Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #121
Federal Title IV 'Welfare' Part D 'Child Support' (Law) Education & Awareness
- Thread starter Brick Layer
- Start date
- Status
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #122
Attachments
Last edited:
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #123
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #124
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #125
Government and Jurisdiction - Studying in US - a Guide about Studying Abroad in US
Back to any possible jurisdictional challenges by potential Defendants in opposition to any and every Six Pack Joe - and the federal jurisdiction of Title IV-D Matters!!!
Besides federal Defendant 'state court loser theories' utilizing: state supplemental jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, those 'state court loser' theories challenging a Six Pack Joe 'original claim' solely by challenging federal jurisdiction; also look at federal jurisdiction as a result of there being a lack of a state court remedy.
In regards to Six Pack Joe take notice:
The case opinion [hyperlink] cited below the subject-matter (a taxation issue) is totally different from Title IV-D (a child support issue) and may seem off topic while reading-focus on the federal Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction the reasoning for the federal court's opinion and order denying that motion to dismiss. An interesting read [all tax issues aside], See:
An abuse of the taxing power, the kind of claim at issue here:
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. FREED VS. THOMAS, et al., United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, Civil Action No. 17-CV-13519, OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN)
Defendants raise three jurisdictional challenges to plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment eminent domain claim: Ripeness, The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and Comity. [Footnote: Defendants do not mount any substantive challenge to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim separate from the jurisdictional arguments. Consequently, the Court will treat them together.]
A state action to be ripe, plaintiff must show both that the state government decision was final and that there are no available state court remedies.
In addition to showing finality, a plaintiff must first “seek compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so. This analysis looks to potential “remedies under state substantive law.”
But critically, plaintiff must adhere to this requirement only if the potential remedies are “reasonable, certain, and adequate.”
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary 367 (3d ed. 1986) defines the word certain as “fixed,” “settled,” or “sure.”
Here, defendants believe that inverse condemnation is a sufficient state law remedy. Plaintiff conversely argues that the doctrine of inverse condemnation does not apply here, or, at the very least, it is not certain that it does. The Court agrees with plaintiff. Were he to file this suit in state court, he would face significant substantive and jurisdictional problems.
Indeed, the Court adds its voice to the growing chorus of judges concerned about these kinds of claims, which appear in federal court because there is no adequate remedy at state law.
Rafaeli held that the Court did not have jurisdiction over this kind of claim ‘distinguishable because it hinges on the assumption that Michigan courts provide a plaintiff with plain, speedy, efficient, reasonable, certain, and adequate remedies at law’.
Perhaps plaintiff would guess the right Michigan court in which to file his claim, and perhaps that court would hear it. But given Rafaeli I and the jurisdictional quandary outlined above, that result is by no means certain. Because plaintiff has “establish[ed] the inadequacy of the procedure in these circumstances” —i.e., its uncertainty—his eminent domain claim is ripe.
Under Grace Brethren, however, § 1341 does not bar jurisdiction if there is no other plain, speedy, and efficient state 1:17-cv-13519-BAF-PTM Doc # 25 Filed 04/26/18 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 9 remedy for plaintiff. Therefore, under Rosewell, the question becomes whether Michigan courts would give plaintiff a full hearing and judicially determine the instant controversy. For the reasons stated above, it appears that they would not. Consequently, § 1341 does not prevent the Court from adjudicating plaintiff’s claims.
In other words, principles of comity are largely guided by § 1341’s principles and do not apply to plaintiffs who are not challenging a state tax system. Thus, as the gist of this action is not a challenge of Michigan’s tax system—and to the extent that it is such a challenge, there is no adequate state law remedy—the principles of comity do not bar the Court’s jurisdiction.
In the Court’s view, the case comes down to this: Gratiot County “took property worth [$100,000] to satisfy a [$2,000] debt, and then refused to refund any of the difference. In some legal precincts that sort of behavior is called theft. But under the [GPTA], apparently, that behavior is called tax collection.”
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
_____________
end
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]
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.
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
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
EXPUNGEMENT
‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010)
Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Six Pack Joe's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.
(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
[Title IV and or Title IV-D Expungement; federal jurisdiction (administrative review) judicially.]
Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent...remember we live in a republic, a free society.
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]
Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.
The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund
"Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, 1/25/51, entitled "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"
The requirement of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611, that municipal liability under § 1983 can only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to Government "policy or custom," makes it clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. There must at the very least be an affirmative link between the municipality's policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.
Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc
SECTION 1983: BASIC PRINCIPLES, INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY LIABILITY
https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/kb-s1983-1-nsa09Blum.pdf
_______________
Text of a Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States
Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption
(2) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:
(a) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or
(b) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;
(3) to be or have been a leader or official of:
(a) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or
(b) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or the official’s tenure; or
_______________
[In America, a free society, contract makes law and truth is sovereign!]
Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]
Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/attac...-stipulation-on-file-with-the-foc-pdf.179722/
GLOSSARY OF COMMON CHILD SUPPORT TERMS
CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL
Social Security Act Title IV
§ 303.101 Expedited processes.
(a) Definition. Expedited processes means administrative and judicial procedures (including IV-D agency procedures) required under section 466(a)(2) and (c) of the Act;
(c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes:
(1) Paternities and orders established by means other than full judicial process must have the same force and effect under State law as paternities and orders established by full judicial process within the State;
(2) The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
(3) The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, paternity determination, and/or support order;
(4) Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the State's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [acting statutes].
[Gamesmanship on the court - Court, a place where games are played... tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, etc. Psalm 104:26; Luke 22:25.]
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
- Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement
Pretend-Six Pack Joe files a federal lawsuit (and or performs a federal removal procedure) regarding his common law deposition (fraud remedy), challenging the alleged private 'written agreement' between the parties/parents in the [equity] family court arena. That contract that which is required under 'informed consent Title IV-D duties of office' and then that 'written agreement' is reviewed and entered into the record by the court... A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the payer that he or she shall.... [without specific welfare services, temporary assistance to needy families being paid out by the taxpayer on behalf of Six Pack Joe's minor child] he or she still knowingly agree and or agrees to a SUPPORT ORDER, period. If there is no such agreement between Six Pack Joe and another party, with a wet ink signature, and the defendant and or defendants claim some prima facie evidence [prima facie presumption] that just such a 'stipulation' does exists when it does not - is a fraud (crime); a rebuttable presumption; of fact.
Pretend-Six Pack Joe's defendant and or defendants create, alter, and or modify some document with what looks like Six Pack Joe's wet ink signature on the face of it, and in fact it is not Six Pack Joe's signature at all, this is document tampering, is a fraud (crime) too - together alongside the above said rebutted evidence 'document that was passed along for the purpose of deceiving another person and or persons'.
Pretend [rhetorical question] riddle: all arguments aside, in any case, if Six Pack Joe with first hand knowledge knows of no such acknowledgement and or stipulation; then how can one 'they' defend the (crime) of passing along of a document, that said (prima facie evidence) claim that a stipulation exists [first] - without someone [secondly], someone other than Six Pack Joe forging and or document tampering???
