Jump to navigation
Hello, I was wondering if child support could be squashed? If so, how do you go about doing it? Thank you.
The key to everything is to file a claim in a court of record. Anything that government is having you do can be challenged, because government has no jurisdiction over people.
Liberty and ignorance cannot co-exist, because "He who sleeps on his rights has none."
Superior Court Chief Justice Badge #20001
Child Support is 100% Voluntary
Dominick, greetings ~
'Ran across the following video which shows that "child support" is made into a contract by parents of children, but technically should not be a contract. It's enabled by the ignorance and disinformation by Child Support parasites.
If both parents did not sign a birth certificate contract, then child support does not apply to the parent who did not enter that corporate state's obligation to extort funds from parents without further court orders.
See if you can get a copy of the birth certificate of your child, to see if you signed. Even if you signed, the contract is rescindable. An affidavit can be crafted instead to claim parentage, and the discretion of how such parent may reasonably support their offspring without the corporate state's oversight.
Wrong. Child support is not voluntary. A parent is legally obliged to care for his/her child. In the case of a married couple, a child born is legally presumed to be fathered by the husband; this presumption can be challenged, but this requires evidence (fortunately DNA is very reliable).
A birth certificate is NOT a contract, does not ordinarily require the signature of both parents - and might be submitted by the attending physician/midwife to the Health Dept without the signature of either parent. It simply reports the birth of a child at a particular place & date and identifies, as far as the attending professional could determine, the names of the parents and a few other details. I have had plenty of experience with these, and sometimes a birth certificate has been corrected after its initial filing (often because of some tardy decision about the name of the baby). Although the birth certificate is usually indicative of paternity, this is not iron-clad (unwed welfare mothers were often required to identify the father in order to be eligible for welfare and often named whoever was then in the White House).
A court order for child support should not be ignored. Child support obligations are not a debt that can discharged by bankruptcy, nor sloughed off by time - even decades later the child, now full grown, could sue for back payments with accumulated interest. If the father (I speak of the "father" as the deadbeat parent, rarely is it the mother) dies with support owing, the child could seize on his estate ahead of the father's second family. The only proper means to reduce child support orders is to reopen the case in the same court (or, in another state, open a case in a corresponding court - usually the Domestic Relations Court), and be entirely open about one's finances. When the father's financial situation changes (usually for the worse), try again. A challenge to paternity would involve a blood test - this usually is a one-time challenge.
Do you know the difference in legal and lawful? There is a difference. What you are claiming is "legal" and "required" only affects "US citizens" or "persons". It does not apply to "people" because people do not have to subject themselves to anything out side of the common law.
This is going to be a hard issue for you to get. Statutes to not apply to people without said people's consent. People can challenge jurisdiction at any time and once challenged, it must be proven on the record. A judge does not get to take jurisdiction by deciding he has it. It must be proven on the record, and he will not be able to prove he has jurisdiction over a people, because the law upholds the people is sovereign.
We have 21 case cites on the case reference page that uphold the once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven. I personally vetted 13 of them. Once of them does state that a judge the proceeds without jurisdictions, "proceeds at his own peril." This cite goes against your clam that judges cannot be held accountable for his actions. As I have repeatedly told you, a judge is only immune while carrying out his "official" duties. Once he exceeds his jurisdiction, he is no longer immune. That is not my opinion. That is the opinion of numerous other judges before me.
You tell me that a civil court, in my state the law clearly say family court is NOT a court of judicial.. Let me ask you then.. how would any idiot go to a court that once you argue thier subject you atomotically loose your civil rights!! NO right to an attorney" by the way the attorneys in these cases are not attorneys, law says they cannot be attorneys in these matters, No right to a jury trial, No right to even argue your side, or even bring in claim...Not only, we know that the mangistrates are NOT equal in any sense of the word. read title 42, where it was all stated from and take it forward. In my state the child support is under USC code 42 human welfare division. If now your in a civil "family Court" court, then the judge sitting must be working under contract, not as a judge. SEPARATIONS OF POWERS .. How can a judicial judge be sitting in a non judicial court and practice as a judge ? They CANNOT>>>If you dont believe me do some research. I am thinking that you are a woman.
You are right. No administrative proceeding has any authority over a people without said people's consent. It is the birth right of every single people born or naturalized within these united states to have his case heard in a court of record where statutes are "foreign to the court". You are right. It has become rather obvious that Fortinbras is a government corporation paid attorney. As we all know only people who are "infants or of unsound mind" hire attorneys. Says so right there in the Corpus Juris Secundum. We also know that since government has not been seated for many years, she in merely working for a corporation.
I did not say that Domestic Relations Court (or, in some states, Family Court or Orphans Court) does not allow someone to have a lawyer, I did not say that the Family Court is not a judicial court - it very definitely is. By the way, Family Court is invariably a non-federal court; these matters are not covered by federal statutes.
I might add that most defendants, either civil or criminal, wouldn't willingly "consent" to be on the defendant end of a court action. Individual consent to be sued/charged is not dispositive of jurisdiction; it doesn't prevent a court from exercising its jurisdiction and it won't give jurisdiction to a court that lacks it.
Fortinbras your confusion seems to be due to a lack of knowledge about the different types of courts that exist in the same building. It is a fact that one building houses multiple types of court. It is also a fact that any court that uses statutes is an inferior court and any inferior court requires the people's consent to proceed against him. Here is why.
