Silva v. Garcetti shows the downsides of Applying for Welfare (to both parents)
Abstract: This post has ca. 5,500 words, and four major cites. Most of it is quotation, the largest part is the first part. Basically:
- the actual 1999 Silva v. Garcia case summary from Johnnypumphandle—
- Also a short reference to “Maximus” which is still doing business in California, and nationwide. This should tell us something; they keep getting major contracts even though they’re thought of and have been caught in major fraud around welfare matters!
- Note: (there are entire blogs and ripoff reports and a forum dedicated to complaints about Maximus which among other things collects child support. See it under topix.com
- While Ms. Silva (below was getting $130 a month out of the money garnished of her husband, how much were child support officials (or any privatized contractors making?) Maximus disclosure for 3/5/2004– in California only, shows their salaries and stock options: (dba in Calif as “Virginia Maximus) (search site):
- a Joseph Zernik article reporting the falsification of records on the arrest of Richard Fine and obstruction of attempts by others to get their hands on the actual records (his arrest was in 2009)
- “Understanding the Contractual Relationship” from realitybloger.wordpress.com
- A post (from same blogger)referencing Obamacare and the Supreme Court & elections, but it actually reviews the implications and meanings of “Supreme Court” “United States” and “Constitution” among other things. (same blogger)
[I added for reference, recent disclosures (in California) on publicly-traded companies, showing Maximus Director salaries (and stocks/options owned — notice most are in options, not stocks) for 2006 & 2004. Context: they are a child support enforcement private contractor (DNK if currently in California in this capacity, but they have offices where AFCC does – US, Australia, UK, Canada….)]. Once a public traded company starts doing business for gov’t — it gets very interesting. For one — they are sued for fraud, say, and pay multi-million$$ settlements (as Maximus has) — where does that go, then — what does gov’t do with the fund? Does it help the common man, or (case in point), children? Maximus was sued among other things for submitting false claims to have provided Medicaid coverage for foster kids — talk about a vulnerable population!]]
It’s noticeable that these are low-traffic sites, particularly the Zernik one is very disturbing it’s been ignored by mainstream. I used to judge sites as “creditable” by the format and appearance of their sites; do they look respectable? I learned the hard way that that often works in reverse, particularly with a lot of the funding for some of these sites coming directly to fake corporations via HHS, which is to say, from the public they should be serving better and more honest to!
SILVA v. GARCETTI
raises a few more questions for me (general ones) but basically established how these agencies and that particular District Attorney’s office (then responsible for collecting welfare) was handling a law-abiding citizen.
http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/silva1.htm
. . .18. On March 4. 1985, a judgment was entered in the case of John Ray Silva v. Suzette Rene Silva, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. NVD 02301, dissolving the marriage as of March 4, 1985, and ordering support of the minor child at $125.00 per week, commencing February 11, 1985. such order did not require payments to be made through the court. A true and correct copy of such March 4, 1985, Order is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 3, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
19. On July 18, 1985, such order was modified to be $325.00, payable on the 1st and 15th of each month, as of October 15, 1985. such order did not require payments to be made through the court. A true and correct copy of the July 18, 1985, Order is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 4, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
20. In or about August 1989, Plaintiff’s former wife received AFDC payments. such payments continued from August 1989 through February 1990, i.e., a seven-month period. such payments discontinued in February 1990 and have never been recommenced.
