV-D It's a war on families....


----------



## Brick Layer (Jan 30, 2018)




----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 2, 2018)

So what have you learned as a legal intern?

Meet Your Strawman!


----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 6, 2018)

*
Title IV-D, a two prong [federal, state participation] program; *
Prong 1 Willful Abandonment, and;
Prong 2 Support, by way of either: welfare and or [without welfare] informed consent.

Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a court of equity's creation of private law!  Private agreement between the parents that is held and or maintained in [equity of] the family court.

In Michigan, these INFORMED CONSENT FEDERAL PROCEDURES in place can be found under Michigan Legislature – [Section 552.505] Duties of friend of the court.

In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, ‘an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall…’ these INFORMED CONSENT federal procedures in place can be found under Michigan Legislature – [Section 552.604 § 4(3)(b) Support and Parenting Time Enfocement Act 295 of 1982]:
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...

[In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.]

Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543). A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles. If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification.

Right to ‘Opt Out’ of the services;
[Opting out of Title IV-D if there is no welfare (TANF)];
42 U.S. Code § 1301 (d) - Definitions:
‘Nothing in this chapter [THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE] shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative [Title IV-D Contractor], in carrying out any of the provisions of this chapter [including PART D child support], to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child,’



Punky Brewster - Wikipedia





Brick Layer said:


> *
> CONGRESSIONAL INTENT*
> The federal Child Support Enforcement program in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act was created as a program designed to recover taxpayer money spent on several federal welfare programs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 11, 2018)

*Writ in the Nature of a:
COMMON LAW DEPOSITION

THE UNDERSIGNED common law citizen Six Pack Joe: a common man at law, not limited to but including: Six Pack Joe's legal person in law (SIX PACK JOE), hereafter: Deponent, Petitioner, Plaintiff, certifies under oath deposes and says, *

The intent of the Federal State Title IV-D Child Support Program, was created to recoup taxpayer money already spent on providing specific welfare services to children who have been willfully abandoned by a parent _(or parents)_ and are therefore left to rely on the government to self sustain through one of these programs.

At no point past or present has there been: willfully abandoned child(ren), willful failure to financially support child(ren), nor has child(ren) been left in despair, all basic needs where met at all times during the child adolescent years and therefore Six Pack Joe never committed a 'crime' against any child nor 'crimes against children'.

WHEREFORE any 'CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN' claim held against Six Pack Joe on behalf of his minor children's adolescent account are invalid and are held without neither the children's nor my consent, we do not bring credibility or validation to said allegations. This very allegation causes injury and defamation of character to the children's direct posterity as members and offspring of the Joe family. Such claim is a direct trespass against Six Pack of the Joe family, his own children, and his children's children [grandchildren] when such allegations 'crimes against children' are falsely advertised as such worldwide on the web.

FURTHERMORE I Six Pack of the Joe family declare and believes that there is no signature or agreement 'wet ink endorsement' (signed stipulation) with any party in the Circuit Court family division or otherwise, nor is any such 'thing' on file with The Friend of the Court office. If such a stipulation is on file it is an inauthentic government and forged document (fraudulently created document) used for application, creation, and or imputation of a Title IV account without my Informed Consent _ab initio_; fraudulently created and used for PART D of Title IV, and the eventual and evident application of a warrant.

'Falsifying documents' is a type of white collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document for the purpose of deceiving another person. In many states, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony, 8 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud; Michigan Compiled Laws Ann. § 750-248; Michigan Compiled Laws Ann. § 750-249.

*Deponent / Petitioner / Plaintiff further sayeth not,

SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE NOTED Common Law Citizen is,*
*Arm's Length and or At Arm's Length*​*

Date[d] [the year of our LORD]:*
*





Six Pack of the Joe family                    
Plaintiff, in propria persona                 *​


----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 17, 2018)

*Beware of [object to] 'state supplemental jurisdiction' *[(object to) Rooker-Feldman];* *

*Title IV-D Program is a federal policy with state voluntary participation *[corresponding state statutes are in conformity to the federal program]; **

*The 'IV-D program' is a federal matter and funded so, for the play!!! *[pay]


When Kelvin L. Harold challenged the [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine and lost, The Seventh Circuit applied what is left of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine because Harold had an agreement to the judgment’s entry nearly two decades ago, but failed to pay, which caused the judgment’s (alleged) creditor, Steel, to secure a garnishment order from the Indiana court. The only injury that Harold suffered occurred when the state judge ruled against him; [Harold’s claim did not include fraud]. Harold v. Steel, No. 14-1875 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2014)

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine merely recognizes that 28 U. S. C. §1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction [Six Pack Joe's fraud claim], and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court, see 28 U. S. C. §1257(a). The doctrine has no application to judicial review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency. [See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 644, n. 3 (2002)] (Rooker-Feldman does not apply to a suit seeking review of state agency action).

EXCEPTION TO ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE

[Michigan’s no fault means no fault, no fault insurance… no fault divorce… etc, no winners no losers; contract and or merchant law.]

And yet, an exception to Rooker-Feldman of just such an equitable persuasion has taken root. A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that *Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.*

In other words, when a “state-court loser” complains that the winner owes his triumph not to sound legal principles—or even unsound ones—but to fraud, then the loser is not really complaining of an injury caused by a state-court judgment, but of an injury caused by the “winner’s chicanery”. Or so the reasoning goes.

This reasoning received an intellectual boost from Exxon Mobil, where the scope of what kinds of actions were “inextricably intertwined” with state-court judgments took a serious blow [Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291]. In Exxon Mobil, the Court clarified that not all actions dealing with the “same or related question” resolved in state court are barred in federal court [Id. at 292.]. Instead, a district court must retain a case that presents an “independent claim” even if, along the way, the claimant challenges or denies some conclusion reached by the state court [Id. at 293 (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1993)).].

[Six Pack Joe] Having extensively exhausted all administrative remedy has standing in suit while seeking the constitutional provision of this judiciary [remedy and protection] of the United States District Court jurisdiction and apart from the state apparatus; the County Circuit Court’s appearance of impropriety and or conflict of interest in these matters (specifically the five funding streams for the Child Support Enforcement Program plus incentives); constitutional judiciary of the Federal Court outside and apart from the state court were the fraudulent Federal Title IV and Title IV-D Federal Program injuries occurred; and continue to injure (both the taxpayer) and most pertinent [Six Pack Joe].

[Six Pack Joe] is not practicing from the bench, practicing for hire, employment, or otherwise, and is not reviewing ‘child support’ wherefore has never brought up the issue of ‘arrears’, had that been [Six Pack Joe’s] the issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied; [Six Pack Joe] is not arguing ‘Child Support’ instead ‘Agency Actions’ a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud and or frauds.

[Six Pack Joe] Does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; ex parte style or otherwise.


[Wargames; gamesmanship on the court]


----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 25, 2018)

*I believe many cases have been dismissed because of... *



Brick Layer said:


> *Beware of [object to] 'state supplemental jurisdiction' *[(object to) Rooker-Feldman];* *
> 
> *Title IV-D Program is a federal policy with state voluntary participation *[corresponding state statutes are in conformity to the federal program]; **
> 
> ...



...overcoming state supplemental jurisdiction and or the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is key in overcoming RULE 56(e); and or a 12(b) dismissal under 12(b)(6); keeping the federal matters under federal jurisdiction away from [1 Corinthians 9:13] the state court actors (circuit court family division) and or [bonded Title IV-D] participants acting in public like the _de jure_ government.

All the grant monies [five streams of funding plus incentives] flow into each county's general fund (Title IV-D fund) through thier *comprehensive annual financial reports**; investment funds*.


----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 27, 2018)

http://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 27, 2018)

Do you feel better now that you have that off your chest?

You may have a legitimate beef- or not.

But I didn't bother to read much of any of what you posted because you weren't succinct.

I am posting in the probably vain attempt to get you to write shorter more succinct posts about what it is you are concerned about- and then if- and when people respond with questions- provide them with more detail.


----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 27, 2018)

CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
EXPUNGEMENT






‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010)
Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate *the prompt expungement of* [Six Pack Joe's]* any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false*, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;


Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.

(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)

[Title IV and or Title IV-D Expungement; federal jurisdiction (administrative review) judicially.]


----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 27, 2018)

Syriusly said:


> when people respond with questions- provide them with more detail.



If you have any questions about Title IV (Welfare) Part D (Child Support) please feel free to provide a more detailed question and I will gladly respond to the best of my ability; my only concern is education and awareness.

'schools are for fish'

Malachi 4:6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction."

Luke 1:17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."


----------



## Brick Layer (Feb 27, 2018)

Six Pack Joe, believes all administrative remedies have been exhausted, all steps have been provided for in the procedural rules and the statute having been followed (except in the instance described here in and throughout [untold damage] ) and must resort to the courts. * The subject of judicial review is perhaps the most intriguing-and most difficult-aspect of administrative law: where the statute is attacked as being unconstitutional, the agency is charged with exceeding the powers created by statute, and or powers created by statute misused.  Administrative determinations of law (other than determination of their own jurisdiction) are persuasive but not binding.  *_See:_ [Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)], *But under the Administrative Procedure Act the Court must look not only to the evidence presented by the agency but to “the whole record*."

*Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that except where statute precludes review or where the agency action is, by law, committed to agency discretion “any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”*

Administrative Agencies by John Schulman (1949 Practising Law Institute) [highlighted].pdf



Brick Layer said:


> A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that *Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.*
> 
> In other words, when a “state-court loser” complains that the winner owes his triumph not to sound legal principles—or even unsound ones—but to fraud, then the loser is not really complaining of an injury caused by a state-court judgment, but of an injury caused by the “winner’s chicanery”. Or so the reasoning goes.
> 
> This reasoning received an intellectual boost from Exxon Mobil, where the scope of what kinds of actions were “inextricably intertwined” with state-court judgments took a serious blow [Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291]. In Exxon Mobil, the Court clarified that not all actions dealing with the “same or related question” resolved in state court are barred in federal court [Id. at 292.]. Instead, a district court must retain a case that presents an “independent claim” even if, along the way, the claimant challenges or denies some conclusion reached by the state court [Id. at 293 (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1993)).].


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 1, 2018)

*Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent *  ...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]

Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.






The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund


"Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, 1/25/51, entitled "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 1, 2018)

The requirement of *Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611,* that municipal liability under § 1983 can only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to Government "policy or custom," makes it clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. There must at the very least be an affirmative link between the municipality's policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.

*Clearfield Doctrine*
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc

*SECTION 1983: BASIC PRINCIPLES, INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY LIABILITY 
https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/kb-s1983-1-nsa09Blum.pdf*

_______________
Text of a Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States
Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights *Abuse or Corruption*

(2) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:

(a) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or

(b) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;

(3) to be or have been a leader or official of:

(a) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or

(b) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or the official’s tenure; or
_______________

[In America, a free society, contract makes law and truth is sovereign!]


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 1, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent *  ...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
> [Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]
> 
> Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.







http://www.usmessageboard.com/attac...-stipulation-on-file-with-the-foc-pdf.179722/


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 3, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *Clearfield Doctrine*
> "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
> http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc



What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation. As such, government (or in your case a court) then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government, like any private corporation, must be the _holder in due course _of a contract or other commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom demands for specific performance are made and further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

Part of the New Deal


Brick Layer said:


> The reason I can see is... taking God's portable property, gold, silver, copper, etc. out of the money (substance) and replacing it with (fiat currency) a debt based currency.
> 
> The NEW DEAL!!!  Where the backs of every American and their children are pledged 'birth certificate' the creditors on account, the account of the United States deficit spending [Federal Title IV-D Fun[ding]], backed by We the People's faith and credit.



Can a law itself be a crime?


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 3, 2018)

Most judges are breaking the law


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 3, 2018)

GLOSSARY OF COMMON CHILD SUPPORT TERMS

CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL

Social Security Act Title IV

*§ 303.101 Expedited processes.

(a) Definition. Expedited processes* means administrative and judicial procedures (including IV-D agency procedures) required under section 466(a)(2) and (c) of the Act;

*(c) *_*Safeguards.* _Under expedited processes:

*(1)* Paternities and orders established by means other than full judicial process must have the same force and effect under State law as paternities and orders established by full judicial process within the State;

*(2)* The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;

*(3)* The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, paternity determination, and/or support order;

*(4)* Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the State's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [acting statutes].

[Gamesmanship on the court - Court, a place where games are played... tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, etc. Psalm 104:26; Luke 22:25.]


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 3, 2018)

*FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."  
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities*
Example:
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix

Welcome to the Child Support Portal
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law.  45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans.  All state plans can be found at state plan system:

Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section

Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN

Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 3, 2018)

TASK FORCE REPORT 
DEFINING THE “UNDERGROUND ECONOMY”
A 2007 Internal Revenue Service report defined the “underground economy” as “the value of goods and services that elude official measurement.” They “elude” us because underground economy participants ignore their duty to report transactions in which they exchange those goods and services. Not reporting the transactions enables those people to evade their taxes and other financial obligations, or to conceal crimes. A substantial number of people join the underground economy to avoid paying taxes, but many have additional motives, including a desire to conceal their income from creditors. *This report focuses on one category of debtors: noncustodial parents who choose to work in the underground economy in order to avoid providing financial support for their children.*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 4, 2018)

*Emanuel Law Outlines*
It’s hard to think of legal study aids and not think of the Emanuel® Law Outline series.


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 4, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *§ 303.101(C)(4) *Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the state's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [the state's federal court].
> 
> [The state's acting statutes, controlling statutes, authorities [violated] according to Federal Law, 'Social Security' Law 'Title IV' and or including 'Part D' of that welfare act)].





Brick Layer said:


> *FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
> Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities*



Pretend-Six Pack Joe files a federal lawsuit (and or performs a federal removal procedure) regarding his common law deposition (fraud remedy), challenging the alleged private 'written agreement' between the parties/parents in the [equity] family court arena.  That contract that which is required under 'informed consent Title IV-D duties of office' and then that 'written agreement' is reviewed and entered into the record by the court... A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the payer that he or she shall.... [without specific  welfare services, temporary assistance to needy families being paid out by the taxpayer on behalf of Six Pack Joe's minor child] he or she still knowingly agree and or agrees to a SUPPORT ORDER, period.  If there is no such agreement between Six Pack Joe and another party, with a wet ink signature, and the defendant and or defendants claim some prima facie evidence [prima facie presumption] that just such a 'stipulation' does exists when it does not - is a fraud *(crime); *a rebuttable presumption; of fact.

Pretend-Six Pack Joe's defendant and or defendants create, alter, and or modify some document with what looks like Six Pack Joe's wet ink signature on the face of it, and in fact it is not Six Pack Joe's signature at all, this is document tampering, is a fraud *(crime)* too - together alongside the above said rebutted evidence 'document that was passed along for the purpose of deceiving another person and or persons'.

*Pretend [rhetorical question] riddle: *all arguments aside, in any case, if Six Pack Joe with first hand knowledge knows of no such acknowledgement and or stipulation; then how can one 'they' defend the (crime) of passing along of a document, that said (prima facie evidence) claim that a stipulation exists [first] - without someone [secondly], someone other than Six Pack Joe forging and or document tampering???

The other (2 crime) of defendant and or defendants falsifying a document in support of the (1 crime) defendant and or defendants false witness to an _alleged _agreement between the parents of the child.  [The child not on welfare and or tax payer recoupment not to exceed the amount so paid out to the family as listed under: Prohibitions; Requirements  “…not exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family, which accrue (or have accrued) before the date the family ceases to receive assistance under the program, which assignment, on and after such date, shall not apply with respect to any support (other than support collected pursuant to section) which accrued before the family received such assistance and which the State has not collected.”]



Six Pack Joe got em' boxed in...... Six Pack neither practicing from the bench or otherwise, is not reviewing 'support' wherefore has never brought up the issue of 'arrears' had that been Six Pack Joe's issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied.  Six Pack Joe is not arguing 'child support' instead 'agency actions' a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud(s)!  Six Pack Joe does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; and or beyond federal Sec. 408. [42 U.S.C. 608] (a)(3).

*Pretended answer to the riddle:* with all the facts in place - one 'they' can't.  Summary requests have to view the case in most favorable view to the Plaintiff (summary judgements on the pleadings) and or (Default default judgement) when a party [the defendant and or defendants] against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend the merits of the case; merits of the case them being Plaintiff's claim and or pleadings rebutting all rebuttable presumptions in law, and at law; regarding Title IV and or Title IV-D fraud.

PLAYING BY THE RULES: FRCP 55(A) AND THE CIRCUIT SPLIT REGARDING ITS MEANING
Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

hyperlink left click mouse
↓ over emoticon:



A parent working and living above poverty plus receiving support from the other parent is a financial incentive... There would be less divorce and or family separation (broken homes) given the knowledge of the voluntary nature of child support [willful abandonment]; withholding of consent knocks out the financial incentives giving into the fact that most parents would rather work and or not be so poor as to want to live on welfare.... just to make the other parent pay/play - logically in most cases both parents want the best for their children.   It is best to settle domestic differences before going to court without the aid of government 'in the best interest of your children' and or family wealth; America's children's overall inheritance, quality of life, and or posterity;  ....just saying.


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 4, 2018)

*sta·tis·tics*



Brick Layer said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



THOUGH INTENDED FOR ALL (six pack joe style)

*Last known, this* [thread and or threaded]* information only helps to serves the lost 4% theory; 
[4% from Michigan plus the other percentage percents from the other states in the federally united states; United States of America]  *...with hopes that the spread of knowledge, information, and belief 'thought model' on a case by case basis [in conformity to law]; addressing the [Title IV] wrong specifically, that this will lead to correcting most [IV-D] wrongs collectively.

[*Federal Title IV-D Child Support Program, *Over 96 percent of support cases in Michigan are Title IV-D cases. As the Title IV-D administrator for the State, the Office of Child Support must ensure that all Title IV-D services comply with the federal regulations related to those services.]



Brick Layer said:


> A parent working and living above poverty plus receiving support from the other parent is a financial incentive... There would be less divorce and or family separation (broken homes) given the knowledge of the voluntary nature of child support [willful abandonment]; withholding of consent knocks out the financial incentives giving into the fact that most parents would rather work and or not be so poor as to want to live on welfare.... just to make the other parent pay/play - logically in most cases both parents want the best for their children.   It is best to settle domestic differences before going to court without the aid of government 'in the best interest of your children' and or family wealth; America's children's overall inheritance, quality of life, and or posterity;  ....just saying.
> 
> hyperlink left click mouse
> ↓ over emoticon:






Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > “The authors find that a low-income noncustodial parent must have earnings 50 to 100 percent higher than the custodial parent in order to pay child support and taxes and enjoy the same standard of living as the custodial family.”
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 4, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *the lost 4% theory *



Title IV-D services include all child support services provided in Michigan with the exception of custody and parenting time.
All means 100%.


Brick Layer said:


> This Action Transmittal (AT) provides information regarding the use of MiCSES’ IV-D Case Number as Michigan’s single case identifying (ID) number on all IV-D cases and court orders that are sent to the FCR as required for federal reporting and other activities. With the MiCSES 4.0 Release, Michigan will report MiCSES’ IV-D Case Number to the FCR.
> 
> [In MiCSES, these are court orders associated to non-IV-D cases]
> 
> https://dhhs.michigan.gov/ChildSupport/policy/Documents/AT2006-025.pdf





Brick Layer said:


> [Federal Title IV-D Child Support Program,* Over* 96 percent of support cases in Michigan are Title IV-D cases. As the Title IV-D administrator for the State, the Office of Child Support *must ensure* that *all* Title IV-D services *comply with the federal regulations* related to those services.]



100 - 96 [or more] = 4; hence the lost 4% [or less] 
*4% from Michigan plus the other percentage percents from other states (far reaching). *
USMessageBoard where your voices count
*
*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 7, 2018)

*Title IV-D Funding: Debt Trap



*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 8, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *Clearfield Doctrine*
> ...




*31 CFR 363.6 *
Minor means an individual under the age of 18 years. The term minor is also used to refer to an individual who has attained the age of 18 years but has not yet taken control of the securities contained in his or her minor account.


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 8, 2018)

*WELFARE *(Title IV-D)
*Proceedings for support of custodial parent and children being supported by public assistance; burden of proof.*
....or any of them are being supported, in whole or in part, by public assistance under the social welfare act.



Brick Layer said:


> *FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
> Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities*
> Example:
> 45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
> ...



42 U.S.C. § 654 - U.S. Code Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare § 654 | FindLaw
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/state_plan_table_of_contents.pdf


*552.602 Definitions. *[Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf

(f) "Department" means the department of human services.

(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.

(hh) "Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.

(ii) "Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court or a prosecuting attorney.

Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements

Michigan Legislature - Section 339.904

Michigan Legislature - Section 339.907

Michigan Legislature - Section 339.915a

Michigan has the largest number of families in Title IV-D per capita in the nation exceeding California by over 2 to 1.
Michigan also has the largest ratio of Title IV-D cases per minor child in the nation. Surpassing California by 236 percent: 41.52% vs. 17.63%
Title IV-D and Corruption


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 8, 2018)

*Nation wide (All across America - every state)*

...this link is in regards to Texas legislature:
The Child-Support Lie and The Title IV-D Reply

*World wide every state (nation) in the world and or Hague states.*
Estimated 150,000 international cases.... These cases have been primarily handled under bilateral agreements that the U.S. has with 14 countries and 12 Canadian provinces. Bilateral agreements require time-consuming country-by-country negotiations. As a result of U.S. ratification of the Hague Child Support Convention, we will have a treaty relationship with 31 countries in which the Convention is already in force, including the European Union.
U.S. Ratification of Hague Child Support Convention


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 9, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> hyperlink left click mouse
> ↓ over emoticon:




Will It Go Round In Circles 1971 Billy Preston 1946 to 2006 Original Song EarlyEd Bangladesh Charity


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 9, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *TO ALL SUNDRY BY THESE PRESENTS,*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_
Consensus facit legem.
*Consent makes law. • A contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.*

Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle. 
*A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).*

Consensus facit legem. 
*Consent makes law. • A contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.*

Cujusque rei potissima pars est principium. 
*The principal part of everything is the beginning.*

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.  
*False in one thing, false in everything.*

Quae ab initio non valent, ex post facto convalescere non possunt.  
*Thing invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by a subsequent act.*

Sublata causa tollitur effectus.  
*Remove the cause and the effect ceases.*

Nemo debet locupletari ex alterius incommode.  
*No one out to be enriched out of another’s disadvantage.*_




Brick Layer said:


> *TITLE IV -D*
> *The State receives 3 to 5 dollars for every dollar they extort from a **non custodial** parent from the federal government!!!*
> 
> *There are five funding streams for the Child Support Enforcement Program;*
> ...



*Five steams of fun... funding each child, and or family on welfare (Title IV-D) and or by voluntary (willful) informed consent!!!! 

"We" need a state court 'Looser' dead-beat.... for federal funding!!!!
5 (streams) x matching dollars = 10

*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 10, 2018)

yesterday's*Typos - it happens.  *[downfalls of editing time-limits]

*[Collection of Legal Maxims in Law and Equity]*



Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *TO ALL SUNDRY BY THESE PRESENTS,*
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 10, 2018)

*No Special Requirements, Licenses, or Certifications needed to be a child support specialist working in the child support industry.
*


Brick Layer said:


> Civil Servant Child Support Specialist from Developing Capacity to Senior Capacity Operations....
> CurrentJobSpecification





Brick Layer said:


> Title IV-D Contractors
> Federal Title IV-D Program *'Duty of Care' *administered at the state level;
> Office of Child Support (OCS) who then contracts the legal services of local prosecutors, sheriffs, and foc offices;
> How has this term impacted your life?



Plausible Deniability



Brick Layer said:


> “….our agency has no rights to custody visitation we don’t deal with those issues we deal with child support issues alone.”
> 
> “The bureaucrat’s plea, we didn’t take your children the office down the hall took your children, then the next office down the hall takes your bank account, the next office takes your savings, and the next office along they take you.”; About Stephen Baskerville, PhD.



*TO CREATE CRIMES*

A new set of crimes, it creates civil orders without rights, without your rights because you weren’t there. We often have what you call an _*ex parte*_ hearing, that means one were only one side goes in and the other side doesn’t get any notice, has no idea that there is a hearing going on, and doesn’t even show up because they don’t know it’s happening.

FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Non-TANF, without (absent) Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, that is zero paid out by taxpayers for recoupment regarding Title IV-D Case (SIX PACK JOE).

Absent an agreement by (without) Six Pack Joe - the required wet ink 'stipulation' [reviewed and entered into the record by the state 'family' court] needed to abscond the welfare requirement for Title IV Services, this including Part D of Title IV; for the Defendants to claim otherwise equates to fraud.

Not only does this injure Six Pack Joe but it is also fraud on the taxpayer and taxpayer monies - the Defendants known misrepresentation of the Federal Title IV-D Program ‘their use of trickery to achieve a political, financial, and legal purpose’.


Mindset have you?
Just think of all those _alleged_ arrears once due and owing not subject to retro modification and the per dollar in relation to the five streams of funding [fractional banking] fracturing the family unite plus interest; untold damages!


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 10, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > Brick Layer said:
> ...



That was *5 (streams) x 2 bucks = 10

...a 10 to 1 business ratio.

With 1 being each account (account of Title IV) grows a 10 to 1 cash flow (Title IV-D reimbursement dollars).

[Every Dollar, 'expenditures' used to calculate the next Title IV-D budget 'social securities' expands & compounds - com..... 'pounds on families']; 

Welfare dollars going to every county municipal corporation rather than [and or on top of] welfare dollars going to the family and or child; hence necessary typo correction above for clarity.  '

Social Security Act' a social policy.

*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 10, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *[Every Dollar, 'expenditures' used to calculate the next Title IV-D budget 'social securities' expands & compounds - com..... 'pounds on families']; *



[critical mass]

.....a perpetual budget model.



self sustaining


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 11, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent *  ...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
> ...



If you believe this a state court matter (maybe) simply send judicial notice to the state court case issuing the bench warrant....


*Writ in the Nature of an affidavit:
JUDICIAL NOTICE*

TAKE NOTICE:

THIS MATTER coming forth as a writ filed by Six Pack of the Joe family, and the court being otherwise fully advised in the premises: 

[In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.]

In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.604

*A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties ‘parents’ or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.*

* Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a court of equity’s creation of private law.*  Review of the docket ‘the record’ clearly shows there has never been a private agreement between the parents ‘parties’, there is no written stipulation on record, and or the docket is absent a written agreement between the parents (private parties) Civil Court Case No. : 'state family court number'; in conformity to Federal Title IV Procedures (under the state plan ‘controlling state statutes in conformity to the federal welfare program) needed ‘required’ to abscond the welfare requirements for Title IV Services not limited to but including Part D of Title IV.

_Having firsthand knowledge of all the facts stated herein, and being competent in mind and body to testify, declaring and affirming with clean hands that the facts stated herein are true, correct, and complete in all material fact, not misrepresented, this writ in the nature of an Affidavit stands Prima Facie as Conclusive Truth: Verified Under Seal and admissible as evidence [federal evidence rule 902] if not properly rebutted and proved inaccurate.  Signed “within the United States of America” without the United States [28 U.S.C. 1746]; verifying under penalty of perjury under laws of the United States of America, and the state of Michigan, that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief._

*Affiant further sayeth naught.*

Respectfully submitted this ________ Day of ________ 2018 A.D.,


by _______________________________________________
..... Six Pack Joe


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 11, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *Title IV-D due process Timeline... *
> A case qualifies for Title IV-D services when children are receiving public assistance or [absent equal parenting time 'joint physical' and 'joint legal' custody] a custodial party or non-custodial parent has [*upon informed consent* each [parent] has *first yielded to an agreement/stipulation* together producing the 'custodial non-custodial' arrangement, in effect a form of 'voluntary partial abandonment by their agreement in writing to fractionalize the amount of time the children spend with each', that written agreement [*required to make 'custody' and 'support' orders valid'*] between parents (both parties), and then *secondly one of them*]] *requested Title IV-D services*.
> 
> * Hint:* the key is in the contractual arrangement, an '*ex parte*' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'  lacking the wet ink signature of both parents 'written agreement' giving birth to [that] contract; 'contract law' and then the possibility of a breach of agreement, court action to enforce that agreement [enforcement order], and eventually contempt of court for failure to comply with court's oversight of the stipulation of that  'written agreement', so ordered enforced!
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *INFORMED CONSENT*.
> ...






Brick Layer said:


> GLOSSARY OF COMMON CHILD SUPPORT TERMS
> 
> CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL
> 
> ...



Again,
'Opt out' at the Federal Level only takes one parents objection if there is no Title IV Services.... and possibly takes both parents at the State Level because of the Title IV-D time-line - to start a Title IV-D Friend of the Court Case it is presumed that an agreement  (stipulation) of both parents 'parties'  has already been reviewed and entered into the record by the court, wherefore it takes an agreement of both parents 'parties' to dissolve the bilateral agreement 'private contract' changing their minds together to opt out.


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 11, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *Parent Facing Imprisonment for Non-support Entitled to Counsel or Equivalent*
> Family law related question decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, a decision on whether a person facing incarceration for non-support during a civil contempt hearing is entitled to appointed counsel was decided by _Turner v. Rogers_, 546 U.S. ____ (2011); provides justification for court-appointed counsel in such a case.
> *https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf*







Darren Edward

Practicing in equity I don't know if any esquire can 'represent' a client without a 'stipulation' the private 'agreement' on the docket and or in the 'record' of the family court?
This may be the only true objective.... the bargain.

'Present' is first hand knowledge... (Article III standing; Genesis 5:2)
'Represent' is second hand knowledge... (Article I standing through contract)


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 13, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  *In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > These non-public assistance families could voluntarily apply for IV-D services; they could, also, close their IV-D cases at any time.
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *Title IV-D due process Timeline... *
> ...








*AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)*

*TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families)*

*TITLE IV WELFARE*

*WITHOUT WELFARE (absent taxpayer monies being paid out to the family), to abscond the welfare requirements of Title IV in Michigan 'ex parte' or not the [private] parties* *must enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered [on the docket] in the record by the [equitable] [family] court, and the parties [both] must be provided a copy of the voluntary support order.  For the [circuit] court's order to be valid in conformity to law.*
*
Title IV Part D CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Uniform Child Support Order states,
"This order is entered on stipulation/consent of the [parents] parties."*


*[In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT* by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
*The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record* by the court...
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.604

*§ 303.101 Expedited processes.
(a) Definition. Expedited processes* means administrative and judicial procedures (including IV-D agency procedures) required under section 466(a)(2) and (c) of the Act;

*(c) *_*Safeguards.* _Under expedited processes:

*(2)* The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;

*(3)* The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, paternity determination, and/or support order;]


APPLICATION FOR IV-D CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
(For Privately Filed Domestic Relations Cases Only)

Approved, SCAO (state court administrator's office)
UNIFORM CHILD SUPPORT ORDER

Approved, SCAO (state court administrator's office)
UNIFORM CHILD SUPPORT ORDER 
NO FRIEND OF THE COURT SERVICES

Government Publishing Office [US]
SECTION 8. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM CONTENTS

[advise; advice]
CONSENT a doorway to governmental interference, into the child's life with (both parents); the assignment of rights; account of the childhood [at child's expense] [a cost allegedly 'presumed' to the American taxpayers].  But often in fact 'support' is more about [hidden] [welfare] money to the counties on account of each and every Title IV-D Account Created.






Brick Layer said:


> _Hihil tam proprium imperio quam legibus vivere._
> *Nothing is so becoming to authority as to live according to the law.*
> *
> *
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 13, 2018)

*CHILD SUPPORT COOPERATION AND PUBLIC BENEFITS
There are a total of three states that have a distinct child support enforcement cooperation requirement and a CD clause in place.  Florida, Mississippi and Michigan all enforce sanctions, or loss of benefits, when people do not comply with suing the nonresidential parent for child support.
*

*MDHHS - Public Assistance and Child Support*
State and federal law requires those receiving public assistance to cooperate with the Office of Child Support and the Prosecuting Attorney. The term "public assistance" includes a wide variety of assistance programs you may receive, including cash assistance, food assistance, child care and medical services.

If you are receiving public assistance, the Office of Child Support will send a letter to you. The letter will ask you to provide additional information by a certain due date.
Pay attention to the due date and follow the instructions in the letter. If you do not provide the information by the due date, you may be found uncooperative. This will put your case into noncooperation status, which could result in your public assistance benefits being reduced or stopped.

CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy)
Child Support Cooperation Requirements and Public Benefits Programs:  An Overview of Issues and Recommendations for Change
One of these requirements is that the person in the family with the legal right to do so must assign to the state any rights he/she has to spousal support as well as any rights any child in the family has to receive child support. 42 USC § 608(a)(3) In addition, federal law requires that states impose a child support cooperation requirement on the responsible individual unless that person can establish “good cause” for refusing to cooperate. 42 USC § 65(29) Cooperation must be in “good faith” and includes 1) appearing at interviews, hearings and legal proceedings; and 2) submitting to genetic testing (for purposes of establishing paternity) when ordered by a judge or administrative agency. 42 USC §§ 654(29)(B) &(C)

CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy)
Rethinking The Medicaid Child Support Cooperation Requirement

Michigan Family Independence Agency 
Welfare Reform Changes: A Chronology

Illinois DHS, Child Support Enforcement - Cooperation Requirements

So 'to' speak, "The Court made me do it....." lol


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 13, 2018)

*A support order has to be created before it can be enforced. 
State and Tribal Child Support Agency Contacts*

*STATUTORY TIME-LINE

Statutes firstly*
*ESTABLISHMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS*
*Statutes secondly
ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS
Statutes thirdly
CHANGE A SUPPORT ORDER*

*How Deadbeat are Deadbeat Dads, Really?*
* “The child support system weakens the child/father bond by separating the act of love from the act of providing.”*



Brick Layer said:


> Just think of all those _alleged_ arrears once due and owing not subject to retro modification and the per dollar in relation to the five streams of funding [fractional banking] fracturing the family unite plus interest; untold damages!



*552.603(6)(a)
*
"...and is not, on and after the date it is due, subject to retroactive modification. A surcharge may be added to support amounts that are past due..."

Interest On Child Support Arrears

Child support "arrears" are amounts that came due and, for whatever reason, weren't paid. 
Retroactive child support, sometimes referred to as "back support," refers to child support awarded for time periods prior to the entry of the initial child support order, such as the time between the parents' separation and their final child support court date. 






"...parent of retroactive support for a period prior to the entry of the order or reimbursement for common law “necessities” that the custodial parent paid before entry of the order."

*Interest *
A companion issue to arrears monitoring is interest. Some States charge interest on past-due child support obligations. Interest can be applied to unpaid support at the rate set by State statute. In the relevant States, judgment interest generally is determined in child support matters in the same way it is set in other civil judgments. States that charge interest typically begin its accrual on the day the relevant child support payment becomes due and unpaid. Darling v. Gosselin, 589 N.W.2d 192 (N.D. 1999)

Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Child Support Enforcement | CRIMINAL-CEOS | Department of Justice

Child Support Enforcement | CRIMINAL-CEOS | Department of Justice

Child Support Enforcement | Fraud | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

BENCH WARRANTS FOR CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

Behind bars and owing thousands in child support

CIVIL CONTEMPT AND THE INDIGENT CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGOR: THE SILENT RETURN OF DEBTOR’S PRISON

Parents Owing Child Support Avoid Jail (Not For Free)
"...few allow parents to avoid jail once they’ve been found in contempt of court. Programs in at least two states -- Kentucky and North Carolina -- put parents under house arrest while electronically monitoring their movement."

13 - FOC - Understanding Child Support Payment Distribution
Understanding Child Support Payment Distribution

CHILD SUPPORT HANDBOOK COLLECTING SUPPORT

UNDERSTANDING CHILD SUPPORT 
A Handbook for Parents

Notification of Policy Changes
Sec. 222. (1) The department shall make the entire policy and procedures manual available and accessible to the public via the department website. (2) The department shall report no later than April 1 of the current fiscal year on each specific policy change made to implement a public act affecting the department that took effect during the prior calendar year to the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on the budget for the department, the joint committee on administrative rules, the senate and house fiscal agencies, and policy offices. The department shall attach each policy bulletin issued during the prior calendar year to this report.


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 13, 2018)

The Nevada Supreme Court in Morelli v. Morelli 102 Nev. 326, 720 P.2d 704 (1986)
*....reasoned that the child is an intended third party beneficiary of an agreement for support between the parents.*

The New Jersey Supreme Court has reiterated this as recently as 1997 Monmouth County Div. of Social Servs. for F.M. n/k/a D.W. v. G.D.M., 308 N.J. Super. 83, 705 A.2d 408
*....when the court held that support belongs to the child and not the parent.*

'parents'


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 13, 2018)

The Systemic War Against Fathers - CultureWatch

The war on fathers

War Against Fathers | John Waters

The War Against Boys











Child Support or Parent Support?   Parents Families.com
Content / Studies and Statistical Information / Child Support Myths and Facts - S.P.A.R.C.
I'm missing my babies so much. Alan Sawyer, Real fathers for justice,

Child Support Enforcement Incentive Funding


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 13, 2018)

Fatherless [Title IV-D] children (boys) grow into men....
None are ever good enough [in the family court] to raise their own children...
Yet at the same time most are always fit enough to raise others [men's and women's] children.


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 14, 2018)

Bias, Credibility and Appellate Review in Custody Litigation | New York Law Journal

The _Montoya_ decision is instructive in terms of explicating some of the judicial and evaluator behaviors that may raise concerns that the process has been tainted by bias. It is further a useful reminder that one must tend to all relevant custody factors and not bank on just one of them alone carrying the case to victory. But the decision also reminds us how erratic the litigation process can be and that an appellate court’s precedents are binding only until they are not.










Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > Brick Layer said:
> ...


Bricklayer's qualities, identities, or activities


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 17, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES*
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 18, 2018)

Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law | CRT | Department of Justice





That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Civil Rights - Color of Law

Civil Rights

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 18, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *CHILD SUPPORT COOPERATION AND PUBLIC BENEFITS
> There are a total of three states that have a distinct child support enforcement cooperation requirement and a CD clause in place.  Florida, Mississippi and Michigan all enforce sanctions, or loss of benefits, when people do not comply with suing the nonresidential parent for child support.
> *
> 
> ...



I am not endorsing any sales; child support hustle;
I shared because the video talks about the Welfare Recovery....

This thread is free for all sundry by these presents.... I give it away; remedy [truth in knowledge]!!!

Jeremiah 33:3  ....as it is freely given to me.
John 8:32
1 Corinthians 8:1


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 18, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > Brick Layer said:
> ...




*Attorney Reporting in Newsweek: Foster Care is a System Set Up to Sex Traffic American Children*

*





Are Constitutional Sheriffs America’s Hope to Ending Child Protective Services’ Tyranny?*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 18, 2018)

*"The one great principle of English law is to make business for itself." ~ Charles Dickens, Bleak House 

 "Thieves for robbery have their authority when judges steal themselves." ~ Shakespeare, Measure for Measure *


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 18, 2018)

Follow the Title IV-D money machine.





**Const 1963, art 6, § 1 

“The judicial power of the state is vested exclusively in one court of justice . . . .”
*
Michigan Courts - One Court of Justice
Michigan Legislature - Article VI § 1

The reason the [equity] family court was created was so the judges from the [criminal] circuit court would not have to hear both murder trials and [custody decisions] family matters in the same day.... and to break up the case loads of course; the family court is big business!!!!
[The divorce industry] [The Title IV-D industry]

Though the family court is a branch of the circuit court they are both [constitutionally] under the one court of justice...

No-fault divorce means no fault even if there is a named defendant [counter sue become the counter plaintiff]; it's just business private [contract] agreement 'stipulation' of record in the family court required on the docket for establishment of child support obligations.
vs
Defending a crime _mala in se_ in the Circuit Court.


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > Brick Layer said:
> ...



*The law also assigns child support to the state when a child enters foster care. MCL 552.605d.
Administrative Abatement or Redirection of Child Support

*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Follow the Title IV-D money machine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> A child support payment is a payment from a parent to meet the child's needs for food and shelter. Child support can be in cash or in-kind; it can be voluntary or court ordered.
> SSA - POMS: SI 00830.420 - Child Support Payments - 07/13/2017
> 
> *Social Security in lieu of child support *
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *Title IV-D due process Timeline... *
> ...



*So if your a payer and ever happen to find yourself unable to pay support for the duration of the support order because your institutionalized in a psychiatric facility, incarcerated with no chance for parole, or have a medically-verified total and permanent disability with no evidence of support potential.  

Evidence of inability to pay support should include a determination that the payer is not eligible for Social Security, Veteran’s, Workers Compensation, sick, or disability benefits; has no reasonable likelihood of future employment; and has no pending insurance claims or lawsuits.*

*...than you can request for case closure as the payer if you never requested IV-D services (some offices obtain applications from both parties to a case).  When both parties have requested IV-D services, the friend of the court should not close the case's IV-D status unless there is a request to close the IV-D case from both parties. *
Friend of the Court Support Case Administrative Closure Criteria

45 CFR 3303.11(b)(8) Case closure criteria
The IV-D agency has determined that throughout the duration of the child's minority (or after the child has reached the age of majority), the noncustodial parent cannot pay support and shows no evidence of support potential because the parent has been institutionalized in a psychiatric facility, is incarcerated, or has a medically-verified total and permanent disability. The State must also determine that the noncustodial parent has no income or assets available above the subsistence level that could be levied or attached for support;

Michigan Legislature - Section 552.505a
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *"The one great principle of English law is to make business for itself." ~ Charles Dickens, Bleak House
> 
> "Thieves for robbery have their authority when judges steal themselves." ~ Shakespeare, Measure for Measure *



*Are we having fun yet?*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 22, 2018)

Many of these citing have been posted previously, though maybe not in this order consecutively; [picture pages].




