The Disposable Male Disposable Male
Devin R. Olsen - Pure CSS Vertical Menu Demo


I am NOT an attorney.
I have a paralegal certificate
This site is my first amendment public statement.
It is my legal duty to spew the last line which is incredibly deceptive.
Because successful legal advice is not possible from 95% of the courts little organ grinding monkeys.

If you need legal advice go consult an attorney.

Be not afraid of any divorce attorney
No matter what his size
When divorce comes call on Civil Rights
They will equalize

(Modified Smith and Wesson Poem)

           I walked out of family court with her having custody of our 4 minor children and me with NO child support order, NO alimony order, and no court orders at all except the divorce decree. The State of Utah quit our case and the frustrated assistant attorney general walked out in the middle of a hearing. All back support and all orders to pay family debt were dismissed. I have never seen the inside of a jail cell and never been handcuffed. I want to tell the world how I did it and I don't want anything in return. The way I want to tell the world is by explaining the process of how they get fathers to make all kinds of financial and other family agreements that fathers have ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL OR MORAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE, and then use a court of law to enforce those obligations, EVEN USING JAIL FOR BREAKING THOSE AGREEMENTS. I hope you get all kinds of funny ideas yourself. My goal is to destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton's Federal Child Support Collection Act.

           Knowledge is power. A person will never enjoy fairness, equity and justice unless they have knowledge. Before you can do what I did, you have to know how our court system functions. Then you will realize why nearly all lawyers are ineffective at helping you do what I did and that nobody on youtube knows a boatload of crap about Bill and Hillary Clinton's Child Support scam which basically gives federal money to the states proportionally according to how much child support each state collects. They do not care if you are the father or not. If you are supporting someone else's progeny at some point anyway, your state wants those matching dollars.

           The first thing that usually happens after receiving a complaint and summons for divorce is an invitation to attend what seems to be an innocuous conference. What fathers do not realize is that new contract law is about to be subtly introduced into the fray of your unraveling marriage. You see, marriage is a contract by law, and what divorce actually is, is the act of breaking that contract while attempting to keep some of the benefits. It is unfortunate that more men do not engage in using this conference to define the terms of what the marriage contract actually consisted of before engaging in the act of breaking it. If more men did this they would find that they are legally suffering some valid causes of action that could be addressed in the upcoming litigation. But I don't know of any men who have actually done this and I know for a fact that law firms who claim to help men NEVER ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. But the issue cannot be denied, because it is used as a basis to continue the benefits of that same contract to the women, while denying many of those same benefits to the men. But I will address this subject later. The point I wanted to make here is that a father is not legally or morally obligated to enter any contractual agreement to support either his divorcing wife or his children. All a man has to say in this conference is "I will support my children. However I will not be forced into any commitments dictating what that constitutes by reason that to do so would be to force me out into the cotton field to pick cotton, so that the fruit of my labor can be given to another citizen to spend without accountability. And such is an acceptable definition to slavery, to the Circuit Court of Appeals and is in violation of the 8th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America; there being no set limits and no set determination of damages I have done to this other citizen and no valid cause of action she has against me to justify such a claim, yet her actions to divorce me have damaged me to such an extent she should be reimbursing me for her default to my detriment, as she has doubled all expenses of living while not doubling the income and is now in the very act of increasing expenditures not otherwise necessary and in violation of our marriage contract."

Article III Section I of the United States Constitution states:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

           This is pretty simple if you think about it. There are FOUR court systems in the United States and they exist for TWO completely different reasons. The fifth court system listed below is an extension of the state legislatures. They are allowed to operate by consent of the legislature.

The 1st and Most Powerful Court System

           The first court system is called the Supreme Court system and consists entirely of the judicial branch of our federal government. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and has the final say on every issue. Marbury v. Madison was an 1803 Supreme Court decision that announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. In doing so, the court rendered Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 invalid. This doctrine has endured 215 years and is still enforced to this day. The Supreme Court of the United States established and maintains a system of Courts separated into 10 districts. (not including the U.S. Territories.) They are used for appellate purposes to alleviate the case load of the Supreme Court. Each state is assigned to a District. Utah is in the 10th District. You can see a map of these districts in the menu to the left labeled "What Is Your Appellate Jurisdiction?" All of these courts have one thing in common. They each compare the laws passed by both federal and state governments to the Federal Constitution and then rule if the law complies with the constitutional standard. If it does then the law stands. If it does not then the court will strike the law down and that law becomes unenforcible and of no effect. The Federal Child Support Collection Act violates at least 4 constitutional rights and it is my intention to help somebody take it there eventually. However long it takes.

