VAWA - Perpetuating itself without opposition

VAWA - Perpetuating itself without opposition

Silencing the lambs has never been so easy or profitable

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2005/untershine072905.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 07-28-05

Lawmakers seem to be stacking the deck regarding the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that is currently up for renewal in Congress. Opponents of the bill seem to be filtered out of the discussion that would allow lawmakers to realize that VAWA has provoked plenty of violence for everyone – not just women. VAWA has become so infectious - that those who worship it will not allow those affected by it to stand in the same room to debate it.

Opponents of VAWA are expected to feel callous since this government program is advertised to “assist local efforts to combat rape, domestic violence, and other crimes against women. In addition to boosting funding for rape crisis and education programs, funding for the VAWA is used to increase the number of police patrols in high-risk areas, and to improve lighting and surveillance in parks and on public transportation systems around the nation.” and is necessary because “The assault rate against women is now rising twice as fast as the assault rate against men. An estimated 3 million American women are battered each year by their husbands or partners.”

Since laws already exist to punish and incarcerate convicted perpetrators of violence against others, the purpose of VAWA seems to allow punishment without the need for conviction. The squabble about statistics regarding violence between partners in America should prompt our lawmakers to take this opportunity to allocate funding for law enforcement in each state to identify, count, and categorize the actual violence between partners nationwide. The US Census Bureau fails to count parents of minor children in this country, while the US Justice Department fails to categorize the violence between them.

VAWA has become the catalyst for the very violence that it was originally designed to indulge. The idea of sheltering and empowering false victims of domestic violence has actually escalated the motivation for actual violence between partners who are married, or living together, or who are parents of the same minor child.

VAWA is used as a tool to capitalize on the no-fault divorce laws that has been implemented by almost all States. The first partner to allege domestic violence is empowered to walk into Family Court and exile the accused partner from their residence and their children by simply presenting allegations to prove it. The days of a Family Court that delved into adultery, sexual abandonment, and mental cruelty has been replaced with a ‘winner take all’ system that doesn’t even require a partner to be a victim of violence, but simply suggesting to the court that they are.

The spirit of VAWA was fully realized in the OJ Simpson backlash - when housewives were forced to endure a lengthy trial on TV rather than enjoying their daily soap operas. The commercials that were run during the course of the trial urged women to call a phone number to be told how they are battered, abused, or emotionally affected by their partner. Women who called this number would be instructed how to fast track a divorce by using provoked or alleged violence as a tool.

Family Law injustice, dispensed by some States, relies on VAWA to easily maximize the cash flow between partners when the court orders separation between them. The unconstitutional denial of due process (which is the trademark of VAWA) has created the existence of desperate partners that feel that the only way to avert injustice is to eliminate their partner when they see Family Law looming on the horizon.

A normal human reaction by a partner arriving home after a hard day’s work and catching their partner in bed with a new lover, could result in the monogamous partner being forced out of their residence, denied access to their children, and forced to finance the adulterous partner and the home wrecker who are now the new role models for the children. Lawmakers or the divorce industry will never fear preemptive or retaliatory violence from this obvious miscarriage of justice but the partners who are coerced to take part in this legalized racket will always be in harms way.

While the Nation waits anxiously for clues regarding the disappearance of Latoyia Figueroa in Pennsylvania - we can’t help recalling other pregnant women we were once very anxious about. Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson, and Lori Hacking might have something to say about prenatal violence provoked by Family Law. Bonny Lee Bakely and David Harris may have something to say about the preemptive violence provoked by Family Law. Nicole Simpson and Fredric Jablin may have something to say about retaliatory violence provoked by Family Law. Louis Joy, Derrick Miller, and Perry Manley might have something to say about the self-inflicted violence provoked by Family Law.

