Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Discuss any topic pertaining to family situation, custodian, child support etc.

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby Brick Layer » Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:06 pm

BOBT12 wrote:These TANF people attempted to get their hands on me sometime ago. I didn't cooperate with these thugs. Since I wouldn't provide them with any information they had to go away.

:beerbang: :headbang: :beerbang: :headbang:

They need and or their needs [Statists] / there needs to be a signed stipulation on file with the Friend of the Court with your wet ink signature on it
(it's based on consent) [http://www.suijurisforum.com/post15792.html#p15792], since "BOBT12" did not provide them with any consent they had to go away!
:mrgreen:

[In Michigan] Look on a 'SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ORDER' near the bottom under "IT IS ORDERED:" and see if it does not state "Signed stipulation on file with Friend of the Court."

A stipulation is a statement of agreement or admission of factual information, an agreement made by parties or by their attorneys in a judicial proceeding before the court. Stipulations are entered into the record to assist the court in establishing facts “not in dispute.” Stipulations are only binding between the parties that made the agreement, not on third parties.

In California, commissioners need the WRITTEN stipulation of the parties litigant in the record before their orders can be valid. Family Code sec. 4251; in re Marriage of Monge; CRC 2.831.

In Michigan, for a friend of the court case, an AGREEMENT by the payer that he or she shall....
552.604 Sect. 4.(3)(b)
The parties enter into a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that is reviewed and entered in the record by the court...
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-552-604

A signed divorce decree is [just one form of] a 'signed stipulation'.

Michigan case cite, Roller v Roller, unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 26, 2012 (Docket No. 300543).
A consent judgment of divorce is a contract and interpreted using contract principles.
If a consent judgment is ambiguous, a clarification is only permitted when no change in the rights of the parties will result from the clarification.
Last edited by Brick Layer on Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:27 pm, edited 22 times in total.
User avatar
Brick Layer
Freeman
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 29 time

 

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby Brick Layer » Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:25 pm

Without consent and or written stipulation; a crime?

wargames102 wrote:FOC = Friend Of The Court, and is a Title IV D Agency. :twisted:


Brick Layer wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kerUbfOQTW0

"I punched you in SAM" ...SAM Sheepdog (repudiatee)!


Brick Layer wrote:RE: Not paying child support is a CRIMINAL offense???
In Michigan, MCL 767.24[(5)] is the appropriate statutory limitations period for this crime; crime of no signatory agreement!
[unilateral contract]
:beerbang: :headbang: :beerbang: :headbang:
http://www.suijurisforum.com/post41786.html#p41786


And... not money; Child Support is: food, clothing, and shelter. :headbang:
User avatar
Brick Layer
Freeman
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 29 time

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby Brick Layer » Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:26 pm

wargames102 wrote:FOC = Friend Of The Court, and is a Title IV D Agency. :twisted:

http://achildsright.typepad.com/followthemoney.pdf

Title IV-D Sheriff Agreements
Sheriff and or Sheriff's Deputies handle warrants (along with other non-traditional enforcement duties) and is a IV-D employee of the Friend of the Court.
https://www.accesskent.com/Courts/FOC/p ... puties.pdf

"Federal policy,
[federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)-AT-79-3, Availability of Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for Making Arrests Pursuant to Appropriate State Process, and OCSE-AT-87-9, Child Support Enforcement Program; Prohibition of Federal Funding of Costs of Incarceration and Counsel for Indigent Absent Parents.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/av ... ng-arrests
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/pr ... final-rule]

Federal policy restricts the expenditures of IV-D funds spent for “arrest activity.” Further guidelines regarding federal approval of purchase of service agreements and fees for service agreements for arrest activities may be found in OCSE-AT-79-3, and by referring to OCSE Policy Interpretation Question (PIQ)-81-02, Fee for Service in Sheriff’s Agreements (Ref: Exhibit 2010-003E3) and PIQ-81-13, Eligibility for FFP – Inclusion of Deputy Sheriff in the Unit Cost Rate Computation in South Carolina (Ref: Exhibit 2010-003E4).
Regardless of whether OCSE approval is needed, all Cooperative Reimbursement Program (CRP) subcontracts require prior written approval from OCS staff and must meet other requirements as outlined in the CRP. FOC staff can subcontract with the sheriff for full-time or part-time services. In both instances, FOC staff must submit a copy of the agreement with the CRP application. In a part-time agreement, the officer must provide the court with a time sheet (per pay period) that shows the hours spent on IV-D activity and the hours spent on sheriff department activity. If the bench warrant officer reports to the FOC (is directly supervised by FOC staff), then no subagreement is necessary."
https://dhhs.michigan.gov/ChildSupport/ ... 10-003.pdf

