Urgent: Schwarzenegger must VETO AB2781, Murtari Update
.
AB 2781 (Leno) Child Support Collectors says beginning in 2010 all child support orders in California will include language establishing a judgment in favor of any private collector the obligee may choose to contract with, and the obligation can be increased to cover the collector’s fee by up to 33% of any arrearage and up to 50% of the total fee.
.
Considering that the problems pointed out in the 2003 Urban Institute’s study of Child Support Collectability in California have not been remedied; that the practices used are forcing some low-income parents into hiding and out of their children’s lives, this bill MUST BE VETOED!
.
PLEASE FAX OR CALL! Governor Schwarzenegger’s phone number is 916-445-2841 and his fax is 916-445-4633.
.
.
Civil Disobedience & NonViolent Action
.
.
(Martin Luther King)
.
NonViolent Action – What is it for us?
.
We have held up the ideal that people willing to demonstrate: Faith, Love, and Personal Sacrifice can be the means of effective social change. More specifically, that Parents can promote Family Law reform by demonstrating:
.
1) Faith in a loving God,
2) Love for their children, former spouses, and other “brothers and sisters”, and
3) Willingness to make Personal Sacrifice,
.
NonViolent Action allows you to demonstrate through “unambiguous physical action” the depth of your Faith and belief in your “cause.” It is a positive demonstration of love given at sometimes tremendous personal cost.
.
-
Background -how it was practiced by Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Thoreau and others.
-
Lessons Learned – an attempt to summarize the comment elements from the case studies.
-
Implementation – what it means to us and a Kid’s Right.
- Checklist – to prepare for NonViolent Action.
.
.
If you’re able, please make a donation to Mr. Keller, John’s attorney. Every dollar matters.
.
Mr. Charles Keller Esq.
Att: Murtari Legal Defense
9416 Carousel Center Drive
Syracuse, New York 13290
.
And please add your photo to the growing album of photos from people around the world who support Equal Parenting and John Murtari. (slide show) Just upload to flickr.com with the tag “purple ribbon campaign” or send to teri@akidsright.org.
.
I'm a sun and nature loving, 50-something, laid back, forward thinking, liberal anti-feminist egalitarian, san francisco bay area native, single mom of 4 and yia yia to 2. I've been active in the equal parenting movement since 2002. Known as the purple Queen of Equality, I once blogged as the Feminist4Fathers. Find me now on sharedparentingworks.org and jugsforjustice.org. | More from Teri Stoddard
Stumble It!
August 31st, 2006 at 2:10 pm
“”"Please respect John and act with kindness. It’s the system we’re trying to change. It’s the system we need to attack, not the individuals involved. Like John says, we’re all human and, “we all make mistakes.—"
That is so true! Always attack the system not the people making the abominable system work. Apparatchik underlings like Judge Hedges are just following orders.
By the way, I always felt that Adolf Eichmann got a bum deal too.
August 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pm
I understand John’s statement about how the system needs to be changed, not the individuals involved. I can even understand the tactical reasons for this stance.
Problem with that is that the system is made up of people and it is these people that make the system the way it is. I will bet that Germany’s system in the 1930’s would have been just fine if it weren’t for all of those Nazis!
Likewise, the American system would work just fine if the lawyers and judges actually honored their oaths of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution rather than allow their greed to cause them to set up divorce as a one sided plundering operation based on state sponsored extortion with no regard to the constitutional rights of those involved.
I respect John for what he is doing, for his sacrifice, for the publicity he is getting, and his integrity to his beliefs.
I just don’t share his naive belief that doing the equivalent of obediently riding the trains to Auschwitz and stepping into the “showers” is a satisfactory way to deal with tyranny.
Of course, thank Charles Keller, John’s attorney, don’t abuse him!
But if Judge Hedges and his secretary are catching nasty calls and letters, well, I for one, am not about to condemn that!
August 31st, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Judge Hedges acted fully and in accordance with the law. Judge Hedges did not write the laws. He is merely enforcing the laws as they have been written, and hence, upholding his oath of office.
Judge Hedges had before him a committed and professional deadbeat in the form of Murtari that has repeatedly failed to comply with a valid child support order as well as other laws, such as continuing to drive on a suspended driver’s license.
Murtari does present an interesting argument, i.e. that his travel expenses to visit his son have not been taken into consideration. However, those arguments are not compelling enough to be considered for the simple fact that Murtari has not attempted to help himself. Instead, the message that he presents to the court and society is that he wants everything his way and is unwilling to do anything to rectify the situation that he has found himself in.
Murtari has a Masters Degree in Computer Sciences, which is sufficient to obtain extremely profitable employment in the IT sector. Instead, he has chosen to waste his educational background and experience to conduct meaningless (and ill advised) protests which have resulted in him being jailed repeatedly.
There is no evidence that Murtari has ever attempted to compromise with his ex-wife. Instead, he simply demands that she return to New York, and if she fails to do that, he won’t pay child support or even contribute to his son’s health and dental care. His response to that is that his ex-wife’s family is rich, so they should step up to the plate.