The other (2 crime) of defendant and or defendants falsifying a document in support of the (1 crime) defendant and or defendants false witness to an alleged agreement between the parents of the child. [The child not on welfare and or tax payer recoupment not to exceed the amount so paid out to the family as listed under: Prohibitions; Requirements “…not exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family, which accrue (or have accrued) before the date the family ceases to receive assistance under the program, which assignment, on and after such date, shall not apply with respect to any support (other than support collected pursuant to section) which accrued before the family received such assistance and which the State has not collected.”]
Six Pack Joe got em' boxed in...... Six Pack neither practicing from the bench or otherwise, is not reviewing 'support' wherefore has never brought up the issue of 'arrears' had that been Six Pack Joe's issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied. Six Pack Joe is not arguing 'child support' instead 'agency actions' a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud(s)! Six Pack Joe does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; and or beyond federal Sec. 408. [42 U.S.C. 608] (a)(3).
Pretended answer to the riddle: with all the facts in place - one 'they' can't. Summary requests have to view the case in most favorable view to the Plaintiff (summary judgements on the pleadings) and or (Default default judgement) when a party [the defendant and or defendants] against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend the merits of the case; merits of the case them being Plaintiff's claim and or pleadings rebutting all rebuttable presumptions in law, and at law; regarding Title IV and or Title IV-D fraud.
PLAYING BY THE RULES: FRCP 55(A) AND THE CIRCUIT SPLIT REGARDING ITS MEANING
Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
hyperlink left click mouse
↓ over emoticon:
A parent working and living above poverty plus receiving support from the other parent is a financial incentive... There would be less divorce and or family separation (broken homes) given the knowledge of the voluntary nature of child support [willful abandonment]; withholding of consent knocks out the financial incentives giving into the fact that most parents would rather work and or not be so poor as to want to live on welfare.... just to make the other parent pay/play - logically in most cases both parents want the best for their children. It is best to settle domestic differences before going to court without the aid of government 'in the best interest of your children' and or family wealth; America's children's overall inheritance, quality of life, and or posterity; ....just saying.
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
- Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement
42 U.S.C. § 654 - U.S. Code Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare § 654 | FindLaw
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/state_plan_table_of_contents.pdf
552.602 Definitions. [Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf
(f) "Department" means the department of human services.
(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.
(hh) "Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.
(ii) "Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court or a prosecuting attorney.
Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.904
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.907
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.915a
Michigan has the largest number of families in Title IV-D per capita in the nation exceeding California by over 2 to 1.
Michigan also has the largest ratio of Title IV-D cases per minor child in the nation. Surpassing California by 236 percent: 41.52% vs. 17.63%
Title IV-D and Corruption
Many of these citing have been posted previously, though maybe not in this order consecutively; [picture pages].
If you believe this a state court matter.....
Six Pack Joe
FEDERAL JURISDICTIONTitle IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
(Illustrated through a collection of citing)
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities
Action taken may be reviewed in the federal arena under the state's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures (the state's federal court away from the bias influence of the state court where the injuries continue to occur), vide: 45 CFR § 303.101(C)(4). This state's acting statutes, Michigan’s controlling statutes, authorities the Defendants violated and or did not adhered to according to Federal Law that said 'Social Security Act' 'Title IV' and or including 'Part D' of the welfare act.
WELFARE (Title IV-D) addressing this issue specifically.
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.451b
Proceedings for support of custodial parent and children being supported by public assistance; burden of proof.
“....or any of them are being supported, in whole or in part, by public assistance under the social welfare act.”
Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars." Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities; another example of corresponding federal and state authorities [The MATRIX]:
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix
Welcome to the Child Support Portal
CSP - Welcome
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law. 45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans. All state plans can be found at state plan system:
Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section
Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Freedom in the 50 States:
Michigan "Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."
TITLE IV—GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD–WELFARE SERVICES
Social Security Act Title IV
INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES
Social Security Act §458
Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program
https://greenbook-waysandmeans.hous...house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL33422_gb.pdf
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
https://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-Program-Basics-5-2014.pdf
552.602 Definitions. [Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf
(f) "Department" means the department of human services.
(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.
(hh) "Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.
(ii) "Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court or a prosecuting attorney.
Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements
The [Six Pack Joe’s County’s] County Cooperative Agreement brings these three together (The County Municipal Corporation, The Friend of the Court) with the Title IV-D Sheriff Agreements, under (OCSE)-AT-79-3 Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for Making Arrests Pursuant to Appropriate State Process and, OCSE-AT-87-9 Child Support Enforcement Program, 45 CFR 304.22; Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, IV-D MEMORANDUM 2010-003.
42 U.S.C § 1983; [Six Pack Joe’s] County’s Policy (Title IV-D Contractors’ Policies) is not to follow state statute in conformity to Title IV-D and or the Federal Welfare Laws of the federal ‘Social Security Act’.
Jurisdiction 42 U.S.C § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010) ‘immediate’ procedures
Federal Court is the jurisdiction for redress of grievance; Federal Review of Agency Actions (Title IV-D agencies) under contract to the federal program; Federal jurisdiction with power to immediately expunge administrative agencies error in the record (fraud) causing the false publication of ‘crimes against children’ erroneously accosted to [Six Pack Joe] on account of fraud (the) IV-D Contractor’s passing along of copies of documents that are known to be false.
A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.
The subject of judicial review is perhaps the most intriguing-and most difficult-aspect of administrative law: where the statute is attacked as being unconstitutional, the agency is charged with exceeding the powers created by statute, and or powers created by statute misused. Administrative determinations of law (other than determination of their own jurisdiction) are persuasive but not binding. See: [Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)], But under the Administrative Procedure Act the Court must look not only to the evidence presented by the agency but to “the whole record."
Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that except where statute precludes review or where the agency action is, by law, committed to agency discretion “any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”
‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010) Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Plaintiff's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975,
MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.
(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6).
Cujusque rei potissima pars est principium.
The principal part of everything is the beginning. It would not be lawful to enforce a support obligation that was not first established legally (in a lawful manner) and or enforce a support obligation established for reasons outside of the legislatively intended taxpayer purpose (to detour fathers from abandoning their children).
In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.
In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.604
A signed divorce decree is just one form of stipulation.
Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).
A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles.
If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification.
Search the following two PDFs for the word 'stipulation':
http://www.montcalm.us/document_center/Courts/Stipulated Motion to Change Support Order.pdf
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/publications/Friend_of_the_Court-WEB.pdf
United States of America's government (a constitutional republic) bound by the constitution a limited government, 'limited to that which is constitutional' a government for the people by the people 'bound by Oath of Office' with under governmental employee powers definiend and further restricted by specific statutes and codes; regulate government and business (corporations) registered to government.
A Treatise on the Law of Negotiable Instruments
Man (Genesis 5:2; Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-35; Galatians 3:26) is endowed by his/her creator with certain inherent and inalienable rights 'to contract in the unlimited' international contractual rights without government interference.
The Constitution and its Bill of Rights outline what are [skinnied down] commonly referred to simply as 'due process' and or 'due process rights'; men and women do not have constitutional rights only inherent rights that which are constitutionally reaffirmed by individual 'oath' to the constitutions hence the 'constitutional right'.
