Season 4 - Episode 2 - TEXAS Unbalanced. #1 State for Collection of Child Support Payments.

TEXAS UNBALANCED. Number #1 State for Collection of Child Support

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

Introduction:

Chris H  0:02  
Hello, here we are, again, we're reviewing the Child Support Program for Texas. And in this video, we're looking at what we called the unbalanced Child Support Program. So let's get started. The legislators sent honorable James wide sent the attorney general's office that's being managed by Mr. Paxton. Basically a request for information asking how is the program is working. And as a result of that letter, Mr. The Attorney General's Office responded back. 

So what we did was we reviewed the letter, the response from the legislator. And we just decided to compare that against what we call the Department of Justice letter, which was released a few years ago. As you know, it was rescinded. However, we felt that the information in there was very valuable to men who were involved in child support program. And from that letter, we're able to determine that there are at least five losses, and we produced a video on this channel called the five lawsuits, feel free to check that video out. 

We discovered from the previous Texas video that the Office of Attorney General is operating under a contract a private contract with the title for D agency, and that they are subject to liability and lawsuits. All of that is in the video called techlace. unconstitutional, please feel free to watch that video. So let's start again to review the Texas program from a different perspective. 

Hello, my name is Chris. And on this channel, we review the Texas the Texas Child Support Program as it comes in conflict with your rights. We have a what is called a non lawyer practice or a statement that we are not attorneys, we provide education. And here's our mantra, there can be no sanctions for us providing you with education on the law. And that's shear versus calling. So let's get started. At the end of this video, we have a section call a call to action, where we provide suggestions on how you can defend your rights against the Child Support Program. So let's begin from here. Again, we look at the letter that was sent to the Attorney General where the attorney general's office in Texas manages or runs the title four D program. As we've said, the child support Child Support Enforcement Program is a single and separate unit on the statute 45 CFR 31.1. And it's within the Department of Health and Human Services managed by the Secretary of State. 

We selected a paragraph from the letter and it starts off with the Child Support Division of the attorney general's office is authorized by state and federal law to assist families in enforcing child support. Well, that is not true. The Office of Child Support Enforcement is actually under the Department of Human Services, human resources, human resources or health and services, not the attorney general's office. So right there. That is a problem. 

That statement is not true from again based on the letter from the attorney general. So we consider that that's fraud. Further in the paragraph you see here on the left, it says that in August, as of August 31 2014, the title for D agency collected a record record breaking 3.8 billion in child support that is income withholding. So I decided to look further into this numbered did they really have a record breaking $3.8 billion in 2014. That means they broken the record for prior years. The Child Support Program is more than 30 plus years old and they have broken their record. So let's look into the numbers.

Chris H  4:57  
And Yep, they work. Absolutely Right. In 2014, they did bring in a record breaking $3.8 billion. And the letter states that from the attorney general's office, but let's move 2014 out of the way for a second. I went to Congress congressional reporting to search these numbers. As you know, the government is allowed to publish these numbers. So we researched it, I researched it, and it was prepared. These are the numbers, or the dollar amounts for this particular program, the title for D program for members of Congress and the committees within Congress. So here's what I discovered in 2015. They did 3.9 billion in 2016, they did 4 billion. 

Can you see the trend 2017, dated 4.1 billion. And in 2018, which is the most current report, dated 4.2 billion. So they're on a trajectory to increase the program by $100 million each year. Wow, that's amazing. Now, this chart is not to scale, but I just wanted to graphically show you the increase. So there, which means in 2002, in 2019, which is the current year, which won't be published till next year, they will probably break their own record because they're on a trend. So now let's look at that the next popular state which is California, since Texas did a 4.2 record. 

What was California's withholding numbers? It was $2.4 billion reported by California. So Texas had a record year two point 14 is greater than the than the California is 2.4 billion. And in the same year, Texas made an additional $2 billion greater than the next popular state. Well, I consider that unbalanced, what's going on? It has to be unbalanced. How can you make more than 2 billion than your prior next populous state? Which also means that the other large populous state, Pennsylvania, New York, that Texas as able to get that much more money than everyone else? 

