The Family Law Uncertainty Principal in California

The Family Law Uncertainty Principal in California

What kind of Tijuana is this?

http://www.gndzerosrv.com/Web%20Pages/fl_uncertainty.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 04-15-06

“In the sharp formulation of the law of causality - ‘if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future’ – it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise.” (Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927)

There is a distinction between a guideline and a rule, a process and a racket, or a system and a railroad. When it comes to social policy, there must be a thorough understanding of the dynamics of a problem before a solution can be intelligently proposed. Social policy that is implemented based on an erroneous premise may not only result in ineffectiveness – it may just start a revolution.

The U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) reported child support arrearages of $84 billion across all states in 2000. The State of California leads the nation reporting arrearages of $15.8 billion, with Texas ($7.9 billion) and Michigan ($6.3 billion) trailing the national leader in ineffectiveness by less than half. The ineptitude of the CSE agency operating in California has been the focus of much consternation by those attempting to balance the State’s budget every year.

• 2000 - Federal law (USC 42 658a) is enacted by Congress, which specifies the state incentive calculations (USC 42 658 repealed). The new method allows States to double the collections that must be distributed last, which includes TANF, Foster Care, and ‘support obligations not required to be assigned’.

• 2000 - Policy Studies Inc (PSI) is paid by California taxpayers to conduct the “California Child Support Guideline Review 2001”. PSI recommends no changes to the State’s child support awards and recommends: “the results from the Urban Institute’s study on child support debt be considered when released. It may provide further insights on the ability to pay in these presumed income cases.”

• 2001 - Policy Studies Inc is paid by California taxpayers to investigate the State’s CSE accounting with the outcome reported by the LA Times: "Glowing report comes on the two-year anniversary of the state agency that collects court-ordered payments, whose amounts doubled on average per case".

• 2003 - The Urban Institute (UI) is paid by California taxpayers to conduct the “Collectability Study” entitled “Examining Child Support Arrears in California”. UI recommends: ‘California should consider the interest charges on unpaid child support. We estimate that 27% of California’s child support arrears, or $3.9 billion, was interest in 2000’ and ‘as far as we know, there is no priori reason for charging interest before principal. We estimate that if California reversed this order, it would reduce its arrears balance by 6% over a 10 year period’.

• 2005 - Policy Studies Inc is paid by California taxpayers to conduct the “California Child Support Guideline Review 2005". PSI acknowledged the UI perspective: ‘The Collectibility Study identified the following three reasons for arrears growth during the 1990s: (1) support order amounts that were too high for low-income obligors, (2) incomplete enforcement, and (3) assessment of interest on arrears.’ PSI recommends, however: ‘No abundance of compelling evidence suggests that the basic guideline formula needs to be changed.’

Federal law specifies how collections by state CSE agencies must be distributed (USC 42 657) and demands that child support principal that accrued while not receiving TANF must be paid to the custodial parent first. The ‘priori reason for charging interest before principal’ (that seemed to allude UI) is the same reason that compelled Gray Davis to veto paternity fraud legislation – California seeks to maximize Federal funding regardless of the collateral damage incurred on the parents and the children who are forced to be victimized by the State’s lawless ‘money machine’.

“I believe that the existence of the classical ‘path’ can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The ‘path’ comes into existence only when we observe it.“ (Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927)

California has chosen to use ‘the path less traveled’ (compared to the law abiding States) by driving parents attempting to support their children to unemployment, which forces the custodial parent and their children to TANF, which allows CSE to keep the debt growing by discouraging payment, which will allow ‘welfare to work’ to help leave the children home alone, which will allow Foster Care to herd the children to same-sex households, which will allow the financially stable Foster parents to take a $10,000 per year tax deduction for each child (or even more if they request siblings). Although the parent who is originally targeted for collection will be forced to foot the bill for all aspects of their family’s destruction - the practice of distributing interest first, results in the taxpayers rarely seeing a penny of reimbursement, and the targeted parent from slowing the growth of the debt.

As a control system designer, who became a victim of employer discrimination due to Family Law proceedings and judgments (USC 42 666 b6Di), I immediately recognized a broken control system that needed my help. It took 3,448 days to baseline the Family Law process from unemployment to final hostage release. I am currently supporting all the children involved, my driver’s license has been suspended for the last 1,560 days, there is a wage withholding order filed against my self-employment ($2,718 per month), there is a wage withholding order filed against my brother’s business ($1,479 per month), and I have a warrant for my arrest for failing to seek employment which may force me to serve the remaining 3 months of a 6 month sentence for ‘Failure to Provide’.

I am currently billed for almost $230,000, which includes $1,200 per month interest, which is due to an alleged $144,000 back child support principal. Using the interest first disbursement system contrived in California - if I paid $1,200 every month to CSE for the rest of my life, my bill would never change, my children’s mother would receive $14,400 per year tax-free, CSE would somehow be allowed to claim a $28,800 child support collection every year to entitle them to Federal incentives, and my children and the taxpayers would never be entitled to a dime.