Title IV-D due process Timeline...Hint: the key is in the contractual arrangement, an 'ex parte' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation''written agreement', so ordered enforced!
The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary support order;
What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."
The word 'shall' appears in section 552.604 TWELVE times.....
Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black's Law Dictionary wrote that "In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency…which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language."
Look at this sentence:
"552.604 (3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court that provides for all of the following:"
Of course government cannot force someone to [must] contract therefore the word 'must' does not appear in the sentence above, now look at it again.... as liberal as the word shall has been used throughout that statute neither does the word 'shall' appear in this sentence. The sentence simply says "The parties enter into a written agreement" with the omission of 'shall' illuminating 'may' or 'will', though and where 'must' is assumed for any and every agreement must take more than one party or it would be (non contractual) a unilateral agreement. ...And where it says 'the record' means the state court 'docket' holds the facts of the matter!!!!
Volintarily
Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle.
A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).
Last edited:
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #126
nice (adj.)
"foolish, stupid, senseless," "careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish"
How to Understand the Differences Between Statutes, Regulations, Ordinances and Common Law
Bouvier Law Dictionary
Maxims of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary - The Lawful Path
Maxims of Law
Black's Law Dictionary - Free Online Legal Dictionary
Legal Dictionary - Law.com
Law Dictionary by Merriam-Webster
Wex
Nolo's Free Dictionary Of Law Terms and Legal Definitions
Legal Dictionary - Law.com
FindLaw Legal Dictionary - FindLaw
Free Legal Definitions - Legal Dictionary | Lectlaw.com
Duhaime's Legal Dictionary
Dean's Law Dictionary
Law Dictionary, Legal Dictionary, Dean's Law Dictionary
FORMS WORKSHOP AUDIO LECTURE
MOTION PROCEDURE AUDIO LECTURE
SOVEREIGNTY AUDIO LECTURE
Anti-Government Movement Guidebook
Law Notes -- Home Page
Family Guardian
Attachments
Last edited:
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #127
Title IV-D due process Timeline...
A case qualifies for Title IV-D services when children are receiving public assistance or [absent equal parenting time 'joint physical' and 'joint legal' custody] a custodial party or non-custodial parent has [upon informed consent each [parent] has first yielded to an agreement/stipulation together producing the 'custodial non-custodial' arrangement, in effect a form of 'voluntary partial abandonment by their agreement in writing to fractionalize the amount of time the children spend with each', that written agreement [required to make 'custody' and 'support' orders valid'] between parents (both parties), and then secondly one of them]] requested Title IV-D services.
Hint: the key is in the contractual arrangement, an 'ex parte' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'
Taking your child without consent 'in law' is kidnapping
Parentage [posterity - standing tall and looking good]
Natural Rights are Lawful Rights
Rights untimely claimed are deemed to be waived; 'rebuttable presumptions'; silence is consent; wherefore simply object.
42 USC § 1301 - Definitions
(d) Nothing in this chapter [Public Health and Welfare] shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this chapter, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child.
42 U.S. Code § 1301 - Definitions
Objecting to Title IV-D services in your case, “42 USC 1301 d Parental Objection Notice”
03 4 1301 D 8x11 FORM
552.505 Duties of friend of the court
Sec. 5.
(1) Each office of the friend of the court has the following duties:
(a) To inform each party to a domestic relations matter that, unless 1 of the parties is [on welfare and is] required to participate in the title IV-D child support program, they may choose not to have the office of the friend of the court administer and enforce obligations that may be imposed in the domestic relations matter.
(b) To inform each party to a domestic relations matter that, unless 1 of the parties is [on welfare and is] required to participate in the title IV-D child support program, [neither party on welfare] they may direct the office of the friend of the court to close the friend of the court case that was opened in their domestic relations matter.
(c) To provide an informational pamphlet, in accordance with the model pamphlet developed by the bureau, to each party to a domestic relations matter. The informational pamphlet shall explain the procedures of the court and the office; the duties of the office... The informational pamphlet shall be provided as soon as possible after the filing of a complaint or other initiating pleading. Upon request, a party shall receive an oral explanation of the informational pamphlet from the office.
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.505
FRIEND OF THE COURT HANDBOOK
FRIEND of the COURT DUTIES ......................................................... 2
OPTING OUT OF FRIEND OF THE COURT SERVICES................... 3
http://courts.mi.gov/administration/scao/resources/documents/publications/manuals/focb/focb_hbk.pdf
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
Punky Finds a Home: Part 1 and Part 2
OPTING OUT OF FRIEND OF THE COURT SERVICES
Statutory Procedure to Opt Out
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #128
Surrounding states are being affected by Kentucky's first in the nation shared parenting law.
Opinion: Shared parenting the best option for children of divorce
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #129
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #130
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
To my knowledge Blessing v Freestone is the only Title IV-D case that has made it through the federal court system with a ruling; and focuses on parents wanting substantial compliance (services).
[per this thread] Six Pack Joe's claim in the federal court system focuses on Non-TANF families parental lack of consent for services (unwanted services); and the fraud of forcing services Title IV-D services on either parent of that non welfare family, given the fact Part D is Title IV WELFARE. Beating the bushes, on the front line, I know of just one such federal case pending now, awaiting ruling and ripe for a judgement.... 'practical application of the law' as shared here within this thread.
Side-note: Suijuris Club Forum [hyperlink cited in quote above] no longer functions so the 'threads' information and knowledge I shared and stored there is no longer accessible. I seen this coming and have experienced this several times over the years, cites get built up then sold off and closed down; anyway this is why I started posting here on this forum U.S. Message Boards in January. I would like to thank everyone for the views!!!!!
Government and Jurisdiction - Studying in US - a Guide about Studying Abroad in US
Back to any possible jurisdictional challenges by potential Defendants in opposition to any and every Six Pack Joe - and the federal jurisdiction of Title IV-D Matters!!!
Besides federal Defendant 'state court loser theories' utilizing: state supplemental jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, those 'state court loser' theories challenging a Six Pack Joe 'original claim' solely by challenging federal jurisdiction; also look at federal jurisdiction as a result of there being a lack of a state court remedy.
In regards to Six Pack Joe take notice:
The case opinion [hyperlink] cited below the subject-matter (a taxation issue) is totally different from Title IV-D (a child support issue) and may seem off topic while reading-focus on the federal Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction the reasoning for the federal court's opinion and order denying that motion to dismiss. An interesting read [all tax issues aside], See:
An abuse of the taxing power, the kind of claim at issue here:
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. FREED VS. THOMAS, et al., United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, Civil Action No. 17-CV-13519, OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN)
Defendants raise three jurisdictional challenges to plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment eminent domain claim: Ripeness, The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and Comity. [Footnote: Defendants do not mount any substantive challenge to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim separate from the jurisdictional arguments. Consequently, the Court will treat them together.]
A state action to be ripe, plaintiff must show both that the state government decision was final and that there are no available state court remedies.
In addition to showing finality, a plaintiff must first “seek compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so. This analysis looks to potential “remedies under state substantive law.”
But critically, plaintiff must adhere to this requirement only if the potential remedies are “reasonable, certain, and adequate.”