The Federal House of Congress creates and maintains the 2nd Most Powerful Court System as federal courts trump state courts

           Usually, for every administration of federal government and/or for every act passed by Congress, there is a corresponding court created to administer the passed laws upon the citizens. Tax court, workers compensation courts, probate courts, juvenile courts, military courts of every kind, federal criminal courts, on and on, an almost never ending list of courts created by the Federal Congress of the United States of America. All these courts have a couple of things in common. They all assume, that the laws being administered upon you are already constitutional and violate non of your rights AND they need you to agree to the subject matter jurisdiction as it is applied to you and over you. This agreement is usually addressed by the rules of judicial administration (or whatever they call them in that jurisdiction) in the first hearing. If no objection is made in that first hearing, the target party, Respondent or Defendant, by rule agrees to be subject to the administration of the law as it is written upon him. After the first hearing, any objection to this is deemed "out of order," and it is, because it was supposed to be addressed in that first hearing. So all objections to this point are now legally ignored. And this legal ignorance will be sustained by higher courts. If one realizes too late that his rights are being violated, nearly his only chance to recover his rights will be through estoppal or by throwing a monkey wrench into the process. And the odds of getting an attorney to throw away his career for you to do this is about zero. But you can do it. You are not an attorney. My attorney quit me as a client and mailed me my case file. And I won.

The 3rd Most Powerful Court System

           The 3rd most powerful court system is the Supreme Court within each state and these courts are modeled after the Federal Supreme court system and use both the State Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution to check constitutionality against law passed by state legislatures.

The 4th Most Powerful Court System

           Next comes the administrative courts created by the state legislatures. Again, these are tax courts, probate courts, juvenile courts, family courts on and on for almost ever. Every administration of government, every department of state has a court system to administrate the law passed by the legislature upon the citizens of the state. Again, all these courts ASSUME that the law being administered upon the citizen is perfectly constitutional AND that the law violates absolutely NONE of the target's civil rights. But we as citizens know this is a boatload of crap. As with the other federal administrative courts, the rules state that if there is no objections to jurisdiction over the subject matter as it is applied to the citizen, then the citizen is by rule ASSUMED to have agreed to the law as it is. You cannot appeal it IF YOU AGREED TO IT! Once that first hearing is adjourned the matter is settled and any objection to it after that point is "out of order," since it was supposed to be addressed in that first hearing. And as before, the rule of estoppal is just about your only hope other than some devious monkey wrench plot. Thank God for Monkey Wrenches!

The lowest of the low courts

           Legislatures allow cities and counties to operate courts to enforce "Ordinances." They call them ordinances because constitutionally speaking, laws can only be created by legislatures. So they gave them a different name. Break one and see if you don't see the inside of a courtroom. I have a lot to say about this subject, but it is a tangent and does not apply to child support so I will leave it at that, except to say that there are a few good ways to legally screw over cities, counties and HOAs who become intrusive, overstepping constitutional boundaries. But how much of your life do you want to waste?

           So you can now see that there is bound to be a power struggle between the legislative and judiciary branches of government. The legislative authors the laws and seeks to enforce them through administrative courts while the pesky judiciary of the Supreme Court keeps assaulting legislation, striking this and that, making entire chunks of statute useless, because it doesn't hold up to constitutional scrutiny. So the legislative branch became devious and began to pass laws that frustrate the process of justice and minimize the effect of the Supreme Court upon their precious legislation. And now you will see why things are so screwed up and attorneys are so worthless.

           One of the first things the legislative branch did was to create the Bar Associations. Of course the Judiciary jumped at that because it gave them some power over people who worked in the courts for a living. We call many of those judges attorneys and lawyers. Step one in the corruption process complete! After all, one thing a judge hates is some idiot who has never read a rule to be representing somebody else. The next thing the legislative did to corrupt the judiciary is to require all attorneys to become certified to work in the courts in which they appear. This process is much like a contractors license. An attorney has to take a complicated and long test and pass it before he is qualified to appear before each court. And that license expires so he has to keep renewing it in most places.

