This page will be under continuing development. Check back frequently for updates.
The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. PACOURTINJUSTICE identifies promulgations of law that impinge on Constitutional rights. Codes and regulations that impinge on these rights are UN-Constitutional. See Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), Mobile v. Bolton, 446 US 55, 64 L Ed 2d 47, 100 S Ct 1490 (1979) and more.
Codes, Rules and regulations identified in PACOURTINJUSTICE are generally promulgated by state or federal agencies, or "committees" of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, neither of which has "legislative" powers under federal or State Constitutions.
Individual Cases in JUDICIAL ATROCITIES discuss Problems arising from the administration of law under which individual Rights are trampled by the "heavy-handed" administration of law that TRASHES the Constitution.
A State court has a DUTY under the judicial oath of office to conduct hearings in conformance and compliance with the U.S. Constitution whenever the federal government has a "commerce clause" investment in the outcome of the action.
Because the federal government provides "financial incentives" to the States under 45 CFR -- Chapter III, Child Support Enforcement Program, a.k.a. CSEP, child support actions in every State must protect and preserve the constitutional rights of defendants. i.e., The State accepts federal money for compliance with 45 CFR 302/304.
CSEP is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL "cash cow" for State courts.
Example: The court ordered Britney Spears to transfer custody of her two sons to Kevin Federline, her ex-husband and father of the children. She already pays K-Fed $20,000.00 per month [$240,000.00 per year] in court ordered alimony. Awarding "custody" to K-Fed makes him the "custodial parent" and eligible for Child Support under 45 CFR and California support guidelines. Where the annual income in the custodial parent household exceeds $240,000.00, are these children "at risk" of financial deprivation? Is it necessary for the court to be involved in the child support issue? Child support under California support guidelines may exceed the alimony amount. The California court has a vested interest in the collection of more than $60,000.00 per year [$5,000.00 per month] from taxpayer dollars. |
Assuming that alimony payments are distributed through the state CSEP collection system, the [LA] County court already receives $24,000.00 per year [$2,000.00 per month] from the federal government under 45 CFR.
|
The higher the support obligation, the more federal taxpayer money is transferred to the court, creating a "conflict of interest" for the court. Financial incentives through 45 CFR become a "residual income" for the State.
What court [judge] can truly serve "the best interests of the child" in the Spears/Federline case? What family court judge can provide an explicit DEFINITION for "the best interests of the child"? The "best interest of the child" becomes irrelevant to these "chancellors of the exchequer".
HHS has "corrupted" the family law environment via the distribution of unlawful "financial incentives" granted under 45 CFR in violation of the Tenth Amendment. A modest estimate is that more than $1 Billion of federal taxpayer money is transferred annually to California courts [political subdivisions] under the Child Support Enforcement Program.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS: Federal Government
The Federal Government is the root cause for the corruption of the judicial system in family courts in Pennsylvania and across the Nation. Federal lawmakers -- Congress -- failed its duty of oversight to protect its exclusive legislative authority and the constitutional rights of parents. Congress has neglected its duty of checks and balances over the judicial and executive branches of government.
Article I of the Constitution of the United States grants exclusive power to the legislature to enact laws. Section 8 broadens the powers of the legislative branch, but it also limits those powers not explicitly granted under Section 8. Section 9 enumerates limits of legislative authority.
Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress lacks authority to “delegate” its exclusive legislative power to either the judicial or legislative branches of government.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another (all others).
Federal agencies, primarily functions of the executive branch, promulgate “regulations” having the effect of “statute” or “law” where no constitutional delegation of authority empowers them to act. These promulgations must as a minimum pass "constitutional" muster. 45 CFR does not.
Here are several “CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS” regarding unlawful federal government [HHS] intervention into “family law”. These are not intended to be a complete list of questions / issues for a debate on this subject.
FIRST, does Article I prohibit the judicial and executive branches of government from promulgating or enacting "law"? ABSOLUTELY!
SECOND, does the Tenth Amendment prohibit the federal government from usurping a power reserved to the States or to the people? ... such as government intrusion into the family or household by imposing a duty [legal or moral] upon competent adults who must be permitted to exercise their parental rights for the care, custody, control, maintenance and rearing of their children?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
THIRD, does 45 CFR -- Chapter III, CSEP, unlawfully create a LEGAL DUTY for parents that impinges upon their fundamental rights as a parent?
Troxel et vir. v. Granville, No. 99-138. 2000
The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause has a substantive component that "provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests," Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 , including parents' fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp. 5-8.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another (all others).
If parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children, then surely, DPW and the courts DO NOT; and neither does Congress.
FOURTH, does 45 CFR -- Chapter III, CSEP, unlawfully impinge upon fundamental rights of a parent? ABSOLUTELY!
FIFTH, does 45 CFR -- Chapter III, CSEP, deprive defendants of due process and equal protection under the law in violation of the 14th Amendment -- as follows:
Does ...
SIXTH, do federal financial incentives to the States [in excess of $5 Billion per year] create under color of law a “conflict of interest” by inviting the States to deprive parents [defendants] of fundamental rights?
* Failure of a court to protect defendant's rights places the judge "at war" with the Constitution. That judge violates his Oath of Office and forfeits jurisdiction to serve in a judicial capacity.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The Child Support Enforcement Program, CFR Title 45, Chapter III, is an unconstitutional exercise of power by an administrative agency of the federal government. The power to impose and to enforce child support is not expressly granted to the federal government and therefore the Department of Health and Human Services acts without a valid congressional [constitutional] delegation of authority to promulgate, enact, or otherwise compel compliance by the States, or to distribute “financial incentives” for compliance.
