Aaron Russo's Sequel to Andrew Jackson's Epitaph: 'I Killed the Bank II'

Aaron Russo managed to wake up America before succumbing to cancer on 08-24-07

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/29/aaron-russos-sequel-to-andrew-jacksons-epitaph-i-killed-the-bank-ii/

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 08-28-07

The frontal assault on American families, that focus so much of our attention, may be a diversion from the massive assault on all Americans, that seems to be looming so large. The Divorce industry, Child Support Enforcement, and the Foster Care industry may soon be identified as only the trademark of the 'New World Order', which will soon erase our borders, divide our country, change our currency, and force us into slavery. Aaron Russo believed that an organized effort by a group of private bankers are attempting to take over our country – and I truly believe that too.

Russo promoted the rock acts 'Janis Joplin', 'The Grateful Dead', and managed 'Bette Midler'. He produced the popular movies 'Trading Places' with Eddy Murphy and 'The Rose' with Bette Midler. He ran for Governor of Nevada and received 30% of the vote. He produced the politically controversial films 'Mad as Hell' and 'America: from Freedom to Fascism'. Russo was the first US citizen to exonerate himself for the high crime of 'Misprision of Treason' (USC 18 2382) by publicly sharing conversations with Nick Rockefeller.

Aaron Russo's recent film 'America: from Freedom to Fascism' was the adult version of being told that there is no Santa Claus. The film revealed the beginning of the end of America as we knew it, and what this country has finally become. The most shocking details that are presented, are not secrets that were recently uncovered, but rather historical truths that were never pointed out in History class, divulged by our elected officials, or discussed by major media. The following are some of the quotes and occurrences that were presented in the film:

1816 - Thomas Jefferson informs John Tyler (1:03:57 ):

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their father's conquered ... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies ... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the Government, to whom it properly belongs."

1838 - Amschel Mayer Rothschild, a member of England's richest families, in a speech to a gathering of world bankers stated: (3:05)

"Let me control a peoples currency and I care not who makes their laws..."

1865 - Abraham Lincoln forged a "Monetary Policy" and a few weeks after it was introduced, Lincoln was assassinated: (1:01:01 )

"Government, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by taxation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest [from the private banking system or their affiliates] as a means of financing government work and public enterprise. The government should create issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."

1913 - Philander Knox, Secretary of State, falsely proclaimed that the 16th Amendment (that was passed by Congress in 1909) had finally been ratified by the necessary three-quarters of the states ensuring the constitutionality of unapportioned Federal income taxes: (1:22)

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16"

1913 - Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law which forced America to borrow their own money from a private bank and pay interest on the debt. Wilson published a book "The New Freedom: A Call For the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People" stating: (3:46)

"We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."

1920 - Josiah Stamp, former director of the Bank of England stated (1:37:50):

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

1922 - John Hylan, New York Mayor, delivered a speech to the public:

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over City, State, and nation ... It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection ... To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes."

1984 - Peter Grace of President Ronald Reagan's 'Grace Commission' reported: (18:58)

"With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."

1985 - Ronald Reagan told all Americans in a television broadcast: (18:09)

"I believe that in both spirit and substance our tax system has come to be unAmerican. Death and taxes may be inevitable but unjust taxes are not."

1991 - David Rockefeller, private banker and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, congratulated the major media outlets for a job well done: (1:38:45)

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectually elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

2006 - Aaron Russo concluded his film with the following conclusions and recommendations (1:41:10):

"Now that you do understand what happened in 1913, and how it is leading to a new world government, the future depends on you. Will you choose freedom or slavery? Stop living in fear of your government. Government is the servant - We are the master. So what are you going to do about it?

• Join together in civil disobedience. Be willing to take part in nationwide strikes, boycotts, and marches on Washington.
  
• Force Congress to use their legal authority to shut down the Federal Reserve. Government has the authority to issue money, without paying interest to the bankers, this will take away the power to control our government from the bankers.
  
• Only vote for candidates who have signed an affidavit to shut down the Federal Reserve system and stop world government.
  
• If you are in the military or law enforcement, remember, you swore an oath to defend the American Constitution. You did not swear an oath to promote world government. Honor your oath.
  
• Do not accept the national ID card, even if it is your driver's license.
  
