Page Date Title
3 08-30-00 Divorce is only an American Tradition
4 08-30-00 Pilgrims With No Place to Go
5 08-30-00 The Meaning of Life
6 08-30-00 GZS Baselines Child Support Control System
7 08-30-00 Child Support Control System Analysis
11 09-30-00 Seeking Asylum in Mississippi to Avoid Slavery
12 09-30-00 Who Is the Ringmaster of This Circus?
13 09-30-00 Whose House Runs House?
14 09-30-00 Know Thy Self, If You Need Help Call the FBI
16 09-30-00 Child Support Control System Analysis II
18 10-30-00 Truth, Justice, and the American Way
19 10-30-00 Check Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself
20 10-30-00 Do You Think I Have Eyes In The Back Of My Head?
22 10-30-00 Child Support Control System Analysis III
26 11-30-00 What Makes a Person Decent?
27 11-30-00 Split a Piece of Wood and I Am There
30 11-30-00 Child Support Control System Analysis IV
38 12-30-00 The Names were Changed to Protect the Ignorant
39 12-30-00 It's a Crazy Chicken World
40 12-30-00 Lift a Stone and You will Find Me
41 12-30-00 I Want You to Beat Me Half to Death
43 12-30-00 Child Support Control System Analysis V
50 01-30-01 What is the Last thing that You Know is True?
56 01-30-01 Child Support Control System Analysis VI
"An unstable machine laying to waste the Civil rights anyone caught in its jaws"
A news release from the California Judicial Council entitled "Judicial Council Releases Report On State Child Support Guideline" (available on Internet http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/newsreleases/NR64-98.HTM) explains the reason for the blatant civil right violations being perpetrated throughout California. The target of this reckless persecution seems to be heterosexual taxpayers but all taxpayers are indirectly effected.
The Judicial Council fully expects that all support orders will adhere to the guideline with few exceptions, quoting from the news release "Federal law requires that each state establish a uniform guideline to determine child support orders. That guideline, which must be applied in all cases in which child support is ordered, creates a rebuttable assumption that the amount of support calculated under the guideline is the correct amount of support. The law provides for a narrow band of exceptions to the guideline in certain circumstances."
The Judicial Council will vigilantly monitor the effects of their support guideline, quoting from the news release "Federal law also requires that each state review its child support guideline every four years to ensure that application of the guideline results in the determination of appropriate child support awards. In California, the Legislature has directed the Judicial Council to conduct this review. " To satisfy the forgoing Federal requirement the press release quotes "The study found that the child support guideline was followed in 90.1 percent of the cases examined. Of the 297 orders that deviated from the guideline, 78 percent were based on an agreement between the parties."
It seems that Judicial Council feels that because the Family Law courts are imposing their child support guideline it proves the guideline is appropriate and satisfies Federal requirements. Any control system engineer will tell you ' it is intuitively obvious, to the most casual observer', that the system described above is inherently unstable. Although feedback from the courts is necessary to this system, feedback from the output is essential. The output of this system is the welfare of the children or their relative happiness or any other indicator that is a linear approximation of it.
What exists today is an open loop control system exhibiting the effects not unlike feedback heard from a PA system with the volume too loud. An unstable machine lying to waste the Civil Rights of anyone caught in its jaws. The machine must be unplugged and repaired before further damage is done.
" Up to 18 years of tax-free income without any responsibility to account for a dime"
The financial benefits of desolving a marriage in California seem lucrative enough to justify anything it takes to win custody of the children. Up to 18 years of tax-free income without any responsibility to account for a dime. If you are lucky enough to be unable to financially support a 2 year-old, a 7 year-old, and an 11 year-old, you could receive as much as $2,200 a month. In many cases the medical insurance for the children will be guaranteed, a free babysitter every other weekend, all the furnishings in the household, and the children's college fund. Provoking a physical confrontation with your spouse is crucial to guaranteed success.
Extramarital affairs, character assassination, draining the checking accounts, maxing out the credit cards, or abusing your own children. Anything to incite a domestic violence situation will cause the provoked to be arrested, a restraining order and kick-out order served, and will be forced to fight the Family Law courts as the Respondent. The state of California has adopted a "No Fault" divorce policy to insure the child support guideline is imposed.
The "No Fault" divorce policy forces the dissolution of marriage to be due to incurable insanity or irreconcilable differences. Without a causal provision to fight in court, the parent who can't possibly afford to support the children are given custody. The unreasonable financial burden is put on the breadwinner, who now must find a place to call home, probably a few months in arrears, and forbidden to contact his children, must decide if there is any merit in resisting this reckless persecution for the love of his children.
Heterosexual taxpayers are sentenced to indentured servitude every time a child support order is filed. Every taxpayer must help foot the bill when the persecuted is financially ruined. The reason why they submit is the faith they have that the system is vigilantly overseeing the ramifications of their actions, thereby protecting the civil rights of the faithful.
Only when we realize that our faith has been betrayed, do we realize how we betrayed the faith, of those who gave their lives, to guarantee the rights that we so easily relinquished. Betrayal, in all its forms, has no place in civilized society.
" If Family Law was a sport, it would be championship wrestling "
Fleeing religious persecution has never been so difficult in this day and age. The pilgrims, who fled to this country on the Mayflower, did not have to worry about their wages being garnished, their drivers license being suspended, their passport being revoked, or their names posted as the DA's most wanted all the way from across the ocean. When all escape routes are blocked, only one of the "fight or flight" options remain.
The religious part of the persecution, in this case, stems from the civil court's ability to completely disregard the contract each litigant made to each other, and GOD, upon entering into their partnership. Only in the family courts is it irrelevant that your partner was embezzling money, guilty of treason, slander, sabotage, or violence. These matters weigh so heavy in any other civil cases, but apparently the facts are not relevant in Family Law.
If Family Law was a sport; it would be championship wrestling. It is the faithful that are punished in the family law arena, the successful, the honest, the brave, the committed.
" Only by the grace of GOD could we enjoy the taste of consciousness we call life "
When we are born into this world, it is because one of the billions of sperm cells that was produced by your Father, fertilized one of the thousands of eggs produced by your Mother. It is important to realize that any other combination would have resulted in your brother or sister, not you.
Of all the billions of people, past and present, that ever graced us with their presence on the face of this planet, only your Mother, and your Father, and that sperm, and that egg would result in you. What are the odds? You talk about an Exacta, what a long shot. Only by the grace of GOD could we enjoy the taste of consciousness we call life.
When we are born and introduced to our parents there exists no higher concentration of pure faith and trust, than in the mind of a child. We are truly closest to GOD at birth and you can see it in the twinkle in their eyes. GOD is truly everywhere if our children are.
Trying to hold onto this faith is truly everyone's life work. As children we were convinced that we would live forever, that we were no better than anyone else was (but certainly no worse), and that everyone on the planet deserved our faith.
Life is a game of musical chairs, but there are always enough chairs to go around. If you lack the faith to leave your chair, you lose.
" My new direction was not a difficult one to find, it was dropped on me like a ton of bricks,
my wife wanted a divorce "
Ground Zero Services unveiled their plans to make divorce safer for the children and those financially capable of providing their support.
The founder of Ground Zero Services of Long Beach explains " The term 'ground zero' refers to a venue where something monumental is inevitable. The concept of putting a system in place that would potentially solve inherent problems in society that escape the understanding of those empowered to implement the particular system. To baseline a system that is comprised of human dynamics is a very difficult undertaking. How do you measure an individual's happiness, their sense of security, their wellbeing? The only way to approximate these human feelings is to use certain indicators that can be associated with probable resultant feelings of the individual. Ideally a set of indicators can be identified or implemented to linearly project an individual's well being. Once that is accomplished, the only task that remains is to model the dynamics with respect to the input/output transfer function and design a control system around it that will provide a stable output. My 13 years of experience in the design and analysis of control systems, implemented in inertial guidance systems, used in reconnaissance aircraft and intercontinental ballistic missiles was justified, in my mind, to be a service I provided to make war safer for civilians. With all the peace breaking out all over the world, my services were no longer required. My new direction was not a difficult one to find, it was dropped on me like a ton of bricks, my wife wanted a divorce."
To effectively measure any physical phenomenon it is important to understand the 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal', which can be interpreted to state, "An accurate measurement of a physical phenomena, will be tainted by the process of measurement". The purest measurement of any process is to allow the process to run its course and make objective observations of how the process progressed. Cataloging data objectively without altering the process subjectively is the only way to baseline a process.