21. On November 29, 1989, the July 18, 1985, order was modified to reduce child support to $135.00 per month, retroactive to November 1, 1989, and payments were required to be paid through the Court Trustee, in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California, for the first time, pursuant to Civil Code section 4702(a) (welfare), as stated on the order. A true and correct of the November 29, 1989, Order is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 5, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
{{Highly significant — but apparently neither the Silvas nor Mr. Fine had caught the impact of the change, yet. Hindsight does tend to operate better…. Now — if theres a Court Trustee, there is a Court Fund. At this time, while it’s going to be under the child support agency (which is a unit of government) and/or the statewide distribution unit (“SDU”) — there will still be such type funds. They could be found on CAFRs for those who will look them up}}
{{The Crisis in the Courts Crowd are not reporting enough on the role of money collection in the family courts — and this would seem to be an obvious issue. It’s obvious if you are a mother trying to leave a violent relationship (OR a father, for that matter) — and it’s obvious if you are borderline hungry, or your kids don’t have certain needs met. But somehow, the NONPROFITS would rather conference, publish training materials, make their group-wide decisions with less direct input from the actual people whose needs they are conferencing about . . . }}
22. Plaintiff made all of the payments and complied with his obligation as shown by the affidavit of Suzette Rene Silva, dated October 1, 1998. A true and correct of said affidavit is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 6, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
23. Despite all of the payments having been made, on November 9, 1997, the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office, Bureau of Family Support Operations, filed a Notice of Garnishment on plaintiff’s wages for child support arrearages as of October 31, 1997, in the sum of $64,482.26, and commenced deducting $2,069.46 per month from his paycheck. A true and correct copy of said Notice of Garnishment is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 7, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
24. On January 16, 1998, Plaintiff met with the County of Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Family Support Operations and executed a stipulation, without prejudice, alleging that child support in the amount of $64,412.48 was owed. Such stipulation was executed in error at the insistence of the Los Angeles County District Attorney. A true and correct copy of said stipulation is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 8, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
{{I am going to do a little ‘calculated speculation’ here — or a role play re: items 23 & 24. Notice the timeline — it looks like the “BUREAU OF FAMILY SUPPORT OPERATIONS” under the L.A. District Attorney’s Office, realizing they had an honest man here (and for how many others did they do the same thing, but those others didn’t find a Mr. Fine or file suit?) — and decided to just start GARNISHING him down to almost nothing (from other sources, it left him almost nothing to live on.}} That’d get anyone’s attention quick, after the initial shock.
Look at the timeline: Oct 31, 1997 — Nov – Dec — halfway through January 1998, I’ll bet Mr. Silva went in and had a meeting with this office to settle the matter. There’s no reference to him having stopped payments or been threatened by them; why threaten someone who’s providing $2K a month income for the D.A.’s office?
So here he is in a very powerful place — the District Attorney’s office, family support ops (for those who haven’t walked into any child support agency since — there’s always an armed officer on duty, last I was in one. I cannot remember exactly, but it also seemed to me that the cubicles were very transparent; with matters like this at hand and emotions high, I”m sure those CS workers need their physical protection made clear.
And this office is insisting he sign a stipulation to that amount. Now why would he sign it when he knows he doesn’t owe it? – – – -possibly to get out of the office without being physically arrested? What would you do? Four days later, he handles it, or tries to by filing a revocation of this stipulation:}}
25. Such stipulation was not filed with the court. {{it just gave them leverage should they be confronted on stealing from this father…}}
26. On January 20, 1998, four days later, Plaintiff filed a revocation of such stipulation with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office.** A true and correct copy of such revocation is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 9, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
**who else in power did he cc or notify? This is where we give too much faith and credit to gov’t (I did it too), even when we know what they’re doing — the wage garnishment and false arrears was a considerable affront. As of this date, he doesn’t know how commonplace it is with others, apparently, and is like a subject going to the office to try and resolve their differences, the chief difference, it seems, being that one of them is in law enforcement, and the other of them is law-abiding.
27. On February 16, 1998, despite the Stipulation having been revoked by Plaintiff on January 20, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office executed the Stipulation, without plaintiff’s knowledge.
{{Still going on today. . . . . Consider the ramifications. Unbelievable…How can a person find out ALL orders filed under their name, administratively or ex parte, without their having been noticed, I wonder.}}
20. On March 18, 1998, despite the stipulation having been revoked on January 20, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office on an ex parte basis, with Plaintiff’s knowledge, filed the stipulation containing the false arrearage of $64,412.48 and requiring payments of $860.00 on the first day of each month, commencing February 1, 1998, and obtained the signature of R. Lee, Judge Pro Tem, ordering such false stipulation. A true and correct copy of such false Stipulation and Order, containing the signature of Judge R. Lee, is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 10, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
{{Does the original document (we’re just reading a website posting here) have the judge’s full name, which would’ve been helpful? Was this person a member of the infamous judges’ slush fund (so-called) later discovered?}}
29. Such Stipulation and Order showed a case number NVD 0002301, while the revoked stipulation showed a case number of 012.007.350. The stipulation filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney had been falsified as to the case number, in addition to having been filed after such had been revoked.
