• 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.

11 Responses to “Supreme Court rules that Twelve Tribes member must pay support”

1. 
   1
   Roger Knight Says:
   October 13th, 2006 at 2:43 am

   Whether she is in the 12 Tribes or not, if she is required to obtain employment or keep employment to pay the support and such is enforceable by legal process or other plausible compulsion within the meaning of the Kozminsky case, then what we have here is a crime of peonage.
   And the support order is declared null and void by the Antipeonage Act. And so is the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision. Please see 18 U.S.C. §1581 and 42 U.S.C. §1994 for further details.

2. 
   2
   mruffolo Says:
   October 13th, 2006 at 4:45 pm

   Our government incarcerates men for not paying child support.

   I’ve not heard of a woman a woman receive the same punish.

3. 
   3
   FamilyLawyer Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 4:43 am

   I have seen many women incarcarcerated for not paying child support. I am proud to say that I sent many of them to jail, on community service and in work release programs over the years.

   Deadbeats come in all genders.

   Poor Roger Knight. Just another deadbeat who has been making the same idiotic argument for years about anti-peonage in an effort to rejoice in being a deadbeat and play the role of the victim. Get real Roger. Your legal arguments have absolutely legal or logical basis.

4. 
   4
   AlMartin Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 7:03 am

   FamilyLawyer,

   Sureeeeeeeee you have……..

   Forgive me if I don’t believe the words of a “family Lawyer”.

5. 
   5
   Roger Knight Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 5:59 pm

   FamilyLawyer, proud to be a peonage criminal!
   What is your real name? And in what state do you live? At least I go by my real name and make no secret of the fact that I live in Seattle, Washington.
   The California Court of Appeals did state that Brent Moss’ support order and the enforcement thereof violated the 13th Amendment, California Constitution’s slavery and involuntary servitude clause, and the Antipeonage Act.
   In the recent Amunrud decision, three justices of the Supreme Court of Washington dissented and found that as payment or nonpayment of child support was completely irrelevant to the activities licensed, the suspension was offensive to the constitutional requirement for due process of law.
   That, incidentally, is the very argument that Judge Lasnik of our federal court in the Western District of Washington found to be “frivolous”. On motion for new trial he backtracked and said it was because I repeatedly exercised my right as an American citizen to go to the federal court and petition for relief. Because with the Brent Moss case an my successful appeal of the Mercer Island DWLS convictiions, my claims do not meet the requirements for definition of frivolous claim set forth in Neitzke v. Williams, (1989) 490 U.S. 319, 325 a rule that is honored in the breach by numerous judges and courts when faced with embarrassing issues such as the Antipeonage Act.
   My only regret is that neither Richard Sanders, James Johnson, nor Tom Chambers were appointed to the federal bench.
   I beat five criminal charges for Driving While License Suspended, including the two Mercer Island charges.
   FamilyLawyer, here is a challenge to you:
   Draft a scholarly, rational, and reasonable argument that a court order requiring 30 hours of work each week or at least 3 job contacts with the threat of imprisonment explicitly set forth, is not declared null and void by 42 U.S.C. §1994. Please address the history of peonage in New Mexico Territory, the Territory’s Master and Servant Act, its 1850’s Vagrancy Act, its Writ of Capias Act, which provided for imprisonment for debts, and the description of peonage in the Territory’s Supreme Court’s 1857 Jaremillo v. Romero decision, and the legislative history of the Peonage Bill that became the Antipeonage Act on March 2, 1867.
   And address the rules of statutory contruction for Acts of Congress and argue that the phrase “debt or obligation, or otherwise” in the original 1867 Act set forth at 14 STAT 546 and presently in 42 U.S.C. §1994 does not include child support.
   And post it on the Net and inform us of the URL or provide a link.

6. 
   6
   wls Says:
   October 14th, 2006 at 7:54 pm

   But the California Supreme Court overruled the
   Appeals Court. . . .

   You fellows—Knight and FamilyLawyer—are such
   birds of a feather: really two peas in a pod.

   AMUNRUD adresses a distinctly different issue
   from MOSS, but does raise an interesting question:
   just how rational does a state action have to be
   to be `rationally related’? There’s little precedent:
   not so irrational as to be arbitrary has usually
   been the answer—and the spirit of LOCKNER would
   steer the courts away from social policy making.

   Not everything that’s not unconstitutional is right,
   wise, or good.

7. 
   7
   woodman Says:
   October 15th, 2006 at 10:02 am

   The entire case is a mess.

   First, was her divorce and custody order valid? Probably not. Absent a “finding of fact” or “conclusion of law” that she or her spouse “breached” the marital contract, the “dissolution” or “divorce” is void ab nitio.
   A statute that doesn’t permit a defense to a claim in a contract is an unconstitutional statute and any order arising from such a statute is void.