           What does this mean for you? Well it usually means your stuck in the family court and your case is not going anywhere else. And your attorney is certainly not going to tell you this because he would have to give you up as a client and turn you over to somebody else, with a different certification, if he actually wanted to protect your rights. He wants your income stream. Believe it or not, most attorneys don't make a lot of money. A lot of truck drivers make the same as most attorneys. Most attorneys are struggling financially and are not about to give up clients. Many are simply unemployed. There are a massive number of law grads who cannot even find work and lack the skill to litigate against the very college that produced them. Google it. It's true. Others work as paralegals. Others work at some other related occupation. But not many are willing to do what it takes to get more than one certification for the court they work in. Have you ever heard of "Malpractice Insurance?" Well it gets higher if ones practice is spread out across various courts. Both the legislature as well as the judiciary want attorneys to be specialized and focused upon small areas of law. Why? So they can have the prestige of doctors? No. It is to prevent the bulk of attorneys from crossing the judiciary from administrative courts to those created by the Supreme Court. And it works.

Thus the disposable male rule of thumb. The test to determine if you have a good attorney: If you can afford him... He is worthless.

           Remember OJ Simpson? OJ Simpson Rich, he gets away with murder. OJ Simpson poor? He goes to prison for many years for stealing back his own stuff.

           And now is a good time to talk about appeals, because appeals are a constitutional right that has been corrupted simply by not educating the public about them. Let's say a father is in family court and has just realized that he has become a slave. He has been ordered by the judge to go out into the world (cotton field) and get a job, (pick cotton) so that the fruit of his labor, (his money) can be given to another citizen to spend without accountability. (Usually the guy sitting on the porch sipping lemonade, but in this case, his ex-wife.) HE WANTS AN APPEAL!!! (Remember that in an administrative court, your constitutional rights are assumed by rule to NOT BE VIOLATED!!! Read your rules of judicial administration!) So all administrative courts have this thing called interlocutory appeals. This is literally where a group of administrative judges get together and review the court record to determine if all statutes and rules have been followed to the letter. And if they have..... YOU LOSE. The law was correctly applied. BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT THE FATHER WANTED EXAMINED. HE WANTED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY TO BE THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL. Well, that would take filing in a different court. And that is not going to happen, since his attorney is addicted to a cash flow from his client's wallet and he is not qualified to appear before a real appellate court of that kind because not only is it a different court, it is a different court system altogether and he is not certified to appear in that court. This effectively keeps a Respondent subject to a court violating his constitutional rights. And this is a point I have never seen addressed on Youtube.

           But it is interesting how an administrative criminal court functions more like a court created by the Supreme Court. Why? Well because the stakes are higher and the state wants to make sure their convictions stick and the perpetrator goes to prison or jail for as long as possible. But not so in the other administrative courts. The other administrative courts are designed to contain the litigation to the point that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that it will ever see a court created by the Supreme Court. And this was all made possible by our elected officials. It may be a good time now to note the double standard here. There are two sets of rules of civil procedure. One for you, and one for criminals called the Criminal Rules of Procedure. The rules for you are to trap you within the administrative court. The rules for the criminal are designed so that orders of the administrative court hold up in the Appellate Court established by the Supreme Court. You know.... The other court system. The more powerful one. As for you.... Well they are not too worried that you are going anywhere. They made the rules to fence the sheep in. So if you catch yourself living in your car, or making a "Baaa Baaa" sound every time the state opens your wallet..... we all know..... what that makes you..... (Just sayin) So its time to get mad! Get up! And do something about it. Hey, I already won my freedom. It's time for you to win yours. This information is free. Eat it up. Part of being a man is taking the enemy on and putting him down hard so that he doesn't get back up. Another thing about the two sets of rules, is that their differences reveal those things that won't fly in the other court system. It's good to know what those things are. They are weaknesses of the administrative court. Good subjects upon which to motion "Offers Of Proof" for the record in case of appeal.