30. Such Stipulation and Order also shows that it was signed on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office by Deputy District Attorney Jodi A. Sherman on February 12, 1998, approximately 22 days subsequent to the stipulation having been revoked. A comparison of the stipulation with the Stipulation and Order shows that the revoked stipulation did not contain a signature of the Deputy District Attorney.
{{How did Mr. Silva walk out of filing a revocation without obtaining a signature, or did he have a different one one with a signature?}}
31. On or about January 20, 1998, the County of Los Angeles Office of the District Attorney, Bureau of Family Support Operations, sent to the Department of Public Social Services a request to them to provide aid for dependent children case record information for the child Charmaine Silva, daughter of Plaintiff and Suzette Rene Silva. Such request showed that direct child support payments were made to the custodial parent for the period of June 29, 1989, onwards. A response was received on April 13, 1998, showing aid paid to the family commencing in August 1989 through February 1990, in the amount of $3,106.00. A true and correct copy of said request and response is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 11, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
32. On January 29, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Bureau of Family Support Operations, sent Plaintiff a Child Support Consumer credit Report Notification showing a current monthly support obligation of $1,130.00 as of January 29, 1998, for a total amount of $96,080.71. A true and correct copy of said Notification is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 12, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
33. On December 1, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office provided a Summary of Account for John R. Silva commencing February 11, 1985, falsely claiming monies for total welfare and non-welfare child support arrears in the amount of $61,670.00. A true and correct copy of such Summary of Account is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 13, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
34. On December 1, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office provided a Summary of Account for John R. Silva commencing February 11, 1985, falsely claiming monies for welfare child support arrearages in the amount of $57,911.95. A true and correct copy of said Summary of Account is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 14, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
35. Such claims are being contested in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. NVD 0002301 in which a hearing has been set for September 15, 1999.
36. The accountings by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, as set forth in Exhibits 13 and 14 hereto, are false as shown by the comparison of payments set forth in Exhibit 15 hereto, which sets forth payments made to Plaintiff’s former wife and to the Court Trustee. No monies are owed by Plaintiff, to Plaintiff’s knowledge.
37. Despite the collection of payments from 1989 onwards by the Court Trustee, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has not made any payments or has underpaid the Los Angeles County “Welfare Department”, and further has only made payments of approximately $130.00 per month to Plaintiff’s former wife, thereby underpaying Suzette Rene Silva, even though Plaintiff had paid up to $900.00 per month, under the garnishments.
38. During fiscal year 1997-98 the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office collected $257 million in child support payments.
_ _ _ _ _ _ (skipping forward some from the excerpt to the FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION). I’m interested to note that while it makes 100% sense, it doesn’t cite to any code as to a “Cause of action” against the county — I thought that was routine. This brings up the issue of sovereignty of government from being sued. It brings up the matter (to my attention, anyhow) of the the general lack of awareness that this government is primarily “serve and collect” not “serve and protect” (See realitybloger site, above, for more on the Contractual relationship):
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR PRELIMINARY. PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32, and each of them above, as though fully set forth herein.
44. Unless GARCETTI is required to immediately disburse approximately $25 million which he is “holding” as “Child Support Collections on Hold” and which he is not paying to the custodial parents to whom a portion of such monies are due, the County of Los Angeles Welfare Department, to whom a portion of such monies are due, and to the payors of such funds who, by law, must be paid a refund of monies paid in the event that the custodial parent is not located within six months from the time of payment, the legal requirements that such monies be disbursed to the parental custodian, the County of Los Angeles “Welfare Department”, and the payors of such payments, will be violated.
{{There are lists of legitimate causes of action. this is an ETHICAL cause of action. No “legal requirements that such monies be disbursed” is even cited here. why not? To cite such legal requirements being violated would seem to be elementary in the pleading. . . . . . . .. }}
45. Plaintiff and the taxpayers do not have any adequate remedy at law to require the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office to perform their statutory duties and disburse such monies Unless such preliminary, permanent, and mandatory injunction is issued, plaintiff and the taxpayers will continue to suffer undue hardship which cannot be remedied by any damages, since the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office is funded by the taxpayers.
