It’s human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society.
Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
America’s leading authority on family court reform with over 25 years of trial experience has developed a Family Court Program specifically for you – regardless of how far along you may be in the process.
Having previously appeared on the television news program 60 Minutes, CNN and in the New York Times, Dr. Leon Koziol, J.D., wants to help you take control of your family court case.
After hearing ordeals from countless unsuspecting victims, their financial and emotional devastation by the lucrative family court machine, Dr. Koziol knew that he could no longer just sit back and watch these atrocities continue.
“We have an epidemic here in America and no one is doing anything to cure it. There’s a direct correlation between family courts and suicides among parents, veterans and children. And the statistics show it is occurring at an alarming rate. If I can save one person from taking…
There is little question that fraud in procuring a settlement agreement can justify setting aside the agreement and judgment. E.g., In re Marriage of Modnick, 33 Cal. 3d 897, 191 Cal. Rptr. 629 (1983); Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328, 612 P.2d 1175 (1980); Anderson v. Anderson, 399 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979); Daffin v. Daffin, 567 S.W.2d 672 (Mo. 1978).
Fraud in procuring a settlement can also be the basis for an independent tort action. Hall v. Hall, 455 So. 2d 813 (Ala. 1984); In re Benge, 151 Ariz. 219, 726 P.2d 1088 (Ct. App. 1986); Dale v. Dale, 66 Cal. App. 4th1172, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513 (1998); Den v. Den, 222 A.2d 647 (D.C. 1966); Oehme v. Oehme, 10 Kan. App. 2d 73, 691 P.2d 1325 (1984); Burris v. Burris, 904 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. 1995); Carney v. Wohl, 785 S.W.2d 630 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990); Hess v. Hess, 397 Pa. Super. 395, 580 A.2d 357 (1990). See alsoVickery v. Vickery, 1996 WL 255755 (Tex. Ct. App., December 5, 1996) (wife awarded $9 million against husband for fraudulently procuring divorce and marital settlement agreement, and $450,000 against husband’s attorney),affirmed over dissent in light of Schleuter v. Schleuter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998),Vickery v. Vickery, 999 S.W.2d 342 (Tex. 1999). See generally, Robert G. Spector,Marital Torts: The Current Legal Landscape, 33 Fam. L. Q. 745, 757 (1999); Cary L. Cheifetz, The Future of Matrimonial Torts: The Unmapped Landscape, 15 Fair$hare 4 (August 1995). The courts are especially harsh with spouses that commit fraud who are attorneys. Anderson v. Anderson, 399 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979); Scholler v. Scholler, 10 Ohio St. 2d 98, 462 N.E.2d 158 (1984); Webb v. Webb, 16 Va. App. 486, 431 S.E.2d 55 (1993).
The concealment of marital assets during the divorce proceeding has also given rise to tort actions. Swain v. Swain, 576 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991); Garrity v. Garrity, 399 Mass. 367, 504 N.E.2d 617 (1987). But seeBeers v. Beers, 724 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Nederlander v. Nederlander, 205 Mich. App. 123, 517 N.W.2d 768 (1994); Smith v. Smith, 113 N.C. app. 410, 438 S.E.2d 457 (1994); Schleuter v. Schleuter, 975 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. 1998); Gardner v. Gardner, 175 Wis. 2d 420, 499 N.W.2d 266 (Ct. App. 1993).
Spouses have even been successfuly in asserting violations of securities laws. Evans v. Dale, 896 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1990). But seeHead v. Head, 759 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1985); McHugh v. McHugh, 676 F. Supp. 856 (N.D. Ill. 1988); d’Elia v. d’Elia, 58 Cal. App. 4th 415, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 324 (1997).
But what can a spouse do when a third party or parties conspires with a spouse to hide marital assets? Is there a cause of action against the third parties? Increasingly, some spouses have been turning to civil conspiracy and Civil RICO.
There are lots of things you can do by virtue of your job as a circuit court judge.You can (in no particular order of importance- and BTW the following is not directed at any particular judge…if the robe fits…).
