Declaration of Independence
“WHEN in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the clauses which compel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness —-“
This declaration continues to lay the foundation for the Constitution of United States which codifies those rights into organic law for this nation. Among these laws are “legal rights” to which all citizens must be afforded, including among others, due process of law and equal protection of the law. The most fundamental Element of “due process” must be Jurisdiction, without which, no court may act in any determinative manner.
A court may Not Presume or Assume jurisdiction without first defining which specific area of Law will be reviewed, and without the “moving party” establishing jurisdiction in a specific court. There exists sufficient case law on this issue, supporting the forfeiture of jurisdiction by a court where one party violates the other party’s rights. A presumption of fairness by the court must be maintained by the neutrality of It’s judges and other court officers. A court of law in which a third-party may have an interest in the outcome demands that jurisdiction is forfeited we are even an appearance of impropriety admits a susceptibility to prejudice of the court.
To protect the people from a rogue government there are rules to govern the operation of the courts, Known as the Uniform Bonding Code (UBC). Rule 5.0 directs the Judiciary under these rules. It states clearly and without ambiguity that prosecutors and judges have a duty to remove matters from state court to federal court when the State is a party to the action.
Under this standard, domestic relations and child support matters cannot be fairly deter- mined in a state court. Every such action must be heard in a federal court. The reasons are simple: the Commonwealth (or State) has a vested interest in the outcome. Accordingly, a Court may not try a matter where the court has an interest any outcome. Jurisdiction in such matters must automatically be transferred to a federal court. The state is a “third-party interest”.
Child support guidelines are promulgated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania through a Committee nominated by those justices. What is unspoken it is that in a child-support matter there are three parties: a custodial parent; a noncustodial Parent; and a third party that is never identified by the court. That party is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (or whatever State). The interest of the State in Child Support matters is an egregious example of “State-Sanctioned Stealing” under the auspices of “color of law.
That is correct! I said “STEALING” with the consent of the federal government. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is substituted for “LAW”. For domestic relations matters, review 45 CFR 302 ….. This “Code” describes the extent of federal government intrusion into the lives of We the People; the Constitution be damned!
If you have ever asked your congressman for assistance in a Family court matter, I am confident that your congressman told you that domestic relations is a state matter which prohibits involvement by members of Congress. You were LIED To. Under 45 CFR, not only is the federal government involved, but the government dictates the terms of service necessary for State compliance with federal objectives for child support. When a state establishes a child support collection program, the federal government authorizes Federal incentives to each state based on their program. The amounts of money received by any individual state is immense. For most states, for each Dollar of child support collected, our overly generous Federal government adds a 10% incentive to be delivered to the political subdivision, a pseudonym for the County court.
E.g., when the ncp receives a court document assigning a support obligation, when the amount is paid through the domestic relations department, the federal government awards the collection section with a 10% bonus. For instance, if the support obligation is $100.00 per week, approximately $440.00 per month, that domestic relations section collects an additional $44.00 per month. Such “incentives” apply for EACH case. These “Financial incentives” are applied to every Dollar of Child support collected. It would be a very enlightening set of facts to learn how much Federal money, in the form of Financial incentives, was distributed to a state the size of Pennsylvania over the prior 10 years. Does Billions of Dollars sound like a reasonable amount?
Financial incentives are not the only source of federal money distributed to state courts encouraging Child support collection. Our federal tax dollars are also distributed to pay counsel fees for attorneys to represent needy custodial parents. Since the program is chartered under Title IV-D, these attorneys are known as Title IV-D attorneys. They are essentially prosecutors for the political subdivision and the distribution of federal dollars to those political subdivisions. Other county services are subsidized with federal money. Courts also receive “bonuses” for every ncp arrested for failure to maintain the payment schedule.
As “prosecutors” for a state entity, Title IV-D attorneys are subject to UBC Rule 5.0. Every appearance in a state court by a Title IV-D attorney (“prosecutor) violates the “due process rights” of the”defendant” and forfeits jurisdiction of that court, which then invalidates each Order of the Court rendering them to be “Nullities”, void ab initio.
In order to receive larger “financial incentives”, 45 CFR requires a State to enact support guidelines via legislation or administrative promulgation in conformance with federal instructions. State support guideline amounts must be based on current “economic data” and are “declared” to be presumptively correct, a conclusion which must be a “rebuttable presumption”. 45 CFR demands are an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority that violates the Article I of the Constitution and the “separation of powers” doctrine.
Pennsylvania promulgates support guidelines via a “Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee” of the Supreme Court comprised of lawyers and judges. Is this a “conflict of interest” when a State Supreme Court constructs the law that lower court judges must later administer? and does the strict application of support guidelines [as Law] violate the “separation of powers” doctrine?