At least when a Tijuana cop pulls you over while driving in Mexico, he will only take your drivers license, or your car, or put you in jail if you refuse to give him all your money. In California they will also take your kids, your house, and your business, to allow them to rip off their Country’s taxpayers.

Second Wives Under Attack in California

Second Wives Under Attack in California

AB 2440 will allow CSE to target anyone who associates with parents owing child support

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2006/03/second-wives-under-attack-in.html

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 02-28-06

California Assembly Bill 2440, entitled “Klehs Child support obligations liability”, is raising many eyebrows amongst loved ones, family members, employers, customers, and landlords that come into contact with a parent owing child support in the State. “This bill would impose joint and several liability upon any person who knowingly assists a noncustodial child support obligor who has an unpaid child support obligation to escape, evade, or avoid current payment of those unpaid child support obligations”.

Since “Existing law imposes joint and several liability upon a parent or guardian for the injury done to another person by the child of that parent or guardian under certain circumstances” it is only natural that the State of California should allow Child Support Enforcement (CSE) to target and collect money from anyone who associates with a parent that CSE has under their thumb. Rather than just putting the deadbeat in jail for a year, CSE could attempt to financially attack anyone who stood in the way.

California is the only state in the nation that only receives 36% of CSE's operating costs from the Federal government while all other States receive 66% (USC 42 655 a4B) . The reduction in Federal funding cost California taxpayers $250 million last year since the accounting system used by CSE has not been approved by the Federal government for 5 years in a row. The publicized reason for Federal disapproval of the California CSE accounting system seemed to be the system's failure to track employers of parents (or non-parents) who are targeted by CSE. California has contracted IBM to design an accounting system in a few years that can be approved by the Federal government at a cost of $800 million.

The CSE agency in every state is required to comply with Federal Law in order to receive taxpayer funding for actively collecting arbitrary amounts of money from parents, or putting them in jail if they can't (USC 42 654 20). Depriving the rights and privileges of parents under the color of a Federal Law may put the State into an actionable position and may invite legal liability ( USC 42 1985 b / USC 18 242).

The power to withhold wages from a parent's income is just one of the many powers that is granted by the Federal Mandate which can be utilized by an individual, a civil attorney, or a representative of the State's CSE agency (USC 42 666 a8A). Employers withhold wages based on the amount that is ordered by a Family Court judge and can be ordered without the employee's involvement. The Family Court judge can only withhold up to 65% of a parent's wages, which is limited by Federal Law (USC 15 1673). If the 65% Federal maximum is not enough to satisfy the State's Family Court order for child support, the parent will be facing a child support arrearage that can grow with interest (at the option of the state) at the federal maximum of 6% per annum (USC 42 654 21a).

The protection granted to employees by the Federal Mandate demands that employers must withhold the money ordered by the court and must not discriminate against an employee by terminating or refusing to hire a parent due to the existence of the court's wage withholding order (USC 42 666 b6D). Employers who are forced to impoverish their employees are participating in a self-defeating activity. The employee must make drastic changes to somehow survive after this court ordered pay-cut and must maintain the same level of productivity that would allow them to keep their job. Any employer can prove a State's compliance with Federal Law by simply refusing to abide by a wage withholding order and see if they have the guts to enforce it. Family Law litigants, attorneys, or CSE agencies are reluctant to enforce wage withholding orders because it might allow the employee to seek a downward modification, if it was brought to the court's attention that this parent is currently unemployed. Successfully driving the parent targeted for collection to unemployment allows the child support arrearage to grow with interest, which explains the reluctance to allow a parent to reduce it, let alone allowing a parent to pay it.

Why should laws be changed or created if officers of the court are free to ignore them? The back room solution would be to convince the American Bar Association to allow their members to ignore the laws that drive parents attempting to pay child support into poverty or prison, and recognize and enforce the laws that protect them. The front room solution would be to round up the consultants who were paid to guarantee that a State's child support guideline and implemented system complies with Federal Law and sue them for malpractice it doesn't. 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”)

The Violence Against Joe Biden Act

The Violence Against Joe Biden Act

Incarceration or exoneration - The 14 million man surrender looms on the horizon

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2006/01/satire-enforcing-violence-against-joe.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 01-29-06

American parents may choose to prompt legislation to grant advocates of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) the same accommodations. Daughters are currently empowered by VAWA to destroy the lives of sons by simply choosing to call the cops. The agencies that receive funding from VAWA are paid to advocate the use of these special rules and to strictly enforce the laws that fall within this ‘domestic violence’ category.