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary 367 (3d ed. 1986) defines the word certain as “fixed,” “settled,” or “sure.”
Here, defendants believe that inverse condemnation is a sufficient state law remedy. Plaintiff conversely argues that the doctrine of inverse condemnation does not apply here, or, at the very least, it is not certain that it does. The Court agrees with plaintiff. Were he to file this suit in state court, he would face significant substantive and jurisdictional problems.
Indeed, the Court adds its voice to the growing chorus of judges concerned about these kinds of claims, which appear in federal court because there is no adequate remedy at state law.
Rafaeli held that the Court did not have jurisdiction over this kind of claim ‘distinguishable because it hinges on the assumption that Michigan courts provide a plaintiff with plain, speedy, efficient, reasonable, certain, and adequate remedies at law’.
Perhaps plaintiff would guess the right Michigan court in which to file his claim, and perhaps that court would hear it. But given Rafaeli I and the jurisdictional quandary outlined above, that result is by no means certain. Because plaintiff has “establish[ed] the inadequacy of the procedure in these circumstances” —i.e., its uncertainty—his eminent domain claim is ripe.
Under Grace Brethren, however, § 1341 does not bar jurisdiction if there is no other plain, speedy, and efficient state 1:17-cv-13519-BAF-PTM Doc # 25 Filed 04/26/18 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 9 remedy for plaintiff. Therefore, under Rosewell, the question becomes whether Michigan courts would give plaintiff a full hearing and judicially determine the instant controversy. For the reasons stated above, it appears that they would not. Consequently, § 1341 does not prevent the Court from adjudicating plaintiff’s claims.
In other words, principles of comity are largely guided by § 1341’s principles and do not apply to plaintiffs who are not challenging a state tax system. Thus, as the gist of this action is not a challenge of Michigan’s tax system—and to the extent that it is such a challenge, there is no adequate state law remedy—the principles of comity do not bar the Court’s jurisdiction.
In the Court’s view, the case comes down to this: Gratiot County “took property worth [$100,000] to satisfy a [$2,000] debt, and then refused to refund any of the difference. In some legal precincts that sort of behavior is called theft. But under the [GPTA], apparently, that behavior is called tax collection.”
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
_____________
end
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]
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.
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
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
EXPUNGEMENT
‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010)
Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Six Pack Joe's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.
(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
[Title IV and or Title IV-D Expungement; federal jurisdiction (administrative review) judicially.]
Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]
Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.
The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund
"Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, 1/25/51, entitled "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"
The requirement of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611, that municipal liability under § 1983 can only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to Government "policy or custom," makes it clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. There must at the very least be an affirmative link between the municipality's policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.
Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc
SECTION 1983: BASIC PRINCIPLES, INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY LIABILITY
https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/kb-s1983-1-nsa09Blum.pdf
_______________
Text of a Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States
Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption
(2) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:
(a) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or
(b) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;
(3) to be or have been a leader or official of:
(a) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or
(b) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or the official’s tenure; or
_______________
[In America, a free society, contract makes law and truth is sovereign!]
Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]
Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/attac...-stipulation-on-file-with-the-foc-pdf.179722/
GLOSSARY OF COMMON CHILD SUPPORT TERMS
CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL
Social Security Act Title IV
§ 303.101 Expedited processes.
(a) Definition. Expedited processes means administrative and judicial procedures (including IV-D agency procedures) required under section 466(a)(2) and (c) of the Act;
(c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes:
(1) Paternities and orders established by means other than full judicial process must have the same force and effect under State law as paternities and orders established by full judicial process within the State;
(2) The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
(3) The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, paternity determination, and/or support order;
(4) Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the State's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [acting statutes].
[Gamesmanship on the court - Court, a place where games are played... tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, etc. Psalm 104:26; Luke 22:25.]
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
- Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement
Pretend-Six Pack Joe files a federal lawsuit (and or performs a federal removal procedure) regarding his common law deposition (fraud remedy), challenging the alleged private 'written agreement' between the parties/parents in the [equity] family court arena. That contract that which is required under 'informed consent Title IV-D duties of office' and then that 'written agreement' is reviewed and entered into the record by the court... A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the payer that he or she shall.... [without specific welfare services, temporary assistance to needy families being paid out by the taxpayer on behalf of Six Pack Joe's minor child] he or she still knowingly agree and or agrees to a SUPPORT ORDER, period. If there is no such agreement between Six Pack Joe and another party, with a wet ink signature, and the defendant and or defendants claim some prima facie evidence [prima facie presumption] that just such a 'stipulation' does exists when it does not - is a fraud (crime); a rebuttable presumption; of fact.
Pretend-Six Pack Joe's defendant and or defendants create, alter, and or modify some document with what looks like Six Pack Joe's wet ink signature on the face of it, and in fact it is not Six Pack Joe's signature at all, this is document tampering, is a fraud (crime) too - together alongside the above said rebutted evidence 'document that was passed along for the purpose of deceiving another person and or persons'.
Pretend [rhetorical question] riddle: all arguments aside, in any case, if Six Pack Joe with first hand knowledge knows of no such acknowledgement and or stipulation; then how can one 'they' defend the (crime) of passing along of a document, that said (prima facie evidence) claim that a stipulation exists [first] - without someone [secondly], someone other than Six Pack Joe forging and or document tampering???
The other (2 crime) of defendant and or defendants falsifying a document in support of the (1 crime) defendant and or defendants false witness to an alleged agreement between the parents of the child. [The child not on welfare and or tax payer recoupment not to exceed the amount so paid out to the family as listed under: Prohibitions; Requirements “…not exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family, which accrue (or have accrued) before the date the family ceases to receive assistance under the program, which assignment, on and after such date, shall not apply with respect to any support (other than support collected pursuant to section) which accrued before the family received such assistance and which the State has not collected.”]
Six Pack Joe got em' boxed in...... Six Pack neither practicing from the bench or otherwise, is not reviewing 'support' wherefore has never brought up the issue of 'arrears' had that been Six Pack Joe's issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied. Six Pack Joe is not arguing 'child support' instead 'agency actions' a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud(s)! Six Pack Joe does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; and or beyond federal Sec. 408. [42 U.S.C. 608] (a)(3).
Pretended answer to the riddle: with all the facts in place - one 'they' can't. Summary requests have to view the case in most favorable view to the Plaintiff (summary judgements on the pleadings) and or (Default default judgement) when a party [the defendant and or defendants] against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend the merits of the case; merits of the case them being Plaintiff's claim and or pleadings rebutting all rebuttable presumptions in law, and at law; regarding Title IV and or Title IV-D fraud.
PLAYING BY THE RULES: FRCP 55(A) AND THE CIRCUIT SPLIT REGARDING ITS MEANING
Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
hyperlink left click mouse
↓ over emoticon:
A parent working and living above poverty plus receiving support from the other parent is a financial incentive... There would be less divorce and or family separation (broken homes) given the knowledge of the voluntary nature of child support [willful abandonment]; withholding of consent knocks out the financial incentives giving into the fact that most parents would rather work and or not be so poor as to want to live on welfare.... just to make the other parent pay/play - logically in most cases both parents want the best for their children. It is best to settle domestic differences before going to court without the aid of government 'in the best interest of your children' and or family wealth; America's children's overall inheritance, quality of life, and or posterity; ....just saying.