In the case of Family Law, it is essential to adhere to a baseline of actions that are based on a unified goal. Preservation of the family, the welfare of the children, and the preservation of one's ability to prosper should suffice for this analysis. Without redirecting the process with anything other than the truth, without instigating issues that would compromise the unified goal, the process is allowed to progress to conclusion.
The game of chess has a similar process called the "End Game". The process involves losing all your pieces until only your King is free to move about. There are three possible conclusions to this process. Your King is forced into checkmate (Defeat), the number of allowed moves are exceeded (Draw), or your king is not in check where it stands but any move it makes puts it in check (Stalemate). There is never a more exhilarating experience, than working the under side (Unterharnshidt) of a stalemate. Watching your opponent turning pawns into queens, feeling the fields of force from every other piece on the board, you can only move one space away from where you were, escaping check and avoiding checkmate.
When Family Law spills into Criminal Law is when this process heats up. The methods used to conclude this process is the focus of this study and the foundation of this baseline. How far will the process go to force a person into indentured servitude or imprison him for vagrancy?
On the fifth floor of some superior court building is a file cabinet containing the archive of evidential data to be drawn from in this baseline court case. The contents of the arc of the cabinet are numbered and entered into a database, which are listed by date, evidence type, and category. The arc is in the possession of the Public Defender.
Will the arc of the cabinet be opened? Who will be subjected to judgement if it is? Will the meek inherit the Earth? Are the four horsemen in this end game drawing neigh? Has a false icon been raised to draw worship from our children?
The case is still pending.
The feedback control loop block diagrams are shown below. Figure One reflects the current system implemented by the Judicial Council, failing to monitor the system output to compare with the system input. Figure Two reflects the proposed system that properly monitors the output to compare to the input.
The following are defined:
Input = The amount of child support that is set by the Judicial Council.
Output = The amount of support received by the children.
G1 = The effect of the Civil courts, attorneys, mediators, and child custody evaluators have on the Input.
G2 = The effect of the parents being subjected to the court order.
H1 = The effect of the Judicial Council monitoring the Output.
Figure Two: Closed loop control system proposed to the Judicial Council
Mississippi recognizes the stigma of being treated like a racial expletive
A good witch once said "Click your heels together 3 times, Dorothy, and say: 'I want to go home, I want to go home, I want to go home'". In a frantic search for an escape route sometimes the most obvious one is ignored. Home is where your family is. Home is where you know what is expected of you and what can be expected from your "Homies".
I was born in California and moved to Mississippi where I finished High School, got married, and received a BSEE from Mississippi State University. Northrop Electronics in Hawthorne, CA hired me shortly after getting my degree, I cut the umbilical cord on all three of my girls, and ended up living one block away from the house I grew up in Long Beach, CA.
My Mississippi housewife decided to free herself of me after 15 years, in all the worst possible ways. Abusing my youngest girl in my presence to try to provoke a physical confrontation, draining the bank accounts, openly having extramarital affairs, assassinating my character, and lying in court. The bottom line of this tumultuous end to our marriage left me desperately trying to survive on $350 per week, while my 'insignificant other' was basking in the glory of her $2,600 per month.
California gained jurisdiction on the dissolution of marriage, which eliminated a causal divorce under Mississippi Family Law.
In Mississippi, the Family Law system would have frowned on abusing a child to provoke a physical confrontation to weasel into a domestic violence category. In Mississippi, they take a dim view of litigants lying to a court of law. In Mississippi they order the absent parent to pay 25% of his income instead of 50% as in California. In Mississippi, the civil courts still try to recognize who the reasonable litigant is, since the motivation for the dependent parent to get a divorce is not as lucrative. In Mississippi, the caseload is much less, allowing the court to be less apathetic about the welfare of the dependent children.
Mississippi is the only state that still recognizes a causal divorce. That is to say, they have a "Yo Fault" divorce policy where there exists some sense of decency. While other states sentence their citizens to indentured servitude "without prejudice to either party", Mississippi recognizes the stigma of being treated like a racial expletive.
Mississippi continues to lead by example in the fair treatment of indentured servants, not by Federal Mandate, but by choice. Not because they may be able to make a buck off the process, but because it is the right thing to do.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not written to shame the South, it was written to provide a rebuttable defense if the freedom of any United States citizen is threatened.
Who wants to pay to see the baby get thrown out with the bath water, and prosecuted for its involvement.
"Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls of all ages. Welcome to the greatest show on Earth" is the mandatory announcement to hail the beginning of every circus performance I ever attended. Sometimes there is so much going on, your attention must be directed by the Ringmaster. "In the center ring, high above the circus floor, for your amazement…"
The performers provide the death defying feats and the clowns provide the slapstick. It is the ringmaster that blends the two types to achieve maximum enjoyment. It is safe to assume that performers have less longevity than the clowns do. "High above the circus floor, balancing on a tightrope and juggling oranges, Fido realized, he was an old dog, and this was a new trick".
Governments have citizens, companies have customers, and circuses have the audience. People will pay money to be part of the experience as long as they enjoy the show.
The Romans found out that, gate receipts from watching innocent slaves getting thrown to the lions was less than lucrative. It may have been trendy at first, but since it wasn't the slave's idea to be there and the slave really didn't deserve it, it slowly lost its appeal.
The bullfights in Mexico are similar, however the matadors choose to be there and the bulls don't deserve it.
In the California Family courts, the dependent parent chooses to be there, however the breadwinner and the kids don't deserve it.
The taxpayers that pay to watch the breadwinner thrown into the streets and systematically ruined financially and emotionally is less than appealing.
Who wants to pay to see the baby get thrown out with the bath water, and prosecuted for its involvement?
Life is a test of character and if you reach the end with a clear conscience and a sense of humor,
you are a "superstar"
Has the separation between church and state been breached? Has a religious contract drawn up by the faithful been used by the state to punish them?
The faithful use terms like honor, cherish, and until death do we part. That is the solemn oath they made to their higher power and they intend to carry that charge into the fiery pits of Hell, because they have faith in a power that defies our understanding.
Can we deny the existence of flatulence because we can not catch it and paint it green?
The laws of even a first rate state, in a first rate country, on a first rate planet, in a first rate galaxy, can not supercede the laws imposed by their higher power. Do we expect the faithful to betray a solemn oath made to a higher power to satisfy the demands of a lower one? Every day we are faced with decisions that we resolved using reason, logic, experience, and morality.
Sometimes what would serve your best interest in the short term will compromise your life's goal in the long term. Everyone must realize that there is nothing but pure truth that prevails in our final judgment. To maintain plausible deniability in a courtroom like that requires vigilant adherence to a unified goal that is consistent with all things held sacred. The end never justifies the means.
Life is a test of character and if you reach the end with a clear conscience and a sense of humor, you are a "superstar".
The FBI gets involved when a Federal mandate is misused to target taxpaying citizens of the United States
I was one of the little boys that thought it would be cool to be a secret agent, like James Bond. Although I didn't fully appreciate the gorgeous ladies that got in his way until later in life, I was always in awe of his confidence.
It wasn't until recently that I was clued in to the connection: "Chicks love confidence". A secret agent sometimes has to go out of his way to accomplish his mission, but sometimes he has to be 'bait'.
Sometimes it is better to act like a target to find out who will try to target you. If you are allowed to play this role long enough those who are so desperately targeting you can be exposed and their motives uncovered.
The trick, of course, is to "never let them see you bleed and always have an escape route". The other thing to keep in mind is that "the probability of finding one particular thing amongst everything is much lower than finding anything, that might be something, amongst everything ".
Just because the target is heterosexual does not necessarily mean the threat is homosexual.
Just because the target is man does not necessarily mean the threat is a woman.
Just because the target is a taxpayer does not necessarily mean the threat is a deadbeat.
Although one might feel uncomfortable about deadbeat, homosexual, women, you can always include a Communist threat, or a deep space threat to the list of something, that might be anything, amongst everything.
The intrigue and drama will fade away completely when you include anyone who is given the power to make a buck by targeting you. When it's all about money the game is very simple. Don't pay. See who wants your money the most, by observing how hard they try to get it.
There are those who have it, and those who want it. Those who have it want to keep it. Those who want it may be willing to break the law to take it.
The FBI gets involved when a Federal mandate is misused to target taxpaying citizens of the United States.
A system that gives anyone the power to inflict suffering on another is unconstitutional at least
Part I of this article explained that a process to be baselined must be allowed to continue to conclusion without being altered unnecessarily. The process in question is the child support system implemented in California. The baseline that is being established, is the record of events that transpire throughout this process. The individual forced into the process must adhere to the unified goal of preservation of the family, the welfare of the children, and preservation of one's prosperity.
