Welcome to SPARC Forums. Please login or sign up.

Jul 18, 2024, 03:53:43 AM

Login with username, password and session length

child support and the undeniable true facts

Started by leon, Dec 27, 2005, 11:17:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

leon

Under the 1935 social secuity act congress created the welfare states and public rights outside of the constitution under social security. Later on the revisation of child support came with URESA and UFSA.etc.. all under title IV-D of the social security act. The stipulations put upon the states by congress to be elligable for federal monies was that they had to have state plans and enter into cooperative agrreements (contracts) with the courts and other entities of the state to receive federal financial participation and encentives, kickbacks. The people have been led on a ruse beleiving it is all for the benefit of the child"ren" however under the state plan"s" you will find out who realy benfits from the support and why the states pursue it so hard. what people need to do is file a FOIA for the state plan in that state and a FOIA for the list of cooperative agreements as required under title 45 of the code of federal regulations.

Genie

or accomplish and why would someone file that.  Your post is very wordy and doesn't make much sense other than the state get federal money for CS collection.  We already new all that.  Even so, the money still benefits the children b/c it helps get the children what they need (in most cases).  Telling us to file the things stated gives us no information as to why we should file it.

Be more specific please.

leon

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.  

leon

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.