Without Due Process

[presonorek]

Fight your fight.

It is not my fight. I have nothing to gain from it at all.

 

[Michelle420]

I don't know if you hate free speech or not. Only you know that.

Do you think sometimes speech should be punished if it is the bad kind?

Yes if someone is telling me they are going to murder me and that they will be watching me and that some day I will be alone and they are going to bash my brains in. I don't like that speech and it I think it shouldn't be free to say to me.

 

[Michelle420]

It is not my fight. I have nothing to gain from it at all.

So just venting?

 

[Michelle420]

Most sane people just block the number. That's what I did. I don't see why going to the magistrate was necessary. I would have rather been killed though. At least that would have made sense.

I still don't think the freedom of speech means the same thing it did in 1789. It has changed a little bit. Some things aren't considered free speech anymore.

I agree with this. Why not just block you.

 

[Michelle420]

I like that video. It is correct. My old self is dead. This lady went after me from every direction imaginable. I said to her, "I don't know why you care. You don't even live here." I told her to send anything she said to me by mail and I gave her my address.

I know morally speaking I should kill her but I'm not going to. It isn't worth it. She filed criminal charges against me. I was only charged with one. She filed a sexual harrassment claim against me that was denied. She appealed and the appeal was denied. She filed a restraining order against me. She convinced the Board of Education to remove me from office. I lost over $10,000 in income. She is suing me for $300,000.

I know morally speaking I should kill her for these major disruptions in my life but I won't. It isn't worth it. I just have to believe she will get what she deserves and I have to just let it go. She is a disgusting sack of shit and I'm not. So at least I have that going for me. I'm not going to kill her though. Was that your advice?

Oh ok so she filed a restraining order so in essence she's blocking you if that order included not contacting her in text messages.

Why would you think of taking her life away over it? You could have stopped at any time and self regulated. You are a politician so it's not believable you don't know the law. It is more that you enjoy to challenge it. It probably isn't even about her in and of itself, it is more about seeing how far you can go with your own agenda on the matter. This all my own perception and opinion as an outsider looking in. So far.

 

[presonorek]

I don't know if you hate free speech or not. Only you know that.

Do you think sometimes speech should be punished if it is the bad kind?

Yes

You hate America. I love America. Nothing we say to each other will ever make sense. You'll never understand my level of love for America and our alleged system of government.

People like you are the norm. You are right. There is nothing worth fighting for. Disgusting filthy rotten horrific scum like you have destroyed America in the name of politeness. There was nothing polite about the founding of the United States of America. I apologize for serving in the military. I never knew that every single citizen passionately hates America. Now I am starting to see it more and more. Everybody hates the freedom of speech except me.

Our country deserves to be ruled by the Chinese government or the Islamic Facist. I love what America is supposed to be. I passionately hate Americans.

 

[Michelle420]

You hate America. I love America. Nothing we say to each other will ever make sense. You'll never understand my level of love for America and our alleged system of government.

People like you are the norm. You are right. There is nothing worth fighting for. Disgusting filthy rotten horrific scum like you have destroyed America in the name of politeness. There was nothing polite about the founding of the United States of America. I apologize for serving in the military. I never knew that every single citizen passionately hates America. Now I am starting to see it more and more. Everybody hates the freedom of speech except me.

That is a story you are telling yourself. You don't know me. You like to be provacative. I believe in and worship one God.

 

[presonorek]

I believe in and worship one God.

I believe you. Roman's 13 is 100% opposite to the spirit that framed America. You and I are from different planets.

There was nothing Christian at all about the founding of the United States of America except that Christians lived here. There is so much about our constitution that is opposite to the Bible.

So if you believe in the God in the Bible then it is crystal clear why you think I should be punished.

If you believe in the first amendment of the constitution then you would not be able to see that i committed any crime whatsoever. One is Christian. One is anti Christian.

You are right. There is nothing for me to fight for. You Christians own the government and can impose God's will on anybody you want and feel good about it. Rebelling against England was not God's will. Lol The Bible forbids sedition and rebellion.