The Federal government requires that each state establish a uniform child support guideline. The Judicial council establishes this guideline in California. The Family Law Civil courts impose the guideline with the help of attorneys, facilitators, custody evaluation psychologists, conciliation officers, etc. When the imposed child support forces the breadwinner into financial insolvency, the state Welfare organization is brought into the picture which automatically alerts the Criminal courts. The system then feeds back to the civil courts, when the financially ruined must try to bargain for leniency.
The overriding focus of this study is to observe the process with an eye toward the civil rights of all the participants. The civil rights of the parents as well as the children are important. In an ideal system, the well being of the family members before a divorce should be unchanged after the divorce. No participant should suffer more than the others should. If this were the case than there would be a clear incentive to get a divorce to begin with. A system that gives anyone the power to inflict suffering on another is unconstitutional at least.
The events that follow are documented in this case. They depict the tactics used by unscrupulous litigants.
1) Mother physically abuses 18-month-old child in front of the Father prior to separation.
2) Father successfully convinces Mother to start psychiatric counseling.
3) Mother continues physical abuse toward child.
4) Father informs psychiatrist of abuse.
5) Mother changes to LCSW.
6) Mother continues physical abuse toward child.
7) Father informs LCSW of abuse.
8) Mother continues physical abuse toward child.
9) Mother drains checking account and maxes out credit cards.
10) Mother calls 911 alleging domestic violence. Police allow her to take children from home to a friend's house.
11) Father informs Case Manager of health care provider of physical child abuse.
12) Mother obtains domestic violence restraining order and kick out order under false pretenses.
13) Case Manager of health care provider assigns psychiatrist for Mother and Father to understand child abuse.
14) Mother's lawyer writes letter to Case Manager forbidding any child abuse inquiries.
15) Mother files for legal separation and child support payments.
16) Father files for dissolution of marriage and informs the court of child abuse.
17) Court orders custody evaluation, and forces Father to pay $2,600 per month based on Dissomaster child support guideline.
18) Father informs custody evaluation specialist of child abuse.
19) Custody evaluation expert feels that Mother may have psychological problems, evaluation will cost $4,500.
20) Mother accuses Father of being alcoholic forcing both to undergo drug testing costing an additional $2,200.
21) Mother slanders Father's roommate, saying he is a convicted rapist. Asks court for monitored visitation.
22) Custody evaluation report finds the Mother invalidated the psychological test by trying to lie, while the Father passed with flying colors. Drug tests on both indicated no drug use. Custody was awarded to Mother.
23) Trial date continued because report was delayed by continued attempts by Mother's lawyer to mislead the evaluation and obtain monitored visitation.
24) Mother's lawyer forces emergency court appearance, illegally using the custody evaluation report as basis for asking for monitored visitation.
25) Mother slanders Father's new roommate, saying he is a child molester and drug addict. Asks court for monitored visitation
26) Father unable to come up with $270 for an agency to calculate how much money the Mother will receive from his retirement.
27) Father's lawyer withdraws from case.
The block diagrams shown below represent a typical family, before and after child custody is awarded by the civil courts.
Figure One shows the breadwinner split into two parts, the employee and the parent. The employee receives money as well as support from the employer as long as his productivity is adequate. The parents are supported by the employee, by the employer, by the government, and by their children. The parents and the employer support the kids.
Figure Two shows the custodial parent receiving tax-free money from the courts, free support from the government, and support from the kids. The kids receive support from the custodial parent and the employer.
Child Support Control System Analysis II (continued
The block diagrams shown below represent a typical family, before and after prosecution of criminal courts. Notice that all money and support are tax-free to all members of this typical family.
Figure three shows the custodial parent receiving tax-free money from welfare, tax-free support from the government, and support from the kids. The kids receive support from the custodial parent.
Figure four shows the non-custodial parent receiving support from the prison.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way
The stronger your resolve, to defend the walls, of your mighty kingdom; the more unbearable the anguish,
to later find out, it was in reality your prison.
"Look up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, no it's Superman". DC Comics brought this icon into existence to instill in the reader the principles that are sacred to all Americans. These comics taught us more about the sacrifices that must be made to ensure that truth, justice, and the American way would never be compromised in this country.
Although the superheroes had special powers that bordered on the supernatural, everyone can posses the focused resolve that drives us to embrace the challenge. The power each of us possess to turn back any threats to our way of life has been granted to us by the Constitution of this country.
Existentialist Friedrich Nietzche brought us the first "ubermensch" (Superman), an individual in search of personal truth and morality. Henry David Thoreau personified Nitzche's fictional character, and shared his life's experience in "Walden Pond". Thoreau was the author of "Resistance to Civil Government" (Civil Disobedience), which was his explanation for being imprisoned in his omission to pay taxes.
Thoreau's teachings were taken seriously by the Danish resistance in the 1940's, the McCarthyism opposition in the 1950's, the Apartheid opposition in the 1960's, and anti-war activists in the 1970's.
Currently Thoreau's existential philosophy is being followed to fight the oppression of heterosexual taxpayers in the state of California.
Thoreau started his lectures with the well-known motto - "That government is best which governs least".
Thoreau mentions "Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it".
Thoreau asserts "If a person is truly in the right, he has God on his side and constitutes a majority of one".
Ignorance of a law, which exists through ignorance of the Constitution or technology, is a true test of resolve, not a jailable offense.
The stronger your resolve, to defend the walls, of your mighty kingdom; the more unbearable the anguish, to later find out, it was in reality your prison.
If changing the rules could save one life, isn't it worth it? It takes so little, but means so much, won't you help?
Falling from the middle class is more complicated than many realize.
When you are "put to the curb" you join the ranks of those who share your fate. Your arsenal of weapons and the strategy of warfare have now been lost and replaced with new.
Those you relied on to "watch your back" are not returning your messages. You find yourself put aside by society and regarded as a "lopp". The associates "you run with" are now chosen out of necessity rather than social graces.
Your training will begin when a "homie" tries to "school you down" or "let you know what time it is".
They believe that a person is weak if they are a "cop caller", or a "snitch". They believe that their lives will always include a jail sentence and their lives will be under control of the parole officer they are assigned. Some of these people feel more at home in prison then they do in society, not because they pose a threat, but because in prison they know how to deal with someone who "gets up in their business" or "F--ks with their program" or otherwise "disses them".
Prison is where the kindest thing a fellow inmate could say is "Good lookin' out Wood, I'm down for you, too".
These are the people you have been allowed to understand. If their prophecy comes true, and you find yourself "run up on" by the police and you are "gaffeled up" and taken to "county". You better have a "homie" that can "send a kite" to a "shot caller" who is on your "tier" to "squash" any attempts to make you their "punk ass bitch". Because if you don't, they might "run a piece of steel up in you" or "take your breath".
We don't make up these rules, they do.
If changing the rules could save one life, isn't it worth it?
It takes so little, but means so much, won't you help?
A man's life is stolen, behind his back, by a thief in the night.
Never ask a lady's man how he got AIDS, or a family man how he lost his kids, either question may give rise to another.
Who passed judgement and who had the burden of proof?
Who was on the jury when he was sentenced in absente rio?
How could he lose a case when the sentence is cruel and unusual?
A man's life is stolen, behind his back, by a thief in the night.
When a man is convicted without a trial: he is too dangerous, or too guilty, or was not invited.
When a man is tried without a jury: he is too popular, or he doesn't want one, or he wishes he had one.
It is the jury that interjects reality into a court case. It is the jury that carries the charge to the soul. They are the ones that require clarification of the spirit with which each broken law came to exist. They are the ones that ask themselves: "If I were put in his position, would I be on trial today?"
Jury instructions, factual evidence, riveting testimony, forensic miracles all take a backseat to the gut feeling of a jury.
"If I were drunk, and trying to outrun the police, what would I expect to happen when they caught me?"
"If my parents sexually molested me while I was growing up, what would I do?"
"If anybody denied me to congratulate my kid after a dance recital, what would I do?"
"If my wife abused my kid in my presence to provoke a domestic violence situation, what would I do?".
Will an employee maintain the same level of productivity at less than half of his original salary?
The overriding focus of this study is to observe the process with an eye toward the civil rights of all the participants. The demands imposed on a parent in civil court should not be used as leverage by an employer to terminate or deny employment
Not unlike jury duty, an employee is sometimes required to appear in court. Whether the employee is defending his rights or protecting the rights of his family, he should not be discriminated against for standing up for his rights. In the same vein, an employer should not pass judgment on an employee if it deems the financial garnishments are a sentence passed down from the court as a result of criminal or immoral behavior.
