Source: https://lawfulpath.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=418&p=5420
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 11:59:08
Document Index: 598271755

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5106', '§ 1324', '§ 750', '§ 750', '§408', 'art 302', '§ 666', '§ 654', '§ 654', '§ 458', '§ 4', '§ 1301', '§1331', '§1257', 'Case No: 2']

FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN - Lawful Path Forums
Board index Main Forum Family / Marriage, Divorce, and Freedom for our Children
It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:59 am
FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
The most numerous and, collectively, the most powerful form of government on earth is the family. This is why worldly governments are so obsessed with destroying and undermining families.
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:44 pm
Post by Brick Layer » Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:17 am
Failure to Pay-Child Support ‘Neglect’
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN CLAIMS
Contract is law and truth is sovereign.... this KEY may be helpful to pull family back together AFTER MATH.
Last edited by Brick Layer on Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post by Brick Layer » Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:25 am
‘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 any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in 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)
Last edited by Brick Layer on Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post by editor » Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:26 am
Does this thread have to do with rules of evidence? Affidavits (or asseverations) are good tools to make evidence "appear" within court proceedings.
Post by Brick Layer » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:27 pm
Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:26 am
My deepest apologies for being slow....
This thread I titled 'FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN' and I will try to focus on this here.
The ANSWER to your question is yes, though I don't want to focus solely on the rules of evidence or affidavits in and of themselves even though they are an intricate part of any judicial proceeding; them being 'CRIMES' and or 'CRIMINAL' allegation is serious business. And I agree they are good tools to make evidence "appear" within court proceedings.
Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a court of equity's creation of private law. Whenever possible I 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.
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.
File a Claim in the Federal Court regarding the IV-D Case (Federal Title IV Welfare Case part D); or remove only the IV-D Case (Federal Title IV Welfare Case part D) and not the Circuit Court Case (State Domestic Case)!
8.1 Enforcing Federal Rights Against States and State Officials
Many federal programs, including cash assistance, medical insurance, food stamps, and housing, are implemented through grants to the states. The states are responsible for the administration of these programs and are required to operate them in compliance with federal law.1 Beneficiaries may have a claim in federal court if a state violates a federal directive in the administration or denial of benefits. ...
8.1.D. Waiver of Immunity
There are three ways that states waive their immunity: (3) by removing state court litigation to federal court.
KEY: Ask to see the alleged stipulation required for a valid order and or valid warrant to [pursue] ensue,
Title IV-D Reimbursement(s) business.
[Statist's economic busyness]
Last edited by Brick Layer on Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Post by Brick Layer » Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:53 pm
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
Last edited by Brick Layer on Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post by Brick Layer » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:46 pm
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.
The Money flow USA
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.
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.
[url=https://greenbook-waysandmeans.hous...house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL33422_gb.pdf]Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program, Congressional Research Service ~ Carmen Solom-Fears Specialist in Social Policy[/url]
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.
Child Support Enforcement Counsel
Child Support Enforcement in the United States and the Role of the Private Bar
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.
Congressional Research Services, Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
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.
[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.
42 U.S.C. § 654 - U.S. Code Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare § 654]
https://www.nbc.com/punky-brewster/vide ... -2/3647587
Last edited by Brick Layer on Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post by Brick Layer » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:15 pm
An ex parte does not meet the definition of a 'stipulation'!!!
[video on ex parte hearings]
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.
A condition, demand, or promise in an agreement or contract.
An agreement made between two opposing parties about a demand, condition, or fact in a legal action.
Search the following two PDFs for the word 'stipulation':
FRIEND OF THE COURT POLICY REGARDING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PARTIES
Information About Custody, Parenting Time and Support
Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle.
A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).
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.
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.
Remove the cause and the effect ceases.
Nemo debet locupletari ex alterius incommode.
No one out to be enriched out of another’s disadvantage.
Hihil tam proprium imperio quam legibus vivere.
Nothing is so becoming to authority as to live according to the law.
Brick Layer wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:17 am
Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:53 pm
The public interest does not solely lie with assuring children receive support in so much as the Title IV-D Program Policy is a two part facet:
1.	Willful abandonment or desertion, and;
2.	Support, along the way of WELFARE and or [without welfare] INFORMED CONSENT.
When states engage in program agreements with the federal government, federal regulations supercede not just state rules and regulations but also related state statutes,
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;
The Federal Procedures in place under the Federal Title IV-D Program Policy (state participation for federal block grants) under the Federal Social Security Act Title IV and Social Security Act § 458 Incentive Payments to States:
Michigan’s federal Title IV-D apparatus, powers and duties of the friend of the court and the office of the friend of the court “to encourage and assist ‘parents voluntarily’ to resolve contested domestic relations matters by agreement”
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(3sj3kf ... cl-552-501
In Michigan, these INFORMED CONSENT FEDERAL PROCEDURES in place can be found under Michigan Legislature
– [Section 552.505] Duties of friend of the court:
“(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.”
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 Enforcement 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.]
A signed divorce decree is a form of stipulation.
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. [Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).]
Informed right to 'Opt Out' of the services;
Title IV-D Services 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".
[Ex parte style] Six Pack Joe was never afforded the right to give informed consent hence the very reason NO STIPULATION EXISTS. 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.
Last edited by Brick Layer on Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:08 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Post by Brick Layer » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:03 am
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!!!
When Kelvin L. Harold challenged the 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 [Plaintiff’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)).].
Plaintiff 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 the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is not reviewing ‘child support’ wherefore has never brought up the issue of ‘arrears’ had that been Plaintiff’s issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied; Plaintiff is not arguing ‘Child Support’ instead ‘Agency Actions’ a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud(s).
Post by Brick Layer » Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:22 pm
Well [unschooled in law] what I have found at law is 'learn to do by doing',
'It' appears [evidence] 'Disclosures and Discovery' "factual development" within court proceedings happens only after a procedural date takes place ‘Judicial Machinery’ SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (pretrial conference) - for only after such a procedural date takes place (usually never beforehand) can the court issue a pretrial order listing other deadlines;'Annotated Outline of a Civil Action', a discovery deadline can be a good tool to make evidence 'appear' 'proof up the claims' within the court proceeding!
In other words, the movant could challenge the opposing party to, "Put up or shut up" on a critical issue. After being afforded sufficient time for discovery, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), if the respondent did not "put up", summary judgment was proper.
The Court concluded: "Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment motion to be opposed by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the mere pleadings themselves, and it is from this list that one would normally expect the nonmoving party to make the showing to which we have referred." Id. at 2554.
Post by Brick Layer » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:22 pm
Well [unschooled in law] what I have found at law is
https://www.facebook.com/darren.edward. ... %22R%22%7D
Plaintiffs Timing Position is Correct as a Matter OF Law.pdf
VAWTER VS BLOHM Case No: 2:17-CV-11789
(370.75 KiB) Downloaded 41 times
Return to “Family / Marriage, Divorce, and Freedom for our Children”