29. Such Stipulation and Order showed a case number NVD 0002301, while the revoked stipulation showed a case number of 012.007.350. The stipulation filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney had been falsified as to the case number, in addition to having been filed after such had been revoked.
30. Such Stipulation and Order also shows that it was signed on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office by Deputy District Attorney Jodi A. Sherman on February 12, 1998, approximately 22 days subsequent to the stipulation having been revoked. A comparison of the stipulation with the Stipulation and Order shows that the revoked stipulation did not contain a signature of the Deputy District Attorney.
31. On or about January 20, 1998, the County of Los Angeles Office of the District Attorney, Bureau of Family Support Operations, sent to the Department of Public Social Services a request to them to provide aid for dependent children case record information for the child Charmaine Silva, daughter of Plaintiff and Suzette Rene Silva. Such request showed that direct child support payments were made to the custodial parent for the period of June 29, 1989, onwards. A response was received on April 13, 1998, showing aid paid to the family commencing in August 1989 through February 1990, in the amount of $3,106.00. A true and correct copy of said request and response is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 11, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
32. On January 29, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, Bureau of Family Support Operations, sent Plaintiff a Child Support Consumer credit Report Notification showing a current monthly support obligation of $1,130.00 as of January 29, 1998, for a total amount of $96,080.71. A true and correct copy of said Notification is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 12, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
33. On December 1, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office provided a Summary of Account for John R. Silva commencing February 11, 1985, falsely claiming monies for total welfare and non-welfare child support arrears in the amount of $61,670.00. A true and correct copy of such Summary of Account is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 13, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
34. On December 1, 1998, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office provided a Summary of Account for John R. Silva commencing February 11, 1985, falsely claiming monies for welfare child support arrearages in the amount of $57,911.95. A true and correct copy of said Summary of Account is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 14, and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
35. Such claims are being contested in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. NVD 0002301 in which a hearing has been set for September 15, 1999.
36. The accountings by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, as set forth in Exhibits 13 and 14 hereto, are false as shown by the comparison of payments set forth in Exhibit 15 hereto, which sets forth payments made to Plaintiff’s former wife and to the Court Trustee. No monies are owed by Plaintiff, to Plaintiff’s knowledge.
37. Despite the collection of payments from 1989 onwards by the Court Trustee, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has not made any payments or has underpaid the Los Angeles County “Welfare Department”, and further has only made payments of approximately $130.00 per month to Plaintiff’s former wife, thereby underpaying Suzette Rene Silva, even though Plaintiff had paid up to $900.00 per month, under the garnishments.
38. During fiscal year 1997-98 the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office collected $257 million in child support payments. (ETC.).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Lyin’ cheatin’ stealin’ falsifying documents, etc.
The lack of awareness of the ramifications of TANF (1996 welfare reform) on the flow of money
MAXIMUS is still active (it has approximately 12 California locations) despite it having had to pay multi-million$$ settlement fees at times for fraud, and it having a terrible reputation with many customers, and some employees. It makes mention in “ripoff” reports, etc. — – but government entitities are its friends:
TANF – Maximus
www.maximus.com/services/workforce-solutions/tanfToday, we run programs in Washington, D.C., Alaska, Los Angeles County, Milwaukee, … MAXIMUS brings together this diverse array of stakeholders to support …
There is enough information on here to come to some reasonable conclusions — including the decision to get to the bottom of this situation. Again, centralized government wealth was not distributed, and many ways to avoid bringing it to the public’s attention where their money went.
Just remember things are generally speaking not what they are advertised as. What about the identity and reporting on that child support trust fund being held by the L.A. D.A.’s office until it was taken out of their hands?
Also, when systems change, money also gets lost in the transition.
For what it’s worth. . . .
