+Richard Cole A jury can only be fair when the attorneys are fair! If your attorney intentionally hides evidence (I have had no less than 4) then you are guilty!
And ALL OF US MUST ALL TAKE OUR STANDING UP AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW WE CANT KEEP GOING ON AND BE EGNORING ABOUT WHAT WE ALL BE NEEDING TO GO AND BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT ALL THIS. RIGHT NOW FOLKS
Don't have kids, after hanging on for 10 years I'm homeless and still have 8 years for my oldest to go, I'll probably relocate out of state so I don't freeze to death after I get some repairs on my car so when I leave I will not have to worry about finding a mechanic.
@@crypter27 when you made this comment i was just starting my divorce, 6 yrs later im still in the courts she has filed motion after motion. smart man, stay single.
I pay permanent alimony - my ex is a licensed physical therapist. Her tax return income for the past two years is 100% my alimony. She rec'd 100% of my retirement savings + cash. She dragged the divorce out for 18 months - $160k in expenses I paid for atty's, forensic acct's and mediators. We settled 2 weeks before trial, when the atty's suggested I speak with her forensic acct. In 30 min we agreed the proposal I made 3 weeks after she filed was equitable. It made me sick when gov. rick scott vetoed the reform bill passed by a supermajority in the house and senate last year. The problem is we are depending on those in the system to fix it, while they are the beneficiaries of the corruption. It's a gov't failure of epic proportions.
Family court ruin my life. The judge did not to enforce my right. I did nothing wrong. When I gave the judge 3 years of my tax returns that were filed with the IRS the judge called me a liar. So the judge and mediator fabricated a number of what I should pay in child support each week. Put into law. The judge told me if I did not agree to this that he was going to put me prison. I lost my home my business my children. What did I do wrong. I am not criminal. Lost my saving my 401k plan. And my ex wife makes so much money than I do. Want to go back for a modified the income but full of fear.
listen to me if you are thinking of getting married-DON"T DO IT, especially if you live in new jersey, if the marriage fails and you get a divorce most likely it's the man but rarely it's the women who pay alimony some times for life dont do its not worth it say no to marriage
the morel to this story.never get married don't have a spouse and most of all don't have kids.or sooner or later ya gonna be a slave to some corrupt system
@Mary Diamond they have different rules for different people. Systemic injustice, corruption, violence is real. I've experienced everyone of those heinous acts.
Im 42 and have own business. For the past 20 years or so i have been trying to convince myself to get married but have not been able to make sense of stupid family laws. In particular why a person who never ever worked for their spouses money,is entitled to his or her money. You didn’t work for my money you aren’t getting my money. Thats the way it should be
As far as I'm concerned if she is the one that got caught with her pants down, she deserves nothing! Florida is one of the 7 states where the ex-spouse that committed adultry can be sued for spousal alienation, and you can also sue her lover!
This guy is awesome. This is exactly how our corrupt Judges and lawyers operate and our legislators allow it to happen because, guess why? Most of them are lawyers too!!!!!! Vote the scoundrels out of office and elect real people who actually care. My divorce is 10 years old and the legal fees generated by the lawyers and their best friend the Judge are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you want to be a millionaire, start with a billion and hire an attorney. Amen Larry.
Richard Cole I once asked a lawyer about prenups and was told that judges "regularly wipe their @sses with prenups". And I'm sure there's a nice little cryptic clause in a typical prenup that makes it difficult/impossible to sue the lawyer for a prenup that didn't work.
In a financially controlled society, where ever there is money OR power there is corruption! Politics,football,nascar,baseball,disneyland,Mc Donalds,etc,etc.And especially the courts because there is both money AND power!
my son was set up by his long term girlfriend (10 yrs) who in her early 40's wanted to marry and have children. His career disallowed him to contemplate settling down as he constantly travelled with work through out Canada and US. she finally convinced him to allow her to move in with him. She had never given up her previous apartment she lived in. Within 2 months of living together "she" deliberately got pregnant, siting it wasn't planned, it was a total surprise. Then my son loses his job at the same company she: works at. She being in administrative duties sabotaged his employment. This way he would not be travelling anymore. Once they spread news of the upcoming birth, "she" disconnected herself from our family, to a point, after being stuck 3 hrs in Toronto traffic, coming to see my grandson, she refused to let me in to visit as it was my grandsons dinner time. She continually threatened the family, using their son as bait. Threatened my son if he didn't behave the way she wanted him to behave towards his own loving family, she was leaving him and taking his child for good. This girl left home in her teens because of family problems, is not at all close to her family and is extremely jealous that my son has a close knit and loving family. She fought with everyone in our family over her right as MAMA BEAR. she continually had her girlfriends hangout at their place and never shared time with my sons family. I told my son she had set him up just to get pregnant and was going to use the baby as a pawn in her gain for control. And then she'll spit you out for her revenge against you for not marrying her. She's a pathological liar and a narcissist and the courts are patronizing everyone of her lies without ever knowing what she is. He gets his son for 2hrs twice a week Thurs and Fri., and every other weekend. It is obvious this is the biggest greed fest for the lawyers and the courts and not one case cares about the well being of the child. The daycare my grandson attends complains of how superficial his mothers love is compared to the innate love your son has for his son. his son is constantly telling his dad...I miss you dad, I love you. No judge or court has the right to play GOD in a child's life. And no lawyer is educated or equipped enough to protect a caring parents right. I believe the parent who leaves the matrimonial home gives up their custodial rights and should be the one who needs to fight for their right to be in the child's life. Since the one leaving is leaving for their own interests and not that of the family or the children. Children should NEVER have to give up their home, friends, family because mommy or daddy wants something better. Can anybody help?
