… our corporate government goes out and arrests men (in 96-98% of all child support cases, men are the victims) for revenue collection. So, I ask the question, "Who's a "deadbeat dad"? Someone who can't or won't pay child support? Who can't pay? There are a lot of fathers out there who've lost their jobs thanks to our government meddling into the banking and mortgage businesses, and now the car businesses. Government, with its lapdog press, like to pick on groups of people to create animosity and divisiveness. It's time to show the government for the real "deadbeat" that it is.
According to a 7-year study done by Arizona State University Professor Sanford Braver, Ph.D., which resulted in his book, "Divorced Dads–Shattering the Myths", he found that less than 5% of those that owed child support are true deadbeat dads-the ones with the younger trophy wives and sports cars, who don't want to pay anything. The truth of the matter, is that according to the Federal Gov't. General Accounting Office, Report # GAO/HRD-92-39FS, pg. 19, over 66% of those owing child support can't pay because they are unemployed, underemployed, disabled, dead, and in some cases the mothers don't want support.
Family Court Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can't survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government's ultimate goal. Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance). Government is inducing a "welfare state" by forcing families apart, keeping fathers away, giving all entitlements to mothers and the children, except there is one difference. Instead of taxpayers being "ripped off" to the tune of welfare, divorced fathers are ordered, at the point of a gun, to pay for court-ordered "welfare" for the mothers and children that the government ripped asunder. Government doesn't do anything for altruism. They always have a motive behind what they do and the laws they make. It's all about money, power and control.
Recently it has been evidenced that "destruction-of-the-family court" judges refuse to reduce child support and alimony when a man loses his job because of the current economic climate. They tell the guy that it's too soon to reduce support because "you might get another job" in a short time. Most often the guy never gets the same-salaried position and winds up making substantially less. All the while, he falls farther and farther behind, with no hope of ever making up the arrearages.
But, do the courts reduce support? No. They keep it there until the arrears are so high, that the guy's credit is ruined, his driver's and professional licenses are suspended or revoked (which is totally counterproductive in that if one cannot work, how can one pay court-ordered obligations?!?!?!?), and they start putting warrants out for his arrest, even though he did everything he was supposed to do by law.
Judges then use detainers to hold the men in jail, somewhat like bail. But, it isn't bail, because child support is a CIVIL debt. Detainers to keep the men in jail until they pay? STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! It's not about the children! Keeping a man in jail to pay support is an oxymoron. And, most Family Court judges are morons! How does one pay child support if in jail? Does he work in the jail making $10, $15, $20/hr. and have his wages garnished? Does this person invoke the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES when he gets out of jail, since he has no assets or income, and the jailing served as the remedy for the debt owed? Under the INSOLVENT DEBTORS STATUTES, the debt has been paid once the person has been jailed for it and released. But, the state will try and keep the arrears on the books.
The reason for this: Because judges are granting such high orders and enforcing them stringently because the Federal government pays the states what is known asfederal reimbursement incentive funding (Title 42 USC Section 658a) for amounts awarded, collected and enforced. This money goes into the state coffers, no strings attached (42 USC Section 658f). The first things paid out of state treasuries are judicial salaries and pensions and state employee salaries and pensions (along with bonuses and bounties for child support amounts awarded and collected).
This is a major unconstitutional conflict-of-interest that has been outlawed by the US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Gibson v. Berryhill and other cases. The Supreme Court held that judges and officials (i.e., child supportofficials and workers) who sit in judgment of cases that they have a financial interest in, are too tempted to abuse their contempt powers to jail unsuspecting litigants-taxpayers to extort/extract more and more monies out of them to increase the amount of funding, and ultimately increase their salaries and pensions.
Yet, family court judges continue to thumb their noses at these US Supreme Court mandates. This is not only contempt of the US Supreme Court, but felony official misconduct by judges, who are public officials that swore an oath to uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution and their respective state constitutions. By refusing to disqualify themselves from these cases, where they have a financial interest in the outcome of them, the Supreme Court has held that these judicialorders are essentially null and void and have no effect or force.
Some will say that if we don't have judges or hearing officers to enforce orders, how then will they be enforced? Astaxpayers and voters who are paying taxes to have these officials usurp and violate our constitutionally protected rights, that is not our problem. The government made the situation. They must fix it. They can fix it by empanelling a group of people that have no financial interest (for example, economists, vocational experts, marriage experts, accountants, psychologists, even lawyers and retired judges). But, they cannot use arbitrary and capricious contempt powers to imprison for debt, and to re-institute peonage and forced labor, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution (prohibition against involuntary servitude), and in violation of Federal Criminal laws, Title 18 USC Sections 1581 and 1589 (Peonage; Forced labor).
