WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ROGER F. GAY
Project for the Improvement of
Child Support Litigation Technology
SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON THE SUBJECT OF CHILD SUPPORT AND FATHERHOOD PROPOSALS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
HELD JUNE 28, 2001
___________________________________________________________________
In 1974, Senator Russell Long "perceived a connection" between "fathers who abandon their children" and a growth in AFDC spending. This led to the original federal child support and paternity legislation enacted in January 1975, which included the establishment of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. [1] The Long family, including Russell's father Huey "Kingfish" Long, is probably best known for their involvement in organized crime and old fashioned "White Power" in Louisiana, and for ushering well-known organized crime figures well into the sphere of influence in national politics. Long is also regarded as one of the "heroic" figures of the neo-Nazi movement.
This event marked the beginning of an era in which the two major political parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, conspired to transform the United States of American, by destroying the checks and balances provided by the three branches and reversing the fundamental relationship between human rights and government power. Constitutionally, human rights and freedom seek their own best and highest expression in a country in which the power of government is explicitly limited. This new unconstitutional system is one in which the fundamental rights of citizens are severally limited by government powers that have no fixed boundaries.
Those who hold positions in the three branches, and people in power within state governments as well as within the federal government, overwhelmingly members of the two parties, knowingly continue acting outside their legal powers, disregarding the fundamental laws of the nation, and intentionally thwarting continuing efforts of citizens to exercise basic rights. Government is under the control of the two parties, and not the Constitution of the United States.
In the process of building excuses for child support reforms, a collection of "experts" have knowingly created false propaganda against a large group of US citizens -- divorced and never-married fathers. This propaganda effort has enjoyed taxpayer funding from the federal government as well as states. Central management of this effort, and of much of the transformation that has taken place through child support reforms, has been directed through the Office of Child Support Enforcement with additional support from the National Center for State Courts.
I am quite familiar with much of that propaganda, including the work done by two of the "experts" who appeared before the committee in this hearing. Ron Haskins is well known to people who study child support issues for his claim that child support awards in the past, made in accordance with established state laws were too low. Elaine Sorensen is well known for her extremely exaggerated claims of non-payment of child support. Both, used the same basic propaganda technique. Both, presented unfounded claims regarding how things should be -- Haskins regarding how high child support awards should be and Sorensen regarding how much should be paid. Both merely stuck a stake in the ground where they wanted it to be, and then complained that real life was not close enough to their stake. When doing so, they went to great effort to give the appearance that their stakes had been placed with scientific precision -- where they should be.
It is consistent with the behavior of the two parties to call a hearing on child support and fatherhood, and immediately invite two of the most influential propagandists in the conspiracy against fathers. Ronald Haskins moreover worked for the Congress for many years, playing a significant role in the design of child support and welfare reforms. Elaine Sorensen continues to receive funding under the rubric of studying fatherhood and child support. The committee's choice of witnesses provides at least partial confirmation of what is said in this testimony.
The "poverty rate" reported in the United States does not account for child support and alimony paid, giving a false impression of the actual economic well-being of divorced and never-married mothers. Most estimates of the economic well-being of women compared to men following divorce do not account for the amount of child support and alimony paid. This has given a false impression about the relative well-being of men compared to women following divorce. Most analyses of the economic well-being of children following divorce account for neither child support and alimony, nor the direct care voluntarily and gladly given by non-custodial parents and other relatives.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement has and continues to submit false information regarding the "collection" of child support. Compliance with child support orders continues to be approximately the same as it was before the Office of Child Support Enforcement was created. The compliance rate in the United States is and has been equal to or greater than the compliance rate of any country in the world. Divorced and never married mothers are as well off or better off than they are in any country in the world. It has been shown that at least divorced mothers, as a group, are economically better off than divorced fathers, and often better off than mothers who remain married to the first and only father of their children. Divorced mothers are more often psychologically better off than divorced fathers as well. This is due to the near guarantee they have of remaining a "custodial parent" while fathers are so often partially or completely locked out of their children's lives. It is also because of the rather overwhelming conspiracy that has been directed against fathers, to malign them as a group.