However, how can you blame an employer for recognizing the fallout of extreme financial garnishments?
Will an employee maintain the same level of productivity at less than half of his original salary?
Can an employee who is not receiving enough money to maintain his own existence be trusted?
The events that follow are documented in this case. They depict the tactics used by unscrupulous employers.
1) 1 Performance evaluation results in "needs improvement", siting absence from work due to court dates, lawyer appointments, evaluation meetings.
2) Employee documents feelings of bias directed towards him and warns of increased stress in workplace.
3) Employer refuses to participate in telephone interview with custody evaluation specialist delaying report completion.
4) Employee credit union automatically starts withdrawing credit card payments from automatic checking deposits.
5) Employee cancels automatic checking deposits.
6) Employee credit union locks checking account, and refuses to cash company paychecks until credit card payments are current
7) Employer issues 1st written warning, siting late to work after employee obtained permission prior to lawyer appointment that day.
8) Employee protests 1st written warning to Human Resources
9) Human Resources refers employee to Employee Assistance Program
10) Employee Assistance Program psychiatrist told of employer harassment, divorce nightmare, child abuse by wife.
11) Employee Assistance Program psychiatrist insists on liver panel being run by medical after first interview.
12) Employee Assistance Program psychiatrist makes off the wall comment after receiving liver panel test results: "For an alcoholic you have a very clean test result".
13) Department of Defense initiates investigation into financial insolvency. May lose security clearance.
14) Employee Assistance Program psychiatrist recommends three-week leave of absence to relieve work-related stress.
15) Employer refuses to pay employee while on medical leave, siting excessive absence.
16) Employee files for unemployment prior to medical leave.
17) Employee receives partial unemployment check after 2nd week of medical leave $480
18) Employer issues 2nd written warning siting late to work.
19) Employer issues memo of concern siting timecard not up to date while employee out sick.
20) Department of Defense terminates security clearance due to financial insolvency investigation.
21) Employer issues letter of termination, siting absence from work after prior approval was given to allow employee to move into new residence.
22) Employer accuses employee of stealing software.
23) Employee returns software used to perform duties.
24) Employer denies employee unemployment.
The block diagrams shown below represent a typical family. The goal of this analysis is to show that the typical family system can be modeled as a feedback control system.
If the detailed blocks in Figure Two can be modeled mathematically, then the system can be simulated to provide visibility at various outputs. There exist "real life" constraints on all the outputs of this typical family system. Each detailed block in Figure Two represents a human response to a specific input. The human dynamics that represent a part of each individual depicted in this system can be represented by a mathematical model operating in the time domain. A mathematical equivalent of the time domain function can then be obtained using La Place transforms. After "fine tuning" the models for each block to simulate the typical family system, control theory can be used to guarantee system stability using the classical theory (i.e. Root Locus, Bode Plots, Nyquist Criteria, etc).
Child Support Control System Analysis III (continued
G1 = Support provided by parents based on support provided by employee, employer, and government.
G2 = Perceived support provided by kids based on support error provided by parents.
H1 = Adjusted productivity provided by employer based on perceived productivity provided by employee.
H2 = Adjusted support provided by parents based on perceived support provided by kids.
W1 = Support provided by employer to parents (health benefits, company car) based on employer productivity error.
X1 = Support provided by government to parents (roads and highways, law enforcement, DMV, postal delivery, military, space exploration) regardless of money provided by employer.
X2 = Support provided by employee to parents based on money received from employer.
Y1 = Money provided by employer to government based on employer productivity error.
Y2 = Money provided by employer to employee based on employer productivity error.
Z1 = Productivity provided by employee to employer based on money received from employer.
M1 = Money provided by employer to government.
M2 = Money provided by employer to employee.
P1 = Productivity command input to employer.
P2 = Productivity error. The result of comparing employer's productivity command input with adjusted productivity output provided by employer.
P3 = Productivity output of employee (dedication, diligence, development) provided to employer to be perceived and adjusted.
S1 = Support output of government provided to parents.
S2 = Support output of employer provided to parents.
S3 = Support output of employee provided to parents.
S4 = Support output of employee, employer, and government provided to parents.
S5 = Support error. The result of comparing the parent's support command input with the adjusted support output provided by parents.
S6 = Support output of kids (happiness, well being, development) provided to parents to be perceived and adjusted.
1) P2 = P1 -
H1P3 2) M1 = Y1P2 3) S1 = X1M1 4) S2 = W1P2 5) M2 = Y2P2 6) P3 = Z1M2 7) S3 = X2M2 8) S4 = S1+S2+S3 9) S5 = G1S4-H2S6 10) S6 = G2S5 Substitute 6) into 1) 1)
P2 = P1
- H1Z1M2 Substitute 5) into 1) and 7) 1)
P2 = P1
- H1Z1Y2P2 7) S3 = X2Y2P2 Rewrite 1) 1)
P2 = P1
/ (1+H1Z1Y2) Substitute 2) into 3) 3) S1 = X1Y1P2 Substitute 9) into 10) 10) S6
= G2(G1S4-H2S6) Rewrite 10) 10) S6
= S4G1G2 / (1+H2G2) Substitute 8) into 10) 10) S6
/ (1+H2G2) Substitute 3), 4), and 7) into 10) 10) S6
= P2 (X1Y1+ W1+ X2Y2)G1G2
1) P2 = P1 - H1P3
2) M1 = Y1P2
3) S1 = X1M1
4) S2 = W1P2
5) M2 = Y2P2
6) P3 = Z1M2
7) S3 = X2M2
8) S4 = S1+S2+S3
9) S5 = G1S4-H2S6
10) S6 = G2S5
Substitute 6) into 1)
1) P2 = P1 - H1Z1M2
Substitute 5) into 1) and 7)
1) P2 = P1 - H1Z1Y2P2
7) S3 = X2Y2P2
1) P2 = P1 / (1+H1Z1Y2)
Substitute 2) into 3)
3) S1 = X1Y1P2
Substitute 9) into 10)
10) S6 = G2(G1S4-H2S6)
10) S6 = S4G1G2 / (1+H2G2)
Substitute 8) into 10)
10) S6 = (S1+S2+S3)G1G2 / (1+H2G2)
Substitute 3), 4), and 7) into 10)
10) S6 = P2 (X1Y1+ W1+ X2Y2)G1G2 / (1+H2G2)
Substitute 1) into 10)
Equation 10) above is the transfer function of this typical family system and represents the support of the kids due to the productivity command to the employer. Drawing attention to the (1+H…) blocks in the denominator of the transfer function, it is imperative that they never are allowed to equate to 0. If the denominator is allowed to equate to 0, then the transfer function will blow up. Anything non-zero divided by zero goes infinite. The H blocks in the detailed block diagram are there to provide loop compensation if the dynamic characteristics of the rest of the loop tend toward instability.
The loop compensation blocks H1 and H2 both deal with perceptions of previous outputs, which can be altered by outside influence. H1 can be a collaboration of the employer and a state agency to fairly assess the employee's productivity based on the burden imposed by the family courts. H2 can be a collaboration of the custodial parent and a state agency to fairly assess the amount of support the children receive based on the support that was granted by the family court.
The influence that must be used by state agencies, to compensate this typical family system, can be used to "fine tune" the mathematical block models or in adjusting the burden placed on the employee by the family courts. Hence, Rebutability.
There is nothing to fear but fear itself
Why should one worry and try to fight the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune when they can just submit to the injustice and enjoy the ride. What could possibly happen? You're on your own.
There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
WARNING: This article pertains to the analogous behavior associated with rivers (fresh water tributaries that flow rapidly to a large body of water) and not rip tides (marine surface currents that flow rapidly away from the shore). Passive resistance to rip tides involves moving parallel to the shore to avoid being drawn out to sea.
ATTENTION: Compulsive floating down the river has been linked to being sent up the river in some states.
CAUTION: Some rivers are inhabited by life forms that may pose a physical threat. Always investigate wildlife indigenous to the river in question. Passively avoid all water moccasins, pythons, boa constrictors, hippopotami, alligators, piranha, bears, beavers, and weasels.
DANGER: Some rivers are used commercially as a means to dispose of industrial byproducts that may cause irreversible health problems. Always request toxic dumping schedules along the river in question.
HEADS UP: Topological imperfections as well as natural and man made impediments could result in serious personal injury or death. Passively avoid all waterfalls, dams, salmon ladders, rapids, and whirlpools.
