Source: http://custodyplayers.com/details/department-of-child-support-services---fresno-california/168148
Timestamp: 2018-11-18 17:21:50
Document Index: 317319726

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', '§17500', '§17500', '§17400', '§17400', '§17400', '§17406', '§19270', '§17406', '§17302']

﻿ Department of Child Support Services - Fresno, California, Fresno Reviews & Ratings
Department of Child Support Services - Fresno, California
2220 Tulare Street #310P
Email: FRWebmail@sjvls.org
Collection of Child Support Services
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel
Since the October 9th, 2014 Petition for Review filing at the California Supreme Court. The Fresno County Department of Child Support Services are now trying to send me to jail for an arrearage that is public assistance aid paid in the early 1980's and it was paid before the case they are trying to send me to jail on was opened. The Fresno County Department of Child Support Services' motion is to hold me in contempt of court for non-payment to the arrearages that are public assistance paid before the case was opened in December 1988. I've responded using the proper response form. That response form which is filed can be seen in the photo, the first page shows it's filed and the second page at box 7 shows everything is the truth under penalty of perjury. The response is 14 pages. I am not going to add EXHIBITS at this time because the litigation explains it well enough to know what's being talked about. I'll add them later. What I am going to do is select the response, copy it and paste it under here it'll begin and end with triple quotations. It's long for a post; but it is the real litigation as the form FL-685 shows. It begins now:
""" [ATTACHED DECLARATION]
This respondent is not willfully disobedient to the terms of the court’s X'd-in box 7 or box 11 orders to pay arrears. Neither is this respondent willfully resistant to the order or process of the court. Please notice EXHIBIT A attached hereinafter, it is the February 14, 2003 Law Department 1 Judge Phillip A. Silva's court order to pay arrears at $30.00 a month.
This respondent has never been willfully disobedient or resistant and has always come into the Fresno County Department of Child Support Services, hereafter also read as FCDCSS, and report my new address and my new job and told and tell the FCDCSS’ workers to garnish my wages and income for the arrears amount.
Why the court’s February 14, 2003 dated order was not sufficient for the FCDCSS to garnish my income or draw wage installments? I don't know. And EXHIBIT A the court’s order specifically reads: “This is not an installment judgment.” You also read: “DCSS #286348-8 #22” there. At the bottom of the order you see signed a temporary judge of the superior court.
Under Division 2 General Provisions Part 6 Enforcement of Judgments and orders in the family code there in statute section 290 Methods of Enforcement decisional law authorities notes direct that contempt of a criminal nature is applied to payable and enforceable support maintenance and to current division of property settlements.
Also what’s obvious and clear under family code Division 17 Support Services Chapter 2 Child Support Enforcement Article 1 Support Obligations statute section 17400 Local child support agencies, responsibilities, authorized actions; is the decisional law authority Crider v. Superior Court instructing on the previous statutes and is also talking about what are the specifics to this case. Crider v. Superior Court instructs that an order requiring noncustodial parent to reimburse the county for aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) payments that the county made to his children was a “money judgment in a civil action for debt”, rather than “order for child support”; thus it could not be enforced by contempt.
The petitioner should understand that under family code division 17 support services Chapter 1 Department of Child Support Services, hereafter also read DCSS, Article 1 General statute section 17000 in definitions there there are differences between: (b) Child support order, (a) Child support debt, and (j)- public assistance, (k)- public assistance debt.
How the Department of Child Support Services’ contempt of court motion is constructed is not the application of contempt of court under contempt of court law relating to debt delinquencies for public assistance that was in existence before the case was opened.
My dear Court. And Chief Attorney Douglas C. Harrison. Please notice the attached hereinafter EXHIBIT B it is the JUDGMENT from the day 10-22-93 in Madera County from the judicial proceeding which opened this case. In that case #47167 the County of Madera acting on behalf of the minor Adam Jacob Ortega made judgment on paternity, on child support and on reimbursement of public assistance. That child support order is on page 2 at item 3 it begins on line 4 and ordered support and maintenance of Adam Jacob at $137 a month. The reimbursement order is also on page 2 it’s item 5 beginning on line 15 and it ordered reimbursement to public assistance for which aid was paid.
Respectfully judge and chief attorney that makes this case’s payments which are the issue today, are payments for arrearages to public assistance that existed before this case was opened in 1988. That arrearages reimbursement was set at the rate of $33.00 a month. Later Fresno County Judge Silva set that arrearages rate at $30.00 a month.