Please protect that child and show the child true love, never give up and focus on the child for they are at risk of being raised by a deceitful parent whose artificial love like you described her to be demonstrating can make a traumatic like life lasting impact on the kid’s emotional and mental state- what if it warps their view of what love is. I am so sorry to hear about this happening to your son, and your grandson, I can tell you must be a good father for looking out for your own, I bet your son is influenced by your fatherly love that drives him to follow ur footsteps and express his true love and concern for his child too.
3rd Constitutional violation of Due process by holding criminal Hearings for contempt. In Hicks v. Fieock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988) The U.S. Supreme Court case to examine the issue of contempt for failure to pay child support pivoted on this very question of whether the contempt was criminal or civil in nature [Hicks v. Fieock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988)]. The Court held that the California statute in question, which had a legal presumption that the obligated parent was able to pay the required child support, was an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution if the proceeding was a criminal contempt proceeding. The statute's legal presumption reduced the burden of proof on the government and transferred that burden to the delinquent parent, which is not permissible in a criminal trial as does Ind. Code § 31-16-12-6. Flips the burden of proof upon defendant in a criminal trial. The law in question also falls under Title 18 U.S. Code § 1581 - Peonage and 42 U.S.CODE§1994-PEONAGE ABOLISHED as it would be considered a form of debt peonage due to requirements of Ind. Code § 31-16-12-6 requiring physical labor in repayment of an alleged debt in the form of community service on a alleged debt. Appellant will try to explain this better and more completely by comparing slavery and Peonage to one another. Slavery v. Peonage Peonage, also called debt slavery or debt servitude, is a system where an employer compels a worker to pay off a debt with work. Legally, peonage was outlawed by Congress in 1867. However, after Reconstruction, many Southern black men were swept into peonage though different methods, and the system was not completely eradicated until the 1940s. In some cases, employers advanced workers some pay or initial transportation costs, and workers willingly agreed to work without pay in order to pay it off. Sometimes those debts were quickly paid off, and a fair wage worker/employer relationship established. In many more cases, however, workers became indebted to planters (through sharecropping loans), merchants (through credit), or company stores (through living expenses). Workers were often unable to re-pay the debt, and found themselves in a continuous work-without-pay cycle. But the most corrupt and abusive peonage occurred in concert with southern state and county government. In the south, many black men were picked up for minor crimes or on trumped-up charges, and, when faced with staggering fines and court fees, forced to work for a local employer would who pay their fines for them. Southern states also leased their convicts en mass to local industrialists. The paperwork and debt record of individual prisoners was often lost, and these men found themselves trapped in inescapable situations of debt peonage, or slavery. The Indiana law in question for Ind. Code § 31-16-12-6 (b) (1) Contempt reads ((1) perform community restitution or service without compensation in a manner specified by the court;) This amounts to the unlawful and outlawed practice deemed unconstitutional called debt peonage. We know this cause it allows one to be forced to (“perform community restitution or service without compensation) and the work performed never gets applied to support owed its punishment for an alleged criminal contempt, over an alleged debt, which has a constitutional prohibition against such practice.
Good video, it was spot on. Thanks for posting I will share it. The word needs to be gotten out to people that do not know how this broken system works, and think that its just a bunch of whining men sitting around and complaining.
On April 17, 2010 at 7:30 am my ex text me he is running late then boarded our 3 sons ages 7, 5, & 3 on a plane. He stole them from their mom. He left me emotionally paralyzed. I fought hard. I tried everything including driving 4500 kms. Once there I lived in a tent and searched for help, answers, empathy, anything. He would not let me see them. I begged and asked why? I said he always said I was a great mother, he knows I love our sons. He became angry. I could not figure it out until recently. While there I was in a car accident and made my way home. I met and married a man who turned out abusive. Once I got out of the relationship I promised my son I was on my way, I told them on the phone I was going to keep fighting. My ex husband decided that wasnt going to happen. I experienced severe trauma and Catatonia. My Doctor began testing mefor schizophrenia. I knew I was losing my mind from abuse but when I spoke I dissociated. I have spent 5 yrs socially isolated AND healing. I am back from a very dark place. This time I am stronger then ever. I want my sons to know I am sorry for what was done to them because I am and because no one else will admit fault and saying sorry matters. The reason my sons father did this was to validate his mother. He had spent too much time insulting me to get praise from her. The shame was too much to feel for him. #PARENTALALIENATIONAWARENESS
i reported my case recently to the Attorney General.I am overwhelmed with the Perjury and criminal acts that have taken place in the past three years.The Judge in my case has been brain washed by the Plaintiffs Attorney.I will fight this attorney to the end.I just survived Cancer back to back with this divorce that was filed because my ex wife met a Doctor at the hospital where she works.Everything you said in this video makes sense.No matter who is President of the United States this still continues.
1. To what or whom is an attorney’s first duty? We consult the latest Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia, volume 7, section 4 for the answer below: § 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S. “His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.
I don't understand why marriage is appealing to anyone nowadays. As a legal contract it says: "If you or your spouse decides to end the marriage for any reason, then you must concede your assets, savings, and future income to the whims of a judge--no matter how unjust." How is that an appealing contract?
