California 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!
California Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, Republican of the 71st District, vented his spleen at MensNewsDaily in reaction to Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks in support of a proposed child support mercy bill. The comments posted in response are wonderful expressions of the truth!
That is the problem with social conservatives. They will look at dinosaur fossils and still pretend to believe that the world was created a few thousand years ago in a magical week. While it is possible that the process of evolution was helped along by some "intelligent design" there is no intelligent design in the child support laws and no intelligence in hate filled idiots like Todd Spitzer!
California's new Department of Child Support Services coordinates the Peonage effort in the Golden State. Its Links page connects up with those county support enforcement agencies that have their own web sites. These are the family support sections of the county district attorneys' offices given a new name and reorganized into independent county agencies. The elected district attorneys no longer have responsibility for enforcing support orders. These agencies include:
Alameda County Department of Child Support Services
Butte County Department of Child Support Services
Contra Costa County Department of Child Support Services
Del Norte County Department of Child Support Services
El Dorado County Office of Child Support Services
Fresno County Department of Child Support Services
Glenn County Child Support Services Agency
Humboldt County Department of Child Support Services
Imperial County Department of Child Support Services
Kern County Department of Child Support Services
Kings County Department of Child Support Services. At least they "thank you" for paying child support. Dear Abby once advised that no thanks were necessary for paying child support. It is like a plantation owner thanking a slave for not running away, a hacienda owner for thanking a peon for not running away, and a prison warden thanking a prisoner for not trying to escape.
Lake County Department of Child Support Services
Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department at 5770 S. Eastern Ave. Commerce, CA 90040
Directed by Philip L. Browning. And the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department Sucks website! Read all about it and report it all in the Horrors Forum! Directory of Employees. Including Lori A. Cruz Dennis G. Cole Deborah Vorwerk Echeverria
Merced County Department of Child Support Services. Merced is Spanish for mercy. Do they have any? The reason for constitutional provisions is so we don't have to rely on the mercy of our government officials. When we set aside these constitutional provisions we force the people affected to rely upon such mercy. Our Constitution of the United States was established, by violence, because mercy wasn't good enough. It was amended to prohibit slavery and to require due process and equal protection of the laws, by violence, again, because mercy was not a good enough remedy for those held in involuntary servitude and denied equal protection of the laws.
Monterey County Child Support Services Now this web site has the ultimate declaration of contradiction! It declares that it "is the policy of the State of California to ensure that all individuals are treated equally and no person shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, political affiliation, religion, marital status, sex, age, or disability, be excluded from participation or denied the benefits of any program or service or otherwise subjected to treatment that is different than that provided to others." Since marital status is included, I must say that this statement prohibits imprisoning noncustodial parents for not supporting their children when custodial parents who do not support their children are given money and parents who remain married and retain custody of their children do not suffer from abusive treatment by this agency. But then if constitutional provisions can be ignored, what's a mere statement of policy?
Orange County Child Support Services
Placer County Child Support Services. The new gold rush. Your money. This agency helps the other definition of "gold digger". Only if you are as barren of gold as the dirt in too many claims, you suffer.
Plumas County Department of Child Support Services
Riverside County Department of Child Support Services
Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services
San Bernardino County Department of Child Support Services. "Helping children today so they can pay child support tomorrow." A minor revision to their motto to more accurately reflect the truth. Includes Corydon John Nelson, WSBA 1015, formerly with the Family Support Division of the King County, Washington Prosecutor. He apparently still maintains a residence in Seattle, Washington 98199.
San Diego Department of Child Support Services
San Francisco Department of Child Support Services. It is one thing to leave your heart in San Francisco. Just don't leave your child there. What? You mean they did not give you a choice? Maybe that is why so many there are gay, it avoids this hassle.
San Joaquin County Department of Child Support Services
San Mateo County Department of Child Support Services
Santa Barbara County Department of Child Support Services
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services
Santa Cruz County Department of Child Support Services
Siskyou Modoc Regional Department of Child Support Services. This is the traditional home of the Modoc Tribe. They put up a hell of a fight for their freedom. We can do the same. By nonviolent means, of course.
Solano County Department of Child Support Services
Sonoma County Child Support Services
Stanislaus County Department of Child Support Services
Sutter County Department of Child Support Services
Trinity County Department of Child Support Services. They try to force the Father to pay support for the Son. Which he could if he can live off what will only support the Holy Ghost.
Tulare County Department of Child Support Services, Before this function was taken over by the California State government, Deputy District Attorney Gary H. Evans under District Attorney William A. Richmond worked the support enforcement process for this county.