Mr. FCDCSS Chief Attorney Douglass Harrison said to be acting on behalf of the neighboring county. At Family Code Division 17 Support Services Chapter 2 Child Support Enforcement Article 2 Collections and Enforcement statute section 17500 Responsibility of local child support agency for collection and enforcement of a child support -(at §17500c1)-
delinquency which is an arrearage past due support amount existing when the case is opened by the local child support agency the responsibility for the collection of the arrearage delinquency shall be transferred to the California Franchise Tax Board. Fresno County Department of Child Support Services may collect a child support delinquency that’s an arrearage owed to public assistance when the collection -(fam. code §17500c1) of that existing when a case is opened debt has been statutorily transferred to the Franchise Tax Board, though the responsibility of DCSS is primarily to child and family support matters. The DCSS can collect those public assistance debt delinquencies because of a statutory letter of agreement between the Franchise Tax Board (hereafter also read FTB) and Department of Child Support Services. This respondent asks Chief Attorney Harrison: “Does Fresno County Department of Child Support Services have an operative letter of agreement with the Franchise Tax Board?”
The previous paragraph’s transfer and then substitute of the force and effect of the law is lawful. However State of California point & authority of law on contempt under Family Code statute §17400 addressing the issue of contempt relating to this case tells us that the facts and nature of this case are this matter is a civil action debt collection pursuant to Crider v. Superior Court (App. 3 Dist. 1993) 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 757, 15 Cal.App.4th 227, rehearing denied, review denied. Social Security and Public Welfare 194.1.
You can also read the same Crider v. Superior Court decisional law point & authority cited in family code statute section 17404. Statute section 17404 is titled PROCEDURE IN ACTIONS and Crider v. Superior Court notes under procedure in contempt actions that an “Order requiring noncustodial parent to reimburse county for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments county made to his children was “money judgment in a civil action for debt,” rather than “order for child support”; thus it could not be enforced by contempt.”
This contempt of court motion and judicial proceeding of a criminal nature is unlawful, badly constructed and a wrong application of the law.
Mr. Douglas C. Harrison Chief Child Support Attorney for Fresno County Department of Child Support Services the lawful and appropriate action about collection here is summons and supplemental complaint regarding parental obligations. Mr. Harrison that’s Judicial Council Form FL-600.
Mr. Harrison there are official cross-reference pointers that direct and connect you to the form where you should proceed and the form tells the statute for which it’s use is lawful and properly related to. The pointer I am speaking of can be seen at the bottom right corner point of Judicial Council Form FL-600 which Page 1 of form FL-600 is hereinafter attached as EXHIBIT C. The form FL-600 applied to this case is a SUMMONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT REGARDING PARENTAL OBLIGATIONS. The point is please read the statutes at form FL-600’s bottom right corner point. There you read Family Code §17400 and four more family code statutes relating to Department of Child Support Services government agency law. The main one §17400 is the one you say you’re working for on your filed September 29, 2014 FL-410 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND AFFIDAVIT FOR CONTEMPT in the top left Attorney's or Party without Attorney box on the bottom line of that box after “Attorney for:”. You also cite Family Code §17406 chief attorney Harrison.
But you did not follow State of California statute and you did not follow California decisional law authority and go to the FL-600.
Is this an act of undue influence or a retaliatory action or is it an attempt to take advantage of and abuse a weaker mind? And is this unfaithful to the law contempt of court action connected to my State of California legal acting public prosecutor standing, actions and project in court? Attorney Harrison are you working to suppress my valid exercise of my constitutional right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for the redress of grievances? I believe you are so I’m saying to you that “the State of California Legislature has declared that doing that through the conduct of public office is disturbing.”
The court and the FCDCSS should know that these public acts and public records and judicial proceeding in the big picture are a dot in time and place that when connected do form the appearance of an unlawful strategic law action against public participation and is being carried out into execution maliciously in retaliation for the lawsuit I had, have and am maintaining on behalf of the people of the State of California and is currently pending at the California Supreme Court. California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. is the defendant.
The FCDCSS could, and could have, moved pursuant to family code statute sections 17416 and 17420. Why not?! They did and made this motion! Why a motion for a criminal contempt of court with the possible penalty including jail time? Especially when the laws of the State of California don’t support that action and direct against it. Officers of the State of California County of Fresno District want me in jail to put me in a place where I’ll be terribly beaten-up, raped & lead up to my murder and that’ll be done as retaliation for my public participation in government through my legal standing in court to act as a public prosecutor, as a special prosecutor I am conducting a project to improve the administration of justice, maintaining action to abate a public nuisance and working to secure the faithful execution of the laws.
-[silent]-
This respondent goes to the FCDCSS often. There is no willful disobedience or willful resistance by this respondent. Rather and more proper this respondent motions the court apply the legal doctrine laches; or alternatively suspend this proceeding. The delinquency payments being sought by FCDCSS is delinquency going back to 2011. In a month it will be 2015. And to my memory this court order is from 2005.