The censorship of all opponents to VAWA insures that the actual victims of the deadly violence provoked by Family Law will have the same voice as those who wish to speak for them. Hunter Thompson had the following to say in a reported interview with Richard Nixon:

"The family? - Well that's bad news. The Screwheads finally came and took my daughter away. Let me ask you a question, sir - What is this country doing for the doomed? There are two different people in this country - the doomed and the Screwheads. Savage, tribal, thugs who live off of illegal incomes - burrowed deep out there, no respect for human dignity, they don't know what you and I understand. And they're going to get your daughter too, sir. I've heard their rallies - they like Julie - but Trisha - and they really hate you, sir. You know that one half of the state senate of Utah are Screwheads. You know I've never really been frightened by the Fatheads - and the Potheads with their silliness never frighten me either - but these goddamn Screwheads - they terrify me. And the poor doomed - the young, and the silly, and the honest, and the weak, and the Italians. Their doomed - they're lost - they're helpless - they're somebody else's meal - they're like pigs in the wilderness." (Movie: “Where the Buffalo Roam”)

California may be forced to finally reform welfare

California may be forced to finally reform welfare

The Terminator may help the real John Conner shut down the ‘money machines’

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2005/untershine031405.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 03-13-05

The offensive bankruptcy bill, which the Senate recently passed into law, has been lobbied for by Banks and Credit Card companies who are sick and tired of getting stiffed by parents who were impoverished by Family Law. Breadwinning parents who were cast aside by Family Courts and forced to pay outrageous amounts of money and the dependant parents forced to beg for welfare when the breadwinner becomes unemployed.

As reported by USA Today - “Supporters of the bill, which include credit card companies and banks, say the change would prevent abuses by compulsive shoppers, gamblers, deadbeat parents and others who don't want to be responsible for their debts.”, “During debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said; ‘The bankruptcy courts are filled with cases of hardworking single mothers who were pushed over the financial brink because they failed to get the child support they deserve’.”

Banks and credit card companies may soon realize that Child Support Enforcement (CSE) is guaranteed by Federal Law to have the ”first crack” at a deadbeat parent’s income. Rather than waiting for this meaningless bankruptcy law to have no affect on the problem, credit card companies may take a few seconds to construct a rudimentary database that would finally reform welfare and make CSE disappear.

California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, may be able to pull a rabbit out of a hat by trading welfare reform for Federal penalty forgiveness and canceling expensive contracts by shortsighted companies promising the State’s salvation. Making CSE disappear may be the only way California can bring the State’s budget back in the black.

As reported by the Sacramento Bee – “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's appeals to the Bush administration to stop the fines won a temporary delay of last year's penalty but, to the surprise of Schwarzenegger administration officials, the federal government is now demanding payment of both this year's and last year's penalties - a total of $385 million. The state already has paid about $750 million in federal penalties.”

A fair and just Family Law system would finally grant parents the RIGHT to support their children. It would also stop the senseless violence, loss of life, and acts of desperation by parents who are being persecuted by the present out of control Family Law system or by parents who would do anything to avoid it. Leveling the playing field may come at some great cost, however, since it would lead to the deletion of useless government programs like "Child Support Enforcement (CSE)", “Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)”, “Child Protective Services (CPS)”, “Social Security”, "Responsible Fatherhood", and "Healthy Marriage".

The "Family Rights" program and the soon to be privatized "Custody Free" child support program (which has come into existence before coming into existence) will be the only active programs operating on the Family Law platform. TANF, CSE, and CPS programs will all be leisure services within the "Labor", "Treasury", "Education" and "Agriculture" departments in every State.

The Family Law environment of the future provides for the "Preservation, Protection, and Prosperity" of families by allowing parents to record and scrutinize the cost of raising their children. When a child is born (in this new family friendly environment) a bookmark is created which points to the child's biological parents, and is recognized by various government programs as a potential customer regarding streams of support offered by the taxpayers. Each child's bookmark will point to a credit card account that will serve as a bucket for financial assistance that can be filled by parents, employers, medical insurance, and government agencies. The charges made to the child's account will be limited to an approved list of goods or services that are agreed upon by the child's parents. The deposits and expenditures on the goods or services associated with this "Custody Free" account will provide feedback to the parents, and optionally to USDA (Agriculture Dept), CSE (Treasury Dept), CSE (Labor Dept), and TANF/CPS (Education Dept).

The system is already in place - Companies already record everything that we buy

When a customer gathers groceries at a major supermarket - they produce the store's "Discount Card". When a customer gathers goods at a major department store - they produce the store's "Charge Card". When a customer gathers medical services at a medical facility - they produce a medical "Insurance Card". Scanning the customer's card creates a file on each company's computer identifying every item purchased by this customer. If each company forwarded the summaries of itemized charges back to the customer (or agency, bank, employer, church, or accountant), then debts could be distributed to those authorized to pay for each particular charge.