Larry, at first, I thought you were talking about my husband's tragic story. The judge awarded his college educated "Ex" lifetime alimony, both homes mortgage free, cash, new vehicles, etc while my husband got to keep his 16 year old work van and shop where he worked , showered, & slept when I met him.The divorce attorneys were pals & dragged things out for billing hours. As a side note, both attorneys have died since the corrupt divorce proceedings. You are so right, it is not a male, female thing as my "ex" also filed for alimony against me. One last thought, people need to be aware that lifetime alimony does not end at retirement of age 65 or 70. It is paid until that last breath of life is taken. Awesome job, Larry!
Happening to me right now. Im not rich...So they stole my Home i had paid off and my Social Security and my Pension that I worked for for 50 Years. Yep Im 68 Years old and she ruined my Life with the Help of Family Law Attorneys and Judges. She was awarded $975 a month for Life. She owns her own home No Mortage. ( I had to refi mine and give her $292,000. ) CalPers Pension that pays all of her medical a $45,000 a year pension. Very similar I married a single mother on Welfare gave her a home raised Her child as my own. She repaid me by having an affair with Her softball coach. Not only did she ruin our Marriage she ruined that womens Marriage to. I stayed with Her because we had aq child together and her daughter was on 12 years old. Hugh Mistake...should have divorsed her anyway.
We went to the ones you trust for the truth to be heard the judge said im not a party to the case and was not allowed to be heard 05/12/2017 the court took my grandson away from us without any reguards for me or my family, after raising my grandson for seven and a half years the non biological father and his x filled out online papers saying my grandson has lived with them (Jose) all his life and Stole (kidnapped) my grandson, Jose swore under oath that him and Tonya raised him and the only thing they have incomin is last names . these people knew that i am his grandpa and that Jace has been raised hear in his west valley home his entire life. In 2009 when jace was 4mo old Jose hit my doughter blackened both her eyes after that we never seen or talked, then in late 2016 jose showed up and ask if stacia was home then if he could see jace BIGGEST MISTAKE I EVER MADE. With Jose & Tonya plan to avoid legal obligation they lied to the judge yanked my grandson out of school with only 2 weeks left to graduate 2nd grade,I have lived here for over 30yrs never had any problems untill 2016 when jose and his x requested to see jace and what a big mistake these people have made me and my families life a living hell from poisoned dogs broken solar panels shot out window ripped off my cell phone and are using the pictures in court as there proof that thay have been in his life. they did not care about my grandson or his blood family that day I took medical records tax records school records and more showing that I alone had been raising my grandson and I wasn't a party to the case and thay kidnaped him with the help of the court me or my grandson mother where never served. I listen to my grandsons cry on the court audio that day in front of judge Pettet it is abuse at the highest level. 12/12/2017and hes still with these people that have no blood relation we went to court so we could be heard railroaded in only as a witness and not a party to the case how can a public official (judge Pettet) make a decision so sudden and not care this is such an unlawful act let me ask how would you feel taking your kid to court to talk to the judge and didn’t give him or me the time of day I asked her if she could hold off so I could get me and my grandson legal help she said no and the only thing my grandson and Jose have in common is thay share last names so now he sets against his wishes at my daughters ex boyfriend (Jose) ex wife's house the one that blames my daughter for destroying their marriage know has her 8 yr old boy keeping in mind that neither the too have any blood relation. what an unlawful act of power force a boy out of his only home this has caused me a huge emotional scare let alone the trauma my grandson was and still is being put through on 05\12\2017 right in pettet court of physical emotional mental abuse of power at a level unimaginable worse than anything I pray to god and ask for help and answers we need some angels to come down and help us get him away from those who lied to god that swore under oath thay raised him. This has been a living hell, unjust, Abusive.and these people need to be locked up. The first chance i hired an attorney the commissioner ordered me to pay for my grandson attorney, my grandson is the most important person he plays an important role in my life and means the world to me. these people are making every visit harder than the next and know thay only let us see him under his x supervision i have been a wreck just can't believe what is happening this is killing me please help support us justice for jace THE GAL HAS AND STILL IS ALLOWING MY GRANDSON TO BE TAKEN BY A PERSON THAT IS NOT HIS FATHER I CANT EVEN EXPLAIN THE PAIN IF IT WHERE THERE KID I WAS TOLD I WONT SEE MY GRANDSON TILL HE IS 18 TOOK JOSE 2 MONTHS TO ROB, KIDNAPP, STEAL MY SON AND GRANDSON ITS BEEN1YR1MONTH AND NOT ONE THING IS BEING DONE I DONT WISH THIS ON ANYONE IT IS ABUSE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X1uzHlLFiAM.html
1st Grounds for constitutional challenge violation of separation of powers While it is true that administrative matters may be dealt with by local rules, local rules must be approved by the Chief Justice, and rules, especially local rules, cannot deny individuals access to the courts, or decline jurisdiction in matters where there is clear statutory authority for filing said motions. There is no doubt that it was error for Judge to promulgate said standing support order. In opposition to first argument, the state will assert that, although defendant was initially found responsible to pay child support through an administrative order, that administrative order became a court order when it was adopted by the court. Therefore, it met its burden to show defendant failed to provide support as established by a court order. This is false, an administrative order never becomes a court order, this is so because for a court to adopt an administrative order would grant prosecutorial powers to an administrative agency, which violates the separation of powers in State and Federal Constitutions. Because the legislature cannot confer upon ministerial boards like Title IV D the power to punish contempt. Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N.E. 190, 1892 Ind. LEXIS 213 (Ind. 1892). Furthermore, since a judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency.” American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284 This clearly shows the judges cannot make any order to adopt the administrative agency’s order because he ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. To adopt an agency’s decision the Judge must substitute his own judgment for that of the agency. What is Indiana’s statutory authority for the administrative process? answer Ind. Code § 31-25-4Chapter 4. Child Support Provisions of Title IV-D of the Federal Social Security Act proving child support is Administrative. Ind. Code § 31-25-3-3 allows Indiana IV-D agency to issue administrative subpoena. One is punished by contempt for ignoring an administrative subpoena, Ind. Code § 31-25-4-8 Additional duties of bureau § (B) Bring legal process to require the withholding of specified amounts from the individual's unemployment compensation benefits. Allowing prosecutorial powers to an administrative agency. In fact, to the extent that intervention by a Title IV D Administerial Officer in the proceedings would constitute exercising the prosecutorial function, it would violate the separation of powers or functions article of the Indiana constitution. Ind. Const. art. III, § 1; see generally Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d at 146. Fox v. State, 497 N.E.2d 221, 227 (Ind. 1986). See also Brannum v. State, 267 Ind. 51, 57, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1182 (1977). Ind. Code § 31-25-4-17 Support related duties of bureau also grants prosecutorial functions for the child support agency. This clearly violates the Separation of Powers. Ind. Const. art. III, § 1; see generally Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d at 146. Fox v. State, 497 N.E.2d 221, 227 (Ind. 1986). See also Brannum v. State, 267 Ind. 51, 57, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1182 (1977). Because the legislature cannot confer upon ministerial agencies like Title IV D the power to punish contempt. Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N.E. 190, 1892 Ind. LEXIS 213 (Ind. 1892). The Title IV-D Prosecutor is the state agency responsible for administering the Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement Program of the Federal Social Security Act, which is not positive law. Affiliation with that program requires a parent who is seeking assistance and who is entitled to child support to assign to the State his or her right to accrued, present, and pending support payments. See Ind. Code § 12-14-7-1. Thus, the State becomes an active participant in proceedings to collect child support. In fact, again to the extent that intervention by a Title IV D Administerial Officer in the proceedings would constitute exercising the prosecutorial function, it would violate the separation of powers or functions article of the Indiana constitution. Ind. Const. art. III, § 1; see generally Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d at 146. Fox v. State, 497 N.E.2d 221, 227 (Ind. 1986). See also Brannum v. State, 267 Ind. 51, 57, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1182 (1977). Here under the statute Ind. Code § 12-14-7-1 not only does the child support agency and its officers prosecute cases but they have been given an office in the local Montgomery County Court house, to exercise the prosecutorial powers granted to them under Ind. Code § 12-14-7-1. This clearly violates the Separation of Powers. Ind. Const. art. III, § 1; see generally Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d at 146. Fox v. State, 497 N.E.2d 221, 227 (Ind. 1986). See also Brannum v. State, 267 Ind. 51, 57, 366 N.E.2d 1180, 1182 (1977). Because the legislature cannot confer upon ministerial agencies like Title IV D the power to punish contempt. Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N.E. 190, 1892 Ind. LEXIS 213 (Ind. 1892). 16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 155: “Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes one rule and the statute then another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment. American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 177 Generally statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. It is said that all persons are presumed to know the law, meaning that ignorance of the law excuses no one; if any person acts under an unconstitutional statute, he does so at his peril and must take the consequences. Pg. 403 - 405 16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 70: “No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. & State Constitution(s).” 16Am Jur 2d., Const. Law Sec. 260: “Although it is manifested that an unconstitutional provision in the statute is not cured because included in the same act with valid provisions and that there is no degrees of constitutionality. ”Owen v. Independence 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 1398: (1982) Main v. Thiboutot 100 Vol. Supreme Court Reports. 2502:(1982) “The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of law, of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the United States and comes claims which are based solely on statutory violations of Federal Law and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights, in some capacity, to which they were entitled.” “Officers of the court have no immunity when violating constitutional right, from liability” (When any public servant violates your rights they do so at their own peril.)
I don't see how their following the law at all. We all the right to equal treatment under the law. They can't take money and impoverish one, to put another on easy street.
The El Cajon Court gave my husband Anthony T Cabigao custody of our two Girls age 7 and 10 four months after her had been arrested. he was arrested twice in 3 years and my 10 year old daughter confirmed it to the police officers.
Here is the problem with expecting our legislators to reform the state laws - The states are making money off of divorced families as well. Its called child support, family court profits, and Title IV D federal funding(a 30 BILLION dollar a year industry).
They're allowed because they are protected by the law, not the constitution. How do you change that short of a war??? I've read some pretty disturbing articles where people were talking assassination and referring to Hitlers night of the long knives... I did some research and its basically about a purge... these men and women.. were drop dead serious. Talking tactics dates, preimptive order of removal by retaliatory power, etc... wow!! Made me wanna right a movie script. It's scary the desperation these people have... they even threatened me!