WATCH IT: Failing to yield the right of way to commercial and recreational vessels may result in injury or death. Passively avoid all barges, trawlers, tugboats, paddleboats, bass boats, ski boats, and jet skis.
NOTICE: Passage on some US waterways may require a permit. Always wear a day glow life preserver with a six-foot flagpole for maximum visibility. Always wait 30 minutes after eating before you go swimming.
If you can't afford the fine, then don't do the crime.
Fear of legal liability and the penalties associated with conviction seems to maintain decency in America. If a short-term solution invites legal liability then the financial benefits of the solution will be compared to the losses suffered by conviction.
Every business should adhere to a unified goal: preservation of the company, the welfare of the employees, and the preservation of company prosperity. With these values as the foundation of a successful company, employing many dedicated employees, the company is ready to chart the course of their own destiny.
The competition between rival companies sometimes forces a higher demand from their employees. Employees that live up to the higher demand are compensated for their effort.
It is in the company's best interest to let employees go, when their usefulness is no longer required. The way in which they let their employees go is a true test of the unified goal. Is an employee that is on the way out, still covered by the company motto, or is the employee now another problem that must be analyzed?
If the employee becomes a problem then the company is forced to expedite his removal in the least costly way. A means to rid the company of this problem with the least possible legal liability.
We can all rest easy, in the state of California, that no company would ever use child support garnishments or divorce related absences as a reason for dismissal. Not when the US Code Title 42 section 666 forced the existence of CA Family Code section 5290. The legal liability the company may face is a fine of $500.
If you can't afford the fine, then don't do the crime.
Everyone shares the right to get what they pay for, and if not, they should have the right to stop paying.
Yule Gibbons would say, "because some parts are edible". This is the true nature of man. Some things that are palatable to one may make another violently ill. There are snippets of wisdom and back home logic that can be savored by some and not others. There are excuses that are handed out to make someone feel better, only to make things much worse.
It may leave a bad taste in your mouth to hear someone tell you: "Don't feel that we're discriminating against you, we do this to everyone." While a civil lawyer would actually start salivating planning a class action lawsuit, anyone else may feel slightly bulimic.
When you are sent a "clear message" by your District Attorney that someone was sent to jail for not paying enough money, it might make you wonder if you might be next.
You may feel relieved when you find out that the person being jailed is withholding money from his children and his income was their only means of financial support. It would make you feel even more comfortable with the sentence when you find out that your tax dollars were being used to cover his delinquency.
If you found out that the children had no legal rights entitling them to their money, and the only person who is capable of providing their support has been systematically ruined financially, and was denied due process by a system that is dedicated to the support of children, you might wish to stop funding such a system with your tax dollars.
Would you be surprised to find out that an unsolicited "clear message" is a desperate attempt to intimidate those who have the clarity to see the truth and the courage to stand their ground for the rights of their family?
If you are a taxpayer, then demand to stop the system from awarding custody of children to parents who can't financially support them. Criminal non-support starts there.
Everyone shares the right to get what they pay for, and if not, they should have the right to stop paying.
A conscientious objector is one who feels his conscience will not allow participation in an objectionable cause.
We all remember standing up every morning in elementary school and reciting the pledge of allegiance. We pledged our allegiance to a flag, and to the country for which it stood, one nation under GOD, with liberty, and justice for all.
We all sang along to the star spangled banner at the beginning of every baseball game glorifying the miraculous sight of the flag waving over the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We all read the Declaration of Independence which protects the right of each individual to his own life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of his own happiness.
We all read the Gettysberg Address that guaranteed that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
We read the Emancipation Proclamation that declared that all persons held as slaves within the states shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
We all remember at least one of our elementary school teachers ask us "If someone asked you to jump off a cliff, would you?"
A conscientious objector is one who feels his conscience will not allow participation in an objectionable cause.
How far will a prosecutor go to intimidate, extort, and punish the only person capable
of providing support to the children?
The criminal court gets involved when the custodial parent of the children admits that she can't financially support them. This formal confession by the dependant parent is used as an indictment against the only family member capable of providing the children's support.
Failure to provide support to the children and the amount of money paid to the dependant parent and the District Attorney's office is only connected by the presumption stated in the CA Family Code 4053(I): 'It is presumed that the custodial parent contributes a significant portion of available resources for the support of the children'. If the charge is all about money, then CA PC 270 is reduced to vagrancy with the possibility of being sentenced to debtor's prison.
How far will a prosecutor go to intimidate, extort, and punish the only person capable of providing support to the children?
The following events documented in this case are related to unscrupulous prosecution.
1) Mother files to enforce $2,200/mo stipulation (pending trial). Claims father has a lawyer.
2) Mother withholds default trial date from father.
3) Default trial results in court order for father to pay $1479/mo child support and mother is entitled to kids 100% of college fund totaling $32,000.
4) Mother informs father of default trial and moves kids to boyfriend's house 600 miles away. Mother files to enforce $1,479/mo default court order.
5) District Attorney files charges and issues notice to appear 2 days after father is informed of default.
6) Court issues arrest warrant for "failure to provide".
7) Mother flies kids out of state while she takes 3-week trip to Europe. Mother currently on welfare.
8) Father makes last minute arrangements to escort the kids on plane flight. Father forced to meet them at destination.
9) Mother is informed by daughter that she wishes to reside with father. Decision made during visitation.
10) Father arrested from residence morning after mother/daughter phone call. Arresting officers acting on complaint. Daughter forced to stay with friends.
11) Mother writes letter to father demanding the return of daughter while father is still in custody. Copy of letter sent to individual working for district attorney.
12) Mother removes daughter from friend's house with police escort. Daughter returned to boyfriend's house.
13) Father finally allowed to enter "not guilty" plea to "failure to provide" 34 days after arrest.
14) Mother writes father and will allow daughter to reside with father if he becomes current with child support.
15) Mother receives entire balance of kid's college fund totaling $32,000. Mother is forced off welfare roles.
16) District attorney suspends father's driver's license for back child support while trial is still pending.
17) Mother kicks daughter out of boyfriend's house because she didn't approve of entries in daughter's diary. Entries in diary shared with daughter's friends.
18) Mother arranges visitation of kids to conflict with court date not communicated to father by court.
19) Warrant issued for failure to appear during kid's visit.
20) District attorney refuses to disclose actual amount of back child support that is owed. Billing statements accrued from stipulation (pending trial) ignoring downward modification of default trial court order. District Attorney from another county concurrently billing for default trial court order amount.
21) Father pleads "no contest" to ignoring court order, is ordered to appear in civil court, 15 months after arrest.
22) District attorney continues to bill father for stipulated amount ignoring default court order.
The focus of this analysis is to attempt to understand the basis for the existing child support equations and establish what rebuttability exists for those who doubt the reasonability of the equations in the state of California.
CA Family Code 4055:
CS = K[HN - H%TN]
CS = K[HN - H%TN]
Where: CS = Child support money to be paid by high earner TN = Total net income of high and low earner
H% = Custody of children by high earner HN = High earner net income
K = Nonlinear functions of custody, children, and income
Since K is comprised of three independent functions multiplied together Let K = K1K2K3..
Since TN = high earner net income + low earner net income: Let LN = Low earner net income.
CS = K1K2K3[HN - H%( HN + LN)]
Since CS is the amount of money paid by the high earner, we normalized the equation with respect to HN to allow the percentage of high earner net income applied to child support to be expressed as:
CS/HN = K1K2K3[1
- H%(1 + LN/HN)]
CS/HN = K1K2K3[1 - H%(1 + LN/HN)]
The multipliers in the normalized equation CS/HN = K1K2K3[1 - H%(1 + LN/HN)] are plotted with respect to their associated variables in Figure One, Two, Three, Four and Five below. The following conclusions can be drawn from these plots:
Figure One shows the K1 multiplier increasing from a value of 1 for 0% custody, to 1.5 for 50% custody, and then decreasing back to 1 for 100% custody. The only reasonable explanation for this is to deter the high earner from allowing joint custody.
Figure Two shows the K2 multiplier increasing from a value of 0.20 for $0/mo income to 0.25 for $800/mo income and then decreasing to 0.16 for $20,000/mo income. The only reasonable explanation for this is to make changes in total net income completely irrelevant.
Figure Three shows the K3 multiplier increasing from a value of 1 for 1 child to a maximum of 2.86 for 10 children. The only reasonable explanation for this is to distribute specific monetary values for each child being supported by age.