Deny motions without reading them; have your JA refuse to put motions on calendar without lawyers first faxing them to you (although you don’t read them); start court whenever you want; show up late; finish court whenever you want; make juries stay until midnight in a misguided effort to show everyone how hard you work; lecture lawyers from the bench about how you tried every case you had within sixty days of inception (in other words, lie); brag about how you are on the short list for an appointment to a higher court (ditto); and otherwise feel that you and only you stand between the rule of law and anarchy. Here’s what you must do: follow the law.
Which means here’s what you can’t do:
Have your bailiff close your courtroom to anyone at anytime without proper notice to the media and a hearing on an issue; tell people how to dress when they come to court (wearing a shirt that says “fuck you” has been held to be an expression of free speech under the First Amendment – which is part of the Constitution, which is a legal document that defines the ….oh never mind it’s a bit complicated),
You also CANNOT take personal property of people, without following Florida’s Forfeiture Statute (and it’s not entirely clear a member of the judiciary can be a “seizing agency” under the statute. ).
Which means that in order to seize the personal property of an individual, there must be an allegation that the property was used to violate Florida’s contraband laws; see, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 932.703 (West)
(1)(a) Any contraband article, vessel, motor vehicle, aircraft, other personal property, or real property used in violation of any provision of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, or in, upon, or by means of which any violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act has taken or is taking place, may be seized and shall be forfeited subject to the provisions of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. Contraband is defined as, inter alia: Any personal property, including, but not limited to, any vessel, aircraft, item, object, tool, substance, device, weapon, machine, vehicle of any kind, money, securities, books, records, research, negotiable instruments, or currency, which was used or was attempted to be used as an instrumentality in the commission of, or in aiding or abetting in the commission of, any felony, whether or not comprising an element of the felony, or which is acquired by proceeds obtained as a result of a violation of the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act. ~ Fla. Stat. Ann. § 932.701 (West)
This is a repost of the following Facebook Memo I posted on 8/28/12:
Memo To Followers:
Federal Title IVD Payments and Bonuses to States For the Collection and Administration of Child Support Payments.
Recently, I’ve been getting some queries about why I’ve been hammering so much on the issue of child support payments. And, I suspect, we’ve lost a follower or two because I’ve sort of ratcheted up the rhetoric on this topic a bit lately.
In fact, a couple of weeks a ago, we were having a discussion on this page in which I was asserting that States can receive anywhere from $1 to $2 in Federal subsidy payments for every dollar they collect and administer in child support payments. And it was during one of this discussion that one of our followers asked the simple question, “Do you have any documentation on this?”.
Well, at the time, the only information I had available was budget information from the Office of Child Support Enforcement from 2009. So I contacted Michael McKormick at the American Coalition for Fathers and Children and he confirmed that my information was also the most recent published data he had as well (He also noted that Obama administration has been highly resistant to publishing any current budget data on this matter….).
In any case, enter my new best friend, Rita Fuerst Adams from Fathers and Families (Fathersandfamilies.org).
Because Rita was able to track down for me the actual act that describes exactly how these payments and bonuses are calculated.
I’ve Attached The Link For You Below. But Here Is The Short Story Version: *The program is administered by the Office of Child Support Enforcement within the Administration of Children and Families; which is governed by the Department of Health and Human Services.
* The Act governing the program is known as the `Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998′.
* There are bonus and penalty measures that determine the funding.
(A) IN GENERAL- In paragraph (1), the term `incentive payment pool’ means–
(i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
(ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
(viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;
(ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(x) for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the CPI for the second preceding fiscal year.
(B) CPI- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the CPI for a fiscal year is the average of the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the fiscal year. As used in the preceding sentence, the term `Consumer Price Index’ means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor.
*** So essentially, the pool value increases every year at growth rate equal to the consumer price index. Which for 2012, would put the incentive pool at a little over 530,000,000****
(3) STATE INCENTIVE PAYMENT SHARE- In paragraph (1), the term `State incentive payment share’ means, with respect to a fiscal year–
(A) the incentive base amount for the State for the fiscal year; divided by
(B) the sum of the incentive base amounts for all of the States for the fiscal year.