 

[Michelle420]

I believe you. Roman's 13 is 100% opposite to the spirit that framed America. You and I are from different planets.

There was nothing Christian at all about the founding of the United States of America except that Christians lived here. There is so much about our constitution that is opposite to the Bible.

So if you believe in the God in the Bible then it is crystal clear why you think I should be punished.

If you believe in the first amendment of the constitution then you would not be able to see that i committed any crime whatsoever. One is Christian. One is anti Christian.

You are right. There is nothing for me to fight for. You Christians own the government and can impose God's will on anybody you want and feel good about it. Rebelling against England was not God's will. Lol The Bible forbids sedition and rebellion.

I live in todays present reality and I worship one God. We have different perspectives yes I agree.

 

[presonorek]

I live in todays present reality and I worship one God. We have different perspectives yes I agree.

I am sorry. I don't even trust myself anymore.

Everybody tells me that I committed a crime. I have to believe them. I don't know what else to do.

It doesn't make sense. Something ain't right and it is probably me.

People dog pile on me wherever I go. I'm probably delusional and don't even know it. I'll never trust myself again.

I used to be such a good person.

 

[Michelle420]

I am sorry. I don't even trust myself anymore.

Everybody tells me that I committed a crime. I have to believe them. I don't know what else to do.

It doesn't make sense. Something ain't right and it is probably me.

Well I don't mean to make you feel worse. That is not my intention. I don't know you so I ask questions and form my own opinion. But again I don't know you I only know very little based on what you share. So all I know about you is this incident and that you served in the Military which I thanked you for your service.

 

[presonorek]

Well I don't mean to make you feel worse. That is not my intention. I don't know you so I ask questions and form my own opinion. But again I don't know you I only know very little based on what you share. So all I know about you is this incident and that you served in the Military which I thanked you for your service.

People dog pile on me wherever I go. I have been through this journey by myself with no advocate whatsoever.

It doesn't bother me that I am a criminal or that I got kicked out of office or that I am being sued for $300,000. It bothers me that it is so obvious to everybody but me. I honestly can't see it and have been told by multiple people throughout my life that I am the most self aware person they know. I can see that I done something wrong. I just can't see that I done anything illegal.

This has been a lonely process for the last 14 months. Nobody is on my side and they never will be. I am some sort of monster and that bothers me a lot. I just called her out on her nonsense and she retaliated.

I used to be such a good person before this happened. Now I am just trash and I will never recover from this.

 

[presonorek]

I wish I had all the text messages to show you guys.

 

[Michelle420]

People dog pile on me wherever I go. I have been through this journey by myself with no advocate whatsoever.

It doesn't bother me that I am a criminal or that I got kicked out of office or that I am being sued for $300,000. It bothers me that it is so obvious to everybody but me. I honestly can't see it and have been told by multiple people throughout my life that I am the most self aware person they know. I can see that I done something wrong. I just can't see that I done anything illegal.

This has been a lonely process for the last 14 months. Nobody is on my side and they never will be. I am some sort of monster and that bothers me a lot.

That makes sense. I can understand that, I get treated bad that way about one issue that matters to me and I get very passionate about it. I am guilty at times on not regulating myself before I take an action I could potentially regret. I do understand that and your passion is free speech.

I desire God more though and God's will. I feel much better when I let God take charge.

 

[presonorek]

I let God take charge.

How do you do that?

 

[Michelle420]

How do you do that?

I mean I pray. So that's why we have different perspectives. I mean you don't have to be religious some people meditate or get a support system of friends in place, or see a therapist. Did the Military teach any stress relief strategies?

 

[Brick Layer]

Do you have any better citations? ...

Uniform State Laws (uniform child support orders) every state has its own method of citing local law in conformity with the Interstate Family Support Act and/or the (Convention).

I cited Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996).

I cited the Hague Child Support Convention "the law of the land" and binding on the states via the U.S. Constitution art. VI, cl.2.

I cited UIFSA a treaty into state law (United Nations "international governmental organization" IGO multilateral treaty - the Hague Child Support Convention into State Law), an "intergovernmental organization" IGO (formerly known as interstate).

