Shooting the Daily Breeze in California

Shooting the Daily Breeze in California

California may be posturing to sue the ‘Family Law Fall Guys’

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2004/untershine112504.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 11-22-04

It is hard to believe that a California newspaper could print a story congratulating the State’s Child Support Enforcement agency, let alone CSE in Los Angeles County. California CSE is an agency that answers to the State’s Attorney General and uses an accounting system for child support collections that has been deemed unacceptable by the Federal Government. The Federal Government penalizes California by withholding over $200 million per year of financial participation from the State's TANF program.

As reported by the Contra Costa Times on 07-15-03: "State officials signed an eight-year, $801 million deal with IBM on Monday for a statewide computer system to streamline the child support collection process.", "Once in place, it will relieve California taxpayers from massive fines. The state has been paying penalties since it missed a 1997 deadline to implement an automated system.", "Those payments will total $1.3 billion by 2006, according to a report last year from the California State Auditor. This year, the damage is $207 million." (Peter Felsenfeld, Contra Costa Times, 07-15-03, “IBM gets state child support contract”)

The accounting practices of the CSE agency in Los Angeles County was the focus of an investigation conducted by Policy Studies Inc. of Denver, CO in 2001 costing the California taxpayers $250,000. As reported by the LA Times on 06-03-01: "But even as Los Angeles County moves toward a new program, the administration of its current child support collections remains controversial. Last week, state director Child confirmed that officials are examining Los Angeles County's accounting practices after learning from child support advocates that the county had been double-counting collection numbers for past-due support. The practice, officials said, was discovered in the quarterly reports sent to both the state and the county commission that oversees child support. And the financial consequences could be severe for California's child support program if the county's quarterly numbers are reflected in the yearly totals submitted to the federal government." (Greg Krikorian, LA Times, 06-03-01, “County Child Support Program's Accounting Under Scrutiny by State”, "Services: Inflated figures could affect funding statewide. A private firm is hired to examine the system")

Policy Studies Inc issued a report following their 3-month investigation confirming the problem that initiated the investigation. As reported in the LA Times on 01-05-02: "Glowing report comes on the two-year anniversary of the state agency that collects court-ordered payments, whose amounts doubled on average per case", "The study also found that the county's collection rate for current support was only 32%, 'very low' compared with the state and nation. The latest state figures show that collections on current support in California averaged 44%, while nationwide the figure was 56%", "The county's performance in other key areas has also been poor. For example, the report found, Los Angeles County has an 'extraordinarily high' rate of court orders obtained by default--79%--because those sued for child support fail, for whatever reasons, to appear in court. That default rate, the report says, not only raises serious questions about the fairness of the county's approach, but also gives the court orders for child support 'less credibility and makes them harder to enforce'" (Greg Krikorian, Times Staff Writer, 01-05-02, "Reformed Child Support System Termed a Success", "Services: Glowing report comes on the two-year anniversary of the state agency that collects court-ordered payments, whose amounts doubled on average per case")

The California Legislature separated the District Attorney's Office from the Child Support Enforcement Office because the Attorney General wanted to shelter his criminal prosecutors from criminal prosecution, when his Child Support Enforcement agency is prosecuted by the Federal government for racketeering, taxpayer fraud, mail fraud, consumer fraud, credit fraud, and deprivation of rights and privileges under the color of law. California’s plausible deniability rests in pointing the finger at the ‘Family Law Fall Guys’ that operate out of other States and have been paid by the taxpayers for their professional guidance and thorough understanding of the Federal law that allows the state to draw Federal funding.

Policy Studies Inc (PSI) of Denver, CO conducted the “California Child Support Guideline Review” in addition to investigating the State’s CSE accounting.

The Urban Institute (UI) of Washington, D.C. conducted the “Collectability Study” in 2003 entitled “Examining Child Support Arrears in California”.

• PSI and UI failed to identify California noncompliance with the Federal mandate (USC 42 654 20):

• Child support guideline exceeds the Federal maximum of 65% in some cases (USC 15 1673 b2B)

• 10% interest charged on child support arrearages exceeds the Federal maximum of 6% (USC 42 654 21a)

• Interest charges are not distributed last as required by Federal law (USC 42 654 21b)

• Enforcement of employer wage withholding is not required as demanded by Federal law (USC 42 666 b6Dii)

• Employer discrimination due to wage withholding is not required as demanded by Federal law (USC 42 666 b6Di)

The Institute for Family and Social Responsibility (FASR) of Bloomington, IN published a survey entitled “Amount of Child Support Awarded by State Guidelines in Various Cases”. FASR is paid by the Federal government to act as the ‘Clearinghouse for Child Support Enforcement Statistics’ and has continued to misinform the US House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee of the financial demands imposed on parents across all States (except Indiana) since 1997.

FASR has made the following errors in their attempt to portray Indiana as the most aggressive child support guideline in the nation:

• Child support guideline amounts are only for 2 children, which masks the actual financial demand as a function of children

• Parent income is not identified to be gross or net, which diminishes the actual financial demand

• California parent earning $4,400/mo gross income ($3,300/mo net) is reported to pay $770/mo (18% gross, 23% net), which diminishes the actual financial demand of $1,320/mo (30% gross, 40% net)

• The total income of both parents is erroneously reported as the noncustodial parent income, which diminishes the actual financial demand (Marilyn E. Klotz, FASR, 1998, “Interstate Comparison of Child Support Orders using State Guidelines”)

Geragos finds closure in closing

Geragos finds closure in closing

Did Scott Peterson Commit Murder To Avoid California Family Law?

