Lyndon LaRouche's Jan. 25th, 2013 Webcast

Be Happy by H.E. Situ Rinpoche

Billy Corgan: Total Paradigm Shift

THE ORIGINS OF BRADLEY AMENDMENT LAW AND RELATED LEGISLATION OVER THE YEARS.

You need to know what you are up against in a declining economy where a job loss can put you on the streets and ruin your future forever. Especially during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the federal Bradley Law concretes the concept of a permanent subclass of Americans.

THE ORIGINS OF BRADLEY AMENDMENT LAW AND RELATED LEGISLATION OVER THE YEARS.

Exploitation Underground Railroad Forum

IS BRADLEY AMENDMENT DEBT REALLY “CHILD SUPPORT”?

THE FEDERAL BRADLEY AMENDMENT FOR CHILD SUPPORT SEEMS INNOCENT AND HELPFUL TO SOME AMERICANS ON THE SURFACE. WOMEN THINK THE LAW SUPPORTS THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN. MEN HAVE GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO BEING ABUSED AND FINANCIALLY RAPED. THE TRUTH IS EVEN WORSE AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERY AMERICAN! THE BRADLEY AMENDMENT MANDATES THAT A CHILD-SUPPORT DEBT CANNOT BE RETROACTIVELY REDUCED OR FORGIVEN EVEN IF THE DEBTOR IS UNEMPLOYED, HOSPITALIZED, IN PRISON, SENT TO WAR, DEAD, PROVED TO NOT BE THE PARENT, NEVER ALLOWED TO SEE CHILDREN, OR LOSES A JOB OR SUFFERS A PAY CUT. THE AMENDMENT HAS RESULTED IN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN CORRECTED, GROSS INJUSTICES THAT ARE NEVER DEALT WITH AND MASSIVE COSTS, ESPECIALLY TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDER THE FINANCIAL GUN. UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE UNPRECEDENTED ABUSE AND VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS. THIS IMMORAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL LAW MUST BE REPEALED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.

It is the aim and purpose of this website to inform you about the injustice, prejudice and civil criminality of this federal law. The law even violates state powers guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The enforcement of the Bradley Amendment was piloted in Massachusetts in 1993. Once the bugs were worked out, the amendment was unveiled and pressed into action by Bill and Hillary Clinton and the likes of other feminists such as Donna Shalala. While the focus of this legislation has been and is on non-custodial parents, it affects the rights of all Americans. The completed legislation in 1996 allows the government to comb through bank records regularly looking for non-custodial parents to track down. The reality is that the model and purpose of enforcement of the Bradley Amendment is hate legislation against men put in play by feminists in the early through mid-90s.

The hyperinflation of the early 80s left a larger gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”. The concept originated with Democrat Senator Bill Bradley from his observations of wealthy successful men and his comparisons of financially-strapped women with impoverished children. He reasoned that law was the way to make the wealthy braggarts pay for the needs of the poor. With fellow Democrats, he seized the political opportunity in the name of welfare reform and children. Like many other politicians, he built his Senate career on child welfare, poverty legislation and tax reform. President George Bush, Sr. contributed by signing off on child support state border legislation in 1991, opening the move for further action by the next administration. There is a reasonable body of evidence that even while the Clintons were governing in Arkansas, they were involved in the early legislation stages of Bradley’s “welfare reform” because of Hillary Clinton’s ties to child welfare and legal ties in Washington. The Clinton Administration promptly pioneered legislation with pilot programs and made successive changes in law with the help of a conflicted Congress. By 1996, the continual campaigning of Hillary Clinton and the popularity of the “village raising a child” gave the Amendment the public acceptance and political teeth necessary to invade the privacy rights of the entire country along with multiple amendment rights of parents as citizens of the United States. Guarantees by the U.S. Constitution regarding state rights and authority are being violated. History reveals a gradual process, originally by a combination of deceipt and compromise, and a handful of major players determined to complete the invasive process.

As a result, the guarantee of due process no longer exists for child support law. Bradley Amendment enforcement devised by the Clinton Administration is not about child support. It is about control of human rights, larger government and control of human freedom in the name of welfare reform and children’s rights. No man or woman should be oppressed by an immoral violation of civil rights like the unconstitutional law and enforcement of the Bradley Amendment. Continuous violation of civil rights by the U.S. government has held sway since enforcement by the Clinton Administration.