• We must demand that the American people's gold be audited, and make certain that it has not been stolen. This asset must be returned to the American people.
  
• Abolish computer voting in the State where you live. Stop being good Democrats - Stop being good Republicans - Start being good Americans.
  
• And when the media starts telling you the country will fall apart if this is done - don't be fooled - this is just the Federal Reserve system trying to save itself. Squash it."
  

I believe that there is still time to preserve our national identity, protect our national borders, and insure the prosperity of our nation's families. I believe that those fighting for Family Law reform and those fighting for the restoration of our government can join together in a common cause. I believe that if Aaron Russo would have lived long enough to cast his vote for this country's next president, he would have voted for Ron Paul because he wants to kill the banks too.

STEAL THIS DOCUMENTARY

STEAL THIS DOCUMENTARY

What is the last thing that you KNOW is true?

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/11/steal-this-documentary/

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 08-09-07

If you balance an awkward premise on Occam's razor - you may feel that the Divorce Industry is in collusion with radical feminism to deliver women to the Internal Revenue Service, and their children to the Foster Care Industry. A fresh look is necessary to establish a road map to peace in Middle America.

Many believe that America is still the land of the free, the home of the brave, and that our Constitutional rights are still being recognized and protected. Many believe that our elected representatives still have the power to determine this country's destiny, that major media is still independent of government and will promptly inform the public when government turns on it's citizens. I believe we still have time to make those beliefs true again.

"If you want to believe in it, then believe in it. Just because something isn't true doesn't mean you can't believe in it. Sometimes, the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good, and that honor, courage and virtue mean everything. Power and money - money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. And that true love never dies. You remember that - and whether it is true or not - you'll see that those things are the only things worth believing in." (the movie 'Second Hand Lions')

Phyllis Schlafly may provide her reaction to recent revelations regarding the hijacking of feminism by those paid to deliver women and mothers to the IRS in the name of freedom or in the name of their own children. The devastating effects of the Violence Against Women Act that has somehow grown so huge it is now being imposed on the rest of the world. Schlafly can also discuss her own battle against illegal immigration, selling US patents to other countries, etc.

Wendy McElroy may turn her back on FoxNews to lend credibility to the negative effect radical feminism has had on women who wish to seek equality. The insatiable appetite of the Foster Care programs in snatching children from both their biological parents without proving abuse. McElroy can elaborate on the family law injustices forced on breadwinning parents (regardless of gender) in Family Court

Rachel Allen of the National Organization of women can fill us in regarding the reasons behind "The Family Court Report in California". Why NOW believed successful women in their organization were being separated from their children in Family Court. Why women who get pregnant fear for their life and why women who follow their divorce advice all end up on welfare. Allen could be asked 'What did she know - and when did she stop knowing it?" regarding NOW being funded by the US government to force all women to pay taxes.

Deborah Courtney from the Minute Man Project may update us on their progress in stopping the Mexican invasion. The reasons for changes in leadership, why her husband was arrested for not paying child support, and why her husband is still in jail. Provide any reasons to believe that our government has gotten the message that all US citizens have the right to defend America.

Stephen Baskerville, the President of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children (ACFC) , will expose the political apparatus that has cast a pestilence on Families in America for the last 30 years. The brutal war that fathers must wage to stay in the lives of their own children. The deaths attributed to Family Law injustice and the misdirected anguish provoked by the Divorce Industry. Coming in Spring 2007 from Cumberland House Publishing: "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family"

Taken Into Custody is the most comprehensive exposé yet published by a major publishing house on the depredations of the divorce industry. I say this conscious that I am standing on the shoulders of others. This book was made possible by the pioneering efforts of authors who have preceded me (all of whose work it draws upon): Jed Abraham, Sanford Braver, Warren Farrell, Jeffery Leving, David Levy, Melanie Phillips, Dean Tong, Cathy Young, plus Richard Doyle, Bai Macfarlane, Judy Parejko, Robert Seidenberg, and others (including, most recently, Phyllis Schlafly in the revised paperback edition of her latest book). Yet because they were breaking ground, most of these writers were either pressured to tone down their language or forced to self-publish. This is the first book from a major publisher that has been permitted to speak the unvarnished truth about the divorce machinery: its destruction of families, its violations of the Constitution, its disregard for due process of law, its voracious appetite for children, parents, and families. This is no tirade however but a thoroughly documented study of a previously neglected abuse by a credentialed political scientist. The result is a major breakthrough in exposing the greatest civil rights abuse of our time and the most repressive government machine ever created in the United States.