The new legislation would allow Joe Biden to call the police and make false allegations of violence against him by anyone he resides with, and to obtain a restraining order against them. Those who offend Joe Biden will be arrested and must defend themselves in criminal court which may result in one year in jail, unless they confess to their transgressions and agree to attend anger management classes every week for a year (costing up to $45/class). Failing to afford the weekly anger management class or the monthly restitution, or contacting Joe Biden to request the return of personal belongings, or violating the law in any way will force the probation officer to demand that the court order the offender to serve the one year suspended sentence.

The full weight of the law will fall on your shoulders if you reside with Joe Biden and fail to move fast enough to get out of the way when he walks through a doorway, or if you destroy a phone in the same room as Joe, or raise your voice at him, or ask Joe to move out of your house. Joe Biden may choose to take your children and seek asylum in a federally funded shelter for Joe if skeptical cops refuse to arrest you in response to the aforementioned allegations. Joe Biden will receive instructions on how to focus the law to force you to give Joe your house and your furnishings, to deny you and your parents any contact with your children, and to force you to pay monthly restitution to Joe for choosing to support him and your kids.

Only when Joe Biden is empowered by the same laws that are afforded to women, will he feel the same threat of preemptory or retaliatory violence that is provoked by these laws. Anyone who resides with Joe Biden may be aware of his empowerment and may choose to ‘nip the problem in the bud’ by eliminating the source of potential allegations that would unleash the full force of these laws that exist to protect Joe from others. Only then will Joe Biden feel the same anxiety that was felt by the family of Latoyia Figueroa, Laci Peterson, Lori Hacking, Chandra Levy, and Bonny Lee Bakely. Only when Joe Biden is victimized by the same laws that are afforded to women, will he feel the same urge toward misdirected anguish, that we feel motivated the perpetrators of the foregoing homicides.

The laws against domestic violence can easily be used by financially dependant partners who secretly decide to start their next relationship before terminating the last. ‘No fault’ divorce allows this act of betrayal to be used as a tool to guarantee tax free restitution from the monogamous partner if they fail to repress a common human reaction. The breadwinning partner will be viewed by the court as the litigant who will pay for the court costs regardless of the finding of fact.

Police officers are not immune - as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune : “Up until two years ago, Art Henderson appeared to be at the top of his game. A Lehi police officer, he worked on the SWAT team, taught a self-defense class for women and instructed his fellow officers on when it was appropriate to use force.”, “He assaulted a man who was dating his wife, an incident that led to his termination in July 2004. The assault charge would be the first of three filed against him during the next 18 months. His wife, Natalie Henderson, who says he abused and threatened to kill her, later filed for divorce, sparking a bitter custody battle. Finally, on the streets he once patrolled as a peace officer, Art Henderson snapped Friday morning. After crashing his pickup truck into a car driven by his estranged wife, Henderson shot and wounded her boyfriend, Craig Trimble, who was in the passenger seat. He then fired at police officers - his former colleagues - who fired back, striking him in his left knee and foot.”

Lawyers are not immune - as reported by Richmond Times-Dispatch : “Jablin was ambushed in his driveway on a chilly October morning. Prosecutors proved in February that Rountree, Jablin's ex-wife and a Texas lawyer, shot Jablin twice, in the arm and in the back, when he went out to retrieve the Saturday morning newspaper Oct. 30. Their three children were asleep upstairs when Jablin was killed.”, “Rountree killed Jablin, prosecutors argued, because she wanted custody of their three children and because she was more than $7,000 behind in her child-support payments. Jablin and Rountree had been married for 19 years before they divorced in 2002, and Jablin was awarded full custody.”, “’Piper is a beautiful, gentle spirit,’ said longtime friend Lavon Guerrero, who traveled from Austin, Texas, for the sentencing. She also described Rountree as a ‘tremendous homemaker’ who was ‘100 percent there for her kids at all times’."

My recent incarceration for failing to pay money to an agency of the California Attorney General illuminated the same findings as Sherree Lowe, a recent Florida Senate hopeful, who was incarcerated for failing to pay money to a Florida attorney. Jails are filled with nonviolent men and women, allowing the state to receive Federal incentives for actively maximizing their sentence.

Michael Benarik, the Libertarian Presidential hopeful who was incarcerated for appearing at a Presidential debate uninvited, which provoked the adage ‘As long as there are bars between the lawful and the lawless – there is a measure of freedom in that too’. Martha Stewart, a feminist icon who refused to lose money to the stock market, made the same observation regarding needless incarceration of women after she was finally released, put on parole, and was denied the right to vote. Jim Traficant, a former Ohio Congressman, is drawing farm animals in the Pen for failing to hide contributions of money he received from his supporters, and for not being able to afford a good lawyer. Fathers 4 Justice, a group of Family Law reformers in England who all had their children taken from their lives, are being accused of ‘high crimes’ for having enough money to buy a beer in a pub and asking the question: “I wonder how Tony Blair would feel if someone took his child from his life?”

“A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight." Henry David Thoreau