Pursuant to family code statute section 17500(c) the local child support agency shall transfer child support delinquencies to the FTB for collection purposes. That takes us to Revenue and Taxation code 19271 Referral of child support delinquencies collection by franchise tax board under division 2 of revenue and taxation. Thereof came the legislative development revenue and taxation code section 19270 letter of agreement and interagency agreement between franchise tax board and department of child support services. That letter of agreement does not overthrow the construction, intent, and meaning of the many applicable statutes and decisional law authority relating to “support maintenance” and “arrearages on public assistance that existed before a case was opened”: of course those well defined real specifics of the case are still relevant. Also, delinquencies collection by franchise tax board is under division 2 of revenue and taxation code and that in conjunction with the revenue and taxation code §19270 letter are proceedings found under the revenue and taxation code and therefor with the extraordinary circumstances around this respondent there is a valid question and real true & supported suspicion about whose interest is FCDCSS representing? Family Code §17406(a)’s “proceedings under this code-(the family code) the local child support agency and the Attorney General represent the public interest”, is not lawfully in effect.
In my lawsuit against Governor Brown, that is at the California Supreme Court, the Attorney General Kamala Harris represents the Governor. And the Director of Child Support Services who is the appointed by the Governor, it is that Director’s Family Code §17302 duty to report directly to Governor Brown.
Chief Attorney Harrison what are you trying to do? Everything you’re doing is not faithful to the law and is unlawful.
Dear court and chief attorney, is this respondent to understand that the history and facts, the specifics and details and the nature of the case and all the statutes, decisional law authorities and constitutional laws that are everywhere around the previous spoke of truths, law truths & reality and all belong to this case don’t matter because now the district attorney and Fresno County Department of Child Support Services has jurisdiction by way of the letter of interagency agreement? I outrageously object to and completely disagree with that understanding!
The fact is and the authority of law declares this is a debt to public aid for families with dependent children, and, it existed before December 1988 when this case was opened by the neighboring county. About that situation the law is fixed!
o0O( So the subject to Governor Brown Attorney General, Fresno County District Attorney and Fresno County Department of Child Support Services want to send me to jail for an AFDC debt that existed before the case was opened. When the reason for family code section 17500(c)’s transferring collection out of the DCSS responsibility is so the attorney general’s, district attorneys’ and DCSSs’ offices won’t be sending people to debtors imprisonment because the general public assists families with dependent children. )
At family code section 17400(a) the creation of California local child support agencies the responsibility and authorized actions vest in the DCSS is to: “take appropriate action, including criminal in cooperation with district attorneys, to establish, modify, and enforce child support and, when appropriate, enforce spousal support orders when the child is receiving public assistance and, if requested, shall take the same actions on behalf of a child who is not receiving public assistance.”
Dear Court and FCDCSS. There is no child in this case. The once child Adam Jacob Ortega is over 30 years old. And this public assistance you’re demanding and I’ve paid is more than 30 years old.
Now about the non-payments from the month September 2011 to now. In that September 2011 month I began living at the homeless shelter 310 G street in Fresno CA 93706. There are people unemployed in Fresno County and I was one of those people and I was actively seeking employment. When I was there at the 310 G street address I was
receiving my mail every month from the Fresno County Department of Child Support Services. After more than a year there I, through faithful friends, located a safehouse and I lived at that safehouse well into 2013; almost all my time there I had no income and the FCDCSS had my safehouse home address and I received the monthly letters they sent to me there too. During all those times, before, and since those times I have freely & faithfully kept myself employed to public service. Time passed and from the safehouse I moved somewhere else and then somewhere else where I’m now at. FCDCSS knew where I lived all the times and places when I lived there and I’ve never been disobedient and in their booths I’ve told FCDCSS’ workers that I want to pay and I want them to garnish wage or income installments. Though I don’t agree with the amount they are claiming is owed.
About the amount FCDCSS claims I owe, FCDCSS or State of California in about the last 90 days has, without an explanation to me, much changed the total amount they say I owe. Please see EXHIBIT D hereinafter attached. It is two FCDCSS’ monthly billing statements each with their coverpage showing my address and the sender’s/FCDCSS’ mailing address. The first statement you’ll see FCDCSS sent to me at 310 G street Fresno CA, it is dated 04/01/2012 and the total balance it reads I owe is $10,860.18; the second statement you’ll see FCDCSS sent to my current 4882 E. Geary St. Fresno CA address, it is dated 10/01/2014 and the total balance it reads I owe is $2,716.30. How that reduction in the total amount they say I owe happened? I don’t know it wasn’t explained to me. But surely everything I’m talking about here, and much more that I’m not talking about here, has something to do with it.
