shaggy2442
05-28-2010, 08:20 PM
Hello, I am in no way a attorney or am I trying to give ANY legal advise. I simply want to share with everyone a total in-justice that myself and a few of my friends have uncovered. You see I am not a dead beat father. I see my child all the time and am actually a good father. I am currently in a situation where i simply can not make my support payment this month. So am I a criminal? NOT! Here is a sample of the letter that I just sent into the the courts.
Read it, research the case law and use it. Do not take my word for it, copy and paste the case law and do your own research!
I have many other findings. I think the time has come for Fathers to ban together and start doing something about the injustice the courts bestow on us! If you are interested in learning more please email me. If not and you just want to research and critic the below document for your own needs be my guest! I am simply SICK of what is going on in the courts and the corruption of same. What happened to this country???
In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?
Saint Augustine
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
Thomas Jefferson
----
Gayle Green
Gloucester County Probation Division
Child Support Enforcement
55 Delaware St.
Woodbury, New Jersey 08096
I am in receipt of your letter threatening me with an unconstitutional arrest warrant and suspension of my right to travel.
I must admit I am very disappointed in the treatment that you are giving me. I have attempted to contacted you on numerous occasions over the years and you have yet to return any of my calls. This last time I called I explained to you, on your voicemail, that I am in a very bad financial situation I was going to attempt to secure a loan that would pay off all the arrearage owed to the Gloucester County Probation Division Child Support Enforcement office. Furthermore I have paid child support over $20,000.00 dollars in the past 2 years.
I have recently called and left two messages in regard to this matter. You have neglected again to call me back instead you simply send out a treating letter to have an arrest warrant issued on your behalf to attempt to ascertain the monies that is due. This neglect of returning phone calls has been going on for years. As a matter of fact I CANNOT REMEMBER A TIME WHEN YOU EVER PERFORMED YOUR SWORN DUTIES AND RETURNED ANY OF MY CALLS! This warrant, that you speak of initiating against me, from the below findings is unconstitutional and violates numerous case law that I have researched and uncovered. Furthermore the letter states that it will take away my constitutional right to travel.
The last time you sent a letter with your intentions of issuing an arrest warrant, AFTER I PAID THE CHILD SUPPORT, I called and spoke to your supervisor, name unimportant at this time, he did state verbatim “…he is aware of a problem that Gayle never calls people back…” and I was further told later in the conversation “…he would address this…” he went on to further state that “the name xx is known in this office and she is relentless in calling”, and pushing your office to take illegal actions against me. Obviously these matters were not addressed, as you still do not return my calls and continue to allow xxx to push your hand. This is not a one sided matter, rather a 2 sided matter between the parents of the child the support action was granted. I feel that there is favoritism in your actions against me, which are tipping the balance of the scales of law. Furthermore, last month, the office of finance outright REFUSED my check payment! I left a message for you concerning this and still NO RETURN PHONE CALL!
I simply have over-paid child support and will be filing a motion this coming week.
Since I am not in a financial position to hire a constitutional attorney to defend my constitutional rights I have been on a mission to see exactly how I can fight this Pro Se’. My findings are eye opening and I will use my findings in the court of law if such warrant is issued.
My findings are this:
You are judiciary employee and subjected to the rules of conduct for judiciary employees pursuant to Canon 1 (A) A court employee shall uphold the Constitutions and Laws of the United States and the State of New Jersey, and shall faithfully carry out all duties assigned to the employee’s judicial function.
Child support is a civil matter. No probable cause that a crime has or is being committed exists in civil matters.
The New Jersey Constitution Article 1 Section 13 which states “No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any action, or on any judgment founded upon contract, unless in cases of fraud; nor shall any person be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.” Therefore until the state of New Jersey can establish grounds for fraud then the arrest warrant is completely unconstitutional.
Arrest warrants require probable cause with a sworn affidavit attached. U.S. Const., Fourth Amendment. Probable cause to arrest can only exist in criminal cases; it can never exist in civil cases. Stevens v. Rose, 298 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2002); Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing cases from 5th, 7th and 8th Circuits).
It is the basic proposition that a full-scale arrest must be supported by probable cause. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir.1993) (citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 148-49, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972)). In turn, we have previously held that "[by its definition, probable cause can only exist in relation to criminal conduct. It follows that civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause." Allen v. City of Portland, supra. Government cannot butt in on any civil dispute between parties, or presume there is any criminal activity related to ownership of property. If the government gets involved, it commits domestic terrorism.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:168-11(b) (probation officers supervise on “request” of the court, persons ordered to pay support or alimony). The New Jersey Supreme Court held in Lakutis v. Greenwood, 9 N.J. 101, 106-107, 87 A.2d 23 (1952), that probation officers cannot recommend issuance of warrants for arrest for child support because child support debtors are not on probation. In U.S. v. Jones, 957 F.Supp. 1088 (E.D. Ark. 1997) a probation officer’s recommendations to the court constitutes unauthorized practice of law if they are not attorneys.