Figure Four shows the multiplier that varies with both low earner income and custody. A family of curves shows the multiplier decreasing from a value of 1at 0% custody decreasing to 0 for 0% low earner income (decreasing to -1 for 100% low earner income). The only reasonable explanation for this is to provide a powerful motive for a dependent parent to do whatever it takes to gain 100% custody of the children; guaranteeing them a tax-free paycheck every month, that will never decrease regardless how much money they earn, and never being expected to account for a dime.
Figure Five shows the same multiplier as Figure Four. . A family of curves shows the multiplier decreasing with an increase in low earner income except for 0% custody. The only reasonable explanation for this is to allow alimony to be calculated.
Control System Analysis IV (continued)
Child Support Control System Analysis IV (continued)
Example One: LN = $0/mo, HN = $4000/mo, H% = 0%, 3 kids ==> K1 = 1, K2 = 0.25, K3 = 2, LN/HN = 0
CS/HN = K1K2K3[1 - H%(1 + LN/HN)] = (1)(0.25)(2)[1-0(1+0)] = 0.50 or 50% of high earner net income
Example Two: LN = $4000/mo, HN = $4000/mo1, H% = 0%, 3 kids ==> K1 = 1, K2 = 0.225, K3 = 2, LN/HN = 1
CS/HN = K1K2K3[1 - H%(1 + LN/HN)] = (1)(0.225)(2)[1-0(1+1)] = 0.45 or 45% of high earner net income
Crime don't pay, people do.
This is the city, Los Angeles, California. There are 9 million citizens who stretch every fiber of their being to make a place for themselves here. Trying to keep the pace with many others trying to take their place in this bustling metropolis they choose to call home. The ones who can't find a niche are forced to move on. The ones who can find a niche are lucky enough to stay. When the ones who can't find a niche, try to make a niche, at the expense of those whom already found a niche --- that's when I get involved.
My name is Joe Taxpayer.
Today was just like any other day. My partner, Bill Passer, and I where working day watch out of the fraud division. I looked at Bill (as only I can do) "I don't have to tell you about the disdain I have for those selfless ingrates that scheme to swindle the life savings away from a hard working family man who is relentlessly striving to insure the prosperity of his family. Every time I think about the countless lives that were sacrificed fighting to guarantee our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the idea that some arrogant, irreverent, piece of …".
Bill interrupted, "Stop waiving that gun around Joe, we've got work to do. The captain says we may have a hot case".
The captain ordered us to investigate a possible scam involving gov't agencies using the postal service to perpetrate a state wide mail fraud racket.
The subject seemed agitated, "You have to help me officers, they took everything I have, they threw me out of the house, they…" I stopped him, "Just the facts, man".
He continued to explain that he was ordered to have 60% of his paycheck garnished until his employer fired him for financial insolvency. That two gov't agencies were billing him concurrently, one excessively. He said that any money paid outside the agencies would be a gift and wouldn't be applied to either bill. The agencies are both suspending his driver's license even though his trial was still pending and they won't tell him how much they think is owed.
"Sounds like a child support problem" I said "We don't care, we don't have to. The facts are never relevant in family law, and won't be, until Joe Taxpayer and Bill Passer get involved. I think we can get your employer for $500 though, thanks for the tip. Remember, crime don't pay, people do".
Entrusting family lawyers to insure fairness of a system is like leaving a fox to guard the hen house.
A little chicken once said "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" Running around like a chicken with it's head cut off surely inspired the quote: "If you are able to keep your head, when all around you are losing theirs, you don't understand the situation."
If you distance yourself from the turmoil caused by an inadequate system or the ramifications of changing the faulty system, you begin to discover the secret to making chicken salad out of chicken sh-t. Do it over again.
Choose a profession that brings you satisfaction to insure you never have to work a day in your life. Don't squander your existence chasing chicken feed.
Take a job with every intention of finishing it, while establishing a system for others to follow. Perpetuating a job because you don't have the faith that you will find another, implies that you are chicken.
Leaving a job that was performed to the best of one's ability is natural. You were looking for a job when you found that one, and poultry few can share this view.
Never create a business that is funded through the misfortunes of others. This would impugn that you feather your nest using someone else's feathers.
Hen pecking is the first sign of a doomed relationship. A boob job is the last.
It is never too late to do the right thing. The reason why the chicken crossed the road was to get to the other side.
Entrusting family lawyers to insure fairness of a system is like leaving a fox to guard the hen house.
If those who live in glass houses throw stones, you should have the right to throw them back.
Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and United Arab Emirates still include stoning as a possible death penalty. A biblical punishment typically associated with some form of heresy or equally deserving sin. The practice may disappear if the executioners were properly screened: "Let ye without sin cast the first stone".
Unqualified participation in an event like stoning may invite divine liability.
To limit our divine liability we should adopt the unified goal of preservation of our faith, the welfare of the faithful, and preservation of our ability to spread the faith. Strict adherence to these goals as the keystone of our faith we can guarantee that at worst we will all go down together.
The presumption is, that it is on earth, as it is in heaven. To assure ourselves that following our faith will be in full compliance with divine mandates we must institute a system of rules that are so steeped in fairness and decency, there would be no likelihood of deviation from any divine provisions. In fact, the system would be designed to be so robust, as to correct for inadequacies with it's continued use. A real time system that is driven by the spirit of the law that begged its existence.
Faith has the ability to take quantum leaps, and its intensity knows no bounds. We have the tools and the talent to implement the obvious with concurrence of everyone who has a stake in their own fate.
Everyone should have the right to:
1) Know the identity of your biological parents.
2) Be treated equally among your peers
3) Have faith in a compliant system
4) Have faith in everyone's compliance.
5) Be granted the faith of your compliance.
6) Have access to the communication network
7) Travel freely in any mode of transportation.
8) Get what you pay for.
9) Stop paying if you don't.
10) If those who live in glass houses throw stones, you should have the right to throw them back.
Everyone gets what they deserve.
Be aware that receiving double whatever someone else receives may not be in your best interest. If this arrangement only involves money, then perhaps your best interests are served, especially if cash only flows in your direction.
It is also very important to keep in mind that employees who suddenly are forced to take a 60% pay-cut will not be able to bring themselves to maintain their current level of productivity. The employer is keenly aware of this affect and will usually remedy the situation in an expedient manner.
The subject in question usually begins to feel the following effects.
The blatant absurdity of the law raises questions that are like splinters in your mind.
Your paycheck that serves as the backbone of your support is slashed to the bone.
You are forced to carry this financial burden until you can't bear it any more.
You are then attached to this financial burden not allowing you to feed yourself.
Your ability to travel is usually restrained, attached to this financial burden.
You will finally get stuck inside (a jail cell).
You will begin to lose faith in the system that you feel has turned its back on you.
You feel as though you deserve your fate because you betrayed the faith of your children.
You begin to wonder if the system should be forgiven because it knows not what it does.
Stigmata can be cured in our lifetime. The faithful will stop being crucified when Eve stops eating the apple.
The money is for the children.
Everyone gets what they deserve.
When you have the clarity to see the glaring inadequacies of the system how can anyone voice their disgust of the system without incriminating himself for contempt of the court.
The baseline developed to this point has included many inappropriate or otherwise unscrupulous practices by litigants, psychiatrists, attorneys, paralegals, custody evaluation specialists, employers, and prosecutors. Thus far the courts have not been called on to render a contested decision since no attempt has been made to beg the court for leniency.
The federal government issued a mandate and established a very comprehensive set of provisions for each state to satisfy in establishing their child support guideline. The state legislature approved the child support guideline with an eye toward compliance with the aforementioned federal mandate.
The Judicial Council was entrusted by the legislature to faithfully monitor the effects of the guideline and report every four years on possible improvements that may be instituted (CA Family Code 4067).
The comprehensive investigation undertaken by the Judicial Council's crack team of family law specialists concentrated their attention on whether the courts were actually succeeding in imposing their guideline on litigants. The effects of the guideline that were related to the number of bankruptcies, loss of employment, noncompliance, welfare application, retaliatory violence, or suicides were not included in the analysis. Although the state named the children as the top priority (CA Family Code 4053.e), they were left out of the analysis completely.
Although the state demands that child support orders must insure that the children actually receive fair, timely, and sufficient support (CA Family Code 4053.l), they have implemented no means to comply. Even more appalling is the complete lack of analytical decency or scientific decorum in review of the present system. The overriding presumption that qualifies the child support amounts demanded by the courts is that the custodial parent will use a significant portion of the money toward the support of the children (CA Family Code 4053.i). Every scientific experiment includes preliminary presumptions and the resulting data from the experiment is used to validate these presumptions. Significant = Fairly large in amount or quantity. Portion = A section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole.
