Season 3 - Episode 12 - TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA Child Support. How to Defeat the two Largest enforcement program.

TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA Child Support. How to defeat the two largest states enforcement program.
📢      Email: Chrish289@protonmail.com
(c)copyright, 2021 -2030
-+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+-

Introduction:
Chris H  0:08  
Hello, we are here again to review the Child Support Program for specific states. Here we're comparing and contrast, Texas, and California. Why Texas and California? Well, those are our two most popular states. And whatever they are doing in their respective areas also reflect what the other states are conducting. Let's get started. Hello, my name is Chris. And on this channel, we compare how Child Support interferes with your constitutional rights. 

In this video, we're doing a comparison between Texas and California program. As always, our disclaimer is that we teach you and educate you about the laws within your state as well as a federal, and we rely upon what we call our non lawyer Maxim, which is NAACP vs buttons that a non lawyer can assist members or individuals on our laws, and therefore the practice of law cannot be licensed by any state. So to begin, I have here on the screen, and for those of you that are on the podcast and on your mobile phones, I will read each of the screens. 

Here we have the preliminary 2018 data, put a Child Support Program, as reported to Congress, as you know, the Child Support Program is a congressional program is not a judicial program. It's a congressional program. So I have circles around the total Child Support collections is $28.5. billion. That is a huge business. It also have here in the small box that says, for fiscal year 220 18, the soundsport program paid out $27.4 billion to families. 

While doing the quick math, they collected 28 point 5 billion, but they paid out 27 point 4 billion, there's a billion dollars missing somewhere. So let's begin with the state of Texas in our comparison. As we know by now, Child Support Program is a single and separate unit under 45 CFR 301 point one, where it states that Congress designate the Department of Health and services as the primary designation for the Office of Child Support, which is a separate unit within the agency. Here in Texas, I'm not in Texas, but here on the screen is Texas, the child support designation is in as part of the attorney general's office. Well, that goes against the statute. It says he was designated to be part of health and human resources.

Chris H  3:29  
And again, here's the California plan. Now in California, it has here that the governor office was skeller on it. The Secretary for the California Health and Human Resources is Miss Diane Dooley and Alicia Griffin is the director for the term for the Department of Children Services. 

So here California is adhering to the actual statute, but Texas decided that they were going to use serve statute and go directly to the attorney general's office. So this is a comparison right here that two separate states are operating the program under two different agencies. We complete a video call on Texas where we show that the Texas itself is unbalanced and unconstitutional. So here in this video, we're going to apply California to the Texas statute and then see what the results are. We are working on a video for the state of California. It is not ready yet we have not complete our research. 

However, we're asking everyone to subscribe and hit the notification bell so that we can release whenever we release the California report that you'll be notified early. So let's review the child support enforcement. As we know, it's an all 50 states, and that the federal agency basically reimburses the state and local 66 cents for every dollar that's collected. In this case, the $28 million that's collected 66% of that is reimbursed and other incentive. 

So that's where the million dollars that were missing, or part of it, or at least shows where it's missing from the total payout to the families. But here we also point out that the case law, toggle versus usury, which states that we're state officials are administering a federally funded program, the state officials are acting under the color of law. We have a video call Know Your Rights. We suggest that you review that to understand what are your rights when the government's operating under the color of law. 

We have a section at the end of this video called call to action. And here's what we'll review. We'll take a look at the statute which is 42. us code 652, which is the duties of the secretary where it says that the department Human Services has a title for D but also the designee which is the secretary shall report directly to the secretary. So let's take a look at both states, both California and Texas. Texas, the child support title for D is part of the attorney general's office. But in California, it's part of Health and Human Services, which is exactly what the statute states above. 

So what is your challenge your challenge is jurisdiction because who is the boss, and again, we'll talk more about that in the call to action. This is how you challenge jurisdiction, the ex parte young doctrine, which basically states that a fish any official government, who violated any authority under the Constitution, is stripped of your official title and therefore can be sued in federal court. 

The case law is Penn hers versus heldman. Now, I've heard many stories about you should not take your child's work case to federal court, your child support case can be taken either in state court federal court District Court, any court will hear the matter under USC title four D. So now let's start off with the 2010 census results for the state of Texas and the state of California. In Texas, their population is 28. Point 7 million. That's your total population in California, is 39 point 6 million people. So in this case, California has quite a bit more people than, say the Texas almost, you know 10 million more. Here's what we have is call the we call the written my apologies, the

Chris H  8:28  
revenues or the collections for title for D for the state of Texas that falls under 45 CFR 32. As you can see, the state of Texas has 39 point 5 billion in 2015. And as far as 44 point 2 million in 2018. Review the video that we did on Texas to show how they're able to achieve that number for the state of California, as compared to the state of Texas, California collected 2.4 billion. So they collected 2 billion less than Texas, even though California has more than 10 million more in population than Texas, and we call that unbalanced. So here's the statute for the garnishment 45 CFR 32. And here is part of your remedy. 

