Season 1- Episode 2 - Father Filed A Lawsuit And Won Against Child Support

Chris H  0:05 
Welcome. In this episode, we will review a lawsuit against the Child Support Agency. This father in New Jersey filed a lawsuit against the state, as well as the child support and other folks in New Jersey, and he won the case.

So in this episode, we're going to review the case and take a look at the strategies that were employed in order to win. Let's get started. The case itself centered on a key ruling, it is called Rooker Feldman doctrine. And what this doctrine does, it basically prevents the district court or federal court from sit in direct review of a state court decision.

The reason is in child support, which starts in the family court, they make a ruling, and then you appeal. And if you are lucky, you'd go to a Judicial Court. And from that the Judicial Court which is a state court, you will make that determination whether it can be seen by a federal court. Now the case is a fairly straightforward case.

Most people rely on it most defenses from both the Child Support Agency and the state always uses it and it's called Rooker Feldman. And it was two cases in one.

The Rooker versus fidelity trust. And Court of Appeals vs. Feldman, hence the name, Rooker Feldman. So here is the lawsuit right here. You can download internet or ask us for it, we'll be happy to give you a copy. So the father is mohale Ma, l h, n. And as you can see, I highlighted here, he sued the Secretary of State Department, the Attorney General, basically, he sued everyone who's touched his case.

And this particular case was argued April 3 2019. Now, here's a special a notice, if you for any reason did not get your stimulus check, or they have intercepted it, please reach out to us, we'd be happy to help you navigate that process. Hello, my name is Chris.

 And in this session, we will review a specific lawsuit that was one against the state of New Jersey. And it started as a child support case through Family Court through the state court. And we will look at this case in terms of defending your rights.

As always, we have an non lawyer Maxim and one of which is that no state shall convert a Liberty into a license. Because in this episode, we're going to remove specific laws.

And we here we're not lawyers, we're not a law firm we're not, we basically educate you on the laws so that you can win your case. And in this episode, we're going to look at a specific case, we have a section at the end of this video called call to action where we provide you with the tips, the strategies you can use as a result of this lawsuit. So please stay around for that.

We are producing a video call mother did not put you on the program. Part Two, it will be coming out soon, we are still working on the research. But in the meantime, once we produce that, we're asking you to follow us on Facebook. reach us on Twitter and Instagram.

As well as please subscribe to our channel. So on on my channel a year ago, I started what is called the five lawsuits. And if you haven't had a chance to take a look at it or you've seen it before, please go back and review it because I listed all the type of lawsuits that you could file against the Child Support Agency.

 And in this session, we're going to review a lawsuit that uses some of the tactics and techniques as a result that was in the department of the department justice letter. So the plan for this video is we're going to look at the Rooker Feldman doctrine and how the state use it uses it to prevent you from filing a due process violation in a federal court or district court.

The second is we'll look at how this decision and the ruling in this case, affects that as well as provide a remedy to men who want to basically take these agency to court. So to begin with, the decision of that court case was in what is called a Third Circuit.

Now the third circuit for court of appeals it it's the area of district of Delaware, New Jersey, and parts of Pennsylvania. So this is the area that covers the disk

Chris H  5:03 
So let's refresh our memory of the law or was the law it says here that a decision in one circuit can be used in other circuits, that Chief Justice john Marshall went on to say in Ableman versus Booth that a decision or judgment from one state must be recognized by other state as long as it's a final. Also, in Khalid vs. Rose said the same thing. A court must apply a federal law or Supreme Court cased within their states.

Basically, they cannot supersede those laws. I have many of these discussion in a video call Know Your Rights. This lawsuit that we're reviewing uses what is called the color of law, and basically is a title 42 section that says that any person who commits a crime under the code of law or deprive person of a certain rights can be prosecuted in any court, hence, the color of law.

And a person acting under color of law within the meaning of the statute includes police officers, prison guards, lawyers, judges, and support magistrates and hearing officers in family court.

Yes, they fall under the color of law. I have another video called file your loss, you know how to file of filing lawsuit, please review that. So go on to say in terms of defending your rights, okay, a plaintiff can sue in both federal court and state court because they have what is called concurrent jurisdiction.