There is active interest by many thousands that are willing to sign petitions. Untold thousands more are needed to overturn this legislation and illegal enforcement. Don’t give up! Get informed! Know how it affects you and others around you. It may not be popular, but don’t let that stop the movement for America’s Constitutional Rights.

No new reform legislation has been introduced since 2006 and child support news in general is passe. Ignorance and hurt feelings loom large. Disregard for others and the right to entitlement reign supreme in American community. The press is silent and yet the evil of this unconstitutional amendment and enforcement affects untold millions. Don’t buy into the notion that the Bradley Amendment is business as usual in government and that there is no hope. This website maintains current links and is looking to make a difference. Tell your friends. Millions of American men and women are being oppressed and ruined without an option because of enforcement of this illegal and immoral federal law cleverly devised by special political interests and enhanced to a razor’s edge by the Clinton Administration. No law should prescribe and reinforce misfortune and disaster in life. There is much more here than meets the eye!

Bradley is out of office, but “his law” is still in place and being enforced with law developed by hateful activist administrators. It’s time to tell the Congress and Senate that you want this immoral and illegal law repealed from U.S. Federal Law. No Federal Law is needed to usurp state law on child support or take power away from judges that can mediate a child support and custody case. Child support has become a police state of federal oppression and the law isn’t working. Child support collections are down. Welfare reform hasn’t worked on any level. Money is being mishandled. The number of court orders is up. The expense of collection is spiraling upward like the welfare that this law was designed to fix. The state laws mandated are already in place to handle all child support issues in a lawful manner. You don’t have to be a prisoner in your own country! Join the fight for right for all Americans!

Is Bradley Amendment Debt really “child support”?

THE RESULT OF THIS INCREDIBLY RIGID LAW IS TO IMPOSE A PUNISHMENT THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY BUT THE VERY RICH TO GET OUT FROM UNDER A BRADLEY DEBT:

* Thousands of parents have been sentenced to debtor’s prison (a medieval practice America thought was abolished centuries ago) and thousands more have had their driver’s license confiscated (making it extraordinarily difficult to get a job). Credit is being ruined and jobs are being lost. This does not assist in child support measures. 66% of men are wholly unable to pay child support, in large part due to unconstitutional federal law.
* There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child’s needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the non-custodial parent to pay for college tuition).
* The Bradley debt is misnamed “child support”; it is a court-imposed judgment to punish non-custodial parents and extract money from them to support a few custodial parents and a $6 billion federal-state bureaucracy.
* Cases prove that men cannot escape the Bradley debt even if DNA proves that they are not the father; the law even forbids bankruptcy to alleviate the Bradley debt.

In 2004, the Bradley Amendment was being challenged and was the subject of a repeal effort. In February of 2006, the court case was dismissed and there has not been any visible effort to reform or repeal this amendment. The resistance is great because the government has built a six-billion dollar government industry around the Amendment.

CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT ABOUT THE CHILDREN. IT IS ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY THE STATES CAN COLLECT IN FEDERAL FUNDING.

Bruce Eden ·  Top Commenter
As a father's rights and family rights advocate, I saw this coming over 20 years ago. This was going to happen when they were initiating garnishing wages, seizing assets, denying food stamps, denying & suspending passports, suspending drivers and professional license, etc., for child support enforcement. I said it would be ever-escalating steps where government would outlaw men, make men homeless and attempt to murder them by starving them to death. This constitutes a Bill of Attainder/Bill of Pains and Penalties (outlawed by the US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 and Section 10, Clause 1) where government targets individuals or easily ascertainable groups and outlaws them, depriving them of their rights, assets and lives.

I guess if they want "outlaws" we need to start acting like John Dillinger, Al Capone, Machine Gun Kelly, Pretty Boy Floyd, Alvin Karpis, etc. and start shooting back at the domestic enemies of this country--the US and complicit state governments that use child support enforcement to obtain federal funding to bolster their treasuries to support governmental pensions and salaries.

CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT ABOUT THE CHILDREN. IT IS ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY THE STATES CAN COLLECT IN FEDERAL FUNDING. It works like this:

There are a lot of fathers out there who've lost their jobs thanks to our government usurping the banking and mortgage businesses, and now the car businesses. Government, with its lapdog press, like to pick on groups of people to create animosity and divisiveness. It's time to show the government for the real "deadbeat" that it is.

According to a 7-year study done by Arizona State University Professor Sanford Braver, Ph.D., which resulted in his book, "Divorced Dads--Shattering the Myths", he found that less than 5% of those that owed child support are true deadbeat dads-the ones with the younger trophy wives and sports cars, who don't want to pay anything. The truth of the matter, is that according to the Federal Gov't. General Accounting Office, Report # GAO/HRD-92-39FS, pg. 19, over 66% of those owing child support can't pay because they are unemployed, underemployed, disabled, dead, and in some cases the mothers don't want support.

Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can't survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government's ultimate goal. Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance). Government doesn't do anything for altruism. They always have a motive behind what they do and the laws they make. It's all about money, power and control.

The reason for this: Because judges are granting high orders and enforcing them stringently because the Federal government pays the states a federal reimbursement incentive funding (42 USC Section 658a) for amounts awarded, collected and enforced. This money goes into the state coffers, no strings attached (42 USC Section 658f). The first things paid out of state treasuries are judicial salaries and pensions and state employee salaries and pensions.

This is a major unconstitutional conflict-of-interest that has been outlawed by the US Supreme Court in Tumey v. Ohio, Ward v. Monroeville, Gibson v. Berryhill and other cases. The Supreme Court held that judges and officials (i.e., child support probation officials) who sit in judgment of cases that they have a financial interest in, are too tempted to abuse their contempt powers to jail unsuspecting litigants-taxpayers to extort/extract more and more monies out of them to increase the amount of funding, and ultimately increase their salaries and pensions.

Anyone arrested on one of these orders is being arrested for not only a fraudulent order, but on a CIVIL matter. The U.S. Courts of Appeals (2nd highest courts in the land) as well as the US Supreme Ct. hold that one can't be arrested on a CIVIL matter because there is no 4th Amendment probable cause that a crime has been committed to issue an arrest warrant. These Courts of Appeals held that child support is nothing more than a common civil, commercial debt, and that it is NOT any "special kind of debt". Again, another fraud perpetrated by government officials. Every other Circuit has followed suit and hold that child support is a common commercial, civil debt.

Child support & enforcement, along with no-fault divorce is derived from Soviet Family Law, Article 81. The USSR in the 40s and 50s implemented child support enforcement & allowed no-fault divorce. When it saw that it was destroying society and that men refused to work because they had to give up 1/2 their pay for child support, they tried to stop child support & easy divorces. However, it was too late. We know the rest of the story. Now, history is repeating itself in the USA. Radical women's groups (N.O.W. & others) and the womens' bar associations have adopted Soviet-styled child support enforcement, no-fault divorce & domestic violence programs. These are utter failures being used to implement power and control over families for the destruction of families.

Further, Judges, as public officials, took an Oath of Office to uphold, support & defend the US Constitution. With that oath they acknowledge and recognized We the People's fundamentally secured constitutional rights, privileges and immunities, as a condition for the public officials' employment. Given that judges, law enforcement and even politicians have embraced this Soviet-style domestic relations ideology, this violates their Oaths of Office which constitutes felony Official Misconduct--an impeachable offense (not to mention it is treasonous & seditious to the US Constitution). Any judge making order, sitting on cases and enforcing child support must be disqualified for conflict of interest and Official Misconduct, especially if they arrest and jail someone for child support.

Along with the federal Violence Against Women Act domestic violence laws, federal child abuse prevention act, and the federal child support laws, the child support industry is a total fraud. It is a $10 BILLION per year INDUSTRY that, if eliminated, the monies saved and sent to the children that supposedly need it, would wipe out all child support arrears in the US at one time. All that would be needed to do is send the BILLIONS in the form of a Social Security check or wire transfer, since child support enforcement laws are part of the entire Social Security Act.

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)
Fathers’ Rights Consultant
New Jersey
b_eden@verizon.net
(973) 616-9558 (M-F, 10AM-5PM)

Debtors' Prisons

Debtors' Prisons vis http://www.schr.org/poor
Contrary to what many people may believe, there are debtors’ prisons throughout the United States where people are imprisoned because they are too poor to pay fines and fees.