Without visibility of how much money received by the dependant parent is actually spent to support the children, there is absolutely no way the Judicial Council can say they are placing the interests of the children as the states top priority, or they are insuring the children actually receive the ordered support. The child support system in place today exists to benefit the dependant parent, at the risk of financially ruining the only parent the children have to support them, and denying the children any legal claim to their support.
The Judicial Council is staffed exclusively by family law specialists. The District Attorneys Association advertises job openings for the Judicial Council. The officers of the criminal courts and the officers of the civil courts have used a federal mandate to build an empire that is insulated from the state legislature. Unless the elected officials of the state are motivated to take a serious look at this self perpetuating money machine, the state may be exposed to legal liability for their ignorance of the situation.
When an enforcement agency demands payment for child support, they should be cognizant of court orders that modify the payment amount or redirection of funds which are paid directly to the recipient. When another enforcement agency within the same state receives a filing to enforce payment, it should notify any other agency of their intentions, thereby avoiding double billing.
When the equations put forth by the Judicial Council used to calculate child support are so ambiguous and lack any statistical basis, there is absolutely no rebuttable grounds to argue for deviation. Without a means to monitor how much child support money goes toward the children how can anyone argue that it is not. When judgements are entered in default without proper notification of the trial date, how can the court guarantee fairness. Without providing a definition of "significant portion ", criminal non-support charges should only apply to that significant portion of money and disregard the insignificant portion (or whatever). When you have the clarity to see the glaring inadequacies of the system how can anyone voice their disgust of the system without incriminating himself for contempt of the court.
Incurable insanity = A unique perception of reality that will never change.
The focus of this analysis is to propose an equitable child support equation that is inherently fair, provided money ordered for child support is actually received by the children. The advantages follow:
1) Removes motivation for dissolution of marriage by low earner seeking financial independence.
2) Provides legal rebuttability essential to comply with the current federal mandate.
3) Provides for a maximum (ceiling) amount of child support rather than a percentage of high earner income.
4) Eliminates non-continuous functions and functions of multiple variables.
5) Eliminates high earner penalties for joint custody.
6) Provides time limit on disbursement of alimony, which gives low earner incentive to seek higher income level.
The multipliers described below are plotted in Figures One, Two, Three, Four, and Five that follow. A working spreadsheet, to allow customization of these curves based on new constants, is available upon request at email@example.com.
CA Family Code 4055:
CS = K * [HN
- H% * TN]
CS = K * [HN - H% * TN]
Where: CS = Child support money to be paid by high earner. TN = Total net income of high and low earner.
H% = Custody of children by high earner. HN = High earner net income.
K = Nonlinear functions of custody, children, and income.
CS = CSmax * K2 * K3 * K4 * [1 - H%] CA = CS * K0 * K1
CS = CSmax * K2 * K3 * K4 * [1 - H%]
CA = CS * K0 * K1
Where: CA = Alimony amount of CS to supplement low earner. K2 = Income multiplier varies with total income.
CSmax = Maximum child support amount (ceiling amount). K3 = Children multiplier varies with number of kids.
K0 = Alimony Amount multiplier varies with each income. K4 = Support multiplier varies with each income.
K1 = Alimony Disbursement multiplier varies with time.
K0 = -½ * (LN / HN) + ½
LN/HN = [%] = Low/High earner net income variable.
K1 = A1 * Time + B1
Time = [mo] = Time variable.
A1 = [-0.04] = (K1max - K1min) / (tmax - tmin)
B1 = [1.04] = (tmax * K1min - tmin * K1max) / (tmax - tmin)
K1min =  = Value of Alimony Disbursement multiplier at tmin
tmin =  = First value of Time
K1max =  = Value of Alimony Disbursement multiplier at tmax
tmax =  = Last value of Time
K2 = 1 - exp(-TN / B2)
TN = [$/mo] = Total net income variable.
B2 = [2,847] = - TNmin / ln(1 - (CSmin / CSmax))
TNmin =  = Lowest total net income per month to provide child support (poverty amount).
CSmin =  = Lowest child support amount per month (welfare amount).
CSmax =  = Maximum amount of child support per month (ceiling amount).
K3 = A3 * Kids + B3
Kids = [☺] = Children variable.
A3 = [0.11] = (K3max - K3min) / (Kidsmax - Kidsmin).
B3 = [0.89] = (Kidsmax * K3min - Kidsmin * K3max) / (Kidsmax - Kidsmin).
K3min =  = Value of Children multiplier at Kidsmin.
Kidsmin =  = Minimum number of Kids.
K3max =  = Value of Children multiplier at Kidsmax.
Kidsmax =  = Maximum number of Kids.
K4 = - ½ * (LN / HN) + 1
LN/HN = [%] = Low/High earner net income variable.
Child Support Control System Analysis V (continued)
Child Support Control System Analysis V (continued)
There is no way to guarantee the children see a dime
The truth comes in one package but lies come in many: promises, cover-ups, inoperative statements, falsehoods misspeaking yourself, betrayal, ignorance, fraud, or protecting the presidency.
There is a spirit behind every law that is put on the books. Typically the new law is intended to protect the innocent from a new threat. Sometimes the new law is justified by a package that allows financial rewards.
In California the law allows for a mandatory 30 day impound of a vehicle if you drive the car with a suspended driver's license. The spirit of the law was to punish the deadbeat dads who had their driver's license suspended for being behind in child support payments. However, people are punished for loaning their vehicle without any means to validate a driver's license, which may be suspended for various new reasons.
In California the law allows for a $500 fine if an employer discriminates against an employee because of child support garnishments. The spirit of the law was to protect the state from legal liability for not complying with a federal mandate. However, the fine is a frivolous small claims civil action and the victim is unable to use the violation as a lawful excuse in a non-support charge in criminal court.
In California the law allows custody of children to be granted to parents who can't possibly support them. The spirit of the law is to force the parents to spend all their money in family court, fighting for custody of the children. It also insures the landlords will have one more tenant. However, the credit card companies must discharge one more debt, welfare will have additional participants, another taxpayer is dropped from the roles, and more children will never attend college.
In California the law allows for up to one year in jail for failing to provide the support or remedial care for the children. The spirit of the law is to extort outrageous amounts of money from deadbeat dads in exchange for their indentured servitude. However, the money is given to the custodial parent. There is no way to guarantee the children see a dime.
It's intuitively obvious, I can teach a monkey to do it
We focus our faith on those known as the meek
The abundance of faith that they have and we seek
The incalculable odds that brought them before us
The unbearable thought they would not be among us
We fear for their safety, we regard them naïve
We teach them distrust, so they are not deceived
We show them survival in a world we created
We preach one religion, and all others negated
Our history we share with them, the good and the bad
Our own life's experience, all the times that we've had
After all of this training, we may decide they are ready
We allow them to face life with no blanket or teddy
The meek use your wisdom and attempt to be like you
You may feel that your efforts instilled the wrong virtue
The older we get and the longer we live
We find the greatest gift is not what we can give
The meek were equipped with all faith and no sin
It is not what we add, but rather what we keep in
As life tries to leave us and we seek life's true meaning
We realize our end is spent in search of the beginning
We are closest to God on the day of our birth
Of course, as the meek, we will inherit the Earth
The kingdom of God is all around you its true
Gaze into God's eyes to see a reflection of you
For life everlasting we can focus our faith
The meek have the power to capture our wraith
We can embrace this new view and share it and stick to it
It's intuitively obvious, I can teach a monkey to do it
I am ready to be debriefed
Your omission, Jim, if you decide to accept it, is to participate in the family law system in the state of California and baseline the process to insure that they are in compliance with a federal mandate. The tools at your disposal are federal laws, state laws, mathematical laws, control system theory, the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, and the Internet.
You must adhere to the unified goal of preservation of the family, welfare of the family members, and insuring family prosperity.
You are to follow the process, tell the truth, and stay within the chain of command.
You must waive your right to instigate issues that would alter the course of the process and be aware that even though you are employed full time earning $60,000 per year you will forced to operate on $200 per week. We have reason to believe that your employer will use the family law proceedings and judgements to terminate your employment. You are to use all available means to resist this.
You are to collect all pertinent evidence and organize a database to allow determination of the level of involvement of all agencies involved with your case. If you are convicted and imprisoned we will disavow any knowledge of your activities. This state will self destruct if you are not successful. Good luck, Jim.