Judge Hedges offered Murtari probation – which Murtari has rejected twice. He rejected it because then he would be agreeing to paying child support – something that he clearly does not want to do. Again – Murtari wants things to be done exactly his way, without any exceptions.
Neither Judge Hedges, nor his secretary, carry any responsibility for what is happening to Murtari. Full and 100% responsibility lies with Murtari.
For Roger Knight not to condemn those who are being “nasty” to Judge Hedges and his secretary speaks volumes about him as well. His attitude and rhetoric shows an irrational person who can easily be used as an example of why what Murtari is fighting for is so wrong. Both Mr. Knight and Mr. Murtari exhibit individuals obsessed with control issues to the detriment of their former spouses and their children.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:13 pm
FamilyLawyer,
(or is that retired lawyer in Thailand?)
I just have to ask…
Are you sleeping with a radical feminist?
August 31st, 2006 at 11:29 pm
John is not a slave. He has no duty to work in the IT Sector. Period. He has his child ripped away from him all across the country and he has to pay for the privilege? I say bullshit.
A parent who selfishly does such a horrid thing is not entitled to compensation for doing it.
John as a valid complaint and I wish him well.
This has nothing to do with supporting a child. The child is well supported. This has to do with the gross unfairness of the system. There is no reason why a parent who has ripped a child away from the other parent should be paid for doing it.
September 1st, 2006 at 12:18 am
FamilyLawyer said,
“Judge Hedges acted fully and in accordance with the law. Judge Hedges did not write the laws. He is merely enforcing the laws as they have been written, and hence, upholding his oath of office.”
Obviously Judge Hedges did not write THESE laws:
13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The Appropriate Legislation:
18 U.S.C. §1581:
(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).
18 U.S.C. §1584:
Whoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term, or brings within the United States any person so held, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
42 U.S.C. §1994:
The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.
Not only did Judge Hedges not write these laws, HE DOES NOT OBEY THEM EITHER!!!
If John Murtari must obtain employment to pay the child support ordered, and this current imprisonment is to punish him for failing to obtain such employment, then it is obvious that the support order and this enforcement is declared null and void by 42 U.S.C. §1994 and is the CRIME defined by 18 U.S.C. §1581.
The United States Grand Jury for your part of New York State has some work to do.
You see, this is an example of why I disagree, respectfully, of course, for I do admire John Murtari, with his contention that it is the system and not the people. I say that the system is fine. We have an elected Congress that passed the Antipeonage Act into law and has yet to repeal it or to alter the substance of what it prohibits. We have a Congress and a group of States that by sufficient supermajorities, passed the 13th Amendment into law authorizing the Antipeonage Act. We have courts who have the duty and the power to enforce the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act by 1) refusing to violate it and 2) striking down all attempts by virtue of the laws, acts, usages, and ORDERS of any state or territory to enslave any person for any debt or obligation.
It is the PERSONNEL, such as Judge Hedges and FamilyLawyer who PERVERT a good system by enforcing clearly unconstitutional laws and violating the Appropriate Legislation passed to enforce the Constitution.
Because Judge Hedges and FamilyLawyer so pervert our good system and our laws, and yes they most certainly DO HAVE A CHOICE, then neither is fit to call themselves citizens of the United States, let alone practice law and serve as judges in her courts.
Judge Hedges, you have the duty to review the Antipeonage Act, sui sponte if need be, and then to declare your sentence and imprisonment of John Murtari null and void and to order his release effective IMMEDIATELY.
Such action on your part would limit your liability, somewhat, should the federal Grand Jury finally get a clue and commence doing their job.
Oh, and if I have “control issues”, they are the same such issues as possessed by John Hancock, Ben Franklin, the Adams Family, G. Washington, people like that. Abe Lincoln, Sojourner Truth, Fred Douglas, MLK, Jr., Ulysses Grant, folks like that who actually believed in American Freedom.
This is the duty I owe my children.
September 1st, 2006 at 3:12 am
For Roger Knight: Your extensive website on antipeonage is certainly entertaining! It amply chronicles your (at times) entertaining efforts to be a deadbeat that has racked up over $80,000 in unpaid child support.
You and Murtari both share some of the same qualities – educated, intelligent, articulate and totally devoid of any common sense. The one difference is that Murtari is not as obnoxious as yourself.
You choose to paper the courts with frivolous reams of paper purporting to be legal documents while Murtari chooses to make his very existence miserable and uncomfortable. Here the difference is that Murtari can at least make a sympathetic argument for not paying child support while your argument is totally baseless. The bottom line is that you both are deadbeats. Eventually, you too will find yourself in jail, but it is doubtful that you will have the courage to do what Murtari is doing.
September 1st, 2006 at 4:18 am
FamilyLawyer, I am glad you enjoy the website. Jail? Been there, done that. It’s had its moments.
