FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

The most numerous and, collectively, the most powerful form of government on earth is the family. This is why worldly governments are so obsessed with destroying and undermining families.
User avatar
Brick Layer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:44 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Post by Brick Layer » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:00 am

8-)
Beating the Bushes.... Title IV Case Part D
FOR A FRIEND OF THE COURT CASE (period)
Brick Layer wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:22 pm
Brick Layer wrote:
Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:22 pm
editor wrote:
Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:26 am
Brick Layer,

Does this thread have to do with rules of evidence? Affidavits (or asseverations) are good tools to make evidence "appear" within court proceedings.
Well [unschooled in law] what I have found at law is
'It' appears [evidence] 'Disclosures and Discovery' "factual development" within court proceedings happens only after a procedural date takes place ‘Judicial Machinery’ SCHEDULING CONFERENCE (pretrial conference) - for only after such a procedural date takes place (usually never beforehand) can the court issue a pretrial order listing other deadlines;'Annotated Outline of a Civil Action', a discovery deadline can be a good tool to make evidence 'appear' 'proof up the claims' within the court proceeding!
;)

This may be cheaper than PACER:
https://www.facebook.com/darren.edward. ... %22R%22%7D
In this case the docket will show the discovery process was originally hidden and or less than clear when after the conference and or during the call only oral deposition was mentioned and appears on the docket.... FOR THE DEFENDANTS (seemingly hidden on purpose from the Plaintiff); regardless.....

Plaintiff then beat Opposing Counsel to the punch anyway causing Opposing Counsel to file an emergency motion!

Editor - this thread and case has everything to do with evidence, making evidence "appear" within court proceeding... gamesmanship on the court!

Question:
Anyone else know of any good tools for a plaintiff to get a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference that includes a Discovery... for the Plaintiff? Image

PACER DOCKET
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... lohm_et_al
Attachments
support obligation assuming arguendo it was in fact unlawfully imposed at all.pdf
VAWTER VS BLOHM 2:17-cv-11789
(526.38 KiB) Downloaded 52 times
Last edited by Brick Layer on Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Brick Layer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:44 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Post by Brick Layer » Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:31 am

Brick Layer wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:00 am
8-)
Beating the Bushes.... Title IV Case Part D

PACER DOCKET [see, Related Cases (1), the case number listed is a hyperlink to the new docket]
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... lohm_et_al
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/f ... t-19101273
PACER DOCKET (images) District Court

ImageImageImage
Last edited by Brick Layer on Tue Nov 05, 2019 7:55 pm, edited 6 times in total.
User avatar
Brick Layer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:44 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Post by Brick Layer » Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:55 am

Harold had an agreement
Image
Brick Layer wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:03 am
When Kelvin L. Harold challenged the doctrine and lost, The Seventh Circuit applied what is left of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine because Harold had an agreement to the judgment’s entry nearly two decades ago, but failed to pay, which caused the judgment’s (alleged) creditor, Steel, to secure a garnishment order from the Indiana court. The only injury that Harold suffered occurred when the state judge ruled against him; [Harold’s claim did not include fraud]. Harold v. Steel, No. 14-1875 (7th Cir. Dec. 11, 2014)

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine merely recognizes that 28 U. S. C. §1331 is a grant of original jurisdiction [Plaintiff’s fraud claim], and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to this Court, see 28 U. S. C. §1257(a). The doctrine has no application to judicial review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency. [See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 644, n. 3 (2002)] (Rooker-Feldman does not apply to a suit seeking review of state agency action).

EXCEPTION TO ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE

And yet, an exception to Rooker-Feldman of just such an equitable persuasion has taken root. A few courts—most especially the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
[In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186 (6th Cir. 1986)] — have determined that Rooker Feldman does not prevent the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments that were allegedly procured through fraud.

In other words, when a “state-court loser” complains that the winner owes his triumph not to sound legal principles—or even unsound ones—but to fraud, then the loser is not really complaining of an injury caused by a state-court judgment, but of an injury caused by the “winner’s chicanery”. Or so the reasoning goes.

This reasoning received an intellectual boost from Exxon Mobil, where the scope of what kinds of actions were “inextricably intertwined” with state-court judgments took a serious blow [Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 291]. In Exxon Mobil, the Court clarified that not all actions dealing with the “same or related question” resolved in state court are barred in federal court [Id. at 292.]. Instead, a district court must retain a case that presents an “independent claim” even if, along the way, the claimant challenges or denies some conclusion reached by the state court [Id. at 293 (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir. 1993)).].

The Plaintiff [Appellant] is not reviewing ‘child support’ wherefore has never brought up the issue of ‘arrears’ had that been Plaintiff’s issue the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine may have applied; Plaintiff [Appellant] is not arguing ‘Child Support’ instead [Appellees] ‘Agency Actions’ a Judicial Review of the administrative agencies fraud(s).

8-)
"Although not really cognized as such, family court orders are a acourt of equity's creation of private law."

A legally enforceable and binding agreement 45 CFR § 302.50 (a)(2).

SSA Title IV § 303.1-Safeguards
303.101 (c)(3)(4) safeguards.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/303.101
“The due process rights of the parties involved must be protected”
“The parties must be provided a copy of the voluntary support order”.