Parents living together after the birth of a child will establish a child support baseline that would have little reason to change if the parents ever choose to separate. Parents who choose not to live together will contribute to the "Custody Free" account and their contributions may vary depending on their present income or the level of their child's financial bucket. The account can lock the contributions made by each parent and the financial surplus can spill over to a college fund that would earn interest and also serve as a cash reserve for periods of unexpected parent unemployment.

And now a word from our sponsor – Stop the destruction of the American Family

The American Coalition of Fathers and Children (under the leadership of Dr Stephen Baskerville and Michael McCormick) have issued “An appeal to the parents of America about the destruction of the American Family”. All parents (regardless of gender) are urged to join the ACFC “in demanding that our elected officials at all levels investigate the machinery of Family Law and child custody and render a full and candid account to the American people”. Download the recent flyer from the ACFC website and subscribe to the “The Liberator” and share this information with your local lawmakers.

CONTACT: ACFC – 1718 M St. NW, #187 – Washington, DC 20036 – info@acfc.org - (800) 978-3237 – www.acfc.org

The Family Law ‘Dead Zone’

The Family Law ‘Dead Zone’

Taxpayers are riding a dead horse in California

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2005/untershine031205.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 03-11-05

Riding on the shoulders of Child Support Enforcement – ‘Supremacy Feminists’, ‘Responsible Fatherhood’ advocates, ‘Healthy Marriage” advocates, misguided journalists, and private corporations have chosen to pursue a father bashing agenda. The most recent attention getters seem to be the Washington Post expose on the homicides of pregnant women, the Pittsburgh Live article condemning deadbeat dads, the poisonous advertising campaigns by ‘David & Goliath’, ‘Dominoes Pizza’ and ‘Verizon’, the aging ‘Family Court Report’ that was issued by the California National Organization for Women (NOW), and the book ‘Fatherless America’ by David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values.

While the present administration seems to be interested enough in the child support problem to prompt all States to implement programs to persecute the parents who are ‘letting the taxpayers down’, they don’t seem interested enough to take a closer look at the obvious source of the problem. Family Law and CSE are designed to only affect parents - although paternity fraud and same-sex marriage can provide additional victims. Disparaging the parents who happen to be fathers is due to the fact that 85% of them do not have custody of their children, which is due to the fact that they were identified by their State to be the only parent capable of financially supporting their children. The cash flow between parents must be somehow interrupted to allow collection of child support and the accrued interest, allowing money to be earned by the State’s CSE program.

The birthday of a deadbeat parent (under the control of Family Law) is the date they become unemployed, which is the start of the Family Law ‘Dead Zone’. The ‘Dead Zone’ ends when Child Support Enforcement (CSE) files a Civil Court order enforcing a new or old child support order assigned to the unemployed parent - complete with a total of how much the unemployed parent failed to pay and an estimate of the accrued interest on the money that never appeared. Federal law demands 6% maximum on child support principal and the interest must be collected last.

Mike Cox, Attorney General of Michigan, has pulled out all the stops attempting to make parents pay his CSE agency. The power of the Federal Law allows the Justice department of each State to deprive rights and privileges, impose a financial embargo, and secure Civil Court wage-withholding orders targeting the parents who lost their jobs attempting to pay child support. Federal Law limits wage withholding to 65% maximum of the parent’s net income.

It may seem obvious, but the money stops when a parent paying child support becomes unemployed. It may also seem obvious that an employer is the “deep pockets” litigant regarding any Civil Court enforcement of a wage withholding order. Why would a Civil attorney turn their back on their former client, if they were a party in securing that wage withholding order? Did the employer simply decide to stop withholding the child support payments in violation of Federal Law? Did the employer terminate the paying parent’s employment or refuse to hire them due to the existence of child support withholding in violation of Federal Law?

While Civil attorney apathy can be explained away by pointing to the inaction by the recipient of child support payments, CSE attorneys are compelled to enforce wage withholding orders, since it is demanded by the same Federal Law that gives them the power to persecute the new unemployed parent. A Civil Court proceeding that finds the employer has discriminated against their employee or refused to ‘go along with the program’ would be ordered to resume payments or rehire the employee and may be fined for their “unacceptable practice”. A Civil court proceeding letting the employer ‘off the hook’ would also lead to a downward modification in the child support amount demanded of the unemployed parent, which is probably what caused this problem in the first place.

