Season 4 Episode 7 - 5 Supreme Courts Cases Should Know

5 Supreme Court Cases Should Know 

Will show you the 5 Constitutional Law that are specific to the Child Support legislations and the narratives and conversations that have impacted and influenced the Title 4D program since Congress enhanced it since 1975.

All people — even men and women who are unfamiliar with the Child Support statutes — will learn the essential narratives to understand how these bodies of laws have destroyed the financial lives of fathers.

More importantly, these Supreme Court arguments are available to all who are pursuing independent study without a lawyer. Fathers can read the case laws to prepare for their own court cases so as to fill in any gaps in their understanding of the process.

When the time is right, fathers can challenge any prominent judge and their band of attorneys. Child Support Lawsuit Simplified. We teach you strategies and techniques to free yourself of judicial misconduct from the State and Federal. The guarantee is YOURS.

5 Constitutional Law that are specific to the Child Support legislations, Blessing, Sage, Carrelli, Holmberg and Wehunt.

📖 To Schedule Discussion and Conversation:
👥 Calendar: https://bit.ly/Calendar-ChildSupport
📢 Email: Chrish289@protonmail.com

📝 Let's Connect On Social Media:
👍 Facebook: https://bit.ly/FB-ChildSupportMadeSmple
🐦Twitter: https://twitter.com/chrish289
📸 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrish289/
✅ YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeiwfslKzAo

❤️ Please Support This Channel:
PayPal
💎 $25 Donation OR any amount: https://bit.ly/ChildSupportMadeSimple
      [Accept All Payments- MasterCard, Visa,  Etc]
Cash.app
💎 Any amount: https://cash.app/$chrish289

Transcript

5 Supreme Cases You Should Know

📢      Email: Chrish289@proton.me
            (c)Copyright, 2021-2030
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+
INTRODUTION:

In this episode we will review the five supreme court cases that everyone should know regarding the child support program yes everyone should know this whether you have a child support case or not here the justices of the supreme court that everyone should also know who these nine members are now in terms of child support wouldn't you want to know what the supreme court actually says about child support versus rumors and stories well if I say

 things like blessing Corelli Holberg how about sage do you know what these supreme court decisions are well let's start off with number one which is blessing versus freestone this is the cornerstone of the child support program and in this supreme court decision it says that the states may receive federal funding when they implement or develop a title for d program again title 4d is the child support program the result was that the title 4d program benefits no individual person no children as well as neither the custodial parent it is just a federal

 program that is used to manage the overall state program so what are the importance of the case well the justice says that the secretary is the one responsible for the system-wide performance of the state's child support program and therefore any benefit that's received by the by either the mother or the child is just incidental it's not important so this is decision in blessing versus freestone hello my name is chris and in this episode this is a critical episode regarding what exactly did the supreme court said about the child support program and here we will show five cases in which the the supreme court has made decision and again the

 supreme court is the law of the land there's an axiom a maximum of law that says ignorance of the law is no excuse and ignorance the law cannot be used as an excuse and the case law is state versus miller in 2017 out of North Carolina supreme court that applies to judges and attorneys so let's look at the constitutional law and it says here the governing principle of the constitutional democracy is that all officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and they're bound to obey it and no man in this country is so high that he is above the law and no officer of the law may set the law out of defiance with impunity

 why am i saying this we're going to cover five supreme court cases and many of you that are before judges they're saying that we don't abide by the the constitutional law that is not true so here's what you should say when a judge tells you that we don't follow the federal law tell them the buts stop here mr lee i say that because these decisions were from two case law butts versus economy which is 438 US 478 in 1978 and united states versus lee which is 106 US at 220 in 1882 what this says is everyone must follow the constitution or suffer the

 consequences of it and so as i said what you to remind yourself of these two cases just say your honor the butts stop here mr lee and that is you must abide by the constitutional law because of the case law butts versus Economu in united states versus lee so here's the bonus that i talk about in the beginning of one of the case laws recently in a case called Taylor versus

 Robert Roijas this was decided in November 2nd 2020 yes just a few months ago and in this decision it's a landmark decision it stated that even with our intervention qualified immunity would not be available in any future case it is time to overhaul the qualified immunity yes folks those judges and clerks and attorneys who are administering the child support program relied on qualified immunity but now the supreme court has now said that qualified immunity

 should be reviewed so what does that mean for you who are before the child support program you can start suing the judges we started the conversation about filing lawsuits this is the reason why i started that this year now the qualified immunity program started with a case called pearson versus rey which is 1967 and what it states is this that the qualified immunity the doctrine of qualified immunity it grants a broad immunity against suit against government officials acting in a discretionary capacity and that is they were immune from a 1983 civil rights lawsuit well folks that is no longer the decision as of a few months ago

now where else is this happening this change with a qualified immunity well the new mexico governor has also signed into law that has ended qualified immunity so all you gentlemen that are in the child support program in new mexico you should be sharpening your tools to start your lawsuits also on april 29 2021 new york city has banned qualified immunity for cops who uses excessive force this article here fair use from nick sibelia that talks about how the qualified immunity is now ended in new york in new york city that means this applies to judges and clerks of the child support program as well they cannot use qualified immunity any further