In the whole time and part of the time that’s from September 2011 to today I’ve been legally injured and physically injured and disabled.
I am also currently injured legally, and physically injured. Both injuries a result of the conspiracy by County of Fresno District and State of California officers’ malicious prosecution against me performed through their unlawful means the unfaithful execution of the laws in order to accomplish the unreasonable violation of the security of my house, papers and effects and by way of that unreasonable violation seized my house, papers and effects and corruptly illegally deprived me of my house, of my papers, and of my $26,083 of personal property and that deprivation of property was done without warrant and without due process of law.
Their conspiracy corruptly overthrowing the Supreme Law of the Land by acts involving moral turpitude was finalized illegally complete & successful through judicial obstructions of justice and miscarriages of justice performed and ordered by way of corrupt public acts false public records and unfaithful judicial proceedings where judges’ bad behavior unfaithfully executing the laws made the public corruption, political-infidelity and
government-defection all be.
Much physical and emotional harm, economic damage and economic oppression, irreversible losses, defamation of character and injuries have been illegally inflicted against me or caused by the State of California County of Fresno District government’s bad behavior, illegal offenses and violations of the laws. Those governments illegally corruptly forever terminated my parent and child relationships in retaliation against me for the truly fair, proper and lawful lawsuits I filed.
And now I’m being come at with this trying to unfaithfully execute the laws again!
Secretly and may have acted alone, but actually are the most guilty parties are officers of the State of California County of Fresno District who have and are violating my basic human rights and corruptly seized and deprived me of house, paper-documents and personal property. I repeat that again because I did have a letter it came from Arkansas in 2002 I think, could have been 2003. It said I was all paid up and owed nothing. And, at one time for a long time I remember only owing between 24 and 29 dollars.
I’m ending now by pointing at a few public records which raise questions about the manner which the public’s business is being conducted. And I’ll say what I believe and have said in the past.
This respondent starts ending now by saying: “my doubt of the full faith and credit due the State of California County of Fresno Judicial District’s conduct and Fresno County Department of Child Support Services’ performance is supported and justified after my many research studies, examinations, investigations and inspections deciphering the performance of official duties and conduct of public offices that prove bad behavior, ill performance, corrupt conduct, illegal actions, abuse and many acts of deceit.
I’ll point out a few things now and make some comments about the way things are done.
First I only remember the October 18, 2005 judicial proceeding in department, it reads 91; judge Phillip A. Silva presided. I don’t remember going to a 2003 hearing. I especially remember the 2005 hearing because in court I told Judge Silva that “I had a letter showing zero balance owed but the public corruption in the State of California County of Fresno District took everything I own and all my documents and that letter was one they took.”
What I’ve said and I believe is that the Superior Court of California or, or and, the County of Fresno District Attorney’s office with Department of Child Support Services: that meaning some person or people in there, falsely created the $3,686.68 debt.
As I speak it’s been more than nine years that all this happened around me.
Please notice the hereinafter attached EXHIBIT E it is a document to case number 286348-8 the parties to that case are Edna M. Anderson and Eddie V. Anderson (1983) Superior Court of California County of Fresno Judicial District.
Please notice the hereinafter attached EXHIBIT F it is a document to case number 286348-8 the parties to that case are Gilbert Rodriguez and Ruth Ortega and it is a Fresno County Department of Child Support Services case.
State of California County of Fresno District’ public officers and employees have been and still are corruptly performing their duties to conceal their bad behavior and illegalities. And in conspiracy.
Exhibit F is the record given me when I requested from FCDCSS my case’s full history of the payments that I’ve made, and that same record EXHIBIT F is to this case before the court today. FCDCSS gave me EXHIBIT F. Please notice the top left corner of the single page EXHIBIT F document. There you’ll see “Page: 1”. Now please notice the bottom left corner of the body of the text, there you’ll read “PAGE NO: 25 LAST PAGE”. Also look at the paper cutter lines that are halfway vertically within the body of the text; one line is under “DATE MESSAGE” and the other line is under “RECEIVED” . The lines on the document look much like the lines in the next line above that you just seen. That cutting out 24 pages of my case’s payment history was done by the Fresno County Department of Child Support Services and it is malicious concealment in the performance of duty to adhere to and aid public corruption.
The Judicial Branch Government number for this case is 591789-3.
The FCDCSS’ number for this case was 286348-8. They’ve changed it.
