American Child support laws come from Soviet family law
Communism is alive and well and it runs the United States. It is known child support and its enforcement. For our own legislators and judges to embrace such laws violates their own constitutional and fidelity oaths that they took as public officials. Passage and enforcement of such foreign laws constitutes treason and sedition.
In Irwin Garfinkle's paper, "Sweden's Child Support System" (1982) is the current model for the state of Wisconsin which has been emulated by a large number of states in the U.S. However, economics experts found that the child support system came from the former Soviet Union. The "Wisconsin Model" is based on Soviet Family Law, Article 81 of the The Russian Family Code, incorporated in 1964 and adopted in 1995. This model invokes the income shares approach--how much each parent makes determines how much child support is paid, rather than the true cost of raising children. As the Communist Manifesto says: "Each according to ability; each according to his needs". The "percentage of income" formula comes directly from the Russian lawbooks. The Russians used 25% for one child, 30% for two, and 35% for 3 or more. Sound familiar? This made sense in a country where most everyone was poor, prices were controlled, and the transfer of "wealth" was the most important fundamental ideal of the oppressive regime's entire economic system.
We have our own Constitution and a different relationship between government and private economy. It is anti-American to transplant social programs outside the political and economic context in which they develop because this inevitably leads to treason and sedition and the overthrow of our government by internal forces. The New Jersey "income shares model", rammed through without any public debate, was developed by Robert Williams of Policy Institute, Inc. Williams makes his fortune off this child support formula. It created his nationwide private child support collection agency empire.
Russian fathers (as do American fathers) pay the amount prescribed by the formula. There is no excuse for non-payment. There are no deviations, exceptions, or consideration of individual circumstances (involuntary unemployment, disability, illness, etc). Most payments in the Russian system (and American system) are taken directly by government. They are all processed by the central bureaucracy. The bureaucracy doesn't care about "special circumstances". There was no "individual" in Soviet society--only compliance. Those who found, or even look for, a way to avoid compliance in the Russian, as well as the American child support system, get jail (debtor's prison, prohibited by US and NJ Constitutions), credit problems (constitutes defamation as well as violating federal debt anti-discrimination laws), exclusion from work, loss of rights, and loss of government benefits. Sound strikingly familiar? Government created child support hysteria, (notice that the public isn't falling for this hysteria) causes many to be jailed, causing loss of employment due to no fault of their own, thus, leaving people unable to fend for themselves.
Russian Communists humiliated, condemned and ostracized fathers and called them "deadbeats" when they were unable to pay. They put up posters with names and pictures of people who interfered with communist "efficiency". The American child support enforcement tyranny uses identical tactics in this country.
Why then, are the biggest, most important U.S. social policy changes of the last 15-20 years based on the Soviet-Communist model? Why are the centralized computer systems purchased for the child support system powerful enough to keep track of intimate details of every person on the planet? Why have there been so many court decisions undermining the guarantees in the Bill of Rights? It involves a completely foreign vision of the basic fundamental relationship between individuals and the state; something that is indeed, anti-American? Those who say we won the Cold War are sadly mistaken.Judges, child support workers, law enforcement, politicians, and others involved in this communistic redistribution of wealth scam are in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Why? Because these public officials took an Oath of Office to uphold, defend and support the U.S. Constitution and respective state constitution. By adopting and embracing Soviet child support laws in the United States is a direct attack upon the United States Constitution and constitutes felony Official Misconduct--an impeachable offense. It also constitutes a declaration of war against the United States. That would constitute treason.
The Supreme Court of the
(SCOTUS) has stated that: United States
"No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.". Cooper v. Aaron, 358
1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). U.S.
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the
wars against that Constitution United States and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.
Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the
, and respective state constitution, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason. United States If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he has engaged in an act or acts of treason. Whenever a judge acts where he does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.
v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). U.S. Pursuant to the legal encyclopedia used by the legal community for research, the Corpus Juris Secundum, Officers, Section 60, states: "A requirement that public employees take an oath that they will not only uphold and defend the state and federal constitutions, but also that they will oppose the overthrow of the government by force, violence, or any illegal or unconstitutional method, is valid". Citing the U.S. Supreme Court case of Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676, 92 S.Ct. 1332 (1972).
We are headed in the wrong direction for this country. Government is passing more and more draconian child support enforcement laws and related domestic violence laws every day. Government oppression is at its highest pinnacle since the British ruled this country over 225 years ago. For what? Because some bureaucracy wants to remain employed by violating and depriving the people of their fundamentally secured rights? It has become big government-big business. Just like in the Soviet Union.
Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)--New Jersey
Read more at pr-usa.net
No comments:
Post a Comment