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
- Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement
42 U.S.C. § 654 - U.S. Code Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare § 654 | FindLaw
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/state_plan_table_of_contents.pdf
552.602 Definitions. [Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf
(f) "Department" means the department of human services.
(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.
(hh) "Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.
(ii) "Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court or a prosecuting attorney.
Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.904
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.907
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.915a
Michigan has the largest number of families in Title IV-D per capita in the nation exceeding California by over 2 to 1.
Michigan also has the largest ratio of Title IV-D cases per minor child in the nation. Surpassing California by 236 percent: 41.52% vs. 17.63%
Title IV-D and Corruption
Many of these citing have been posted previously, though maybe not in this order consecutively; [picture pages].
If you believe this a state court matter.....
FEDERAL JURISDICTIONTitle IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
(Illustrated through a collection of citing)
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities
Action taken may be reviewed in the federal arena under the state's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures (the state's federal court away from the bias influence of the state court where the injuries continue to occur), vide: 45 CFR § 303.101(C)(4). This state's acting statutes, Michigan’s controlling statutes, authorities the Defendants violated and or did not adhered to according to Federal Law that said 'Social Security Act' 'Title IV' and or including 'Part D' of the welfare act.
WELFARE (Title IV-D) addressing this issue specifically.
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.451b
Proceedings for support of custodial parent and children being supported by public assistance; burden of proof.
“....or any of them are being supported, in whole or in part, by public assistance under the social welfare act.”
Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars." Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities; another example of corresponding federal and state authorities [The MATRIX
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix
Welcome to the Child Support Portal
CSP - Welcome
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law. 45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans. All state plans can be found at state plan system:
Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section
Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Freedom in the 50 States:
Michigan "Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."
TITLE IV—GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD–WELFARE SERVICES
Social Security Act Title IV
INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES
Social Security Act §458
Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program
https://greenbook-waysandmeans.hous...house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL33422_gb.pdf
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
https://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-Program-Basics-5-2014.pdf
552.602 Definitions. [Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf
(f) "Department" means the department of human services.
(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.
(hh) "Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.
(ii) "Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court or a prosecuting attorney.
Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements
The [Six Pack Joe’s County’s] County Cooperative Agreement brings these three together (The County Municipal Corporation, The Friend of the Court) with the Title IV-D Sheriff Agreements, under (OCSE)-AT-79-3 Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for Making Arrests Pursuant to Appropriate State Process and, OCSE-AT-87-9 Child Support Enforcement Program, 45 CFR 304.22; Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, IV-D MEMORANDUM 2010-003.
42 U.S.C § 1983; [Six Pack Joe’s] County’s Policy (Title IV-D Contractors’ Policies) is not to follow state statute in conformity to Title IV-D and or the Federal Welfare Laws of the federal ‘Social Security Act’.
Jurisdiction 42 U.S.C § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010) ‘immediate’ procedures
Federal Court is the jurisdiction for redress of grievance; Federal Review of Agency Actions (Title IV-D agencies) under contract to the federal program; Federal jurisdiction with power to immediately expunge administrative agencies error in the record (fraud) causing the false publication of ‘crimes against children’ erroneously accosted to [Six Pack Joe] on account of fraud (the) IV-D Contractor’s passing along of copies of documents that are known to be false.
A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.
The subject of judicial review is perhaps the most intriguing-and most difficult-aspect of administrative law: where the statute is attacked as being unconstitutional, the agency is charged with exceeding the powers created by statute, and or powers created by statute misused. Administrative determinations of law (other than determination of their own jurisdiction) are persuasive but not binding. See: [Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)], But under the Administrative Procedure Act the Court must look not only to the evidence presented by the agency but to “the whole record."
Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that except where statute precludes review or where the agency action is, by law, committed to agency discretion “any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”
‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010) Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Plaintiff's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975,
MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.
(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6).
Cujusque rei potissima pars est principium.
The principal part of everything is the beginning. It would not be lawful to enforce a support obligation that was not first established legally (in a lawful manner) and or enforce a support obligation established for reasons outside of the legislatively intended taxpayer purpose (to detour fathers from abandoning their children).
In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.
In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.604
A signed divorce decree is just one form of stipulation.
Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).
A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles.
If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification.
Search the following two PDFs for the word 'stipulation':
http://www.montcalm.us/document_center/Courts/Stipulated Motion to Change Support Order.pdf
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/publications/Friend_of_the_Court-WEB.pdf
United States of America's government (a constitutional republic) bound by the constitution a limited government, 'limited to that which is constitutional' a government for the people by the people 'bound by Oath of Office' with under governmental employee powers definiend and further restricted by specific statutes and codes; regulate government and business (corporations) registered to government.
A Treatise on the Law of Negotiable Instruments
Man (Genesis 5:2; Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-35; Galatians 3:26) is endowed by his/her creator with certain inherent and inalienable rights 'to contract in the unlimited' international contractual rights without government interference.
The Constitution and its Bill of Rights outline what are [skinnied down] commonly referred to simply as 'due process' and or 'due process rights'; men and women do not have constitutional rights only inherent rights that which are constitutionally reaffirmed by individual 'oath' to the constitutions hence the 'constitutional right'.
Title IV-D due process Timeline...Hint: the key is in the contractual arrangement, an 'ex parte' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'
The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary support order;
What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."
The word 'shall' appears in section 552.604 TWELVE times.....
Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black's Law Dictionary wrote that "In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency…which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language."
Look at this sentence:
"552.604 (3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court that provides for all of the following:"
Of course government cannot force someone to [must] contract therefore the word 'must' does not appear in the sentence above, now look at it again.... as liberal as the word shall has been used throughout that statute neither does the word 'shall' appear in this sentence. The sentence simply says "The parties enter into a written agreement" with the omission of 'shall' illuminating 'may' or 'will', though and where 'must' is assumed for any and every agreement must take more than one party or it would be (non contractual) a unilateral agreement. ...And where it says 'the record' means the state court 'docket' holds the facts of the matter!!!!
Volintarily
Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle.
A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).
Last edited:
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #131
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
To my knowledge Blessing v Freestone is the only Title IV-D case that has made it through the federal court system with a ruling; and focuses on parents wanting substantial compliance (services).
[per this thread] Six Pack Joe's claim in the federal court system focuses on Non-TANF families parental lack of consent for services (unwanted services); and the fraud of forcing services (manufactured consent) forcing Title IV-D services on either parent of that non welfare family, given the fact Part D is Title IV WELFARE. Beating the bushes, on the front line, I know of just one such federal case pending now, awaiting ruling and ripe for a judgement.... 'practical application of the law' as shared here within this thread.
NOTICE: Suijuris Club Forum (hyperlink cited in quote above) no longer functions so the information and knowledge I had stored there is no longer accessible. I seen this coming and have experienced this several times over the years, cites get built up then sold off and closed down; anyway this is why I started posting here on this forum U.S. Message Boards in January. I would like to thank everyone for the views!!!!
