Season 4 - Episode 1 - TEXAS Unconstitutional Program. Number One State In Total Collections.

TEXAS Unconstitutional Child Support Program. Number One State In Total Collections.

📢      Email: Chrish289@protonmail.com
(c)Copyright, 2021-2030
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Introduction:

Chris H  0:01  
Welcome. In today's session, we're going to discuss Texas, the state of Texas, and their child support process and determine whether or not it is unconstitutional. Let's get started. A few months ago, there was a dear legislator letter that was sent out to the Attorney General of Texas. 

I have the letter here on the screen. And basically, the legislator whose name's James White, asked the Attorney General, which is Ken Paxton, about what is called, you know, the rights of parents and children. So I've reviewed this letter. And I want to compare that to the Department of Justice letter that was released a few years ago, of which, of course, Department of Justice attempted to rescind it, that doesn't mean, you can't use the information that was in the letter. So from that I developed a video call the five lawsuits, and it's available here on the channel. 

But I want to compare the information that's in the Texas letter, along with the rules in the DOJ letter. Hello, my name is Chris. And on this channel, we show how your rights are in conflict with the Child Support Agency. And we show you some techniques of how to understand the process. Here we're covering what is called our non lawyer Maxim. That is on this channel, we provide education on the law education on statute, so that you can understand what is happening within the Child Support Program, and how you can protect your rights. So on the lawn lawyer Maxim, it states that in NAACP versus button, the case law, that you cannot be charged with the unauthorized practice of law. Again, we don't practice law here. 

All we do is provide educational law under the First Amendment. So let's get started. We have a call to action at the end of this presentation sort of help you if you're within the state of Texas, of what are the difficulties with the Texas child support system, and how you can protect yourself. It is our opinion that all men in this United States are enrolled in a style support program, we refer to a section of the statute called 45 CFR 264. 

Point three zero, where it states here on number one, that the state agency must refer all appropriate individuals in the family of a child for whom paternity has not been established, or for whom Child Support orders are not needed. So our conclusion is that all men in the US are enrolled in the program, except a portion of them have an active case. Now we have another video on our side called defend my rights. If you want to know how to defend your rights or have ideas, please review that video. Let's take a look at the letter that was given to the Attorney General from again honorable James Wright, as to what are the issues with families and children? 

So I put a summary here on the screen on the left, it says seeking an opinion this is for, you know, paraphrasing, Mr. Right, seeking an opinion regarding the factors or standards that the courts use when applying the balance of the rights of the state of Texas, and the fundamental rights of the parents in terms of raising their children free from government intrusion. So the summary is what are those court standards that you use and how they impact the parents? Right. 

So we've looked into this letter, and we've done some other additional research on the letter you will see to the right, it's a code number r q 0258. kp. So we wanted to know, what was that referencing? We discovered that it was from the Texas public policy Foundation, and it was addressed to the Attorney General in what they were asking about an incident that happened and they wanted clarification. What happened was in January of 2018, the child support Protective Services removed children from innocent parents in one particular case

Chris H  5:00  
Judge Miko, Schneiderman ordered the CPS to pay a sanction of 127,000 to this parent for lying about the false allegation of the physical abuse. So that was a charge from the court which led to this letter. So there seems to be a problem with the Texas Child Support Program. So this is an, as I said, an unconstitutional action by CPS. So hence my title, that the Texas child support system is unconstitutional. But there are some other problems and we will look into those. 

We've said that the child support title for D is a single and separate unit. And that's under code 45 CFR three or 1.1. And that code basically says that the Office of Child Support is within the Department of Health that has the responsibility for administering the program. So the question becomes if it falls under the Department of Health, why are you in court or family court regarding child support? 

Well, here is where the ITV agency that was created by Congress, and in order to have an office or be within the court family court system, they had to create what is called a cooperative arrangements, that falls under 45 CFR 302. Point three, four. This is where the ITV agency, which is child support, that's the name of the agency, as arrangement with the court and law enforcement and some of the responsibilities of law enforcement as was one to give them access to rooms within the court, but also to provide enforcement's investigation. 

And the details of that falls under 45. CFR 235 point seven zero. So this is how that closes that loop, how Child Support which is a congressional program, federal program is involved within our court system, which is the judicial branch. Here is one of those cooperative agreement I have here on the screen is from the Office of Attorney General. And it's a contract between Collin County, Texas, the contract number is one seven dash c 0016. So the question you would ask is, well, is this contract real? Is this contract number real? Could you search the database for that? Well, the issue with child support is that they don't tell you that they're on a contract. It's all contract law. So in this example, I have here it's a contract that says Child Support cases. 

So the Office of attorney general has a contract with a Collin County, Texas. So let's say this, let's say there was no contract, I'm actually making this up. There's no agreement, it is all under the judicial program. And this is just the way it is. Well, upon further research, we reviewed a case out of Tennessee, Nashville, Nashville, Tennessee, and it's between a group of mothers who decided to sue the child support services. And they name as defendant, the Attorney General, whose name is Victor Johnson, the third what and this case was filed on December 4 2004. 

The facts of the case is that the mothers sued the Child Support Agency for not going after the fathers to collect child support. And we'll talk more about the process for that later in other videos. But for now, this is the essence of the case. On page two of that lawsuit, which I have here on the screen on the right, so let's read it it says DHS has a contract with Mr. Johnson, the third of the district attorney Davidson County, along with the government county office, and these services are required by title four D, the original complaint, name them as parties as defendants. However, during the course of this litigation, the contract expired, thus, muting the claim against Mr. Johnson and the government agency that the parties entered into dismissing Mr. Johnson. So So we said that the attorney general's office is operating under a cooperative arrangement. So here is my evidence. The Nashville

Chris H  9:50  
the Attorney General for Tennessee has a cooperative arrangement within the Nashville and the county. We're in as they're being sued as defendant so to speak. I understand that many of our attorney generals are having contracts with the title for the agency, and this was filed in this case. Now, many people will say that they brought this case before the circuit court. That's irrelevant in this. The footnote says that this case was dismissed. 