I believe this case was one of the ones that helped land Richard Fine in jail. He was threatening the money supply (which was pretty much his job as an honest attorney). It appears that his arrest record was also later falsified, which information can be found on-line:
ZERNIK ON RICHARD FINE’S FRAUDULENT ARREST RECORD
Joseph Zernik (who has also written extensively on the dual-docketing practice in the area, and who was himself rounded up shortly after this publication was translated into lay terms by Janet Phelan, investigative reporter), writes up the falsification and obstruction of access to documents surrounding Richard Fine’s forcible arrest (hospitalization).
Attorney Richard Fine – dissident’s false hospitalization in Los Angeles County, California
By Joseph Zernik (about the author)
Large-scale false imprisonments in Los Angeles County, California, were previously reported. {{probably a reference to the Ramparts case??}}
[1] Here, a related practice is reported false hospitalization of attorneys who filed complaints pertaining to the widespread corruption of Los Angeles County judges: Attorney Richard Fine, falsely hospitalized since March 4, 2009, and Attorney Ronald Gottschalk, since released on bail. In both cases, there was no medical justification for the hospitalizations, which were coerced. Conditions in Los Angeles County are a Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions, and direct extension of false imprisonments of thousands, documented in the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), which were never reversed ever since.[[Rampart re]]Most published reports regarding the false hospitalization of Richard Fine failed to provide the fundamental facts. Starting in 2001, Richard Fine, a former US Prosecutor, exposed and protested the then secret payment to all Superior Court of California judges by Los Angeles County. He also was the first to compile data to demonstrate that in parallel it became practically impossible to win a case in court against Los Angeles County. In October 2008, such payments – today amounting to over $45,000 per judge per year – were ruled“not permitted” by the California Court of Appeals, 4th. By February 20, 2009, the California Governor signed into law retroactive immunities/pardons for all judges who had taken such “not permitted” payments. Less than two weeks later, Atty Richard Fine was taken into false hospitalization by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
However, there was no warrant ever issued for the arrest of Mr. Fine. Likewise, there was neither a valid and effectual conviction, nor was there a valid and effectual sentencing. The March 4, 2009 proceeding, at the end of which Mr. Fine was abducted, never appeared as part of the respective litigation (Marina v Los Angeles County – BS109420) chronology – it was – from court’s perspective – an “off the record” proceeding.Furthermore, in the past 10 months, despite the Habeas Corpus Petition to the US District Court Los Angeles, and the Emergency Petition to the 9th Circuit, the LA Superior Court has denied access to the Register of Actions (California docket) of Marina v LA County – in which Mr. Fine was purportedly arrested. How the US Court engaged in a habeas corpus review with no docket, and how the US Court of Appeal, 9th circuit, failed to notice that there was no docket, no warrant, no conviction, and no sentencing, remains unknown …
The review of the Habeas Corpus Petition, Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), was suspect on additional counts. Donna Thomas, Courtroom Assistant to Magistrate Carla Woehrle, who engaged in transactions in the US District Court docket, which were subject to complaint to FBI, was never authorized as Deputy Clerk. Furthermore, the Clerk of the US Court, Terry Nafisi, has refused to allow access to any of the records in Mr. Fine’s case, and likewise, is refusing to answer the questions: (i) Was Donna Thomas authorized as Deputy Clerk at the time she engaged in the transaction in Fine v Sheriff?(ii) Is the docket of Fine v Sheriff an honest, valid, and effectual docket of the US Court in compliance with US law?
In a matching parallel, Lee Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, after over three months of communications, including intervention by the Honorable Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor, has refused to comply with the law, and has continuously denied access to California Public Records, which were the arrest and booking papers of Mr. Fine. Instead, Sheriff Baca office has repeatedly referenced the fraudulent data posted in its online Inmate Information Center. The fraudulent Inmate Information Center falsely stated that Mr. Fine was arrested and booked at the “San Pedro Municipal Court“. However, such data were false on numerous accounts: There were plenty of witnesses and newspaper reports that the abduction of Richard Fine took place in the Central District – Judge Yaffe’s Courtroom. Furthermore, there were no booking facilities in San Pedro at all. Likewise, the single sheriff Deputy in San Pedro denied that anybody was arrested or booked there anytime in memory. Finally – Municipal Courts ceased to exist in Los Angeles County almost a decade ago.