By the way, we do have all the numbers for all the states. If you have a question or comment or would like to know how your state did in terms of collection, please feel free to email us. So next, let's look at case laws against the title for the program. Since in our opinion, my opinion that the Texas Child Support Program is unbalanced because of the record numbers, let's see if there are any lawsuits. well reviewed a lawsuit called from the state of Ohio, it's called Corelli vs. Hauser, many of you may know of the case. And again, this was a decision against the title for the program. It reads that the Secretary is authorized to audit the state title 40 program, coupled with its ability to withhold federal funding if the program is not performing within compliance. 

It further says Congress intended this Secretary not state or federal judiciary's possesses remedial authority over title four D. Corelli, vs. Howser. So looking at this lawsuit in 1991, out of the Sixth Circuit, it is say that the title for the program shall be managed by the Secretary, not by a state, state or federal judiciary, such as the Office of the Attorney General, then how is it possible that the officer Attorney General is still his master's program, knowing that there is a court decision that says they cannot manage the program? So let's move on to another case. This one is called hoberg vs. holmer. They're citing brandhorst vs. Backman. It says here that the Court of Appeals stated that the agency's exercise of quasi judicial power was unconstitutional

Chris H  9:38  
because it lacks judicial finality. In terms of binding judgments that are entered in an established court what they mean is an article three court. The court of appeals therefore held that the administrative process of the title four D in Minnesota violated the separation of powers by allowing administrative law judges which are basically contracted judges and lawyers to make final decisions that are not subjected to district court review, and then permitting, and then not permitting a direct review or appeal of that. So the background on this case is for Mother's brought this case against the Child Support Agency title four D in Minnesota. Now, while they may have a legitimate claim to why the program is unconstitutional, it also did not give them any enforceable right, so they lost the case, because there are no rights to the Child Support Program. 

We've said on this on this channel in the video, that blessing versus Freestone says there are no federal right to the program. But it turned out that the program itself was unconstitutional because it violates separate the separation of powers act. So here again, is another court decision that says How's it possible that the title for the agency is managed and operated by the attorney general's office in Texas? Well, now you know that, what do you do about it? Well, there is a remedy. It's called 1871 civil rights lawsuit. Most of you may know it as section 1983. And that's 42 USC section 1983. And this is what it what it allows. It permits suits for damages or injunction relief against those who operate under the color of state law and violates an individual's civil rights. 

This was the opinion of justice Blackmun. He says in his in his opinion, he reviewed the history of judicial immunity, and he concluded that because judges were subject to certain common law writs, much like injunctions, there are no historical basis for extending judicial immunity under injunctive relief, He further says that there's no evidence that Congress meant to exclude judges from injunction injunctive relief under Section 83. And the case is called Pulliam vs. Allen, and is joined by Justice Brennan, Byron white, Thurgood Marshall, and john paul stevens. So what justice Blackmun is saying is, the magistrate in this lawsuit from Virginia can be sued. And that immunity, while it's an offense does not apply. In this case, as well as injunctive relief also is not shielded by immunity. So that's good news. We have a video on this channel called defend my rights. And we have another one called the color of law, which is a document you can use to defend your rights, opera and color of law. Now, there may be a few folks out there that says you should not use the color of law form. We have a different opinion on that. And so we will further explain it. 

But for now understand this. The attorneys for the Texas Office of Attorney General acting as magistrates, judges are operating under color law, and therefore they are subjected to the 1983 Civil Rights Act. Here we are at what is called a notice of claim a notice of claim is when you alert the government, the state government that you're about to file a lawsuit or a claim against either the agency or one of their workers, and it reads, the state is not required to serve any response to a Notice of Intent to file a claim or a lawsuit. And that case law is the heart versus state of New York. It goes on to say that because a Notice of Intent to follow a lawsuit is not a pleading, no response is required. It nearly notifies a state that a claim against it may be filed in the future. The reason is a Notice of Intent to file a claim requirement is not applicable under federal claims of the US 42 1983. And that case is called Felder versus Casey.

