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 I don't believe good legal advice is possible from 95% of the courts little bitches.

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)

           My goal is to teach people how the judicial system works. A person will never enjoy fairness, equity and justice unless they have this knowledge. I lived in my vehicle for more than 3 years after my wife divorced me. I was a mason. One cold wet day I woke up and decided that living the rest of my life in prison would be a step up in life. So I quit my job and moved in with my 83 year old mother and enrolled in school to finish my bachelors and go to law school. I figured if the law was going to be the death of my life, I should know something about it. I soon found out that law is not taught in law school. You can google it. It's true. A new law grad could not litigate his way out of a wet paper bag. He is taught cookie cutter law by the firm that hires him and his knowledge is very narrow and limited. Therefore most attorneys are worthless to you. I found that what a person needs to know to litigate is taught in some junior colleges in paralegal courses. So I got my Paralegal Certificate during the period of my litigation. At any rate, to get out from the state garnishing me, I started building brick mailbox posts for cash and began depositing my child support directly into my ex-wife's bank account. This caused a great problem for the state as well as my ex-wife. They threatened me with jail and I told them to go ahead and do it. When a person stops caring, he becomes more powerful. I stopped caring. I had already resigned myself to the fact I would be living the rest of my life in prison, because I was going to refuse to cooperate with the state. But I never spent any time in jail at all and I kept going to school and the more I learned the more I saw my legal salvation. My attorney had quit my case because he did not like what I was doing and did not want to do what I told him I wanted done. It was unconventional and he wanted no part of it. I suppose all who follow my lead will have similar experiences, because an attorney nowadays is nothing except the courts little bitch. They have to work in the courts and they don't want the judge to hate them. Attorneys represent the procedures of the court. They do not represent you. And as for me..... several months later I walked out of family court after the states attorney quit our case with her having custody of our remaining four minor children, and me having no court orders of any kind against me. No child support order, no alimony order and no orders to pay any bills. I had no court orders of any kind or type, and the judge forgave all back judgments and child support to the tune of many, many, many thousands of dollars. I'd call that a win. My former attorney apparently disagrees. Every case is different of course and you have to fight your own war. But I realized that there are hundreds of ways to skin a cat. The Respondent just has to have the knowledge. And the first thing to realize is that your attorney is not your friend and he is not looking out for your best interest. His job is to hold your hand while you go through the process, not to free you from the process by enforcing your civil and constitutional rights.

           People completely neglect to argue jurisdiction in their first hearing. The first order of every administrative court is to argue this point, yet only one in millions ever do. Blame law school. They don't stress this so no attorneys consider it. But the court runs purely by rules. And it is in the rules. People fail to realize the extreme power they actually do have in an administrative court. A Respondent needs to inform the court that it has limited jurisdiction over him. The administrative court runs by assuming the law it is about to inflict upon a Respondent is constitutional. The Respondent needs to inform the court that it is NOT! And he should NEVER call it what they call it. It needs to be called what it is. SLAVERY! Requiring one to work a job so that the fruits of one's forced labor can be taken from him and given it to another citizen to spend without accountability is no different than forcing a person to go out in the field and pick cotton so that the plantation owner can spend his days sitting on the porch sipping lemonade. The court lacks the jurisdiction to force a United States citizen to do that, especially in the absence of a crime or a real cause of action and not a legislated one. Legislatures are forbidden to pass law contrary to the tenets of the constitution. And her merely wanting a no fault divorce from you has in no way incurred damages to her at all. But it has cause massive damage to you! It has increased your expenditures by doubling your rents and utilities and other bills. Not to mention the emotional trauma and damage to the psyche of the children. And the court needs to realize this and compensate the Respondent for it. And the only way that can be done is if the Respondent addresses these issues in the first hearing and files the appropriate paperwork in a timely fashion. And there are 4 or 5 other constitutional issues over which the court has limited jurisdiction that we will talk about later, BUT all of that needs to be addressed in this first hearing.