And under how vs. Rose, it says, just because your case started in state court that you cannot move into federal court, or that if it's in federal court, you can't move into state court. So a party that seeks to move the venue basically, it's called moving the venue, which is 28 USC 1441. And that is one Roe vs. Pap, that says it is perfectly okay for you to move a case between the jurisdiction. And the key is you don't have to exhaust what is called administrative remedies.

So I put here wake up, yes, you can file your lawsuit in just about any state. So let's look at Keith versus Hey, Keith Haywood versus Curtis downs. Justice Stevens delivered the decision on this. And what he said was state as well as the federal courts have jurisdiction over suit brought by title 42 1983.

And what was happening with the Haywood case is that the state of New York was creating a separate court system for anyone who has a federal claims and wanted to try them in the state court environment. In this Supreme Court decision,

it says no, you cannot do that. It is the same court system, we have one court system. And either one can have what is called analogous or concurrent jurisdiction. Here's another case, Belle versus hood. And the decision of a court the Supreme Court was when you look to a court action, what you should be looking for is whether or not there is a law to be decided prior to jurisdiction. That is whether or not this case belongs in the right venue.

Once that is determined, then jurisdiction is one of the decision you make. However, they went on to say as I circled it on the screen, when there's a violation, the federal courts may use any available remedy to right, the wrong that was done.

Again, any available remedy whether or not there's a remedy there, they should use any available remedy. So let's review this case in light of that fact that we're going to use the remedy for this lawsuit. So in my opinion, state as well as federal court have jurisdiction over suits brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983. Again, this goes against many people that are out there, saying you should not bring a family court or child support course into federal courts, because that's not the proper venue. That is not true. I've just reviewed all the case law that says you can bring a 1983 action in just about any court. So keep that in mind as we get into the case. So let's get back to the Third Circuit.

Chris H  9:39 
Now, a year earlier before this April 19 2019. case was decided. The Third Circuit issued a decision in Philadelphia Entertainment versus Development. What they stated were that the Rooker Feldman doctrine is not a tool, not a defense to avoid providing remedy as long as we decide that there is a constitutional violation.

 It went on to say where I've circled it says that the threshold offense is should be done broadly, whether it's a bankruptcy case or otherwise, now let's focusing on otherwise, that means any case brought before them, you should expand the Rooker Feldman document. So here we are at the case itself. So I've read through the case. And I've highlighted the key areas that we're going to discuss because this is a short video. So let's start off with this is a husband, who makes about 60,000 a year at the bottom there, I've circled it, and his wife makes 100,000 a year, and they're in a court battle in family court since 2012. Now, they've been going back and forth. And the reason for highlighting the 100,000 is that this is not a case, where the wife is talking about I don't have any money, I need the money. That's not this type of case. So in the case that was brought into federal court from New Jersey, this is a new jersey father. 

He had six counts of causes of action that eliminated three of them. And the courts now had to review three, the remaining three. So let's look into them a little briefly. So count two deals with levy of a bank account with child support did was they enforced in order to levy his bank account to take his money. In count five, this was a due process violation that did not allow him what is called a counterclaim or an offset of child support. 
In other words, they wouldn't allow any modification to this this account because it's a high income earner family, obviously, 100 plus 1000, more. But this is critical that many of you men out there, when you go to family court, they want to refuse your modification, refuse your paperwork, or it has to be reviewed by a judge. 

So that's a problem. So let's look at count six, which is of highlighted with the red arrow, count six is very, very important. And we're gonna expand on it some more. But basically, what counts six said was that the garnishment was in place using the child support order, but it violated 15 USC 1673, which is a consumer credit act. 

Now the only reason why they stopped garnishing his check. It's because he contacted the Department of Labor to look into the violation. And when they started, child support enforcement just stopped. They literally just stopped the garnishment. So let's focus on six when we get to the end. 

So applying the principle of the Rooker Feldman in the final judgment, what the justices ruled was okay, because this case was ongoing, and they refuse to accept this paperwork and they refuse to allow modification. 
This gives federal court jurisdiction and that the Rooker Feldman doctrine does the defenses by the state no longer applies. And the reason for that is, it's not a final decree. Now, why is that important? Rooker Feldman was used to block every child support case that was out there, they refuse to take it because of this doctrine that they cannot review state court decisions. 

Well, an open Child Support case is not a state court decision. So that is good news. Because it means if you have a case right now, that is not finalized, or has not come to its conclusion, you can file a federal lawsuit.