Brick Layer said:


> If you believe this a state court matter.....
> Six Pack Joe



*FEDERAL JURISDICTION
(Illustrated through a collection of citing)

*​
*Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars." 
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities*

Action taken may be reviewed in the federal arena under the state's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures (the state's federal court away from the bias influence of the state court where the injuries continue to occur), vide: 45 CFR § 303.101(C)(4).  This state's acting statutes, Michigan’s controlling statutes, authorities the Defendants violated and or did not adhered to according to Federal Law that said 'Social Security Act' 'Title IV' and or including 'Part D' of the welfare act.

*WELFARE (Title IV-D)* addressing this issue specifically.
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.451b
*Proceedings for support of custodial parent and children being supported by public assistance; burden of proof.*
“....or any of them are being supported, in whole or in part, by public assistance under the social welfare act.”

*Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars." Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities;* another example of corresponding federal and state authorities *[The MATRIX ]*:
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix 

Welcome to the Child Support Portal
CSP - Welcome
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law. 45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans. All state plans can be found at state plan system:

Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section

Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN

Freedom in the 50 States:
Michigan "Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."


TITLE IV—GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD–WELFARE SERVICES 
Social Security Act Title IV

INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES
Social Security Act §458

Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program
https://greenbook-waysandmeans.hous...house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL33422_gb.pdf

Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
https://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-Program-Basics-5-2014.pdf

552.602 Definitions. [Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf
(f) "Department" means the department of human services.
(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.
(hh) *"Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.*
(ii) *"Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court* or a prosecuting attorney.

Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements
The [Six Pack Joe’s County’s] County Cooperative Agreement brings these three together (The County Municipal Corporation, The Friend of the Court) with the Title IV-D Sheriff Agreements, under (OCSE)-AT-79-3 Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for Making Arrests Pursuant to Appropriate State Process and, OCSE-AT-87-9 Child Support Enforcement Program, 45 CFR 304.22; Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, IV-D MEMORANDUM 2010-003. 

42 U.S.C § 1983; [Six Pack Joe’s] County’s Policy (Title IV-D Contractors’ Policies) is not to follow state statute in conformity to Title IV-D and or the Federal Welfare Laws of the federal ‘Social Security Act’.

Jurisdiction 42 U.S.C § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010) ‘immediate’ procedures

*Federal Court is the jurisdiction for redress of grievance; Federal Review of Agency Actions (Title IV-D agencies) under contract to the federal program; Federal jurisdiction with power to immediately expunge administrative agencies error in the record (fraud) causing the false publication of ‘crimes against children’ erroneously accosted to [Six Pack Joe] on account of fraud (the) IV-D Contractor’s passing along of copies of documents that are known to be false.  

A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.

The subject of judicial review is perhaps the most intriguing-and most difficult-aspect of administrative law: where the statute is attacked as being unconstitutional, the agency is charged with exceeding the powers created by statute, and or powers created by statute misused. Administrative determinations of law (other than determination of their own jurisdiction) are persuasive but not binding. See: [Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)], But under the Administrative Procedure Act the Court must look not only to the evidence presented by the agency but to “the whole record."

Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that except where statute precludes review or where the agency action is, by law, committed to agency discretion “any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”*

‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010) Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Plaintiff's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;

Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975,

MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.

(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6).

*Cujusque rei potissima pars est principium. 
The principal part of everything is the beginning.  It would not be lawful to enforce a support obligation that was not first established legally (in a lawful manner) and or enforce a support obligation established for reasons outside of the legislatively intended taxpayer purpose (to detour fathers from abandoning their children).

*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 22, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES*
> ...



Michigan CPS has gigantic secret list of parents labeled 'child abusers' without due process - Police State USA


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 24, 2018)

I am not trying to make this [Child Support] a gender issue..... these are just numbers (hard facts).



Brick Layer said:


> Fatherless [Title IV-D] children (boys) grow into men....
> None are ever good enough [in the family court] to raise their own children...
> Yet at the same time most are always fit enough to raise others [men's and women's] children.





*The intended purpose of child support (as it is sold to the American people) - is to deter fathers from abandoning their children; instead this social policy is tearing apart the family unit all across American in every "state of the union!"*

[I spelled it right this time 'deter' instead of 'detour' ~ masons anyway so literary... laughing out loud]


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 25, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  *In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.
> ...



United States of America's government (a constitutional republic) bound by the constitution a limited government, 'limited to that which is constitutional' a government for the people by the people 'bound by Oath of Office' with under governmental employee powers definiend and further restricted by specific statutes and codes; regulate government and business (corporations) registered to government.  
A Treatise on the Law of Negotiable Instruments 

Man (Genesis 5:2; Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-35; Galatians 3:26) is endowed by his/her creator with certain inherent and inalienable rights 'to contract in the unlimited' international contractual rights without government interference.

The Constitution and its Bill of Rights outline what are [skinnied down] commonly referred to simply as 'due process' and or 'due process rights'; men and women do not have constitutional rights only inherent rights that which are constitutionally reaffirmed by individual 'oath' to the constitutions hence the 'constitutional right'.
*



Brick Layer said:



Title IV-D due process Timeline... 

Click to expand...

*


Brick Layer said:


> *Hint: the key is in the contractual arrangement, an 'ex parte' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'  lacking the wet ink signature of both parents 'written agreement' giving birth to [that] contract; 'contract law' and then the possibility of a breach of agreement, court action to enforce that agreement [enforcement order], and eventually contempt of court for failure to comply with court's oversight of the stipulation of that  'written agreement', so ordered enforced!
> 
> 
> The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
> ...



*What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."*

*The word 'shall' appears in section 552.604 TWELVE times.....*

*Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."

Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black's Law Dictionary wrote that "In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency…which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language."

Look at this sentence:
"552.604 (3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court that provides for all of the following:"*

*Of course government cannot force someone to [must] contract therefore the word 'must' does not appear in the sentence above, now look at it again.... as liberal as the word shall has been used throughout that statute neither does the word 'shall' appear in this sentence.  The sentence simply says "The parties enter into a written agreement" with the omission of 'shall' illuminating 'may' or 'will', though and where 'must' is assumed for any and every agreement **must** take more than one party or it would be (non contractual) a unilateral agreement.  ...And where it says 'the record' means the state court 'docket' holds the facts of the matter!!!!*



Volintarily



_Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle. 
*A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).*_
*


*


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 27, 2018)

*The Title IV-D Dragnet*



Brick Layer said:


> CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
> EXPUNGEMENT
> 
> 
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> Six Pack Joe, believes all administrative remedies have been exhausted, all steps have been provided for in the procedural rules and the statute having been followed (except in the instance described here in and throughout [untold damage] ) and must resort to the courts. * The subject of judicial review is perhaps the most intriguing-and most difficult-aspect of administrative law: where the statute is attacked as being unconstitutional, the agency is charged with exceeding the powers created by statute, and or powers created by statute misused.  Administrative determinations of law (other than determination of their own jurisdiction) are persuasive but not binding.  *_See:_ [Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)], *But under the Administrative Procedure Act the Court must look not only to the evidence presented by the agency but to “the whole record*."
> 
> *Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that except where statute precludes review or where the agency action is, by law, committed to agency discretion “any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”*
> 
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> GLOSSARY OF COMMON CHILD SUPPORT TERMS
> 
> CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL
> 
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *§ 303.101(C)(4) *Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the state's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [the state's federal court].
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > Brick Layer said:
> ...




*50 STATE TABLE: CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS*
Michigan (Judicial) Michigan Compiled Laws § 552.517
See table here:


Brick Layer said:


> CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL



552.517 Sec. 17. (1) (b)
Upon receipt of a written request from either party
552.517 Sec. 17. (1) (f) (v)
At the initiative of the office (reasonable grounds to review an order under this subdivision include: 'That the order was based on incorrect facts.'



Dan Aykroyd adapting the phrase from two similar statements: “All we want are the facts, ma’am” and “All we know are the facts, ma’am.”
Dragnet


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 27, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > These non-public assistance families could voluntarily apply for IV-D services; they could, also, close their IV-D cases at any time.
> ...




*Questions and Answers Regarding IV-D Services for Domestic Relations Cases*
To assist families in determining whether they should apply for IV-D services, Friend of the Court (FOC) staff must provide access to the publication Understanding Child Support: A Handbook for Parents (DHS-Pub 748) [The DHS-Pub 748 provides applicants information about the child support program. FOC offices can order the DHS-Pub 748 by completing the Office of Child Support Publication Order List (DHS-1454). FOC staff and the general public use the DHS-1454 to order OCS publications free of charge.] to every party who requests a IVD application. [45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 303.2(a)(2)] Parties can use this information to make an educated decision as to whether or not they want to open a IV-D case or when to open a IV-D case.

*IV-D Application *

*2. Can a IV-D office use the Verified Statement as a IV-D application? [NO]*
The current approach, as OCS understands it, is that *the Verified Statement does not include the required notices and disclaimers*, including a provision to provide access to the DHS-Pub 748 (either in paper copy or online). Federal regulations require IV-D staff (including FOC staff) to provide information about the child support program to applicants for IV-D services.

*3. What must be included on a IV-D application?*
The IV-D application must include all information currently displayed on the IV-D Child Support Services Application/Referral (DHS-1201), including all notices and disclaimers. OCS highly recommends the use of the DHS-1201 or its electronic version, the e1201. IV-D applications must be available to all members of the public. Consequently, OCS has carefully designed the DHS-1201 so that this single document can be used by a wide range of applicants in a wide range of situations.... *If an applicant wishes to pursue child support from both the mother and the father,* (s)he must complete two DHS-1201s, one on each parent.

*4. What must be included with a IV-D application?*
Federal law requires that the IV-D program provide applicants with their rights and responsibilities. OCS has developed the DHS-Pub 748 to serve this purpose. IV-D staff must provide access to the DHS-Pub 748 when providing the IV-D application to prospective applicants. In fact, the DHS-1201, the Application for IV-D Child Support Services (For Privately Filed Domestic Relations Cases Only) (DHS1201D), and the e1201 indicate that by signing the application, the applicant acknowledges receipt of the DHS-Pub 748 in paper copy or access to it online. The DHS-Pub 748 helps applicants determine whether completing the IV-D application is right for them. Other questions/answers in this document highlight why applicants must be well-informed about the services they will receive.

(d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this Act, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child. [Objecting to Title IV-D services in your case, '42 USC 1301 d Parental Objection Notice']


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 27, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *Nation wide (All across America - every state)*
> 
> ...this link is in regards to Texas legislature:
> The Child-Support Lie and The Title IV-D Reply
> ...



Federal Register        ::        Notice Designating State Title IV-D Child Support Agencies as “Public Bodies”

Federal Register        ::        Child Support Enforcement Program; Intergovernmental Child Support


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 27, 2018)

Mothers in Custody Cases:  Please read!  Unaudited State Incentives (Title IV-A, IV-D) affect Family Court Decisions (posted 7/19/2011)


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 27, 2018)

*IV-D MEMORANDUM 2017-023*
*SUBJECT: *Contract Performance Standards Project

*CPS (Contract Performance Standards) refers solely to the performance standards newly established *_*within*_* the CRP (Cooperative Reimbursement Program) refers to the contract entered into by the state and the counties. *[Ref: 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 302.34.]]

Contract Policy Manual Table of Contents
Section Number 1.25 Contracts


----------



## Brick Layer (Mar 31, 2018)

Rights Without Remedies:
The University of Chicago Law Review

State Child Support Agencies With Debt Compromise Policies
STATE USE OF DEBT COMPROMISE TO REDUCE CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 3, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> “Money that is paid to the children are collected for the children (child support money) are matched by the federal government [66% reimbursement] AND THEN [Plus] THERE ARE INCENTIVES for DIFFERENT types of enforcement activities (matching funds at state and local levels as well), and so the judges each time that they grant or approve The Friend of the Court up someone’s child support collection their actually what they’re doing is padding their own pockets because that comes back to them, it indirectly comes back to them.” ~ Carol Rhodes 6:24
> Title IV-D Family Court kleptocracy (judicial malfeasance of office).wmv
> 
> "The Child Support Industry is the darling of the circuit court and that we actually made money for the judge and the court unlike the Sheriff's Department and so many agencies; our county our state was not an exception to the rule..." ~ Carol Rhodes 1:21
> ...














*The FOC** (Michigan's Friend of the Court) **does not establish the initial support order**.  This is done through the Prosecutor's Office, **private** divorces, and registration of interstate cases. *



Brick Layer said:


> https://www.accesskent.com/Courts/FOC/pdfs/FOC_deputies.pdf












*Remember the **initial support order** requires the [private] written agreement between the  [private] parties/parents, and that stipulation must be reviewed and entered into the record [on the docket] of the [state] [circuit] [family] court to be valid in conformity to law - before an enforcement order [can ensue] can issue.*
*
The enforcement order is separate from the initial support order and is cause and effect related; if the initial support order is invalid than any consequential enforcement order is void (without force or effect).  The enforcement order requires the signature of a judge oathed to the constitutions and judicially bonded & insured (constitutional protections) insuring Six Pack Joe's rights are not trampled under the color of law. 

(Six Pack Joe's natural rights, inherent rights, inalienable rights, unalienable rights, international contract rights; Six Pack Joe's Rights are - outside of - separate from - and independent of any constitution.)

The Sheriff is constitutionally bound to provide equal protection of the law!!!  




Brick Layer said:





Brick Layer said:



A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.

A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.

Consensus facit legem.
Consent makes law. • A contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.

Click to expand...


In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.

In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.604

A signed divorce decree is just one form of stipulation.
Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).
A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles.
If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification.

Search the following two PDFs for the word 'stipulation':
http://www.montcalm.us/document_center/Courts/Stipulated Motion to Change Support Order.pdf
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/publications/Friend_of_the_Court-WEB.pdf

Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:





Brick Layer said:



These non-public assistance families could voluntarily apply for IV-D services; they could, also, close their IV-D cases at any time.

The CSE program has different rules for welfare and non-welfare families.

A case qualifies for Title IV-D services when children are receiving public assistance or a custodial party or non-custodial parent has requested Title IV-D services. 

A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.

The 'PUBLIC INTEREST' does not solely lie with assuring children receive support in so much as the Title IV-D Child Support Program is a two part facet: 

(1) WILLFUL ABANDONMENT OR DESERTION, and; 
(2) [child] SUPPORT, along the way of WELFARE and or INFORMED CONSENT.

Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



			A case qualifies for Title IV-D services when children are receiving public assistance or a custodial party or non-custodial parent has requested Title IV-D services.
		
Click to expand...


Title IV-D due process Timeline... 
A case qualifies for Title IV-D services when children are receiving public assistance or [absent equal parenting time 'joint physical' and 'joint legal' custody] a custodial party or non-custodial parent has [upon informed consent each [parent] has first yielded to an agreement/stipulation together producing the 'custodial non-custodial' arrangement, in effect a form of 'voluntary partial abandonment by their agreement in writing to fractionalize the amount of time the children spend with each', that written agreement [required to make 'custody' and 'support' orders valid'] between parents (both parties), and then secondly one of them]] requested Title IV-D services.

 Hint: the key is in the contractual arrangement, an 'ex parte' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'  lacking the wet ink signature of both parents 'written agreement' giving birth to [that] contract; 'contract law' and then the possibility of a breach of agreement, court action to enforce that agreement [enforcement order], and eventually contempt of court for failure to comply with court's oversight of the stipulation of that  'written agreement', so ordered enforced!

Taking your child without consent 'in law' is kidnapping
Parentage [posterity - standing tall and looking good]
Natural Rights are Lawful Rights
Rights untimely claimed are deemed to be waived; 'rebuttable presumptions'; silence is consent; wherefore simply object.

42 USC § 1301 - Definitions
(d) Nothing in this chapter [Public Health and Welfare] shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this chapter, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.
42 U.S. Code § 1301 - Definitions
Objecting to Title IV-D services in your case, “42 USC 1301 d Parental Objection Notice”
03 4 1301 D 8x11 FORM

552.505 Duties of friend of the court
Sec. 5.
(1) Each office of the friend of the court has the following duties:

(a) To inform each party to a domestic relations matter that, unless 1 of the parties is [on welfare and is] required to participate in the title IV-D child support program, they may choose not to have the office of the friend of the court administer and enforce obligations that may be imposed in the domestic relations matter.

(b) To inform each party to a domestic relations matter that, unless 1 of the parties is [on welfare and is] required to participate in the title IV-D child support program, [neither party on welfare] they may direct the office of the friend of the court to close the friend of the court case that was opened in their domestic relations matter.

(c) To provide an informational pamphlet, in accordance with the model pamphlet developed by the bureau, to each party to a domestic relations matter. The informational pamphlet shall explain the procedures of the court and the office; the duties of the office... The informational pamphlet shall be provided as soon as possible after the filing of a complaint or other initiating pleading. Upon request, a party shall receive an oral explanation of the informational pamphlet from the office.
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.505

FRIEND OF THE COURT HANDBOOK
FRIEND of the COURT DUTIES ......................................................... 2
OPTING OUT OF FRIEND OF THE COURT SERVICES................... 3
http://courts.mi.gov/administration/scao/resources/documents/publications/manuals/focb/focb_hbk.pdf

[Object to standing in Equity given to that which has NO STANDING IN LAW!" The court uses equity / civil jurisdiction to circumvent constitutional protections... (did the judge take an oath?); taking your child without consent 'in equity' is protection?  Laugh-out-loud (it's treason!).  In law, to impinge a lawful right, guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" (90%).  In equity, to impinge a lawful right, "guilt?" must be proven by a "preponderance of the evidence" (51%).  What "defendant" would knowingly allow that?  Administrative law is the false King.]  
Brick Layer gives a special thank you to 'For HIS Glory, Joel Akira' ~ Sui Juris Club Forum

The children (no welfare) equally with both parents - no need for child support.
Joint Physical & Joint Legal Custody, Equal Parenting Time, and without welfare for tax payer recoupment - no need for child support.





Click to expand...


*


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 6, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Who benefits from Title IV-D CHILD SUPPORT....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Follow the money visually - Flow Chart!*












Brick Layer said:


> Social Security Act §458
> Social Security Act Title IV
> 
> *Title IV-D Contractors (Child Support Enforcement Agencies) are the driving factor for the creation of a non-custodial parent and the creation of a child support order.*
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 8, 2018)

Last statement sent to Sentinel from self-immolation victim

Violence Against Women's Act is a true product of Washington's swamp


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 8, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Last statement sent to Sentinel from self-immolation victim
> 
> Violence Against Women's Act is a true product of Washington's swamp






ARE YOU AWARE ....you became a federal government employee upon birth, but how long will it be before you start getting your government paycheck?

Well, if you are knowledgable and willing to take action when you turn of legal age, you can renegotiate the terms of you employment; via W4 form.

Take control of your Estate/Trust and start operating is your lawful capacity as the Administrator/Executor to that Trust that was created for 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




YOU by your W2- employer.

Employment Legal Counselors at Law ...please tell your clients the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




TRUTH!!!!!!

READ THE LAW IT WILL SHOCK YOU!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/31.3402%28p%29-1

The social security number is a government employee retirement account number, are you a government employee??? 

Then you do not need nor have to possess a SSN!!! 
There is a withdrawal of application for the number form! 

Fill it out and send it in! 
Keep all your exchange amounts from your private property labor!!!!
Citing:
Marie Shannon Murphy-Thorpe


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 9, 2018)

Too Many States Have Laws That Literally Offer Financial Incentives To DESTROY Families


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 9, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> >



How does a parent manipulate and control a child's psyche?  
Dr Childress - Parental Alienation educates members of the Pennsylvania State Legislature on the mind control of a child. (8-mins)


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 11, 2018)

Michigan Law: Another Win - Parental Rights


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 13, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> ...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
> 
> The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund
> 
> ...



If we lived in a true and or pure democracy a jury decision would only take a majority vote of the jurors to convict VS a one juror hold out to stop a conviction.
12 Angry Men from 12 Angry Men (1957)



Brick Layer said:


> *(Six Pack Joe's natural rights, inherent rights, inalienable rights, unalienable rights, international contract rights; Six Pack Joe's Rights are - outside of - separate from - and independent of any constitution.)*






*Constitutional Law*

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
_______

Unalienable. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. Black’s Law Dictionary, fourth edition p.1693

At arm’s length The term is defined in Black’s 1st Edition (1891) and 4th Edition (1968) as:
“Beyond the reach of personal influence or control.  Parties are said to deal ‘at arm’s length’ when each stands upon the strict letter of his rights, and conducts the business in a formal manner, _without trusting _to the other’s fairness or integrity, and _without being subject_ to the other’s control or overmastering influence.” [Emph. Add.]