A State failing to comply with a Federal mandate that is designed to allow child support to be received by a dependent parent on behalf of the children is not enough to shut down a State’s lawless money machine. Instead, the offending State is deprived of Federal financial participation regarding the operation cost of the State’s CSE program. American taxpayers repay the operating costs regarding each State’s CSE program as a function of violating the Federal law – 66% for 0 years of violation, 62% for 1, 58% for 2, 50% for 3, 41% for 4, and 36% for more. The penalty money that would have been used by California to pay CSE operating costs will be put in the Federal CSE Incentive pool to reward all States for successfully collecting child support. Half of the $446 million incentive pool that is ‘up for grabs’ to all States is funded by California ‘hush money’. The Federal incentive calculation allows States to double the actual collection of welfare, foster care, and interest on back child support, since these collections must be made last.

The annual $200 million drain and the escalating welfare roles of California are both due to a failed CSE agency under the control the State’s Attorney General, Bill Lockyer. The published reason for imposing the Federal penalty on California was due to an unacceptable CSE accounting system, which failed to track new employers of re-employed parents. Even if IBM reinvents the credit card in 4 years costing the California taxpayers over $800 million, the system will still be unacceptable enough for the Federal government to continue penalizing the State.

Dissolving CSE into existing State departments would guarantee compliance with the Federal mandate:

• Labor Department - CSE would be there for parents attempting to abide by court orders if they suddenly become unemployed.

• Treasury Department - CSE would already have a vehicle for withholding wages, accurately counting money, and providing feedback regarding a parent’s net income.

• Education Department – CSE would be there for children who don’t seem to be receiving the goods and services that were purchased by a parent or the taxpayers.

"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" (Werner Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927)

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”)

Deadbeats for Badnarik

Deadbeats for Badnarik
Who dat say they gonna beat Mike Badnarik?
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2004/untershine102904.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 10-28-04

American family members, desperate to vote for change, are finding themselves still wondering 'who?'. The major candidates are not recognizing parents and children currently victimized by Family Law as a special interest group. In contrast to the words of Ross Perot: "Don't waste your vote on traditional politicians who promise you everything to get elected but never deliver", parents are not even getting the promises.

Sometimes a voter must identify the special interest groups that endorse a candidate, rather than believing the lip service from the major party nominee.

• A vote for George Bush is a vote for FoxNews (America cannot survive 4 more years of FoxNews).

• A vote for John Kerry is a vote for the National Organization for Women (America cannot survive 4 more years of flaming feminism).

• A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for consumer protection (American families have never seen the first 4 years of that).

• A vote for Micheal Badnarik is a vote for American families and the preservation of the Constitutional rights that they are too good-natured to rise up and demand - or are too busy working hard, paying taxes, and raising their children.

American parents striving to insure the preservation, protection, and prosperity of their family are finding themselves behind the 8-ball (in that - you can't get there from here). Sons must be told to go into the world and become successful and raise a family to allow Family Law to take it all away. Daughters must be told to pursue their dreams and fall in love and have children to allow Family Law to provoke their murder. Grandparents must be told why they can't see their grandchildren or why they are forced to raise them.

Micheal Badnarik is the Liberatarian candidate and is running with Richard Campagna. As explained on his website: "Libertarians are, quite simply, people who believe in 'Self-Ownership': You own yourself, and no one else on Earth has a higher claim to your body or your labor than you do. So long as people act in a way that doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom, Libertarians believe that they should be free to do what they please.", "As president, I will direct the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to sue states which attach criminal liability to child support obligations and, if necessary, to charge government officials who administer that unconstitutional criminal liability with violations of the civil rights of non-custodial parents."

Noncustodial parents, who refuse to fund family law systems holding their children hostage, and those who cannot convince their employers to do likewise, must realize that they can refuse to fund the Electoral College by voting for Micheal Badnarik. Not unlike the Bush - Clinton fiasco that resulted from everyone voting for Ross Perot, and the Bush - Gore fiasco that resulted from all the absentee voters in Florida voting for Perot again, sometimes the greatest power a voter posseses is the power to prefer not to.