Except for the time that I’m not working I don’t know why FCDCSS does not garnish wage and income installments on me. My thinking is because on the February 14, 2003 order (a court date I don’t remember) at the X’d-in box the eleventh down it reads: “This is not an installment judgment.” After that you read: “DCSS #286348-8 #22” <--*. There’s no explanation known for those numbers. That court order was probably completely prepared by the court because it’s a temporary judge and that judge’s name is printed on line 1. The importance of seeing those numbers there (which are numbers not relevant or specific to judicial branch function) is in the extraordinary circumstances around this respondent’s cases it is a real visible mark showing a suspicious crossover between branches of governments because the judge is making notes directing the Department of Child Support Services how and what not to do regarding the conduct of DCSS’ office and performance of duties which are solely powers to be exercised and a decision to be made at the discretion of the Department of Child Support Services an executive branch of government’ department.
At EXHIBIT E case 286348-8 Anderson and Anderson below the stamp “FILMED SEP 09 1983” you’ll see “CLK 0022.00”. 22 <--* .
What I’ve found out is the malefactor judicial officers and department of justice officers they practice dualism, and ambiguity, and multiplicity. This case number 286348-8 Anderson’s case and Rodriguez’s case is old, both, and is no longer used in the system because the system’s numbers have changed.
But you see? There’s no way you can see and know what the judicial malefactors see learn and know when they are over millions of people. Unless they said to you “look come here I’m going to show you what we’re doing”, but they’re not going to do that.
First of all it’s not unusual the County of Fresno District Officers making offensive false statements against the public. And then write those false statements on public records and or knowingly allow false statements to be written and entered as true on public records. They cheat. The law is being unfaithfully executed all the time here in the State of California County of Fresno District.
Cases’ numbers are doubled. Maybe tripled, quadrupled, and across branches and parties to the case. The DCSS go by the name with the number. And there’s a catch-22 case of case’s same number(s) and to keep from being touched or engaged with by outside third
parties when parents’ & their children’s case is catch-22’d they’re sure to write “This is not an [garnish income or wages-->] installment judgment.” then that’s told and emphasized to the Department of Child Support Services with “DCSS ‪#‎the‬ specific case number (and) #22”.
I want the court and chief attorney to know that I thought I saw the $3,686.68 connected to the Anderson’ 286348-8 case.
Definition of “Catch 22”: 1. A problematic situation for which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain by a circumstance that is inherent in the problem, or the desired outcome and or solution is denied by a rule.
Many parents whose parent and child relationship rights are violated know and have felt themselves within that problematic catch-22 situation and it’s done by the family court system and child and family support and safety and protective services.
I’ve been and am being maliciously prosecuted by the State of California County of Fresno District. And I do not doubt that all of, except the original when the case opened in Madera, these public records produced by the Fresno County Department of Child Support Services in cooperation with the district attorney & judicial branch are false creations made-up out of nothing. County of Fresno District State of California’ judges go along with it, if the records and reports are real & legitimate or not, because there’s no political separation of powers and thus no checks and balances between the judicial and executive branches of governments.
Instead of faithful appropriate lawful governments with separation and checks and balances the government we the people truly have is unfaithful statism, offensive against the public, contrary to the United States Constitution and lawless."""
Final Note: Also since this attack on me for participating lawfully in government and without causing any unnecessary damage or harm. The California Supreme Court denied the Petition for review. I filed this before I received notification of denial to review. And I'll attach one more item it'll be EXHIBIT F: the case's payment history given by FCDCSS.
Good luck fighting evil tyranny everybody.
on 01-08-2015 at 21-45-02
I beat the State of California County of Fresno District Child Support Services Chief Attorney's motion to the court to convict me for contempt of court by litigating against it and proving that legally the law tell us that they can't do that. I destroyed them at our December 1st 2014 motion to convict me for contempt: I made them drop it. I wasn't even worried.
The truth is I've always beat these authorities and have never lost, if it were fair and square. The problem is that in false personation they lie and that way they cheat and that's done for the purpose they're able to avoid making payment of damages and are also able to avoid that payment of damages be made by other parties to whom they are bias. And thereby bad behaving Judges commissioners and temporary judges overthrow the first amendment of the United States Constitution because the true meaning and effect of their bad behavior is there is "no right to petition the government for redress of grievances" and when there's "no redress of grievances", which is what "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" is for, then, just telling the truth: petitioning the government for redress of grievances is not true and real. It's only a fallacy that's an illusion. "Redress of grievances" is the defining purpose for "petitioning the government for redress of grievances". And that's how the laws are being executed. And specifically what's "how"?- "unfaithfully" that's how, to support and uphold evil-greed that is and that is of a criminal nature.
on 01-06-2015 at 20-35-23