They lost it, not because they brought it into federal court, some people say, Don't bring child support. That's not true. That's not the basis of the case. The Attorney General was dismissed because their contract expired. Again, the cooperative arrangement expired. What if the contract was not expired? Will this case move forward? Perhaps. So here comes the problem. We're talking about that the Office of attorney general has a contract with the title 4d agency. Well, the supremacy clause United States makes it very clear. And I have it here it says, It established that the Federal Constitution and federal law generally take precedence over state laws, even state constitution, and it prohibits the states from interfering with the exercise of the federal government. 

Also, the separation of powers Act says that the government is divided into three distinct branches, legislative, executive, and judicial. No person or persons charged with the exercise of power properly belonging to one branch of government shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the other branches. They're not permitted. And that's article six, paragraph two of the Constitution United States. So here is the question, how can the Attorney General of a state have a contract with a separate single organization within Congress, those are two separate and it's unconstitutional for that to happen? 

Well, how they get around it is, with the cooperative agreement, a contract. Think about that for a second. Now, if you disagree with with what we've done so far, please feel free to send us an email. We'll enjoy it, we'll entertain your questions regarding this issue of the supremacy clause. So let's go back to the statute again, single and separate unit 45 CFR 301. Under the Department of Health. This letter I have on the screen is from the Attorney General of Texas. And at the bottom of the screen, I have a red arrow that says, Office of the Attorney Office of the Attorney General of Texas title for the agency. 

Let's go back to the statute. So I took a paragraph out and it says the Child Support Division of the attorney general's office is authorized by state and federal law to assist families in establishing and enforcing Child Support orders. That is not possible. The Supremacy Clause unites, it makes it very clear that the Office of Attorney General, which is the highest lawyer in the state is under judicial branch. There are no correlation between federal law and assist. So this statement is not true. But yet this is the letter. So what is happening? Well, the Attorney General's it actually in is what private capacity, the Attorney General is allowed to have a contract outside of work. 

Nothing's wrong with that. But here they're saying that the officer attorney general, is the title for the agency as a result of the cooperative agreement. Well, it's not it's just a contract. Now, where does that lead us with the statement? We've said on this channel over and over again, that the child support agreement and arrangements are nothing more than interstate contract. Now under the case law from the United States Supreme Court, us versus sage, it says exactly that, that it is a contract, and to accept any other definition is not true. Again, it's the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. They were correct. It is all contracts. We also note that the Supreme Court also says under blessing versus Freestone. That operation of the child support.

Chris H  14:51  
Title four D program was never intended to benefit the parents, either the mother or the father. Or the child. In fact, the only purpose of a title for D is to do what? collect their collection agency, their contracts. So where does all of this lead and the purpose of analyzing both the the Attorney General's letter, along with the Department of Justice letter, Department of Justice letter, we said there were five lawsuits that you could file and in other videos reviewed that, but in this particular case, your attorney general is operating as a private individual within title 4d, not as an attorney general, that is the fraud. And if that's the case, then you can sue the Attorney General, under what is called third party subcontractor guidelines. 

The case laws for that is lugar versus Edmonton. And why we've proven that in the Nashville case that the mothers did name both the child support director and the Attorney General, as defendant in that case, and the only reason why the Attorney General escaped further legal action, because the contract expired. That's it. So there is a contract, whether they want to deny a court Attorney General's that there is no contract, entire Child Support process is a legal process. I'm not sure how they arrived at that, because the Supreme Court says it's not. And the Supreme Court is the law of the land, therefore Attorney General's must abide by the law of the land. 

So where does that leave you, as a father within Child Support Agency, and you're being pursued for payment? Well, the first thing you now know is if you go into that child support room, in family court, you're not in court, you're in contract law, you're in a room with someone that has a robe on and police with guns, but everyone in that room are contractors, they're private contractors, which means you should be screaming jurisdiction. 

From the way you walk in that room, you want three things which we suggest you ask for under what we call our call to action, you want to have a copy of the of the Department of Justice letter, if you don't have a copy of that we have we have a competent, we'll be happy to share it with you. You also want to see a well form. We will do another video on the SEO form, how to use that effectively. Now you also want to request the contract for the Attorney General, they're probably going to tell you there is no contract. 

This is additional process. But we've shown in our evidence and our research, there were several cases that we have researched, where the contract becomes the question before the court before discussing anything else, if there's an active contract, that contract must be brought forward for review to determine is it valid, or as an expired? Or what are the case of a contract. So finally, if you are in family court over a contract dispute as to disclose all the contracts, and that's where you start, the next thing is you want to get out of this program I've shown you in this video, and in all the videos on this channel, please feel free to watch them again, that you are in a contract environment. We've given you the case laws to review. 

Again, if you're right, arrive at a different conclusion, please feel free to let us know. So this brings us to the end. Again, we're here if you have comments on this video or any other video, we ask for a small donation to help us continue our research so that we can bring you more information and we're asking for a gift of about $25 please let us know. So at the end here, there are some other videos we want you to review as well, such as the income withholding as well as you know, completing the CLL template. And with that, thank you