As a Michiganian, I cited appropriate local Michigan law coinciding with uniform laws.

I cited definitions, keywords, meanings, and phrases, UIFSA terminology to make more readily understandable for U.S. bench and bar a process that is denominated as a "maintenance arrangement" in the Convention.

In the United States, private agreements are not recognized and enforced as decisions unless they are, in fact, incorporated in a decision. The concept of "authentic instruments" does not exist in the United States.

THE AGREEMENT
OR LACK THEREOF
AS A REMEDY FOR ALL
CATEGORY

LAYING DOWN THE LAW EH!!!

Cuicunque aliquis quid concedit concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit.

To whomever anyone grants a thing the is considered also to grant that without which the thing itself could not be (the sine qua non). 11 Coke 52.

The UIFSA's strict record mechanism in the United States, for the (Convention) “law of the land” and binding on the states, U.S. Constitution art. VI, cl.2.,
Legislative Equation:

Child Support Case Establishment

Local Law + UIFSA Procedures and Law = Valid Support Order/Foreign Support Order, one-time-one-place-one-order worldwide system CCEJ linchpin record criteria mechanism, compliance for Title IV-D funding to the states.

MICHIGAN LOCAL LAW, MCL 552.604(3)(b) + UIFSA PROCEDURES AND UIFSA LAW, UIFSA § 701(6)(A)(i) = A RECOGNIZABLE ENFORCEABLE VALID SUPPORT ORDER. UIFSA COMPLIANCE REQUIRED FOR IV-D FUNDING TO THE STATE, THE PARTIES AGREEMENT IS AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS (FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING THE SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS) 42 U.S. Code § 651, ACCORDING TO THE ARRANGEMENT (IN THE CONCRETE CASE) THE “PARTIES AGREEMENT” OBLIGATION “THAT ASSIGNS” 45 CFR § 302.50(a)(2), ASSIGNMENT TO THE STATE (CENTRAL REGISTRY 42 U.S. CODE § 654a) FOR COLLECTION OF SUPPORT PAYMENTS 42 U.S. CODE § 654b [SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS SECTIONS 454A AND 454B]. WEHUNT V LEDBETTER 875 F.2D 1558 (11TH CIR. 1989) STATES THAT CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD – IT IS RECOVERY OF FUNDS FOR THE STATE TREASURY.

P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), added a title IV-D State plan requirement under which the State plan must provide that, on or after October 1, 1998, the State agency will operate a State disbursement unit (SDU), see ACTION TRANSMITTAL, OCSE-AT-97-13.

Nihil tam propriaum imperio quam legibus vivere.

Nothing is so becoming to authority as to live according to the law.

Each, Law must have an effect, not part of the law, but all of each law!

All child support law is uniform and all local state law must meet criteria and be in conformity with UIFSA law, UIFSA processes, UIFSA procedures, and UIFSA rules; “consents made on the record in the issuing state” since welfare reform legislation. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) means the federally required state laws which provide mechanisms for establishing and enforcing child support.

U.S. Code Title 42 CHAPTER 7 SUBCHAPTER IV PART D §666
Section 654(20)(A) of this title shall have in effect all of the laws to improve child support enforcement effectiveness AND Section 654(20)(B) of this title shall implement the procedures [UIFSA procedures/utilitarian evidence/record mechanism ] which are prescribed in or pursuant to such [uniform] laws.

Types of procedures required
In order to satisfy section 654(20)(A) of this title, each State must have in effect laws [“law of the land”] [The “Convention” multilateral treaty] [UIFSA LAW] requiring the use of the following procedures [UIFSA procedures], consistent with this section [42 U.S. Code § 666] and with regulations of the Secretary, to increase the effectiveness of the program [a one-order-at a time-world system] which the State administers under this part [U.S. Code Title 42 CHAPTER 7 SUBCHAPTER IV PART D §666] [all of this part, including both Title 42 U.S. Code § 666(F); and Title 42 U.S. Code § 666(f), all of this [UIFSA] part, means also UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i)].

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

Executi est execution juris secundum judicium.
Execution is the execution of the law according to the judgment.

Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a court of equity’s creation of private law [child support is, private international law]. The tool of contempt sanctions puts police powers in the hands of private citizens. Ultimately, if one party does not follow [adjudication] [parties’ written “support agreement” entered into the record, submitted by the parties, and enforced as a judgment, decree, or order] a family court order the other party may be able to have that party incarcerated.

Table of Authorities,

Local Law, UIFSA Procedure & Law—record mechanism:
Table of Authorities:

● P.L. 104-193—Aug. 22, 1996 110 STAT. 2221. Subtitle C—Streamlining and Uniformity of Procedures

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 666(a).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 666(f).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 654(1).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 654(20).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 654(22).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 654(23), voluntary.

● MCL 552.501(2), voluntary by agreement funds for the care of children/support of children.

● MCL 552.604(3)(b), an agreement “support agreement” in the state CCEJ, local law, in conformity to UIFSA Law & UIFSA procedure, the utilitarian evidence submitted by the parties also known as the uniform “record mechanism” in the U.S., when Michigan is the issuing state establishing the obligation; compare the agreement “support agreement” inside the issuing state with coinciding UIFSA § 701(6)(A)(i) the agreement “foreign support agreement” “outside this state”.

● MCL 552.2205(1). issuance of child-support orders [local law]; notice, this is UIFSA processes and procedures, all child-support cases under UIFSA Law since welfare reform federal legislation. Issuing state, documentation submitted with a case, (case establishment) must meet the requirements of UIFSA (criteria under UIFSA § 701(6)). Exclusive jurisdiction to modify compare MCL 552.2205(1) with coinciding UIFSA § 701(6)(iii). If part of UIFSA matters for example MCL 553.2205 then all of UIFSA matters for example UIFSA § 701(6) and for UIFSA Law, UIFSA process, UIFSA procedures, and/or “the (Convention)” to have an effect.

● UIFSA § 701(6)(A)(i), an agreement “foreign support agreement” abroad and/or outside of the issuing state, compare with coinciding local law Michigan’s MCL 552.604(3)(b).

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 302.34(a), compliance.
Cooperative Reimbursement Program (CRP) refers to the contract entered into by the state and the counties. The CRP requires counties.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 302.50(a)(2), agreement, refers to the contract/agreement/stipulation entered into by the obligor party/parent; compare with Michigan’s MCL 552.604(3)(b) and UIFSA § 701(6)(i).

Regulations Title 45 Chapter III Part 303

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(b)(1).

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(c)(2), due process of the parties.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(c)(3) voluntary support order.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(d)(1), verifiable audit trail.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(d)(3), voluntary support liability and stipulated agreements.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(d)(4), [this fall under “other legal process” (45 CFR § 302.50(a)(2))].

● 45 CFR § 303.2 - Establishment of cases and maintenance of case records.
(c) The case record must be supplemented with all information and documents pertaining to the case, as well as all relevant facts, dates, actions taken, contacts made and results in a case.

The Nevada Supreme Court in Morelli v. Morelli 102 Nev. 326, 720 P.2d 704 (1986) reasoned that the child is an intended third-party beneficiary of an agreement for support between the parents.

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. California constitution article vI sec 21 ; also in the marriage of djulus 2017

"When a trial court has knowledge that one of the parties to a suit does not consent to a judgment, the trial court should refuse to sanction the agreement by making it the judgment of the court." Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Tex. 1983)
(citing Burnaman v. Heaton, 240 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex. 1951)).

More specifically, "[a] court `cannot render a valid agreed judgment absent consent at the time it is rendered.'" Chisholm v. Chisholm, 209 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 461 (Tex. 1995)); accord Burnaman, 240 S.W.2d at 291240 S.W.2d at 291 ("A valid consent judgment cannot be rendered by a court when consent of one of the parties thereto is wanting."). "Without consent, the judgment is void." Samples Exterminators v. Samples, 640 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Tex. 1982) (per curiam); accord Giles v. Giles, 830 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1992, no writ) 830 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1992, no writ).