Chris H  14:35  
So what is happening is when you bring a lawsuit for under the 1983 against, again, workers, state workers under common law, you have to file a notice if you're bringing the action within state court. If you need to go to federal court. Well, it's not required. So you can you know, they there's my opinion if you want to notify The person or the judges that you want to file a lawsuit against them, then the notice of claim requirement you should consider. But what is the claim about? 

Well, one, in my opinion is fraud upon the court. And fraud upon the court is committed when a representative a court such as lawyers, mediators, evaluators, administrators, basically, in short term, tricking you into thinking that they're operating within the court. It goes on to say that fraud upon the court is a crime. And it's not subjected to statute of limitation. 

It also says that a judge is liable for injury caused by ministerial act. And to have immunity, that particular judge must be performing a judicial function that's ex parte Virginia. So what's the summary of all of this? If you're going to sue in state court, you need to have what is called a notice of claim filed with them. So this is where the color of law form comes in. Again, some people don't like the color of law, I've heard gentleman says, Oh, you know, it has the word citizen on it. You don't want to be a citizen of the state, or you want to be a citizen state you want to be a citizen United States? Well, here's a use of the color of law for it has the proper language, under the color of law for 1983. Well, why not cut and paste the text included within your intent to file a claim? 

Now you have a notice in which to send in which to start your lawsuit. That's one use of the form, but in our opinion, my opinion, you could use the form as it is. So here's where we are now is we believe that there's an unbalance within the Texas, Texas Child Support Program, where they're breaking their own collection records. In addition, the program is operated under the attorney general's office. But there are two lawsuits currently vs. Hauser and hoberg vs. hoberg. That says, that entire process is not only unconstitutional, but their potential for abuse, where Texas was fined in 2019, for basically lying to a couple and remove their kids from them. So there's an imbalance going on. And again, I'm not targeting Texas, my my intent is not to target Texas. But this is real, this is what's happening in the program. We've said on this channel, over and over that 45 CFR 264, point three zero, that all men in United States are enrolled in the Child Support Program. It's just that some of them have an active case. And we've said this, also that there's a video called defend my rights if you want to defend your rights. 

There are my suggestions within that video. So where does that leave you, you've been, quote unquote, pushed around by the town for the program in Texas, knowing that there's an imbalance going on there, where they're basically reaping record number a record amount of withholding? Well, this is my opinion, you need the Department of Justice letter to understand some of the remedies that are in there as well as a CLL form. If you wanted to use that text, to file what is called a notice of intent. Also, you want to request the attorney, the attorney general's office and their lawyers produce the contract. We now know that they're all operating under a private contract, because it's unconstitutional for them to be operating within the title for D program. As the Office of Attorney General. You also need to check the forms, whether they're expired or not, because if they're expired, then of course, you cannot bring a challenge against them.

Chris H  19:15  
as well. We've said this, you start the process for leaving again, this is just our suggestion you can stay with the program if you choose to. with what's happening in Texas along with other states, you may want to start the process for leaving the program. Again, it is voluntary. The mothers have no federal right to the program and neither do you as a father to the right to the program.

Chris H  19:44  
So if you have further questions on this video or any other video on this web on our on our channel, please feel free to send us an email as well as we ask that you like and subscribe and press the notification bell so that we can break You future videos and so you can be notified of new videos. We also ask for a $25 gift. And again, any amount is also acceptable so that we can continue our research so we can continue providing you materials or events that are happening within the Child Support Program across all 50 states. And we can bring that to you. So this is the end. There are a few videos that we're suggesting here that you could select and thanks and have a good day.