However, a review of the Federal Child Support Enforcement Laws, 42 U.S.C. §§651-669, and the corresponding Code of Federal Regulations, C.F.R. §§300-305, shows no mention of any arrests or imprisonment for a child support debt. In fact, both statute and regulation are silent on the issue.
In Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 892 A.2d 663 (2006) was forced by the Third Circuit in Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412 (3rd Cir. 2003) to “do the right thing” at the state level with regard to appointing defense counsel to indigents in all child support enforcement hearings, compelling the courts to conduct indigence hearings, appointment of counsel hearings, and then ability-to-pay hearings, before anyone could be imprisoned for a child support debt. This resulted in two Directives from the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”): Directive #18-06 (issued August 29, 2006) and subsequently Directive #15-08 (superseding Directive #18-06, and issued November 17, 2008).
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 892 A.2d 663 (2006) and held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution mandates appointment of counsel to assist parents found to be indigent and facing incarceration at child support enforcement hearings. The High Court held that there is a presumption that an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty. The due process factors set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) requires consideration of the (1) “private interests at stake, (2) the government’s interest, and (3) the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions.” Citing, Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 26-27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2159, 68 L.Ed.2d 640, 649 (1981), which held that in a civil proceeding there is a “presumption” in favor of the right to counsel when an indigent litigant is facing a “deprivation of his physical liberty”. When a litigant (especially one who is indigent and/or cannot afford counsel) is forced to proceed at an ability-to-pay hearing without counsel, there is a high risk of an erroneous determination and wrongful incarceration. However seemingly simple support enforcement proceedings may be for a judge or lawyer, gathering documentary evidence, presenting testimony, marshalling legal arguments, and articulating a defense are probably awesome and perhaps insuperable undertakings to the uninitiated layperson.
In Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 435 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from arresting citizens without probable cause that a crime is being committed). The New Jersey Supreme Court followed this with Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 361-65, 749 A.2d 336 (2000) which details the explanation of the probable cause standard in New Jersey and showing that probable cause to arrest requires a showing that both a crime has been, or is being committed, and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense. Id.at 363.
U.S. Courts of Appeals have held that child support is a common, commercial, civil debt, and is not a “special kind of debt”. U.S. v. Lewko, 269 F.3d 64, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1997); U.S. v. King, 276 F.3d 109 (2nd Cir. 2002), and other cases. Based on Federal child support enforcement laws, as part of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§651-669), child support becomes a civil judgment by operation of law on the date it is due, N.J.R. 5:7-5(g), and is docketed as a civil judgment in the state courts.
Furthermore, I have discovered that it is the intention of the court to pursue a child support order, is not for the best interest of the child, but to subject defendant to an unconstitutional arrest warrant, violate his right to travel without due process thus interfering with his work. The states have been using this counterproductive move to make defendant default on his child support so that the state can assume his debt and attach it to TITLE IV-D, thus the state receives grant money from the federal government based on the defendants debt, along with others, and the monies received is not forwarding to the recipient of the support instead the state hands it out to state workers as “child support incentives”.
The judge determines custody and visitation based on TITLE IV D. Follow the money, the less time that the non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.
The judge receives powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers' high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced, and to hang onto the father's payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers. The General Accounting Office reported that in 2002 states were holding $657 million in UDC (Undistributed Child Support).
The courts have also issued an all out campaign by using default child support payments as a way of illegally imprisoning fathers to prison, yet women are not subjected to this. Pursuant to 2A:17-77(a) women are not allowed to be arrested for capias ad satisfaciendum (bench warrant).
Furthermore the legal definition of Probation is as follows:
Probation
A punishment given out as part of a sentence which means that instead of jailing a person convicted of a crime, a judge will order that the person reports to a probation officer regularly and according to a set schedule.
It has also been written that no ex-parte hearings can be held for an arrest per United States Constitution Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause which states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”, which has been held by Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 165 U.S. (1897); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45(1905); Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937); and a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in Perlmutter v. DeRowe, 58 N.J. 5, 17, 274 A.2d 283 (1971),. Among those rights is the constitutional right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result, and the term substantive due process, is commonly used in two ways: first to identify a particular line of cases, and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under the Due Process Clause.
United States Constitution Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”, which has been held by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and Melendez- Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. (2009).