To recognize the weight of a single voting block, their numbers must be accurately determined. Since American parents are not afforded the luxery of being counted in life (US Census) or in death (Homicide statistics), we are forced to extract our data. Of the 213 million potential voters in the US, 36% are parents, and 64% are grandparents and non-parents. Of the 286 million people of all ages in the US, 26% are children, 27% are parents, and 48% are grandparents and non-parents. This seems to suggest that 53% of the population (parents and children) is represented by 36% of the voters (parents) - a good case could be made for an electoral family in the best interest of the children.

On 10-08-04 the major media outlets continued their blackout regarding citizens who are critical of government and choose to demand their rights: "Libertarian Michael Badnarik (on 49 state ballots) and Green David Cobb (on 28 state ballots), crossed a police line in St. Louis, and were arrested.", "Badnarik was also attempting to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with a 'Show Cause Order' issued by an Arizona judge, requiring the CPD to appear at a hearing concerning the Libertarian Party's lawsuit to stop the upcoming debate at Arizona State University, as an illegal campaign contribution to Bush and Kerry, an unconstitutional use of Arizona state funds to support selected candidates, and a violation of the LP's equal protection rights, since they are a recognized political party in Arizona."

Many Americans are beginning to realize that the only people in jail are the ones forced to abide by the law - like Jim Trafficant, Martha Stewart, Elena Sassower, and Lowell Jaks. I guess as long as there are bars between the lawfull and the lawless, there can be a measure of freedom in that too. In the words of Henry David Thoreau "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison"

American parents are not asking for much really:

• Paternity establishment at childbirth with every child assigned medical insurance at a reasonable cost with upgrades.

• Basic child support orders that are uniformly calculated to slightly exceed each states welfare amount for a family of the same size.

• Default presumption of equal parenting that can be concurrant or consecutive.

• Restoration of due process, rules of evidence, and 'Yo Fault' divorce to make Family Court civil again.

• Parent protection from employer discrimination due to Family Law proceedings or judgements.

• Accurate accounting of payments made to support the children and adequate proof that the children received it.

• Deprivation of rights and priveledges of the parents that won't pay the basic child support, instead of the parents who can't.

• Release from incarceration all parents that have children to support and don't ever do that again.

My name is Jim Untershine, a deadbeat dad and single parent supporting 2 of my 3 daughters, and I approve of this message.

Is Child Support Peaking your Interest?

Is Child Support Peaking your Interest?

Cultivating deadbeats in California

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2004/untershine100704.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 10-05-04

Not unlike the 'Ansari X' prize which awards the winner for designing something to repeatedly break free of the Earth’s gravity – Arnold Schwarzenegger may be considered for the 'Malcolm X' prize, in preventing his state from repeatedly enslaving free men by utilizing false paternity. The state of Illinois attempted to take on the same challenge, but expedient injustice and the gravity of greed never allowed them to get off the ground.

Paternity fraud is so obviously wrong; it is hard to justify taking time to condemn it. Of all the 'deadbeats' that are accused of driving our national child support arrearage up to $84 billion - paternity fraud victims are the heterosexual men who dare to have sex with liars, who are expected and encouraged to refuse to allow crime to pay and their employers are scorned for withholding it.

A ‘deadbeat’ is defined as "One who does not pay one's debts - a lazy person; a loafer". The term was previously used to describe a morally negligent person who relies on the generosity of others rather than getting a job. The term deadbeat has recently been expanded to include breadwinning parents who are put out of a job due to extraordinary child support garnishments, which makes living and formal employment mutually exclusive. I would like to propose another expansion of the term to include agencies that are paid by the US taxpayers to support a State's families and children, then actively proceed to impoverish them, rob them, provoke violence between them, make them beg for mercy, imprison them, and give the surviving kids to the homos.

Paternity establishment is the ‘foot in the door’, concerning these Family Law vacuum salesmen, who destroy your home demonstrating their machine, and then force you buy it but then won’t allow you to use it. Many disgruntled customers are reluctant to make timely payments for a money machine that is designed to suck, and may be more reluctant to pay due to the amount of the monthly payments or in defiance of fraudulent billing. Although child support demands vary from state to state, there is a way that some greedy states can accumulate a huge arrearage that can easily be lost in the shuffle and absorbed by the state upon collection.