Chris H  13:43  
So here's what was declared in the decision. And I've highlighted this section again. So one, it says that the custodial parent, their wages cannot be garnished. According to child support act, what happens is this father, he finally gained joint custody, as well as full custody of his child and so they ruled his wages cannot be garnished. 

Next, they said that the preliminary decision to garnish his check in the future cannot people form because you do not garnish your custodial parents paycheck. And on third decision, it says that the state may not garnish his both his check as well as his earnings. And this is important as well has his earnings. Now why is earning so important for the justices to decide that? Well, I've said this on this channel more than once. A 1099 worker does not have wages or income, they have earnings. 
This is one of the reasons why they do not belong in in child support, and so this decision from the court said the same thing, right? So let's put it another way. If you guys that are self employed 10 nine, a worker contractor, get out. You don't belong here, file the necessary paperwork. I did a video on his channel called Know Your Rights, you can use some of those in which to file your paperwork for the 1099. 

Now I said that we're going to focus on count six. Now count six has to do with the garnishment, which is important, because many men are struggling with some women are struggling because your check is being garnished excessively, almost to the point of where you are in a homeless. 

Well, I've said on this channel over and over again, that United States versus said, which is a child support agreement is nothing more than an interstate contract and reject the idea. That is more than that. Well, the judge's decision on page 19 of the of the decision, it says that we need not decide whether the garnishment is unique. 

That is, it is not new, you unique, it's not special, just because the garnishment is relating to payment of a, you know, for your children. It doesn't make it New York, and again, that's in keeping with the Second Circuit. So the Third Circuit came to that. 

Next, the footnote, count six, where they stopped the garnishment as a result of Department of Labor investigation, two years have not passed where we can't decide this can there's a statute limitation. So he was within the statute limitation where they made a decision on this. So that's critical. So if the last time they garnish your check, it has to have a two year window where it's no longer part of the part of the case or jurisdiction is applied. So here we are, at my second opinion, right. 

The justices in this lawsuit says that the district court and the Federal Court has what is called Virtual unflagging obligation to exercise jurisdiction over family court case and the Rooker Feldman and the young. And the younger abstention does not apply to count to five and six. Now, we did not discuss the younger extension, because in this video be very long. But this is key and this is my opinion, the Rooker Feldman defense by both the Child Support Agency and New Jersey State or any state is no longer available. And therefore, Rooker Feldman, as far as I'm concerned, is dead. And that is great news for all of you, who wants to file a child support case, I mean, a case against the Child Support Agency, or sue them in federal district court.

Chris H  18:02  
So here we are, I was called call to action, where we give you the tips. So to recap, this is a lawsuit that was won by New Jersey father, right, where he defeated the state of New Jersey and the child support. And he did that in federal court. I've heard and many men I talk with says they were told that you should not bring a federal case against child support, you should only stick to state court. Well, I've shown you that is not true. It is not true. 

There's no case law that anyone can bring to me that shows that you are barred from state court. Now they do apply the Rooker Feldman doctrine, but that does not mean you can't. So if you want to file a lawsuit, it's perfectly okay to fall into the state court or the federal court. Next is the most exciting thing the Rooker Feldman now is under scrutiny. 

That means the chances of your lawsuit going through as long as your case is not finalized, is much greater. Now, we looked at the case early that the year prior to this decision that the third circuit's was set to actually reduce the effect of the Rooker Feldman doctrine. So this is the second time they've done it, and more than likely they probably do it the third time. What is the good news about this? Because it made a decision in one circuit. It can be applied in all the circuits throughout the United States that mean if you're in California, you could use this process. You're in New York, you're in Florida, you're in Texas, you could use this ruling this document in which to file your lawsuit to get remedy. So here we are close to the end. 

And if you disagree with any of my comments, please feel free to email us I understand that there's a backlog. I take me a while to answer them. But I will get to them. 

Second, I'd like for you humbly to subscribe to my channel as well as hit the notification bell. We also ask for a small donation to continue our research. I asked for a $25 gift or whatever amount you have. And what we do is we bring you the results such that if you have a case similar to what's going on, rest assured that there was already a win and a remedy in the court system. 

So here we are at the end, and thank you for listening. And there are some other videos here at the end that you can enjoy. Have a good day.