Alaska Enemies
For their sponsorship of Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox Sucker's www.paykids.com his Paykids Foundation, boycott the listed sponsors, including Art Van Furniture, Meijer Stores, Michigan State Medical Society (warning, the MSMS website does not like to let you out when you click the back button), SBC Communications, and Michigan Health and Hospital Association and tell them why you are boycotting them! Go to the Michigan Enemies of Freedom Page and read letters by Stan Rains and Terry Lear for more information as to why, and read Domino's Pizza, Inc.'s letter to me in response to my concerns about PayKid's use of Domino's Pizza gift certificates as a prize in their loathsome Billboard contest, which was CANCELLED!!
Not to be outdone, we are announcing our own billboard contest!
The Collections and Support Section of the Civil Division of the Attorney General's Office represents the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Revenue.
We know the name of one CSED representative: Philip C. Petrie
This is the state where Jeffrey Ballek was first prosecuted in a federal court for violating 18 U.S.C. §228. His federal public defender was so lame that he raised the 13th Amendment issue for the first time on appeal, resulting in the 9th Circuit's miscarriage of justice in United States v. Ballek. This same public defender, when I finally tracked him down, in Tacoma's federal public defender's office, he refused my request for a copy of the briefs he filed on behalf of Jeffrey Ballek. His lame excuse was that it was in the Anchorage, Alaska office, the office that referred me to his Tacoma, Washington office. An obvious defense that everyone seems to have missed in this case is that 18 U.S.C. §228 specifically requires that the state child support order be "valid". Since 42 U.S.C. §1994 declares all such state court orders null and void if employment is required for compliance and enforcement goes beyond ordinary debt collection to embrace contempt proceedings, license suspensions, and criminal prosecution, it renders 18 U.S.C. §228 a null statute, as no child support order as presently enforced is valid. Just as the 13th Amendment rendered the Fugitive Slave Clause surplusage. Incidentally, the only provision of the United States Constitution that authorizes Congress to pass a a law like 18 U.S.C. §228 is Article IV Section 2 clause 3, the Fugitive Slave Clause.
Another criticism of the Ballek decision is its reliance upon AS 11.51.120. It is not just a matter of comparing apples to oranges, it is a matter of using an orange to justify an apple. This statute appears to be aimed at any person who has physical custody of a child, whether legally or illegally, who fails to insure that the child has adequate food, clothing, etc., and who fails to seek medical care when necessary. A single parent who signs up for public assistance is not violating this statute because, even though it is the taxpayers who are providing the support for the child, she is at least taking advantage of a program that the taxpayers, through their Legislature and Congress, authorized for such purpose. If a single parent or a couple fails to sign up for public assistance and is unable to provide for the child, his or her failure to seek such assistance could be an element of this crime. Whether a noncustodial parent who fails to pay child support can even be prosecuted for a crime under this statute is doubtful, because often, the custodial parent is able to provide for the child even without receiving child support. If he or she signs up for public assistance and the noncustodial parent fails to pay child support, it is a violation of 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause to prosecute the noncustodial parent for nonsupport and not the custodial parent because both are depending upon the taxpayers to provide for the child. It is just that the custodial parent has direct control over whether to sign up for public assistance and the noncustodial parent has no control over the situation. Control has always been a fundamental element of criminal prosecution. If you push a person off of a cliff, you are committing a crime. If the person just jumps off the cliff, you cannot be held responsible because you had no control over what the other person does. It can be argued that Alaska Legislature did not intend for a statute aimed at requiring a minimum level of care on the part of any guardian of a child to create an exception to either the 13th Amendment or the Antipeonage Act to be imposed upon the parent who does not have custody of the child. While the noncustodial parent can pay the child support, he or she cannot require that it be spent for the benefit of the child. A custodial parent who receives either child support or public assistance, or both, and fails to spend enough of it on the child to keep the child from starving, can be prosecuted for violating AS 11.51.120. However, this statute does not require any parent to spend any specific amount of money each month on the child, which is precisely what a child support order requires, except that the child support order only requires payment to the custodial parent, it cannot require that the money be spent for the benefit of the child. AS 11.51.120 only requires the Troxel minimum, that the child be adequately cared for.
There is a decision by the predecessor to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska that freed a Native Alaskan from slavery on the grounds that however traditional the institution may be in a native culture, it is no longer allowed when that culture is incorporated into the United States. In re Sah Quah, (D.C. Alaska 1886) 31 F. 327, 331.
Chapter 51 Offenses Against the Family and Vulnerable Adults
Title 25 Marital and Domestic Relations
Chapter 25 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
Chapter 27 Child Support Enforcement Agency
Article I Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution provides for inherent rights, including the right of all persons to the rewards of their own industry, and to equal rights, opportunities, and protections under the law. Forfeited upon divorce and loss of custody of child.
Article I Section 7 of the Alaska Constitution is the state Due Process Clause. Does not apply to family law.
Article I Section 17 of the Alaska Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt except in cases of absconding debtors. And except in case of support debtors. In 1959, the framers of the Alaska Constitution decided that some things are best left unsaid and unwritten.
Article I Section 19 of the Alaska Constitution repeats the Second Amendment, and adds a sentence specifically providing that the "individual right to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed.
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.
Feel free to e-mail me at rogerwknight@hotmail.com with any information that you have to share.