           Now, the rules of ethics are a set of rules everyone should be extremely familiar with. The Federal Child Support Collection Act would be damn near impossible to enforce in a court established by the Supreme Court simply because those courts compare the constitution to the law passed by federal and state legislatures. Clearly it won't fly. The rules of ethics everywhere basically state that when a state sues one of its citizens, (such as they do in family court) the citizen automatically has a right to a change of venue to a federal court. The state will then drop its case and the father will be free. The state, once it drops the case, according to the rules of civil procedure may never again enter the litigation for the same reasons. The father is free once again. And again, your worthless attorney is not about to give the income he receives from you away so that you can get justice. Your attorney is not your friend. The rules of civil procedure state that when a party files suit against another party, that the party who files cannot just quit without the consent of the Respondent/Defendant. Once aggression has begun, the defender can force the state to carry through to the bitter end. It is my hope that some father out there will force the state to remain engaged up to the Supreme Court so that the Clinton's Federal Child Support Collection Act will eventually be stuck down as the unconstitutional law that it is.

           But all of these things have to be done by filing the appropriate paperwork in a timely manner. That is why I have the Jurisdictionary Course up there in the menu. If you don't want to go to school for the 9 months to 2 years to get your paralegal certificate, if you just want the course material so you can study, it would definitely be faster and cheaper to buy the Jurisdictionary material. I bought it while I was in the process of getting my paralegal certificate and I found it to be indispensable. To be successful one has to know how to file, when to file and what to file. Jurisdictionary will teach you how to execute your plan in a manner acceptable to the court.

           Let me tell you what my plan was and what I did to walk out of court with divorced and with no court orders of any type or kind except the divorce decree which listed no obligations on my part. I tried to do as many things as I could all at the same time. The opposing counsel motioned the court to find me a "vexatious litigator." So, you can see, I floundered around at first. But all you need is one valid legal point to win. And so So I found that it is better, easier and less confusing to just throw one rock at a time rather than to try and throw all your rocks at once. It is better to just focus on only one point of law and use that one point to kill the litigation dead in it's tracks.

           What I actually did, the one thing that killed my case, was to take the welfare contract the petitioner had with the state of Utah and come up with a plan to get the petitioner to break her side of the contract. Then what the state would do was a sure thing, because the actions of the state are dictated by law. Let me explain how it works in Utah in my instance. This will not apply to everybody, because not everybodys ex-wife and children are on welfare. But unfortunately mine were. And don't worry, there are plenty of monkey wenches to go around if this doesn't pertain to your situation. This is just what happened to me and how I dealt with it.

           So in the state of Utah, when a woman decides to divorce her husband and she has him kicked out or she leaves, sometimes she will go apply for welfare. When a person applies for welfare they must sign a legal and binding contract with the state. You can get a copy of this contract through interrogatories simply by asking for it. Or if you don't want to waste one of your questions you can simply go apply for welfare yourself and see the contract they have you sign. The jist of the contract is revealed in the states ex parte motion to intervene. Simply read it. In exchange for food or financial assistance, you must give the state the right to collect any child support owed you. This includes any amounts paid directly to you. The state has a right to collect that also. The reason is because the federal government through the Clinton's child support act will pay each state, dollar for dollar for each dollar they collect in child support. Therefore if a man pays his ex-wife directly, the state wants to collect that also to maximize the amount the federal government will cut a check for each year. If a custodial parent is paid directly, she must surrender that money to the states department of child support who will then take their cut and mail the remainder back to the mother.

           The state then uses this contract as legal standing to intervene in divorce cases as they now have a financial stake in marriage events. It is in the states interest to get a court order having child support set as high as humanly possible. Unfortunately in the contract it states that if the ex-wife fails, or repeatedly fails to report to the state all money given to her for child support, the state will drop her as a client. So I came up with an idea of self defense. An idea to help the ex, default on her contract to the state of Utah. If she defaulted the state would drop her as a client. If the state dropped her as a client then the state would have no legal standing to intervene in my divorce litigation. Then I could validly file a motion to have the state removed as a party to my divorce litigation. And the Rules of Civil Procedure for the state of Utah say that if a party bows out of a civil litigation, they can never again, for the same reason enter back in. The state bows out because they voluntarily drop the mother as a client who fails to turn over child support paid directly to her. And when the state drops that client, they also lose their standing in the litigation and all court orders they got from the court become invalid. So to sum it up, if I could get my ex to default on her contract, causing the state (who operates by rules) to drop her as a client, I could motion for the removal of the state as a party to my divorce litigation and they could never refile because the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure forbid it. This places a tremendous burden upon the petitioner's counsel because he would then have to work pro bono (He works free for someone who can't possibly pay him) and it falls into his lap to redo everything the state did in order to force the father to pay child support again. And that will not be working out for him the 2nd time around. I had developed a list of monkey wrenches by then.

