Friday, June 03, 2005

Operation Tennessee Waltz:
    Rubbed Off On Washington?

The notion of child-support has been a hot topic issue in the United States for a number of decades. The issue is not so much that a child should be supported, rather who will support a child. The question that begs an answer from the societal political authority is one of Constitutional insertion. The clash between a child’s fundamental right to support and the governments demands of forced support from the “NON-CUSTODIAL” parent.

The faith in the government of the United States; the balance of “The Power” of each branch of the government collides with the will of the people who agree to submit to government imposition.

The government, if you will, sold to the highest bidder; can be traced in an FBI sting dubbed "Operation Tennessee Waltz" looking at indicted lawmakers, ethics of lawmakers, violation of public trust, corruption by public officials: Do public officials simply go along so they can get along?

The question for investigation comes from a law [Hobbs Act—Extortion By Force, violence, or Fear]. In order to prove a violation of Hobbs Act extortion by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear. 1).Did the defendants induce or attempt to induce the victim to give up property or property rights? “Property” has been held to be “any valuable right considered as a source of wealth”. 2).Did the defendants use or attempt to use the victim’s reasonable fear of physical injury or economic harm in order to induce the victim’s consent to give up property? “A defendant need not create the fear of injury or harm which he exploits to induce the victim to give up property”. 3).Did the defendant\s conduct actually or potentially obstruct, delay, or affect interstate or foreign commerce in any (realistic) way or degree? “effect on such commerce are also sufficient, where the obtaining of property and resulting depletion of the victim’s assets decreases the victim’s ability to make future expenditures for items in interstate commerce”. 4).Was the defendant/s actual or threatened use of force, violence, or fear wrongful? “the court concluded that union members’ use of violence during the strike was not “wrongful” for purposes of Hobbs Act extortion. “Wrongful” has meaning in the Act only if it limits the statute’s coverage to those instances where the detaining of the property would itself be “wrongful” because the alleged extortionist has no lawful claim to that property”.

THE PROPER DISCUSSION OF: The government authority as it affects the right of a citizen to live free of government interference or intervention has been reduced to interpretation as defined by elected officials.

The National Organization for women Political Action Committee:
2004 ENDORSED CANDIDATES in WASHINGTON:

Patty Murray U.S. Senate: Rick Larson U.S. Hose 02: Jim McDermott U.S. House 07: Christine Gregoire Governor.

"ENDORSEMENTS go to the strongest feminist candidate. Experience has taught that, between two candidates with equal records on our issues, over time women candidates will generally perform better than their records would indicate, and that we must have large numbers of feminist women, a sort of critical mass, to win when women’s rights are at stake."
Updated 10/25/04

The LAW under Title 42 chapter 7 subchapter IV par D 666

…..each State must have in effect laws requiring procedures for the withholding from income of amounts payable as support, without the need for a judicial or administrative hearing.

The Secretary may waive provisions with respect to one or more political subdivisions on the basis of the effectiveness and timeliness, or in any case, shall be distributed, after deduction of any fees imposed by the State to cover the costs of collection, to whom such support is owned; and

The Non-custodial parent’s social security account number or numbers, if [he] has more than one such number. Liens arise by operation of law against real and personal property for amounts of overdue support owed by a non-custodial parent, except that such rules may not require judicial notice or hearing prior to the enforcement of such a lien.

Procedures providing that the parties to an action to establish paternity are not entitled to a trial by jury.

Procedures under which bills for pregnancy, childbirth, and genetic testing are admissible as evidence without requiring third-party foundation testimony, and shall constitute prima facie evidence of amounts incurred for such services or for testing on behalf of the child. The income of a non-custodial parent shall be subject to withholding regardless of whether support payments by such parent are in arrears.

Withholding from income of amounts payable as support must be carried out in full compliance with all procedural due process requirements of the State.

THE GOVERNMENT becomes the trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government. The government then places the trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the “guardians”. The child may reside in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time as the State claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The State then goes into the home and removes the “trust” from the guardians.

NO STATE SHALL make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

N.O.W. ENDORSEMENTS of "a sort of critical mass," to win:

U.S. senator Patty Murray; “One of my priorities as a Senator--and as a mother--is to ensure that all women in this country have the opportunity to make decisions about their bodies…….I believe it is imperative that we support all women and the choices they make”.

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell: “I support a woman’s right to choose……I also believe that our constitution protects a woman’s right to privacy and that this constitutional right encompasses the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy”.

The high profile special interest group N.O.W. uses it's renowned presence to influence the out come in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House with intent to deny the rights of 25 million (“non-custodial”) parents. Men now are considered to be not, other than, unimportant, worthless, and of little or no consequence because woman by law own the child they carry to term and birth.

The woman’s constitutional right to choose birth and/or abortion is not in question, the fact that requires exploration is the loss of rights inflected on men. The right to choose to be a parent for woman is not only protected by the constitution but by law. The man [father] has lost all rights to be a parent to “his” child. The child is only a responsibility reduced to a financial obligation, where elected/appointed government officials whom have the supposed power to waive the man’ protected rights. The rights to benefit form the fruit of the labor, human rights to parent a child at his house where he lives, the right to be left alone, the right to privacy, the fundamental right to equal protection under the law, and to due process taken by U.S. 42 666.

The rights of a woman to choose birth or abortion can not be construed to deny or disparage the right of a man to life, liberty, property, equal protection under the law, and due process. The government can only require support of a child when custody and control of the child accompany the obligation.

By Perry L. Manley
Seattle Washington

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Main