I HAD TO CUT THE DOC SHORT DO TO THE LENGTH. FEEL FREE TO DOWNLOAD THE PDF....
Read it, research the case law and use it. Do not take my word for it, copy and paste the case law and do your own research!
I have many other findings. I think the time has come for Fathers to ban together and start doing something about the injustice the courts bestow on us! If you are interested in learning more please email me. If not and you just want to research and critic the below document for your own needs be my guest! I am simply SICK of what is going on in the courts and the corruption of same. What happened to this country???
In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?
Saint Augustine
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
Thomas Jefferson
----
Gayle Green
Gloucester County Probation Division
Child Support Enforcement
55 Delaware St.
Woodbury, New Jersey 08096
I am in receipt of your letter threatening me with an unconstitutional arrest warrant and suspension of my right to travel.
I must admit I am very disappointed in the treatment that you are giving me. I have attempted to contacted you on numerous occasions over the years and you have yet to return any of my calls. This last time I called I explained to you, on your voicemail, that I am in a very bad financial situation I was going to attempt to secure a loan that would pay off all the arrearage owed to the Gloucester County Probation Division Child Support Enforcement office. Furthermore I have paid child support over $20,000.00 dollars in the past 2 years.
I have recently called and left two messages in regard to this matter. You have neglected again to call me back instead you simply send out a treating letter to have an arrest warrant issued on your behalf to attempt to ascertain the monies that is due. This neglect of returning phone calls has been going on for years. As a matter of fact I CANNOT REMEMBER A TIME WHEN YOU EVER PERFORMED YOUR SWORN DUTIES AND RETURNED ANY OF MY CALLS! This warrant, that you speak of initiating against me, from the below findings is unconstitutional and violates numerous case law that I have researched and uncovered. Furthermore the letter states that it will take away my constitutional right to travel.
The last time you sent a letter with your intentions of issuing an arrest warrant, AFTER I PAID THE CHILD SUPPORT, I called and spoke to your supervisor, name unimportant at this time, he did state verbatim “…he is aware of a problem that Gayle never calls people back…” and I was further told later in the conversation “…he would address this…” he went on to further state that “the name xx is known in this office and she is relentless in calling”, and pushing your office to take illegal actions against me. Obviously these matters were not addressed, as you still do not return my calls and continue to allow xxx to push your hand. This is not a one sided matter, rather a 2 sided matter between the parents of the child the support action was granted. I feel that there is favoritism in your actions against me, which are tipping the balance of the scales of law. Furthermore, last month, the office of finance outright REFUSED my check payment! I left a message for you concerning this and still NO RETURN PHONE CALL!
I simply have over-paid child support and will be filing a motion this coming week.
Since I am not in a financial position to hire a constitutional attorney to defend my constitutional rights I have been on a mission to see exactly how I can fight this Pro Se’. My findings are eye opening and I will use my findings in the court of law if such warrant is issued.
My findings are this:
You are judiciary employee and subjected to the rules of conduct for judiciary employees pursuant to Canon 1 (A) A court employee shall uphold the Constitutions and Laws of the United States and the State of New Jersey, and shall faithfully carry out all duties assigned to the employee’s judicial function.
Child support is a civil matter. No probable cause that a crime has or is being committed exists in civil matters.
The New Jersey Constitution Article 1 Section 13 which states “No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any action, or on any judgment founded upon contract, unless in cases of fraud; nor shall any person be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.” Therefore until the state of New Jersey can establish grounds for fraud then the arrest warrant is completely unconstitutional.
Arrest warrants require probable cause with a sworn affidavit attached. U.S. Const., Fourth Amendment. Probable cause to arrest can only exist in criminal cases; it can never exist in civil cases. Stevens v. Rose, 298 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2002); Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing cases from 5th, 7th and 8th Circuits).
It is the basic proposition that a full-scale arrest must be supported by probable cause. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir.1993) (citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 148-49, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972)). In turn, we have previously held that "[by its definition, probable cause can only exist in relation to criminal conduct. It follows that civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause." Allen v. City of Portland, supra. Government cannot butt in on any civil dispute between parties, or presume there is any criminal activity related to ownership of property. If the government gets involved, it commits domestic terrorism.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:168-11(b) (probation officers supervise on “request” of the court, persons ordered to pay support or alimony). The New Jersey Supreme Court held in Lakutis v. Greenwood, 9 N.J. 101, 106-107, 87 A.2d 23 (1952), that probation officers cannot recommend issuance of warrants for arrest for child support because child support debtors are not on probation. In U.S. v. Jones, 957 F.Supp. 1088 (E.D. Ark. 1997) a probation officer’s recommendations to the court constitutes unauthorized practice of law if they are not attorneys.