IN INTEREST OF JG, Tex: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2018 This case is important because the Attorney General is asking for the same thing that we are demanding, without valid consent, there is no order and it must be vacated or dismissed because it is void.

 

[ReinyDays]

Uniform State Laws (uniform child support orders) every state has its own method of citing local law in conformity with the Interstate Family Support Act and/or the (Convention).

I cited Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996).

I cited the Hague Child Support Convention "the law of the land" and binding on the states via the U.S. Constitution art. VI, cl.2.

I cited UIFSA a treaty into state law (United Nations "international governmental organization" IGO multilateral treaty - the Hague Child Support Convention into State Law), an "intergovernmental organization" IGO (formerly known as interstate).

As a Michiganian, I cited appropriate local Michigan law coinciding with uniform laws.

I cited definitions, keywords, meanings, and phrases, UIFSA terminology to make more readily understandable for U.S. bench and bar a process that is denominated as a "maintenance arrangement" in the Convention.

In the United States, private agreements are not recognized and enforced as decisions unless they are, in fact, incorporated in a decision. The concept of "authentic instruments" does not exist in the United States.

THE AGREEMENT
OR LACK THEREOF
AS A REMEDY FOR ALL
CATEGORY

LAYING DOWN THE LAW EH!!!

Cuicunque aliquis quid concedit concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit.

To whomever anyone grants a thing the is considered also to grant that without which the thing itself could not be (the sine qua non). 11 Coke 52.

The UIFSA's strict record mechanism in the United States, for the (Convention) “law of the land” and binding on the states, U.S. Constitution art. VI, cl.2.,
Legislative Equation:

Child Support Case Establishment

Local Law + UIFSA Procedures and Law = Valid Support Order/Foreign Support Order, one-time-one-place-one-order worldwide system CCEJ linchpin record criteria mechanism, compliance for Title IV-D funding to the states.

MICHIGAN LOCAL LAW, MCL 552.604(3)(b) + UIFSA PROCEDURES AND UIFSA LAW, UIFSA § 701(6)(A)(i) = A RECOGNIZABLE ENFORCEABLE VALID SUPPORT ORDER. UIFSA COMPLIANCE REQUIRED FOR IV-D FUNDING TO THE STATE, THE PARTIES AGREEMENT IS AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS (FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCING THE SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS) 42 U.S. Code § 651, ACCORDING TO THE ARRANGEMENT (IN THE CONCRETE CASE) THE “PARTIES AGREEMENT” OBLIGATION “THAT ASSIGNS” 45 CFR § 302.50(a)(2), ASSIGNMENT TO THE STATE (CENTRAL REGISTRY 42 U.S. CODE § 654a) FOR COLLECTION OF SUPPORT PAYMENTS 42 U.S. CODE § 654b [SOCIAL SECURITY LAWS SECTIONS 454A AND 454B]. WEHUNT V LEDBETTER 875 F.2D 1558 (11TH CIR. 1989) STATES THAT CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD – IT IS RECOVERY OF FUNDS FOR THE STATE TREASURY.

P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), added a title IV-D State plan requirement under which the State plan must provide that, on or after October 1, 1998, the State agency will operate a State disbursement unit (SDU), see ACTION TRANSMITTAL, OCSE-AT-97-13.

Nihil tam propriaum imperio quam legibus vivere.

Nothing is so becoming to authority as to live according to the law.

Each, Law must have an effect, not part of the law, but all of each law!

All child support law is uniform and all local state law must meet criteria and be in conformity with UIFSA law, UIFSA processes, UIFSA procedures, and UIFSA rules; “consents made on the record in the issuing state” since welfare reform legislation. Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) means the federally required state laws which provide mechanisms for establishing and enforcing child support.

U.S. Code Title 42 CHAPTER 7 SUBCHAPTER IV PART D §666
Section 654(20)(A) of this title shall have in effect all of the laws to improve child support enforcement effectiveness AND Section 654(20)(B) of this title shall implement the procedures [UIFSA procedures/utilitarian evidence/record mechanism ] which are prescribed in or pursuant to such [uniform] laws.