Brick Layer wrote:Without consent and or written stipulation; a crime?

post61085.html#p61085

Investigate the Evidence :beerbang: :headbang: :beerbang: :headbang:
KEY: ask to see the alleged stipulation required for a valid order and or valid warrant to [pursue] ensue, Title IV-D Reimbursement(s) business.
[Statist's economic busyness]

:beerbang:
Attachments
Request for Sheriff Investigation INTO FORGED DOCUMENT (Six Pack Joe).pdf
Investigation into Inauthentic Manufactured Document
(27.61 KiB) Downloaded 36 times
User avatar
Brick Layer
Freeman
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 29 time

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby Brick Layer » Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:26 pm

Prove that the due process clause that is mandatory under IV-D is violated and you can rescind voluntariness' by proving they never told you what was going to happen if you voluntarily sign or contract to paternity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vhgnNVLwRM
User avatar
Brick Layer
Freeman
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 29 time

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby Brick Layer » Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:49 pm

Wow! The state can withhold from the federal government all or part the amount it regularly pays in federal taxes.
"California is considered a “donor state,” because it regularly pays more in federal taxes than it receives in funding from the government." https://trofire.com/2017/01/29/california-responds-trump-sanctions-threatening-withhold-taxes/ :beerbang:

"While casually mulling the possibility of secession, California is also considering withholding all or part of the taxes the state hands to the federal government in response to the expected loss of millions of federal dollars associated with sanctuary cities."

wargames102 wrote:Michigan depends on that grant money big time!
End the Fed vs End Title IV D :D

Private Federal Reserve Revenue (taxes received) vs State Welfare Grants (paid out) [Sanctuary Cities]

Brick Layer wrote:Michigan Analysis, "Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."
http://freedominthe50states.org/overall/michigan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6VUfJgrv_A

post25975.html#p25975

Brick Layer wrote:Michigan has the largest number of families in Title IV-D per capita in the nation exceeding California by over 2 to 1.

Michigan also has the largest ratio of Title IV-D cases per minor child in the nation. Surpassing California by 236 percent: 41.52% vs. 17.63%


http://www.achildsright.typepad.com/achildsright/titleivd.html

post61368.html?hilit=per%20capita#p61368

I wonder if Michigan is a donor or in a state of leeching.... 8-)

Block grant (same mother, Health and Human Services 'WELFARE PROGRAM');
KEY: Child Care Fund 'case specific' 'eligibility' and 'services provided';
(different father, bonus 'IV-D PROGRAM').
post61949.html#p61949
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgkFuLOwLVg
Last edited by Brick Layer on Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Brick Layer
Freeman
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 29 time

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby country_hick » Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:00 pm

Brick Layer wrote:"While casually mulling the possibility of secession, California is also considering withholding all or part of the taxes the state hands to the federal government in response to the expected loss of millions of federal dollars associated with sanctuary cities."
The state would also have to consider how all of the federal offices and federal employment removed from the state would affect them.

California can not succeed from the union. Although that thinking was (to most) completely justified in 1860 it was rejected by the Supreme Court as a result of the civil war. A perpetual union is a union that can be joined but never left. I would also like to know how California would pay its portion of the federal debt as it must if it did leave the union. The debt would of course be determined on a per-capita basis and California has a huge population base.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 49 time

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby Brick Layer » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:15 pm

Off Topic
country_hick wrote:The state would also have to consider how all of the federal offices and federal employment removed from the state would affect them.

California can not succeed from the union. Although that thinking was (to most) completely justified in 1860 it was rejected by the Supreme Court as a result of the civil war. A perpetual union is a union that can be joined but never left. I would also like to know how California would pay its portion of the federal debt as it must if it did leave the union. The debt would of course be determined on a per-capita basis and California has a huge population base.

Quoted 'casually' the focus point was not meant to be about debt statistics and or California succeeding from the Union scenarios.... instead the idea or thought model and keeping with the thread is the amount of money state paid to fed vs how much fed paid out to state (WELFARE), instead of cool cities - federal block grants concerning Title IV-D. [Humor]

Title IV-D Reimbursement Industry statistics (child support industry) the serious matter.... :cry:
User avatar
Brick Layer
Freeman
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 29 time

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby Brick Layer » Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:11 pm

User avatar
Brick Layer
Freeman
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 29 time

Re: F.O.C. Michigan - Our Case is Unique ??

Postby Brick Layer » Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:43 pm

User avatar
Brick Layer
Freeman
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 18 time
Have thanks: 29 time

Previous

Return to Family rights

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

suspicion-preferred