If you want some more rapid reading, you can cruise through my articles archive.

It stinks, I tell ya.

I know this will appear repetitious, but I swear, somebody besides me is going to get it one day. They’re misapplying the “social policy” classification. In an honest world – the state does not have the authority to do those things – because they would be stopped by the constitution. But they are applying a different standard, with the intent of denying the rights that you and everyone else are entitled to.

They don’t actually have the legal authority in other words. The state at this point is acting as a criminal organization, using the mechanisms and power of the state for criminal activities.

In an intact family, a man spends what he wants to spend on his kids.

Once the State gets involved, you no longer have that “right”. The State dictates how much you must make and how much you must turn over for “child support”.

How can this be valid?

and then, since 2002, you can look through this list of articles:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/index.htm

I can find several articles that point directly to the constitutional problems and many battling anti-father propaganda and corruption.

That is why we are seeing victories by the gay rights activists. Instead of negative attitudes they have received considerable publicity support and they go forward with both a POSITIVE attitude and in NUMBERS.

That is also how we won the recent decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. There are numerous judges who are as hostile to that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as they are to the proposition that the 13th Amendment protects divorced fathers and that child support is a “debt or obligation or otherwise” within the meaning of the Antipeonage Act. The DIFFERENCE is that none of the gun rights activists and especially the NRA have been bashful about screaming for the enforcement of the Second Amendment.

I did not say it is easy!

For many years, courts soundly rejected the argument that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Yet a few years ago cracks started appearing in this facade. Dr. Emerson’s case a few years ago. Then the Silveira dissent in the 9th Circus by Judge Kozinsky, who was such an asshole with Jeff Ballek’s 13th Amendment claim. And now this new Supreme Court decision striking down the DC gun ban.

As we are experts on family law, we are all aware of the anti-miscegenation statutes, prohibiting marriages between persons of different races. Loving v. Virginia was SECOND victory by a mixed race couple. The first was the California Supreme Court Perez decision in 1948. Every other state appellate court upheld the validity of anti-miscegenation statutes.

You are absolutely right about the social policy analysis. But the way to cut through that is with a simple easy to understand constitutional argument, one that can be communicated to the PUBLIC. The PUBLIC understands “What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do you not understand?” The PUBLIC understands that banning mixed race marriages denies equal protection of the laws, particularly where the state is claiming an interest in preventing the birth of mixed-race people.

Like Barack Obama. Whatever we think of Barack Obama, we understand that any claim that a state has in the prevention of his birth is patently absurd!

The PUBLIC understands that when gasoline is $4 per gallon and heating oil is $6 per gallon, drilling could improve the supply and thus reduce the price.

And the PUBLIC understands that slavery is illegal. All we got to do is convince them that stripping parents of cusotdy of their children does not justify a FELONY.

Why do you think the mainstream media has placed the cone of silence around any mention of the 13th Amendment or the Antipeonage Act in the same story as child support?

Because if 13 members of any grand jury in any of the 93 federal judicial districts figures this one out, ALL HELL WILL BREAK LOOSE!!!

But to get there, the proposition that child support does not justify slavery and involuntary servitude has to be embraced and supported with enthusiasm by the whole of the fathers’ rights community.

That includes you, Roger Gay.

That includes you, Marc Rudov.

That includes you, Glenn Sacks.

And for anyone else, please do not be offended for not listing your name, for it includes you too!

I’m not asking you to give up your other arguments. You are right, of course. Just persue this one too, it is the SOLUTION to all of these problems.

Here is a simple, easy to understand slogan:

As there is no excuse for domestic violence, neither is there any excuse for violating the United States Constitution.

There is no excuse for peonage.

There is no excuse for imprisonment for debt.

There is no excuse for denying divorced parents the equal protection of state constitutions that prohibit imprisonment for debt.

Social policy analysis is no damned excuse!

And I can tell you this: Article I Section 17 of the Washington State Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt, except in cases of absconding debtors. When we deny a class of persons the equal protection of this provision, they DISAPPEAR!!!!!

And that is why so many absent parents are ABSENT!

Duh.

See how EASY these arguments are to make? In nice little sound bites. Say it, and the public gets it!

And when the public gets it, the politicians and the judges will follow. Kicking and screaming, but they will follow.

You cite constitutional amendments and civil rights that don’t work when social policy analysis is used. I’ve continually had a difficult time getting that point across, although I think I’m being as straight-forward as possible in the way that I explain it. Under social policy analysis, there are no individual rights – nothing connected with constitutional rights other than equal protection – meaning that arbitrary government control is allowed so long as they’re consistent – i.e. do it en masse.

That’s why state courts are now reasoning that same-sex marriage is constitutionally mandated. It’s not a change of heart at some deeper level – it’s a change in constitutional analysis. Ration and reason and logical meaning are no longer involved – only equal treatment related to equal status and benefits of arbitrary laws and government programs.

We can always scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law, and plead it in our court filings.

It has the advantage of already being a statute on the books, no need to lobby Congress to get something passed.

Just use what is already there.

Making a person a slave for a debt or obligation is a FELONY. And such state court orders are declared null and void.

It takes NUMBERS and publicity to prevail on such a question.

Perhaps the fathers’ rights movement ought to embrace the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act the way the National Rifle Association and the gun rights advocates embraced the Second Amendment.

Just a suggestion.

The federal child support enforcement system is nothing more than a pork barrel program. It is entirely unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer dollars and could be eliminated without detriment to society; the fed. could get out of the family law business where it doesn’t belong. In fact, when signing the bill that created the program – President Ford said it took the fed. too far into domestic relations and said he would introduce legislation to correct it. Creation of the program was an amendment to more popular social services legislation and had little support at the time. It only became popular among politicians as the amount of pork grew.

If saving marriage and family needs to be done by a constitutional amendment – the purpose of the amendment should be to return family law to civil law where it belongs.

Current levels of “child support” are set arbitrarily high; even with consideration for children’s needs (not 1/14 of them) and the relative ability of parents to meet those needs. What’s being charged is not actually child support in any rational, reasonable sense of the term.

The Alimony Hidden in Child Support (My first article published at MND.)

Tutorials in Child Support Decision Theory (Results of my core research on the subject.)

If you pay your 1/14 (or whatever the percentage is in your case) you are not a deadbeat. Most so-called ‘deadbeat dads’ are simply refusing to pay state-imposted extortion fees and should be treated as heros not ‘deadbeats’.

RESPONSE:

Remember this is a one night special event. We only have the theater rented so they will not advertise for us.

Anyone who would like to confirm can speak to this person.

Promotions & Events Director
Angelika Film Center ~ Plano
7205 Bishop, Suite E6
Plano, TX 75024
972.943.1310
sandyt@angelikafilmcenter.com
http://www.angelikafilmcenter.com
http://www.angelikablog.com

I’ve already sent an email to info@supportthemovie.com – and will post a response when I get one.