The Disposable Male

           If you can make it so expensive for the state you live in, to collect child support from you, that they lose money doing it, they will quit your case and ALL COURT ORDERS,.... EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM (Obtained by the state) WILL BE DISMISSED! AND THE STATE WILL BOW OUT OF YOUR DIVORCE LITIGATION!!!

           And the rules state that once a party backs out of a case, that they may NEVER BRING IT AGAIN, concerning the same issue. YOU ARE FREE FOREVER!!! (Unless you remarry, have more children, and get divorced again, then the state can do it to you again. So all you will be left with after the state bows out is whatever stipulation for visitation and custody you had with your ex. But NO SUPPORT ORDERS!!! NO ORDERS FOR INSURANCE, NO ORDERS CONCERNING YOUR MONEY AT ALL!!!

           And if the exspouse presses forward to try and get support, one can pull out his constitutional rights arguments in the family court. They will be ruled against, and one will file a notice of appeal. That appeal will likely be an interlocutory appeal from several family court judges who will then rule against it. This will make it a constitutional issue. So then one will file an appeal in a federal circuit court. The federal court does not administer family law. The federal court administers "constitutional law." And constitutional law and precedent state that unless a citizen is guilty of a felony, his property may not be taken from him unless the other party can prove damages. And if it was "HER" who filed for divorce, it is more than likely that you can show that "act" financially damaged you, but you did not damage her. She damaged herself, so therefore she should make herself "whole" again, not you! She certainly, as a separate citizen has no right to your money without cause. Should you support your children? YES! But in a manner consistent with how everyone else supports theirs. By using your own discretion, not by force. I've committed no crime, why should I be any different in the way concerning the manner in which I support my own children than your honor or the state's attorney or my neighbor or any member of the jury, who all use their own discretion. I did not file for divorce. I did not cause the upcoming explosion of family expenditures, requiring two furnished households on the same income. This is damage she caused to me by filing divorce without good cause. Prosperity cannot happen in the midst of war. The opposing party should be paying me damages for ruining the family finances without cause. Nofault divorce is an animal of the administrative family courts and not federal courts.

           Now there are several ways to make litigation very expensive for the state. Raise as many valid issues as you are able without becoming a vexious litigator by definition in the rules. You have a right to know where the money comes from and where it goes, and exactly which state and federal laws are being levied against you. You can find this out through the "Discovery Process." The discovery process begins with interrogatories and continues through the deposition phase and then hearing phases where you put all the various state employees on the stand to testify under oath. This is the part where you identify the account to which the garnished monies are deposited. Then you identify the financial accounts from which the state issues monies by check to your ex-wife. You also identify where the federal reimbursements come from and into which accounts those monies are deposited. You then reference the rules of ethics concerning "comingling funds" and force the state to admit that the federal funds received are not deposited into the very account from which funds of child support were withdrawn. Using the state's motion to intervene, you then reference where it states that the state seeks to be reimbursed. Then you connect the dots by using state statue as well as the rules of ethics to demonstrate to the court that the state is not acting in good faith as the federal funds received DO NOT REIMBURSE THE ACCOUNT FROM WHICH SUPPORT FUNDS WERE TAKEN. Then ask that the court levy criminal charges against the appropriate state employees for comingling funds. Attorneys go to prison for comingling funds. The court will decline. Then you appeal. (Interlocutory and again they rule against you) Then you appeal to the federal circuit court to have the case dismissed for unethical behavior. And you then file complaints with the state bar and make appointments with the grand jury for indictments for comingling and if they decline then go to the federal inspector general and see if he will indict for the comingling of funds. It's a felony I believe. And if the Federal Inspector General declines to prosecute, (and he may because administrative rules determine and require the illegal comingling) one should file a Qui Tam lawsuit. Qui tam is a type of lawsuit based on an ancient writ in common law that allows a private person, known as a qui tam relator, to prosecute a lawsuit for the government and receive a reward.

           Now in completely separate litigation, after one is being garnished by the state I would file a federal suit against the state in the federal circuit court for an Eminent Domain reimbursement as set forth in the federal Constitution. Money IS property! Thats accepted case law fact. Every victim of the child support scam needs to use Eminent Domain lawsuits in federal court to seek reimbursement of all garnishments in progress. The constitution is very clear! When the state takes a citizens property for a public purpose, they are constitutionally required to reimburse that citizen fair market value for the property taken. The state admits, in its motion to intervene, on file in the family court, that the state does indeed have a public interest in your property, (money is property) and when they forcibly garnish it from you, it cannot be denied that they "take it." The federal profit they get from the federal government for taking your property, they would not get otherwise. And the state's decision to take your property "is arbitrary by law," as the federal law does not require it, but allows the state "discretion" to prosecute you for it. And that is the basic argument.

           Remember always and be aware that the goal is not to win. The goal is to cost the state FAR MORE MONEY to garnish you than they could ever dream of receiving had you bent over and took it like a good boy. If you do win, that is GREAT! But also expect the state to "try to quit" when they realize how fast things are going south. However, if you want to make history, force the state to eat it all the way to the Federal Supreme Court. Once a party files suit, he cannot just quit unless he has the consent of the other parties. Once a person files suit, by rule he is expected to follow through to the bitter humiliating end if forced to do so by another party. If somebody was to take this to the supreme court, child support as it exists would then be stricken from all fifty states and it will be your name on the case law that will be forever referred to as "your name v the state you live in" forever more and you will be in Wikipedia as well as every law book from that day forward. You will be in ALL the history books.