Now, here’s where it gets important, because this is where the base value figures are established:
(4) INCENTIVE BASE AMOUNT- In paragraph (3), the term incentive base amount’ means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the sum of the applicable percentages (determined in accordance with paragraph (6)) multiplied by the corresponding maximum incentive base amounts for the State for the fiscal year, with respect to each of the following measures of State performance for the fiscal year:
(5) MAXIMUM INCENTIVE BASE AMOUNT-
(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (4), the maximum incentive base amount for a State for a fiscal year is–
(i) with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (4), the State collections base for the fiscal year; and
(ii) with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (4), 75 percent of the State collections base for the fiscal year.
Skipping some stuff here…
(C) STATE COLLECTIONS BASE- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the State collections base for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of–
(i) 2 times the sum of–
(I) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation involved is required to be assigned to the State pursuant to part A or E of this title or title XIX; and
(II) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation involved was so assigned but, at the time of collection, is not required to be so assigned; and
(ii) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in all other cases.
(A) The paternity establishment performance level.
(B) The support order performance level.
(C) The current payment performance level.
(D) The arrearage payment performance level.
(E) The cost-effectiveness performance level.
**So, you can see two important things here.
First, the reimbursements, payments, and bonuses are NOT determined by a reimbursement of State expenses incurred. In fact, the minimization of State Collection Costs is a bonus item.
Secondly, and this is really important, the figures used are the child support funds that States have under administration.
*** See the link for the actual tables for calculating bonuses, etc****
And here is something I found interesting. Check this out:
(c) TREATMENT OF INTERSTATE COLLECTIONS- In computing incentive payments under this section, support which is collected by a State at the request of another State shall be treated as having been collected in full by both States, and any amounts expended by a State in carrying out a special project assisted under section 455(e) shall be excluded.
***i.e. If two States are working together to collect funds, they both get credit for the purposes of establishing bonuses – this is pure gravy.
Note a couple of things here.
First, the bonus values are doubled for the categories of paternity test performance and cost performance.
So why would the Feds care about State costs? Because this is the bonus and incentive program, and States already receive a 66% dollar for dollar reimbursement for administrative costs (and I’m not sure, I’ll have to check, but i think there is a way they can finagle the remaining 34% to get even dollar for dollar match) under a different section of the Social Security Act.
So, there you have it.
States can get up to 100% reimbursement for administrative costs plus up to two times the bonus pool share for two categories along with the rest of it.
Now add to this, the fact that Courts often charge fees for posting these certified payments, and may assess additional fees and fines for enforcement, and you’ve got a very lucrative incentive for States and Courts to maximize child support payments.
In Other Words, It Should Be No Surprise That: _
(1) Child Support payments are maximized, regardless of whether the NCP can afford them. States and Courts don’t care; the debt can’t go way or be retroactively reduced.
(2) Equal and Shared parenting is disincented – this will reduce revenue to the States and Courts.
(3) More and more States are requiring mandatory garnishments and payment administration. People who are already paying on time will improve their performance ratings for bonus calculations.
(4) States like TX make it difficult for non-paternal parents relieve themselves of child support burdens.
(5) Why States and Courts are not persuaded by reasonable and humane arguments for shared parenting reforms.
The system has been corrupted by money and the Feds are driving this corruption.
You might have noticed that the common theme of our most recent publicity messages center around “sharing the truth”.
And there’s a reason for this: we’ve been seeing a rather active effort on the part of our opposition to blatantly lie to the Public in an attempt to thwart Family Law reform.
In reality, this is not new. Because they’ve been doing this for the last forty years or so.
Never the less, you’re probably seeing a ridiculous talking point come up a lot lately. I’ve seen it all over, and it’s probably best described by a Facebook post is saw in the Love and Iron newsfeed from NC Fathers. Here is the opening post:
“In speaking w/ a NC Legislator yesterday, she exclaimed that in many cases the only reason a non-custodial parent would want shared parenting or joint custody is so that they could lower child support payments.”