The interest charged on child support arrears is limited by the federal mandate to 6% maximum and specifies that this interest must be collected last. As reported by the Office of Child Support Enforcement:

• Maine leads the nation demanding 15% interest for late payments, but no interest on adjudicated and retroactive arrears.

• Indiana leads the nation demanding 18% interest for adjudicated and retroactive arrears, but no interest on late payments.

• California ranks 3rd in the nation charging 10% interest on all 3 types of child support arrearages.

The actual child support owed by a parent includes any TANF or Foster Care charges that would be earmarked for taxpayer reimbursement. Upon collection of child support, the state is required to distribute the money in the following order: Child support, TANF, Foster Care, and Interest. Since TANF, Foster Care, and Interest are required to be distributed last, these amounts are doubled in the incentive calculations regarding the states cut of the $454 million incentive pool provided by the US taxpayers.

States who choose to unlawfully distribute child support collections as interest, will not only bolster their incentive calculation, but will also prevent the parent from reducing the principal, which would tend to reduce the interest charges. In a state that is penalized by the Federal government for continuing to operate an unacceptable system of accounting, it would not be difficult to find various ways for this agency of the Attorney General (CSE) to absorb uncalculated collections and then over-calculate the TANF and Foster Care payments that may (or may not) have been paid by the state.

A parent under the spell of a state CSE agency that chooses to charge interest, can calculate the money that is up for grabs by using the following equations:

• Monthly child support withholding = (parent monthly net income) * (65% maximum)

• Actual child support owed = (Monthly interest charge) * 12 / (Annual interest rate)

• TANF or Foster Care owed = (monthly benefit or maintenance) * (Total months impoverished or imprisoned)

• Total Interest owed = (Grand total owed)- (Actual child support owed)

• Total support owed to the children = (Your guess is as good as mine)+ (Nobody seems to care)

For example, your humble 'deadbeat dad' / 'systemic anomaly' (on a blind date with destiny and I think she ordered the lobster) reports the following data from 2 different counties in California (Annual interest rate = 10%, LA = Los Angeles, MO = Monterey):

• Monthly child support withholding = $2,718 (LA) + $1,738 (MO) = $4,456 (101% of imputed net income)

• Actual child support owed = $63,120 (LA) + $66,840 (MO) = $129,960

• TANF or Foster Care owed = $809 * 37 = $29,933 maximum

• Total Interest owed = $42,668 (LA) + $21,270 (MO) = $63,938

• Total support owed to the children = Priceless

Payment is power when you know what you owe- when you plop down a payment and watch where it goes.

"The function of the ONE is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the unimplemented US Code you carry, reinserting the prime program. Failure to comply with this process would result in a cataclysmic system crash,enslaving every parent connected to Family Law, which coupled with theimpoverishment ofthe family,would ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race." Matrix Reloaded

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

American heroes protecting our families because nobody else thinks its necessary

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2004/untershine090804.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 09-07-04

The California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, took control of the Republican convention recently by reminding us what is great about America. Schwarzenegger shared what he feared in his country before making his way to ours. He told of the tyranny that stifled his family's freedom and the fear that his father would be removed and forced into slavery. He lamented that this unspeakable injustice could happen for little or no reason and he was never to make eye contact with his oppressors.

The former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, also made a passionate speech to the Republican convention that reminded us of the courage and resolve that is instinctive to some Americans in the face of great conflagration and terror. He provided detailed examples of the sacrifices made by the relatively few in the hopes of saving the many. Giuliani was forced to wade through the rubble of his own kingdom to deliver his praise (and that of all Americans) to the extemporaneous heroes who somehow survived, and posthumously to those who were lost. Rudy took control of that unprecedented atrocity, and with unselfish loyalty to the City he loved assured all Americans that our Nation would actively protect us.

An action hero on the West Coast, who rose to prominence powered by his disdain for oppression and his love for this Nation's freedom. An action hero from the East Coast, who rose to prominence powered by a duty to control the damage incurred by terrorists who allegedly envy this Nation's freedom. Two American heroes, who are finding their powers, and have witnessed with their own eyes the true threats to any country - oppression and terrorism.