The court runs by rules. The rules dictate a specific order of actions by all parties. (A, before B. B, before C. C, before D.) If one was to "Object!" to an action of the court that occurred during the execution of rules of "A," while the court was executing the rules of "C," "D" or "F" it would be denied on the basis that it was "Out of order." You hear the "Objection, Out of order, your honor!" in the television courtroom scenes. That is what it means. All things must be done in a certain order by argument and the filing of appropriate paperwork in a timely manner, with emphasis on "Timely," Or it is "Out of Order!" AND DENIED!

           If the first hearing is already over and the Respondent has missed the opportunity, then a notice of estoppel (a motion for estoppel) needs to be filed to bring the court back to square one in order that these issues can legally be considered. In the A, B, C, proceedings of an administrative court of law these constitutional issues of limited jurisdiction are now out of order since they were supposed to addressed in the first hearing. The rules of civil procedure, which every respondent should be extremely familiar with, have a precise order in which activities of the court will be undertaken. Nothing can be out of the order set forth by rule! And strangely these things are not emphasized in any law school so your family law attorney is quite useless if a Respondent desires to do things this way. My attorney quit me because he didn't want to do things this way. I filed the motion myself and it led to me winning. So what was his goal? The conversations I had upon this subject with my attorney didn't go well at all. I forced these issues and he quit me. But like I said, I walked out of family court with no alimony, child support or any court orders or judgments of any kind except the divorce decree, and the state of Utah quit my case. WHO IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES HAS EVER DONE THAT EXCEPT ME? I'm the only one I know of. The Internet and are completely full of victims who are seeking to do what I did and cannot. I give this information away free. I ask for nothing in return. I receive no gain for this information, nor do I want any. My success is my credibility. This website is a collection of all of my thoughts on the subject. You do whatever you want. It's your life. I already fought my battle. If you want to duplicate my success, there are no guarantees. You have a massive amount of reading and study to do. I wish you luck. It is all here if you want the information. But you have to assemble it yourself and do it yourself. I'm just sharing publicly my opinions and knowledge on the subject. THAT IS ALL!

           This knowledge you need is by intentional design taught NOWHERE except paralegal courses in some junior colleges. It is not taught in law school. In the menu to the left there is a place to find the rules applicable to your jurisdiction. In those rules, specifically in the rules covering ethics, there is usually always a rule that relieves an attorney from obeying any court order that is contrary to conscience. Laws and orders that violate the constitutional rights are classified by precedent (Which precedent you have to locate with legal research for your jurisdiction.) to be unconstitutional. However, no one may fail to obey a valid court order in the absence of legal motions (Usually in pursuit of injunctions.) and we will discuss this more later on. The best place to start is at the beginning. All things must have a basis in law and the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution. People MUST UNDERSTAND the two court system and what makes them different from each other as well as their similarities.

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 means that all courts established by the Supreme Court of the federal government are courts of last resort, and are superior to all other courts. They deal with constitutional rights. And then next we have courts established by Congress. Literally speaking, for every act of congress, there is assigned or created "administrative court" to administer the act or laws passed, by our elected officials upon the citizens of the United States. (Think IRS Tax Courts or family courts.) Your constitutional rights in these courts are always assumed. You enforce your constitutional rights by showing the judge precedent thereby demonstrating to him that his ruling will not endure an appeal, and then by actually appealing his decision against you (if needed) to the other court system after having established a court record for appellate purposes in the administrative court. (Think offers of proof.) However the best way and least used is to refuse to grant full jurisdiction in the initial hearing of administrative court when you believe from reading the pleadings that your constitutional rights will be violated. I will discuss more about that later. Federal courts are usually superior to state courts in their respective classes.

There are 2 types of courts.
1: Supreme Courts and Appellate Courts.
2: Administrative Courts.

Supreme Courts and Appellate Courts are established by the Judiciary Branch of our government and use Constitutional Standards to adjudicate all issues.