Robert Williams of Policy Studies Inc (PSI) can describe his company's contribution to the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies in 49 states, Canada, Australia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. A description of what CSE agencies are allowed to do to parents who don't pay as ordered (as described in USC 42 666). Williams can dazzle us with the various schemes each state uses to arrive at the child support amount parents are ordered to pay or are put in jail if they can't. Compare the Child Support Guideline in California with the amounts reported to Congress by the Clearinghouse for Child Support Enforcement Statistics. Draw on his company's experience in California to answer why CSE only receives 33% of their operating costs from the Federal government while all other states receive 66%. Williams may pontificate on the billions of dollars that are reportedly uncollected by parents across the country and why PSI should not be blamed.

Elaine Sorensen from the Urban Institute can explain why California CSE has failed to collect child support from parents. Why California CSE is allowed to disburse collections from parents as the interest on the debt that was assigned by Family Court. Explain how support collections are supposed to be disbursed by CSE. Sorensen may shed some light on how states are allowed to double the collections disbursed as interest since interest, welfare, and Foster Care collections must be distributed last. Provide information as to how each state is paid performance incentives based on CSEs child support collections from parents. Provide any possible reasons why their report on child support collectability is not available on the Internet anymore.

Maureen Pirog/Good from the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility (FASR) can illuminate us on the importance of fraudulently diminishing the reported child support awards across all states except Indiana. Explain the benefits of falsely presenting Indiana to the Ways and Means Committee as possessing the most aggressive child support guideline in the nation. Pirog may also provide insight as to where their child support data came from and why it has never been updated since 1997.

Glenn Sacks, Michael McCormick, Dave Usher, Richar' Farr, Roger Gay, Kathleen Parker, Cornell Smith, Michael Galluzzo, Alec Baldwin, Jim Carrey, and many others could provide more details of how far our government is willing to go to thin out our numbers, control more taxpayers, and steal our children.

The Family Law AniMatrix (for the kids) which places the characters that were just interviewed into a movie teenagers already love.

Replace the 'spoon' with 'law' and replace the 'battery' with 'money' and then 'THE MATRIX' becomes 'FAMILY LAW'

"Do not try to bend the law, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth. There is no law. Then you will see that it is not the law that bends, it is only yourself."

"We came to realize the obviousness of the truth; What is Family Law? --- Control, it's a state-operated dream world, designed to keep you under control, in order to turn a human being into money."

Family Law Reloaded: Problem Identification

Family Law Revolution: Level of Involvement

Family Law AniMatrix: Corrective Action (Conclusion withheld until release)

The Family Law Illuminati

The Family Law Illuminati

Parents are urged to vote ‘NO CONFIDENCE’ in 2008

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/02/the-family-law-illuminati/

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 08-02-07

Aaron Russo’s film “Mad As Hell” seemed to get the attention of those planning to cleanse America. Approached by a member of the world’s ruling elite – Russo was asked if he wished to join up. This 'Voice of the One True Potentate' prophesied a ‘Event’ that we commonly refer to as ‘Nine Eleven’ and shared a vivid description of it’s aftermath. The Grand Pooba’s messenger also explained that the ‘Women’s Lib’ movement was intended to finally enable them to tax the other half the population and to get the kids at school at an early age so they could indoctrinate the kids how to think, which breaks up their family, so the kids look at the state as their family. Russo was told that membership would allow him to enjoy a form of diplomatic immunity from prosecution or persecution that will soon be targeting all Americans who dare to raise children in this country.