2nd grounds of Challenging Constitutionality violate the Tenth Amendment because it exceeds Congress's & States power to regulate interstate or intrastate commerce. A U.S. district court in New York has held that the Child Support Recovery Act (CSRA) violates the Tenth Amendment because it exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The statute imposes criminal sanctions on noncustodial parents who have willfully failed to make court-ordered support payments for their children living in another state. (United States v. King, No. S1 00 CR. 653 (RWS), 2001 WL 111278 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2001).) The case arose out of the indictment of Eric King, a Texas resident, who was prosecuted under the statute for failing to make support payments for his daughter, who resided in New York. Granting King's motion to dismiss, Judge Robert Sweet acknowledged that five years ago the Second Circuit rejected a Tenth Amendment challenge to the CSRA in United States v. Sage. (92 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1996).) There, the court followed the approach adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, which set forth the types of activities that Congress is authorized to regulate under the Commerce Clause. One of these is "things in interstate commerce." (514 U.S. 549 (1995).) In Sage, the Second Circuit concluded that this authority empowers Congress to enact laws to remedy the obstruction of interstate commerce. The court determined that the failure to make support payments for a child living in another state obstructs interstate commerce and is subject to regulation by Congress. However, in finding the CSRA unconstitutional, Sweet emphasized that the Supreme Court recently clarified the standards for regulating conduct that obstructs interstate commerce in United States v. Morrison. (529 U.S. 598 (2000).) Striking down the civil remedy provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, the Morrison Court held that Congress may do so under the Commerce Clause only where that conduct has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. In the wake of Morrison, the Sixth Circuit struck down the CSRA on Tenth Amendment grounds in United States v. Faasse, rejecting the argument accepted in Sage: that Congress may regulate the failure to make support payments for a child living in another state under its power to regulate things in interstate commerce. (227 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2000), vacated by 234 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2000); Sixth Circuit Rules Federal Child Support Act Unconstitutional, TRIAL, Jan. 2001, at 88.) Instead, the court said that Congress may prohibit activities that interfere with commerce because they substantially affect commerce. Applying this standard, Sweet noted, "The government has not argued that the conduct regulated by the CSRA has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Instead, the government relies on the holding in Sage." However, he added, "in light of the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence, the Sage holding is in doubt." Sweet concluded, "The CSRA exceeds the permissible limits of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, in violation of the Tenth Amendment." Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-18.5-1-1 exceeds the permissible limits of State legislature as forcing the payment of funds isn’t commerce its extortion. It is well settled that where a statutory classification does not itself impinge on a right or liberty protected by the Constitution, the validity of classification must be sustained unless "the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of [any legitimate governmental] objective." McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S., at 425. This presumption of constitutional validity, however, disappears if a statutory classification is predicated on criteria that are, in a constitutional sense, "suspect," the principal example of which is a classification based on race, e. g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. “Second, a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco 502 US 9, 116 L Ed 2d 9, 14, 112 S Ct 286 (US 1991) I have engaged in no commerce what so ever, and cannot be brought under the commerce clause to obtain Jurisdiction. Under Commerce Clause jurisprudence, if an activity, property, or enterprise is involved in "interstate commerce," then Congress, States and municipalities have a right to tax and regulate it. Conversely, if the activity, property, or enterprise being taxed is not involved in "interstate commerce," then the Commerce Clause has no role. Maher v. Indiana, 612 N.E.2d 1063, 1067 n.4 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). Child Support cannot be proven or even validly claim to be in either in interstate or intrastate commerce or be shown to affect either. So, rejecting the argument accepted in Sage: that Congress or a State may regulate the failure to make support payments for a child living in that State or another state under its power to regulate things in interstate commerce is a Fraudulent claim for financial gain by lawyers.
I had 3 of my 4 children reach emancipation, and the acting judge (Jeffery Sunshine) in new york allowed my x wife's lawyer to postpone the downward modification for 2 years while this judge allowed discovery on top of discovery on top of discovery -- to delay even though there have been more than 15 past discoveries of finance prior to 1st child reaching legal age, while Sunshine demanded under threat of incarceration, I pay x wife's legal fees and penalties for slow payments that I eventually caught up with -- ( $250,000 in legal fees ) ( $1,750,000 in alimony and child support) during discovery 2 children were documented to not be my biological children, unknown to husband, and sunshine said no matter, it is called an estoppel. there are dozens of other facts that prove the x wife's lawyer was granted privileges beyond the case scope of law and this judge acted beyond the law without a dought -- After 12 years of litigation and 5 lawyers later, only one out of state lawyer that had no other cases or business in front of this judge, privately told me exactly what Richard Fine in this video has said to the exact words. my lawyer told me a secret. He said one word that changed the entire case for me after 12 years and more than 30 court hearings, because my x wife's lawyer was NOW going after my new wifes finances threw our new marriage -- that would have made us both homeless and possibly divorced - what this lawyer disclosed to me was not legal according to state law, Even my own lawyer is legally not allowed to disclose ways of telling their client how to save money and shorten the court cases for the men -- (WTF) this one illegal word saved me from total destitution -- and this is the short version of the 250,000 lessons I got about ramped corruption in divorce -- if you want the rest of the proof of corruption ... contact me. the courts are NOT fair or equitable -- its fixed
My ex husband got EVERYTHING. He had money and I did not. My attorney was based out of state while my ex husband’s lawyer was in the same district as the guardian ad litem and judge. I am a mother and mothers are more likely to fight in court to get their children back vs fathers. So... Naturally the guardian attacked me while the judge sided with my ex. I lost all faith in the judicial system. I don’t even want to fight in court for my kids at this point...