Government and Jurisdiction - Studying in US - a Guide about Studying Abroad in US
Back to any possible jurisdictional challenges by potential Defendants in opposition to any and every Six Pack Joe - and the federal jurisdiction of Title IV-D Matters!!!
Besides federal Defendant 'state court loser theories' utilizing: state supplemental jurisdiction and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, those 'state court loser' theories challenging a Six Pack Joe 'original claim' solely by challenging federal jurisdiction; also look at federal jurisdiction as a result of there being a lack of a state court remedy.
In regards to Six Pack Joe take notice:
The case opinion [hyperlink] cited below the subject-matter (a taxation issue) is totally different from Title IV-D (a child support issue) and may seem off topic while reading-focus on the federal Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction the reasoning for the federal court's opinion and order denying that motion to dismiss. An interesting read [all tax issues aside], See:
An abuse of the taxing power, the kind of claim at issue here:
This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. FREED VS. THOMAS, et al., United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, Civil Action No. 17-CV-13519, OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN)
Defendants raise three jurisdictional challenges to plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment eminent domain claim: Ripeness, The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and Comity. [Footnote: Defendants do not mount any substantive challenge to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim separate from the jurisdictional arguments. Consequently, the Court will treat them together.]
A state action to be ripe, plaintiff must show both that the state government decision was final and that there are no available state court remedies.
In addition to showing finality, a plaintiff must first “seek compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so. This analysis looks to potential “remedies under state substantive law.”
But critically, plaintiff must adhere to this requirement only if the potential remedies are “reasonable, certain, and adequate.”
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary 367 (3d ed. 1986) defines the word certain as “fixed,” “settled,” or “sure.”
Here, defendants believe that inverse condemnation is a sufficient state law remedy. Plaintiff conversely argues that the doctrine of inverse condemnation does not apply here, or, at the very least, it is not certain that it does. The Court agrees with plaintiff. Were he to file this suit in state court, he would face significant substantive and jurisdictional problems.
Indeed, the Court adds its voice to the growing chorus of judges concerned about these kinds of claims, which appear in federal court because there is no adequate remedy at state law.
Rafaeli held that the Court did not have jurisdiction over this kind of claim ‘distinguishable because it hinges on the assumption that Michigan courts provide a plaintiff with plain, speedy, efficient, reasonable, certain, and adequate remedies at law’.
Perhaps plaintiff would guess the right Michigan court in which to file his claim, and perhaps that court would hear it. But given Rafaeli I and the jurisdictional quandary outlined above, that result is by no means certain. Because plaintiff has “establish[ed] the inadequacy of the procedure in these circumstances” —i.e., its uncertainty—his eminent domain claim is ripe.
Under Grace Brethren, however, § 1341 does not bar jurisdiction if there is no other plain, speedy, and efficient state 1:17-cv-13519-BAF-PTM Doc # 25 Filed 04/26/18 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 9 remedy for plaintiff. Therefore, under Rosewell, the question becomes whether Michigan courts would give plaintiff a full hearing and judicially determine the instant controversy. For the reasons stated above, it appears that they would not. Consequently, § 1341 does not prevent the Court from adjudicating plaintiff’s claims.
In other words, principles of comity are largely guided by § 1341’s principles and do not apply to plaintiffs who are not challenging a state tax system. Thus, as the gist of this action is not a challenge of Michigan’s tax system—and to the extent that it is such a challenge, there is no adequate state law remedy—the principles of comity do not bar the Court’s jurisdiction.
In the Court’s view, the case comes down to this: Gratiot County “took property worth [$100,000] to satisfy a [$2,000] debt, and then refused to refund any of the difference. In some legal precincts that sort of behavior is called theft. But under the [GPTA], apparently, that behavior is called tax collection.”
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.
_____________
end
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]
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.
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
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
EXPUNGEMENT
‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010)
Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Six Pack Joe's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.
(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
[Title IV and or Title IV-D Expungement; federal jurisdiction (administrative review) judicially.]
Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]
Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.
The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund
"Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, 1/25/51, entitled "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"
The requirement of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611, that municipal liability under § 1983 can only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to Government "policy or custom," makes it clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. There must at the very least be an affirmative link between the municipality's policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.
Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc
SECTION 1983: BASIC PRINCIPLES, INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY LIABILITY
https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/kb-s1983-1-nsa09Blum.pdf
_______________
Text of a Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States
Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption
(2) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:
(a) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or
(b) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;
(3) to be or have been a leader or official of:
(a) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or
(b) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or the official’s tenure; or
_______________
[In America, a free society, contract makes law and truth is sovereign!]
Administrative Review of that 'Stipulation' allegedly on file with The Friend of the Court, and [without welfare] how it got there [on file with the FOC] without Six Pack Joe's signature or consent
[Enforcement of that agreement and or contract; the family court an 'equity court' alleging a private agreement between the parents regarding support; an arrest would be a contempt of court for the breach of agreement 'failure to pay as agreed' a crime against the child.]
Example of average Support Enforcement Order required for a Michigan Bench Warrant to insue; in Michigan the case number will be the federal Title IV-D number 'Michigan's single case identifier number for reporting to the feds'.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/attac...-stipulation-on-file-with-the-foc-pdf.179722/
GLOSSARY OF COMMON CHILD SUPPORT TERMS
CHILD SUPPORT PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVE VS. JUDICIAL
Social Security Act Title IV
§ 303.101 Expedited processes.
(a) Definition. Expedited processes means administrative and judicial procedures (including IV-D agency procedures) required under section 466(a)(2) and (c) of the Act;
(c) Safeguards. Under expedited processes:
(1) Paternities and orders established by means other than full judicial process must have the same force and effect under State law as paternities and orders established by full judicial process within the State;
(2) The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
(3) The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, paternity determination, and/or support order;
(4) Action taken may be reviewed [in the federal arena] under the State's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures [acting statutes].
[Gamesmanship on the court - Court, a place where games are played... tennis court, basketball court, racquetball court, etc. Psalm 104:26; Luke 22:25.]
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
- Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement
Pretend-Six Pack Joe files a federal lawsuit (and or performs a federal removal procedure) regarding his common law deposition (fraud remedy), challenging the alleged private 'written agreement' between the parties/parents in the [equity] family court arena. That contract that which is required under 'informed consent Title IV-D duties of office' and then that 'written agreement' is reviewed and entered into the record by the court... A VOLUNTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the payer that he or she shall.... [without specific welfare services, temporary assistance to needy families being paid out by the taxpayer on behalf of Six Pack Joe's minor child] he or she still knowingly agree and or agrees to a SUPPORT ORDER, period. If there is no such agreement between Six Pack Joe and another party, with a wet ink signature, and the defendant and or defendants claim some prima facie evidence [prima facie presumption] that just such a 'stipulation' does exists when it does not - is a fraud (crime); a rebuttable presumption; of fact.
Pretend-Six Pack Joe's defendant and or defendants create, alter, and or modify some document with what looks like Six Pack Joe's wet ink signature on the face of it, and in fact it is not Six Pack Joe's signature at all, this is document tampering, is a fraud (crime) too - together alongside the above said rebutted evidence 'document that was passed along for the purpose of deceiving another person and or persons'.