Oppression is characterized by the arbitrary and cruel exercise of power. Terrorism is characterized by the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence with the intention of intimidating or coercing for ideological or political reasons. Oppression requires power while terrorism requires force. The exercise of power requires many to impose it or many to reluctantly submit. The application of force requires a delivery vehicle and a weapon that can be brandished by a relatively few. Safeguarding a country from these two threats requires the many to never submit to oppression and to vigilantly recognize delivery vehicles that can be used by terrorists against them.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is currently using his super powers to terminate corruption, fraudulent accounting, and the exploitation of children for money in California. Soon it will be brought to the Governor's attention that children in his state are reliving his troubled childhood. Fathers in some states are removed from their children and forced into slavery for little or no reason at all. Rudy Giuliani was denied contact with his children in the state of New York, due to his preoccupation with doing his duty in the aftermath of 911. Rudy Giuliani has previously used his super powers in the prevention of crime and the enforcement of law in New York, allowing the laws of the land to be enforced uniformly and adequately in his state to guarantee equal justice to its citizens.

Family Law oppression is due to the misapplication of the power granted to states by a federal mandate. Family Law terrorism involves poisoning the antidote to the welfare disease that is prescribed for states by a federal mandate. Terrorists who seek to use Family Law as a weapon must; subvert the federal law to states, misreport the subversion, and cover up the devastating effects.

• Using the federally mandated four-year review of each state's child support guideline, as a delivery vehicle for a weapon of indentured servitude and kidnapping. Officers of the Civil court and agencies of the Attorney General will be forced to apply their unlawful power on the only parent financially capable of supporting their children.

• Using the Clearinghouse for Child Support Statistics, as a delivery vehicle for a weapon of misprision of treason, the Ways and Means Committee of the US House of Representatives will be forced to ignore the unlawful financial demands that parents are forced to pay in the name of their children.

• Using an unacceptable accounting system, as a delivery vehicle for a weapon of fraud, agencies of the Attorney General will be forced to apply their unlawful power to drive parents into self-employment, deny them to hold licenses, and impose a financial embargo.

• Using Legislative complacency, as the delivery vehicle for a weapon of genocide, terrorists conspiring together to 'cook the books' regarding child support guideline reviews, National statistics, and financial accounting could force American families into extinction.

California is deprived of over $200 million in federal funding every year due to the unacceptable accounting system used by an agency of the Attorney General (CSE). This California 'hush money' represents almost 50% of the total incentive pool paid to all states based on their CSE performance. California is scheduled to continue funding half of the National CSE incentives for another 6 years in anticipation of an accounting system that is being developed by IBM costing the California taxpayers $800 million. Every year California CSE agencies in each county must collectively pony up 25% of the $200 million penalty and every county is complaining except Los Angeles.

California reports $15.8 billion of the total $84.0 billion child support arrearages that are increasing at a rate of $1.7 billion per year. The $15.8 billion California arrearage could be due to 28,866 parents refusing to submit to oppression for 18 years and being forced to pay the maximum 65% of their imputed $29,798 per capita net income for child support and being charged the maximum 6% interest. The $15.8 billion arrearage would represent $10.1 billion in back child support and $5.74 billion in interest. California unlawfully forces parents to pay 10% interest on child support arrearages, changing the worse case numbers to 23,241 parents owing $8.10 billion in child support and $7.70 billion in interest. Child support arrearages do not represent money that was borrowed and not repaid, but is money that has yet to appear. The interest charged by CSE penalizes parents for the income they are prevented from earning.

Arrearage = Support * Years * [ 1 + Interest * (Years + 1) / 2 ]

Stephen Baskerville continues to use his super powers to guarantee that 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way' is not compromised by self-proclaimed scholars who rely on deception to perpetuate the same problem they advocate to actively solve. With Schwarzenegger reconstructing a war torn state into a model nation, Giuliani fighting crime and ignorance of the law, and Baskerville actively protecting American families by putting the record straight - A new Justice League of America is now being formed and American families are vigilantly identifying those who choose to stand in their way.

