American Parents Shanghaied by Radical Feminism

American Parents Shanghaied by Radical Feminism

Indentured servitude may be losing its luster in America

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/03/25/american-parents-shanghaied-by-radical-feminism/

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 03-25-07

Indentured servants that were kidnapped by crimp gangs and shipped to the Colonies as a product of the Slave Trade in the 1600s, may have had nothing to really complain about. Although their participation may not have been their idea, the ordeal would only last 4 to 7 years - they were housed, fed, and then 'Freedom Dues' were paid at the conclusion of service - it all made for a pretty sweet deal. An indentured servant would labor for a landowner who had paid the steerage bill to the Captain of the ship who brought the victim overseas. After the contracted service, the servant would customarily receive his freedom, 50 acres of land, a gun, and supplies.

The indentured servants of today are taken from their own land by Family Law crimp gangs, and must pay for their own steerage before being contracted to spend up to 18 years answering to the other parent of their own children. Rather than providing these Shanghaied landowners with a job, housing, and food - they are responsible for providing their own and must pay their masters an arbitrarily large sum of cash each month to maintain the land that they so recently owned. Failure to keep up their end of the bargain will incur interest on the money the servant failed to earn, and may incur the additional costs of their own persecution by agencies of the States' Justice department. An uppity slave who misses a payment will be put in debtor's prison, which will force the financial burden to grow with interest and will increase the length of time to repay it.

The difference between the old and new systems of indentured servitude should be glaring and obvious. The old system targeted only single men who were down on their luck or homeless, while the new system targets only landowning (breadwinning) parents. The old system contracted the servant to spend a specific length of time which would compensate the landowner for bringing the servant to the jobsite, while the new system contracts the servant to spend as much time as it takes to pay off an arbitrary debt which compensates the master for removing the former landowner from the jobsite.

The glory days of old indentured servitude took a turn for the worse in the early 1700s with the passage of a new law in Virginia: "All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resist his master...correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened." The new law pulled the rug out from under the involuntary servants who had the wrong color skin and were snatched from a Country that didn't love the baby Jesus. The new law in Virginia was quickly adopted by the other colonies, since landowners would only need to pay steerage costs for the Slave Trader's new cash cow that was specified by the new legislation.

The glory days of new indentured servitude took a turn for the worse in the early 1990s with the passage of a new law in Congress: "Since Sen. Biden's landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed into law in 1994, it has provided over $3.8 billion dollars to combat domestic violence and sexual assault nationwide. The Violence Against Women Act’s programs range from policies to encourage and prosecution of abusers, to victims’ services like shelters, to education that can prevent violence against women from happening in the first place. VAWA helped forge new alliances between police officers and victim advocates". The new law lived up to its name by provoking violence against parents who were suddenly empowered to summon crimp gangs from a State's Justice department, rather than paying out of pocket steerage costs to the Family Law press gangs. Landowning parents who suspected or anticipated resistance or betrayal from the newly empowered parent would usually correct such parent, and if they shall happen to be killed in such correction...the landowner shall attempt to be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened.

Heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country are slowly starting to pick their heads up and finally make eye contact with this intimidating threat to their family’s freedom. Soon American parents will suddenly realize, all at once, that this war is at their doorstep and their children’s future is in their hands.

Stephen Baskerville has continuously condemned this Family Law system of slavery and the radical feminists who are slowly overthrowing this nation’s government. Baskerville’s forthcoming book entitled “Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family” will allow parents to fully understand the mechanisms that were created to threaten their family’s freedom and the series of unfortunate events that allowed them to come into existence. Parents who wish to hear testimony from other freedom fighters are urged to virtually attend the recent Family Law Reform Conference sponsored by the American Coalition of Fathers and Children (ACFC) online or on DVD.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (Movie: "National Treasure")

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

Did PBS ‘Break the Silence’ or ‘Break the Wind’?

Did PBS ‘Break the Silence’ or ‘Break the Wind’?