Ventura County Child Support Services
Yolo County Child Support Services, Before this function was taken over by the California State government, Deputy District Attorney William C. Schemel under District Attorney Richard L. Gilbert worked the support enforcement process for this county.
Yuba County Department of Child Support Services One of the answers to the Frequently Asked Questions on this web page is that the services provided are free. Wrong. You paid for them with your taxes. The question is, can you live with your tax money being used to violate OUR constitutional rights? It is easy to pretend that when a defense attorney valiantly defends the constitutional rights of a defendant charged with a horrible crime, it is not OUR constitutional rights that he is defending. When a noncustodial parent is imprisoned for this debt, it is not OUR constitutional right to not be imprisoned for debt that is being violated. But they are OUR constitutional rights. When given up, even for as ostensibly a good cause as providing for our children, WE lose our protection from the overzealousness of whomever we may elect to our government. In fact, it is because of the claim that this it for the children, is what makes it all the more evil.
Many of these county sites claim that they "deliver child support services in a manner that maintains the respect and dignity of all who come in contact with our agency." Given that under the present laws "delivering child support services" necessarily violates the 13th Amendment and the Antipeonage Act, and the California Constitution's prohibitions of involuntary servitude, Article I Section 6, and imprisonment for debt, Article I Section 10, I would say that it is impossible to maintain the respect and dignity of all whose rights are violated. Article I Section 7(a) contains the state Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, also necessarily violated. Article I Section 17 prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments. Article I Section 26 of the California Constitution declares that its provisions are mandatory, unless declared otherwise by express words. So which provision has the express words declaring that the California Constitution is not mandatory in cases of child support?
Speaking of "Children"! Have you heard about the wacky Ventura County Superior Court order requiring parents to pay $3,500 per month to support their 50 YEAR OLD child!!!!!! David Culp is 50 years old, had been an attorney who practiced for 20 years, made a good living at it, but now because he is "bipolar", depressed, and has attention deficit disorder (means he can't pay any attention to anything for any length of time) his aging parents have to come up with the money or go to jail themselves.
Believe it or not, I can understand it. 20 years practicing before judges like these, judges who think the Constitution is a suggestion, who cannot read and comprehend the English language in which our Constitution and our statutes are written with at least the capability that we expect of our 4th graders when they take the Basic Skills Test, who will go along with any fad that comes down the pike, and decide that the Antipeonage Act does not mean what it says; well, it would make anybody a candidate for the funny farm!!
This of course, is why we have to stop tolerating the willful violation of our Constitution. If we allow it for one purpose, we strip ALL people of its protection. They can always come up with a justification or an excuse.
This is the State where the Brent Moss case was litigated. While the California Court of Appeals did the job, the California Supreme Court violated its oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California, when it affirmed as to annulment of contempt but then reversed the finding that the 13th Amendment, Article I Section 6 of the California Constitution, and the Antipeonage Act covered child support.
The primary escape valve used by Moss here and by Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, No. 24457, (Hawaii, December 27, 2005) 109 Hawaii 240, 125 P. 3d. 461 is the canard that because the noncustodial parent is free to choose his employer, a court order requiring him to seek employment is not involuntary servitude or peonage. Moss even went on to find that such noncustodial parent could QUIT his job if he found the conditions intolerable.
I believe Adolf Hitler himself called that sort of thing "The Big Lie" method of propaganda. The noncustodial parent is free to quit his job if he can find another job right away or if he has wealth sufficient to allow compliance with the support order without employment. If not, then quitting his job can land him in jail.
Duh.
In my new Brief of Appellant before the Washington Court of Appeals in No. 57547-3, I have the answer to this bullshit:
4) That a
Debtor May Choose Employer or Profession Does
Not Defeat Claim of
Peonage
Page 7 of State’s Response to Respondent Knight’s Pro Se Motion to Modify the November 10, 2005 Order of Commissioner Sellers (State’s Response), Sub No. 209A, CP 57, addresses the issue of peonage:
In
sum, the Respondent is not required to work or labor to pay a debt in any
specific job or to any specific master or service. He has worked in the past as an engineer for
many years for the Boeing Company and has worked in the recent past for several
years as a contract paralegal for a number of different local and (sic)
attorneys. He is more than capable of
providing support for his children. He
simply prefers to file and present legal argument after legal argument rather
than to meet the most basic needs of his children. The Anti-Peonage Act simply does not apply to
this instance . . .
Addressed on point in Reynolds, supra, at 235 U.S. 146:
When thus at labor, the convict is working under a
contract which he has made with his surety.
He is to work until the amount which the surety has paid for him -- the
sum of the fine and the costs -- is paid.