The fraudulent listing of the arrest and booking of Richard Fine under the San Pedro Municipal Court was, however, employed by the Sheriff’s Department. In response to requests to access the arrest and booking papers, public records by California Public Records Act, the sheriff’s bureau claimed that the standard policy was that the booking papers were held with the “Booking Agency”. In this particular case – this is the non-existent Municipal Court of San Pedro…
Furthermore, since Mr. Fine was never arrested, and never booked, he is not on the “Count List” of the Men’s Central Jail. Therefore, Mr. Fine has never even once in ten months participated in the mandatory three times a day “Inmates Counts”, which apply to all inmates in the jail. Instead, Mr. Fine was held under false, coercive hospitalization, with no medical reason at all.
The story as a whole, was eerily reminiscent of coercive hospitalizations of dissidents by the KGB under the former Soviet Union. Given the failure of the US justice system to investigate, prosecute, and judge its own corruption, it appeared that the only remedies could come through international intervention
Just keep in mind that docketing and inmate information in any particular jail may be false, or bona fide. Who’s keeping track of which?
this is why I think “understanding the contractual relationship” is an important post, if combined properly with an understanding of the risks of standing on one’s perceived legal rights at this stage of the game:
Understanding The Contractual Relationship
In my last post, “To Protect And Serve” (link), we discussed the nature of the contractual relationship between the people and government. The importance of this relationship cannot be understated, as the authority and jurisdiction of government CODE, legal requirements, licenses, taxation, imprisonment, and everything else that is forced upon the people is done so through contract. And force is used upon the people when the stipulations of a legal contract are not met and the people decide to not cooperate with the law enforcement officers who protect and serve the people on behalf of government. As we discussed, protecting and serving does not mean protecting and serving your God-given natural rights, but instead it means to enforce the law through the protection of its continuity and uniformity, as well as to serve you with arrest, summons, process, and notices. To protect does not mean to defend you, and to serve does not mean to be hospitable to you or help you.Again, the understanding of the following U.S. CODE explains this quite well…
42 USC § 1981 – Equal rights under the law
(a) Statement of equal rights
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined
For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
Protecting your rights to be punished, put in pain, penalized, taxed, forced to obtain licenses, and exacted (extorted) from is the job of a police officer, and the service of these “benefits” and “privileges” of extortion through process, notice, and summons is the requisite of that protection – the protection of the right of government to extort.
But the important aspect for the implementation of this protection and service is all based on what paragraph (b) defines as the contractual relationship. This relationship between you and government must be understood if ever you wish to stand up against this legal extortion via contract.
…We have seriously mis-understood who we are vis-a-vis our government. Hardly an accident.
I dare you to read this post from top to bottom, and please rein in the politically-correct voice in your mind which calls up all images of the Civil War, Ken Burns, and such — and listen to the discussion of the meaning of the words “Constitution,” and the concepts here in.
I am going to vote in November; but neither choice is really a good voice. Moreover, to the best of my ability, I am going to continue to vote for the closest to truth I can get, wherever I find it, and as I have a right to, for my own self-interests, i.e., to continue living and, when I work, not have my work product or income from that work or creation stolen by someone else. I do understand now that these courts (ANY of these courts) are not places where any of MY rights are likely to be defended – that is not their primary purpose. Wish I’d known this 20 years earlier…
Why The Supreme Court Claims Obamacare is Constitutional
I still believe there are unifying principles in this world, and the closer we can get to understanding the most relevant, and most foundational ones (and respect them!), the better life will be. However, in a society, it doesn’t help for only one person, isolated, to know and stand on such information. Even “men of God” knew they needed followers or disciples, by and large, and people to write things down, or show (by their lives) to others. If they had not had these, our present world religions would not exist.
I’m copying part of it here — but please read! Perhaps this is the source of many of our problems as a nation?
13th Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPTas a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 2 is ultimately the important clause here, as we will read later. The legislation created by congress allowing private prisons to use prisoners to work for slave wages is just one example of how the 13th Amendment created legalized slavery and indentured servitude in the “United States” jurisdiction.
–=–
What Is A Constitution?
–=–
Should we romanticize the “constitution” as our cherished law of the land that was derived from divine inspiration without question?