The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 required the Office of Child Support Enforcement to provide technical support to the states in the development of child support guidelines. The National Center for State Courts and the Office of Child Support Enforcement selected a non-expert to do the job. Robert Williams, Policy Studies Inc, provides child support collection services to states and to the public. In some states, his business has an exclusive contract to operate a child support collection system. Robert Williams was selected to provide a written report on the development of child support guidelines, which the Office of Child Support Enforcement delivered as technical support to the states.
Robert Williams continues to operate as a paid consultant to states on maintenance and review of their child support guidelines, even while personally profiting by millions of dollars through his collection business. Fees consist of a percent of the amount paid. Therefore Williams increases his profit through any increase in the amount of child support awarded, and by refusal of state courts to adequately account for actual financial circumstances when awards need to be decreased. This is surely one of the most obvious criminal conspiracies in the history of government corruption.
No state has ever fulfilled the fundamental requirements of the Family Support Act regarding the protection of individual rights. State child support guidelines must, according to federal statute, be reviewed at least once every four years to ensure that their use leads to an appropriate child support award in each case. Presumptive child support awards, calculated by state guidelines, have the effect of introducing "false evidence" by their built-in presumptions and their pre-designed, over-simplified logic rarely fits actual family circumstances in any rational manner. Child support laws are not currently designed for the support of children, but for increasing the amount of debt beyond what many people can pay, so that a few people can skim the baby's milk money for profit.
It has been shown that presumptive award amounts (all states) are arbitrary, and random in relation to actual family circumstances. There is no correlation between presumptive award amounts and the needs of children, the relative ability of parents to meet those needs, and arrangements for their care. Numeric amounts found in child support guidelines, allegedly representing the "cost of raising children," do not have any valid economic or rational basis in relation to child support awards.
Every parent has the right to challenge the presumptive child support amount, and if there is any way to take that right seriously, it must include a right to relief, whenever the presumptive amount is "unjust or inappropriate." Nearly every state has eliminated the rational basis upon which a child support decision is made from its statutes, with the intent to eliminate the right of rebuttal in fact. Parents who recognize that the presumptive child support award is unjust or inappropriate are challenged to provide proof when no statutory basis exists explaining what "just" and "appropriate" means.
The lack of a statutory rational basis that defines what an "appropriate" child support award is, immediately makes a liar out of anyone claiming that states have complied with the review requirement. Review committees consistently lack any legal basis for determining whether awards are "appropriate." Courts and judges lack a legal basis for determining whether presumptive awards are "just and appropriate." Even the most able financial analyst lacks a legal basis for proving that a presumptive award is unjust or inappropriate.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement continues to approve state plans, knowing that states have not complied with fundamental human rights requirements. State plans not meeting those requirements do not qualify for approval under federal statute. Federal funds continue to pour into states that do not qualify for funds. State governors and legislators, members of the two parties, have met with members of Congress and presidents, also members of the two parties, to gain assurance that this funding will continue, while law and fundamental human rights are systematically violated.
Unemployment and poverty are not restricted or limited to situations in which parents are not married. There is a statistically significant correlation between poverty / low income and children born out of wedlock, that does not exist in the population of divorced parents and their children. It is also apparent that the size of the welfare roles drops when the economy improves. The state of the economy, the availability of jobs, has always been and continues to be the most influential factor in reducing dependency on government aid. Education and job training can have a significant impact on the ability of individuals to obtain and maintain employment, regardless of family circumstances. Income is obviously as important to a married couple or single people, in providing for themselves and their children.
One of the best ways to see that parents do not need to turn to public aid in the first place is to see that they are educated, prepared for the modern workplace. If this is not accomplished before they become parents, and the economy is not at some point strong enough to support employment of less educated, less experienced workers, there is still no case for a forced reduction in human rights nor an increase in government power beyond established boundaries.
Art. 1, sec. 8 of the Constitution, the so-called enumerated powers clause, limits congressional authority to act by specifying general subject categories where Federal action is permissible. Under this clause and the Tenth Amendment, categories other than those enumerated in the Constitution, including domestic relations topics, are reserved for state action. [2] The rationale behind this approach, especially with consideration of the 9th and 10th Amendments, is that there is a balance that must be maintained between human rights and freedom on the one hand, and the necessary or appropriate exercise of government power on the other. Too much government power is offset by minimized human rights and freedom.