I have a little assignment for you. Feel free to review the Briefs in my challenge to the order requiring 30 hours of work per week or 3 job contacts:
http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/57547-3brief.htm
/57547-3replybrief and the State’s Brief:
/57547-3statebrief.pdf and the decision:
57547-3opindisp.htm
All listed on /04-2-10673-7sea.htm
I filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court of Washington, have not posted it yet on the website.
If someone in Teri Stoddard’s fan club would be so kind as to FedEx a check for $200.00 to Clerk, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, One Union Square, 600 University Street, Seattle, Washington 98101-1176, and mark said check for Filing Fee, Petition for Review, Court of Appeals No. 57547-3-I, I would be very thankful.
After that shameless request for financial assistance, on with the show.
If you contact me by e-mail off-list, I will be happy to send you as attachments to e-mail, the Petition for Review and any other documents you request, provided you ask nicely.
Your mission FamilyLawyer, if you choose to accept it, is to draft a Brief of Amicus Curiae to the Supreme Court of Washington and a Motion for Leave to File a Brief of Amicus Curiae (I will not consent to your filing such) and then post these on the Internet for all to read. You can even file it with the Supreme Court of Washington if you wish, as soon as we have a cause number.
The state’s attorney in this one is King County Deputy Prosecutor Jacqueline Jeske, WSBA No. 16790, you will find her e-mail at pro.wsba.org (misspelled there, an extra period)
It is jacqueline.jeske@metrokc.gov
If you choose not to accept this mission, FamilyLawyer, your credibility, what is left of it, will self destruct in 5 seconds.
September 1st, 2006 at 5:25 am
I never expected a blood-sucking, pre-chordate
family law attorney to even be aware of the
concept of `courage’: I guess I’m half impressed.
Of course he comes to use it in order to help
mount an ad hominem attack on a hack legal notion
that he, apparently for lack of expertise, cannot
address on the level of the substance of the law.
“There’s not much law in family law,” they
themselves say. Family lawyers are the law
school flunk-outs who can’t handle the technical
stuff or lack the ambition to go after the really
big bucks: truly the DEADBEATS among jurists.
It’s very typical that they find nothing pithier
to harangue with than to project fluff like an
“obsession with control issues,” desires to have
“everything their way,” and failings to “attempt
to compromise” on litigants—even their own
clients—who advance conscientious claims and
arguments on their children’s and their own behaves.
I don’t know all the details of the case, but find
it in particular_extremely_ unlikely given the man’s
personality and the ways such cases usually develop,
that John Murtari never attempted to compromise with
his ex.’
It’s highly plausible that Murtari, an over-40
American, has no realistic opportunities for
sustaining his earlier peak earnings, and perhaps
poor employment prospects overall. Technology
experience and education are handicaps in today’s
job market, if one also has John’s demographic
—age and nationality—characteristics.
While there may be individual exceptional cases,
adherents of the Daddy Warbucks theory of child
support non-compliance have yet to rebut the
studies like the California collectibility report
cited above. As what’s being called the `demise
of the middle class’—which mainly affects
middle-aged men—worsens, it will have to be
further recognized that a child support obligor’s
capacity to earn may dramatically decline long
before reaching nominal retirement age.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:08 am
Well said wls!
FamilyLawyer, YOU and those like you are the problem. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, yet you and your Supreme Court cronies don’t seem to be able to read it. You want to interpret it, add words where they don’t exist, change the meaning of words when you don’t agree with them. Do you know what the definition of “is” is? Let me school ya; the Constitution is a contract between the individual, and the gov’t (you the people.) Changing the Constitution in any way, shape or form can ONLY be done with an Amendment, yet we have gun control and debtors’ prisons. Why? Because the gov’t (you the people) dream up exceptions to the Constitution. When a contract dispute arises between two parties, the law looks at the words in the contract, not what the individual parties thought was there, but what is actually there. Check this out; “….nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 14th Amendment, in case you haven’t looked at it recently. NOWHERE does it list any kind of exception. It flat out says that any law applies to all citizens, not some specific group or anything at all about being similarly situated. The law geeks think differently. They are wrong. They are traitors. I don’t need a fancy law degree to comprehend what I read. One only needs a law degree to find out how to twist, distort, pervert, and subvert the law. When the trees start sprouting lawyers and judges, I won’t be the one doing it; but I’ll be on the sidelines cheering.
September 1st, 2006 at 8:42 am
Some twit named familylawyer wrote:
“Murtari has a Masters Degree in Computer Sciences, which is sufficient to obtain extremely profitable employment in the IT sector.”
I guess you have never heard about “overseas outsourcing” of IT jobs? That not withstanding, 49 yo white males with arrest records and suspended driver’s license for child support hassles don’t have too many prospects of obtaining that “extremely profitable” employment in today’s IT job market you presume is out there.
Mr. Murtari isn’t adverse to financially supporting his son. He like many others do have a problem with providing an ex-spouse with a tax free income stream under the pretense of child support. Please note that there is no provision in any state that requires the custodial parent that receives child support payments to actually account for how the money is spent! She (CP’s receiving support are statistically overwhelmingly female in this culture) can spend it on drugs, liquor, cigarettes, hairdos, manicures or any damn thing else she wants to and nothing legally can be done about it unless the child or children are literally starving and running around in rags on the street!
September 1st, 2006 at 9:02 am
Also; to Family Lawyer: No one disputes a child’s right to be financially supported by both parents. The Parents’ Rights movement is about other disputes, and you know it. Funny you should call John’s claim about travel expenses “interesting.” It’s not “interesting”, it’s a cold hard fact. First the state of NY violated John’s right to be an equal part of his child’s life. Seond, it compounded its own error by allowing the mother to move the child, effectively, out of John’s reach. Third, it erred further when it failed to figure his expenses to VISIT his OWN child. The law also errs by forbidding judges to forgive CS arrearages or portions thereof, and it errs when non-custodial parents who experience financial hardship are required to pony up non existant cash to ambulance chasers in order to BEG to get CS reduced. Certainly these are not legal errors, but they are errors in morality and Justice; something few legal-eagles consider these days. You, the people, can spend billions in other countries, but you can’t help fellow Americans down on their luck? Shame on you, FamilyLawyer. Shame on you and your whore called Justice.
September 1st, 2006 at 9:08 am
So according to FamilyLawyer, the only people who object to the currenet family law system are “deadbeats”. Well, FamilyLawyer, I paid child support paid in full, to the penny, for thirteen years. I’ll send you the case reference if you want and you can look it up.
And I’m here to tell you that the Family Court system is broken. It is BADLY broken. How are you going to dismiss MY claims? By suggesting they’re an aberration? Or perhaps by suggesting that I am not believable because I’m “angry”, or some other dismissive perjorative?
As a practicing lawyer, why don’t you tell us about the “Tender Years Doctrine”, if you will? I’m sure you’re familiar with it. That’s the doctrine which, since the late 1800s, has driven most family court child custody decision making.
It’s the doctrine adopted in nearly all states which awarded custody of minor children to mothers 100% of the time based solely on their gender. It’s operating principle was the medically unproven belief that mothers were somehow “better” for young children of “tender years” than fathers were. Explain to us how awarding of maternal custody based solely on gender is not a direct violation of the 14th Amendment.
http://www.vev.ch/en/lit/hypocris.htm
Also, maybe you could explain to us how it is “in the best interests” of our nation’s children that approximately 85% of child custody decisions STILL favor the mother nationwide, even though the “Best Interests of the Children” doctrine has theoretically been replaced the “Tender Years Doctrine” now in almost all states.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf
While you’re at it, explain to us how it’s completely unacceptable for fathers to fail to pay child support, while at the same time it’s perfectly OK if mothers choose to not support their children for years on end even if they are perfectly capable of doing so, as happened in my case here in Illinois.
September 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pm
wls said:
“I never expected a blood-sucking, pre-chordate
family law attorney to even be aware of the
concept of `courage’: I guess I’m half impressed.
Of course he comes to use it in order to help
mount an ad hominem attack on a hack legal notion
that he, apparently for lack of expertise, cannot
address on the level of the substance of the law.”
I re-assemble that remark!
A little explanation is in order. This “hack” legal theory was actually SUCCESSFUL for Brent Moss and his attorneys in California in 1996. The California Supreme Court UPHELD the annullment of the contempt against Brent Moss because he and his lawyers relied in good faith on the protection of the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act.
As I set forth in my Reply Brief, the California Supreme Court deliberately misinterpreted the Antipeonage Act, avoided the rules of statutory construction for Acts of Congress set down by the US Supreme Court over the last two centuries (what it says is, what it says not is not) and came up with a dodge that renders the Antipeoage Act a nullity. It also flies in the face of what New Mexico’s Territorial Supreme Court wrote in 1857 in its description of peonage as practiced in Jaremillo v. Romero, and what the federal courts have said since, citing Jaremillo, about the nature of the condition of peonage. The peon can always buy his way out of the arrangement by paying the money owed, or by finding an employer willing to buy the debt. It is obvious from Jaremillo, The Peonage Cases, and US v. Reynolds, that choice of employer does not defeat a claim of peonage. As I set forth in my Brief, to allow such renders impossible any prosecution for violation of the Peonage and Slavery Chapter, unless the federal courts in which such prosecution is commenced, enter an order disagreeing with the California Supreme Court in the Brent Moss case!
The primary reason FamilyLawyer has to resort to an ad hominem attack and cannot address this argument on the substance of the law is because, well, they cannot. Can anyone attack on the substance of fact, the proposition that the ocean is salty? Or attack on the substance of the law that a foot is 12 inches?
It is most certainly NOT a hack legal notion!
It is as obvious and simple to understand that state sponsored extortion intended to coerce employment to enable payment of “child support” is declared null and void and defined as a crime by the Antipeonage Act as the proposition that a foot of length is 12 inches.
September 1st, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Just to let you know, we just paid the $200 filing fee for our petition for review. Will be posting it on the website soon.
September 2nd, 2006 at 5:18 am
Moss lost on absolutely every point: his initial
contempt conviction was overturned only because
the trial court had given insufficient reasons for
assigning him the burden of proof, etc.
The key point—which you don’t seem to be
addressing—is that the state can require a
parent to support their children, and the fact
that may in effect require them to work is not
inconsistent with the abolution of slavery,
anti-peonage laws, or prohibitions of imprisonment
for debt. No re-interpretation or nullification
of the federal anti-peonage or any of the other
mentioned laws is entailed.
It seems to me people ought to be fighting for
fairer, rational child support laws and policies
in the legislatures, not pursuing will-o’-the-wisp,
crackpot legal `theories’ in the manner of kooks.
September 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 pm
wls said:
“The key point—which you don’t seem to be
addressing—is that the state can require a
parent to support their children, and the fact
that may in effect require them to work is not
inconsistent with the abolution of slavery,
anti-peonage laws, or prohibitions of imprisonment
for debt.”
We think you are on our side, but sometimes, I wonder. You seem to be unable to comprehend the absurdity of your statements!
Lets look at your proposition at face value.
First the proposition that a state can require a parent to support his children. The ONLY way that the state can accomplish such is to allow that parent to retain custody. Requiring one parent to pay money to another through means of state sponsored extortion WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT TO THE RECEIVING PARENT TO ACCOUNT FOR HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT ON THE CHILD IS NOT CHILD SUPPORT.
It is only called that.
Calling a dandelion a rose does not make it a rose.
Without any requirement to prove WRONGDOING the court orders requiring one parent, a private citizen, to pay money to the other parent, another private citizen, is deprivation of property without due process of law.
How is enforcement of these court orders not imprisonment for debt? To say that it is not imprisonment for debt is as patently absurd as saying a fathom is not six feet.
Allow me to entertain you with the dodge the Oregon courts have used since the 1920’s when the state was dominated by the KU KLUX KLAN and apparently by the WOMEN’S KU KLUX KLAN, the original feminazis, and by our Washington Court of appeals in the Daly decision. These courts say that imprisonment for child support is imprisonment for not complying with a court order and therefore not imprisonment for debt.
Well, why stop there? Any judgment in a civil lawsuit, for tort or for breach of contract, why not include a court order to pay? That way the obvious ends of the Oregon and Washington Constitutions, to prohibit imprisonment for debt, are defeated.
Because of course, the difference between imprisonment for failure to comply with a court order requiring the payment of money and imprisonment for debt is equal to the difference between six feet and a fathom.
wls wraps up with:
“It seems to me people ought to be fighting for
fairer, rational child support laws and policies
in the legislatures, not pursuing will-o’-the-wisp, crackpot legal `theories’ in the manner of kooks.”
All right wls, exactly HOW do we accomplish fairer, rational child support laws and policies in the legislatures WITHOUT DEMANDING RATIONAL PLAIN ENGLISH WHAT IT SAYS IS AND WHAT IT SAYS NOT IS NOT RESPECT FOR OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? Including the right to not be a slave set forth in the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act?
And without resorting to the 2nd Amendment if all else fails?
To try to obtain fairer and more rational child support laws without insisting on our rights as set forth in the plain language of the law is like trying to pound in a nail WITHOUT USING A HAMMER.
September 2nd, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Roger Knight wrote:
“”"Requiring one parent to pay money to another through means of state sponsored extortion WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT TO THE RECEIVING PARENT TO ACCOUNT FOR HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT ON THE CHILD IS NOT CHILD SUPPORT.”"”
Since there is no system for accountability in any state as to how and where the extorted money is spent that is prima facie evidence that so-called child support isn’t child support at all but a tax free income stream for the custodial parent to do with as they please.
Therefore, it is not about the “best interests of the children” but a corrupt state supported income extortion racket and it is a moral obligation to oppose it.
September 2nd, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Not everything that’s not unconstitutional is
right, moral, or good public policy.
I’ve never heard of a case where it made sense to
incarcerate or suspend the driver’s or any
professional license of a child support obligor,
and I would strongly support legislation to
abolish those practices. The politics involved
don’t make that easy, but I don’t think pushing
for it in court using loony pleadings stands any
chance at all.
Some states have laws by which support orders can
be adjusted if the obligee isn’t providing for
the child: developing the habit of applying, and
adding legal teeth to them is also something to
work on.
The constitutional notion of parental rights
pertaining to custody has never been applied to
family court: that has to be worked on too. One
cannot just say that one’s rights have been
violated without first proving that one has
them—-which no one has done yet.
A civil money judgment can be enforced by highly
coercive means such as wage garnishment, writs to
seize property, and liens, but private debt is
not criminal under modern law.