Anyone arrested on one of these child support arrearage orders is being arrested on a fraudulent order; being arrestedon a CIVIL matter. The U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd highest courts in the land) as well as the US Supreme Ct. hold that one can't be arrested on a CIVIL matter because there is no 4th Amendment probable cause that a crime has been committed to issue an arrest warrant. See, Stevens v. Rose (9th Cir. 2002), Allen v. City of Portland (9th Cir. 1995), Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge (5th Cir. 2000), Peterson v. City of Plymouth (8th Cir. 1995), Moore v. Marketplace Rest.(7th Cir. 1985), Paff v. Kaltenbach (3rd Cir. 2000). Also, included is the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals case of U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28, 30-31 (3rd Cir. 1997)(child support a civil, commercial debt). In U.S. v. Lewko, 269 F.3d 64, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2001), the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that child support is nothing more than a common civil, commercial debt, and that it is NOT any "special kind of debt". Again, another fraud perpetrated by government officials. Every other Circuit has followed suit and hold that child support is a common commercial, civil debt.
The child support industry is a total fraud. It is a $5-$10 BILLION per year INDUSTRY that, if eliminated, the monies saved and sent to the children that supposedly need it, would wipe out all child support arrears in the US at one time. All that would be needed to do is send the BILLIONS in the form of a Social Security check or wire transfer, since child support enforcement laws are part of the Social Security Act.
Lastly, fathers will find an unusual way to pay their child support. They will sue the sheriff's officers and sheriff's departments,child support enforcementdept's. (becausechild support enforcementworkers sought warrants when they are neither attorneys, nor were those arrested ever on probation). They will sue for Civil Rights Damages and for FALSE ARREST, ASSAULT, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT (In the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Section 13, it prohibits Imprisonment for Debt in ANY action; every other state has such a prohibition, and 18 U.S.C. Sections 1581 and 1589 prohibit involuntary servitude by taking someone under government threat and making them work for someone else to pay off a debt).
It is common knowledge that even if the statecan't collect the child support, the state will be paid for the uncollectible debt by the Federal government. Thisinsures a win-win situation for the state. They collect if the child support obligorpays, and they collect if he doesn't. Child support has long since stopped being about supporting children or relieving taxpayers of the welfare burden. It has now become a lucrative "REVENUE STREAM" for the states, bringing in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars per year. In addition, it is a Communistic "TRANSFER OF WEALTH" scheme for the entitlement of women, lawyers and child support INDUSTRY. It is a discriminatory policy based on gender discrimination against men. Men account for 96-98% of all arrested in child support enforcement when they are in violation of child support orders. Some will claim that child support is not gender biased. If not, then why don't we hear about DEADBEAT MOMS, who fail to pay ordered support in over 65% of cases?
Before castigating fathers for not supporting their children, showconcern for the corrupt courts who CREATE those fatherless children for profit. The judges and complicit politicians (who happen to be mostly lawyers who pass these anti-family laws), over the past thirty years, have trivialized fatherhood by giving sole custody to the mothers in 90(+)% of cases, denying fathers their due process rights, treating them like criminals, and separating them from their children in order to separate them from their money. Divorced, or single fathers have had fatherhood beaten out of them, and so, have no consideration for the responsibilities of siring children. Neither is there any respect for marriage by the women bearing those children.
Fatherlessness breeds sexual promiscuity. The socialist-liberals in the courts, the legislatures, and the editorial offices have createdthis national systemicproblem. They have designed programs to throw money at the problem by using more enforcement processes. Those programs have the opposite affect from what was desired. Instead of slowing or stopping the problem, they made it WORSE, creating even MORE fatherlessness, and criminalizing more fathers. When you analyze the situation with an open mind, it may occur to you, as it has to many, that failure to pay child support might actually a rebellion against tyranny.
Some will say "it hurts the children" when you don't pay. It hurts the children when the custodial mother, supported and empowered by the courts and politicians, deprive the children of contract with their father, which, according to empiricalstudies and anecdotal stories, occurs 75% of the time. No wonder there is a lost generation of children out there. It's not an accident. It's by design. The government breaks up families for profit, gain, power and control.
Remember that the next time you hear the term "Deadbeat Dad" or decide to accuse someone of being a "Deadbeat Dad"!
Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)
www.dadsamerica.org (click on New Jersey web page)