The United States Supreme Court in Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), held that courts cannot imprison a person for failure to pay a criminal fine unless the failure to pay was “willful.”  However, this constitutional commandment is often ignored.

Courts impose substantial fines as punishment for petty crimes as well as more serious ones. Besides the fines, the courts are assessing more and more fees to help meet the costs of the ever-increasing size of the criminal justice system: fees for ankle braclets for monitoring; fees for anger management classes; for drug tests, for crime victims’ funds, for crime laboratories, for court clerks, for legal representation, for various retirement funds, and for private probation companies that do nothing more than collect a check once a month.

People who cannot afford the total amount assessed may be allowed to pay in monthly installments, but in many jurisdictions those payments must be accompanied by fees to a private probation company that collects them. A typical fee is $40 per month. People who lose their jobs or encounter unexpected family hardships and are unable to maintain payments may be jailed without any inquiry into their ability to pay or the willfulness of their failure to pay.

There are more fees for those in jails or prisons. There are high costs for telephone calls. Fees are charged fees for medical services. A new trend is “room and board” fees in prisons and jails. Ora Lee Hurley spent nearly a year at the Georgia Department of Corrections, Atlanta Diversion Center due to her inability to pay a $705 fine from a 15-year-old drug conviction because she was charged for staying there. A court had ordered Ms. Hurley imprisoned until her fine was paid. While held at the Diversion Center, Ms. Hurley was employed full-time at a restaurant which sent her paycheck directly to the Department of Corrections. Although Ms. Hurley never missed a day of work and earned over $7,000, the Department took nearly every penny of her earnings. Left with only $23 per month to buy food, toiletries, and pay her fine, Ms. Hurley was being confined in perpetuity. She was released only after the Center filed a habeas petition on her behalf.
For a copy of the habeas petition, click here. To view the Atlanta Journal Constitution article click here.



The Center Ends Jail Fees for Pre-Trial Detainees
In some cases, jails have even charged room and board fees for people detained on charges but not convicted of any crime. For seventeen years, the Clinch County Jail in Homerville charged those in its custody a daily room and board fee. Even though Georgia law did not authorize – and in fact prohibited – such charges, the Clinch County Sheriff charged inmates $18 per day. Many people were too poor to pay the fees upon their release. The Sheriff and his deputies required them to sign notes promising to pay the fees in installments, or return to jail. On several occasions, the Sheriff charged people thousands of dollars, failing to return the money even when criminal charges were dismissed. A lawsuit filed by the Center, ultimately settled, required the Sheriff to return the illegal fees. For a copy of the Complaint, click here. For a copy of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, click here. For a copy of newspaper articles related to the case, click here. To hear a report by National Public Radio on Clinch County Jails, click here.



The Center ends Debtors' Prison in Gulfport, Mississippi
In an effort to crack down on people who owed misdemeanor fines, the City of Gulfport employed a fine collection task force. The task force trolled through predominately African-American neighborhoods, rounding up people who had outstanding court fines. After arresting and jailing them, the City of Gulfport processed these people through a court proceeding at which no defense attorney was present or even offered. Many people were jailed for months after hearings lasting just seconds. While the City collected money, it also packed the jail with hundreds of people who couldn’t pay, including people who were sick, physically disabled, and/or limited by mental disabilities. SCHR filed suit to stop these illegal practices.  For a copy of the Complaint, click here. For related news coverage, click here.



Other financial distortions
Debtors prisons are but one example of financial incentives that have a distorting effect on the criminal justice system.  Criminal justice policies – how many prison beds to build, whether to arrest someone or cite them, what sentences to impose – should be primarily concerned with making us safer. But the profit motive is increasingly distorting the system.

Many counties throughout the South, for example, are committing scarce dollars to building larger jails in anticipation of securing a lucrative contract with the federal government to house detainees for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the United States Marshals Service or even prisoners from other counties or other states.  As another example, the design of work release programs - something that should be focused on developing skills and reducing recidivism - is often driven primarily by an interest in collecting as much money as possible from the prisoner-workers. The privatization of probation, imprisonment, and other parts of the criminal justice system create incentives for expanding the criminalization of poor people.