Administrative Courts are established by legislative bodies of our government. This includes federal and state legislative bodies as well as county commissions, city counsels and Departments of State. (Think IRS, ORS, ADA and thousands of other government agencies.) Administrative Courts exist to inflict and enforce the law upon all people. The constitutional rights of all involved parties are assumed and taken for granted that they are not "BEING" violated as Respondents are virtually "Run over roughshod" by agencies of the state and federal governments. That is UNLESS they took advantage of that first hearing to restrict the court to limited jurisdiction. If this was not done, then by rule the Respondent agrees to every jot and tittle of the statute. He agrees to become subject to the entire law. And this is a contract with the court that if broken can land a Respondent in prison.

           The state court system is modeled after the Federal Court system. A state's supreme court and all its established courts are superior to all other state courts. All those other state courts are administrative courts and are established by the state legislature or have their power delegated or permitted by the same. Think County and city traffic and ordinance courts and courts of every government agency. The state supreme court and its established courts use federal and state constitutional standards to adjudicate issues. All the other courts use Federal Acts, State statutes and agency rules to administrate (inflict) them upon the citizens and constitutional rights are assumed not to be violated. Constitutional rights are not at issue and are out of order unless addressed at the first hearing in the first issue.

           Now people need to be aware of a few things when summoned into an administrative court. The first thing can be demonstrated by what Mr. Miyagi said to Danielson in the first Karate Kid movie. "Danielson! Karate Yes! Karate No! Karate middle of road, get run over by car!" Now when a person is summoned into a family court for a divorce proceeding, the first hearing is always to establish jurisdiction. "Administrative Law Yes! Administrative Law No! Administrative Law middle of road? GET RUN OVER BY CAR!!!" What is YOUR GOAL? If your goal is to obey the husband and wife code, (Think consumption of all your time and be homeless with no say in any family matter.) then Administrative Court is the court for you!!! Think very carefully about what is about to happen to you! Because when your time is taken from you by work, you not only lose the ability to contribute to your children time wise, but you automatically lose the ability to monetarily contribute to the family and children. Remember, you are now required, because you did not object on day one, to go out into the cotton field and labor so that the fruit of your labor can now be simply "GIVEN" to another citizen to spend without accountability. Back in the day, that person usually sat on the porch of the big white house and sipped lemonade, while the cotton pickers slept in the chicken coops or in the barn. Now, it is only right that a man support his children. But who issued a court order commanding the judge to support his children? Who issued a court order commanding the State's attorney to support his children? And who issued a court order commanding the happily married unemployed bum with children, all on the welfare dole to get a job and support his children? If you answered nobody to all three questions, then you are a pretty smart cookie. Why then should it happen to you? The reason is because your wife denounced you to the state. And that is the ONLY REASON! If your wife refused to work with the state, they could do nothing to you. We will talk more about this later when I explain how to "conflict" the states attorney out of your litigation using the rules of ethics, and how to throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into the contract your wife has with the state. You have a right to see what she has signed with them and it needs to be disclosed to you in interrogatories because the state has an obligation and a duty to treat you as they treat her. You have a constitutional right to be treated uniformly across classes.

           If the constitution states that all citizens are to be treated uniformly across classes, then why do you need a court order commanding you to support your children and the unemployed bum down the road and all the other people in the courtroom do not need one to support theirs? If the constitution states that we have a right to be free from involuntary servitude, is not being dictated the amounts and methods used to support our own children and then ordering us to work so that we can be garnished the same as taking our choice and judgment from our hands and transferring it to the state? And is that not involuntary? So when one appears before an administrative judge for the initial hearing, why then would he agree to "Administrative Law Yes!" That is insane! Rather stand before the court and inform the judge that he has only a limited jurisdiction over you. That you have a constitutional right to be free from involuntary servitude and a right to be treated uniformly across classes. And that from reading the pleadings it appears that the court is planning to force you to go out into the field to pick cotton so that the fruit of your labor can be given to another citizen to spend without accountability. In order to be successful, one might look like a prick and a horrible father, but seriously, it is nobodies business how you choose to support your own children. And why are you being scrutinized? Nobody is scrutinizing those other people in the courtroom. And if the state counters that your wife and children are on state assistance, inform the court that you paid that bill when you signed your tax return and that you are not responsible for the reimbursement of arbitrary gifts distributed by the government. Remind the court that there is no constitutional basis for the government's welfare program. Also remind the court that the constitution gives you the right to be reimbursed dollar for dollar for all property, (by legal definition money is property) taken by the government for a public purpose and welfare distributions are for a public purpose. If this is not kicked in the ass on day one at the first hearing, the government camel will come into your tent and you may never be able to get him out! Every Arab knows you never let a camel stick his nose in your tent, because the camel will always come in and you can't get the camel out unless you dismantle the tent around it and physically move it. And that is the same with the administrative court process.