Black’s 7th Edition (1999) does not define the term “at arm’s length”.  Instead, it defines “arm’s-length” as an adjective that means:
“Of or relating to dealings between two parties who are not related or not on close terms and who are presumed to have roughly equal bargaining power; not involving a confidential relationship <an arm’s-length transaction does not create fiduciary duties between the parties>. [Emph. Add.]


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 13, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> At arm’s length The term is defined in Black’s 1st Edition (1891) and 4th Edition (1968) as:
> “Beyond the reach of personal influence or control.  Parties are said to deal ‘at arm’s length’ when each stands upon the strict letter of his rights, and conducts the business in a formal manner, _without trusting _to the other’s fairness or integrity, and _without being subject_ to the other’s control or overmastering influence.” [Emph. Add.]
> 
> Black’s 7th Edition (1999) does not define the term “at arm’s length”.  Instead, it defines “arm’s-length” as an adjective that means:
> “Of or relating to dealings between two parties who are not related or not on close terms and who are presumed to have roughly equal bargaining power; not involving a confidential relationship <an arm’s-length transaction does not create fiduciary duties between the parties>. [Emph. Add.]



The beauty of any trust is that the trustees don't get to create it!

Family Guardian (pdf)
Suspicions News Magazine Volume 12 No. 1 (Page 57)
Constructive trusts At Arm's Length by Alfred Adask


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 14, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > paternity establishment is a prerequisite for obtaining a child support order, federal law requires an affidavit to be completed by men voluntarily [Section 466(a)(5)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(5)(D)) stipulates that an unmarried woman cannot put a man’s name on a child’s birth record/certificate unless the man has voluntarily acknowledged that he is the father of that child…] acknowledging paternity and entitles the affidavit to full faith and credit in any state.  A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  *In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.*
> ...



Title IV-D Resources – Deception Stoppers


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 14, 2018)

CHILD SUPPORT 101: STATE ADMINISTRATION

The Federalization of Child Support Guidelines

Collecting Child Support: A History of Federal and State Initiatives

Policy Clarifications of Automated Systems in Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement Program

Child Support Enforcement under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act - FindLaw


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 14, 2018)

*


Brick Layer said:



			A child support payment is a payment from a parent to meet the child's needs for food and shelter. Child support can be in cash or in-kind; it can be voluntary or court ordered.

SSA - POMS: SI 00830.420 - Child Support Payments - 07/13/2017

Social Security in lieu of child support 

http://aaml.org/sites/default/files/using social security benefits-16-1_0.pdf

3.07 Social Security Benefit Credit
3.07(A) Credit Social Security Retirement, Survivor's, or Disability Insurance benefits paid for the children based on the support payer’s earnings record against that parent’s support obligation as follows: (1) Determine the total child support obligation. (2) Determine the monthly benefit amount that is attributable to the payer and that the support recipient receives for the children and then subtract that amount from the total child support obligation. (a) If the children’s payer-based benefit exceeds the total support amount, then no additional support amount should be ordered. (b) If the children’s payer-based benefits are less than the payer’s total support amount, then the difference between the benefits received for the children and the total support amount becomes the ordered obligation.
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/Publications/Manuals/focb/2013MCSF.pdf

3.07 Dependent Benefit Credit
3.07(A) Credit government insurance program retirement, survivor’s, or disability benefits that were counted as the support payer’s income under §2.01(I) or §2.01(K) against that parent’s support obligation as follows:
(1) Determine the total child support obligation.
(2) Subtract the monthly benefit amount that the recipient receives for the children and that is attributable to the payer from the total child support obligation owed by the payer. (a) If the children’s payer-based benefit exceeds the total support amount, then no additional support amount should be ordered. (b) If the children’s payer-based benefits are less than the payer’s total support amount, then the difference between the benefits received for the children and the total support amount becomes the ordered obligation.
(3) Under federal law, the administering agency, like the Social Security Administration, holds the sole authority to designate the person who controls the benefits for a minor child (representative payee), therefore, a State’s legal processes cannot be used to alienate federal benefits from a child’s representative payee. A court should not use a child support order to transfer the children’s benefits from a representative payee to a parent or another individual. Payer-based benefits that exceed the total child support obligation owed must remain under the control of the representative payee.
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/Resources/Documents/Publications/Manuals/focb/2017MCSF.pdf

3.07(B) The following cases discuss how Social Security benefits affect support obligations: Frens v Frens, 191 Mich App 654 (1990); Jenerou v Jenerou, 200 Mich App 265 (1993); Paulson v Paulson, 254 Mich App 568 (2002); and Fisher v Fisher, 276 Mich App 424 (2007).

http://www.elizabethsilverman.com/p...ioner-needs-to-know-about-social-security.pdf

http://www.alacourt.gov/docs/CreditForSocialSecurityRetirement.pdf

THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ON CHILD SUPPORT
SupportGuidelines.com | Article: The Effect of Social Security

In Re Marriage of Henry

Click to expand...



Federal law requires state entities to accept that they “shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment … from suit in Federal court for a violation of... or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.*
8.1 Enforcing Federal Rights Against States and State Officials | Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys

The Power of the Federal Puse Waives State Sovereign Immunity from the Rehabilitation Act

OASAM
*Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973*
(29 U.S.C. § 701)

*Section 794. Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs; promulgation of rules and regulations*

*(a) Promulgation of rules and regulations*

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705 (20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Development Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulations shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date of which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.

*(b) "Program or activity" defined*

For the purposes of this section, the term "program or activity" means all of the operations of --

(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or

(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;

(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education; or

(B) a local educational agency (as defined in section 8801 of Title 20), system of vocational education, or other school system;

(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or an entire sole proprietorship --

(i) if assistance is extended to such corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship as a whole; or

(ii) which is principally engaged in the business of providing education, health care, housing, *social services [Title IV-D]*, or parks and recreation; or

(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geographically separate facility to which Federal financial assistance is extended, in the case of any other corporation, partnership, private organization, or sole proprietorship; or

(4) any other entity which is established by two or more of the entities described in paragraph (l), (2) or (3); any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.

*(c) Significant structural alterations by small providers*

Small providers are not required by subsection (a) to make significant structural alterations to their existing facilities for the purpose of assuring program accessibility, if alternative means of providing the services is available. The terms used in this subsection shall be construed with reference to the regulations existing on March 22, 1988.

*(d) Standards used in determining violation of section*

The standards used to determine whether this section has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination under this section shall be the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq.) and the provisions of sections 501 through 504, and 510, of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201-12204 and 12210), as such sections related to employment.

*Section 794a. Remedies and attorney fees*

(a)(1) The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16), including the application of sections 706(f) through 706 (k) [42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) through k)] shall be available, with respect to any complaint under section 791 of this title, to any employee or applicant for employment aggrieved by the final disposition of such complaint, or by the failure to take final action on such complaint. In fashioning an equitable or affirmative action remedy under such section, a court may take into account the reasonableness of the cost of any necessary work place accommodation, and the availability of alternative therefor or other appropriate relief in order to achieve an equitable and appropriate remedy.

(2) The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq)shall be available to any person aggrieved by any act or failure to act by any recipient of Federal assistance or Federal provider of such assistant under section 794 of this title.

(b) In any action or proceeding to enforce or charge a violation of a provision of this subchapter, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 14, 2018)

The day of the even arrived and as the many people showed up to town center park, for all the reasons they did, the chelas (students of the Guru), were organizing the people in to groups according to similar wishes.

As the Guru was walking through the park, he overheard one group talking, and all this group wanted was peace.

And the Guru walked up to them and said,
"All you want is peace? That's easy!!!"
And he snapped his fingers and extended his hand to them palm up in an offering manner.

One of the people in the group instantly jumped up! And in a loud angry voice shouted,
"YOU CAN'T JUST SNAP YOU FINGERS AND GIVE ME PEACE, DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT THE CORPORATIONS ARE DOING TO THE TREES IN SOUTH AMERICA?!?!?!? WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IF IT ISN'T STOPED!!!!! I CAN'T BE AT PEACE TILL IT STOPS!"
...and the Guru motioned to one of the chelas, the mans money was returned as was promised, and he left very angry.

Another in the group voiced in bitter frustration,
"Do you have ANY CLUE what my ex-husband is doing?!?!?
*That deadbeat hasn't paid one cent of child support EVER!*
I can't be at peace until he takes care of his responsibilities."
...and she took he refund and left bitterly frustrated.

The next man, starting calm and working up to a frenzied rage, uttered something along of the lines of,
"If only it were so easy, yet I can't be at peace while the government is enslaving the people, did you know that they have been doing thus and so for over 50+ YEARS?!!?! AND IT’S ONLY GETTING WORSE!! AND THEN YOU COME HERE GIVING THE PEOPLE FALSE HOPES AND SNAPPING YOUR FINGERS AS IF THESE WILL SOLVER THE PROBELMS OF THE WORLD!! I SHOULD SNAP YOUR NECK AND BLAH BLAH BLAH."
...and he rudely snatched the money out of the chelas hand, spit on the Guru, and left even more enraged then he came!!!

...and another raged about people not paying their taxes and their "fair share"... and got his refund.

...and one who was so consumed with fear they were shaking, and wouldn't have even asked for a refund was noticed by the Guru and her refund was made without her even asking...

...and this went on... and on... and on... and finally the last one left of the group, realizing that to be at peace is ultimately a choice, said,
"You know what... I DO ACCEPT PEACE! Thank you! Best $600 I ever spent."
...and as he started to leave, the Guru motioned to the chelae, and the man's money was returned.

A little shocked at this the man said,
"You have granted my wish as promised. Why are you giving me my money back?"
...and the Guru said,
"I can't give you peace, you already had it."
...and the man left, peaceful.


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 15, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Child Support Enforcement Incentive Funding





Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > Who benefits from Title IV-D CHILD SUPPORT....
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> *INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES*
> Social Security Act Title IV
> 
> *Title IV-D Contractors (Child Support Enforcement Agencies) are the driving factor for the creation of a non-custodial parent and the creation of a child support order.*
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 15, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law | CRT | Department of Justice
> 
> 
> 
> ...



18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 - RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

109. RICO Charges | USAM | Department of Justice

Federal Court: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Can Be Prosecuted Using Racketeering Laws Originally Intended For Mobsters

IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOUR CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM COMMITTED PERJURY IN YOUR CASE AND TWO (2) OTHER PARENTS CASES AND IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOUR CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM PUT ANY MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENTS IN WRITING IN ANY OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR AN EMERGENCY PICK UP ORDER, SHELTER CARE ORDER, DEPENDENCY, DISPOSITION OF DEPENDENCY AND TERMINATION PETITIONS IN YOUR CASE AND TWO (2) OTHER PARENTS CASES.  RESEARCH AND WRITE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS UNDER RULE 3 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL RICO LAWS!!!
Luis Ewing

[Brick Layer does not know nor endorse Luis and is simply sharing the thought model; I like that Luis focuses on the Federal Funding, EVIDENCE OF CPS CRIMES APPLYING FOR FEDERAL FUNDS!]





Brick Layer said:


> *CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES*
> *Imputing IV-D Status*
> The CPS does not indicate whether a child support recipient receives IV-D services. Therefore, this information is imputed onto the file.
> Child Support Cost Avoidance in 1999, Final Report
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> Michigan CPS has gigantic secret list of parents labeled 'child abusers' without due process - Police State USA


________________

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT ALL OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES HAD NO AUTHORITY TO RE-DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ANY CIVIL ACTION TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION CALLED THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS ONCE THAT AUTHORITY WAS GRANTED TO THE DULY ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR AND HIS DEPUTY PROSECUTORS OR SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND ONE (1) MORE TIME TO THE COUNTY PROBATION OFFICERS WITHOUT VIOLATING . . . “THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.”

ALL THE CASE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES HOLDS THAT A CORPORATION MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY!

“Because a corporation can act only through its agents, it must be represented by an attorney in legal proceedings in court.” Biomed Comm v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 146 Wn.App. 929, 934, 193 P.3d 1093 (October 13, 2008); RCW 2.48.170; APR 1(b); GR 24; Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co., 146 Wn.2d 291, 301, 45 P.3d 1068 (2002); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Droker, 59 Wn.2d 707, 719, 370 P.2d 242 (1962); State v. Hunt, 75 Wn.App. 795, 803-05, 880 P.2d 96 (1994).” Advocates v. Hearing Bd., 155 Wn.App. 479, 483, 230 P.3d 608 (March 2, 2010); Lloyd Enters., Inc. v. Longview Plumbing & Heating Co., 91 Wn.App. 697, 701, 958 P.2d 1035 (1988); Dutch Vill. Mall v. Pelletti, 162 Wn.App. 531, 535-36, 256 P.3d 1251 (2011); Cottringer v. Emp’t Sec. Dept., 162 Wn.App. 782, at 787-788, 257 P.3d 667 (July 25, 2011). And;

ALL RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS . . . AND . . . ALL RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS” . . . ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE . . . “THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.”

THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION AT ARTICLE IV, § 1 PROVIDES THAT . . . “JUDICIAL POWER OF THE STATE SHALL BE VESTED IN A SUPREME COURT, . . .”

ALL DEPENDENCY STATUTES AND TERMINATION STATUTES IN EVERY STATE VIOLATE A SECOND PROVISION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS WHICH ALL CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT THE * * EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY * * * to initiate Executive Process which by the Constitution Article II, section 5 is vested solely in the . . . “ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR.” See STATE v. COOK, 84 Wn.2d 342, 348, 352, 525 P.2d 761 (August 1974); Osborn v. Grant County, 130 Wn.2d 615, 926 P.2d 911 (November 27, 1996); Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 892 P.2d 1067 [No. 60383-9. En Banc. November 22, 1994.], Bates v.School District NO. 10., 45 Wash. 501 (Feb. 1907). And;

It is a well settled principle of law that neither the Courts or the Prosecutors Office to which Discretionary Functions such as Practicing Law have been delegated cannot redelegate such functions to Unqualified Brainless Bimbos such as CPS Social Workers or Guardian Ad Litems to engage in Unauthorized Practice of Law. Noe v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. 15, 83 Wn.2d 97, 515 P.2d 977 (1973); Ledgering v. State, 63 Wn.2d 94, 385 P.2d 522 (1963); Roehl v. Public Util. Dist. 1, 43 Wn.2d 214, 261 P.2d 92 (1953); Bunger v. Iowa High Sch. Athletic Assn, 197 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 1972); Bagley v. Manhatten Beach, 18 Cal.3d 22, 553 P.2d 1140, 1141, 132 Cal. Rptr. 668 (1976); Schechter v. County of Los Angeles, 258 Cal.App.2d 391, 65 Cal. Rptr. 739 (1968). Furthermore, with respect to the creation of inferior courts, it is the rule in this state that where such power is expressly vested by the constitution, it cannot be exercised in any manner other than that specifically pointed out.

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d), THAT ALL FIFTY STATES PROSECUTORS ALREADY DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO DO . . . “THE INTAKE” . . . OF ALL JUVENILE DELINQUENTS AND ALL ABANDONED AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN TO . . . “THE COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER.”

THAT AUTHORITY CANNOT AGAIN BE REDELEGATED TO A CPS SOCIAL WORKER WHO IS MERELY AN EMPLOYEE OF A PRIVATE CORPORATION CALLED THE DSHS!

THIS IS JUST THE BARE TIP OF THE ICEBERG INFO THAT CAN AND WILL TAKE DOWN AND DESTROY THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS IN EVERY STATE!!!!

“. . . regulation of the practice of law and “the power to make the necessary rules and regulations governing the bar was intended to be vested exclusively in the supreme court, free from the dangers of encroachment either by the legislative or executive branches.” Graham v. Washington State Bar Ass’n, 86 Wn.2d 624, 548 P.2d 310 (1976); Sharood v. Hatfield, 296 Minn. 416, 210 N.W.2d 275 (1973); In re Juvenile Director, 87 Wash. 2d 232, 552 P.2d 163 (1976) and State v. Osloond, 60 Wash. App. 584, 805 P(2d) 263 (1991); Lowell Bar Assn. v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E. 27 (1943); People v. ex rel. Chicago Bar Assn. v. Goodman, 366 Ill. 346, 8 N.E.2d 941 (1937).

“. . . the selection and completion of form legal documents [such as Dependency Petitions or Termination Petitions], or the drafting of such documents, including deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust, promissory notes and agreements modifying these documents constitutes the practice of law.” Hagan Escrow, Inc., 96 Wn.2d 443 (1982); Bar Association v. Great Western Federal, 91 Wn.2d 48, 586 P.2d 870 (1978); Washington State Bar Association v. Washington Association of Realtors, et al., 41 Wn.2d 697, 251 P.2d 619 (1952); Mid land Credit Adjustment Company et al v. Donnelley, 219 111. A 271 (1921); 2 R.C.L., p. 938, § 4. See also APR 9 & APR 12. And;

It seems fair to say that something which can lawfully be done only by an attorney admitted to practice is in fact and in law the “Practice of Law.” State v. Chamberlain, 132 Wash. 520, 232 Pac. 337 (1925).

Moreover, on the basis of the Court’s decision in the Kassler Escrow case, that now must be deemed to be so even in the face of an act of the legislature creating RCW 13.34.040 Dependency Statute and RCW 13.34.180 (1) Termination of Parental Rights Statute purporting to authorize illegal conduct by unqualified, untrained & unlicensed Brainless Bimbos!

“According to the generally understood definition of the practice of law in this country, it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and, in addition, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and, in general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney at law is one who engages in any of these branches of the practice of law.” Ferris v. Snively, 172 Wash. 167, 174, 19 P.2d 942 (1933) (citing Ruling Case Law at page 938, § 4). And;

IF REAL ESTATE AGENTS CAN’T PRACTICE LAW, THEN NEITHER CAN THE BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS!!!!

IF REAL ESTATE AGENTS CAN’T PRACTICE LAW, THEN NEITHER CAN THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS!!!!

WE CAN DEMAND THAT THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS CHARGE . . . “ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS” . . . AND . . . “ALL GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . WITH . . . “UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW” . . . ABSENT AN RCW ____________STATUTE THAT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS THEM FROM BEING SO CHARGED????

WE CAN DEMAND THAT THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE CHARGE . . . “ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS” . . . AND . . . “ALL GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . WITH . . . “CONTEMPT OF COURT” . . . ABSENT AN RCW ____________STATUTE THAT SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTS THEM FROM BEING SO CHARGED????

IF THE PROSECUTORS REFUSES TO PROSECUTE THEM, WE CAN CHARGE THE PROSECUTORS WITH OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, OR BETTER YET, MAYBE WE CAN CHARGE THE PROSECUTORS AS CO-CONSPIRATORS AND AIDERS AND ABETTERS OR ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT OF THE FELONY CRIMES OF KIDNAPPING, CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, MONEY LAUNDERING, ETC.

IT IS THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WSBA ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED THE ILLEGAL BOGUS FAKE PRETEND SHAM BOOTLEG . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . AND . . . “RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS” . . . THAT HAVE NO LEGAL FOUNDATION AND NO LEGAL STANDARDS!!!!

IT IS THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WSBA ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED . . . “THE FORGED” . . . AND . . . “PERJURED” . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS.”

IT IS THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WSBA ATTORNEYS WHO DRAFTED . . . “THE FORGED” . . . AND . . . “PERJURED” . . . “RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS.”

THIS IS WHY THE PROSECUTORS DO NOT WANT TO SIGN THESE FAKE LEGAL DOCUMENTS!!!!

The Prosecutors know that the Family Court Judges and Superior Court Judges and all the Assistant Attorney Generals are committing Subornation of Perjury by soliciting all of the John 8:44 Lying CPS Social Workers and just as dizzy Guardian Ad Litems to Sign and File Forged and Perjured RCW 13.34.040 Dependency Petitions!!!!

WHAT PROVES THAT ALL OF THESE CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATOR WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALL COMMITTING FELONY CRIMES IS THE FACT THAT THEY INFILTRATED OUR STATE LEGISLATURE AND REMOVED THE FOLLOWING STATUTES FROM OUR LAW BOOKS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES JUST IN CASE THEY GOT CAUGHT:

“9.72.080 Offering false evidence.
[1909 c 249 § 106; RRS § 2358.]
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976.

9.72.100 Subornation of perjury.
[1909 c 249 § 108; Code 1881 § 876; 1873 p 199 § 81; RRS § 2360.]
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976.

9.72.110 Attempt to suborn perjury.
[1909 c 249 § 109; Code 1881 § 877; 1873 p 199 § 81; 1869 p 216 § 77; 1854 p 89 § 71; RRS § 2361.]
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976.” And;

71.02.210 Jury trial — Request for — Date, detention pending.
[1959 c 25 § 71.02.210. Prior: 1951 c 139 § 23; 1949 c 198 § 8, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 6953-8, part.]
Repealed by 1973 1st ex.s. c 142 § 66.

71.02.220 Jury trial — Evidence — Order of hospitalization.
[1959 c 25 § 71.02.220. Prior: 1951 c 139 § 24.]
Repealed by 1973 1st ex.s. c 142 § 66.