           So that is what I planned to do. I planned to get one dog off my back before fighting the other. Now here is how I planned to do it. I began to work for cash so I could not be garnished. I didn’t have to do that though. I could have done it while being garnished at my job, but working for cash made it easier to pay child support in a way that was impossible for the state to stop. If you are not working for cash, then you have to pay on top of the garnishment and that is a lot harder to do if you have other bills and groceries. Anyway, without telling anyone, in complete secrecy and hoping that the ex-wife would never balance her check book or even look at it that closely for 40 days, I made irregular cash deposits into her bank account. One hundred and three dollars one day and $152 three days later and then $251 dollars a week later and then $127 dollars 2 days later and $169 five days later. The deal is differing amounts and unpredictable but frequent deposits to make them work to find them. And then I notified the state after the third deposit was 40 days old and gave the state the first three receipts. I waited 40 days to say anything to anybody because as you remember, she had a contract with the state as all custodial parents using state services do, that gave her 30 days to turn over any money I gave her. This was top secret and I hoped she would never notice them all and she did not. The state continued to ask me for receipts after that but I told them no. I told them to go ask their client and reminded them that I was not their client and that it was illegal to force me to be one. (Yet another constitutional point) And I refused to show them more than those first 3 deposit slips but I let them know I was paying my support directly to her from now on, bypassing them. Of course the state motioned the court that what I deposited into her account not be counted as child support, but on the back of every deposited check I wrote, "For Child Support Only." Legally, there are things one can write on the back of a check that are legal and binding contracts. The purpose of the money is one of them. So the court could not legally rule that it was not child support. I informed the court that the petitioner was holding back and not reporting all my deposits. The state subpoenaed her bank records. They found this was true. The state dropped her as a client. She had to refile for welfare. As soon as the state dropped her as a client I never even had time to motion the court to drop the state as a party. They quit. The court immediately dropped all court orders the state had obtained. The state was now gone out of my life forever. All court orders concerning child support, alimony and bills were dismissed. The burden I placed upon petitioner's counsel was a great motivator. He wanted out of the litigation. I gave him an out by offering to settle. I offered to pay support on my terms. I offered to pay a certain percentage of my net income in child support. I told my ex in no uncertain terms that I was the father of my children and that I would have a say in everything concerning them and if she did not like that, then she could support them herself or give them to me. Her attorney urged her to accept the offer. And she did. I walked out of court a free man. And I fulfilled my end of the agreement. No court orders obligating me to do anything existed. Her attorney mentioned that we ought to have the court put it's stamp of approval on my offer. I told him if he so much as filed one more paper with that court the deal was off. He agreed and I walked out a free man.

           That said, I have always paid support. I have always paid 20% of my net income as support which is a better deal than the court ever gave her. But my money is not raped from me and I get to have a say in raising my kids if she wants money. Did they go to church? Are they doing well in school. If not, “What the hell am I paying you for if you are not parenting?” and make the appropriate deductions without legal consequence. I have committed no crime. Why should I be forced to go pick cotton so that the fruit of my labor can be taken by force from me and given to another citizen to spend without accountability? That is the definition of slavery.

           I had a couple of other irons in the fire at this point. I was using the Utah Rules of Ethics (URE)to conflict the Assistant Attorney General out of my litigation. Simply stated, the URE state that it is unethical for any attorney to represent two clients who have conflicting interests. Under the compulsion of the Utah State Constitution, the Attorney General's office represents the Department of Health. (DOH) They also represent the Office of Recovery Services, (ORS) the department responsible for collecting child support for the state of Utah. My ex-wife was a client of the ORS and was in court letting the Assistant Attorney General pursue me to collect child support. So I went to the DOH and applied for financial assistance to pay some hospital bills. By doing so I became a client of a client of the Attorney General's office. So it stood that one of his clients, the DOH became engaged in helping me pay hospital bills. However the Attorney General's other client, the ORS was engaged in the attempt to take money from me. In other words, one of his clients was trying to give me money and the other was trying to take money from me. So I was in the process of filing a grievance with the Utah State Bar Association against this Assistant Attorney General, for this violation of the rules of ethics. And I was very open about it. I filed notices to everyone involved in the litigation. It was at this time the Assistant Attorney General quit my case in the middle of a hearing and walked out. But it was never mentioned as a reason. However to be successful, one needs to read and be familiar with all the rules, statutes, acts and case law pertaining to child support for your jurisdiction. You cannot do things such as this if you don't and my attorney quit me an mailed me my case file when I told him what I wanted done. You can't get your attorney to do things like this. He won't do it. It would ruin his standing both with the court and the bar. He will quit you too.