Pennsylvania’s support guidelines fail constitutional muster in its construction, promulgation and implementation. The Committee failed to conform with federal direction that guideline amounts must be supported by economic data, ignoring economic data for single-parent households; and relying instead on economic data for “intact” households, an intentional distortion of the “economic data” to support unreasonably high “presumptively correct” support awards. Higher support awards equals higher collection amounts equals higher “financial incentives” under 45 CFR.
DRS is a “cash cow” for the court and the State.
Problems in the Hamoui case arise from 45 CFR Title III – Child Support Enforcement Program and State family court application of PA Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 1910 et seq – Actions For Support; a.k.a. Support Guidelines.
This discussion of PROBLEMS is separated into three phases before three judges. Each phase addresses deficiencies with the State’s construction and the court’s application of Pa.R.C.P. 1910 et seq, PA’s Support Guidelines.
In each phase, audio records of court hearings were criminally edited.
CRIMINALS ARE RUNNING OUR COURTS.
Phase 1 reports the prosecution for child support and contempt of court under Rule 1910 et seq administered by William E. Ford against defendant Hamoui beginning in September 1997 through the appeals process.
Phase 2 reports the prosecution for child support administered by Alan M. Black against defendant Hamoui beginning on or about March of 1999 through the appeals process. PA guidelines were amended effective April of 1999. Black inappropriately applied ex post facto law. Coming soon…
Phase 3 reports the systemic deprivation of Hamoui’s rights to due process of law administered by Ford in 1998 and subsequently by Edward D. Reibman in 1999. Coming soon…
Criminal editing of audio records rises to a level of “pattern and practice” raising the question of whether our “family court” system is a Racketeering Influenced Criminal Operation subject to investigation under RICO laws.
Hamoui: Phase 1
|Pennsylvania’s support guidelines fail to conform to federal direction and fail to protect rights and privileges secured under federal and State Constitutions, especially those of defendants. The collection of child support under government incentive is a “tax” upon a select group of citizens under questionable authority.Application of the guidelines is prejudicial at best, and criminal in fact.
Constitutional issues related to federal government involvement with the enforcement of child support are discussed with Constitution: Problems.
|“Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1886).
Hamoui came before the court after DRS (Domestic Relations) refused to grant his request for a reduction of child support despite irrefutable evidence of a reduction in his gross income and an increase in his support obligation for a second household. DRS and the court applied Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16 et seq, effective Jan. 1996.
Hamoui demanded a deviation [reduction of his support obligation] from the presumptively correct guideline amount.
|Support guidelines fail to provide standards / parameters whereby a defendant may successfully “rebutt” the presumptively correct guideline amount. This deficiency in the guidelines denies a defendant a “full and fair opportunity” to present rebuttal evidence.This omission grants total and absolute discretion to judges to interpret the guidelines as “law” instead of “guidelines”. Judges become tyrants.||Rebuttable Presumption.
In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a “disputable” presumption. A species of legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced.
Black’s Law. Cites omitted.
The outcome for Hamoui’s petition to reduce child support was pre-determined, i.e., “fixed“. Ford’s ‘opening remarks’ informed all defendants that they could save the court’s time if they got up and left, because their request to modify support wasn’t going to happen [in his court].
Hamoui’s arguments for a deviation from the guideline amount were thwarted by the court in collusion with the Title IV-D attorney, Susan G. Maurer, who LIED to the court about prior judicial action. Maurer and Ford knew that her ‘testimony’ was not true, a cover-up for the delegation of the judicial power of the court to DRS, an unconstitutional practice that violates the judicial oath of office.
Evidence material to the outcome that was spoken for the record was “criminally edited” from the audio record.
The guidelines require a complainant [Plaintiff] to present evidence to support the claim. i.e., Plaintiff must testify and be subject to a test of credibility via cross-examination. Cites omitted.
Ford circumvented this constitutional protection by allowing the Maurer to testify for plaintiff, and then DENIED defendant the right to cross-examine plaintiff, despite “offers of proof” of exculpatory / mitigating evidence.
Ford admonished counsel to learn ‘how this court works”. He neglected to state that audio records of court hearings are edited to remove or modify any “exculpatory” evidence that managed to be spoken in court. The alteration of audio records of court hearings is a “criminal” act involving two or more persons; a criminal conspiracy to deprive defendants of constitutional rights.
Judge Ford becomes a criminal. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242.
Hamoui reported the crime to the State Attorney General’s office who sent him back to Lehigh County, where the Office of District Attorney “white-washed” the criminal complaint without an investigation.