9.79.100 Sodomy — Penalties.
[1937 c 74 § 3; 1909 c 249 § 204; 1893 c 139 § 2; RRS § 2456.]
Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976.

OH GEE, I WONDER WHY ANY HONEST (WSBA) ATTORNEY WOULD WANT TO REPEAL CRIMINAL STATUTES, HMMMMMMMMMMMM?????
___

THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT WSBA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AND FAMILY COURTS ARE USING THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK!!!!

THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS ARE COMMITTING THOUSANDS OF COUNTS OF SUBORNATION OF PERJURY AND A FRAUD UPON ALL THE FAMILY COURTS AND A FRAUD UPON ALL SUPERIOR COURTS BY GETTING UNTRAINED AND UNLICENSED JOHN 8:44 LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO COMMIT NUMEROUS AND COUNTLESS FELONY CRIMES BY SIGNING AND FILING FORGED AND PERJURED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND FORGED AND PERJURED TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS FOR THEM!!!!

Basically all the John 8:44 Lying CPS Social Workers and Just as Dizzy Guardian Ad Litems . . . “ARE GETTING PAID OFF TO COMMIT FORGERY AND PERJURY” . . . and for . . . “PRESENTING FALSE INSTRUMENTS FOR FILING” . . . in official court proceedings in furtherance of CPS’s overall general criminal conspiracy to commit the Felony Crimes of Kidnapping, Custodial Interference, Child Stealing, Child Selling, Human Trafficking, Leading Organized Crime and Money Laundering, etc.

Let’s face the facts, these untrained, unqualified and unlicensed John 8:44 Lying CPS Social Workers and Just as Dizzy Guardian Ad Litems could NEVER get a Job in the Real World with the rest of us that would Pay them any where near as much as they are illegally getting paid right now to commit Unauthorized Practice of Law.

THAT’S AGAINST THE LAW!!!!

THEY CAN’T USE . . . “TAX PAYERS MONEY” . . . TO PAY UNQUALIFIED . . . “BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS” . . . AND . . . “JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . TO ENGAGE IN . . . THE UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL . . . UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW!!!!

THEY CAN’T USE TAX PAYERS MONEY TO PAY UNQUALIFIED BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILE FORGED AND PERJURED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND FORGED AND PERJURED TERMINATION PETITIONS INTO A OFFICIAL COURT PROCEEDING WHERE THE JUDGES KNOWINGLY ALLOWED THESE DIZZY BROADS TO PLAY ATTORNEY BY ENGAGING IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IN THEIR PRESENCE!!!!

THE LEGISLATURE HAD AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ENACT OR CREATE THE RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY STATUTE!!!!

It is, of course, fundamental that no county or other municipal corporation, through action of its governing body, can make a law which is in conflict with general law as enacted by the legislature. See Article XI, § 11, of the Washington constitution; also, Miller v. Spokane, 35 Wn.2d 113, 211 P.2d 165 (1949), and Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wn.2d 106, 356 P.2d 292 (1960).

THE LEGISLATURE HAD AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ENACT OR CREATE THE RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTE!!!!

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ALL . . . “RCW 13.34.040 DEPENDENCY PETITIONS” . . . AND . . . “RCW 13.34.180 (1) TERMINATION PETITIONS” . . . VIOLATE ARTICLE IV, § 1 OF THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE . . . ““JUDICIAL POWER OF THE STATE SHALL BE VESTED IN A SUPREME COURT, . . .” AND NOT IN A MERE CORPORATION THAT EMPLOYS BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILE FORGED AND PERJURED LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING THE FELONY CRIMES OF KIDNAPPING, CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME, EXTORTION, MONEY LAUNDERING, ETC.

“Legislatures may delegate power to executive or administrative officials to determine the details of, and to establish rules for the execution of a general legislative plan. U.S. v. Rock Royal Cooperative, 307 U.S. 533 (1939); Chas. Uhden, Inc. v. Greenough, 181 Wash. 412, 43 P.2d 983, 98 A.L.R. 1181 (1935); Senior Citizen’s League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn.2d 142, 153, 228 P.2d 478 (1951); Home Owner’s Loan Corp. v. Rawson, 196 Wash. 548, 559, 83 P.2d 765; State v. Gilroy, 37 Wn.2d 41, 45, 221 P.2d 549; State v. Miles, 5 Wn.2d 322, 325, 105 P.2d 51 (1940). But the legislature must state its purpose, and establish standards by which the purpose is to be achieved, so that the limits of the power delegated are clear.

“. . . the delegation of legislative power is justified and constitutional, and the requirements of the standards doctrine are satisfied, when it can be shown (1) that the legislature has provided standards or guidelines which define in general terms what is to be done and the instrumentality or administrative body which is to accomplish it; and (2) that procedural safeguards exist to control arbitrary administrative action and any administrative abuse of discretionary power. . . .” Barry & Barry v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 81 Wn.2d 155, 500 P.2d 540 (1972).

“Legislatures my confer upon other bodies the power to determine the existence of facts upon which the application of facts upon which the application of the legislative acts is made to depend. Again it is essential that the legislature establish the standard by which the fact finding body is to be guided. Panama Ref. Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388, 55 S.Ct. 241, 79 L.Ed. 446; Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495, 55 S.Ct. 837, 79 L.Ed. 157; Kelleher v. Minshull, 11 Wn.2d 380, 297, 119 P.2d 302 (1941); Senior Citizen’s League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn.2d 142, 153, 228 P.2d 478 (1951); State ex rel. Washington Toll Bridge Authority v. Yelle, 195 Wash. 636, 643, 82 P.2d 120

It is a well understood principle that an agency may not legislate under the guise of its rule making power, and that its rules must be written within the framework and policy of the applicable statute. Agency rules may not amend or change an enactment of the legislature. Kitsap-Mason Dairymen v. Tax Comm’n, 77 Wn.2d 812, 467 P.2d 312 (1970). See also State ex rel West v. Seattle, 50 Wn.2d 94, 309 P.2d 751 (1957); and Juanita Bay Valley Com. v. Kirkland, 9 Wn.App. 59, 510 P.2d 1140 (1973).

“There is no authority to delegate acts discretionary or quasi-judicial in nature; an administrative board” such as the CPS Division of DSHS “cannot” legally confer upon its Brainless Bimbo Employees “authority that under the law may be exercised only by the” . . . duly elected County Prosecutor. Schechter v. County of Los Angeles, 258 Cal. App.2d 391, 65 Cal. Rptr. 739 (1968). See also Bagley v. Manhatten Beach, 18 Cal.3d 22, 553 P.2d 1140, 1141, 132 Cal. Rptr. 668 (1976).

THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE IS A STATE AGENCY CREATED BY THE LEGISLATURE.
“As such it enjoys only those powers expressly conferred by statute or necessarily implied in furtherance of its statutorily defined duties.” Human Right’s Comm’n v. Cheney Sch. Dist. 30, 97 Wn.2d 118, 125, 641 P.2d 163 (1982).

THE ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR HAD AND HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE HIS DISCRETIONARY DUTIES TO INITIATE AND PROSECUTE ALL CIVIL OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS OR JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS WHO ARE NOT DULY QUALIFIED LICENSED ATTORNEYS FOR WHOM HE HAS APPOINTED TO THE POSITION OF DEPUTY OR SPECIAL PROSECUTORS!!!!

A specific application of this rule is the well settled principle that a public administrative body to which discretionary functions have been delegated cannot redelegate such functions, absent express authorization. Noe v. Edmonds Sch. Dist. 15, 83 Wn.2d 97, 515 P.2d 977 (1973); State ex rel. School Dist. 301 v. Clausen, 109 Wash. 37, 186 P. 319 (1919); Howard v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. 10, 88 Wash. 167, 152 P. 1004 (1915); McGilvra v. Seattle Sch. Dist. 1, 113 Wash. 619, 194 P. 817 (1921); American Fed’n of Teachers Local 1485 v. Yakima School Dist. 7, 74 Wn.2d 865 (1968); Seattle High School Ch. 200 v. Sharples, 159 Wash. 424 (1930); Juntilla v. Everett School District, 178 Wash. 637, 35 P.2d 78 (1934); Ledgering v. State, 63 Wn.2d 94, 385 P.2d 522 (1963); Roehl v. Public Util. Dist. 1, 43 Wn.2d 214, 251 P.2d 92 (1953); Mulkilteo Education Association v. Mukilteo School District, 11 Wn.App. 75, 524 P.2d 441 (1974).

THE PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO REDELEGATE HIS AUTHORITY ONLY TO DEPUTY PROSECUTORS AND SPECIAL PROSECUTORS PURSUANT TO RCW 36.27.010, RCW 36.27.020, RCW 36.27.030 AND RCW 36.27.040 AND THE FOLLOWING CRR 1.1 DECISIONAL LAWS OF THIS STATE:

“The legislature has enacted RCW 36.27.010 and .040, which require that a prosecuting attorney and his deputies qualify and limit be regularly admitted attorneys at law, which provisions, in turn, the general authority to employ deputies extended to a prosecuting attorney, as a county elective official, by 36.16.07. ...FINLEY, STAFFORD, WRIGHT, UTTER, and BRACHTENBACK, JJ., concur. HALE, C.J. (Concurring only in the result)–At the time this appeal was heard, the statute prescribed that no one not a member of the bar of this court could serve as prosecuting attorney: No person shall be eligible to the office of the office of prosecuting attorney in any county of this state, unless he is a qualified elector therein, and has been admitted as an attorney and counselor of the courts of this state. RCW 36.27.010 Deputy prosecuting attorneys were given the same power and authority as the prosecuting attorney and were required to be members of the bar in a statute declaring that “Each deputy thus appointed shall have the same qualifications required of the prosecuting attorney.” RCW 36.27.040. Because the prosecuting attorney and his deputies hold offices created by the constitution, they are in law public officials. Const. Art. 11, section 5. Since the prosecuting attorney and his deputies hold “public offices” and their qualifications are prescribed by statute under the constitution, it follows that the courts are and should be without power to either abrogate or enhance the power and authority of prosecuting attorneys and their deputies, or to establish other and different public offices with either the authority or power to fullfill the functions of prosecuting attorneys and deputy prosecuting attorneys. Accordingly, this court cannot, within the lawful exercise of its judicial power, create the office of prosecuting attorney, or one like it, nor can it authorize such office to be filled by persons who do NOT possess the qualifications prescribed by statute for that office. I would therefore, reject the rationale of the majority opinion and hold that the statute requiring that prosecuting attorneys and their deputies must be members of the bar be upheld and that this court is without power to prescribe lesser qualifications or to otherwise amend such statutes.” STATE v. COOK, 84 Wn.2d 342, 348, 352, 525 P.2d 761 (August 1974). And;

“Appointment of the Special Prosecutor
RCW 36.27.030 enables a superior court to appoint a special prosecutor when the elected prosecutor is under a disability which prevents him form performing his responsibilities in a certain case. . . . [14] A court can only appoint a special prosecuting attorney in instances where a statute provides for such an appointment. Hoppe v. King Cy., 95 Wn.2d 332, 339, 622 P.2d 845 (1980); State v. Heaton, 21 Wash. 59, 62, 56 P. 843 (1899). RCW 36.27.030 provides: Disability of prosecuting attorney. When from illness or other cause the prosecuting attorney is temporarily unable to perform his [or her] duties, the court or judge may appoint some qualified person to discharge the duties of such officer in court until the disability is removed. Under Hoppe, a prosecutor must have both a duty to represent an official act and a disability that prevents the prosecutor from representing the official before the appointment of a special prosecutor is justified. The prosecutor’s duties are enumerated in RCW 36.27.020, which provides: The prosecuting attorney shall: . . . (4) Prosecute all criminal and civil actions in which the state or the county may be a party, defend all suits brought against the state or county, ... Specifically RCW 36.27.030 provides: When any prosecuting attorney fails, from sickness or other cause, to attend a session of the superior court of his [or her] county, or is unable to perform his [or her] duties at such session, the court or judge may appoint some qualified person to discharge the duties of such session, and the appointee shall receive a compensation to be fixed by the court, to be deducted from the stated salary of the prosecuting attorney, not exceeding, however, one-fourth of the quarterly salary of the prosecuting attorney.” WESTERMAN v. CARY, 125 Wn.2d 277, 892 P.2d 1067 [No. 60383-9. En Banc. November 22, 1994.] And;

As you can see above RCW 36.27.010, RCW 36.27.020, RCW 36.27.030 and RCW 36.27.040 requires Deputy prosecuting attorneys shall have the same qualifications required of the prosecuting attorney, DUH, THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TO BE DULY QUALIFIED LICENSED ATTORNEYS!!!!

THE BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS ARE NOT LICENSED ATTORNEYS!!!!!

THE JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS ARE NOT LICENSED ATTORNEYS!!!!

THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT FAMILY COURT JUDGES AND THE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT FAMILY COURT JUDGES ARE LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME BY ALLOWING THESE UNQUALIFIED AND UNLICENSED BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS TO PLAY ATTORNEY AND PRACTICE LAW IN ALL THE FAMILY COURTS!

“The courts have consistently held that a public body may not redelegate its powers unless they are administrative or ministerial as opposed to discretionary.” Bunger v. Iowa High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 197 N.W.2nd 555 (Iowa 1972).

This means the CPS Social Workers and Guardian Ad Litems can get a job as a Clerk or a Receptionist or as a Deja Vu Stripper or a Toilet Scrubber or any other administrative or ministerial duty, but they cannot engaged in any “discretionary” functions such as Initiating Executive Process unless they want to be charged with Unauthorized Practice of Law.

“The relation of attorney and client is that of master and servant in a limited and dignified sense, and it involves the highest trust and confidence. It cannot be delegated without consent, and it cannot exist between an attorney employed by a corporation to practice law for it, and a client of a corporation, for he would be subject to the directions of the corporation, and not to the directions of the client.” In re Cooperative Law Co., 198 N.Y. 479, 92 N.E. 15 (1910).

“A statute authorizing the formation of corporations to carry on any lawful business does not include the work of the learned professions [such as practicing law]. Such an innovation with the evil results that might follow, would require the use of specific language clearly indicating the intention. The reasons lie deeper than lack of statutory sanction for it. Human personal qualifications for such professions cannot be possessed by a corporation [such as the CPS Division of DSHS]. They would inhere in the members as distinct from the corporation, and it could not have the power to do illegally an act requiring a license which only they could obtain.” Fletcher, Cyclopedia Corporations (Perm. Ed.) chapter 5, § 97, at page 339. And;

“A corporation being an impersonal, artificial entity existing only by virtue of the law can not be subject to the personal discipline and qualifications required of natural beings for a professional life. People v. Woodbury (1908) 192 N. Y. 454, 85 N. E. 697; Hannon v. Siegel Cooper Co. (1901) 167 N. Y. 244, 60 N. E. 597. The legislature in its general law authorizing the creation of corporations to carry on "any lawful business" did not intend to include the work of the learned professions. (1913) 22 Yale Law Journal 590. . . . In the legal profession it is flatly laid down both by the courts and by statute that a corporation can neither practice law nor hire lawyers to carry on the business of practicing law. (Harker's Illinois Statutes Annot. Chap. 32, par. 362, p. 1160); (N. Y. Law Chap. 484 Law 1909); In re Co-operative Law Co. (1910) 198 N. Y. 479, 92 N. E. 15; In re Association of Lawyers (1908), 119 N. Y. S. 77; L. Meisel & Co. v. National Jewelers Board of Trade (1915) 90 N. Y. Misc. 19, 152, N. Y. S. 913; Buxton v. Lietz (1912) 136 N. Y. S. 829 (affirmed 139 N. Y. S. 46); 2 R. C. L. 946; 32 L. R. A (N. S.) n55; State ex. rel. Lundin v. Merchants Protective Corporation (1919) 105 Wash. 12, 177 Pac. 694. The "practice of law" is not limited to the conduct of cases in courts. It includes legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments — the mere fact that the instrument is in printed form does not change its character and give license for any one to fill in the blanks — collecting claims, conveyances, wills, and the drawing of any contract by which the legal rights of parties are secured; although such matters may or may not be pending in the courts. L. Meisel & Co. v. National Jewelers Board of Trade, supra. It seems clear then that the term "practice of law" includes more within its field than the term "practice of medicine" or the other professions. Therefore, the same theory that supports a corporation of licensed physicians in its pursuit of the "practice of medicine" will not aid a corporation composed of attorneys in their attempt to- "practice law". The instant case is a striking example of an attempt upon the part of a corporate organization to invade the legal profession. Situations of this nature are all too prevalent. Although the corporations do not appear as attorneys of record, yet they are the real masters in the nature of Banks, Title Companies, Collecting Agencies, Insurance Claim Departments, and Corporate Charter Companies. The lawyer is a mere agent under the control and direction of these invisible powers.” Illinois Law Quarterly, Volume 4, page 143.

Therefore, since the CPS Division of DSHS is a mere corporation, it cannot engage in the practice of law through unqualified and unlicensed John 8:44 Lying CPS Social Workers!

It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that the CPS Division of DSHS is a mere Corporation!!!!

The Washington State Supreme Court held n State ex rel. Lundin v. Merchants Protective Corp., 105 Wash. 12, 177 Pac. 694 (1919), that a corporation could not engage in the practice of law profession through licensed agents!

It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that CPS Social Workers are NOT licensed attorneys!

It is undisputed pursuant to CR 8 (d) that most Guardian Ad Litems are NOT licensed attorneys!

DO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE ANY KIND OF A BUSINESS LICENSE????

DO GUARDIAN AD LITEMS HAVE ANY KIND OF A BUSINESS LICENSE????

In the legal profession it is flatly laid down both by the courts and by statute that a corporation such as the CPS Division of DSHS can neither practice law nor hire lawyers to carry on the business of practicing law. (Harker's Illinois Statutes Annot. Chap. 32, par. 362, p. 1160); (N. Y. Law Chap. 484 Law 1909); Midland Adjustment Credit Adjustment Company et all v. Donnelly, 219 Ill. A. 271 (1921); In re Cooperative Law Company, 198 N.Y. 479, 92 N.E. 15 (1910); In re Association of Lawyers, 119 N.Y.S. 77, L. Meisel & Company v. National Jewelers Board of Trade, 90 N.Y. Misc. 19, 152 N.Y.S. 913 (1915); Buxton v. Lietz, 136 N.Y.S. 829, (affirmed 139 N.Y.S. 46); 2 RCL 946; 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) n. 55; 73 A.L.R. 1327; 105 A.L.R. 1364; People ex rel. Lawyers Institute of San Diego v. Merchants Protective Ass’n, 189 Cal. 351, 209 Pac. 363 (1922); State ex rel. Boynton v. Perkins, 138 Kan. 899, 28 P. (2d) 765 (1934); State ex rel. Miller v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 335 Mo 845, 74 S.W. (2d) 348 (1934) (leading case in Missouri); The Bar Association of St. Louis v. H. Pagels d. b. a. Mutual Adjustment Co. (St. Louis Cct. Ct., Mo. 1935) No. 2632-C, Div. No. 2 (layman who solicited claims and threatened suit as a collection firm held engaged in unlawful practice of law); Van Hee v. Kauffman (St. Louis Cct. Ct., Mo. 1935) No. 211420 Div. No. 3.

Therefore, since the Office of Guardian Ad Litems is a mere corporation, it cannot engage in the practice of law through unqualified and licensed and just as Dizzy Guardian Ad Litems!

The CrR 1.1 Decisional laws of Washington has consistently held to the above reasoning in State ex rel. Lundin v. Merchants Protective Association, 105 Wash. 12, 177 Pac. 694 and State ex rel. Standard Optical Company v. Superior Court, 17 Wn.2d 323, 135 P.2d 839, which latter case quotes at p. 331 from Ezell v. Ritholz, 188 S.C. 39, 198 S.E. 419 as follows:

“If such a course were sanctioned the logical result would be that corporations and business partnerships might practice law, medicine, dentistry or any other profession by the simple expedient or employing licensed agents. And if this were permitted professional standards would be practically destroyed, and professions requiring special training were commercialized, to the public detriment. The ethics of any profession is based upon personal and individual responsibility. One who practices a profession is responsible directly to his patient or his client. Hence he cannot properly act in the practice of his vocation as an agent or a corporation or business partnership whose interests is in the very nature of the case are commercial in nature.” Ezell v. Ritholz, 188 S.C. 39, 198 S.E. 419. And;

If a corporation were formed for the purpose of practicing one of the learned professions, as shown by its articles of incorporation which must set forth the purpose of the corporation, it would be the duty of the Secretary of State to refuse to file such articles. RCW 23.01.050 provides in part, that:

“. . . if the Secretary of State finds that the articles of incorporation conform to law he shall put an endorsement of his approval upon each set, and . . . he shall file one of such sets of articles in his office, . . .”