Making the Family Law distinction between a ‘children’s story’ and a ‘fairy tale’

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2005/untershine102405.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 10-24-05

The film 'Basic Instinct' sparked outrage and protest by the lesbian community because the movie finally recognized lesbians as a group, but portrayed a lesbian as a murderer. The film 'Shakes the Clown' caused a similar reaction by the clowning industry when clowns were finally recognized as a group, but a clown was portrayed as a drunk. The documentary 'Breaking the Silence' is inciting much outrage by fathers because custodial fathers were finally recognized as a group, but all the fathers were identified as child abusers.

The lesbians and clowns were reacting to a fictional screenplay whose writer had the luxury of portraying anyone as a murderer or a drunk, but consciously decided to choose one of them. Fathers across the country are reacting to a 'factual' documentary whose writer had the luxury of disclosing any single parent abusing their children, but consciously decided to choose fathers.

Many fathers are trying to uncover the hidden agenda and conspiracy theory that motivated this attack on custodial fathers that is promoted by the creator as a "Children's Story". Is the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) attempting to indoctrinate our children to hate their father? Is the Mary Kay Ash Foundation attempting to fund the elimination of the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), or attempting to validate the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)?

As stated on the PBS website: "PBS's reputation for quality reflects the public's trust in the editorial integrity of PBS content and the process by which it is produced and distributed. To maintain that trust, PBS and its member stations are responsible for shielding the creative and editorial processes from political pressure or improper influence from funders or other sources. PBS also must make every effort to ensure that the content it distributes satisfies those editorial standards designed to assure integrity."

The creators of this PBS expose' attempt to illuminate the seamy underbelly and sinister underpinnings of a secret threat to our children that has been so diligently covered up by the media. The investigation focused on 15% of the 14 million parents who were awarded custody of their children by order of the Family Court. Using the domestic violence allegation data from the recent Congressional hearings regarding Violence Against Women, and the hip-hop regarding 70% of all fathers who want custody gets it, and the allegations of Judicial corruption from the NOW Family Court Report- this crack team of experts chose to find 'abused' children amongst custodial fathers and allege that PAS is junk science.

The cover story of Time magazine (12-95) also attempted to identify a threat to our children, but it was not advertised as a children's story. The magazine cover showed a perfect angel who was swept into a series of unfortunate events after her mother wrestled custody from her father. The story was entitled: 'Abandoned to her Fate', 'Neighbors, teachers, and the authorities all knew Elisa Esquardo was being abused, but somehow nobody managed to stop it'. Time magazine did not focus their attention on finding more 'abused' children amongst custodial mothers and allege that Post Partum Depression, Premenstrual Syndrome, and Munchausen’s by Proxy Syndrome were junk science. Time magazine looked into the Family Court system, and then took a close look at Foster Care, and I wish they had kept up the good work.

The silence is still unbroken regarding the Family Law system that provokes and encourages broken families, which increases the likelihood of child neglect or abuse. The Foster Care industry will not receive Federal funding if the number of children captured by the system does not continue to grow. Forcing custody of the children on the parent who is financially unable to support them also serves to maximize the cash flow between parents through the court. An aggressive child support award may allow Child Support Enforcement (CSE) and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) to finally reap Federal funding when the breadwinning parent is driven to self-employment. The CSE, TANF, and Foster Care costs must be repaid with interest by the self-employed parent who was taken from the lives of their children.

Fathers, who have already had their fill of defending themselves against baseless allegations in Family Court, are constantly being forced to defend fathers in general from an endless barrage of the same. Books are being written celebrating the success of single mothers and lesbians in separating fathers from exceptional children: ‘Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men’ by Peggy Drexler. Are fathers supposed to retaliate by funding the creation of ‘Raising Girls Without Women: How Maverick Dads Are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Women’ by Bob Uecker? Are fathers expected to fund a feature film to allege the truth to combat this infamy launched by those paid by the taxpayers to do it?