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 – the only law dictionary officially incorporated by Congress as part of the United States constitution and officially as part of the Supreme Court – let’s us know what the word “constitution” really stands for:
CONSTITUTION – contracts. The constitution of a contract, is the making of the contract as, the written constitution of a debt. 1 Bell’s Com. 332, 5th ed.
CONSTITUTOR – civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9.
(That’s you, by the way… you who are reading this as a citizen – you are the “constitutors” of the “constitution”)
TO CONSTITUTE – contracts. To empower, to authorize. In the common form of letters of attorney, these words occur, “I nominate, constitute and appoint.”
CONSTITUENT – He who gives authority to another to act for him. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 893.
CONSTITUIMUS – A Latin word which signifies we constitute. Whenever the king of England is vested with the right of creating a new office, he must use proper words to do so, for example, erigimus, constituimus, c . Bac. Ab. Offices, &c. E.
CHATTELS – property. A term which includes all kinds ofproperty, except the freehold or things which are parcel of it. It is a more extensive term than goods or effects. Debtors taken in execution, captives, apprentices, are accounted chattels.Godol. Orph. Leg. part 3, chap. 6, 1.
Of course, Article 6 of the constitution states very clearly that the United States is a debtor nation:
“All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into,before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be asvalid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”
There was never independence if this country was founded in debt to England and France.
–=–
What Is The United States?
–=–
It is also important to know the Bouvier’s Law Dictionary definition given in 1856 of the “United States”:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – …5. The United States of America are a corporation endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181. But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought against the United States without authority of law. 6. The states, individually, retain all the powers which they possessed at the formation of the constitution, and which have not been given to congress. (q. v.)
–=–
***Remember this part, “which have not been given to congress“. As we saw with the 13th Amendment, this clause is oh so important with regards to the “reconstruction” of the United States and its “constitution” as a new organic (original) debt contract during this period of martial law. It will come as a shock just how much we the people have indeed given to congress…
So, the question becomes: What powers did the individual states retain? And which ones were “given to congress”?
For this, we must consider that a State was nothing more than the government incorporation of certain United States territories. Each territory, for the purposes of becoming a State of the Union, had something very sinister in common. This common element was a contract called the “Enabling Acts”, and were a uniform set of contractual agreements that were pre-determined and agreed to by all territories in order to become States (incorporated Federal Districts) of the United States.
Each Territory agreed to being a Federal District, and to having a Federal Governor and a Federal State District Attorney. These enabling legislation covenants were passed before each territory became a state, as a prerequisite for statehood and before the state constitution could be accepted by the United States.
More importantly, we can read in the following State “Enabling Acts” that all territorial unappropriated and non-deeded land was granted to the United States via these contracts of statehood. Once the people were made to became citizens via the 14th Amendment, they lost their independence and became subject to the UNITED STATES jurisdiction.
Most western states have the following types of verbiage. Read carefully…[[etc.]]
Here are some salaries of a corporation doing business in California, which is in the enforcement business, human services, medicate, etc. It’s not the only such business, but a large one (Plenty with the name “Maximus). It registered to do business in California back in 1988
| Entity Name: | MAXIMUS, INC. |
| Entity Number: | C1618100 |
| Date Filed: | 06/30/1988 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | VIRGINIA |
| Entity Address: | 11419 SUNSET HILLS ROAD |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | RESTON VA 20190 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE |
| Agent Address: | 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 150N |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | SACRAMENTO CA 95833 |
(Maximus shows it has 12 locations in California– incl. Los Angeles).
I’m giving 2004, then 2006, notice Montoni (change in salary):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
[…] was located in Los Angeles, and an attorney filed a suit to force distribution, see “Silva v. Garcetti. $25 million sitting around due others, not being distributed. This “Family Support […]
Let’s Talk Child Support, and Why.. | Boycott Child Support (Title IVD, OCSE)!
April 27, 2013 at 10:04 am
[…] was located in Los Angeles, and an attorney filed a suit to force distribution, see “Silva v. Garcetti. $25 million sitting around due others, not being distributed. This “Family Support […]
Appropriations, Audits, Undistributables, and Incarcerations.. | Boycott Child Support (Title IVD, OCSE)!
April 27, 2013 at 10:42 am