Concerning the duty of the Secretary of State, our court said in State ex rel. Gorman v. Nichols, 40 Wash. 437, 82 Pac. 743 (1905) that:

“. . . the secretary of state was under no duty to file articles not entitled to be filed, and that this court will not compel him to do a vain or illegal act.” State ex rel. Gorman v. Nichols, 40 Wash. 437, 82 Pac. 743 (1905).

“While the delegation of legislative power must be circumscribed by guiding standards, details and specifics may be determined by the body to which the power is delegated. “[T]he complexity of the subject matter of legislation, and its character as an exercise of police power or otherwise, are to be taken into consideration in determining whether there has been an unlawful delegation of legislative power.” Senior Citizen’s League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wn.2d 142, 153, 228 P.2d 478 (1951); Vail v. Seaborg, 120 Wash. 126, 207 Pac. 15 (1922); McMillan v. Sims, 132 Wash. 265, 231 Pac. 943 (1925); State v. Nelson, 146 Wash. 17, 261 Pac. 796 (1927); State v. Miles, 5 Wn.2d 142, 153, 228 P.2d 478 (1951). Cited as support for this rule of common sense and practicality is Kelleher v. Minshull, 11 Wn.2d 380, 397, 119 P.2d 302 (1941).

"It will be noticed that the Laws of 1925, Ex. Ses., p.187 (Rem. 1927 Sup., section 13-2), provides that, "Sec. 2. When and as the rules of courts herein authorized shall be promulgated all laws in conflict therewith shall be and become of no further force or effect." STATE EX REL. FOSTERWYMAN LUM. CO. v. SUP'R CT., 148 Wash. 1, 13, [No. 21107. En Banc. May 29th, 1928.] And;

IT IS THEREFORE UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ONLY THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT CAN PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF LAW!!!!

"[1-3] There are several grounds which justify our rule. First, the legislature has authorized the Supreme court to adopt rules of procedure. RCW 2.04.190: "The supreme court shall have the power to prescribe ... the forms of all writs and all other process ... Quite apart from the statutory authority, this court has the inherent power to govern court procedures. State ex rel. Foster-Wyman Lumber Co. v. Superior Court, 148 Wash. 1, 267 P. 770 (1928). This stems from the constitutional provision that all judicial power of the state is vested in the Supreme Court and various other courts designated in the constitution. Const. art. 4, section 1." STATE v. FIELDS, 85 Wn.2d 126, 128, 129, 530 P.2d 284 [No. 43278. En Banc. January 10, 1975.1 And;

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT ONLY . . . A DULY QUALIFIED APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERN . . . OR . . . A REAL ESTATE AGENT . . . OR . . . A REAL ESTATE BROKER . . . OR . . . A ESCROW OFFICER . . . WHO IS . . . A DULY QUALIFIED RULE 12 LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICER . . . CAN ENGAGE IN THE LIMITED PRACTICE OF LAW IN ALL COURTS!!!!

APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/…

APR RULE 12 LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICERS:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/…

IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT HAS PROMULGATED TWO (2) RULES THAT ALLOWS ANY PERSON WHO QUALIFIES TO ENGAGED IN LIMITED PRACTICE OF LAW UNDER APR RULE 9 FOR LEGAL INTERNS AND APR RULE 12 FOR LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICERS!!!!

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT COURT RULES SUPERCEDE THE STATUTES!!!!

APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS . . . “SUPERCEDES” . . . THE DEPENDENCY STATUTES!!!!

APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS . . . “SUPERCEDES” . . . THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTES!!!!

APR RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS HAS STANDARDS!!!!

THE DEPENDENCY STATUTES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!

THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!

THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!

IT IS UNDISPUTED PURSUANT TO CR 8 (d) THAT . . . ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . AND . . . ALL GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . ARE THEREFORE COMMITTING . . . “UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.”

“It is essential to the administration of justice and the proper protection of society that unlicensed persons be not permitted to prey upon the public by engaging in the practice of law.” Clark v. Austin, 340 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977 (1937). See also Auerbacher v. Wood, 142 N.J. Eq. 484, 59 A.2d 863 (1947) and State ex rel. Hunter v. Kirk, 133 Neb. 625, 276 N.W. 380 (1937). And;

Everyone who is fighting CPS needs to look at your . . . STATE CONSTITUTION . . . and the . . . PROSECUTOR STATUTES!!!!

You have an absolute . . . CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT . . . to be prosecuted civilly or criminally by “A DULY ELECTED PROSECUTOR” . . . or . . . “DEPUTY PROSECUTOR” . . . or . . . “SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.”

ONLY THE ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR CAN BRING A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL ACTION AGAINST ANYONE IN THIS STATE IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY BOTH STATUTES, CASE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION.

It is undisputed that the . . . “EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY” . . . is vested solely in the office of the elected . . . “PROSECUTING ATTORNEY” . . . or his . . . “DEPUTY PROSECUTOR” . . . or his . . . “SPECIAL PROSECUTOR” . . . by the Washington Constitution Article 11, section 5 and Article 12 and has been codified by the legislature at RCW 36.27.005 and RCW 36.27.020(3) and (4) only.

Both statutes, RCW 13.34.040 the dependency statute and RCW 13.34.180 (1) the termination of parental rights statute, are clearly unconstitutional as they violate the separation of powers doctrine and the Washington state constitution and the prosecutor statutes which provide that the executive authority is vested solely in the office of the prosecutor. Article III, Section 1, Article IV, Section 1, Article XI, Section 5, RCW 36.27.020(4), RCW 43.10.232, pursuant to the case of Lorraine Kirtley v. Diane Frost, Carol Rainey, Michael Stowell, and Does 1-100, Kitsap County District Court No. 980000004; People v. The Municipal Court for the Ventura Judicial District, 27 Cal. App. 3d 193, 103 Cal. Rptr. 645 (1972); In re Petition of Padget, 678 P.2d 870 (Wyo. 1984); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926).

It is undisputed that RCW 36.27.020 (3)(4) and (6) clearly provides that the Prosecutor shall: . . . (3) Appear for and represent the state, county, . . . in all criminal and civil proceedings in which the state or the county . . . may be a party; . . . and (4) Prosecute all criminal and civil actions in which the state or the county may be a party, . . . and (6) Institute and prosecute proceedings before magistrates whereas RCW 13.34.040 & RCW 13.34.180 (1) provides [n]o such authority, without violating RCW 2.48.180 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

It is undisputed that it has long been the rule in this State that the court’s power to appoint a special prosecuting attorney is limited to cases where such an appointment is provided by statute. Bates v. School District No. 10, 45 Wash. 498, 88 Pac. 944 (1907); In re Lewis, 51 Wn.2d 193, 201, 202, 316 P.2d 907 (1957); State v. Heaton, 21 Wash. 59, 62, 56 Pac. 843 (1899); Ladenburg v. Cambell, 56 Wn.App. 701, 704, 784 P.2d 1306 (1990); Hoppe v. King County, 95 Wn.2d 332, 339, 622 P.2d 845 (1980); Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 298 (1994), RCW 36.27.030.

It is undisputed that . . . NO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . or . . . “GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . have been appointed to the position of either . . . “DEPUTY PROSECUTOR’S” . . . or . . . “SPECIAL PROSECUTOR’S” . . . by the Elected Kitsap County Prosecutor Russell Haige as required by RCW 36.27.040 which also requires that said appointment . . . “SHALL BE IN WRITING.”

CPS SOCIAL WORKERS & GUARDIAN AD LITEMS ARE NOT IN FACT AND LAW. . . "DEPUTY PROSECUTORS" . . . AND ARE THEREFORE PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF RCW 2.48.180.

RCW 13.34.1040 is illegal and unconstitutional because it violates the . . . “SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE” . . . and reads:

“RCW 13.34.040 Petition to court to deal with dependent child — Application of federal Indian child welfare act.

(1) ANY PERSON may file with the clerk of the superior court a petition showing that there is within the county, or residing within the county, a dependent child and requesting that the superior court deal with such child as provided in this chapter. There shall be no fee for filing such petitions. . . .” And;

ANY PERSON CANNOT BE A PROSECUTOR!!!!

ANY PERSON CANNOT PRACTICE LAW!!!

ONLY A LICENSED ATTORNEY OR TRIBAL COURT LAWYER CAN PRACTICE LAW!!!!

RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS SUPERCEDES RCW 13.34.040!!!

COURT RULES SUPERCEDE STATUTES!!!!

See also RCW 13.34.180 (1) which similarly reads:

“RCW 13.34.180 Order terminating parent and child relationship — Petition — Filing — Allegations (as amended by 2009 c 477).

*** CHANGE IN 2013 *** (SEE 1284-S.SL) ***

(1) A petition seeking termination of a parent and child relationship MAY BE FILED in juvenile court BY ANY PARTY to the dependency proceedings concerning that child. Such petition shall conform to the requirements of RCW 13.34.040, shall be served upon the parties as provided in RCW 13.34.070(8), and shall allege all of the following unless subsection (2) or (3) of this section applies: . . .” And;

ANY PERSON CANNOT PRACTICE LAW!!!!

ONLY A LICENSED ATTORNEY OR TRIBAL COURT LAWYER CAN PRACTICE LAW!!!!

ANY PERSON CANNOT BE A PROSECUTOR!!!!

RULE 9 LEGAL INTERNS SUPERCEDES RCW 13.34.040!!!

COURT RULES SUPERCEDE STATUTES!!!!

BOTH STATUTES . . . RCW 13.34.040 THE DEPENDENCY STATUTE . . . AND . . . RCW 13.34.180 (1) THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTE . . . ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY ALLOW ANY PERSON WHO IS . . . NOT A PROSECUTOR . . . NOT A DEPUTY PROSECUTOR . . . NOT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR . . . TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE!!!!

I remember that they had to pass a special law (APR 12) here in Washington State to allow Real Estate Agents to be Exempt from being charged with Unauthorized Law for preparing and submitting or filing Legal Documents and Legal Forms that affected peoples legal rights over chattel property such as Real Estate!!!!

WOW, IT IS NOW OBVIOUS THAT THE WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT CARES MORE ABOUT THEIR GREEDY WSBA BAR ATTORNEY MAFIA REACHING THEIR GREEDY HANDS AND STICKY FINGERS INTO EVERY REAL ESTATE DEAL AND GETTING TO STEAL REAL ESTATE AGENTS MONEY THAN THEY DO ABOUT UNQUALIFIED, UNTRAINED AND UNLICENSED BRAINLESS BIMBOS PLAYING ATTORNEY AND SIGNING AND FILING FORGED AND PERJURED DOCUMENTS IN FURTHERANCE OF THEIR OVERALL FAMILY COURT CHILD STEALING RING CALLED THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS THAT IS STEALING AND SELLING PEOPLES CHILDREN KIDS FOR CASH MONEY UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW!!!!

See, ADMISSION TO PRACTICE RULES RULE 12. LIMITED PRACTICE RULE FOR LIMITED PRACTICE OFFICERS at:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/…


Children are NOT Legal Forms and are NOT chattel property of the Corporate States!

If they can’t show us a special statute specifically authorizing or exempting the dizzy broads who work for the CPS Division of DSHS and the Office of the Guardian Ad Litem from practicing law charges, we can nail all of these John 8:44 Liars with charges of Unauthorized Practice of Law!!!!

BOTH STATUTES . . . RCW 13.34.040 THE DEPENDENCY STATUTE . . . AND . . . RCW 13.34.180 (1) THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTE . . . ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY ALLOW ANY PERSON TO PRACTICE LAW AND INSTITUTE A CIVIL ACTION IN BOTH THE FAMILY COURTS AND THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF THIS STATE THUS ALLOWING NON-LAWYERS WHO HAVE NO LEGAL TRAINING AND NO BUSINESS LICENSES TO REPRESENT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF OUR CHILDREN IN OPEN COURT IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF RCW 2.48.180 THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE!!!!

BOTH STATUTES RCW 13.34.040 THE DEPENDENCY STATUTE AND RCW 13.34.180 (1) THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS STATUTE ARE ILLEGAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO STANDARDS!!!!

Even . . . “THE STANDARDS” . . . for . . . “APR 9 LEGAL INTERNS” . . . clearly show that . . . A CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . and . . . GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . cannot be admitted to Limited Practice unless that individual CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . or individual . . .GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . is in fact and law a duly qualified . . . . “RULE 9 INTERN.”

RULE 9 LEGAL INTERN . . . . reads in part:

“APR 9 LEGAL INTERN
(a) Admission to Limited Practice. Qualified law students, enrolled law clerks, and graduates of approved law schools may be admitted to the status of legal intern and be granted a limited license to engage in the practice of law only as provided in this rule. To qualify, an applicant must:

(1) Be a student duly enrolled and in good academic standing at an approved law school with legal studies completed amounting to not less than two-thirds of a prescribed 3-year course of study or five-eighths of a prescribed 4-year course of study, and have the written approval of the applicants law school dean or a person designated by such dean; or

(2) Be an enrolled law clerk in compliance with the provisions of rule 6 with not less than five-eighths of the prescribed 4-year course of study completed, and have the written approval of the tutor; or

(3) Make the application before the expiration of 9 month following graduation from an approved law school, and submit satisfactory evidence thereof for the Bar Association; and

(4) Pay such fees as may be set by the Board of Governors with the approval of the Supreme Court; and

(5) Certify in writing under oath that the applicant has read, is familiar with, and will abide by, the Rules of Professional Conduct and this rule. . . .”

Even . . . “THE STANDARDS” . . . for . . . “APR 9 LEGAL INTERNS” . . . clearly show that neither . . . A CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . or . . . A GUARDIAN AD LITEM . . . can be admitted to Limited Practice unless that individual . . . CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . or individual . . . GUARDIAN AD LITEM . . . is in fact and law a duly . . . “QUALIFIED LAW STUDENT . . . ENROLLED LAW CLARK . . . AND . . . GRADUATE OF APPROVED LAW SCHOOLS . . . MAY BE ADMITTED A LIMITED LICENSE TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW ONLY AS PROVIDED IN THIS RULE!!!!

ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS IN WASHINGTON STATE ARE COMMITTING A FRAUD UPON THE COURT, SECOND DEGREE PERJURY, FIRST DEGREE FORGERY AND PRESENTING A FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING IN A OFFICIAL COURT RECORD WHEN THEY PLACE THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE NEXT TO THE SIGNATURE ON ANY DEPENDENCY PETITION OR MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS SIGNED BY . . . A CPS SOCIAL WORKER . . . OR . . . GUARDIAN AD LITEM . . . WHO IS NOT A DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 INTERN!!!

“. . . (1) The supervising lawyer or another lawyer from the same office shall direct, supervise and review all of the work of the legal intern and both shall assume personal professional responsibility for any work undertaken by the legal intern while under the lawyer's supervision. All pleadings, motions, briefs, and other documents prepared by the legal intern shall be reviewed by the supervising lawyer or a lawyer from the same office as the supervising lawyer. When a legal intern signs any correspondence or legal document, the interns signature shall be followed by the title "legal intern" and, if the document is prepared for presentation to a court or for filing with the clerk thereof, the document shall also be signed by the supervising lawyer or lawyer from the same office as the supervising lawyer. In any proceeding in which a legal intern appears before the court, the legal intern must advise the court of the interns status and the name of the interns supervising lawyer. . . .” And;

It is undisputed that Rule 9 the Rule for Legal Interns provides in part . . . “[W]hen a legal intern signs any correspondence or legal document, the interns signature shall be followed by the title "legal intern" and, if the document is prepared for presentation to a court or for filing with the clerk thereof, the document shall also be signed by the supervising lawyer or lawyer from the same office as the supervising lawyer.”

ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS IN WASHINGTON STATE WHO PUT THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON THE SAME DOCUMENT AS A CPS SOCIAL WORKER IS A CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATOR WHO IS COMMITTING A FRAUD UPON THE COURT LEADING ALL OF US CPS VICTIMS INTO BELIEVING THAT CPS SOCIAL WORKER IS A DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 INTERN WHO HAS IN FACT BEEN GRANTED A LIMITED LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW AND SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT AND MALFEASANCE OF OFFICE, MISFEASANCE OF OFFICE, PERJURY OF HIS OR HER OATH OF OFFICE AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT FOR RUNNING A LAW PRACTICE WITH A CPS SOCIAL WORKER WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW!

ALL JUDGES WHO ARE ATTORNEYS CAN BE DISBARRED FOR PUTTING THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON ANY COURT ORDERS THAT HAS THE ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE OF ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY OR WHO IS NOT A RULE 9 LEGAL INTERN PURSUANT TO RCW 2.48.220 (5)(9).

WE CAN DISBAR THE JUDGES AND ONCE THEY ARE DISBARRED, THEY CAN’T BE A JUDGE ANYMORE!!!!

THE WASHINGTON STATE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW BOARD CAN KICK ROCKS!!!!

SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL THE WASHINGTON STATE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW BOARD THAT THEY NEED TO CLEAN UP THE MESS IN THEIR OWN HOUSE FIRST BEFORE THEY START LOOKING AT TRIBAL COURT LAWYER LUIS EWING!!!!

YOU FECKLESS PETTY FOGGER WSBA BAR CARD ATTORNEYS ARE SO GOD DAMNED STUPID, YOU WOULDN’T KNOW THE LAW IF I HIT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH A LAW BOOK!!!!

ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS IN WASHINGTON STATE WHO PLACE THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON ANY DEPENDENCY PETITION OR MOTION FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATING RULE 5.4 & RULE 5.5 OF THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT!!!!

“RULE 5.4 PROFESSIONAL INDEPENDENCE OF A LAWYER
. . .
(5)(b) A LAWYER SHALL NOT FORM A PARTNERSHIP WITH A NONLAWYER IF ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTNERSHIP CONSIST OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW.
. . .
(d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:
. . .
(3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.” And;

“RULE 5.5 UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW; MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW
(a) A LAWYER SHALL NOT practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction, or ASSIST ANOTHER IN DOING SO. . . .” And;

“RCW 18.130.180 Unprofessional conduct.

The following conduct, acts, or conditions constitute unprofessional conduct for any license holder under the jurisdiction of this chapter:

(1) The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption relating to the practice of the person's profession, whether the act constitutes a crime or not. If the act constitutes a crime, conviction in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disciplinary action. Upon such a conviction, however, the judgment and sentence is conclusive evidence at the ensuing disciplinary hearing of the guilt of the license holder of the crime described in the indictment or information, and of the person's violation of the statute on which it is based. For the purposes of this section, conviction includes all instances in which a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is the basis for the conviction and all proceedings in which the sentence has been deferred or suspended. Nothing in this section abrogates rights guaranteed under chapter 9.96A RCW;

(2) Misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact in obtaining a license or in reinstatement thereof;

(3) All advertising which is false, fraudulent, or misleading;
. . .
(10) AIDING OR ABETTING AN UNLICENSED PERSON TO PRACTICE WHEN A LICENSE IS REQUIRED;
. . .
(13) Misrepresentation or fraud in any aspect of the conduct of the business or profession; . . .” And;


ALL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS WHO PLACE THEIR ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE WITH ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY OR DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 INTERN CAN BE DISBARRED PURSUANT TO RCW 2.48.220 (5)(9) WHICH CLEARLY READS:

“RCW 2.48.220 Grounds of disbarment or suspension.
An attorney or counselor may be disbarred or suspended for any of the following causes arising after his or her admission to practice:
. . .
(5) Lending his or her name to be used as attorney and counselor by another person who is not an attorney and counselor.
. . .
(9) PRACTICING LAW WITH OR IN COOPERATION with a disbarred or suspended attorney, or maintaining an office for the practice of law in a room or office occupied or used in whole or in part by a disbarred or suspended attorney, or permitting a disbarred or suspended attorney to use his or her name for the practice of law, or practicing law for or on behalf of a disbarred or suspended attorney, or practicing law under any arrangement or understanding for division of fees or compensation of any kind with a disbarred or suspended attorney or WITH ANY PERSON NOT A LICENSED ATTORNEY. . . .” And;

RCW 2.48.220 CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT . . . “AN ATTORNEY OR COUNSELOR MAY BE DISBARRED OR SUSPENDED FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CAUSES ARISING AFTER HIS OR HER ADMISSION TO PRACTICE . . . (9) PRACTICING LAW WITH OR IN COOPERATION . . . WITH ANY PERSON NOT A LICENSED ATTORNEY.”

ARE ANY OF THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . LICENSED ATTORNEY’S????

ARE ANY OF THE CPS GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . LICENSED ATTORNEYS????

IF NOT, WE CAN FILE A MOTION FOR ANY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE DISBARRED IF HE PLACED HIS ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON ANY DOCUMENT WITH ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO IS NOT IN FACT AN ATTORNEY OR DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 INTERN!!!!

IF NOT, WE CAN FILE A MOTION FOR ANY JUDGE TO BE DISBARRED IF HE PLACES HIS ACCOMPANYING SIGNATURE ON ANY DEPENDENCY PETITION OR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITION WITH ANY CPS SOCIAL WORKER OR GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO IS NOT IN FACT A LICENSED ATTORNEY OR DULY QUALIFIED RULE 9 LEGAL INTERN!!!!