"For a Friend of the court case" Michigan's parties 'payer’s' agreement, that is reviewed by the court and entered into the record [docket], MCL 552.604 Sec. 4(3)(b); MCL 552.604 Sec. 4(3)(a)(iii).

In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831

The Nevada Supreme Court in Morelli v. Morelli 102 Nev. 326, 720 P.2d 704 (1986) reasoned that the child is an intended third-party beneficiary of an agreement for support between the parents.

“A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.”

A signed divorce decree is a form of a stipulation.

'A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles. If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification. Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).'

Image

Hague Child Support Convention: Judicial Guide • Chapter Two • Page Eleven • Footnote 20
“It is important to note that such an agreement between the parties in the U.S. would be treated as a contract, but, if the foreign agreement was enforceable only as a contract in the issuing country, it would not fall within the scope of the Convention.”
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/f ... _guide.pdf

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE:
Harold's agreement,

Though not a child support matter illustrates how an agreement [MCL 552.604 (child support) payer's agreement] would be [misconstrued] viewed as a state court matter when in fact IT IS NOT! Instead of a judicial de jure state court [for the state of Michigan as each claim under the one court of justice]; instead of a state court judge, 'they're' under contract to act as judge surrogate for a foreign tribunal of the Hague, [Hague Convention] a foreign principle.
Attachments
Child Support at Home and Abroad an agreement between the parties trated as a contract.jpg
Child Support at Home and Abroad an agreement between the parties trated as a contract.jpg (1.13 MiB) Viewed 159 times
Last edited by Brick Layer on Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:13 pm, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
Brick Layer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:44 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Post by Brick Layer » Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:37 am

"World Wide Child Support Enforcement
at Home ...or abroad."

Awareness, so that both man and woman are cognizant of the fact that without the agreement between the parties and absent welfare - no child support enforcement jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction (parties agreement to jurisdiction)

Title IV-D is allegedly valid law, so is welfare recovery valid into child support enforcement jurisdiction under the new Bill Clinton welfare reform - this falls under "jurisdiction based upon parental responsibility".
Attachments
Compromis on Personal Jurisdiction.jpg
Compromis on Personal Jurisdiction.jpg (376.02 KiB) Viewed 159 times
Last edited by Brick Layer on Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:02 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Brick Layer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:44 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Post by Brick Layer » Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:16 pm

Relevant Universal Legal Maxims

Dolus circuitu non purgator.
Fraud is not purged by circuity.

Dolo malo pactum se non servaturum.
An agreement induced by fraud will not preserve itself (will not stand).

Le contrat fait la loi.
The contract makes the law.

Consensus facit legem.
Consent makes law. •A contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it.

Ejus est nolle, qui potest velle.

A person who can will (exercise volition) has a right to refuse to will (withhold consent).

http://legislature.mi.gov/(S(aluv0yy31d ... cl-552-604
In Michigan, "For a Friend of the court case" Michigan's parties 'payer’s' agreement, that is reviewed by the court and entered into the record, MCL 552.604 Sec. 4(3)(b); MCL 552.604 Sec. 4(3)(a)(iii).
[Constitutes Law between the parties]

'The principal part of everything is the beginning.'

SEC. 409. PENALTIES (7) Failure of any state to maintain certain level of historic effort. --
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/s ... 4/0409.htm

Duties
MCL 552.505 Section 5 and MCL 552.503 Section 3. (5)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater
Image

A unilateral (single party) agreement for child support enforcement by the ex without consent does not meet constitutional muster, Michigan statute, nor meet the definition and or meaning [purpose] of the ‘stipulation’ which purpose is to ‘validate a friend of the court case’ [in conformity to basic ‘contract law’] on the record [docket].
Image
An alleged single party stipulation by an ex used for a fraudulent support enforcement warrant/bond does NOT validate a ‘friend of the court case’ and must only be binding on the ex, the ex being the single signatory party regarding [MCL 552.604 Sec. 4(3)(a)(iii)] the statutory ‘payer’s agreement’ requirement; and or they don't have one of those [a payer] and that's a problem period.

• Stipulation means, “A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.”
Last edited by Brick Layer on Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Brick Layer
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:44 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Post by Brick Layer » Tue Sep 10, 2019 6:18 pm

United States Court of Appeals Case
Non-TANF (without taxpayer welfare) nor payer's agreement into [552.604] jurisdiction.

editor wrote:
Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:26 am
Brick Layer,

[...at the top]
Image

viewtopic.php?p=6146#p6146
https://www.suijurisforum.com/child-sup ... tml#p74576

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sUXMzkh-jI


Where is everybody - hiding?
Image

Seriously what a lonely place, I see we get lots of bots, and wonder to if even the Editor abandoned posts.

I started the thread in January of 2016...
and I try to give lots of page appeal [no pun intended] humor!

Who would want to cover such a topic - eh?

Just giving it away... like a $600 Dollar Guru
:mrgreen:
Last edited by Brick Layer on Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:42 pm, edited 17 times in total.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 751
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Post by notmartha » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:20 am

I've followed your posts here for years, Brick Layer. Thank you for your willingness to help those who may encounter similar issues. And your comic relief is also appreciated. :lol:
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 689
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: FAILURE TO SUPPORT NEGLECT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN

Post by editor » Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:07 am

Hi Brick Layer,

I haven't abandoned anything, I'm just up to my neck in my own alligators at the moment. Hopefully I'll have more time soon.

Thanks for your contributions.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
Post Reply