A POST FROM TIM SHILLING..... https://www.facebook.com/tim.shilling.39?epa=SEARCH_BOX People need to know the truth please share how they are using child support to destroy parents lives so they can create income for themselves. They are also throwing good parents in jail so they can profit. People need to wake up before this nightmare happens to them. With regard to Federal reimbursement incentive funding under 42 U.S.C. §658(a) & (f), the amount of funding received by the State is directly related to the effectiveness of child support enforcement and collection methods, and amount of awards imposed, as measured by total statewide child support collections. Federal regulations require (coerce) states to implement various mechanisms to effectuate collection of child support. State Plan Requirements, 45 C.F.R. §302.70. FEDERAL LAW CONDITIONS COMPLIANCE “WITH VARIOUS FEDERAL STANDARDS GOVERNING CHILD SUPPORT” (AND INCLUDING ALIMONY) IN ORDER TO RECEIVE “FEDERAL FUNDING FOR COLLECTION OF CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES.”5 AS A CONDITION FOR RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CHILD SUPPORT REIMBURSEMENT INCENTIVE FUNDING, STATE(S) ARE COERCED AND COMPELLED TO COMPLY AND CONFORM TO THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND LAWS ESTABLISHING CHILD SUPPORT/ALIMONY ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS. The Federal Child Support Enforcement Laws, 42 U.S.C. §§651-669, and the corresponding Code of Federal Regulations, C.F.R. §§300-305, shows no mention of use of laws or regulations for any arrests or imprisonment for a child support debt (or alimony). In fact, both statute and regulation are silent on the issue. These unconstitutional arrests and imprisonment for child support and alimony debt are occurring even though the United States Supreme Court, in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927); Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 579 (1973), holds that public officials, which include judges and child support enforcement officials, cannot sit on cases where they have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of such cases. This is because it creates an unconstitutional conflict of interest. More federal funding given to the states, in which state employees and judges are paid out of the treasury first, that causes judges and child support caseworkers to order ever more child support and alimony which is included in the totals, and use ever more draconian methods, and harassment, to extract monies to pad their salaries and pensions). Judges, child support hearing officers, court services supervisors, and probation officers/employees are too prone to abuse their contempt powers to extort/extract ever more monies out of unsuspecting tax paying litigants by imprisoning them for the debt. The U.S. Supreme Court holds that judges must disqualify themselves from these cases, otherwise their orders are null and void, and judges could face misconduct charges or impeachment. Yet,Pennsylvania judges and child support enforcement officials are not informing litigants of this situation and are refusing to disqualify themselves. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102 (1998); Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). The real party in interest must have standing in this case in order to maintain an element capable of being heard by the court. Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Com'n, 359 U.S. 275, 276, 79 S.Ct. 785, 3 L.Ed.2d 804 (1959). When the state (probation dept.) voluntarily became a party to Defendant’s state case, and chose to avail itself of the court, it submitted its rights for judicial determination. It is bound by its entrance into this case and cannot escape the result of its own voluntary act by invoking prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment now.In re Platter, 140 F.3d 676, 680 (7th Cir. 1998); The Eleventh Amendment does not prevent a state from entering a federal forum voluntarily to pursue its own interests. See Schlossberg v. Maryland (In re Creative Goldsmiths of Washington, D.C., Inc.), 119 F.3d 1140, 1148 (4th Cir. 1997). However, if a state embarks down this route, it cannot run back to seek Eleventh Amendment immunity protection when it does not like the results No one can be arrested or incarcerated for a CIVIL child support debt. There is no PROBABLE CAUSE that a CRIME is being committed in a CIVIL MATTER!!!!! Child support is a common, commercial, civil debt subject to all debt collection procedures under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 –1692p. See, United States v. Parker, 108 F.3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Lewko, 269 F.3d 64, 68-69 (1st Cir. 2001). It is held that child support is not a “special debt”. Lewko at 68-69. It is a debt just like any debt in commerce under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3, giving rise to the fact that child support may be a Federal matter and not a state matter.
In Stevens v. Rose, 298 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2002), the United States Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals held that probable cause to arrest CAN ONLY EXIST IN CRIMINAL MATTERS---it can never exist in civil matters:
“We start with the basic proposition that a full-scale arrest must be supported by probable cause. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001); Morgan v. Woessner, 997 F.2d 1244, 1252 (9th Cir.1993) (citing Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 148-49, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972)). In turn, we have previously held that "[b]y its definition, probable cause can only exist in relation to criminal conduct. It follows that civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause." Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th Cir.1995). This rather unremarkable proposition — namely that good intentions do not overcome the rule that civil disputes do not give officers probable cause to arrest — is supported by other circuits as well. See e.g., Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge, 211 F.3d 913, 925-27 (5th Cir.2000) (holding that seizure of child violated clearly established Fourth Amendment right where there was no probable cause and child was not in imminent danger of harm); Peterson v. City of Plymouth, 60 F.3d 469, 476-77 (8th Cir.1995) (holding that the arrest was clearly established to be unlawful where officer knew the dispute was a civil, not a criminal, matter); Moore v. Marketplace Rest., 754 F.2d 1336, 1345-47 (7th Cir.1985)(stating that there would be no probable cause to arrest for breach of contract dispute involving payment for food services). Indeed, the Peterson case closely parallels the circumstances here. The Eighth Circuit upheld judgment as a matter of law in favor of Peterson who was arrested in connection with a dispute over the ownership of a snowblower. The court noted: "Knowledge of Peterson's reasonable and actual claim of right put [the officer] on notice that the dispute was a civil matter not involving criminal intent." 60 F.3d at 477.” In Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 435 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement officers from arresting citizens without probable cause(citations omitted). Involuntary civil confinement is a "massive curtailment of liberty", is tantamount to the infringement of being arrested and can be made only upon probable cause, citing Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980). It was further held that a probable cause determination could only be made if a warrant had a "supporting affidavit, as supplemented by sworn testimony before the issuing judge that is recorded contemporaneously. For the Defendants to argue that Plaintiff was “coercively” arrested for owing a fraudulent and fictitious amount of unallocated support arrearages, flies in the face of law and reality. It is disingenuous. To arrest is criminal. To conspire to have someone arrested to obtain unfair advantage in a civil case is not only an ethical violation, and violation of Code of Judicial Conduct, but it constitutes criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, obstruction of justice, tampering with a case and witnesses, official misconduct and other criminal causes of action. This federal-state funding scheme is all detailed explicitly in testimony before the U.S. Congress House Ways and Means Subcommittee in 1997 by Leslie Frye, Chief, Office of Child Support Enforcement, California Department of Social Services. She affirms the fact that child support is not about the children. It is about government expansion of bureaucracy.