DOES A . . . “CPS SOCIAL WORKER” . . . OR . . . “GUARDIAN AD LITEM” . . . EVEN HAVE . . . “A BUSINESS LICENSE” . . . TO BE WORKING IN THE COURT????

Neither 1 of the two statutes, RCW 13.34.040 or RCW 13.34.180 (1), provides any . . . "EXEMPTION" . . . to CPS Social Workers or Guardian Ad Litems from being charged with . . . "UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW."

CPS SOCIAL WORKERS . . . and . . . GUARDIAN AD LITEMS . . . have NO legal or statutory authority to . . . "REPRESENT ANY CHILDREN” . . . unless they are . . . “LICENSED ATTORNEYS.”

ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS ARE ALSO GUILTY OF VIOLATING RCW 9.62.020 AS THEY DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO INSTITUTE A SUIT ON BEHALF OF ME TO TAKE AWAY MY CHILDREN AND THEY CAN’T LEGALLY OBTAIN MY CHILDREN’S PERMISSION TO TAKE THEIR PARENTS AWAY BECAUSE THEY ARE MINORS AND NOT COMPETENT OR ABLE TO CONTRACT UNDER THE LAW!!!!

“RCW 9.62.020 Instituting suit in name of another.
Every person who shall institute or prosecute any action or other proceeding in the name of another, without his consent and contrary to law, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
[1909 c 249 § 124; RRS § 2376.]” And;

THE STATE CANNOT CONSENT TO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS OR GUARDIAN AD LITEMS PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT VIOLATING THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE RCW 2.48.180.

THEY BETTER SHOW US THE STATUTE OR THE STATUTES THAT SAYS THAT THE DIZZY BROADS WHO WORK FOR CPS ARE EXEMPT FROM BEING CHARGED WITH VIOLATING RCW 2.48.180 THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE . . . OR . . . WE CAN CHARGE ALL OF YOU AS CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS . . . AND/OR . . . AS ACCESSORY’S AFTER THE FACT . . . OR . . . AIDERS AND ABETTERS . . . AND WITH . . . LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME.

I am doing the research on the proper procedure for filing a formal complaint with the KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE KITSAP COUNTY PROSECUTOR AND THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION specifically requesting that they bring criminal charges against . . . ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS IN KITSAP COUNTY . . . for violating RCW 2.48.180, the UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE.

And if the KITSAP COUNTY SHERIFF DOESN'T INVESTIGATE AS REQUIRED BY RCW 36.28.011, we can charge him with . . . OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT!

“RCW 36.28.011 Duty to make complaint. In addition to the duties contained in RCW 36.28.010, it shall be the duty of all sheriffs to make complaint of all violations of the criminal law, which shall come to their knowledge, within their respective jurisdictions.”

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.28.011




EVERYBODY NEEDS TO START FILING COMPLAINTS WITH THEIR LOCAL COUNTY SHERIFF AND DEMAND HE DO HIS DUTY AND MAKE COMPLAINTS AGAINST ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS IN HIS COUNTY THAT ARE PRACTICING LAW IN VIOLATION OF RCW 2.48.180 THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW STATUTE!!!!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FILE FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINTS TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF EVERY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND DEMAND A FORMAL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OF ALL FAMILY COURTS AND SUPERIOR COURTS FOR ALLOWING ALL OF THE JOHN 8:44 LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUST AS DIZZY GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO ENGAGE IN . . . “UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.”

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FILE FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINTS WITH THE FBI ECONOMIC CRIME UNIT!!!!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FILE FORMAL WRITTEN COMPLAINTS TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE ALL THESE CRIMINALLY CORRUPT STATE OFFICIALS FOR RICO VIOLATIONS!!!!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO BOYCOTT ALL THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO FIRE THEIR STATE BAR ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS!

IN MY OPINION, ALL STATE LICENSED BAR ATTORNEYS ARE ALL LAZY WORTHLESS FECKLESS PETTY FOGGERS WHO CHARGE WAY TOO MUCH MONEY FOR DOING WAY TOO LITTLE WORK!!!!

BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE ATTORNEYS ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS, THEY ARE NOT PROTECTING THE CHILDREN!!!!

IT IS MY OPINION THAT ALL FAMILY COURT ATTORNEYS WHETHER THEY ARE FOR HIRE ATTORNEYS OR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE WORKING IN COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WITH THE ILLEGAL FAMILY COURT SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS ALL THESE BRAINLESS BIMBOS THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO PLAY ATTORNEY AND PRACTICE LAW IN OUR COURTS THAT OUR TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR!!!!

WHAT PROVES THAT ALL THE WSBA BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEYS ARE EITHER GROSSLY IGNORANT OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE INCOMPETENT OR THAT THEY ARE ALL CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS IS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ALLOWING ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO COMMIT UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IN THEIR PRESENCE!!!!

WHAT PROVES THAT ALL THE WSBA BAR CARD CARRYING ATTORNEYS ARE EITHER GROSSLY IGNORANT OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE INCOMPETENT OR THAT THEY ARE ALL CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS IS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE ALLOWING ALL THE CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILED FORGED AND PERJURED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS TO STEAL AND SELL PEOPLES CHILDREN FOR MONEY!!!!

HOW COME NOT 1 IN 30,000 PLUS MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS HAVE NOT COMPLAINED ABOUT CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND GUARDIAN AD LITEMS PRACTICING LAW IN OUR COURT ROOMS????

HOW COME NOT 1 IN 30,000 PLUS MEMBERS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION MEMBERS HAVE NOT COMPLAINED ABOUT ALL THE DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PETITIONS AS BEING A FORGED AND PERJURED DOCUMENT AND ARE THEREFORE LEGALLY DEFECTIVE AND GRANTING THE COURT NO JURISDICTION TO PROCEED????

EITHER ALL THE WSBA ATTORNEYS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF FECKLESS PETTY FOGGERS WHO ARE ALL IGNORANT OF THE LAW AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DISBARRED AND PERMANENTLY PROHIBITED FROM EVER PRACTICING LAW EVER AGAIN????

OR:

ALL OF THE WSBA ATTORNEYS WHO PRACTICE LAW IN OUR FAMILY COURTS KNOW THAT ALL THE DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND TERMINATION PETITIONS ARE FORGED AND PERJURED DOCUMENTS AND ARE THEREFORE CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATORS WHO ARE LEADING ORGANIZED CRIME OF COUNTLESS FELONY COUNTS OF KIDNAPPING, CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, EXTORTION, MONEY LAUNDERING, MAIL FRAUD AND VIOLATIONS OF THE HOBBS ACT????

IT’S TIME TO TAKE DOWN AND DESTROY ALL STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONS WITH A QUO WARRANTO!

FIRE YOUR ATTORNEYS AND HIRE ME TO WRITE YOUR LEGAL PLEADINGS FOR YOU!!!!

YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MANAGE AND PLEAD YOUR OWN CAUSES AND DEFEND YOUR SELF IN PERSON!!!!

WHEN YOU ARE DEFENDING YOUR SELF, YOU ARE ACTING AS YOUR OWN ATTORNEY!!!!

WHEN YOU ARE DEFENDING YOURSELF AND ACTING AS YOUR OWN ATTORNEY, YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO HIRE ANYONE TO BE YOUR . . . “PARA-LEGAL.”

HIRE ME TO DO THE RESEARCH TO TAKE DOWN AND DESTROY THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS!!!!

HIRE ME TO BE YOUR SUPER RESEARCHER, PARA-LEGAL ON STEROIDS AND SUPER LAWYER ALL COMBINED!!!!

YOU DON’T NEED AN BAR ATTORNEY WITH A CERTIFICATE OF BRAINS FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ JESUIT OWNED LAW SKOOL!!!!

LEGAL RESEARCH IS VERY TEDIOUS AND VERY TIME CONSUMING AND I AM LEAVING NO LAW BOOK UNREAD, I WILL DESTROY THE CPS AND GET A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE ENTIRE DEPENDENCY SCHEME AND TERMINATION SCAM IS IN FACT A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY STATUTE DESIGNED WITH INTENT TO FACILITATE KIDNAPPING, CHILD STEALING, CHILD SELLING, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, DEFRAUDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BANK FRAUD, POSTAL FRAUD VIOLATIONS, VIOLATIONS OF THE HOBBS ACT AND RICO VIOLATIONS SO WE CAN SEND ALL THESE JOHN 8:44 LYING CPS SOCIAL WORKERS TO PRISON FOR THE REST OF THEIR NATURAL LIVES!!!

I HOPE THIS HELPS EVERYONE FIGHTING CPS IN WASHINGTON STATE AND EVERY WHERE ELSE!!!!

Luis Ewing


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 15, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> TO ALL SUNDRY BY THESE PRESENTS,
> 
> I am a divorced Michigan father of three boys (now adults) who have experienced Parental Alienation after I was abandoned by my ex spouse and her taking my children along for the ride her.  The children and I have suffered untold damage at the hands of the Federal Title IV-D Program and the duty of care administered at the state and local county level.  I am creating this thread to bring awareness and education for discussion to this 'Title IV-D Program' topic in hopes of keeping families together, bring families together, and so that children may be raise by both parent (if not together at least equal time) - AFTER MATH.
> 
> ...



This thread is dedicated to my worst friend 'Wargames';
[at one time in my life my children told me "dad he is your only friend".]

*Thank you 'Wargames'!!!*






Thanks for wargames 101, wargames 102, [multiple sui juris forum(s) 'past and gone'] and all of your [our] years of endless research and development learning the inner workings of Title IV and more specifically the attached inseverable Part D of Title IV (Welfare), Law & Education federal and state, and the litigation experience... plus those friends whom [are no longer with us, yet] have come before and pasted on their experiences (practical applications);

Thank you for your dedication, hard work, and perseverance - 'Wargames' as you know most of what we have shared here today was co-authored over time and pasted onto this forum through my thread postings here and other forums under the Title IV-D Topic;

Thank you for the barbecues & fish fries and my early days in the shed when I came to you green with my own domestic relations matters, again [friend] thank you....


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 20, 2018)

Fraud upon the court


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 22, 2018)

Legally Kidnapped


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 22, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > USMessageBoard where your voices count
> ...






Brick Layer said:


> TO ALL SUNDRY BY THESE PRESENTS,
> I am creating this thread to bring awareness and education for discussion to this 'Title IV-D Program' topic in hopes of keeping families together, bring families together, and so that children may be raise by both parent (if not together at least equal time) - AFTER MATH.
> 
> It is an honor to bring you this thread....
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 22, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Legally Kidnapped



Legally Kidnapped University - Following the Money


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 24, 2018)

Most Poor Children Love Their ‘Deadbeat’ Dads But Government Bureaucrats Don’t Care


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 24, 2018)

Too Many States Have Laws That Literally Offer Financial Incentives To DESTROY Families

On the Missouri House floor, Republican Rep. Paul Curtman discussed Title IV-D, saying:

*“But unfortunately, that dollar does not go toward the child for child support.* What I’m trying to figure out right now is when Missouri gets that money, where does that money go? Because if that money goes to the courts or goes to a bureaucracy, that means *we have institutionalized a financial incentive to make sure that parents don’t have equal shared parenting. And if that’s the case that is a financial incentive, to quite literally, rip families apart.”*

He continued:

“Government should never profit off of splitting children unequally between the mother and the father.”
__



Americans for Equal Shared Parenting
5050Parenting


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 25, 2018)

While the law allows expungement, Warner said it isn’t adequate, and is a slow process.

“The only quick way to get off the registry is to die,” Warner said.

Federal lawsuit says Michigan's registry for child abuse and neglect is unfair, unconstitutional


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 28, 2018)

Lawsuit targets Child Protection Services, alleging 'legal kidnapping'


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 28, 2018)

On July 1, Kentucky’s laws will begin supporting joint custody with equal parenting time when families separate. 
New shared custody legislation becomes law in Kentucky July 1, existing arrangements not impacted | NKyTribune


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 29, 2018)

50StatesChildSupportStatistics3202018.pptx


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 29, 2018)

Op Expose CPS









Lori L Callies





Press Releases - Children's Rights


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 29, 2018)

Constitutional Right to Be a Parent


----------



## Brick Layer (Apr 30, 2018)

Law - The Public Library of Law

Google Scholar


----------



## Brick Layer (May 6, 2018)

*



*
Government and Jurisdiction - Studying in US - a Guide about Studying Abroad in US

*
Back to any possible jurisdictional challenges by potential Defendants in opposition to any and every Six Pack Joe - and the federal jurisdiction of Title IV-D Matters!!!*

*Besides federal Defendant 'state court loser theories' utilizing: state supplemental jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, those 'state court loser' theories challenging a Six Pack Joe 'original claim' solely by challenging federal jurisdiction; also look at federal jurisdiction as a result of there being a lack of a state court remedy. *
*
*
*In regards to Six Pack Joe take notice: *

*The case opinion [hyperlink] cited below the subject-matter (a taxation issue) is totally different from Title IV-D (a child support issue) and may seem off topic while reading-focus on the federal Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction the reasoning for the federal court's opinion and order denying that motion to dismiss.  An interesting read [all tax issues aside], See:*

An abuse of the taxing power, the kind of claim at issue here: 
*This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  *FREED VS. THOMAS, et al., United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division,  Civil Action No. 17-CV-13519, OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN)

Defendants raise three jurisdictional challenges to plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment eminent domain claim: Ripeness, The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and Comity. [Footnote: Defendants do not mount any substantive challenge to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim separate from the jurisdictional arguments. Consequently, the Court will treat them together.]

A state action to be ripe, plaintiff must show both that the state government decision was final and that there are no available state court remedies.

In addition to showing finality, a plaintiff must first “seek compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so.  This analysis looks to potential “remedies under state substantive law.”

But critically, plaintiff must adhere to this requirement only if the potential remedies are “reasonable, certain, and adequate.”

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary 367 (3d ed. 1986) defines the word certain as “fixed,” “settled,” or “sure.”

Here, defendants believe that inverse condemnation is a sufficient state law remedy. Plaintiff conversely argues that the doctrine of inverse condemnation does not apply here, or, at the very least, it is not certain that it does. The Court agrees with plaintiff. Were he to file this suit in state court, he would face significant substantive and jurisdictional problems.

Indeed, the Court adds its voice to the growing chorus of judges concerned about these kinds of claims, which appear in *federal court because there is no adequate remedy at state law*.

_Rafaeli_ held that the Court did not have jurisdiction over this kind of claim ‘distinguishable because it hinges on the assumption that Michigan courts provide a plaintiff with plain, speedy, efficient, reasonable, certain, and adequate remedies at law’.

Perhaps plaintiff would guess the right Michigan court in which to file his claim, and perhaps that court would hear it. But given _Rafaeli_ _I_ and the jurisdictional quandary outlined above, that result is by no means certain. Because plaintiff has “establish[ed] the inadequacy of the procedure in these circumstances” —i.e., its uncertainty—his eminent domain claim is ripe.

Under Grace Brethren, however, § 1341 does not bar jurisdiction if there is no other plain, speedy, and efficient state 1:17-cv-13519-BAF-PTM Doc # 25 Filed 04/26/18 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 9 remedy for plaintiff. Therefore, under Rosewell, the question becomes whether Michigan courts would give plaintiff a full hearing and judicially determine the instant controversy. For the reasons stated above, it appears that they would not. Consequently, § 1341 does not prevent the Court from adjudicating plaintiff’s claims.

In other words, principles of comity are largely guided by § 1341’s principles and do not apply to plaintiffs who are not challenging a state tax system. Thus, as the gist of this action is not a challenge of Michigan’s tax system—and to the extent that it is such a challenge, there is no adequate state law remedy—the principles of comity do not bar the Court’s jurisdiction.

In the Court’s view, the case comes down to this: Gratiot County “took property worth [$100,000] to satisfy a [$2,000] debt, and then refused to refund any of the difference. In some legal precincts that sort of behavior is called theft. But under the [GPTA], apparently, that behavior is called tax collection.”

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
*_____________
end*




*




Brick Layer said:



Beware of [object to] 'state supplemental jurisdiction' [(object to) Rooker-Feldman]; 

Title IV-D Program is a federal policy with state voluntary participation [corresponding state statutes are in conformity to the federal program]; 

The 'IV-D program' is a federal matter and funded so, for the play!!! [pay]


When Kelvin L. Harold challenged the [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine and lost, The Seventh Circuit applied what is left of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine because Harold had an agreement to the judgment’s entry nearly two decades ago, but failed to pay, which caused the judgment’s (alleged) creditor, Steel, to secure a garnishment order from the Indiana court. The only injury that Harold suffered occurred when the state judge ruled against him; [Harold’s claim did not include fraud]. Harold v. Steel, No. 14-1875 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2014)

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine merely recognizes that 28 U. S. C. §1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction [Six Pack Joe's fraud claim], and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court, see 28 U. S. C. §1257(a). The doctrine has no application to judicial review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency. [See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 644, n. 3 (2002)] (Rooker-Feldman does not apply to a suit seeking review of state agency action).

EXCEPTION TO ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE

[Michigan’s no fault means no fault, no fault insurance… no fault divorce… etc, no winners no losers; contract and or merchant law.]

And yet, an exception to Rooker-Feldman of just such an equitable persuasion has taken root. A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.

In other words, when a “state-court loser” complains that the winner owes his triumph not to sound legal principles—or even unsound ones—but to fraud, then the loser is not really complaining of an injury caused by a state-court judgment, but of an injury caused by the “winner’s chicanery”. Or so the reasoning goes.

This reasoning received an intellectual boost from Exxon Mobil, where the scope of what kinds of actions were “inextricably intertwined” with state-court judgments took a serious blow [Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291]. In Exxon Mobil, the Court clarified that not all actions dealing with the “same or related question” resolved in state court are barred in federal court [Id. at 292.]. Instead, a district court must retain a case that presents an “independent claim” even if, along the way, the claimant challenges or denies some conclusion reached by the state court [Id. at 293 (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1993)).].

[Six Pack Joe] Having extensively exhausted all administrative remedy has standing in suit while seeking the constitutional provision of this judiciary [remedy and protection] of the United States District Court jurisdiction and apart from the state apparatus; the County Circuit Court’s appearance of impropriety and or conflict of interest in these matters (specifically the five funding streams for the Child Support Enforcement Program plus incentives); constitutional judiciary of the Federal Court outside and apart from the state court were the fraudulent Federal Title IV and Title IV-D Federal Program injuries occurred; and continue to injure (both the taxpayer) and most pertinent [Six Pack Joe].

[Six Pack Joe] is not practicing from the bench, practicing for hire, employment, or otherwise, and is not reviewing ‘child support’ wherefore has never brought up the issue of ‘arrears’, had that been [Six Pack Joe’s] the issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied; [Six Pack Joe] is not arguing ‘Child Support’ instead ‘Agency Actions’ a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud and or frauds.

[Six Pack Joe] Does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; ex parte style or otherwise.


[Wargames; gamesmanship on the court]



Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:





I believe many cases have been dismissed because of... 



Brick Layer said:



Beware of [object to] 'state supplemental jurisdiction' [(object to) Rooker-Feldman]; 

Title IV-D Program is a federal policy with state voluntary participation [corresponding state statutes are in conformity to the federal program]; 

The 'IV-D program' is a federal matter and funded so, for the play!!! [pay]


When Kelvin L. Harold challenged the [Rooker-Feldman] doctrine and lost, The Seventh Circuit applied what is left of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine because Harold had an agreement to the judgment’s entry nearly two decades ago, but failed to pay, which caused the judgment’s (alleged) creditor, Steel, to secure a garnishment order from the Indiana court. The only injury that Harold suffered occurred when the state judge ruled against him; [Harold’s claim did not include fraud]. Harold v. Steel, No. 14-1875 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2014)

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine merely recognizes that 28 U. S. C. §1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction [Six Pack Joe's fraud claim], and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court, see 28 U. S. C. §1257(a). The doctrine has no application to judicial review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency. [See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 644, n. 3 (2002)] (Rooker-Feldman does not apply to a suit seeking review of state agency action).

EXCEPTION TO ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE

[Michigan’s no fault means no fault, no fault insurance… no fault divorce… etc, no winners no losers; contract and or merchant law.]

And yet, an exception to Rooker-Feldman of just such an equitable persuasion has taken root. A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.

In other words, when a “state-court loser” complains that the winner owes his triumph not to sound legal principles—or even unsound ones—but to fraud, then the loser is not really complaining of an injury caused by a state-court judgment, but of an injury caused by the “winner’s chicanery”. Or so the reasoning goes.

This reasoning received an intellectual boost from Exxon Mobil, where the scope of what kinds of actions were “inextricably intertwined” with state-court judgments took a serious blow [Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291]. In Exxon Mobil, the Court clarified that not all actions dealing with the “same or related question” resolved in state court are barred in federal court [Id. at 292.]. Instead, a district court must retain a case that presents an “independent claim” even if, along the way, the claimant challenges or denies some conclusion reached by the state court [Id. at 293 (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1993)).].