here we are is where we're bringing this case regarding the five supreme court cases that has reshaped the child support program as always we accept donations either via cash app or paypal and again this helps us in continuing our research so let's move to number two this one is called united states versus sage and that is 92 3d 101 in the second circuit in 1996. the issue the child support recovery act is invalid because it goes beyond the constitutional power of congress to enact that was the issue the result of this supreme court case it says the child support agreements are equivalent to interstate commercial contracts and rejects the idea that child support payments obligation are somehow different, they're no different than

 student loans or a car note so basically the child support program is nothing more than an interstate contract so here's the importance states that have the tele4d program they can expand it across the state territories to demand payments from parents who are labeled obligors now i make a note who are labeled obligors not from fathers this is very important so because of the interstate uh flavor or condition of the contracts as you know congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce child support falls under that criteria as well now

 as a result of that decision many states this is a the 2019 wage garnishment program under 45 cfr 32 you have texas making 4.35 billion in California 2.4 billion New York 1.7 Ohio 1.5 as well as florida 1.5 so states have racked up immense what is called garnishment and they're enjoying that windfall so let's move to number three this one is called Holberg versus Holberg and that's 588 2d720 in 1999 the issue before the supreme court is the administrative law judges modified district court child support orders which violates the separation powers of doctrine under the constitution now who are administrative law just by now you should know that the judges before child support they are not real judges and they're really called

 administrative law judges that is they're not judicial and because they're not judicial they don't have the authority to change a district court child support order so what was the result of that is in Minnesota they were permitting these administrative law judges to both practice law as well as to change court decision and that was deemed unconstitutional so here's the important thing child support is not a judicial process it's an administrative tribunal process as well as child support orders in our opinion has no appeal because it's not a court order it is a contract

now many of these case laws that i'm reviewing is found in what's called the doj letter that is no longer available on the internet however if you'd like a copy of that doj which has additional supreme court decisions you can get it from our website which is called childsupport.newsendler.com it's our master class where we put a lot of our information that we cannot put on uh on the internet where you can retrieve additional information and classes so let's move to number four this is corelli versus hauser that's 90-334-0 in 1990. mothers argue that the public is the intended beneficiary of the title 4d child support program for both afdc and non-afdc and the money should be going to them and not the state as you know the afdc is the welfare program that is aid for families with dependent children that's basically the the foundational welfare program well here's a result of this particular lawsuit mothers are not the intended beneficiaries of the statute such that they have no constitutional right to maintain a 1983 civil rights lawsuit against the agency or the state the importance of this is that the secretary of health and human resources is the oversight and therefore it forecloses or shuts off the ability for mothers to sue on the 1983 remedy now look at this pattern you hear a mother says i put fathers on child support that is not true they have absolutely no right to the program and corelli versus hauser was a decision from that so do you notice a pattern what is the pattern all these supreme court cases that i'm reviewing that goes to the heart of the child support program are brought by mothers women none of them when you review them are brought by fathers or men and so the supreme court has done it many times that mothers and custodial parents do not have access to the child support program i did a video call mothers did not put you on child support please feel free to review that i provide more details so let's move to number five is we hunt versus ledbetter 875 in 1989 the issue before the court mothers of afdc children to require the state to enforce the provisions of the title 4d program under 42 usc 651 here's the result the aftc program is a contractual arrangement and is funded by both the federal government and making payments to the state and the secretary is responsible for the implementation of that program well what does it mean well according to the statute of the program it does not require that the state spends more money to collect money from these obligor aka fathers that it actually spends in the lawsuit it says they're not going to spend 100 to collect 50 so what does that mean that mean mothers cannot sue the agency to to attack or seek out fathers if financially it does not make sense again this demonstrates that mothers are not in control of the child support program it is the state government in conjunction with the federal government now because of that and the federal funding the child support program is very profitable as it says they're not going to spend more money than is needed in order to collect the support so in 2019 which is the last fiscal year that the program uh that the numbers were reported to congress it's about 28.7 billion dollars collected they paid out 27.6 billion dollars which means there's 1.1 billion that is being shared in the child support program that's pure profit again for every dollar that they spend they collect five dollars you're wondering who gets this money well of course leave the comments you know who's sharing this money the judges and the lawyers and the state

this information is also available in our podcast and feel free to listen on spotify apple or amazon we we have a video called vexatious and belligerent litigant the five lawsuit that we just reviewed in order to exercise them you need to be what is called a belligerent litigant in court that is you are given permission from the supreme court in order to be what is called challenge these judges to the authority

uh we have an ongoing discussion on this channel regarding immunity as we now know immunity is questionable but there's called defeat motion to dismiss this is how that the judges and the lawyers in the state defeat your lawsuit and we will have that discussion and all I'm asking for is that increase the subscribership yes I'm asking to increase the subscribership such that i could continue this conversation and thank you for listening today now that you know that there's five lawsuit that has reshaped the child support program have a good day