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

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

INFORMED CONSENT.



Hint: the key is in the contractual arrangement, an 'ex parte' does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'!!!


42 U.S. Code § 1301 - Definitions (d) Nothing in this chapter [Public Health and Welfare] shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this chapter, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.

Duties of friend of the court
To inform each party to a domestic relations matter that, 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.

To inform each party to a domestic relations matter that 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.

To provide an informational pamphlet,The informational pamphlet shall be provided as soon as possible after the filing of a complaint or other initiating pleading.
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.505

Vide: pages 5 & 6 FOC HANDBOOK 'Opting Out' and 'Starting a Case, plaintiff's complaint'
http://courts.mi.gov/administration/scao/resources/documents/publications/manuals/focb/focb_hbk.pdf
Information provided by the state may be misleading:

[Absent welfare] Regarding the need of both parents to be in some form of agreement in order to 'opt out' of Title IV-D services; and or that...
The state only requires one parent requesting Title IV-D services, for them 'all' [Title IV-D Contactors], to obligate the other parent to such services [absent welfare] even if it is against (his or her) will, [to abandon the child(ren) in any form].


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


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

“Presumptive” means only default.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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

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

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

Social Security in lieu of child support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Re Marriage of Henry

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

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

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

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

The Child Support Hustle

 

[Brick Layer]

Hello, I AM, Brick Layer
I support family rights and 50/50 parenting; Title IV-D practical application research and remedy. I hope that with my postings that I am able to reach at least one...

A situation or condition that results from the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic qualities, identities, or activities: the national schizophrenia that results from carrying out an unpopular war.
[War on families, war on children and fathers.]

MalachI 4:6 Luke 1:17

AKA MichiganianMan
MichiganianMan
AKA Darren Edward
Darren Edward

PostScript, my first thread
FEDERAL TITLE IV 'WELFARE' PART D 'CHILD SUPPORT' (Law) Education & Awareness

Everyone should have a hobby.

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

Paternity Fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ringel05]

Hello, I AM, Brick Layer
I support family rights and 50/50 parenting; Title IV-D practical application research and remedy. I hope that with my postings that I am able to reach at least one...

A situation or condition that results from the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic qualities, identities, or activities: the national schizophrenia that results from carrying out an unpopular war.
[War on families, war on children and fathers.]

MalachI 4:6 Luke 1:17

AKA MichiganianMan
MichiganianMan
AKA Darren Edward
Darren Edward

PostScript, my first thread
FEDERAL TITLE IV 'WELFARE' PART D 'CHILD SUPPORT' (Law) Education & Awareness

Everyone should have a hobby.

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

Like I said.......

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

Title IV-D is strictly a federal matter, [stay] clear of state supplemental jurisdiction!

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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

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

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



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

Child Support and the Contracts that void it!

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

 

[Brick Layer]

So what have you learned as a legal intern?

Meet Your Strawman!

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Punky Brewster - Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

Writ in the Nature of a:
COMMON LAW DEPOSITION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deponent / Petitioner / Plaintiff further sayeth not,

SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE NOTED Common Law Citizen is,

Arm's Length and or At Arm's Length​

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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


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

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

EXCEPTION TO ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Wargames; gamesmanship on the court]

 

[Brick Layer]

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

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

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

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


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

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

EXCEPTION TO ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Wargames; gamesmanship on the court]

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

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

 

[Brick Layer]

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

 

[Syriusly]

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

You may have a legitimate beef- or not.

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

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