Types of procedures required
In order to satisfy section 654(20)(A) of this title, each State must have in effect laws [“law of the land”] [The “Convention” multilateral treaty] [UIFSA LAW] requiring the use of the following procedures [UIFSA procedures], consistent with this section [42 U.S. Code § 666] and with regulations of the Secretary, to increase the effectiveness of the program [a one-order-at a time-world system] which the State administers under this part [U.S. Code Title 42 CHAPTER 7 SUBCHAPTER IV PART D §666] [all of this part, including both Title 42 U.S. Code § 666(F); and Title 42 U.S. Code § 666(f), all of this [UIFSA] part, means also UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i)].

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

Executi est execution juris secundum judicium.
Execution is the execution of the law according to the judgment.

Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a court of equity’s creation of private law [child support is, private international law]. The tool of contempt sanctions puts police powers in the hands of private citizens. Ultimately, if one party does not follow [adjudication] [parties’ written “support agreement” entered into the record, submitted by the parties, and enforced as a judgment, decree, or order] a family court order the other party may be able to have that party incarcerated.

Table of Authorities,

Local Law, UIFSA Procedure & Law—record mechanism:
Table of Authorities:

● P.L. 104-193—Aug. 22, 1996 110 STAT. 2221. Subtitle C—Streamlining and Uniformity of Procedures

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 666(a).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 666(f).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 654(1).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 654(20).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 654(22).

● Title 42 U.S. Code § 654(23), voluntary.

● MCL 552.501(2), voluntary by agreement funds for the care of children/support of children.

● MCL 552.604(3)(b), an agreement “support agreement” in the state CCEJ, local law, in conformity to UIFSA Law & UIFSA procedure, the utilitarian evidence submitted by the parties also known as the uniform “record mechanism” in the U.S., when Michigan is the issuing state establishing the obligation; compare the agreement “support agreement” inside the issuing state with coinciding UIFSA § 701(6)(A)(i) the agreement “foreign support agreement” “outside this state”.

● MCL 552.2205(1). issuance of child-support orders [local law]; notice, this is UIFSA processes and procedures, all child-support cases under UIFSA Law since welfare reform federal legislation. Issuing state, documentation submitted with a case, (case establishment) must meet the requirements of UIFSA (criteria under UIFSA § 701(6)). Exclusive jurisdiction to modify compare MCL 552.2205(1) with coinciding UIFSA § 701(6)(iii). If part of UIFSA matters for example MCL 553.2205 then all of UIFSA matters for example UIFSA § 701(6) and for UIFSA Law, UIFSA process, UIFSA procedures, and/or “the (Convention)” to have an effect.

● UIFSA § 701(6)(A)(i), an agreement “foreign support agreement” abroad and/or outside of the issuing state, compare with coinciding local law Michigan’s MCL 552.604(3)(b).

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 302.34(a), compliance.
Cooperative Reimbursement Program (CRP) refers to the contract entered into by the state and the counties. The CRP requires counties.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 302.50(a)(2), agreement, refers to the contract/agreement/stipulation entered into by the obligor party/parent; compare with Michigan’s MCL 552.604(3)(b) and UIFSA § 701(6)(i).

Regulations Title 45 Chapter III Part 303

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(b)(1).

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(c)(2), due process of the parties.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(c)(3) voluntary support order.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(d)(1), verifiable audit trail.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(d)(3), voluntary support liability and stipulated agreements.

● Title 45 U.S. Code § 303.101(d)(4), [this fall under “other legal process” (45 CFR § 302.50(a)(2))].

● 45 CFR § 303.2 - Establishment of cases and maintenance of case records.
(c) The case record must be supplemented with all information and documents pertaining to the case, as well as all relevant facts, dates, actions taken, contacts made and results in a case.

The Nevada Supreme Court in Morelli v. Morelli 102 Nev. 326, 720 P.2d 704 (1986) reasoned that the child is an intended third-party beneficiary of an agreement for support between the parents.