September 3rd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
“Family Lawyer” – surely, that’s an oxymoron.
For those attempting to reach Arnold Schwarzenegger regarding AB2781 – both his FAX line and his phone line are taken off the hook during non-business hours – you’ll need to call between 9 AM and 5 PM Pacific time.
Be sure to visit:
http://www.lacochildsupport.org
September 5th, 2006 at 3:07 am
Many interesting comments from some “interesting, yet predictable” group of people. Seems to be quite an accumulation of people here with a “victim mentality” which is understandable to a degree. It is human nature to play or assume the role of a victim when things don’t go the way that they think they should have.
First, for Roger Knight: I have no intention of filing a brief in Amicus Curiae in your case, either for you or against you. I decline to do so for you simply because you do not have a legal leg to stand on. I decline to do so on behalf of the State for the simple fact that they need absolutely no help to shoot down your arguments. A first year law student could take on that task equally as well.
Second, WLS is the only one posting here that seems to make any sense at all. The laws as they are written do not guarantee or even provide a “right” to anyone to parent their child in the event of a divorce or separation. The state has a vested interest in ensuring that the best interests of a child are observed, and quite often, the best interests of a child are dictated by society. To that extent, the fathers rights movement has been somewhat effective in changing some of the societal perceptions. Part of that success is due to the conservative movement returning to the somewhat illusive concept of “family values.”
A recurrent theme of some of the posters is the expression of an intense dislike to paying an ex-wife any money for any variety of reasons. Those arguments speak volumes about those individuals.
AbusedFather appears to be the only one that has a legitimate complaint about the system. I’m unable to agree with his methods of airing his complaints, but that does not necessarily detract from his situation – providing that he has provided all of the pertinent facts. It would appear that he has.
Ultimately, the only way that anyone will bring about change is at the state legislative level. Filing silly and baseless lawsuits will not bring about change. Refusing to eat will not bring about change. All that does is send a clear message that there are some irrational people trying to bring about change.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:31 am
FamilyLawyer — I think the reason posters here have a “victim mentality” is because they actually ARE victims. It’s one thing to believe yourself a victim when you actually aren’t, which is what your comments imply. It’s quite another to actually be a victim, to tell your story, and then have it dismissed. I wonder if female rape victims are actually victims, or if they just have a “victim mentality”. Ditto for minorities and racial vicitimization. Is their real victimhood there, or is it all in their heads?
Ironically, the one group of people who most often make victimization a central part of their existence – feminists — is the very group who is responsible for creating the one-sided, misandrist system that creates so many REAL victims in our divorce courts. No group has more damage to the American family in the past thirty years than feministis have. It’s their agenda and their misandrist views, as expressed in our currenlt family laws, that are the cause of the problems.
It’s not that men posting here “don’t like paying an ex-wife any money”, as you suggest, as though the experiences expresssed here were borne out of greed or selfishness. It’s because the men who post here have been through the system. It’s because the financial insults they are bearing have been piled on top of the emotional, civil, and legal injuries they have also suffered — injuries which should have been protected by existing laws, but weren’t.
The men here have felt the hatred coming from the bench towards them. They have seen the dismissive attitudes. They have listened to judges implement their “tender years doctrine” philosophies in direct violation of the written law. They have been lied to, cheated upon, had their relationships with their children virtually snuffed out, all with the with the aid and support of the legal system. And most often these men have done little more “wrong” than to simply not please their ex-wives enough to suit those women. It’s no wonder these men have enmity towards the system. They’ve been royally screwed. You can call it “no fault” and a “fair system” all you want, but a pig is still a pig even if you put it in a dress. Having had most of their rights taken away and their lives destroyed, these men have come to revile a system that is full of gender-based double standards.
The one thing on which I do agree with FamilyLawyer is that we men should be spending our time getting the laws changed. All else is just wasted breath. Feminists have spent the last thirty years getting their ideas implemented into family law. Men need to do the same.
Interestingly, I have attempted to do this, albeit only on an individual level so far. I have written to US Senators, US Congressmen, and to Illinois state senators and representatives on many occasions. The reception has been lukewarm at best, cold at worst. Although I will continue to write to legislators and am not deterred, my experience with one particular Illinois State Ssenator was most striking.
A few years ago, Illinois State Senator Kathleen Parker was leading a committee whose purpose was to revise the divorce and child custody system in the state of Illinois. She and her committee wrote letters to the editors in all of the major newspapers in Illinois. These letters solicited comments, stories and suggestions from the public at large for their input into revising the legislation. The stated purpose of revising the legislation was to make it “more fair” (the committee’s words).
The public was promised that every person who sent in a letter or story to the committee would have their story read before the committee, and would receive status updates from the committee as the legislation progressed. The letter to the editor from the committee also stated that anyone wishing to tell “their story” to the committee should so indicate, and that these people would get calls from the committee letting them know whether or not they would be allowed to tell their story verbally in front of the committee. Due to understandable time restrictions not everyone who wanted to tell their story was going to be afforded that opportunity. The letter also said that everyone who sent in a letter or story to the committee would at least receive a letter from the committee acknowledging the receipt of that person’s input.
