Father Suspected of Thwarting a Family Law System Holding His Son Hostage Lowell Jaks of the ANCPR may be attempting to seek asylum outside California to avoid slavery http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/2004/untershine020504.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 02-03-04

Associated Press reporters have confirmed the disappearance of Alec Norman Jaks on the morning of 01-27-04, on his way to Pierce Elementary school in Ridgecrest, CA. Alec is the 10 year-old son of Lowell Jaks, founder of the Los Angeles based Alliance for Non Custodial Parent's Rights (ANCPR). Alec's mother, Elaine Jackson, was unable to convince local authorities to issue an AMBER alert, after learning of her son's disappearance, but was granted a $100,000 felony warrant for the arrest of her son's father, Lowell Jaks.

My fear for young Alec's safety would be put to rest, if I knew the boy was actually with his father, and I'm sure Alec's mother feels the same. The only complication that may prove a threat would be overzealous intervention by authorities attempting to apprehend a father in pursuit of his freedom and that of his son. It may be time to dust off the Emancipation Proclamation, to see if it mentions the Executive branch helping slaves attempting to secure their freedom.

Why would a parent, who has inspired so many to fight within the system and to lobby peacefully for changes in the law, take such drastic action?

• Could it be that the findings put forth in the Responsible Fatherhood Act, that describes the importance of shared parenting, are completely ignored by the Judicial branch in the state of California?

• Could it be because the laws that protect the rights of parents are not being enforced by the Executive branch uniformly and adequately throughout the state of California?

• Could it be the absence of due process in civil proceedings or the outrageous child support guidelines demanded from breadwinning parents in the state of California?

• Could it be the Bar Association actively choreographing officers of the civil and criminal courts to obstruct justice for profit in the state of California?

• Could it be the gag order that has been imposed on the media that prevents public awareness of the 'Sociological Warfare" being used against parents in the state of California?

I believe Lowell Jaks felt his child's best interests were not being met and decided to meet them personally. But personally safeguarding the best interests of your child, without a note from the court, invites legal liability in this country. Parents who are ordered to stay away from their children are forced to pay outrageous amounts of money for their children's support without a shred of accountability regarding its use. Breadwinning parents are forced to pay a projected schedule of restitution to their children due to the damages incurred by the Family Court. Breadwinning parents who wish to personally provide support for their children are simply exercising a form of damage control.

Alec's mother believes that Lowell does not want to pay child support, and erroneously believes that Lowell's organization instructs other parents to do the same. Lowell obediently paid child support before taking the law (and his son) into his own hands and is paying to support his son now. As a long time (non-paying) supporter of the ANCPR, I can attest to the fact that the ANCPR is focused on demanding that shared parenting be ordered by the court to parents who choose to accept it.

Shared parenting comes at some great cost to breadwinning parents in California, and is a position, I believe, that puts the cart before the horse. Breadwinning parents pay officers of the court undocumented amounts of money to fight for shared parenting, only to realize after it's all over that they can't afford it. A breadwinning parent who 'wins' shared parenting in California will only decrease their child support payments by 6% of their net income for 1 child, 10% for 2, and 12% for 3.

• A breadwinning parent with 1 child in California must pay 25% of their net income without child custody and 19% for shared parenting.

• A breadwinning parent with 2 children in California must pay 40% of their net income without child custody and 30% for shared parenting.

• A breadwinning parent with 3 children in California must pay 50% of their net income without child custody and 38% for shared parenting.

A breadwinning parent in California has a choice:

• Throw enough money at the Family Court to allow them the opportunity to temporarily support their kids half the time which will lower their child support payments slightly, or

• Stiff the attorneys and pay a little more in child support and stay away from their children.

The California child support guidelines must be made reasonable before a demand for unilateral shared parenting is made. The National Organization for Women (NOW) has accused the California Family Court as being corrupt, after breadwinning parents (who happened to be women) were denied custody of their children. This is a system of control that is designed to establish an outrageous cash flow between parents, with the hope that the cash flow will stop, allowing the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) industry to extort money from parents and the US taxpayers.

Freeing a hostage from the out of control California 'Money Machine' should not be regarded as a criminal offense, but an act of heroism, dedication, resolve, or patriotism.

Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, gzs@gndzerosrv.com, www.gndzerosrv.com

Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the teachings of Werner Heisenberg and Henry David Thoreau to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.