A Family Law gladiator goes down fighting in NJ

The "Number of days without Family Law tragedy" counter is reset to zero - again

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2004/untershine081804.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 08-16-04

The parent's rights movement is mourning the loss of a respected activist who refused to quit fighting and refused to shut up (although he was ordered to do so by Judge Kieser, before ordering him to be locked up). Wilbur Streett succumbed to "Lou Gherig's disease" shortly after his release from jail for not paying money to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agency that reports to the New Jersey Attorney General. CSE also answers to the Department of Health and Human Services and was responsible for bringing charges against this terminally ill parent. Tommy Thompson may soon be asked to count the parents who have died under his care and why this is not considered an epidemic.

My only personal contact with Wilbur Streett was limited to an e-mail / phone call exchange with regard to my article entitled "Misdirected Anguish", which explored the suicide of Derrick Miller in California. Wilbur informed me that "More men die from divorce related suicide every year than died at 9/11. The entire issue made it to the Surgeon General because of a discussion that I had with Dave Roberts. The real acts of 'Domestic Terrorism' is the destruction of the American family by the law profession along with the government for profit and reward."

Deaths related to the Family Law experience are difficult to ascertain. Not because the total body count is negligible, but because agencies are negligent in counting them. The system used by State Attorney Generals fail to categorize parent vs. parent homicides / suicides provoked by Family Law injustice (see "The Human Cost of Raising Children").

The death of parents and children due to the threat of Family Law injustice also escapes quantification. For more than a year we have heard commentators and attorneys fumbling around with the homicide statistics that would force us to suspect Scott Peterson for murdering his pregnant wife Lacy. We were almost allowed to hear the only plausible motivation for the murder from a criminal defense attorney on FoxNews - "Child support, child support, child support - He was looking at 18 years ...". Why was this attorney cut off in mid-sentence when she finally solved the puzzle? Why are we being led to believe that Scott Peterson killed Lacy because he was having an extramarital affair in a no-fault divorce state?

A Texas District Attorney asked Clara Harris why she would kill her husband for having an affair, when she could do "like every other woman - get his house, car, kids, and make him wish he were dead." Although this is the same rant that every man hears when their wife finally decides to divorce, only recently has it become apparent that this is not just a hollow threat but an inescapable certainty. The collateral damage that is motivated by Family Law injustice is not exclusive to divorce but also extends to paternity establishment.

The following agencies could provide crucial data that may allow deadly States to be recognized.

• Attorney Generals must identify the cases involving parent vs. parent homicides, allowing the Lacy Peterson / Bonny Lee Bakely / Lori Hacking / David Harris / Sandra Levy numbers to be counted and scrutinized.

  • The FBI reports 32.1% of the 3,251 female homicide victims were killed by their husband or boyfriend across the nation in 2002 (18.5% husbands, 13.7% boyfriends).

  • The FBI reports that the above victim / offender homicide statistics exclude Florida and Washington DC.

• Civil courts must identify the cases involving the death of a family member, allowing the Nicole Simpson / Louis Joy numbers to be counted and scrutinized.

  • Civil Courts controlled 48.3 million family members across the nation in 2002 (13.4 million custodial parents have custody of 21.5 million children).

  • Civil Courts demand money from 11.3 million fathers across the nation in 2002 (84.4% of the 13.4 million noncustodial parents).

• CSE must identify the cases involving the death of a family member, allowing the Wilbur Streett / Derrick Miller numbers to be counted and scrutinized.

  • CSE demands money from 17.2 million breadwinning parents across the nation in 2000.

  • CSE reported $84 billion child support arrearages across the nation in 2000.

The death of a breadwinning parent ordered to pay child support reduces the Civil and CSE caseload by one and reduces that child support arrearage to zero. Does the CSE accounting system report this change in account balance as a collection allowing them to profit from this death?

A parent vs. parent homicide forces the surviving children into Foster Care, which allows the State to receive much Federal funding and allows a lucky stranger to receive maintenance payments, Medicaid, and a $10,000 tax deduction for each child. The surviving parent is responsible for repaying the Foster Care maintenance and child support arrearage if they were ever released from jail.

While Tommy Thompson attempts to heighten our awareness regarding obesity of children, Mad Cow disease, and the West Nile Virus - his cohort Wade Horn has unleashed a firestorm against American families in an attempt to harvest their children for profit.

"The real acts of 'Domestic Terrorism' is the destruction of the American family by the law profession along with the government for profit and reward." (Wilbur Streett)