           Now if a Respondent were to object to jurisdiction in part or in full, he will likely be overruled. This is where an "Offer Of Proof" comes into play. An appellate court will only examine the court record, and so the Respondent will have to make sure that both the objection as well as the valid point of law it is based upon is inserted by by legal force if need be upon the court record. If it is not, then there is nothing to appeal. It needs to be absolutely clear that interlocutory appeals are completely worthless and a complete waste of time and money. But the day the state intervenes in the divorce proceedings, the Respondent has a right based upon both the constitution as well as the Rules of Ethics of the court to change venue. If you like living in a car, being poor and having no say in raising your children then do not take advantage of this right. Your family law attorney will be against it 100% because what is good for you is a financially bad move for him. He wants you to stay in the family court system and so they invented interlocutory appeals to keep you trapped there and still maintain the appearance that they are batting for you. An interlocutory appeal consists of group of five to nine administrative judges sitting around a table eating doughnuts, drinking hot chocolate and laughing at you while they deny your appeal. And it is worse than that! The court system is corrupt. They certify each attorney to appear before specific courts. This means that an interlocutory appeal is the only appeal your attorney can get you without losing your business by turning you over to an attorney who is certified to argue before one of those appellate circuit courts. Administrative courts do this on purpose to keep control over the people they are fleecing. That pesky constitution can really get in the way of screwing people over for their money. It disrupts the income stream of the state and they hate that!

           But like I stated above, a Respondent may be able to avoid the appeal altogether. By rule, when the state sues one of it's citizens, that citizen has a right to have the case adjudicated before a federal court and that is the court you wanted to appeal to in the first place. Can you imagine a state suing one of it's citizens in its own court run by its own rules? It is a violation of ethics rules, but if the Respondent does not object, then he consents and that is the way it is with EVERYTHING IN A COURT OF LAW!!! If the Respondent does not object, then by rule he agrees!!! In this case, when a Respondent is served with a motion to intervene by the state, he simply appears in the first hearing and objects to jurisdiction citing ethics rules and constitutional case law and makes a motion for a change of venue. When the court dismisses the motion or overrules it, the Respondent then makes an Offer Of Proof for appellate purposes and follows through with the appeal. You may have to hire a new attorney specifically to handle the appeal.

           Now, most Respondents reading this are already well underway in the court process and have standing court orders. They have largely missed key time points wherein objections and motions were allowed. In these cases, the rule of estoppel can be used to take the litigation back to the beginning so that the Respondent can take advantage of objecting to jurisdiction and restructuring the divorce stipulation to relieve himself of all court orders. I myself was living in my vehicle for three years. This is the point I re-entered the fray. Complete jurisdiction was already established. Court orders were already in place. But in the rules of ethics in every state, an attorney usually has the right to refuse to honor an order of the court if it is "unconscionable" while, of course, he is in the process trying to remedy the situation. Look it up. This is one reason a Respondent will benefit by being pro se. (Self Representing) If a person is pro se, he then can act as his own attorney and therefore take full advantage or refusing to obey an unconscionable court order. But if you do this be prepared to spend some time in jail. Not all courts are the same. Not all judges are the same. Not all rules are the same. The Respondent has to do his homework and weigh the risks. In my case I argued that what was being done to me was in fact unconstitutional and therefore unconscionable and that I was previously unaware of it. I issued a notice of estoppel to all parties in my case, letting them know that I was ignorant before the fact, but that I had come into knowledge of rights to which I was previously unaware. I combined this notice with the four things written into the Federal Child Support Collection Act that will keep a Respondent out of jail and I did all of them I was able.