The surety has paid the state and the service is rendered to reimburse
him. That is the real substance of the
transaction. The terms of that contract are agreed upon by the contracting parties,
as the result of their own negotiations.
The statute of the state does not prescribe them. It leaves the making of the contract to the
parties concerned, and this fact is not changed because of the requirement that
the judge shall approve the contract.
Emphasis added. Peonage Cases, supra, at 123 F. 674 found:
If the peon wished to change the
masters or service, he could find a new employer who would advance enough to
pay the peon’s debts to his then master, and the peon would then become bound
in the new employer’s service.
Same, Jaremillo, supra, at 1 N.M. 194, and:
If the servant does not wish to
continue in service for any cause, such as the ill-treatment of the master, and
receiving better pay from another;
Id., at 199, quoting New Mexico Territory’s Master and Servant Act of 1851. Thus, it is not fatal to a claim of peonage that the peon may choose his employer or even his profession. The surety as contemplated in Reynolds could be a manufacturing concern, a restaurant, or an engineering firm. Mr. Knight is in the same position as the peon who wishes to change masters or profession, he need only find an employer willing to pay such funds as the State demands.
5) Allowing
Debtor’s Choice of Employer or Profession to
Defeat Claim of
Peonage or Involuntary Servitude Will Allow
Human Traffickers and Pimps an
Unintended Loophole
To allow a debtor’s freedom to choose employer and profession to defeat a claim of peonage, when all other elements necessary to prove the claim, including sufficient level of plausible compulsion, are present, would render virtually unenforceable the Thirteenth Amendment, the Antipeonage Act, and the Peonage and Slavery Chapter.
A poor person agrees to pay with labor thousands of dollars to be smuggled into the United States illegally. Such indentures enforced with extortionate threats. An employer may threaten to rat an alien employee to the immigration authorities. Forced service as prostitutes. Wealthy foreigners may bring house servants to the United States and hold them in involuntary servitude. Federal authorities have obtained convictions for peonage or involuntary servitude under 18 U.S.C. §§1581 and 1584 and the predecessor statutes.
Bernal v. United States, (5th Cir. 1917) 241 F. 339 upheld a conviction of peonage where the defendant threatened a Mexican woman with telegraphing the immigration authorities and claimed that they would imprison her for five years. Bernal at 241 F. 341. Ms. Bernal wanted the Mexican woman work as a prostitute, who refused. She was then allowed to run errands around town under Ms. Bernal’s observation. Therefore, she had a choice as to how to earn her way out of this situation.
Cases involving women forced to labor include United States v. Harris, (10th Cir. 1976) 534 F. 2d. 207 affirming convictions of involuntary servitude and interstate transport of women for prostitution, and Pierce v. United States, (5th Cir. 1944) 146 F. 2d. 84 affirming convictions of peonage. United States v. Carter, (9th Cir. 2001) 266 F. 3d. 1089, 1090, restated these facts:
In June 1999, Carter took Jane Doe, aged 14, against her will from the State of Washington to the State of California intending to force her to work for him as a prostitute. Carter forced Doe to perform as a prostitute in Oakland, Los Angeles, and San Diego, beating her if she did not earn money to please him and physically punishing her for disobedience to him.
Carter brought Doe back to Seattle where he forced her to continue to work as a prostitute. He also forced her to aid him in recruiting her friend, Juvenile #1, also aged 14. Carter brought both juveniles to Portland, Oregon and then to Los Angeles to engage in prostitution. The two children ultimately escaped.
The sentence on conviction of violation 18 U.S.C. §2423, the Mann Act, was affirmed with enhancement as a crime of violence, Carter at 1091. These facts in Carter should easily have met the element of plausible compulsion for any charge of peonage or involuntary servitude.
United States v. Alzanki, (1st Cir. 1995) 54 F. 3d. 994 affirmed a conviction of involuntary servitude where the Kuwaiti defendant brought his Sri Lankan maid into Massachusetts and held her in bondage. Veerapol, supra, affirmed a conviction of involuntary servitude where the defendant held the passport of a citizen of Thailand and:
She maintained control over them through verbal abuse and threats of legal action and physical force. Veerapol refused Saeico’s frequent entreaties to allow her to return to Thailand, at one point telling her if she left, Veerapol would kill her. One night at her restaurant, Veerapol was particularly abusive to Saeico and pinched her arm, causing a large fist sized bruise. Veerapol also told her that the police in the United States would arrest her as an illegal alien were she to seek their help.