           Anyway there are five things that according to Bill and Hillary’s Federal Child Support Collection Act will keep a father out of jail. Consistent support. The law fails to mention any amounts or percentages. Twenty dollars a week deposited in her bank account by check with "For Child Support Only" written on the back would likely be enough. School is another. Retraining for a new career is another. Being indigent is another. Five job applications every two weeks are another. Read Bill and Hillary Clinton's Federal Child Support Collection Act. Get devious, make a plan and execute it.

           But if I had it to do over again, having divorce thrust upon me, by the one who is supposed to love me, knowing what I know today, I would have used the first hearing to argue limited jurisdiction and that way the court could never have financially raped me like they did in the first place, forcing me to live in my car for so many years. “Your Honor, this court has limited jurisdiction over me because it lacks the authority to violate my constitutional rights.” Limited jurisdiction by rule can only be argued in that first hearing, like as mentioned above. So if no objection is made in that first hearing then the court assumes the father to agree in full to have the law administered upon him. By rule, the court assumes the father gives his consent to be garnished and put in jail. You will find that gem usually in the rules of judicial administration of most jurisdictions. Everyone needs to read and understand these things.

           Some handy things to know for immediate relief. Estoppel, brings the litigation back to a place where an objection would not be out of order. So a notice of estoppel, then objection, then modify the divorce decree/support decree. Also one of the first handy things to do is to motion the court to serve by email. This reduces the cost of service from a hundred dollars a whack to nothing. All parties to a suit will usually love it when asked, because it reduces their cost to serve also. Hey! But you ain’t running from nothing. Your here to fight. So who cares? But if ones opponent refuses to be served by email, then why would he agree to be served by email. If they are not going to help you reduce your cost of service why should you agree to let them serve you at no cost! It only works if it is unanimous.

           Finally, family court violates a host of constitutional rights. I cover most of them in my “Notice of Estoppel” example linked in the menu on the left. I am not going to go into any others here on this page. This page is already too long. So I am currently re-writing this entire website. This is all I have for now. Just open a spreadsheet and start documenting all the procedures, important rules and law as you read them, so that you can easily find them again. The rules and law below will tell a person all he needs to know and do. Nobody really needs a website like this if they will read, document and understand all the rules. Mommy using government to put the screws to daddy is horrible for children, family and the future healing of relationships? All things in family law are structured against the father. But we will chuck the proverbial monkey wrench into mommy's dream of financially enslaving daddy.

           The Goal:

           The Method:
By using information, in the public domain, valid to the jurisdiction, I can prevent courts from violating my civil/constitutional rights. This information consists of:

A) The Constitution
B) The Rules of Civil Procedure
C) The Rules of Judicial Administration
D) The Rules of Ethics
E) The Rules of Evidence
F) State Statutes and Federal Law
G) Case Law and Precedent (Common Law)

           The above items are my BIG GUN weapons which I must diligently read and search so that I can:
1) Recognize Rules I can USE
2) To Form a Strategy of Defense (Rebuttals)
3) That I can then Organize into a Flow of Defense acceptable by rule to the court
4) And Construct my Defense upon paperwork in a form acceptable by rule to the court

           While at the same time searching my BIG GUN weapons as contained in A-G above so that I can:
a) Recognize Rules I can USE as the basis for OBJECTIONS
b) To force the court to IGNORE or STRIKE evidence damaging to me AND
c) Force the court to PAY ATTENTION or ADMIT evidence supporting me (My Case In Chief) OVER the objections of my opponent

           In a nutshell, the above outline is the focus of my goal for the contents of this website, to prepare a non-custodial parent to successfully litigate. When a woman finds she cannot weld the hammer of the state against her husband, he will get the only respect possible from her. She will have to respect his views and wishes as the father of his children and his desires on how he wants the children to be raised, that is, if she wants his money. They don't teach half this stuff in law school. But they do teach it to paralegals. And I would love to teach these things to EVERYONE! FREE!

If you like the cause or you want to offer something to help the cause, you can reach me at: We can talk about it.

Disposable Male