[Six Pack Joe] Having extensively exhausted all administrative remedy has standing in suit while seeking the constitutional provision of this judiciary [remedy and protection] of the United States District Court jurisdiction and apart from the state apparatus; the County Circuit Court’s appearance of impropriety and or conflict of interest in these matters (specifically the five funding streams for the Child Support Enforcement Program plus incentives); constitutional judiciary of the Federal Court outside and apart from the state court were the fraudulent Federal Title IV and Title IV-D Federal Program injuries occurred; and continue to injure (both the taxpayer) and most pertinent [Six Pack Joe].

[Six Pack Joe] is not practicing from the bench, practicing for hire, employment, or otherwise, and is not reviewing ‘child support’ wherefore has never brought up the issue of ‘arrears’, had that been [Six Pack Joe’s] the issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied; [Six Pack Joe] is not arguing ‘Child Support’ instead ‘Agency Actions’ a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud and or frauds.

[Six Pack Joe] Does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; ex parte style or otherwise.


[Wargames; gamesmanship on the court]



Click to expand...


...overcoming state supplemental jurisdiction and or the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is key in overcoming RULE 56(e); and or a 12(b) dismissal under 12(b)(6); keeping the federal matters under federal jurisdiction away from [1 Corinthians 9:13] the state court actors (circuit court family division) and or [bonded Title IV-D] participants acting in public like the de jure government.

All the grant monies [five streams of funding plus incentives] flow into each county's general fund (Title IV-D fund) through thier comprehensive annual financial reports; investment funds.
		
Click to expand...





Brick Layer said:



Writ in the Nature of a:
COMMON LAW DEPOSITION

THE UNDERSIGNED common law citizen Six Pack Joe: a common man at law, not limited to but including: Six Pack Joe's legal person in law (SIX PACK JOE), hereafter: Deponent, Petitioner, Plaintiff, certifies under oath deposes and says, 

The intent of the Federal State Title IV-D Child Support Program, was created to recoup taxpayer money already spent on providing specific welfare services to children who have been willfully abandoned by a parent (or parents) and are therefore left to rely on the government to self sustain through one of these programs.

At no point past or present has there been: willfully abandoned child(ren), willful failure to financially support child(ren), nor has child(ren) been left in despair, all basic needs where met at all times during the child adolescent years and therefore Six Pack Joe never committed a 'crime' against any child nor 'crimes against children'.

WHEREFORE any 'CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN' claim held against Six Pack Joe on behalf of his minor children's adolescent account are invalid and are held without neither the children's nor my consent, we do not bring credibility or validation to said allegations. This very allegation causes injury and defamation of character to the children's direct posterity as members and offspring of the Joe family. Such claim is a direct trespass against Six Pack of the Joe family, his own children, and his children's children [grandchildren] when such allegations 'crimes against children' are falsely advertised as such worldwide on the web.

FURTHERMORE I Six Pack of the Joe family declare and believes that there is no signature or agreement 'wet ink endorsement' (signed stipulation) with any party in the Circuit Court family division or otherwise, nor is any such 'thing' on file with The Friend of the Court office. If such a stipulation is on file it is an inauthentic government and forged document (fraudulently created document) used for application, creation, and or imputation of a Title IV account without my Informed Consent ab initio; fraudulently created and used for PART D of Title IV, and the eventual and evident application of a warrant.

'Falsifying documents' is a type of white collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document for the purpose of deceiving another person. In many states, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony, 8 U.S. Code § 1324c - Penalties for document fraud; Michigan Compiled Laws Ann. § 750-248; Michigan Compiled Laws Ann. § 750-249.

Deponent / Petitioner / Plaintiff further sayeth not,

SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE NOTED Common Law Citizen is,

Click to expand...

*


Brick Layer said:


> *Arm's Length and or At Arm's Length*​
> *Date[d] [the year of our LORD]:*
> *
> 
> ...


*


Brick Layer said:



			CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
EXPUNGEMENT





‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010)
Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Six Pack Joe's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;


Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.

(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)

[Title IV and or Title IV-D Expungement; federal jurisdiction (administrative review) judicially.]


Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



			Six Pack Joe, believes all administrative remedies have been exhausted, all steps have been provided for in the procedural rules and the statute having been followed (except in the instance described here in and throughout [untold damage] ) and must resort to the courts.  The subject of judicial review is perhaps the most intriguing-and most difficult-aspect of administrative law: where the statute is attacked as being unconstitutional, the agency is charged with exceeding the powers created by statute, and or powers created by statute misused.  Administrative determinations of law (other than determination of their own jurisdiction) are persuasive but not binding.  See: [Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)], But under the Administrative Procedure Act the Court must look not only to the evidence presented by the agency but to “the whole record."

Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that except where statute precludes review or where the agency action is, by law, committed to agency discretion “any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”

Administrative Agencies by John Schulman (1949 Practising Law Institute) [highlighted].pdf



Brick Layer said:



			A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.

In other words, when a “state-court loser” complains that the winner owes his triumph not to sound legal principles—or even unsound ones—but to fraud, then the loser is not really complaining of an injury caused by a state-court judgment, but of an injury caused by the “winner’s chicanery”. Or so the reasoning goes.

This reasoning received an intellectual boost from Exxon Mobil, where the scope of what kinds of actions were “inextricably intertwined” with state-court judgments took a serious blow [Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291]. In Exxon Mobil, the Court clarified that not all actions dealing with the “same or related question” resolved in state court are barred in federal court [Id. at 292.]. Instead, a district court must retain a case that presents an “independent claim” even if, along the way, the claimant challenges or denies some conclusion reached by the state court [Id. at 293 (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1993)).].
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent   ...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]

Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.






The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund


"Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, 1/25/51, entitled "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"
		
Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



			The requirement of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611, that municipal liability under § 1983 can only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to Government "policy or custom," makes it clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. There must at the very least be an affirmative link between the municipality's policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.

Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc

SECTION 1983: BASIC PRINCIPLES, INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY LIABILITY 
https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/kb-s1983-1-nsa09Blum.pdf

_______________
Text of a Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States
Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption

(2) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:

(a) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or

(b) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;

(3) to be or have been a leader or official of:

(a) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or

(b) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or the official’s tenure; or
_______________

[In America, a free society, contract makes law and truth is sovereign!]


Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:





Brick Layer said:



Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent   ...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]

Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.
		
Click to expand...






http://www.usmessageboard.com/attac...-stipulation-on-file-with-the-foc-pdf.179722/

Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



GLOSSARY OF COMMON CHILD SUPPORT TERMS

CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL

Social Security Act Title IV

§ 303.101 Expedited processes.

(a) Definition. Expedited processes means administrative and judicial procedures (including IV-D agency procedures) required under section 466(a)(2) and (c) of the Act;

(c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes:

(1) Paternities and orders established by means other than full judicial process must have the same force and effect under State law as paternities and orders established by full judicial process within the State;

(2) The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;

(3) The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, paternity determination, and/or support order;

(4) Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the State's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [acting statutes].

[Gamesmanship on the court - Court, a place where games are played... tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, etc. Psalm 104:26; Luke 22:25.]


Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."  
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities
Example:
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix

Welcome to the Child Support Portal
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law.  45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans.  All state plans can be found at state plan system:

Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section

Click to expand...

*


Brick Layer said:


> *
> 
> Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
> 45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
> ...


*


Brick Layer said:





Brick Layer said:



§ 303.101(C)(4) Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the state's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [the state's federal court].

[The state's acting statutes, controlling statutes, authorities [violated] according to Federal Law, 'Social Security' Law 'Title IV' and or including 'Part D' of that welfare act)].
		
Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."  
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities

Click to expand...


Pretend-Six Pack Joe files a federal lawsuit (and or performs a federal removal procedure) regarding his common law deposition (fraud remedy), challenging the alleged private 'written agreement' between the parties/parents in the [equity] family court arena.  That contract that which is required under 'informed consent Title IV-D duties of office' and then that 'written agreement' is reviewed and entered into the record by the court... A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the payer that he or she shall.... [without specific  welfare services, temporary assistance to needy families being paid out by the taxpayer on behalf of Six Pack Joe's minor child] he or she still knowingly agree and or agrees to a SUPPORT ORDER, period.  If there is no such agreement between Six Pack Joe and another party, with a wet ink signature, and the defendant and or defendants claim some prima facie evidence [prima facie presumption] that just such a 'stipulation' does exists when it does not - is a fraud (crime); a rebuttable presumption; of fact.

Pretend-Six Pack Joe's defendant and or defendants create, alter, and or modify some document with what looks like Six Pack Joe's wet ink signature on the face of it, and in fact it is not Six Pack Joe's signature at all, this is document tampering, is a fraud (crime) too - together alongside the above said rebutted evidence 'document that was passed along for the purpose of deceiving another person and or persons'.

Pretend [rhetorical question] riddle: all arguments aside, in any case, if Six Pack Joe with first hand knowledge knows of no such acknowledgement and or stipulation; then how can one 'they' defend the (crime) of passing along of a document, that said (prima facie evidence) claim that a stipulation exists [first] - without someone [secondly], someone other than Six Pack Joe forging and or document tampering???

The other (2 crime) of defendant and or defendants falsifying a document in support of the (1 crime) defendant and or defendants false witness to an alleged agreement between the parents of the child.  [The child not on welfare and or tax payer recoupment not to exceed the amount so paid out to the family as listed under: Prohibitions; Requirements  “…not exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family, which accrue (or have accrued) before the date the family ceases to receive assistance under the program, which assignment, on and after such date, shall not apply with respect to any support (other than support collected pursuant to section) which accrued before the family received such assistance and which the State has not collected.”]



Six Pack Joe got em' boxed in...... Six Pack neither practicing from the bench or otherwise, is not reviewing 'support' wherefore has never brought up the issue of 'arrears' had that been Six Pack Joe's issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied.  Six Pack Joe is not arguing 'child support' instead 'agency actions' a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud(s)!  Six Pack Joe does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; and or beyond federal Sec. 408. [42 U.S.C. 608] (a)(3).

Pretended answer to the riddle: with all the facts in place - one 'they' can't.  Summary requests have to view the case in most favorable view to the Plaintiff (summary judgements on the pleadings) and or (Default default judgement) when a party [the defendant and or defendants] against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend the merits of the case; merits of the case them being Plaintiff's claim and or pleadings rebutting all rebuttable presumptions in law, and at law; regarding Title IV and or Title IV-D fraud.

PLAYING BY THE RULES: FRCP 55(A) AND THE CIRCUIT SPLIT REGARDING ITS MEANING
Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

hyperlink left click mouse
↓ over emoticon:



A parent working and living above poverty plus receiving support from the other parent is a financial incentive... There would be less divorce and or family separation (broken homes) given the knowledge of the voluntary nature of child support [willful abandonment]; withholding of consent knocks out the financial incentives giving into the fact that most parents would rather work and or not be so poor as to want to live on welfare.... just to make the other parent pay/play - logically in most cases both parents want the best for their children.   It is best to settle domestic differences before going to court without the aid of government 'in the best interest of your children' and or family wealth; America's children's overall inheritance, quality of life, and or posterity;  ....just saying.
		
Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



WELFARE (Title IV-D)
Proceedings for support of custodial parent and children being supported by public assistance; burden of proof.
....or any of them are being supported, in whole or in part, by public assistance under the social welfare act.



Brick Layer said:



FYI (for your information) “Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."  
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities
Example:
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix

Welcome to the Child Support Portal
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law.  45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans.  All state plans can be found at state plan system:

Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section

Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


*


Brick Layer said:



			Many of these citing have been posted previously, though maybe not in this order consecutively; [picture pages].




Brick Layer said:



If you believe this a state court matter.....
 Six Pack Joe
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


Brick Layer said:


> *FEDERAL JURISDICTION
> (Illustrated through a collection of citing)
> 
> *​*Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
> ...


*


Brick Layer said:





Brick Layer said:










Brick Layer said:



A written stipulation of the parents 'parties litigant' is required in the record before orders can be valid; in Michigan for a Friend of The Court case, the parties must enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court.  In a free society, if there is no welfare in your specific case then Title IV-D Child Support Services are voluntary and requires a stipulation.

A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.

Consensus facit legem.
Consent makes law. • A contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.

Click to expand...


In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.

In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.604

A signed divorce decree is just one form of stipulation.
Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).
A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles.
If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification.

Search the following two PDFs for the word 'stipulation':
http://www.montcalm.us/document_center/Courts/Stipulated Motion to Change Support Order.pdf
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/publications/Friend_of_the_Court-WEB.pdf

Click to expand...


United States of America's government (a constitutional republic) bound by the constitution a limited government, 'limited to that which is constitutional' a government for the people by the people 'bound by Oath of Office' with under governmental employee powers definiend and further restricted by specific statutes and codes; regulate government and business (corporations) registered to government.  
A Treatise on the Law of Negotiable Instruments 

Man (Genesis 5:2; Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-35; Galatians 3:26) is endowed by his/her creator with certain inherent and inalienable rights 'to contract in the unlimited' international contractual rights without government interference.

The Constitution and its Bill of Rights outline what are [skinnied down] commonly referred to simply as 'due process' and or 'due process rights'; men and women do not have constitutional rights only inherent rights that which are constitutionally reaffirmed by individual 'oath' to the constitutions hence the 'constitutional right'.




Brick Layer said:



Title IV-D due process Timeline... 

Click to expand...




Brick Layer said:



Hint: the key is in the contractual arrangement, an 'ex parte' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'  lacking the wet ink signature of both parents 'written agreement' giving birth to [that] contract; 'contract law' and then the possibility of a breach of agreement, court action to enforce that agreement [enforcement order], and eventually contempt of court for failure to comply with court's oversight of the stipulation of that  'written agreement', so ordered enforced!


The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;

The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary support order;



Click to expand...


What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."

The word 'shall' appears in section 552.604 TWELVE times.....

Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."

Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black's Law Dictionary wrote that "In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency…which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language."

Look at this sentence:
"552.604 (3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court that provides for all of the following:"

Of course government cannot force someone to [must] contract therefore the word 'must' does not appear in the sentence above, now look at it again.... as liberal as the word shall has been used throughout that statute neither does the word 'shall' appear in this sentence.  The sentence simply says "The parties enter into a written agreement" with the omission of 'shall' illuminating 'may' or 'will', though and where 'must' is assumed for any and every agreement must take more than one party or it would be (non contractual) a unilateral agreement.  ...And where it says 'the record' means the state court 'docket' holds the facts of the matter!!!!



Volintarily



Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle. 
A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).

Click to expand...


*


----------



## Brick Layer (May 7, 2018)

*
nice (adj.)
"foolish, stupid, senseless," "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish"*

How to Understand the Differences Between Statutes, Regulations, Ordinances and Common Law



Brick Layer said:


> Law - The Public Library of Law
> 
> Google Scholar





Brick Layer said:


> *[Collection of Legal Maxims in Law and Equity]*



Bouvier Law Dictionary

Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary - The  Lawful Path

Maxims of Law

Black's Law Dictionary - Free Online Legal Dictionary

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Law Dictionary by Merriam-Webster

Wex

Nolo's Free Dictionary Of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

FindLaw Legal Dictionary - FindLaw

Free Legal Definitions - Legal Dictionary | Lectlaw.com

Duhaime's Legal Dictionary

Dean's Law Dictionary
Law Dictionary, Legal Dictionary, Dean's Law Dictionary






FORMS WORKSHOP AUDIO LECTURE

MOTION PROCEDURE AUDIO LECTURE

SOVEREIGNTY AUDIO LECTURE

Anti-Government Movement Guidebook

Law Notes -- Home Page

Family Guardian


----------



## Brick Layer (May 13, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> *The 'PUBLIC INTEREST' does not solely lie with assuring children receive support in so much as the Title IV-D Child Support Program is a two part facet: *
> 
> *(1) WILLFUL ABANDONMENT OR DESERTION, and; *
> *(2) SUPPORT, along the way of WELFARE and or INFORMED CONSENT.  *





Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > These non-public assistance families could voluntarily apply for IV-D services; they could, also, close their IV-D cases at any time.
> ...





Brick Layer said:


> *
> Title IV-D, a two prong [federal, state participation] program; *
> Prong 1 Willful Abandonment, and;
> Prong 2 Support, by way of either: welfare and or [without welfare] informed consent.
> ...



OPTING OUT OF FRIEND OF THE COURT SERVICES
Statutory Procedure to Opt Out


----------



## Brick Layer (May 15, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> On July 1, Kentucky’s laws will begin supporting joint custody with equal parenting time when families separate.
> New shared custody legislation becomes law in Kentucky July 1, existing arrangements not impacted | NKyTribune



Surrounding states are being affected by Kentucky's first in the nation shared parenting law.
Opinion: Shared parenting the best option for children of divorce


----------



## Brick Layer (May 15, 2018)




----------



## Brick Layer (May 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *"Title IV-D contains no private remedy-- either judicial or administrative--through which aggrieved persons can seek redress."*
> ...




To my knowledge Blessing v Freestone is the only Title IV-D case that has made it through the federal court system with a ruling; and focuses on parents wanting substantial compliance (services).

[per this thread] Six Pack Joe's claim in the federal court system focuses on Non-TANF families parental lack of consent for services (unwanted services); and the fraud of forcing services Title IV-D services on either parent of that non welfare family, given the fact Part D is Title IV WELFARE.   Beating the bushes, on the front line, I know of just one such federal case pending now, awaiting ruling and ripe for a judgement.... 'practical application of the law' as shared here within this thread.



Side-note: Suijuris Club Forum [hyperlink cited in quote above] no longer functions so the 'threads' information and knowledge I shared and stored there is no longer accessible.  I seen this coming and have experienced this several times over the years, cites get built up then sold off and closed down; anyway this is why I started posting here on this forum U.S. Message Boards in January.  I would like to thank everyone for the views!!!!!




Brick Layer said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (May 19, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> Brick Layer said:
> 
> 
> > *"Title IV-D contains no private remedy-- either judicial or administrative--through which aggrieved persons can seek redress."*
> ...




To my knowledge Blessing v Freestone is the only Title IV-D case that has made it through the federal court system with a ruling; and focuses on parents wanting substantial compliance (services).

[per this thread] Six Pack Joe's claim in the federal court system focuses on Non-TANF families parental lack of consent for services (unwanted services); and the fraud of forcing services (manufactured consent) forcing Title IV-D services on either parent of that non welfare family, given the fact Part D is Title IV WELFARE.   Beating the bushes, on the front line, I know of just one such federal case pending now, awaiting ruling and ripe for a judgement.... 'practical application of the law' as shared here within this thread.


NOTICE: Suijuris Club Forum (hyperlink cited in quote above) no longer functions so the information and knowledge I had stored there is no longer accessible.  I seen this coming and have experienced this several times over the years, cites get built up then sold off and closed down; anyway this is why I started posting here on this forum U.S. Message Boards in January.  I would like to thank everyone for the views!!!!




Brick Layer said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brick Layer (May 20, 2018)

Brick Layer said:


> The requirement of *Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611,* that municipal liability under § 1983 can only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to Government "policy or custom," makes it clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. There must at the very least be an affirmative link between the municipality's policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.
> 
> *Clearfield Doctrine*
> "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
> ...



David Johnson


----------



## Brick Layer (May 21, 2018)

Virginia Makes Family Court Reform History


----------



## Brick Layer (May 27, 2018)

Welcome to the Child Support and Family Law Legislation Database including filed bills pertaining to child support and family law!


Search passed, pending and failed legislation from 2012 - 2018 by state, year, topic, keyword, status, and/or primary sponsor. Topics relate to custody and visitation, grandparent custody and visitation, custody and visitation issues affecting military parents, economic stability, child support enforcement, family violence collaboration, father engagement, child support guidelines, health care coverage, parentage, prevention, healthy family relationships, implementation, and other related issues.


----------



## Brick Layer (May 27, 2018)

MILITARY PARENT CUSTODY AND VISITATION

*I recall this 2006 Whistleblower issue had an article regarding military concerns.*
[...never forget 'child support' is covert for 'Title IV-D' and generates revenue for both the federal government and the states.]


Brick Layer said:


> Child Support Enforcement Incentive Funding






Brick Layer said:


> *TITLE IV -D*
> 
> *There are five funding streams for the Child Support Enforcement Program;*
> *Each budget expands off the previous budget’s expenditures;*
> ...



THE WAR AT HOME: Iraq veteran says family court using PTSD treatment against him

PTSD: A Soldier's Perspective: A Veteran Father Struggles With Family Court and Child Support

Chapter 7: The Family Law System: Custody and Visitation | NCD.gov

Child Support and Veterans Benefits - Q and A [inadvertent advertisement]

A Need for Training: Preparing Juvenile and Family Court Judges on Military-Related Issues [inadvertent advertisement]


----------



## Kat (May 28, 2018)

*This is nothing but Spam.

Closed.*


----------