You need to challenge the income withholding. But on the screen we also display What does 45 CFR 32 represents. It says here, that federal agency issuing in wage garnishment garnishment order is referred to as a creditor agency. That means the title for the program is nothing more than a Credit agency, that is their designation, and that is their title. So the story that they are judicial in their making their process is not true. 

So that is your remedy to start here. We've stated many times on our videos, that the child support agreement is equivalent to what is called interstate or intrastate contract in the case law we rely on is us versus Sage out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where basically the justices came back and says, All this is is a contract, nothing more, nothing less than it falls within the responsibility of Congress. Here are the projections for the rears for Texas and California. So Texas reported, again to Congress, that there's about 16.9, or approximately $17 billion of arrears outstanding, again, that's owed to the state of Texas. 

If you look in California, they have 17 point 5 billion, again, owed to their state. And as we know that arrears and Child Support is, is done what's called imputed income and based on earning capacity on some chart that be created, again, the imputed income is a made up number than the case law for that is Kessler versus Kessler. The second apartment, it says that the core need not rely upon the party's own account in order to impute income. So basically what the statute of say, what a case law is saying, These justices will begin their non judicial officers can make up the numbers however they see fit, because it's perfectly allowed. Here's another thing they do on any arrears, that's outstanding. 

They're allowed under statute 45 CFR three or 4.5. To attach interest, and those interests are based on the laws of your state. It says here, that states have the authority charge interest on unpaid support payment on a rear is based on state statute. This was produced by the National Conference of state legislators, which is an organization that advises the state on you know, support policies. So basically, they can make up the imputed numbers. In addition, they follow state law in terms of the interest rate. So if your state charges, let's say, 10%, on a judgment, then they can attach 10% in interest 45 CFR 264 point three, zero. We've said this over and over in all of our videos, and we're going to continue to say this, that every man in the states are enrolled in

Chris H  13:13  
the program, they just don't have an active case. And said here within the statute, the state agencies may refer all appropriate individuals in the family of a child for whom paternity has not been established, or for whom Child Support orders need to be established. Here's a reality check. We have a video called defend my rights. If you've reviewed that video before, please feel free to review it again. This is how you defend yourself against the agency. This brings us to what we call paternity acknowledgement for 2018 for the state of Texas has 157,000 paternity establishments for that state for all men. In California, it's 164,000. So they share a couple of 1000 in between. Now remember, the state of California has more than 10 million more people than the state of Texas. So this brings us to the factor even though we have paternity establishment, as part of the process. 

We now know from blessing versus Freestone that the child support D collections programs have nothing to do with the parent or the child. It's just a measurement for the state. State Secretary underware the Department of Health and services. So this brings us to what is called our call to action and what we suggest that You get the department justice letter, the clo form, where you also request if you've been brought before the court, again, non Judicial Court, you jurisdictional questions you ask for the attorneys contract. Remember, they're not acting as attorney general, you're acting as contract. And here's your case law for that. For every defense and law or fact to a claim for relief in a pleading, it must be asserted, if one is required, and motion to dismiss as you as a father, you notice I'm not using the word obligor. Because allegory is a made up phrase, you as the Father, if you're being dragged or summoned to court, you can fall in motion to dismiss. 

Now most people are familiar with the jurisdictional challenge. However, I feel they can go further than that. The Everyone knows that, for lack of jurisdiction is one of those motion to dismiss. But here's the one that's the remedy for this situation. We feel it's our opinion, in addition to all the others, failure to join indispensable parties is a grounds for a motion to dismiss, in addition to improper service failure to state a claim. Why do we think that they should be part of your court case? It is our opinion that because the attorney general's office is moonlighting as the attorney and we're not sure what their functions are, you can ask for who are the indispensable party, or who are the injured party, and failure to join those in the proceedings is result in a motion to dismiss. So it's almost a federal rule 12 b seven. So that's one of the remedies that, again, you don't have to take our opinions, just our opinion, that this is a remedy. But clearly, jurisdictional challenge is important. As you can see, Texas, even though as a fewer population, California, you're making $2 billion more in California.

So this brings us to if you have any questions on this video or any of our videos, please feel free to email us. We also ask you to subscribe to our channel and be notified so that you can be notified and click the bell. So you'll be notified of any future videos, we are working on other videos, including other states, where we highlight the issues and the problems and the loopholes in which you can take full advantage of. We're also asking for a small donation of approximately $25. And again, it's a gift. It's completely voluntary, but it will help us in our research. 
And we can bring this to you in our videos. As you know, you could research all of this yourself. You could spend hours or you can just grab a cup of coffee, sit down with all the case laws that we've mentioned in this video and review them for yourself and formulate your case. Again, we give that to you.

Chris H  18:13  
So this brings us to the end. There are other videos on the screen you can link your active links, please review and thanks for another session.