• Log In
• Register
• Find Password

• home
• rss
• submission guidelines
• masthead
• letter from the editor
• mra principles and goals
• mnd lifestyles

How to survive the coming food shortage.

6 Responses to “Child Support Roundup”

1. 
   1
   Roger Knight Says:
   August 25th, 2006 at 8:36 pm

   How can you get a fair hearing from a court that is PAYING the cops to come and arrest you?
   Imagine if you plead the Antipeoange Act and claim that the arrest with the intent to place or return you to a condition of peonage is a FELONY? Please see 18 U.S.C. §1581 for further details.
   Imagine if you plead self defense against such FELONY when charged for killing the cops that came to arrest you?

2. 
   2
   Robert Stevens Says:
   August 26th, 2006 at 3:37 am

   Can you say ” Kidnapping and Extortion Racket”!
   Child Support is nothing more than stealing. It is by common law( the only “real law” as I see it)Kidnapping and Extortion , is a criminal act, no matter how pretty and politically correct you try to make it. In fact by “Real Law” when you pay these bitches for stealing your child you are “technically” aiding and abeiting a felony. Because they stole your child and now want you to pay ransom to have any kind right to be a parent anymore.
   The good news is there is a “Lawful” way to stop these “terrorist”. It is rather complicated to do, but you can make them obey their own law. You must understand, the law is a double edge sword, it gives them power, and they like that, but it can also be used to take that power away, if they abuse it. And believe me, the family court abuse it all the time.
   As for Roger Knight and his antipeonage act, these bastards won’t obey it. And I will tell you why! The legal system, is not the original system of law we are supposed to have. No.. Our system is Admiralty/Equity, ie a contract based system based on the UCC, Uniform Commercial Code. It is under this code that the law has remedies to stop the “terroristic behavior” these court.( note: they are not real courts, courts obey the U.S. constitution and these bastards ignore it every chance they get. So Mr. Knight start studying the UCC, it will work. It has worked for me.It has taken a while, But I am just about to the point, I have gotten the theiving bastards off my back. Soon the whole God Awful rackett will be just a bad memory.

3. 
   3
   mruffolo Says:
   August 26th, 2006 at 4:30 pm

   Does the Bureau of Woman’s Affairs still take money from Social Security to hunt down the poor to imprison?

   http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

   See 6B, 6C, and 6D

4. 
   4
   Roger Knight Says:
   August 27th, 2006 at 4:53 pm

   Robert Stevens, have you posted your arguments and briefs in your UCC challenges on the Internet, along with opposition briefs and courts decisions? It would be so much easier for people to evaluate, learn, and plead the Uniform Commercial Code in their state if they had your pioneering work upon which to build.
   In Washington the UCC is enacted and exists as Title 62A of the Revised Code of Washington.
   Here is the problem with UCC challenges to the Child Support Crusade and no-fault divorce:
   The UCC is a set of regulations of contracts for the BUYING AND SELLING OF THINGS.
   Which a marriage is not.
   Now we can argue that to the extent that marriage is a kind of contract, that common sense common law rules of contract formation, interpretation, validity, breach of contract and remedy, contract void where contrary to public policy, etc. apply to the marriage contract and lose to the argument that the extensive statutes that regulate marriage and divorce constitutes positive law passed IN DEROGATION OF COMMON LAW.
   A UCC based argument can fail because Title 26 of the Revised Code of Washington applies SPECIFICALLY to domestic relations, including marriage and divorce, paternity establishment and child support, and therefore it SUPERSEDES ANOTHER STATE LAW, Title 62A, Washington’s UCC, which regulates the buying and selling of things.
   The REAL problem with those who criticize my approach is that while an Antipeonage Act argument usually does not work, the exception being the Brent Moss case in California, is that NO APPROACH WORKS.
   We are up against a wall of bigotry supported by the LACK OF PUBLICITY and LACK OF SOLIDARITY ON OUR PART. If the issue is not covered and therefore invisible to most of the public, the case might as well be sealed file.
   Perhaps Robert Stevens knows a magic trick with the UCC that I am not aware of. And I have as thoroughly studied the UCC as to applying it to family law as I have studied the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act. Which is why I ask about his website. His name on his comment does not show up in blue with an underline.
   But I kinda doubt it.
   I suspect that the success he enjoys is due to the fact he pleads the UCC again and again and therefore the opposition gets tired of it. As he is not the only whale in the ocean, the Captain Ahabs decide to spend their time going after easier to catch whales.
   Which might explain the absence of a website. A wise buck does not make a lot of noise when the hunters decide to go after other deer.
   While the UCC does not provide any criminal penalties, any violation of the Antipeonage Act is a FELONY PUNISHABLE BY UP TO 20 YEARS IN PRISON. 18 U.S.C. §1581.
   Perhaps pleading the UCC and common law arguments, and other ideas such as the Gold Fringe Flag Argument or the Titles of Nobility Amendment Argument, might work to save one’s own skin by the Logan’s Run Effect.
   (Logan’s Run is the last big box office science fiction flick before the Stars Wars movies ruined the genre. Logan succeeded in his escape because the computerized authorities determined that they were using more resources chasing him than he was worth. This sort of thing I call the Logan’s Run Effect.)
   But if our goal is to put these bastards and bitches OUT OF BUSINESS, then it is my humble opinion that SCREAMING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PEONAGE LAW is our best option for accomplishing such goal.
   A chorus is always louder than the solo artist and I for one, am tired of being the tree that falls in the forest that everyone, except those like Robert Stevens, pretends to not hear.

5. 
   5
   Luek Says:
   August 29th, 2006 at 5:52 am

   Men are going to have to come to the realization that he state has declared war on them and start acting accordingly.

   Either surrender or fight back!

6. 
   6
   jsriolo Says:
   August 29th, 2006 at 11:18 am

   The Antipeonage Act should absolutely be upheld but doing that would send quite a shock through the whole family court system. Actually, it would probably shut it down. The same day.

   As much as I would like to see this happen, I just don’t believe it will without a lot of violence. I think that is what it would take to get these criminals out of their courts and into a cell.

   Until that happens are you suggesting that self defence would be a strong claim when killing those that were coming to imprison you? If someone is coming to take your rights in a way not supported by law then I believe that you would be justified in defending yourself. However, I am not comfortable enough to say that the jury of your ‘cop murdering’ case would be conservative enough to actually protect your right to defend yourself.

   Is it better to be judged by 12 or serving time in a debtor’s prison? I don’t know, and hopefully that isn’t a choice I’ll have to make.

Leave a Reply