This omission to provide support and remedial care to my children has been a test of character. The anticipated discrimination by my employer due to child support garnishments and time off to participate in family law proceedings has occurred. I feel my employer was reacting to a Department of Defense investigation into my financial insolvency threatening my clearance. The method used to calculate my weekly contribution erroneously put my garnishment at the federally allowed maximum (65%).
I fear that the spirit of the law that begged the creation of US Code Title 42 Section 666 b.6.d has been betrayed. A federal law is not recognized as a lawful excuse in the criminal court and is a frivolous pursuit in civil court.
Problem identification, corrective action, damage control, and level of involvement.
I am ready to be debriefed.
Money spent on the children … nobody knows
The fate of our nation, was thrust into the hands, of the residents of a state, who chose not to be there. What if those absentee balloters all voted for Ross Perot? Our voice as citizens trying to guide our own fate, are drown out by the racket of a broken down machine. Our vote is like money.
We all put in our two cents worth and try to win a majority. If our votes are misspent we may all feel we were cheated. A statistical breakdown of votes counted and then applied to the electoral votes cast, and the regions of origin, and the distribution of the fields of force that determined the outcome can be measured, studied, plotted, and charted.
The same is true for anyone buying a lottery ticket. An extensive breakdown of how the money acquired from the operation is used to benefit our children through our schools. A distribution of regional areas and the amount of money contributed. What the money was used for within that region and a breakdown of what equipment was bought as a result.
The money spent by the breadwinners to support their children is also under close scrutiny. The court order amounts, the amount of arrears, the interest accrued, and the amounts paid to the custodial parent are computed to the dime.
Money spent on the children … nobody knows.
Attempt to acquire a taste for baloney
When I was little, we used to play a game called "tittie whistle", but it is actually a form of locker room hazing. You pinch the victim's tittie and continue to pinch it until he can somehow whistle. If you have never played the game, don't feel left out. I can tell you from experience though, it is not easy to whistle when someone is pinching your tittie, and the harder they pinch the more difficult it is to whistle.
Not unlike "tittie whistle" the procedures used to extort money from deadbeat dads involves making it unbearable to provide the outrageous amounts of money ordered, and if they fall behind in paying the ordered amounts it is made even more difficult to provide. To the point where they put them in jail, which makes it impossible to provide. This is known as "pinching the tittie too hard."
How to gain financial independence in California:
1) Prepare for divorce
a) Discretely put money aside in private savings
b) Network with divorce coaches to establish strategy
c) Have your spouse buy you a boob job
d) Bone up on the current relationship rhetoric
2) Provoke domestic violence incident.
a) Assassinate the character of your spouse to family
b) Spark an extramarital affair with spouse's friends
c) Physically abuse 18 month-old child in front of spouse
d) Drain checking account and max out credit cards
e) If you can't provoke an incident, make one up
f) Call 911 to allow you to take kids from house
g) Stay with divorce coach but say you stayed in a shelter
h) Seek restraining order and kick-out order
i) Move back into house and inherit all furnishings
3) Retain expensive family law attorney
a) Seek physical custody of children
b) Petition for legal separation
c) Seek child support and arrearage payments
d) Freeze bank accounts and start wage garnishment
e) Instigate many false issues to require legal response
f) Schedule many unnecessary court appearances
g) Pay attorney with child support money
h) Release attorney, when respondent loses attorney
4) Live it up
a) Establish personal credit
b) Buy a new car
c) Take college courses
d) Get that plastic surgery
e) Join a health club
f) Force oldest child to baby-sit
g) Arrange weekend visitation for romantic getaways
h) Obtain part time job to increase your income
i) Only spend a significant portion of money on kids
5) Request to enter default dissolution of marriage
a) Withhold notice of date set for trial from respondent
b) Request sole physical custody of children
c) Request half of college fund in retirement account
d) Request other half of college fund for arrears
e) Request whatever you want since it's uncontested
GZS Baselines Child Support Control System Part VI (continued)
6) File for CS enforcement when obligator loses job
a) Apply for welfare
b) Move into fiancé's house in retirement community
c) Fly kids to grandma's and tour Europe with fiancé
d) Try to use oldest child's freedom to extort money
e) Arrest obligator during oldest child visitation
f) Try to use oldest child's freedom to extort money
7) Receive college fund money due to court order
a) Throw money on the bed and roll around naked
b) Discontinue welfare
c) Kick oldest child out of fiancé's house
d) Slander oldest child to child's friends
e) Fly to Cozumel Mexico for romantic get-away
f) Fly friends and relatives to attend wedding
g) Marry your fiancé and move into his residence
8) Sentence obligator for criminal nonsupport
a) Explain why oldest child was abandoned
b) Explain European tour while on welfare
c) Explain living in fiancé's house while on welfare
d) Explain $3,000 bank account while on welfare
e) Explain new car bought while on welfare
f) Explain reason for perjuring yourself in court
g) Explain source of money to retain costly attorney
h) Explain reason for abusing 18 month-old child
i) Discover a new meaning for "visitation" in jail
j) Wonder how you can possibly live with yourself
k) Attempt to acquire a taste for baloney
The purpose of this analysis is to draw together the structure of the proposed child support control system. The following elements are essential for compliance with CA Family Code 4053.e which seeks to place the interests of children as the state's top priority. California can lead by example in solving child support and benchmark welfare reform for no extra charge.
1) Legislation to implement at-birth determination of the biological parents of children.
Every child should have the right to know the identity of its biological parents. Paternity testing must be made a part of childbirth procedures of the medical facility delivering the child. The results of the test should appear on each child's birth certificate. A legal copy of the birth certificate must be made available to the parents as soon as possible.
2) Legislation to quantify the amount of child support money actually used to support the children.
Every child should have a legal right to all money ordered for its support. The existing CA Family Code 4053.i which states that it is presumed that a parent having primary physical responsibility for the children contributes a significant portion of available resources for the support of the children is not sufficient to protect the children's rights.
3) Legislation for harsher penalty for employer discrimination related to family law proceedings or judgements.
Every employee should have the right to participate in family law proceedings and abide by court orders. The CS enforcement agency must be forced to intervene immediately if funds are not transferred from the employer as required by the system. If the failure to provide or refusal to hire stems from employer discrimination based on the effect of family law proceedings or judgements, the employer may face a fine as required by US Code Title 42 Section 666 .b.6.D. The existing CA Family Code 5290 which only provides for a maximum $500 fine is not sufficient to comply with the current federal mandate.
4) An analytical method to qualify the system as it relates to the support of the children and its affect on family members.
A functional family has the right to continue functioning after divorce. A "typical family" model must be adopted to insure the children receive support without sabotaging the functionality of the family. The equations, accounting, database, and arbitration functions must be implemented to allow real time correction and qualitative review. Appendix One shows GZS proposed block diagram of "typical family" system and identifies entry points of outside influence.
5) A fair, equitable, rebuttable, real-time method for setting each parent's monetary contribution for child support.
Every litigant should have the right to due process. CA Family Code 4055 is derived from mysterious mathematical origins and is completely insufficient. A fair and equitable equation to calculate each parent's contributions to child support must be derived from constants that may vary depending on each parent's situation in life. The only method to insure that child support orders will be followed is to allow the affected parties to be present to offer rebuttal (no default). The contributions of each litigant must have the ability to change as the system continuously monitors the use of this money for the support of the children or changes in income. Appendix Two shows GZS proposed equations that are derived from real-life constants, allows real-time correction, and removes custody from the equation.
6) Electronic financial accounting system for money transfer between CS enforcement, payee, obligator, and employers.
Everyone should have the right to utilize current technology. Child support contributions from each parent will be electronic transfer from parent or employer to the CS enforcement agency, which then transfers money to a separate charge account used for expenses related to the children. This allows proof of payment to comply with CA Family Code 4053.1 which demands that all child support orders guarantee children receive fair, timely, and sufficient support. If disputes arise concerning contribution amounts transferred from employer or obligator to CS enforcement agency, a process to arbitrate the dispute must be implemented.
7) Computerized database system to collect and quantify expenditures regarding child support.
Everyone should have the right to get what they pay for. Expenses related to the children will be made using a separate charge account. The itemization of individual charges will be incorporated into a summary at the end of each month for review by each parent and the CS enforcement agency. Unauthorized charges or an excessive balance may be cause for adjustments to contributions. Data gathered will be used throughout the system to better quantify the amount of child support required for a family of this type. This system can be implemented voluntarily by parents prior to separation to alleviate drastic impact to separate financial stability after separation. If disputes arise concerning the use of funds for the support of the children, a process to arbitrate the dispute must be implemented.