However, a review of the Federal Child Support Enforcement Laws, 42 U.S.C. §§651-669, and the corresponding Code of Federal Regulations, C.F.R. §§300-305, shows no mention of any arrests or imprisonment for a child support debt. In fact, both statute and regulation are silent on the issue.
In Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 892 A.2d 663 (2006) was forced by the Third Circuit in Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412 (3rd Cir. 2003) to “do the right thing” at the state level with regard to appointing defense counsel to indigents in all child support enforcement hearings, compelling the courts to conduct indigence hearings, appointment of counsel hearings, and then ability-to-pay hearings, before anyone could be imprisoned for a child support debt. This resulted in two Directives from the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”): Directive #18-06 (issued August 29, 2006) and subsequently Directive #15-08 (superseding Directive #18-06, and issued November 17, 2008).
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 892 A.2d 663 (2006) and held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution mandates appointment of counsel to assist parents found to be indigent and facing incarceration at child support enforcement hearings. The High Court held that there is a presumption that an indigent litigant has a right to appointed counsel only when, if he loses, he may be deprived of his physical liberty. The due process factors set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) requires consideration of the (1) “private interests at stake, (2) the government’s interest, and (3) the risk that the procedures used will lead to erroneous decisions.” Citing, Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 26-27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2159, 68 L.Ed.2d 640, 649 (1981), which held that in a civil proceeding there is a “presumption” in favor of the right to counsel when an indigent litigant is facing a “deprivation of his physical liberty”. When a litigant (especially one who is indigent and/or cannot afford counsel) is forced to proceed at an ability-to-pay hearing without counsel, there is a high risk of an erroneous determination and wrongful incarceration. However seemingly simple support enforcement proceedings may be for a judge or lawyer, gathering documentary evidence, presenting testimony, marshalling legal arguments, and articulating a defense are probably awesome and perhaps insuperable undertakings to the uninitiated layperson.
In Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 435 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from arresting citizens without probable cause that a crime is being committed). The New Jersey Supreme Court followed this with Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 361-65, 749 A.2d 336 (2000) which details the explanation of the probable cause standard in New Jersey and showing that probable cause to arrest requires a showing that both a crime has been, or is being committed, and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense. Id.at 363.
U.S. Courts of Appeals have held that child support is a common, commercial, civil debt, and is not a “special kind of debt”. U.S. v. Lewko, 269 F.3d 64, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1997); U.S. v. King, 276 F.3d 109 (2nd Cir. 2002), and other cases. Based on Federal child support enforcement laws, as part of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§651-669), child support becomes a civil judgment by operation of law on the date it is due, N.J.R. 5:7-5(g), and is docketed as a civil judgment in the state courts.
Furthermore, I have discovered that it is the intention of the court to pursue a child support order, is not for the best interest of the child, but to subject defendant to an unconstitutional arrest warrant, violate his right to travel without due process thus interfering with his work. The states have been using this counterproductive move to make defendant default on his child support so that the state can assume his debt and attach it to TITLE IV-D, thus the state receives grant money from the federal government based on the defendants debt, along with others, and the monies received is not forwarding to the recipient of the support instead the state hands it out to state workers as “child support incentives”.
The judge determines custody and visitation based on TITLE IV D. Follow the money, the less time that the non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.
The judge receives powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers' high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced, and to hang onto the father's payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers. The General Accounting Office reported that in 2002 states were holding $657 million in UDC (Undistributed Child Support).
The courts have also issued an all out campaign by using default child support payments as a way of illegally imprisoning fathers to prison, yet women are not subjected to this. Pursuant to 2A:17-77(a) women are not allowed to be arrested for capias ad satisfaciendum (bench warrant).
Furthermore the legal definition of Probation is as follows:
Probation
A punishment given out as part of a sentence which means that instead of jailing a person convicted of a crime, a judge will order that the person reports to a probation officer regularly and according to a set schedule.
It has also been written that no ex-parte hearings can be held for an arrest per United States Constitution Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause which states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”, which has been held by Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 165 U.S. (1897); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45(1905); Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937); and a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in Perlmutter v. DeRowe, 58 N.J. 5, 17, 274 A.2d 283 (1971),. Among those rights is the constitutional right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result, and the term substantive due process, is commonly used in two ways: first to identify a particular line of cases, and second to signify a particular attitude toward judicial review under the Due Process Clause.
United States Constitution Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”, which has been held by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and Melendez- Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. (2009).
I HAD TO CUT THE DOC SHORT DO TO THE LENGTH. FEEL FREE TO DOWNLOAD THE PDF....