Phase 1 PROBLEMS
Pa.R.C.P. 1910 et seq is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The 1996 support guidelines are constitutionally defective. The Rules Committee failed to conduct public hearings rendering the guidelines “invalid” according to a U.S. District Court. See Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 566 A 2d 719 (D.C. App. 1990).
Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex. PA guidelines appear “fair on its face”, but have an inherent gender bias that violates Title VII. The section for enforcement via ‘contempt’ proceedings violates
Guideline provisions for “contempt” hearings violate the 14th Amendment and prohibitions against “debtor’s prison”. The court’s application of contempt rules are discriminatory against fathers.
A “presumption [of fact]” stated in a [procedural] Rule of Court constitutes a published bias, judicial prejudice. If this isn’t bad enough, failure to publish elements under which a “presumptively correct” support award may be rebutted defeats the concept of a “fair and impartial” tribunal, replacing it with a “presumption of guilt”, contrary to the most cherished element of American jusitice; a “presumption of innocence”. The gudelines deprive contemnors of “due process”.
Corrupt judges administer the guidelines “with an evil eye and a heavy hand” in violation of the 14th Amendment, an abuse of office.
PA support “guidelines” cannot lawfully be interpreted as “law”.
Application of Pa.R.C.P. 1910 et seq is gender biased.
The 1996 support guidelines provided explicit instruction for the calculation of net incomes for plaintiffs and defendants. However, DRS fails to apply the guideline instructions the same for both parties.
DRS adjusted Hamoui’s income upwards by assigning him an “earning capacity” an egregious misapplication of law and a deviation contrary to the explicit direction of the guidelines; an abuse of discretion.
Ford upheld DRS after Maurer misrepresented to the court that his earning capacity was “considered” by Judge Reibman in 1996. Ford relied on Maurer’s false testimony to uphold DRS unlawful upward adjustment, even after learning that Maurer LIED. See N.O.T., page 7 and 8. There was no hearing in 1996 before any judge.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910 et seq fails to conform to legislative intent.
PA guidelines appear “fair on its face”, treating all custodial parents the same, regardless of their financial circumstances. This treatment is inconsistent with legislative intent that both parents are accountable for the support of their children after the parent is able to provide for themselves.
The intent of the legislature is that when one parent is more able to provide child support, the support award should be modified to afford the other parent some relief. The guidelines disregard legislative intent.
For instance, when a custodial parent marries, the new spouse assumes a duty for the financial support for the spouse under Pennsylvania law.
The support guidelines must then distinguish between a custodial parent who provides the sole income in the household versus a remarried custodial parent with other incomes in the household. Support guidelines that fail to make this distinction may appear “fair on its face”, but are actually discriminatory.
The non-custodial parent must be afforded some relief from an excessive financial burden. Children in second households are irreparably harmed by the court’s failure to consider the improved financial circumstances of a remarried custodial parent.
In Hamoui’s case, plantiff’s marriage increased the NET INCOME of the custodial parent by more than $700.00 per month. This financial windfall should become available in the support calculation.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910 et seq fails to conform to federal requirements.
Federal “financial incentives” have corrupted legislative intent. PA courts [DRS] strive to maximize every support order in order to maximize the financial distribution to the court (political subdivision).
Rules of Procedure, both civil and criminal, are NOT LAW; they are Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania under the premise of efficient administration of law. Interpretation of the Rules are supposed to conform with legislative intent of Laws, and the protection of the constitutional rights of litigants. See Pa.R.C.P. 127, 128 and 133 et al.
State support guideline amounts must be based on current “economic data”. The Committee disregards available economic data regarding money spent on children in single-parent households. The support tables are based on false economic data reporting money spent of children in “intact” families in order to maximize support collection and the collection of “federal incentives” under 45 CFR.
PA support guidelines may constitute a “fraud” on the federal treasury?
Courts apply Pa.R.C.P. 1910 et seq “with an evil eye or a heavy hand”.
PA support guidelines fail to conform with legislative intent and court administration of the guidelines fails to conform with law, the Constitution and the oath of office of judges.
PA guidelines appear “fair on its face” but are intentionally administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” with the knowledge and consent of the Supreme Court, a corrupt body whose duty is to protect the rights of Pennsylvania citizens under the Constitution / Law. The PA Supreme Court fails its constitutional duty.
The Supreme Court set the tone for the heavy handed administration of the guidelines when it overturned a valid decision from the Superior (appellate) Court in 1994. See Ball v. Minnick, 648 A.2d 1192, 538 Pa. 441 (Pa. 1994), overturning in part Ball v. Minnick, 606 A.2d 1181 (Pa.Super. 1992).
PA guidelines appear to provide for a deviation from the presumptively correct support award where the non-custodial parent has another child support obligation, stating that children in both households must be treated equally.
In the Hamoui case, Ford inflicted irreparable harm upon the children of Hamoui’s marriage while allegedly administering the guidelines fairly and impartially. Ford preserved the highest cash return to the court under 45 CFR rather than act in the best interest of all the children.
The Superior Court earlier decided a case where the net incomes of the custodial and non-custodial parents were nearly identical to the net incomes in Hamoui. In that case, a significant reduction from the guideline amount was granted. See Opie v. Richart, 598 A.2d 1321 (Pa.Super. 1991)
The principle difference between the two cases is that the non-custodial parent who was granted the reduction of child support was the mother, an example of gender bias.
The administration of child support in Lehigh County has a clear and irrefutable gender bias. Lehigh County judges administer the guidelines with a heavy hand to achieve their pre-determined outcomes. i.e., support cases are “fixed”.
Contempt of Court
Support Guidelines include [coercive] procedural rules to compel compliance from non-custodial parents via contempt actions. The courts employ the same gender bias in contempt matters as it does when calculating support awards. Non-custodial mothers are treated differently than non-custodial fathers.
|“Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, see ya around. …
We don’t have to worry about the rights.”
from Mass. training seminar for judges.
|Pennsylvania courts adapted the Massachusetts instruction when applying its support guidelines and rules for contempt. Judges have ‘no concern’ for the constitutional rights of defendants.|
According to Law, contempt for non-compliance must be “willful”, requiring “clear and convincing” evidence. A conviction must result in an order that may be coercive to compel compliance, but may NOT be PUNITIVE.
Ford found Hamoui in contempt despite “clear and convincing evidence” of Hamoui’s compliance with the interim support order. Ford knew Hamoui was in compliance. Nevertheless, Hamoui was handcuffed and thrown in jail. Against counsel’s protest, Ford admonished counsel, advising him to appear later “to see how this court works”.
Pa.R.C.P. 1910 et seq creates a “debtor’s prison”. See also “JUDICIAL ATROCITIES: ENNIS“.
Jury trials are a must when holding a trial for civil contempt where “clear and convincing” evidence must be produced. … “The jury … acts not only as a safeguard against judicial excesses, but also as a barrier to legislative and executive oppression. The Supreme Court … recognizes that the jury … is designed to protect Defendants against oppressive governmental practices.” UNITED STATES EX REL TOTH V. QUARLES, 350 U.S. 11, 16 (1955)
Incarceration for alleged “willful non-compliance” with an alleged ORDER OF COURT entered by a court acting without a supporting “law” and therefore without jurisdiction violates the most important element of this Nation’s judicial process, the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
The intentional misapplication of law / abuse of discretion applied by William E. Ford is a criminal act under 18 USC 242 that demonstrates the malicious, despotic and tyrannical prosecution of defendants in child support matters across Pennsylvania and this Nation.
Ford’s rulings were upheld by an appellate court panel that refused to examine the facts and abuse of discretion in the lower court, relying on the distortions of facts in Ford’s convoluted OPINION.
The perpetrators [judges] are “Domestic Terrorists” for underming the Constitution and the Rule of Law. All judges know what is going on in family courts. Where are those speaking out against this RAPE of the judicial process? Any reference to judges as “honorable” is misplaced.
Efforts to correct the record and to initiate an investigation into the criminal alteration of court records were thwarted, contrary to the oaths of office of judges in the lower court and the appellate court.
The reader is encouraged to participate by proposing solutions [REMEDIES] to the problems identified by this site.
Coming soon …
PROBLEMS with Hamoui: Phase 2 and Hamoui: Phase 3.
These discussions will address PROBLEMS that arose in subsequent Hamoui hearings.
PACOURTINJUSTICE will present specific issues perceived as Problems with the support guidelines and state family court administration of Law that is compelled to respect the Constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and Defendants. The discussion will address PROBLEMS that arose in Hamoui. The reader is encouraged to participate by proposing solutions [REMEDIES] to the problems identified by this site.
Among others, the Hamoui case cites deprivation of Constitutional rights and protections of due process, equal protection, ex post facto law,etc. The case includes criminal edits of audio tapes, perjury and subornation of perjury, and violations of the judicial Oath of Office and Code of Judicial Conduct in the trial court and in the appellate courts.
Hamoui Phase 2 raised a Constitutional challenge to the Support Guidelines pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. Rule 522. The Court Administrator of Pennsylvania, Zygmont Pines, neglected his duty to respond to the challenge.
More to Come …
Check back for updates.