Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - leon

#51
DElay of time to receive, keeps CSED from unilateraly making increases in support without anyone imputting in for a modification(she or you have to do it) leaves CSED powerless without a court order to modify, and just gives more NCP's a feeling of meaning. For CSED to collect, she either has to be on some sort of assistance(state assistance) or she or you have to enter a application of aid for them to collect, for which they charge a processing fee, that either ways gets charged back to the NCP.
#52
the problem with doing this relies totaly on if this was a court ordered or decreed child support order or Administrative state order, if it was so and there was no stipolations put in it as what the changes were to be when one child reached of age then youre only recourse,( to save youre husband) would be to go to court, which you could do on a Pro se. If you chose not to you run the risk of the Ex going in later and fileing for back support since there was no LEGAL order to change. Now if they entered into this agreemnet mutually without a court order(assuming she, the ex, does not go onto state assistance or medicaid,) you should be under all rights reserved ok. The unfortunate part to this is the states have found ways to tweak the laws(adminstrative laws, that have no force and affect of law) only if you know this and have the cases to prove it, to there advantage, for the sole purpose of collecting revenue, and yes wether or not you use CSED, CSSD or any other administrative agency for collections, you are in there system.
Hope this helps you without being to confusing, its not meant to be, but it can be untill you figure it out.
#53
I for one am not a citizen of the united states,"Defined under the 1935 social security act"(Title IV-D,Welfare States) i am however a citizen of the United states of America and withhold and reserve all my constitutional rights, I claim no public created rights or benefits, nor do i claim a residency within the state, for i am merely dominciled here. All one has to do is ask why is there two different names for a Nation, and why do the courts jump back and forth on the names(United states)(United states of America) when they are referring to it in case laws.
(Cheif Justice Marshall,- if they the people value and wish to preserve there constitution, they ought to never surrender the independance of there judges' Rawle on the constitution (2d Ed). 281 O'Donoghue v. United States 289 U.S 516, 532 (1933)
#54
The Dsitrict courts and the superior courts in the administrative welfare states are Article I tax courts and are so reconized in state and federal case laws.Article I tax courts are not constitutionaly created, they are creations of the legislatures and congress under Social Security, goverment created has never and will be never constitutionaly protected. These entities within the alledged judicial sytem operate within with out an office, the power of the Article III courts is reserved in the Office through the constitution and its basis is founded on the strictist basis that the courts are indpedant. Article I tax courts and superior courts of the States have only employees in it, the judges are not officers, and are state appointed, with contracts to the Administrative state,(they cannot be independant) as far as juridiction you surrender youre juridiction to the Administrative courts when you file in under any motion without declaring youre rights to an Article III court under the constituion,(took a while but found a few cases to verify)consent is and has always been a prerequsit in these courts for them to move forward. what many of the courts dont want to come and say is if you want a public created right you will surrender youre constitutional protections, and this is why so many lose under the right and wrong of it, because they have no idea, hire an attorney and sign over to him power of attorney.In Alaska we have the Bar Association and they all, judges and Lawyers take an Oath to it, and one of the rules within the bar is Lawyers cannot talk constitutional Laws. always more to come.
#55
it is what the people dont understand that has them scared for the most , as for the rest well they dont want to understand or beleive since they are to busy living in there administrative world of recieving benefits for free when in reality all they have done is sold there rights for a public benefit anf there kids as well.
#56
the right to travel is a guareenteed preserved right under the constitution, it in no way shape or form restricted us to the undividual states, not the states you are dominciled in, or if you want to claim as youre residence. I personally am a citizen of the United states of America, dominciled in the state of Alaska, the code of federal regulations under the IRS is where you find lots of differences, and under title 45 public welfare, everything in there is under the United States, Not(The United States of America) the right to travel unrestricted is under the Federal Constitution, and is a preserved right as long as you dont surrender youre rights under Social Security, and goverment created rights,goverment created rights afford no constituional protection there a statuatory created right under acts of congress and or the individual state. Any nation wether foreign or abroad has every right to issue licenses and in which the indiviual states have no authority to take, because they are not a state issued public right. There is three cases going on now in the State of Alaska right now dealing with that issue, issued by a sovereign federal reconized indian nation, the state dont like it but there it is.They(the Administrative States) dont like what they cant take awayand cannot use as a weapon of threatening the citizens within wehter right full so or notn and in many cases NOT.
#57
in a nicer response than what i usually give, a 50-50 split under the federal code of regulations means no one side can pay child support because it inherently runs into conflicts with the constitution under discrimination, and violation of equal protection, however the courts have learned a catchall that most people haven't caught on to and that is they will assign one side legal or primary legal custody and get away with child support in that dirrection, even though in 1000's of cases ive only found 2 that have been cited or tried on that issue alone. Under the code of federal regulations obnly the absent parent( the one who the child does not reside with primarily 50% of the time is required tp pay, and under that the guidelines that the state is contracted and obligated to follow must be time spent with each parent must be factored in.All the info is under title 45CFR code of federal regualtions, and under tittle 42 USC(United States code) all of this can be find on the internet under a general word search. Read and Learn and you will save money time and the headache of being lied to and misrepresented.
#58
Child Support Issues / RE: I can't find it now
Jan 08, 2006, 02:17:10 AM
actualy that is correct what the federal law says, but only to an extent, the federal law actually says the basis of child support is dependant upon the time of absence that the NCP is away from the child, and that has been upheld in many federal and state court ruleings. As far as discretionary practices or interpretation by the judge, yeah he or she is going to do that because there bound by contract to perform in the favor of the Administrative state for the collection of revenue for which they get encentives and kickbacks for. Isnt it nice to know that youre judge was not independant and was bound by contract outside of the constitution, and he or she and youre lawyer didn't disclose that to you. All the information you ever need is in 45 cfr's (code of Federal Regulations) with some in 26 USC (United States Code) there is where you will see alot of difference between what the indivdual states are doing and what congress had intended, even though the states are bound by the federal regulations they stray away from them and the courts in the indivdual states, bound by contract let them, since most people dont know that they are being wronged, (its called interpretation) which varys for each individual interpreting it. They gotta make there quotas or there penalized.
#59
To follow up on that opinion and to affirm it, i have a copy of the Texas contratc between the Attorney generals office, the courts and CSED. under that contract the Attorney general brings in Associate Judges, pays there salarys and benefits while he the Attorney general is representing CSED in all cases, now you tell me there isint a conflict of interest there, especialy since all the contracts have a performance decree that they are bound by.
#60
well that depends on where you want to stand under the scheme of things, do you beleive in the constitution, the right to an independant judge, the right to a meaningfull trial, and the right to not be disriminated against.? The state plans dont say a word about benefiting the child, what they do say is for the intent to collect revenue, what people have forgotten is all these goverment programs, (public rights) as defined under the Social Security Act are supposed to be for the better of the people, and that is what they are not. Judges under a contract with anybody cannot be indpendant, nor can they be unbiased or give a decision that is without self interest. Dont take a scientist to figure that out./ Of course if you are one of those who benefit from the non independant judge, that has to by contract rule in favor of the Administrative State then none of this will interest you./ but if like millions that are being screwed and yes that does mean custodial parents like me , then it will help you. More importantly if you take what the states are doing and what the code of Federal Regulations say they can do you will find a big difference. And finally congress is the one who has mandated all of this in there plenairy power, how ever people should remember congress has no authority over the several states.
But hey most people either can not or do not want to grasp the truth, either by nonknowing or because they are benefiting from the present knowledge of what they believe is fact and right.