Excited at the chance to participate in what I consider a major issue of our day, I sent in my story, a story which I think is similar to the stories of many who post here. To make a long story short, the committee ignored me. They never acknowledged even receiving any of my letters, although I sent several. It became apparent after a few months of frustration that the committee was simply not interested in hearing my point of view. I concluded that someone on the committee probably did read my story, but decided it was problematic to their legislative goals and the intent. I surmised that their attitudes towards family court had already been shaped, as most legislators’ are, by specical interest groups. Specifically, women’s interests political action groups like NOW. I concluded that the goal of the revised legislation was not to get a balanced viewpoint and make legislation that is “more fair”, but to revise the legislation in accordance with what they already “knew” about the subject — i.e to skew the legislation to be even more in favor of the major political contributors to the legislators re-election campaigns, more in line with poltiical pressure, more in line with feminism’s one-sided goals. Stories like mine were problematic and thus not particularly welcome.
I think that as men we need to be more organized and active. FamilyLawyer is correct in that nothing is going to change without going to the legislators. That’s where the rubber meets the road. In my experience, legislators do not respond to individuals. They respond to two things: political pressure from organized groups, and to money. We need to become more involved.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
I respect the arguments of several of you who have pointed out Family Lawyer’s errors. However, it is pointless. The man is a sociopath who thinks that the twisted interpretation of law called “Family Law makes it right for him to persecute men and to destroy families and that the only consequence should be for him to enrich himself from the misery of others. He is no different from alll the other shysters and judges involved in this mockery of law and justice. He knows that his niche of law has the highest casualty rate of any legal specialty, and he seeks to counter this, as does the rest of his profession, through mpore persecution and intimidation. I, too, am working to change the laws, especially Title IV-D, but I am pessimistic as to how effective we can be in this effort. Politicians, judges, and the state governments have a vested interest in these shysters successfully persecuting us and depriving us of our families, our rights, and our money. The rage is growing, spreading, and coalescing, and it doesn’t include reasoning with these evil shysters!
September 5th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
KRS – a very thoughtful and articulate post. It is nice to have someone agree with what I say.
However, I would like to expand on things a bit.
From my experience, the vast majority of people involved in family court have created their own problems, and then refuse to acknowledge their own culpability. Actions breed reactions, and this is especially true in human relations. Those who claim that they have been victimized by the family court system unilaterally refuse to acknowledge, admit or accept any blame for what has happened. Instead, they blame the court system, the laws and the feminists, which accomplishes absolutely nothing in the final analysis.
Bear in mind, I do not contend that the court system or the laws are fair in a utopian sense of the word. Then again, typically, the litigants before the court are not being fair to each other or their children – and have not been for an indeterminate time prior to actually appearing in court. And yes, the feminists did have some input into the formulation of custody and child support laws. It must also be remembered that prior to the industrial revolution, divorce, custody and child support laws favored men 100%.
I have been through divorce court myself. My divorce was very smooth due to the fact that both my ex and I accepted equal blame for the demise of our marriage. After standard orders were issued, we almost immediately ignored them and did things our own way for our own benefit, and that of our daughter. The important thing to remember about court orders is that they establish the minimum standards that must be maintained. No one has ever been taken to court for contempt for doing more than what the court order required. All that it takes are two people who are willing to communicate honestly with each other.
As far as lobbying legislators – it is something that the average citizen can do without too much trouble. One of the first steps in the process is to become involved with the politician both in and outside of the statehouse. Attend campaign functions – let the politician see you. Don’t push your cause at those functions, just be a “regular Joe” and blend in. Sure, it might cost you $25 or $50 to attend the function – (the food is always free – so think of it as an expensive meal) – but it is worth the cost when you factor in the value of the contacts you can meet at those functions.
When you contact a legislator, don’t drone on and on about your personal case. Every legislator knows instinctively that you are telling only your side of the story – the side that will make you look the best. (Goes back to accepting accountability for the demise of your marriage and relationship.) Offer real solutions to the problems that you perceive – but make sure that the solutions you are offering are not one sided. In other words, be realistic in what you propose. No legislator is going to be able to throw out all existing law while introducing something that would radically change society. Avoid attacking those who disagree with you and using terms like “feminist.” Virtually every legislator favors women’s rights, and it is political suicide to start taking away rights of any group of people to the sole or majority benefit of another group.
Follow the legislative calendar. Know what laws are being introduced and being considered in various committees. Keep up with the committee calendars and go and either testify at those hearings or at least attend the hearing. It doesn’t hurt to prepare a written comment to also submit to the committee – whether you testify or not. Make two copies for each member of the committee – this allows the aids – who are the ones that are your conduit to the legislator to have something in hand to consider later. Again, keep it all short, sweet, to the point and offer solutions to the overall problems that you perceive. Always make sure that you have thoroughly researched the impact that your suggestions will have on existing laws – and remember that any dramatic changes will have a probable detrimental effect on others that cannot be ignored.