Family court is a joke my son's ex lied 22 times to the judge was allowed to walk with not even a slap on the wrist. We appealed to the Alabama Civil appeals court they agreed with the judge in Etawah county, Alabama. The Attorney we hired to do the appeals case didn't even acknowledge us of the decision of the civil appeals case we found out about the decision on Google. They the judges and lawyers are POS'es and I for one have no respect for any of them. I lost that respect that I did have a few weeks ago. Damn the court system and all who work in it. I hope the true Judge God punishes each and every one of them for their actions. These people say we have the children's interests at heart. I call bull on that. God says in his word those who offered a child would be better to have a stone tied around there neck and cast into the sea. I guess they have not read that verse.
It is. My ex even stole my mom's retirement savings and kids education fund, I went to court for three years, watch him drained and destroyed my family's businesses， because judge awarded him to run the businesses and give me half profits, he filed no profits for three years，took all income，and abandoned the businesses. Owed huge tax under my name .. and not pay any child support. Judge granted all the request he made
4th Grounds of Constitutionality the law is a bill of attainder Finally, we address the argument that the Title IV D Act constitutes a bill of attainder proscribed by Art. I, § 9, of the Constitution. The argument is that Congress acted on the premise that fathers had engaged in "'misconduct,'" was an "'unreliable custodian'" of his own children, and generally was deserving of a "legislative judgment of blameworthiness. Thus, we argue, the Act is pervaded with the key features of a bill of attainder: a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual or group of people without provision of the protections of a judicial trial. Since all support hearing are administrative in nature, and not judicial. See United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 445, 447 (1965); [*469] United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315-316 (1946); Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 377 (1867); Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 323 (1867). Our argument relies almost entirely upon United States v. Brown, supra, the Court's most recent decision addressing the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. It is instructive, therefore, to sketch the broad outline of that case. Brown invalidated § 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 504, that made it a crime for a Communist Party member to serve as an officer of a labor union. After detailing the infamous history of bills of attainder, the Court found that the Bill of Attainder Clause was an important ingredient of the doctrine of "separation of powers," one of the organizing principles of our system of government. 381 U.S., at 442-443. Just as Art. III confines the Judiciary to the task of adjudicating concrete "cases or controversies," so too the Bill of Attainder Clause was found to "reflect… the Framers' belief that the Legislative Branch is not so well suited as politically independent judges and juries to the task of ruling upon the blameworthiness of, and levying appropriate punishment upon, specific persons." 381 U.S., at 445. Brown thus held that § 504 worked a bill of attainder by focusing upon easily identifiable members of a class - members of the Communist Party - and imposing on them the sanction of mandatory forfeiture of a job or office, long deemed to be punishment within the contemplation of the Bill of Attainder Clause. See, e.g., United States v. Lovett, supra, at 316; Cummings v. Missouri, supra, at 320. Brown, Lovett, and earlier cases unquestionably gave broad and generous meaning to the constitutional protection against bills of attainder. But the proposed reading is far broader still. In essence, we argue that Brown establishes that the Constitution is offended whenever a law imposes undesired consequences on an individual or on a class that is not defined at a proper level of generality. The Act in question, therefore is faulted for singling out fathers who can’t or won’t pay support as dead beat dads, as opposed to all other fathers or members of the public, for disfavored treatment. Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of group in such way as to inflict punishment on them without judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by Constitution. United States v Lovett (1946) 328 US 303, 90 L Ed 1252, 66 S Ct 1073. Bill of attainder is legislative act inflicting punishment without judicial trial, and it makes no difference that victim is group rather than named persons or that punishment is not death or imprisonment. United States v Brown (1965) 381 US 437, 85 S Ct 1707, 14 L Ed 2d 484, 59 BNA LRRM 2353, 51 CCH LC P 19752. Bill of attainder is legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. Inland Steel Co. v NLRB (1948, CA7) 170 F2d 247, 1 EBC 1008, 22 BNA LRRM 2506, 15 CCH LC P 64737, 12 ALR2d 240, affd (1950) 339 US 382, 70 S Ct 674, 94 L Ed 925, 26 BNA LRRM 2084, 18 CCH LC P 65760, reh den (1950) 339 US 990, 70 S Ct 1017, 94 L Ed 1391. Statute inflicts constitutionally forbidden punishment if (1) statutory penalty falls within the historical meaning of legislative punishment, (2) statute fails to further any nonpunitive legislative purpose, or (3) legislative history establishes a congressional intent to punish. Whitney v Heckler (1986, CA11 Ga) 780 F2d 963, cert den (1986) 479 US 813, 93 L Ed 2d 23, 107 S Ct 65. American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16 § 411 - Bills of Attainder The following statutes are bills of attainder as Administrative Hearings are not a Court hearing, so one is never actually before an article 3 court & judge for child support it’s a fraud. This is so since a judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principals of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the agency.” American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284 Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-16-12-7 allows punishment by issuance of the order, that the driving privileges of the person be suspended until further order of the court without a trial. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-16-12-13 requires the person’s employee’s permit be suspended until further order of the court without a trial. These permits are needed to maintain certain work such as Bartending, or waiting tables where alcohol is served creating an effort in futility and limiting one ability to pay as a form of punishment which is to say the least an act of idiocy to limit one ability to work for not being able to pay. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-16-12-9 If a court finds that a person who holds a license issued under Ind. Code § 4-31-6, Ind. Code § 4-33, or Ind. Code § 4-35 is delinquent (as defined in Ind. Code § 31-25-4-2) as a result of an intentional violation of an order for child support, the court shall issue an order to: if the person holds a license issued under Ind. Code § 4-31-6; or a license issued under Ind. Code § 4-33 or Ind. Code § 4-35; requiring that the person’s license be suspended until further order of the court again with no requirement for a court hearing. Strangely, this to is a punishment which limits even further available jobs if the court decides you intentionally did not pay without a court hearing. The finally Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-16-12-8 allows the professional licenses suspended under the following statutes If a court finds that a person who is an applicant (as defined in Ind. Code § 25-1-1.2-1), a practitioner (as defined in Ind. Code § 25-1-1.2-6), an attorney, or a licensed teacher is delinquent (as defined in Ind. Code § 31-25-4-2) as a result of an intentional violation of an order for support, the court shall issue an order to the board regulating the practice of the person’s profession or occupation: Requiring that the person’s or practitioner’s license be suspended until further order of the court; or ordering the board not to issue a license to the person who is the subject of the order if the person does not currently hold a license. Again the insane idea of limiting meaningful work as a punishment without a Court hearing Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-16-12-10 If a court finds that a person who holds a license or who is an applicant for a license issued under Ind. Code § 27-1-15.6, IC 27-1-15.8, or Ind. Code § 27-10-3 is delinquent (as defined in Ind. Code § 31-25-4-2) as a result of an intentional violation of an order for child support, the court shall issue an order to the commissioner of the department of insurance: requiring that the person’s license be suspended until further order of the court again with no hearing. I my self have experienced repeated license suspension without a hearing. Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-16-14-7, allows a man’s private property to be stolen, and him to be forced in to a unwanted contractual sale of said property for fraudulently claimed support rights which don’t exist, violating Rights of Contract found in American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16 § 373, & " U.S. CONST. art. I, § 10. These statutes are also unconstitutional in their own distinct violation of Rights of Contract, as the Congress and State Legislature can pass no law impairing an obligation of contract as contracts are a right. It is important to realize every license is a Contract. This creates a 5th grounds under which Title IV D is unconstitutional as it impairs the license contract of every profession. American Jurisprudence 2nd 1964 vol. 16 § 373 Rights of Contract Liberty of contract involves, as one of its essential attributes, the right to terminate contracts, ….Valid contracts are property and as such are protected from being taken without just compensation, ….The United States Supreme Court has stated that freedom to contract is the essence of freedom from undue restraint on the right to contract. Other courts have stated that the liberty to make contracts includes the corresponding right to refuse to accept a contract or to assume such liability as may be proposed. The right of liberty of contract is inherent and unalienable. It belongs to every citizen by the law of the land; every man has the right freely to deal, or to refuse to deal, with his fellow men. Pg. 706 - 707. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 10, cl. 1 provides that no state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.
I was a nice ex, asked my EX to split extra expenses outside of basic minimum child support for food & shelter. Those items team sports pictures, school trips, school pictures, dance expenses, dresses, tux, prom expenes, auto insurance up until they could pay it, sporting equipment, team costs, auto repairs they can't pay, yearbooks, driving school, school expenses, college eventually.. 10 years later it came to basically $2,500 per child, this was all in lieu of paying me $400-$500 a month alimony. Nice ex right.. lol the jerk hardly pays support & won't pay me the agreement. He didn't have a bedroom for our children for 10 years, he barely saw them. 😂😂
Lol ummm ok.. never getting married after watching this video. What a nightmare! But on the real, thank you for this video, your content was excellent and important 👍🏻 if only they taught this in political science classes I guess I missed this part
Family Court Fraud Queensland 1) 10 people walk into a bar and the 19 year old working behind the bar can immediately tell who's the trouble maker, who has money and who's full of shit before they reach the bar. 2) A group of people wanting to get in the club and the security at the door can tell who's going to cause trouble and who's going to be good in the venue. But this Family Court Judge Michael "the maggot" Baumann has been in law most of his life and a judge on the Family Court for year's yet he can't tell the difference between the two parent's who's telling lies who's playing the system and then he ignores professional reports on child abuse, child neglect and parental alienation on the reports he asked for and then drags it out for over 7 Court appearances over 5 years and over 300 Counseling and contact centre change overs. 10 years now and I'm still pissed for what you knowingly put my daughter thru..