The victims of Family Law and others are forced to wage war on the Divorce Industry without taxpayer funding. Glenn Sacks is currently demanding equal time on behalf of fathers regarding PBS programming. Michael Robinson is keeping Shared Parenting on the table and helping the legislature evaluate the status of men in Sacramento. David Burroughs is making sure fathers and the victims of misdirected anguish are being heard regarding the VAWA renewal on Capital Hill. Stephen Baskerville continues to deliver the ‘coups de grâce’ to Family Law in many highly respected publications. Wendy McElroy and Phyllis Schlafly continue to convince the public that gender has nothing to do with it. California parents of all genders are gathering signatures until this February to push the Shared Parenting ballot Initiative. Many others continue to somehow protest the Family Law system in any way they see fit.

Parents who wish to stop funding the opposition may realize they must stop paying taxes.

Katrina's Law in 2005

Katrina's Law in 2005

Where's the federal government when you need them?

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2005/untershine090505.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 09-03-05

Hurricane Katrina executed a flawless splash dive off the coast of Biloxi, MS on 8-29-05. Landfall of a hurricane that is west of your location on the Mississippi Gulf Coast results in flood of water being pushed ashore by the counterclockwise winds. The water level grew 30 feet before it receded, washing my Mom and Dad's 2 story, 5-bedroom house across the street. My brother, Mark, was waist deep in his living room before seeking refuge in the attic. A neighbor of my parents had to swim through his house underwater to escape from his attic before watching his house wash away.

My Dad and Mom made the right decision to stay with a friend only a block away (on higher ground) and relieved our anxiety 2 days later by getting thru on a cell phone. The experience for family and friends who wish to help are like a deer caught in the headlights - not knowing what is needed to do. The experience associated with the aftermath of a hurricane along with the resulting tornadoes and flooding is truly a test of character. You are disconnected from communication, escape routes are unknown, and help is limited to your neighbors. Ice is needed to allow eating everything you keep in the refrigerator. Water is needed since the tap water cannot be trusted. Gas is needed to operate your generator or allow a means of transportation to seek help or evacuate.

While we sit back helpless to be of assistance, I can't help but formulate obvious solutions to the shortcomings of a progressive nation. The lack of communication in an age of radios and satellites, the lack of basic shelter in the age of recreational vehicles, the lack of coordination to relocate survivors in the age of database software, the lack of emergency funding in the age of the credit card, and the lack of jobs in a city desperately needing help in reconstruction and security.

A state or city concerned for their citizens would secure a large supply of water, propane, gasoline, RVs, power feeds, and transportation paths to key locations. In the wake of calamity:

• A credit card and a radio would be issued to survivors to provide emergency expenditures, ease the burden on those providing aid, and to allow public broadcasts to be received by those displaced. All survivors would be entered into a database to verify their survival, identify their needs, and confirming their willingness to stay and help.

• Those who wish to house a survivor would be cross-matched in the database to provide options for the survivors who choose to leave and provide feedback to those who care. Mass transportation destined for a survivor's chosen destination would be coordinated via public broadcast.

• Those willing to stay and help out would be provided with a temporary self contained RV, that was stored free of charge for the owner by the locality in exchange for keeping the RV operational and equipping it with a CB radio.

• Each RV would be located as close to the survivor's community as possible that can be easily accessed by trucks replenishing the food, water, propane, gasoline, fresh batteries, and extracting waste water.

• Those willing to stay and help out will be paid for their efforts regarding projects of reconstruction organized by the locality.

Regardless of the nature of any disaster, the forgoing would seem to be required and enthusiastically supported by Homeland Security. Many taxpayers would feel that their money is worth paying if they felt it would insure their safety if they unavoidably became a victim of circumstance. Unaffected taxpayers would feel more comfortable knowing that a system is in place to help survivors start paying taxes again.

I feel compelled to challenge lobbyists for Credit Card Companies, Mass Transportation Services, RV manufacturers, Cell phone Companies, and Database System Developers to seek federal funding under 'Katrina's Law' to supply these demands because it is a national embarrassment if we don't.

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)