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2004/untershine110504.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 11-04-04

With “No Fault Divorce” running rampant in this country, it is hard to understand why an extramarital affair is still considered motivation to kill a spouse. Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Jesse Jackson, and Gary Condit didn’t polish off their spouse in exercising their legal right to “get some strange”. Although Dan Rather was never forced to reveal his source of information that exonerated Gary Condit (regarding the death of Chandra Levy), many believed there was a connection until the terrorist attacks of 911 captured the news.

The jury in Redwood City, CA is currently deliberating the fate of Scott Peterson as a consequence of the fate of both Laci and Conner. The riveting testimony, forensic evidence, and legal arguments that were trotted out before the Peterson jury is reminiscent of the O.J. Simpson case. Although the Peterson case did not preempt the soap operas on television (as did the Simpson case), a feminist backlash is still expected if the jury does not convict.

The Simpson case prompted feminist organizations to advertise hotlines for women to call during the ongoing trial, which would allow them to realize they were (or about to be) victims of domestic violence and what they should do about it. Women callers were instructed on the finer points of Family Law in their State (that may not have been covered in their soap operas) and given numbers for shelters and easy ways to eject these potentially deadly spouses from their homes and away from their children.

The domestic violence strategy did not work for Claira Harris, who fully expected her husband to assault her when she confronted her husband leaving a hotel with his mistress. The camera crew she hired to capture her husband’s transgressions ended up capturing her’s. Claira Harris ran her husband over three times with the man’s daughter in the same car, pleading for her to stop.

Texas prosecutor (Magness) explained to the jury the options available to Claira Harris, "If a man is cheating on you do what every other woman in this country does—take his house, take his car, take his kids, take his respect in the community, make him wish he were dead—but you don't get to kill him". Perhaps if Claira Harris uttered that terrorist threat to her husband at the hotel, she may have received her assault and there would have been no loss of life.

Soon after Scott Peterson was charged with murder, the California Attorney General (Lockyer) pronounced the case “a slam dunk". After a lengthy presentation of the evidence against Scott Peterson, many legal experts still wonder what Lockyer knew that prompted his response and why it wasn’t presented at the trial. Was Lockyer playing the numbers regarding his State’s homicide statistics or was he simply admitting the fact that a California spouse facing Family Law would rather commit murder to avoid it?

Attorney General’s in each state have Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies under their control as well as District Attorneys. Although divorces usually start in Family Court and involve independent attorneys, CSE takes over when parents are driven into poverty and are free to dabble in Civil proceedings, deprive rights and privileges, and then become the complainant for the District Attorney in seeking to incarcerate the former breadwinner.

California prosecutor (Distaso) said “Peterson had long maintained two lives — ‘the perfect husband’ in public, and in private, a cad grudgingly tolerating his marriage — but the birth of his first child and the expense of raising the boy or paying child support jeopardized the secret side he treasured”. The District Attorney seems to finally explore the true motivation for this senseless loss of life, which transforms Laci into collateral damage. Scott wanted to kill the baby – Laci just got in the way.

Defense attorney (Geragos), “who took Peterson's case saying he hoped both to exonerate his client and find the true killers, conceded that after five months of hinting at involvement by Satanists, burglars, Frey, transients and even Laci Peterson's relatives as possible culprits, the defense was unable to identify a perpetrator”, “at one point he ridiculed the prosecution motive, saying incredulously, ‘He is going to kill his wife and child because he doesn't want to pay child support?’ the first alternate juror, a young mother of four boys, nodded her head as he made the comment”

Geragos attempted to deny this crucial evidence that was offered up by the prosecution in closing arguments, when he should have asked for a mistrial. Geragos should have asked the judge to redirect the prosecution to prosecute themselves, in motivating the murder of this innocent mother and child. What exactly are the consequences that Family Law and CSE hang over a parent’s head if they allow their child to be born? Geragos may have found the perpetrator of this crime sitting in the courtroom attempting to prosecute his client - the same perpetrator responsible for the death of Chandra Levy and Bonney-Lee Bakely.

“They got this guy in Germany named Fritz (or maybe its Verner). Anyway he's got this theory; if you want to test something scientifically - how the planets go around the sun, what sunspots are made of, why the water comes out of the tap - you have to look at it, but your looking changes it. You can't know the reality of what happened (or what would have happened) if you hadn’t stuck in your own Goddamn shnoz. So there is no 'what happened'. Looking at something changes it. They call it the Uncertainty Principle. I'm sure it sounds screwy, but even Einstein says the guy is on to something. Science - perception - reality - doubt - reasonable doubt. I'm saying the more you look, the less you really know. It's a fact, a proven fact, in a way it is the only fact there is. This Heinie even wrote it out in numbers. I don't know who committed this murder - the beauty of it is - that we don't gotta know. We just gotta show that (God damn it) they don't know. Because of Fritz or Vernor or whatever the Hell his name is. Reidenshnieder sees daylight. We got a real shot at this folks - let's not get cocky.” (The movie “THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE”)