Congress lacks “constitutional authority” to delegate the legislative power to any other branch of government or to a government agency. See Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 1. Under this Article, only the Congress may exercise legislative powers, i.e., enact laws.
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
Under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government (United States) has no power or authority to deprive any citizen of their parental rights to rear their children. These powers are reserved to the States, or to We the People. Courts [the State] may intervene only upon a showing of imminent harm to the child.
The federal government has no authority to create a "legal" duty for a parent to support their children. The alleged DUTY created under 45 CFR is a nullity, VOID for lack of jurisdiction. Support of one's children is a "moral" obligation outside the parameters of Congressional review or action.
Notwithstanding HHS lack of authority / jurisdiction in the matter of child support enforcement, Title 45 has numerous other constitutional challenges to overcome, among them, protection for the due process and equal protection rights of non-custodial parents. Both parents must be afforded equal access to their children.
Congress is PROHIBITED under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution from enacting legislation that invades the province of “states rights” and powers reserved to the states or to the people. CSEP is an unlawful promulgation of “law” that violates the rights of the individual and the powers reserved to the states.
It follows that Congress is PROHIBITED from delegating authority to any federal agency, executive or judicial, to promulgate or otherwise establish a DUTY upon which an individual may be held accountable or prosecuted, whether or not the DUTY CREATED impinges on a fundamental right of the individual.
The distribution of federal funds as a “public welfare” distribution violates federal law (e.g., Title VII) against gender bias. CSEP may appear to be “fair on its face”, but the application in the several states overwhelmingly discriminates against males. See Yick Wo.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
SUBORDINATE QUESTIONS:
Is there a "constitutional delegation of authority" to the executive branch [Dept. of Health and Human Services] for the promulgation of REGULATIONS governing the conduct of parents exercising their fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children?
Does 45 CFR -- Chapter III, CSEP, constitute an unlawful exercise of powers not granted to the UNITED STATES, and which are therefore reserved to the several States or to We the People according to the Tenth Amendment?
Does 45 CFR -- Chapter III, CSEP, have the effect of undermining public policy, to wit, government’s express support for the protection of the family unit and the institution of marriage? See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3102.
Is there a “statute” that establishes a LEGAL duty for the support of one’s children?
Does the government abuse its authority when a federal agency promulgates “law” without legislative authority?
Do State child support collection systems defraud HHS, and thereby defraud the taxpayers -- We the People?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
More to follow.
A more detailed Discussion specific to these and other constitutional issues is under continuing development. The reader is encouraged to express his/her thoughts regarding constitutional issues specific to the laws governing ‘family court’ actions. Contact us.
We the People need to demand that the federal government cease and desist the practice of promulgating rules (quasi-laws [legislation]) via administrative agencies that deprive citizens of their inalienable rights under the Constitution. This practice is an unconscionable and unconstitutional abridgement of individual rights under the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS: State Government
A broad discussion of State Government constitutional issues is under development. State promulgation of support guidelines violates the most fundamental parameters for the passage of Law. The State maintains that “Rules of Court" are NOT LAW, yet defendants are incarcerated (jailed) under prejudicial RULES that fail Constitutional muster.
In 1999, Pennsylvania promulgated unconscionable support guidelines [Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16] “contrary to” the express direction of CSEP. Circumstantial evidence establishes a “reasonable presumption” that these guidelines were mandated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which if true, implies “corruption” of the COURT.
When the guidelines were challenged as "UNCONSTITUTIONAL", the Court Administrator, Zygmont Pines, failed or neglected his duty to even respond to the challenge brought forward under Appellate Rules.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS: MIS-Application of Law by the courts.
A discussion of judicial misapplication of law is under continuing development. Most Pennsylvania courts and their Domestic Relations subsections systemically deprive defendants (FATHERS) of due process and equal protection of law. Claimants (MOTHERS) are relieved of their duty to submit evidence of their financial circumstances, and are frequently protected from facing cross-examination by defendants.
The courts afford Title IV-D attorneys the widest possible latitude to obstruct defendant’s rights to a full and fair opportunity to present their case, including the right to test the credibility of the adversarial party. The courts deprive defendants of their Sixth Amendment rights.
In Lehigh County, audio records of court hearings are criminally edited. Judges are knowing and willful accessories to the crime. Judges and the District Attorney are engaged in a cover-up of "criminal misconduct".
The JUDICIAL ATROCITIES pages of this site present irrefutable evidence in support of allegations/accusations that the outcomes in support matters are “pre-determined” which carries the implicit inference that the court is corrupt.
The JUDICIAL ATROCITIES exceed misapplication of law and abuse of discretion. As the cases will show, the atrocities include criminal misconduct, alteration of court records, perjury, subornation of perjury, the same “contumacious conduct” for which PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON was held in contempt of court, losing his license to practice law for 5 years. Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118 (E.D.Ark. 1999) and 57 F.Supp.2d 719 (E.D.Ark. 1999).
Judges administer “family law” with absolute disregard of the Code of Judicial Conduct and their Oaths of Office. Their misconduct is NOT UNINTENTIONAL.
Where the deprivation of rights arises from "application" of law and/or criminal misconduct by the courts, the victims of court injustice should be entitled, according to the offenses, to reparation from the government.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Child Support Enforcement Program specifically invites the States to violate Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution which specifically limits Congress and the States from enacting laws that may violate individual rights protected under the Constitution.
A more detailed Discussion specific to these and other constitutional issues is under continuing development. The reader is encouraged to express his/her thoughts regarding constitutional issues specific to the laws governing ‘family court’ actions. Contact us.
This page will be under continuing development. Check back frequently for updates.
Contact us to express your thoughts, ideas and suggested remedies to overcome this breach of judicial ethics.