WHY ATTORNEYS GENERAL ALLOW CORRUPTION? A SOROSIAN VICTIM-FUNDED DEATH MARCH TO FATHERLESS SOCIETIES ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why Attorney Generals (AGs) ignore the fraud on our courts, and outright corruption in domestic courts all over the nation? Because they are directly benefiting from this corruption. Take the example of Texas’ AG, up to 2/3 of his budget comes directly from child support orders domestic court Judges fraudulently obtain in conjunction with corrupt lawyers. If this is not a conflict of interest, I don’t know what it is.
“When you think of child support, do you think of a child in need? That’s what we have been culturally conditioned to believe. Just like anything else, until we are educated, we only know what we are fed.
What if you found out that child support was being used to enrich government officials in your state, and that in order to enrich them the child had to be stripped of one of their fit and loving parents?
Attorney General Ken Paxton was caught bragging to his audience that his office gets “a large amount of money from child support.” He claims that child support is a program to help take care of our children and make sure that they don’t need government assistance, on video at a Tarrant County Tea Party event, last Monday night, February 13, 2017, by Independent film Producer, Jeff Morgan.
What he doesn’t mention is the number of children being hurt by this program. The majority of the parents who pay child support aren’t the ones who would end up on government assistance anyway. Parents who would end up on government programs are usually too broke to pay child support in the first place.
The AG states in this video that 62% of his office depends on child support money, two-thirds of his budget comes from it, and for every dollar that his office spends collecting child support, the state brings in $12.27 in child support. This $12.27 is the amount that the federal government uses to determine how much the state gets paid through Title IV-D, so the higher this number the more the state gets back from the federal government.
Ken claims that Texas is the most efficient of all states, with the next closest state being South Dakota at just over $10 for every dollar. California, a state much larger in population than Texas is only at $2 for every dollar.
The AG states that his office has 4200 employees and 2600 of them are for child support for over a million children each year.
Court dockets reflect a growing number of child support enforcement filings. In fact, child support enforcement had the largest growth in the state of Texas last year, 2016 of 40% a 14% increase from last year and the largest increase overall in family law categories.
Post-modification and enforcement cases in family law saw the largest increase.
More than 40 percent of the 880,823 cases filed in district courts were family cases.
Are the Courts Creating the Increased Caseload Unnecessarily?
Generally, a parent ordered to pay child support in the state of Texas has their time with their child restricted more than the natural restriction than the separation from the other parent would already impose. (See how the Bar lobbies against equal parenting here.) Combine that with the low standard of evidence in the family courts and the non-existent requirement to show that the parent abandoned the child in the first place, you have children being stripped of a fit and loving parent so the state can collect their money to keep feeding their employees in the child support program, not to feed the children; these children were never at risk of not being fed in the first place.
Further mothers are more often made the primary caretaker of the child than fathers. Placing children in essentially single parent homes and in cases of parental alienation fatherless or motherless homes. And these statistics pretty much have much been static as far back as 1993.
Yet, the state would still have you believe that awarding child support protects the child’s best interest. From our standpoint, as long as the family courts are failing to protect each parent and child’s rights, the only interest the state is protecting is its own pocketbook. (See how the Attorney General is indoctrinating the high school youth here.)
Whose Interests are Being Protected?
Child support is being ordered against parents who never failed to support their children in the first place and whose children were never at risk of needing government program assistance.
Title IV-D was originally designed to keep people off of welfare, TANF services. But as time has gone on, child support has made its way into middle and upper class parents pocketbooks.
Many of us hear about celebrities going through divorce and being awarded child support. Take for instance, most recently, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Brad Pitt is quoted as saying that he “has no issue taking care of” their six children — Maddox, Pax, Zahara, Shiloh, and twins Vivienne and Knox, but he will not pay her money to take care of their children.”[1] These cases amount to nothing more than “blood money.” This is where a parent is forced to pay for their children just because they are no longer with the other parent.
The Pitt children were never at risk of ending up on welfare.
Or child support is awarded to assist the other with the expense of raising the child. Constitutionally, and according to most state statutes both parents owe a duty and responsibility to their children individually. And unless a parent knowingly and voluntarily has abandoned their child, then the only thing the court is ensuring is that the parent being stripped of their time and rights to their child will be back in court repeatedly to get their child back.
Just recently, Thomas Fidler, founder of The Father’s Rights Movement, made a post on Facebook stating that paying childsupport was more expensive than actually directly raising his children. Thomas has twins. He says that when he was paying child support he couldn’t afford to pay for a place of his own and had to sleep on his mother’s couch. But that after he got 50/50 with his children and directly supported his children through raising them, he could afford his own house and all of the necessaries in life. He comments that it is amazing how he was able to support himself and his children for much less than what he had previously been ordered to pay in child support.
Many parents are being driven below the poverty line due to child support awards that exceed their means. Child support in 2015 drove 254,000 noncustodial parents into poverty.[4]
Would you consider this in the best interest of the children?”
Sauce
view the rest of the comments →
think- ago
What exactly has this to do with elite pedophilia?
[)(EricKaliberhall)
ChiCom ago
The elite pedophiles made a system that pays the attorneys and the Attorney General and the politicians and the judges to traffic children. Until the system is fixed , half the country's children are fatherless and likely to become leftist whores if they are not trafficked and prostituted
think- ago
How do you define 'traffick' in this case? I think I don't understand the connection between child support and trafficking.