Forget about face to face meetings with the legislator – especially in the early stages of the process. Deal with the legislative aid that is handling the issue you are interested in.
Don’t do like Murtari – and demand a meeting with a legislator or politician. Don’t try to write a law and give it to a poliltician. Murtari has been told repeatedly that the federal government cannot get involved in family law matters – those are individual state issues. A Family Civil Rights Act is not going to fly at the federal level. The reason is simple: When people enter into the family court system they are asking the government to take control of their situation because they are unable to resolve aspects of their life which can have implications for society. Hence, it is solely a state issue, and not a federal issue. Unfortunately, Murtari with his blind zeal and unrealistic goal to meet with Senator Clinton is actually doing more harm than good.
You are correct that politicians do respond to money. Political pressure is difficult to bring upon a legislator, especially in family law. I suggest that you research other activist groups like MADD and ACES – and see how they were able to successfully push their agendas. Legislators do respond to individuals. Over the years, hundreds of legislators have responded to me. In every case it was because I quietly initiated the contact with them, most often going in through the “back door” rather than a full frontal attack.
Good luck with your efforts. Your attitude will no doubt get you better results than the others who have posted here.
September 6th, 2006 at 8:24 am
From my own experience in family court, I have to agree that there are some major problems that need to be addressed. When my ex found out I had hired an attorney and would soon be filing for divorce, she went and got a restraining order issued against me. In her written allegations to get the order, she made it painfully obvious that her allegations were false by contradicting herself 3 times. However, the judge issued the order. When my day in court arrived a week later to refute her allegations and I pointed out her contradictions, he still let it stand. She was questioned, and made it more than obvious that she forgot to rehearse her story, because she contradicted herself even more. Yet, the judge still let the order stand. 30 days later we back in court. She had filed for an extension. The same arguments in front of the same judge ensued to no avail. He wasn’t interested.
I lost my home, my money, and my children for over 4 months.
Amazingly enough, she didn’t file for another extension. She didn’t need to. Another judge had granted her request for temporary custody of the children, and handed our home over to her. Her attorney had assured her that when she went to court there would be no need for worry. She’d get everything she asked for.
When the restraining order was lifted, I began seeing my children again. I was a visitor to my own children. Children that I had been the primary caretaker of for over 3 years, while she ran around, stayed out til all hours of the night drinking and gambling.
Naturally, we now had to communicate again, if for nothing more than what the kids needed. After lying to get a restraining order, I no longer trusted her, so any time I would be in her presence, or on the phone with her, I would record the conversation. On 2 seperate occasions I brought up the restraining order and got her on tape admitting the allegations were false, and telling me that her attorney advised her to get one because he said I wouldn’t be able to get custody if a restraining order for domestic violence had been issued against me.
After getting the 1st admission, I took it to my attorney. It only made sense to me that if my predicament were based upon lies that this should be enough to straighten out the mess. To my utter disbelief, he actually urged me not to fight it, but to just give in to her demands, get the divorce over with, and get on with my life.
This didn’t set well with me, so I started interviewing other attorneys. By the 6th one, I found the one I needed to get the job done. He was a divorcee and understood my predicament. I fired the original attorney and immediately hired him.
The things he told me literally blew my mind. 1st off, he told me that the judge I had went in front of about the restraining order was notorious for issueing them, regardless of how ludicrous the allegations were. 2nd, he also told me that the laws pertaining to family court were fairly vague and usually left open to interpretation, which is how this judge was so easily able to issue restraining orders based upon whatever frivolous allegations were set before him. Finally, he told me that the judge who was supposed to be presiding over the divorce was extremely biased, but not to worry. He would be replaced. He’d make sure of that.
Finally, the divorce day came. My ex stood up and swore to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then she began telling of the supposed abuse I had inflicted upon her, and how she finally had to take out a restraining order to protect herself. She did a much better job this time, though. She had rehearsed well.
When it came time for my attorney to question her, he pointed out the contradictions made in her written allegations. Her attorney wrote if off as a case of nerves. My attorney produced the court file, and pointed out the other contradictions she made while being questioned by my previous attorney. Again, her attorney simply wrote it off as a case of nerves. Finally, my attorney produced 2 tapes. The tapes of her confessions. He played them and asked if this was nothing more than another case of nerves. Her attorney was stunned silent, and suddenly she had lost any and all credibility.
So basically, Because of a crooked judge and her crooked attorney, I lost my parental rights and my home for over a years time. Today, because of a good attorney who was actually willing to do what it takes to earn his fee and an unbiased judge, I sit in my home with my kids, and she sees them on weekends. But even though I’m now finally a custodila parent, as I should be, I still follow cases such as Murtari’s in hopes that the legal system will finally be overhauled and all good parents can have a chance to be parents as they should.