The series of unfortunate events that befell American families, preceded the events of ‘Nine Eleven’. A system of control and financial destruction was rolled out and activated to enslave all parents in the name of their own children. Forcing dependent parents into the work force (to allow them to collect welfare) allows the 'New World Order' to have a new source of income and another entry into the IRS database. The critical step in driving a parent to welfare, however, was to drive the family breadwinner to unemployment by imposing a debt that was impossible to pay. With the Rockefellers funding Radical Feminism and the CIA funding Gloria Steinem and "Ms Magazine" - American women were coaxed into allowing the sinister chain reaction to begin by simply walking into Family Court. Mothers were promised a lucrative tax-free income from the family's breadwinner for up to 18 years, a government agency that would guarantee uninterrupted payment, and protection from any retaliation from the victim of circumstance being targeted. This 'bait and switch' confidence game continues to be used on many dependent parents in America who are either too gullible or too greedy.

To understand the philosophy of slavery, we are forced to revisit our nation's history. Slave owners were instructed by experts from abroad: To successfully control generations of slaves, the most resistant males must have each leg tied to horse, lit on fire, and the horses beaten until the slave was ripped apart. This spectacle would be meaningless unless the women and their children were forced to watch. The women would realize that the father of their children was powerless to protect them and they would teach their children the same. The new generation of slaves would be taught to rely on their master for their security and protection.

The same philosophy of slavery is being used today by Civil and Criminal courts across the country. But the target is not necessarily the Father - it is the family breadwinner. The parent who earns the most money will be separated from the family and forced to pay an arbitrarily outrageous amount of money. The system will then rub salt in their wounds, kick them while they are down, sucker punch them, and hit them below the belt, to force them keep paying or the system will put the slave in debtor's prison. The Family Law spectacle (not surprisingly) is played out before the breadwinner's family and even the public, but never in front of a jury (since they are the only people who could possibly stop it).

The 'Carpet Baggers' associated with the construction of the New World Order can only attempt to achieve the success enjoyed by Robert Williams and his minions from Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) of Denver, Colorado. The arrogance of PSI was reflected by their company slogan (prior to my written testimony to the Ways and Means Committee) which read: "Do socially useful work, have fun, and make money". PSI bragged of structuring Child Support policy in "49 states, Canada, Australia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico" and claimed to "provide an environment which allowed their employees to take risks without being punished for mistakes".

The 'Scalawags' associated with the construction of the New World Order can only attempt to achieve the success enjoyed by Maurine Pirog/Good, Catherine Byers, and Marilyn Klotz from the Institute for Family and Social Responsibility (FASR) of Bloomington, Indiana. Paid by the taxpayers as the Clearinghouse for Child Support Enforcement Statistics, they submitted a report to the Congress that essentially claimed that the child support guidelines in every state were less than the amount their family would receive on welfare. Table 8-2 of the Greenbook has survived republication since 1997 and lawmakers at the federal level have no idea of the actual Family Law spectacle that their constituents are forced to endure.

Meanwhile, the employees of the agencies that are funded by the taxpayers are allowed to organize and lobby Congress to increase their power, their payoff, and their prosperity. The parents who are victimized by this unlawful scam are forced to pay taxes which forces them to pay for their own demise. Aaron Russo’s recent film “America From Freedom to Fascism” not only provides American parents with a solid gold reason why they should stop funding the opposition - it also reveals how. When asked to do all the wrong things, for all the wrong reasons, you have every right to prefer not to.

A vote for 'NO CONFIDENCE" in 2008 is a vote for no taxes, the end of organized crime, and the restoration of the American government that has been hijacked by rich terrorists dressed as Klansmen in the Bohemian Grove, rich terrorists wearing lambskin aprons in palaces in Europe, and wannabes that masturbate in coffins at Yale. If American parents wait much longer, the New World Order's policy of 'thinning out their numbers' may change to a policy of 'they were coming right for us'.

CSE must start thinking outside the pizza box

CSE must start thinking outside the pizza box

Deadbeats formally reporting to Wade Horn are urged to start doing their job

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/04/25/cse-must-start-thinking-outside-the-pizza-box/

Jim Untershine, GZS of Long Beach, 04.25.07

Glenn Sacks is an influential men's rights advocate who is really taking his job seriously these days. The SCUDS being launched, in this offensive war against men, always come up on Glenn Sack's radar and he never hesitates to intercept the incoming. Glenn spoke on CNN, fending off overzealous feminists demanding that Alec Baldwin's daughter must never be with her father alone. Glenn spoke on Fox News, defending impoverished fathers that appeared on pizza boxes for not paying enough money to the Ohio Justice department. Whether men like it or not, they must stand up to defend themselves against unwarranted attacks, or their silence will be taken as acquiescence. If radical feminism were a bandwagon, then Glenn Sacks would be the stick in their spokes.

