I believe this is what happened (See letter below):

August 9, 2006
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
United States Senate
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

RE: EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE TO PARDON FELLOW NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT – MR. JOHN MURTARI – ON THE GROUNDS OF ENTRAPMENT

Dear Senator Clinton:

I recently wrote you about saving Children(s) rights by way of E-COURT and I reported last time that your team responded immediately.

Now we need your help to save the rights of a Non-Custodial Parent. His name is Mr. John Murtari. He is a leader in the Children(s) rights movement. I believe he has been framed as part of a debtors-prison-strategy used by wealthy lawyers, psychologists, custodial parents, politicians, and/or prosecutors to feather bed or further their careers at the expense of the Non-Custodial Parent. This strategy is used across two (2) continents. Their credo is: “pay us or else”. In this case, the “else” translated to a jail sentence. In other cases, like mine, it translates into denial of visitation. Please see his website http://www.akidsright.org for more background information on the Murtari case.

Upon reviewing John’s website, you’ll find his six month incarceration was unlawful for the following reasons:

• “DOUBLE BILLING” the defendant on every occasion so they can put John into Debtors Prison is the most probable cause and by not providing receipts. In Grunfeld v. Grunfeld, 94 N.Y.2d 696, 709 N.Y.S.2d 486 (2000), the Court of Appeals clearly prohibited doubling. These excess monies are really alimony and are taxed accordingly. Support monies go under the income tax radar which is clearly tax evasion by the custodial parent.
• Debtors’ prison and Peonage was outlawed in the 1800’s with slavery. John is being charge twice his earnings and his downward modification requests are ignored by Judges.
• There was an abuse of power or police misconduct which is in violation of Title 42, U.S.C, Section 14141
• There was questionable behavior on the part of the Judge, Prosecutor, Custodial Parent, and/or Lawyers where the motive is to be determined.

NOTE: There is reasonable cause to believe the motive was because John’s web site competes with Bar Association; hence the system has conspired to slow him down.

More importantly, as tax payers, I do not approve of wasting good tax monies on ruining peoples’ lives when it could be spent on a Child’s education.

Please let him out so he can pay his child support and continue his Children(s) rights efforts. His incarceration will only put him further behind in his Child Support obligations.

Your consideration in this matter is appreciated not for my sake but for the Children.

Sincerely,

>scott

“The Antipeonage Act does not apply to child support. Child support is an obligation and not a debt. The argument has been made many times over the years, and each time it has failed in the courts.”

“Written like a true lawyer. The family courts are a joke. To the average Joe out here, owing money is the same thing. Lawyers like to parse words meant to confuse. polititians / lawyers are masters at it. A pile of crap may be called a pile of feces, still stinks. S: (n) obligation (the state of being obligated to do or pay something) S: (n) debt (the state of owing something (especially money).

“Mr. Murtari is quite misguided in his efforts. Firstly, Senator Clinton has no obligation to meet with him and his group.”

The Framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress out of a desire to have two houses to check each other. One house was intended to be a “people’s house” that would be very sensitive to public opinion. So why is Senator Clinton not obligated to meet with Mr. Murtari and his group? I guess that depends on the meaning of the word is.

“Secondly, his so called Family Rights Act is not something that can be legislated at the federal level. It instead, is something specifically for each state to adopt in full, in part or to totally reject.”

I’ll have to check with House Speaker Jim Black from North Carolina to help me with that one. Maybe he could show me how to get things done, without breaking any laws of course. Maybe he could slide something in on a bill at the last minute.

“Mr. Murtari is a veteran. Is continually mentioning this supposed to indicate that people believe that he is “exempt” from the laws that everyone else must follow?”

Everyone but the people who write and interpret them. Mr Murtari served his country and is now serving his time. Where do you get “exempt”? Cindy Sheehan uses her dead son and the far left wing to get her message across. Veteran means something to me if not Hilary Clinton.

“Mr. Murtari has created his own problems by being stubborn and wanting to be a martyr. That is his choice, and in rational people’s minds, can hardly make him a hero. His personal choices to take care of his mother and not try to pay child support have left him effectively without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.”

I see, don’t buck the system or stand up for what you believe in. Martyr, sufferer (one who suffers for the sake of principle). It’s all about pot$ and window$ for the rational thinking lawyers, politicians and doctors. Pay to play as usual. No pay, go straight to prison and to hell with the child. laws are written by politicians and lawyers for politicians and lawyers for the sole porpose of keeping we the sheeple in line so that big corporations / big government can bleed off as much money as possible from us. Maybe I should become a Mexican citizen and walk back across the border.

Too bad Mr. Murtari is just a blimp on the green radar screen of the justice system. Adolph couldn’t have written your responce any better.

I don’t agree with his hunger strike either. I think it’s pointless and if he loves his kid, he will have to put up with his situation. However, it’s not just the issue of child support. Most fathers want to support their own kids – in their own homes. They want to be full time dads. Women freely break agreements not to move away. It happened to me and lots of other men. Murtari had his ex take his son across the country. Air fare for frequent visits can cost more than child support. All of his expenses combined were forcing him to lose contact with his child.

In other words, the only good thing in his life was taken away and replaced with a court-ordered debt. That is the point – not some feminist need to extract support payments to vindictive ex-wives.

Most fathers who have sole custody don’t ask for or get support money from mothers who aren’t around. Murtari did the best he could and is resisting blatant unfairness. He’s not making the right decisions, but his entire campaign isn’t about support payments, it’s about being part of his childs life – one thing modern women are firmly against.

Mr. Murtari is quite misguided in his efforts. Firstly, Senator Clinton has no obligation to meet with him and his group. Secondly, his so called Family Rights Act is not something that can be legislated at the federal level. It instead, is something specifically for each state to adopt in full, in part or to totally reject.

Mr. Murtari is a veteran. Is continually mentioning this supposed to indicate that people believe that he is “exempt” from the laws that everyone else must follow?

Mr. Murtari has created his own problems by being stubborn and wanting to be a martyr. That is his choice, and in rational people’s minds, can hardly make him a hero. His personal choices to take care of his mother and not try to pay child support have left him effectively without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

His hunger strike – or as he is calling it – his refusal to cooperate will accomplish nothing. He may well find himself being billed by the county for the medical care that he is forcing them to give to him. He can also find himself being psychologically evaluated, which in turn could result in him having supervised visitation with his son in the future, in the worst case scenario.

Mr. Murtari will ultimately become only a small blimp in the fathers rights movement, and held up as an example by those who choose to argue against shared parenting concepts.

I don’t understand why people think anything in the family courts is going to change. If anything, the legal rights of men are going to be further diminished as time goes by.

Look at the situation in Europe where feminism was incorporated into the overall leftist orientation of most governments. Men have virtually no parental rights in Scandinavia or the UK. For now in the US, divorced fathers have it pretty good if they are even allowed to see their children once in a while.

I know our current family law system is intolerable and untenable to men, but it is a reality which will further concretize as time goes by. Men who hate the current system and hate feminism are a smaller minority than they think. Those of us who would like to see change are seriously outnumbered.

Murtari would do better to keep himself out of jail and at least have some contact with his son. His publicity stunt is costing him his family, income and health and it will make absolutely no difference to the public or the politicized family courts.

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/world/history_usa.htm

Try this link roadkill. It’s a little hard to get over the feminist propaganda if you are under…say…40 or 50 but with study you can do it.