Pretend [rhetorical question] riddle: all arguments aside, in any case, if Six Pack Joe with first hand knowledge knows of no such acknowledgement and or stipulation; then how can one 'they' defend the (crime) of passing along of a document, that said (prima facie evidence) claim that a stipulation exists [first] - without someone [secondly], someone other than Six Pack Joe forging and or document tampering???
The other (2 crime) of defendant and or defendants falsifying a document in support of the (1 crime) defendant and or defendants false witness to an alleged agreement between the parents of the child. [The child not on welfare and or tax payer recoupment not to exceed the amount so paid out to the family as listed under: Prohibitions; Requirements “…not exceeding the total amount of assistance so provided to the family, which accrue (or have accrued) before the date the family ceases to receive assistance under the program, which assignment, on and after such date, shall not apply with respect to any support (other than support collected pursuant to section) which accrued before the family received such assistance and which the State has not collected.”]
Six Pack Joe got em' boxed in...... Six Pack neither practicing from the bench or otherwise, is not reviewing 'support' wherefore has never brought up the issue of 'arrears' had that been Six Pack Joe's issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied. Six Pack Joe is not arguing 'child support' instead 'agency actions' a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud(s)! Six Pack Joe does not disagree and does believe that children deserve support, but that support cannot be procured through fraud; imputed into existence; and imputed beyond actual resources available; and or beyond federal Sec. 408. [42 U.S.C. 608] (a)(3).
Pretended answer to the riddle: with all the facts in place - one 'they' can't. Summary requests have to view the case in most favorable view to the Plaintiff (summary judgements on the pleadings) and or (Default default judgement) when a party [the defendant and or defendants] against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend the merits of the case; merits of the case them being Plaintiff's claim and or pleadings rebutting all rebuttable presumptions in law, and at law; regarding Title IV and or Title IV-D fraud.
PLAYING BY THE RULES: FRCP 55(A) AND THE CIRCUIT SPLIT REGARDING ITS MEANING
Rule 55 - Default; Default Judgment - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
hyperlink left click mouse
↓ over emoticon:
A parent working and living above poverty plus receiving support from the other parent is a financial incentive... There would be less divorce and or family separation (broken homes) given the knowledge of the voluntary nature of child support [willful abandonment]; withholding of consent knocks out the financial incentives giving into the fact that most parents would rather work and or not be so poor as to want to live on welfare.... just to make the other parent pay/play - logically in most cases both parents want the best for their children. It is best to settle domestic differences before going to court without the aid of government 'in the best interest of your children' and or family wealth; America's children's overall inheritance, quality of life, and or posterity; ....just saying.
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
- Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement
3rd edition
Appendix - Legislative History of Child Support Enforcement
42 U.S.C. § 654 - U.S. Code Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare § 654 | FindLaw
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/state_plan_table_of_contents.pdf
552.602 Definitions. [Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf
(f) "Department" means the department of human services.
(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.
(hh) "Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.
(ii) "Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court or a prosecuting attorney.
Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.904
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.907
Michigan Legislature - Section 339.915a
Michigan has the largest number of families in Title IV-D per capita in the nation exceeding California by over 2 to 1.
Michigan also has the largest ratio of Title IV-D cases per minor child in the nation. Surpassing California by 236 percent: 41.52% vs. 17.63%
Title IV-D and Corruption
Many of these citing have been posted previously, though maybe not in this order consecutively; [picture pages].
If you believe this a state court matter.....
FEDERAL JURISDICTIONTitle IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars."
(Illustrated through a collection of citing)
Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities
Action taken may be reviewed in the federal arena under the state's generally applicable administrative or judicial procedures (the state's federal court away from the bias influence of the state court where the injuries continue to occur), vide: 45 CFR § 303.101(C)(4). This state's acting statutes, Michigan’s controlling statutes, authorities the Defendants violated and or did not adhered to according to Federal Law that said 'Social Security Act' 'Title IV' and or including 'Part D' of the welfare act.
WELFARE (Title IV-D) addressing this issue specifically.
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.451b
Proceedings for support of custodial parent and children being supported by public assistance; burden of proof.
“....or any of them are being supported, in whole or in part, by public assistance under the social welfare act.”
Title IV-D is a federal matter administered at the state level (state voluntary participation in compliance with the federal program); state statutes correspond with federal law in order to receive block grants and incentive dollars." Acting statutes and or Controlling statutes and or Authorities; another example of corresponding federal and state authorities [The MATRIX
45 CFR 303.11 - Case closure criteria.
Michigan IV-D Case Closure Matrix
Welcome to the Child Support Portal
CSP - Welcome
Federal law requires each state to submit a state plan in order to be eligible for federal Title IV-D funding. The state plan outlines how the state will provide child support services and engage in other activities in compliance with federal law. 45 CFR 92.11 contains requirements for State Plans. All state plans can be found at state plan system:
Michigan's State Plan (Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual - State of Michigan)
Office of Child Support: Policy listed by Section
Public user access of the online (your states plan) State Plan System.
45 CFR Part 301 - STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES
45 CFR Part 302 - STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Title IV-D Funding Resource Guide
SRLN Brief: OCSE Guidance on Collaborative Child Support Activities (SRLN 2016) | SRLN
Freedom in the 50 States:
Michigan "Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."
TITLE IV—GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID AND SERVICES TO NEEDY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND FOR CHILD–WELFARE SERVICES
Social Security Act Title IV
INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO STATES
Social Security Act §458
Analysis of Federal-State Financing of the Child Support Enforcement Program
https://greenbook-waysandmeans.hous...house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL33422_gb.pdf
Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics
https://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-Program-Basics-5-2014.pdf
552.602 Definitions. [Michigan's Federal Title IV-D terms]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Mpla/2004/PA2004/2004 pgs 0651-0700 PA 208-221.pdf
(f) "Department" means the department of human services.
(i) "Employer" means an individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, association, or private or public corporation, the United States or a federal agency, this state or a political subdivision of this state, another state or a political subdivision of another state, or another legal entity that hires and pays an individual for his or her services.
(hh) "Title IV-D" means part D of title IV of the social security act, 42 USC 651 to 669b.
(ii) "Title IV-D agency" means the agency in this state performing the functions under title IV-D and includes a person performing those functions under contract, including an office of the friend of the court or a prosecuting attorney.
Final Rule: Cooperative Arrangements
The [Six Pack Joe’s County’s] County Cooperative Agreement brings these three together (The County Municipal Corporation, The Friend of the Court) with the Title IV-D Sheriff Agreements, under (OCSE)-AT-79-3 Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for Making Arrests Pursuant to Appropriate State Process and, OCSE-AT-87-9 Child Support Enforcement Program, 45 CFR 304.22; Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, IV-D MEMORANDUM 2010-003.
42 U.S.C § 1983; [Six Pack Joe’s] County’s Policy (Title IV-D Contractors’ Policies) is not to follow state statute in conformity to Title IV-D and or the Federal Welfare Laws of the federal ‘Social Security Act’.