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. California constitution article vI sec 21 ; also in the marriage of djulus 2017

"When a trial court has knowledge that one of the parties to a suit does not consent to a judgment, the trial court should refuse to sanction the agreement by making it the judgment of the court." Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Tex. 1983)
(citing Burnaman v. Heaton, 240 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex. 1951)).

More specifically, "[a] court `cannot render a valid agreed judgment absent consent at the time it is rendered.'" Chisholm v. Chisholm, 209 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 461 (Tex. 1995)); accord Burnaman, 240 S.W.2d at 291240 S.W.2d at 291 ("A valid consent judgment cannot be rendered by a court when consent of one of the parties thereto is wanting."). "Without consent, the judgment is void." Samples Exterminators v. Samples, 640 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Tex. 1982) (per curiam); accord Giles v. Giles, 830 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1992, no writ) 830 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1992, no writ).

IN INTEREST OF JG, Tex: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2018 This case is important because the Attorney General is asking for the same thing that we are demanding, without valid consent, there is no order and it must be vacated or dismissed because it is void.

I just checked ... California, Oregon and Washington Stae all have their own laws, and only conform to the financial parts of UIFSA ... I've pursued a case in a court of law that involved the NIFSA, it's strictly voluntary to the States ... if the states comply with the provisions, they get additional money ... if the state doesn't comply, they don't get extra money ... State Laws are still strictly a State affair ...

You've mistaken every State joining with every State being mandated ... it's A LOT of Federal money involved ...

Sorry ... I asked for better references, not references that don't apply ... keep typing, maybe eventually you'll post something meaningful ... but I doubt it ...

 

[Brick Layer]

WOW!!!
Just wow, asking myself, “Why the deep gouge – eh?”

I just checked ... California, Oregon, and Washington Stae all have their own laws, and only conform to the financial parts of UIFSA ... I've pursued a case in a court of law that involved the NIFSA, it's strictly voluntary to the States ... if the states comply with the provisions, they get additional money ... if the state doesn't comply, they don't get extra money ... State Laws are still strictly a State affair ...
You've mistaken every State joining with every State being mandated ... it's A LOT of Federal money involved ...
Sorry ... I asked for better references, not references that don't apply ... keep typing, maybe eventually you'll post something meaningful ... but I doubt it ...

Seriously, on a more positive note, thanks for the constructive criticism it is always helpful to know others' perspectives.

Looking back in review of this thread, for something meaningful, regarding the topic let us not be confused by my intentions of posting...

Posting: "observance of those general rules established in our system of jurisprudence for the security of private rights"; [hence voluntary child support by agreement, a private right].

"in the concrete, it means that in a contest involving these rights, a person will be accorded the opportunity to contest the propriety of each step in the action sought to be taken against him";

"the term 'due process of law' is synonymous or interchangeable with, or equivalent to, law of the land, a phrase appearing in many of the state constitutions, due process of law being said to mean, in brief, the law of the land, including the unwritten law.";

"Other synonymous or equivalent terms are due course of law, due course of the law of the land, and course of the common law.

LAW OF THE LAND, an example of due process, is the private agreement in child support a worldwide system since the welfare reform federal legislation.

READERS NOTE:
I am not selling anything, I am not promoting anything, and I did not write the citations cited or the references illustrated (photo montage) within these thread postings, yet, every picture tells a story doesn't it?

[For better references, that apply, citing the BIBLE a book of word pictures, see Isaiah 28:10]

"Without Due Process" is like having "Rights without Remedies" [Title IV-D contains no private remedy-- either judicial or administrative--through which aggrieved persons can seek redress] [notice, the private agreement, defined, mandated UIFSA LAW, linchpin record mechanism in the U.S. since welfare reform].

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

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CHILD SUPPORT) :rock: Statutes of limitations serve important purposes in our criminal justice system. Not only do they protect defendants from having to defend against stale claims, they pressure law enforcement officials to act promptly. The public is served by them in...

www.usmessageboard.com

FACT:
CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, WEHUNT V LEDBETTER 875 F.2D 1558 (11TH CIR. 1989), see source:

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4801&context=uclrev&fbclid=IwAR3d9ICDiQM1Sp9NbWTCcqDwUyiYmz1hFAAUHNcIF6tedS0JAj0HMp9_H4Q.