Fraud perpetrated the claim that one is summoned to court when it is an administrative hearing. Administrative Hearing are not a Court hearing. Administrative hearings, unlike judicial proceedings, are conducted in an informal manner without recourse to Indiana's Rules of Evidence. Ind. Code Ann. § 4-21.5-3-25(b) (2007). Nevertheless, an administrative agency's findings must be based upon the kind of evidence that is substantial and reliable. Ind. Code Ann. § 4-21.5-3-27(d) (2007). To that end, an administrative law judge may use his experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge in evaluating whether or not the admitted evidence is indeed substantial and reliable. § 4-21.5-3-27(d). Child support is not positive law, The Term "Positive Law" The term "positive law'' has a long-established meaning in legal philosophy but has a narrower meaning when referring to titles of the US or State Code. Positive Law Titles vs. Non-Positive Law Titles The Code is divided into titles according to subject matter. Some are called positive law titles and the rest are called non-positive law titles. A positive law title of the Code is itself a Federal statute. A non-positive law title of the Code is an editorial compilation of Federal statutes. For example, Title 10, Armed Forces, is a positive law title because the title itself has been enacted by Congress. For the enacting provision of Title 10, see first section of the Act of August 10, 1956, ch. 1041 (70A Stat. 1). By contrast, Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, is a non-positive law title. Title 42 is comprised of many individually enacted Federal statutes--such as the Public Health Service Act and the Social Security Act--that have been editorially compiled and organized into the title, but the title itself has not been enacted. The distinction is legally significant. Non-positive law titles are prima facie evidence of the law, but positive law titles constitute legal evidence of the law in all Federal and State courts (1 U.S.C. 204). Only positive law may be enforced on the American people Chisholm v. Georgia 2 Dall. 419 (1793) this case was very clear only the common law may be applied to the American people and common law or a part thereof is that law which has been enacted as positive law. Non-Positive Law Titles are not part of the common law. Child support contractors are operating under private contract, and have no immunity as their not acting in Governmental capacity. (a) Resolution of matters narrows the scope of the controversy. First, the requirement that the Government unequivocally waives its sovereign immunity is satisfied here because, once the United States waives immunity and does business with its citizens, it does so much as a party never cloaked with immunity. Cf. Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 363, 369. IC 31-25-4-13.1 Agreements with local government officials; contracting; attorney-client relationship; informing applicant; service level stipulation Sec. 13.1. (a) This section applies after December 31, 2006. (b) The bureau shall make the agreements necessary for the effective administration of the plan with local governmental officials within Indiana. The bureau shall contract with: (1) a prosecuting attorney; (2) a private attorney or private entity if the bureau determines that a reasonable contract cannot be entered into with a prosecuting attorney and the determination is approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the interim study committee on public health, behavioral health, and human services established by IC 2-5-1.3-4; or (3) a collection agency licensed under IC 25-11 to collect arrearages on child support orders under which collections have not been made on arrearages for at least two (2) years; in each judicial circuit to undertake activities required to be performed under Title IV-D of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651), including establishment of paternity, establishment, enforcement, and modification of child support orders, activities under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (IC 31-2-1, before its repeal) or the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (IC 31-18.5, or IC 31-1.5 before its repeal), and if the contract is with a prosecuting attorney, prosecutions of welfare fraud. (c) The hiring of a private attorney or private entity by an agreement or a contract made under this section is not subject to the approval of the attorney general under IC 4-6-5-3. An agreement or a contract made under this section is not subject to IC 4-13-2-14.3 or IC 5-22. (d) Subject to section 14.1 of this chapter, a prosecuting attorney with which the bureau contracts under subsection (b): (1) may contract with a collection agency licensed under IC 25-11 to provide child support enforcement services; and (2) shall contract with a collection agency licensed under IC 25-11 to collect arrearages on child support orders under which collections have not been made on arrearages for at least two (2) years. (e) A prosecuting attorney or private attorney entering into an agreement or a contract with the bureau under this section enters into an attorney-client relationship with the state to represent the interests of the state in the effective administration of the plan and not the interests of any other person. An attorney-client relationship is not created with any other person by reason of an agreement or contract with the bureau. (f) At the time that an application for child support services is made, the applicant must be informed that: (1) an attorney who provides services for the child support bureau is the attorney for the state and is not providing legal representation to the applicant; and (2) communications made by the applicant to the attorney and the advice given by the attorney to the applicant are not confidential communications protected by the privilege provided under IC 34-46-3-1. (g) A prosecuting attorney or private attorney who contracts or agrees under this section to undertake activities required to be performed under Title IV-D is not required to mediate, resolve, or litigate a dispute between the parties relating to: (1) the amount of parenting time or parenting time credit; or (2) the assignment of the right to claim a child as a dependent for federal and state tax purposes. (h) An agreement made under subsection (b) must contain requirements stipulating service levels a prosecuting attorney or private entity is expected to meet. The bureau shall disburse incentive money based on whether a prosecuting attorney or private entity meets service levels stipulated in an agreement made under subsection (b). As added by P.L.146-2006, SEC.20. Amended by P.L.210-2011, SEC.5; P.L.53-2014, SEC.143; P.L.206-2015, SEC.56.
I know this sounds radical, and it is. We should consider looking at this in terms of a dominance hierarchy of apes. We should learn about the social lives of apes and the fundamentals of law. I don''t believe there is lawful government. It is much easier to believe that there is a dominance hierarchy camouflaged with the semblance of lawful government.
AUTHORITY IS FATHERHOOD, THE JUDGES HAVE NO TRUE AUTHORITY OVER THAT IN WHICH HE DOES NOT FATHER, PROOF IS DOCUMENTED IN DNA. ALL JUDGES USURP TRUE AUTHORITY OVER THAT IN WHICH THEY DO NOT FATHER. ROMANS 6:23 KJV THE EVIL BASTARDS... IGNORANCE IS OF NO EXCUSE FOR THE LAW... AUTHORITY IS FATHERHOOD... MOTHERS BEAR FOR EVE'S TRANSGRESSION (1 TIMOTHY 2:12 KJV... KJV IS THE LEGAL BIBLE THEY SWEAR OATHS ON)