Jurisdiction 42 U.S.C § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010) ‘immediate’ procedures
Federal Court is the jurisdiction for redress of grievance; Federal Review of Agency Actions (Title IV-D agencies) under contract to the federal program; Federal jurisdiction with power to immediately expunge administrative agencies error in the record (fraud) causing the false publication of ‘crimes against children’ erroneously accosted to [Six Pack Joe] on account of fraud (the) IV-D Contractor’s passing along of copies of documents that are known to be false.
A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.
The subject of judicial review is perhaps the most intriguing-and most difficult-aspect of administrative law: where the statute is attacked as being unconstitutional, the agency is charged with exceeding the powers created by statute, and or powers created by statute misused. Administrative determinations of law (other than determination of their own jurisdiction) are persuasive but not binding. See: [Consolidated Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (1938)], But under the Administrative Procedure Act the Court must look not only to the evidence presented by the agency but to “the whole record."
Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that except where statute precludes review or where the agency action is, by law, committed to agency discretion “any person suffering legal wrong because of agency action or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”
‘Crimes Against Children’ as outlined by Federal Law (Jurisdiction) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a (b) (2) (B) (xii) (2010) Provisions requiring, and procedures in place that facilitate the prompt expungement of [Plaintiff's] any records that are accessible to the general public or are used for purposes of employment or other background checks in [Title IV and or Title IV-D] cases determined to be unsubstantiated or false, except that nothing in this section shall prevent State child protective services agencies from keeping information on unsubstantiated reports in their casework files to assist in future risk and safety assessment;
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975,
MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6)
(5) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to amend an inaccurate report or record from the central registry and local office file. A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may request the department to expunge from the central registry a report or record by requesting a hearing under subsection (6). A report or record filed in a local office file is not subject to expunction except as the department authorizes, if considered in the best interest of the child.
(6) A person who is the subject of a report or record made under this act may, within 180 days from the date of service of notice of the right to a hearing, request the department hold a hearing to review the request for amendment or expunction. If the hearing request is made within 180 days of the notice, the department shall hold a hearing to determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the report or record in whole or in part should be amended or expunged from the central registry. The hearing shall be held before a hearing officer appointed by the department and shall be conducted as prescribed by the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. The department may, for good cause, hold a hearing under this subsection if the department determines that the person who is the subject of the report or record submitted the request for a hearing within 60 days after the 180-day notice period expired.
Michigan’s Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, MCL 772.627 Sections 7(5) & 7(6).
Cujusque rei potissima pars est principium.
The principal part of everything is the beginning. It would not be lawful to enforce a support obligation that was not first established legally (in a lawful manner) and or enforce a support obligation established for reasons outside of the legislatively intended taxpayer purpose (to detour fathers from abandoning their children).
In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.
In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
Michigan Legislature - Section 552.604
A signed divorce decree is just one form of stipulation.
Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).
A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles.
If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification.
Search the following two PDFs for the word 'stipulation':
http://www.montcalm.us/document_center/Courts/Stipulated Motion to Change Support Order.pdf
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/publications/Friend_of_the_Court-WEB.pdf
United States of America's government (a constitutional republic) bound by the constitution a limited government, 'limited to that which is constitutional' a government for the people by the people 'bound by Oath of Office' with under governmental employee powers definiend and further restricted by specific statutes and codes; regulate government and business (corporations) registered to government.
A Treatise on the Law of Negotiable Instruments
Man (Genesis 5:2; Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-35; Galatians 3:26) is endowed by his/her creator with certain inherent and inalienable rights 'to contract in the unlimited' international contractual rights without government interference.
The Constitution and its Bill of Rights outline what are [skinnied down] commonly referred to simply as 'due process' and or 'due process rights'; men and women do not have constitutional rights only inherent rights that which are constitutionally reaffirmed by individual 'oath' to the constitutions hence the 'constitutional right'.
Title IV-D due process Timeline...Hint: the key is in the contractual arrangement, an 'ex parte' [support order] does not meet the definition of 'stipulation'
The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected;
The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary support order;
What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what law and policy say about "shall, will, may and must."
The word 'shall' appears in section 552.604 TWELVE times.....
Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."
Bryan Garner, the legal writing scholar and editor of Black's Law Dictionary wrote that "In most legal instruments, shall violates the presumption of consistency…which is why shall is among the most heavily litigated words in the English language."
Look at this sentence:
"552.604 (3)(b) The parties enter into a written agreement that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court that provides for all of the following:"
Of course government cannot force someone to [must] contract therefore the word 'must' does not appear in the sentence above, now look at it again.... as liberal as the word shall has been used throughout that statute neither does the word 'shall' appear in this sentence. The sentence simply says "The parties enter into a written agreement" with the omission of 'shall' illuminating 'may' or 'will', though and where 'must' is assumed for any and every agreement must take more than one party or it would be (non contractual) a unilateral agreement. ...And where it says 'the record' means the state court 'docket' holds the facts of the matter!!!!
Volintarily
Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle.
A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).
Last edited:
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #132
The requirement of Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611, that municipal liability under § 1983 can only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to Government "policy or custom," makes it clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. There must at the very least be an affirmative link between the municipality's policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.
Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc
SECTION 1983: BASIC PRINCIPLES, INDIVIDUAL AND ENTITY LIABILITY
https://www.sheriffs.org/sites/default/files/tb/kb-s1983-1-nsa09Blum.pdf
_______________
Text of a Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States
Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption
(2) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:
(a) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or
(b) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;
(3) to be or have been a leader or official of:
(a) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in (1), (2)(a), or (2)(b) above relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or
(b) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or the official’s tenure; or
_______________
[In America, a free society, contract makes law and truth is sovereign!]
David Johnson
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #133
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #134
Welcome to the Child Support and Family Law Legislation Database including filed bills pertaining to child support and family law!
Search passed, pending and failed legislation from 2012 - 2018 by state, year, topic, keyword, status, and/or primary sponsor. Topics relate to custody and visitation, grandparent custody and visitation, custody and visitation issues affecting military parents, economic stability, child support enforcement, family violence collaboration, father engagement, child support guidelines, health care coverage, parentage, prevention, healthy family relationships, implementation, and other related issues.
Search passed, pending and failed legislation from 2012 - 2018 by state, year, topic, keyword, status, and/or primary sponsor. Topics relate to custody and visitation, grandparent custody and visitation, custody and visitation issues affecting military parents, economic stability, child support enforcement, family violence collaboration, father engagement, child support guidelines, health care coverage, parentage, prevention, healthy family relationships, implementation, and other related issues.
Last edited:
Brick Layer
VIP Member
- Thread starter
- #135
MILITARY PARENT CUSTODY AND VISITATION
I recall this 2006 Whistleblower issue had an article regarding military concerns.
[...never forget 'child support' is covert for 'Title IV-D' and generates revenue for both the federal government and the states.]
THE WAR AT HOME: Iraq veteran says family court using PTSD treatment against him
PTSD: A Soldier's Perspective: A Veteran Father Struggles With Family Court and Child Support
Chapter 7: The Family Law System: Custody and Visitation | NCD.gov
Child Support and Veterans Benefits - Q and A [inadvertent advertisement]
A Need for Training: Preparing Juvenile and Family Court Judges on Military-Related Issues [inadvertent advertisement]
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