Veerapol at 312 F. 3d. 1131. Veerapol at 1132 adopted the level of “plausible compulsion” set forth in Kozminski, supra, at 487 U.S. 952.
If a human trafficker tells the
smuggled persons they are free to choose their job as long as they make
payments on their smuggling debt, he can avoid a conviction of a
§1581 or
§1584
crime if the State can avoid a finding that the
Order on Contempt, Sub No. 199,
CP 1-5, is declared null and void by
42 U.S.C. §1994 because Mr. Knight is free
to choose employer and profession. Even
if the human trafficker also told his passage debtors that they can earn the
money fastest by prostitution, and credibly threatened their lives if they
failed to make the payments. Such is a
level of plausible compulsion sufficient to otherwise prove the element of
involuntary servitude under
Kozminski
and
Veerapol.
Congress certainly did not intend such a loophole for human traffickers, pimps, or other such criminals.
Nor did they intend any such loophole in family law; from my Brief:
8)
The Antipeonage Act Covers Family Obligations
42
U.S.C. §1994 includes the phrase: “debt or obligation, or otherwise”. There is no language limiting the application
to debts arising from contract or excepting child support. State
v. Lenz, (Ct. App. 1999) 230 Wis. 529, 602 N.W. 2d. 172 found that as child
support is not a debt arising from contract, the language of Article I Section
16 of the
Wisconsin Constitution, “debts arising from contract”, does not
prohibit contempt proceedings for child support. Congress’ choice to not so limit the
application of
42 U.S.C. §1994 should be respected by the courts.
Had
the 1867 Congress intended to make an exception for alimony and child support,
it could have easily written in such language.[7]
If the language of
42 U.S.C. §1994
does not express the will of Congress in reasonably plain terms, then Senator
Lane’s comments recorded in the
Congressional
Globe, 39th Cong. 2d. Sess. at p. 1571, attached as an Exhibit to
Mr.
Knight’s Reply, Sub No. 209,
CP 41,
Exhibit attached herein, about the effects of New Mexico’s system on the
peon with a family to support answers the question:
By the laws of Mexico which
were existing in New Mexico at the time of the conquest peonage was
established. The system was simply this,
as I understand it: that where a Mexican owed a debt his creditor had a right
to his labor and services until that debt was paid. The debtor became a domestic servant, and he and his family were supported by the
creditor, and the peonage never ended until the debt was discharged. It was a kind of servitude for debt, which
the committee thought was inconsistent with our institutions. We simply say by this bill that peonage shall
be abolished, and the creditor shall be left to all his legal means of
collecting his debt, but he shall not hold the peon in slavery. I understand also that by this system the
creditor not only had a right by an involuntary process to the labor of the
peon, but the debtor if he chose might become the servant of the creditor and
serve until the debt is paid. A very
small debt with the interest, where the peon
has a family to support and the creditor supports him, amounts to servitude
for life. We now simply say that the
creditor in New Mexico shall have all the means of collecting their debts known
to law, but that peonage or servitude for debt shall cease. That is the whole of it.
Emphasis added. This statement was based in part on
Jaremillo, supra. Exhibit attached herein. At
1 N.M. 191 Jaremillo started with:
It has become
our duty for the first time in this tribunal to examine and construe the laws
of this territory, declaring the rights and defining the relations of masters
and servants. Like all questions arising
out of a domestic relation, the present involves interests important and
delicate.
Peonage was thus considered a domestic
relationship by those who practiced it.
Jaremillo, at 1 N.M. 199, quoting
New
Mexico’s Master and Servant Act of 1851, found:
Fathers of
families are permitted to bind out their children to serve only when their
poverty demands it, devoting what they draw on account of their salaries to the
support of their own legal families. . .
. All persons having servants may
advance them on account, when they demand it, two thirds of their salary in
order to support their families.
But other than certain specified cases, parents cannot contract away the services of their children, Id., at 206,[8] and that “if a servant is a parent and dies, the children are not compelled to serve in his stead,” Id., at 207.
Thus the regulation of peonage in New Mexico Territory was intimately related to family relationships and obligations. The 1867 Congress intended to abolish this, including any circumstance where family obligations are used to justify the peonage of either parent or child.
To deny this is like denying that a mile is eight furlongs, in the face of evidence that the National Bureau of Standards seems to think so!
My latest Reply Brief of Appellant provides the answers to California's Moss v. Superior Court, the Ninth Circuit's Ballek, and Hawaii's new Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Doe, No. 24457, (Hawaii, December 27, 2005) 109 Hawaii 240, 125 P. 3d. 461.
Feel free to e-mail me at rogerwknight@hotmail.com with any information that you have to share.
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.