The recent pizza box issue received more media coverage than the Alec Baldwin issue, or the Duke rape case acquital. All of these issues forced the public to ask themselves the same tough question: “Why?”. Why would a Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agency resort to posting wanted posters for people who owe money, when they wield more power than the Internal Revenue Service? Why would anyone wish to keep a father from his child because the mother released a private voice message? Why would a District Attorney ignore the facts and relentlessly prosecute innocent college students for rape? The answer to each question is basically the same: money to CSE, money to Civil Attorneys, and money to District Attorneys.

The money to CSE and the District Attorneys would be paid by the US taxpayers, while the officers of Civil Court would be paid by Alec Baldwin. CSE earns bonuses from the US taxpayers for making child support collections in addition to anything else the agency can get away with keeping. District Attorneys get a bonus from the US taxpayers for convicting and maximizing the sentence of alleged perpetrators of violence against women. A US parent must pay for all court costs to maintain access to their own children regardless of the finding of fact.

Glenn Sacks, Stephen Baskerville (President of the ACFC), and Maury Beaulier (Minnesota Attorney) all took their turn, asking Cynthia S. Brown (Ohio CSE Director) what she was thinking when she convinced Mom & Pop pizza parlors to print wanted posters on their customer's food containers.

Glenn Sacks : “Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earn poverty level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year.”

Cynthia Brown :”They have money for cigs, they have money for mountain dew, they have money for 40 ounce beers, they got money to order these pizzas, they have money to pay child support ... The laws need to change – Write your representatives, write your congressmen, get your legislators involved – change the laws, but don't put the responsibility [on CSE] for men or women not paying their court ordered child support ... It's their responsibility in life - and if you have kids, then pay for them, otherwise don't have them”

Stephen Baskerville : “There’s a massive system of child exploitation that cynically uses children to loot their families, to loot their fathers to destroy their homes.”

Cynthia Brown : “I was really hoping today to get somebody from fathers’ rights who would sit down and actually listen and stop with the anger, because anger won’t get children money, it won’t help us … I keep getting these individuals coming to me from fathers’ rights quoting me statistics from 1992, putting my family’s home address on the Internet, putting us in danger, when all’s I’m doing is doing my job and doing it well, and if that irritates the father’ rights group, I don’t know what to say.”

Maury Beaulier : “We are putting the emphasis on the money. We are turning a parent into wallet ... we treat parenting and the money differently”.

Cynthia Brown : “I'm a mother, and a stepmother and a grandmother ... I have an oldest daughter that I never received one penny for ... we have 2 step daughters that live at our house half the time ... CSE doesn't recognize shared parenting at this point ... we pay a huge amount of money every month in child support ... we pay for the girls while they're at their mom's ... so she doesn't pay a penny for the girls she brought into the world ... this is not a vendetta ... all parents are wallets.”

CSE in every state has the power to garnish wages, intercept tax refunds, capture bank accounts, issue warrants for arrest, revoke passports, and revoke business, drivers, fishing, and hunting licenses. But with all these tools at CSE's disposal, the Ohio agency turns to begging private citizens to do their job for them, and they have the nerve to call it innovation. This act of desperation is a failure indication and is not included in the CSE job description.

The original purpose of CSE was to keep families off of the welfare roles, but CSE is not part of the picture unless the parent owing child support becomes unemployed and the family is forced to beg for welfare.The only objective of CSE should be to help the parent owing child support stay employed, which will allow CSE to garnish their wages. But using the tools to protect parents owing child support from employer discrimination requires some effort and may result in a downward modification, which seems to be unacceptable to CSE. From the onset, CSE chooses to only persecute the unemployed parent who cannot afford to pay, and they seem to think that is their only job.

Glenn Sacks, Stephen Baskerville, and Maury Beaulier continue to do battle in this war against parents, but they need all the help they can get. The momentum of a movement, and the forces for change will both increase with mass. The sooner parents gather together and lean on the obstacle standing in their way of securing their children's future, the sooner they will realize how easy it was to move it and why they didn't do it until now.

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