I AM IN AGREEMENT, state laws are strictly a State affair, and every state has its method of citing their local law "to establish child support obligations" For, reader please rereview what has been posted herein, my posting for this thread starting on page 5, then again on page 7 here currently, this is a fact, state law is uniform (treaty into state law, the UIFSA experience, the Convention "law of the land" via U.S. Constitution art. VI, cl.2. ).

I just checked ... California, Oregon, and Washington State all have their own laws, and only conform to the financial parts of UIFSA ... I've pursued a case in a court of law that involved the NIFSA, it's strictly voluntary to the States ...

You've mistaken every State joining with every State being mandated ...

California, Oregon, and Washington state all have their UIFSA Laws (uniform state laws) uniform processes, and procedures; read "Background" [first page of first hyperlink] it states as I have truthfully explained without deception also see, the other links below each state was mandated to adopt the 2008 Version of UIFSA:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SPR16-17.pdf

ORS Chapter 110 - Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

Chapter 26.21A RCW: UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT

app.leg.wa.gov

EVERY STATE JOINING
2008 Interstate Family Support Act, Family Law | Civil Procedure & Courts | International Law (as a condition of continuing to receive federal funds for state child support programs.

EVERY STATE BEING MANDATED
Title IV-D is voluntary (state participation) but to receive federal funds for state child support programs every state is mandated to make UIFSA and or the Convention have an effect.

Uniform laws

Interstate Family Support Act - Uniform Law Commission

www.uniformlaws.org

In, Michigan

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2015-2016/billanalysis/House/htm/2015-HLA-4742-67061FB8.htm

all have their own laws, and only conform to the financial parts of UIFSA ...

This issuing state's statutory laws must conform to the uniform family laws prescribed under UIFSA law, UIFSA process, and UIFSA procedures and cannot simply conform to the financial parts of UIFSA for the Convention and or the UIFSA to have an effect. Every issuing state child support establishment must adhere to [UIFSA case construct] document records that meet criteria for enforcement and recognition across state lines and abroad, every issuing state child support case must be in conformity with UIFSA CEJ linchpin rules - child support is evidence-based and case-specific. If the parties' agreement [your state legislation], in Michigan MCL 552.604(3)(b) and found in conformity to UIFSA 701(6)(A)(i), if neither has an effect and/or are dismissable as insignificant and/or meaningless (to be ignored) then why are both citations uniformly written and/or what would be the legislated intent of such legislations be (if not private rights)??? The States cannot conform to part of a law "the financial parts" without conforming to the entire law (uniform processes and procedures), such as the voluntary consent agreement in the issuing state court continuing, exclusive jurisdiction the "support agreement" enforced as a judgment, decree, or order in the issuing state.

THE RELEVANCE OF A PRIVATE AGREEMENT (INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE RIGHTCONCERNINGTO THE AGREEMENT, GIVEN ITS VOLUNTARY NATURE, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS (FUNDING) VOLUNTARILY BY AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT SUCH AS A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT, UIFSA DOCUMENT RECORD CRITERIA FOR RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF A VALID SUPPORT ORDER "ONE-ORDER" WORLD SYSTEM.

AND THE THEME SONG,
BLEEDING ME, by METALICA. [BACKGROUND NOISE] [entertainment while reading]
"...digging my way, pushing, for something better!"





PHOTO-MONTAGE CONTINUED

Practical law : a treatise on business law especially compiled for schools that teach accounting, business practise, office methods, and kindred subjects : Hamilton, Burritt, b. 1869 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xv, 222 p. ; 23 cm

archive.org

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, REGARDING INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE RIGHTS, AND DUE PROCESS, AB INITIO, GOVERNMENT A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC
Remember this is simply an internet forum, notice to all please do your own research... form your own conclusions, and learn to do by doing!

Happy Paper Trails!!!

 

[PeterPilot]

Until citizens on both Grand Juries and Petit Juries start to stand up to government malfeasance, rights will continue to be violated as the government likes.