   Secondly, evenif the divorce is legal and constitutional, the custody order is void. The State does not have “subject matter jurisdiction” to award children, even if the “no-fault” divorce was constitutional. The State can only interfere in the child-parent relationship when the State has found parental unfitness for abandonment, abuse or neglect. Court ordered abandonments, (custody orders) without due process of law or equal protectionf the law is in violation of Vermont and U.S. Constitutions. Single mothers who have been found guilty of neglect are given due process of law by a court when she is given constitutional rights to confront and rebut accusations, allegations, police reports and witnesses that she was neglectful. Parents in no-fault divorce where there are no DEFENSES to the upholding of the civil contract, marriage, and no defenses to a State’s false and malicious claims that they have jurisdiction over “non-wards” of the State is simply absurd. Jurisdiction over children cannot exist simply because the Legislature declares they do. Courts jurisdition exists by Statute AND the Constitution. When courts are failing to review their authority, or in the case of custody, “broad descresionary power” i.e. unlimited, most particularly involving parental rights, i.e. fundamental liberty right, the State’s authority is limited. Parental rights are ordained by our creator, and the State cannot even mention a child’s existance in a court of law involving a fit, natural parent. The Court and State’s claims that they have a “prospective interest” in the childrens welfare, their “future care” is absurd. If indeed the State had a prospective interest in children’s welfare, the State would remove ALL children from lawyers, and then execute the lawyer under the fear that a lawyer would corrupt the morals and ethics of the child prospectively. I call it the “Child Protection Act”. Lawyers who have children must be shot!

   The Suspension of driver’s licenses for civil actions unrelated to “public safety” is a violation of a person’s right to travel. The State has lawful authority to regulate driving on the public roadways for “safety purposes”. Drunks who drive are a public safety hazard, and can have their license to drive “revoked” because the State has an interest in “public safety” on public roads. Child support is unrelated to “public safety”, driving or operating a motor vehicle. Thus, it is unconstitutional to compell people to pay a lawful child support order and suspend a driver’s licence for “punishment to compel”. Driving a car is a right, not a privilage. (See Stone v State of Minnesota)

   The Vermont Court only affirmed one thing in this case. They are UNFIT to hold any position of public trust.

   Woodman

8. 
   8
   woodman Says:
   October 15th, 2006 at 10:18 am

   The title of the news item in the Vermont newspaper is pure fiction. Religion, or the mothers claims to be part of some religion had NOTHING to do with the Courts decision, nor anything the mother’s shyster, pettyfogger or vermin (lawyer) appealed.

   Mother did not work and never worked. She was part of a 501(3)c non-profit group claiming to be religious. As a member of the non-profit, she received NO income as defined in law. Thus, as the Supreme Court decision in dissent stated, the magistrate’s findings of “ability to pay” and income was false.

   A pagan newspaper, worshiping Satan or the moon or some other object, possibly their genitalia, would conclude and would publish a false statement about the Court. Nothing new here.

   I’m sure when Jesus Christ was sentenced to death by being whipped, beaten, speared and nailed to a tree without one shred of evidence that he committed a crime (the Romans declared he was not found guilty of a crime), I’m sure the Vermont Argus published that Jesus was a wife beater and failed to support his children, if that indeed is what the ecclessiastical court (District Court) suggested they write about the Savior’s trial.

   The only logical conclusion one can make about the newspaper is that they have the same contempt for the worlds Lord and savior as did the Sadducies and Sanhedrens of ancient Jerusalem.

   Nothing new going on here, eh?

   Woodman

9. 
   9
   mruffolo Says:
   October 15th, 2006 at 4:51 pm

   Family Lawyer,

   Our courts are mostly unwilling to jail a wife for killing her husband or incarcerating a woman for sex with a child, but you’re claiming that you seen and help convict a mother for refusing to pay money to a father.

   Your story sounds newsworthy.

10. 
    10
    wls Says:
    October 15th, 2006 at 7:26 pm

    Uffolo has a point: most female obligors are
    paying the state for AFDC-FC.

11. 
    11
    right2parent Says:
    October 16th, 2006 at 11:23 am

    FamilyLawyer, Maybe you can tell me what proof the agency responsible for the child support program in your state offered to support their claim these “deadbeats” were “absent parents” of “dependent children?” As you are dealing with administrative law, I’m sure you know that the agency’s claim, or the applicant’s claim is hearsay evidence without proof. This proof is to be weighed against the necessary condition that makes one a “deadbeat” under the authorizing legislation. You are most likely aware that a “deadbeat” is a term some like to use to describe an absent parent of a dependent child. I’m sure it will be easy for you to find a definition of a “dependent child” in the your state’s act, as it is included in the first section of the relevant Minnesota act.

    A review of Sullivan v. Stroop 496 U.S. 478 (1990) will clear up the connection between “absent parents” and the aid to dependent children act that the child support program was meant to act in tandem with. Also see Clark v. Hernandez (C0-96-997 Minn court of appeals) for due process clarificaiton. Thanks for your input.

Leave a Reply