The Four Things That Will Keep A Respondent Out Of Jail
(According to the Federal Child Support Collection Act. "FCSCA")

           1:      Consistent payments! According to the FCSCA you cannot be incarcerated for failure to pay support if you have previously been making consistent payments, and dollar amounts DO NOT MATTER. And it is preferable that the Respondent make all his payments from this day forward by depositing them directly into his ex's bank account in order to cut the state out of the loop. Citizens have a constitutional right to NOT be forced to form third party contractual obligations. Now is a good time to start enforcing that. Amounts do not matter according to the law. Only regular and consistent payments. If the Respondent wants to go to jail, he can pay something unreasonable like fifty cents a week. It must be reasonable and proportional to disposable income. I paid 20% of my net income. In my opinion, I would believe 10% also reasonable. I could believe 5% also, but what is a Respondent willing to risk before invoking the wrath of the court. I know that many Respondents are currently being garnished to the hilt and I am going to tell you that you need to pay more. At least until you get a change of venue which is our next goal. Every other day or every third day deposit some odd amount into her checking account with a check that you wrote "For child support only" on the back of it.

2:      Retraining for a new career. If you are currently in school to become a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker or a paralegal, for example, the FCSCA states that you cannot be incarcerated for failure to support. Consider going back to school to retrain for a new career.

3:      Being indigent. You have a right to NOT BE incarcerated for failure to pay child support if you are currently indigent.

4:      Copies of five job applications given to the court every two weeks will save you from incarceration according to the FCSCA.

           Now the last thing I want to cover on this page is that while we do have this thing called "No Fault Divorce" going on, which means that either party is entitled to a divorce just for asking and that it is not anybodys fault, that this is a different subject altogether from the damages that divorce does cause. Marriage is for all intents and purposes contract law. And non-custodial parents need to start treating it as such. Marriage is a contract. And one relied upon that contract to his detriment. And this is how the story goes. All throughout history, one of the most significant and expensive investments a person can make is in his family. Both a man and a woman bring what they have to offer to the table of matrimony. Historically a man will bring his resources or his ability to create resources and a woman will bring her ability to manage resources and produce an offspring that needed to be depended upon to care for parents in old age. In this way wealth could be created and maintained through this teamwork of family members. And one relies upon these contractual obligations and duties to his detriment when a spouse bails and files for divorce. Why? Well for one, the divorcing spouse has defaulted upon the contract. The divorcing spouse has doubled expenses while income has not doubled. This is damage and needs to be addressed. While it may well be necessary to pay child support, this creates a damage one would have otherwise not have suffered had his spouse fulfilled her duties and obligations of the marriage contract to which one relied upon to his detriment; and he needs to be made whole. This may mean that after all the child support obligations have been paid in full, a reverse payment for damages may now be in order and when the divorcing spouse finds that the hundreds of thousands of dollars of support money will have to be repaid as well as damages, she may think twice about what she is doing. I mean, I lived in my vehicles for at least 3 or more years, bathing in whatever water could be found, using the bathroom like an animal and working full time, when I could have been enjoying the fruit of my labor called "The family home with a kitchen, running hot water and a warm bed." This is damage because I relied upon her to my detriment. It needs to be addressed. I didn't sign up for that at the altar. He who files for divorce and gets what they filed for is now in default of that contract.

           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 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. Attorneys are useless little bitches of the courts they serve. They do not serve the interests of clients anymore unless you are rich. OJ Simpson rich gets away with murder. OJ Simpson poor goes to prison for many years for stealing back his own stuff. In both instances he had attorneys representing him. Attorneys are not the key to successful litigation. In fact your attorney is often the cause of your loss in litigation. But if you are of lesser intelligence, you can be the cause of your own losses as well.

           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 should be to completely turn the tables NOT level the playing field! And most anyone should be able to do that with some reading and a spread sheet.

           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! Unfortunately this is the only page on this site at this time, but more is coming soon.

If you like the cause or you want to help, you can reach me at:

Disposable Male