And what would your solution be in cases of divorce?
ChiCom ago
Trafficking in humans requires profit on transfering a human by force.
Our system pays the state, lawyers and judges federal matching dollars as incentives to maximize on child support extracted and number of victims. Those numbers are the main criteria by which the state operates in order to receive, maintain, and grow its budget. as the AG states himself this amounts to two thirds of his state's budget.
The resulting conditions of slavery and human trafficking are not addressed nor penalized in the federal law. The optimal situation for the court is that one parent be given majority if not sole custody because child-support is determined by imbalance of custody. 50-50 custody results in zero child-support to the state. 100% custody maximizes child-support incentives to the state. The state is directly compensated for removing children from one parent by force for profit. As you have proven, we are so brainwashed that we don't believe this is human trafficking. Also we don't believe the parent whose child is ripped from them forcibly and must pay often debilitating amounts , whether able to find employment or not, lest he be in imprisoned in violation of our Constitution, is not a slave.
Proof? You challenge me despite the obvious human trafficking criteria and creation of a slave class being met. You're not exceptionally naive or dull, in contrast, you are in a rare position to know how embedded paedophilia and human trafficking is in our elite and political classes. Yet you still cannot fathom this is the source and a mechanism by which the state satisfies the constant elite political demand for trafficked children. You still think it's done by the guys the police arrested who live in trailers, not as an organized business by members of the very police judges and politicians themselves. Do you really think the old lecherous guys in trailers that get arrested are running this massive business?
Pedophiles are not stupid, they are tricky by necessity. They seek family law and guardian positions in the courts. Nearly every guardian ad litem I have ever met that is also an attorney takes children if at all possible and puts them into homes with pedophiles. They are given a massive power called Prima fascia public trust which means they do not need to prove anything they say. if you're not scared by this yet knowing how leftist attorneys traffic children across our southern border to place them with pedophiles.
Please wake up please. Even you can't fathom it because it is so inhumane, so devoid of morals, and the media has you believing our government is there to stop not profit from human trafficking and pedophilia. Not much different then selling the locations of ourspice to China and our nuclear missile fuel to Russia and then blaming the good guys for it is it? Our children need you to wake up. if not even you can wake up , they have nobody. There is literally nobody but used up, financially destroyed, imprisoned and enslaved parents trying to fight this.
think- ago
Amazing that you know what I think, especially since I never wrote such a thing. And I've been an active user for 1,5 years, and wrote dozens of posts that prove that I believe the exact opposite. So you might be a bit more cautious in the future when insinuating things like this.
I am here in order to ask questions, to get to the bottom of things. I am open to hear your arguments. While I own observation is that 50-50 custody works best for children who have loving parents, and I'm against giving custody automatically to mothers, I also know of cases where mothers have been desperate because 50-50 custody meant that the children had to live partly with a predator father (there are of course also mothers who abuse chldren - in a sexual manner or otherwise).
I also still do not understand how giving one parent 100% custody, and letting the other parent pay means the children are "trafficked".
ChiCom ago
What percentage of fathers are predators? Would it be close to the amount of abortions out of the 6 million are due to rape ? I don't know who you are. You are a handle on an anonymous website. I making a point that even a self-proclaimed child trafficking aficionado cannot accept reality.
Don't be a butt hurt egotistical faggot. I'd hunt you down and eliminate you if I thought it would save even one trafficked child. This is concerning hundreds of thousands of trafficked children .
think- ago
My point exactly. So I'd suggest not to insinuate that I think pedos are always people living in a trailerpark. This would really facilitate conversation, you know?
What part of "I am open to hear your arguments" didn't you understand?
But if you equate asking questions with attacking your positions, it is futile to continue this conversation.
Good-bye.
ChiCom ago
What? You think I'm attacking you. I don't care who you are. I answered your questions.
think- ago
Yes. Now you answered them, without putting an 'edit' in your comment, so that my answer looks somewhat odd, because it was a reply to an earlier version of your comment.
Right batcha' you.
You put words and opinions in my mouth that I didn't say or hold. This is a discussion board, remember? If you want to have a civilised discussion, it is an advantage to be polite. /s
See? You're doing it again.
Have a nice day.
ChiCom ago
I was just thinking about whether your responses are positive or negative feedback. I think they're positive because it shows this really upsets you so much that you don't want to believe it child be true because of the implications . if you didn't care you would accept what I'm saying without being as totally destroyed by this horrifying knowledge and direct experience as I have been for the last five years. I might be overly sensitive but you're probably going to need some time to be really pissed off is the ramifications of what I'm saying slowly seep in. Sorry. In a way, I am ruining your life for at least a period of time if you go down this rabbit hole with me. It's easier for us to close our eyes and deny but I don't think you're going to be able to do that because I unfortunately have painful and first hand experience answers to all of your questions. Take some time off from me and come back with more questions when you feel comfortable.
ChiCom ago
Please wait five minutes before responding because I submit and then realize what I wrote could be enhanced. it's okay if you're a touchy person. I understand that. This is a very touchy subject. I'm not perfect and neither are you, I'm just hoping you and others on this site are the correct mixture of emotions and knowledge to spark change.