We are guaranteed common law by the Constitution for the United States of America. We are also guaranteed a republican form of government. As such, any time government was to get us to be held to a statute, it must get our consent. Under common law, there is not crime or remedy due if there was no injury. It is a fact that government lies on documents to support its position. For example, the charging documents in a cocaine case I helped with listed State of Texas as a "victim". Maybe you could explain to me how "State of Texas", a corporation, was injured by someone possessing cocaine.
It is also a ruse that case against people for these types of case are title "People of Texas" versus whomever. The fact is, most people couldn't care less. People are guaranteed the right to face their accusers, the injured parties.
There are many tactics of deceit the are used to fool people into consent. However, for those of us who know better, you as a government attorney will no be able to get around it. If you could, then your counterparts in at least one of the cases I am familiar with could have done so. We have 21 case cites that uphold once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven on the record. It may not simply be decided by the judge and some of those case cites do say that a judge "commits a trespass", "commits a treason" and "proceeds at his own peril".
Perhaps you could cite a legal authority for the claim that "any court that uses statutes needs consent".
Also for the claim that "we are guaranteed common law by the Constitution".
And perhaps you can provide "some of those case cites [that] do say that a judge ... 'commits a treason'". As I have not heard of a case that accuses a judge of treason.
Oregon, 180.345 CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM
The dept. Of Justice is responsible for the operation of the program authorized by the Social Securities Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) Hmm last time I checked that the social security is not a Judicial law, its in the hands of the Executive branch, but seam to authorize the state of oregon the Authority to dispense such code as enforceable law. Does anyone see a conflict of powers? MN state supreme court ruled mn had an unconstitutional child support law in 1999 based of the conflict of powers. Of course the federal courts don't want any part in this matter because they know the truth, feds issue a plan to the state, fed courts say its not thier business, And the injustice goes on and on. Break the family. Equals more sheep, whats your take Fortinbras? Sheep or is this Justice?
The US Dept of Justice is an EXECUTIVE department, not a judicial office. The DOJ is responsible for handling court actions of the IRS and other executive agencies as well.
It wouldn't hurt to proofread your messages before you transmit them.
Sorry I wanted to get back to this, and explain it more clearly. Oregon, Administrative Procedures ACT
183.360 Publication of rules and orders; exceptions; requirements; bulletin; judicial notice; citation.
(4) Courts shall take judicial notice of rules and executive orders filed with the Secretary of State.
So this is more clear how they are taking executive Administrative Rules and making them judicial process. I have a hard time accepting that these admins, can make rules, and the courts look at it as judicial (law). Not only are they making the law they are acting as the judges themselves.
183.310 Definitions for chapter(9) “Rule” means any agency directive, standard, regulation or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy, or describes the procedure or practice requirements of any agency. The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule,
183.615 Administrative law judges; duties; qualifications; rules. (1) An administrative law judge employed by or contracting with the chief administrative law judge shall conduct hearings on behalf of agencies as assigned by the chief administrative law judge. An administrative law judge shall be impartial in the performance of the administrative law judge’s duties and shall remain fair in all hearings conducted by the administrative law judge. An administrative law judge shall develop the record in contested case proceedings in the manner provided by ORS 183.417 (8).
Let me ask you , why would they need to contract ? with the chief? So they are acting like the judicial office. making rules, accepting as law, and acting as the judges. It scares me...
Whats your thoughts ?
They are not real judges operating with any judicial capacity. We are working on a case now that is going to help on all cases after this. I will be seeking some volunteers to help do some research to find things similar to what we have found in Colorado in the other states. We will try to simplify this for everyone to assure they do ot fall into the fake judge trap.
Any thing I can do , let me know... I find now that this moral country give me 36 days a yr with my children that give me 329 days to help someone else. so lead the way
I appreciate you stepping forward. The more of us who participate, the safer we will all be.
I'm here ready able And Willing To aide in any manner i can
I will have some assignments for volunteers soon. I thank you for stepping forward.
I am currently in a movement for this issue.
i am new to this research as I am trying to deal my own case in UT.
I will be very willing to help any way I can
first to FORTINBRAS child support is not law. Title IV a and d are additions to the social security act. this is not law. you will find in the documents bellow that it is in fact much the opposite!
the supreme court has stated:
'" title IV D does not create an enforceable right"
read this stuff that I have gotten from Divorceracket.org
for the OP if you look on youtube you will find the info from the folks I got this from or use the address abouve.
this is some scary stuff that is going on in our family courts.
I am in the same boat as I have had my child ripped away from me, have not seen him for 9 years cause of my ex wife.
As well as having $475 a month stolen from me
this is all depervation of right under color of law!
M.R. Hamilton, how does one file a claim in a court of record for termination of child support. Thank you!
I have started this thread with my own research on this matter.
the evidance kit I posted earlier is a big help,
as well the writ of Quo Warrento
This is not an easy fight at all, you need to change your statues in there rolls before you do any thing!
as long as they have you classed as a 14th amendment citezen you will see they will railroad you into continuing to pay this.
if you were married, there is your best bet to get things done.
as the man you are the power in the marage, the children and you now ex wife are your property, this is a view that is not acceptable in the US anymore, but biblical cannon law, as the man you make the final decissions that affect the home and family, if you want a child put to death so be it.
use the froad in the marage ciontrct to toss out everything they did in the divorcee as its now void as the marrage is viod on it face as well.
non disclossed contracts are void on the face, not voidable just void!
Fake ads on backpage, etc., are made by women that gather information of men's data and send to police-women that are concerned men are pedophiles, etc.--NPR 2017