Over the past twenty-five years, child support -- an area the Constitution leaves to states to deal with, and certainly not least to parents -- has been transferred to a large, expensive federal program. It is not merely support for collection efforts that is involved. Federal control moved quickly into manipulation of the legal process, control of outcomes of trials, destruction of the system of checks and balances, altering the basic constitutional relationship between government and the people.
States act as administrative units under federal control, and individuals have lost their rights completely. Within state government, the ordinary separation of powers has been abandoned. Child support laws are written and maintained by any of the three branches, and the right of due process which should have provided the mechanism for fixing child support reforms does not exist. Federal courts have supported the arbitrary treatment of child support issues and have failed to restore order when it is within their power to do so. The overwhelming majority of the people involved in this national catastrophe are members of the two parties.
I am not naive enough to believe that I am instructing members of Congress on this issue. I am entirely confident that it is well-known to them. I am also quite confident that it is well understood by the propagandists who promoted the child support reform scheme. It is all too obvious that the false propaganda against fathers was largely aimed at creating the impression that there is a nexus between some legitimate federal function and the reforms suggested by Russell Long. Promoters of the scheme wanted the general public to believe that a crisis existed that was costing them money, and that the cause of this problem was the poor character of fathers. This in turn was to justify a mass conspiracy against the basic rights of a large portion of the population of the United States and an equal illegitimate increase in government power and its abuse. They expected this tactic to be more effective during a period of economic weakness in the country that naturally leads to fear and frustration. Some people then superficially and temporarily take comfort in having a clearly identified scapegoat and a promise of some revenge.
This approach is extremely well known, and associated with some of the most evil characters in world history. [4] Anyone familiar with world history can recognize it. Even an amateur historian knows that with great consistently, such behavior by government is associated with periods of instability, rebellion, and even war. I do not see how any intelligent person can miss this point, or even mistakenly believe that better economic times might pacify the response. A large portion of the population is having their economic life destroyed, and their efforts to maintain family relationships sabotaged, along with the theft of their basic rights.
The effect of child support reform, together with the persistent will of the two parties to pursue them, to build on them, and to expand in like manner into other areas of activity, presents a clear and present Danger to the People of the United States. Citizens must ask whether centralized power, controlled by a small number of people who refuse to treat it honorably can be endured. There is of course, no reason that it should be. No nexus exists between any legitimate federal interest and the current level of manipulation by the federal government of family law.
The country is in deep trouble when people who have sworn an oath to protect its fundamental laws, and are placed in positions of trust and power, conspire against it. I am reminded of a few things known about the criminal mind, especially those with a more sociopathic bent. The more they get away with it, the farther they go. They may begin to feel invincible or even taunt people to catch them. They must take more risks to feel the thrill of what they do.
Members of the two parties must ask themselves how far they are willing to go. They must do so with the understanding that they have already been caught and that a large and growing portion of the population is just wondering what is to be done about it. They should do so understanding that with each day, the public understanding of these crimes becomes clearer, and the number of people who know about them becomes greater.
Numbered Notes and Additional References:
Written statement on HR1488, The "Hyde-Woolsey Child Support Bill, In relation to the hearing of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources, March 16, 2000.
- Brief History of Prevailing Child Support Doctrine, in Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference of the National Council for Children's Rights, Arlington, VA, March 19-22, 1992.
- Written statement on the subject of Changes in the Poverty Rate and Distribution of Income, September 10, 1992.
- Written statement on the subject of the Downey / Hyde child support enforcement and assurance proposal, July 17, 1992.
- $4 billion spent on the so-called "new-hire" system proves the concrete reality of this claim. This is the same type of system implemented by Hitler and Stalin. Maligning a group of people to create an excuse for such actions is the same tactic Hitler (and others) used.
Ralph Waldo Emerson's Essays: Second Series (1844), Essay VII Politics
Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology