the voice cambodia the battle round banh nher sne

Kid Support Enforcement (CSE) Agencies have blasted in force and size throughout the most recent 40 years. They are the cash motor guaranteeing the separation and aggressive behavior at home industry that depends on the family courts' hostile to father and illegal foreswearing of a fit father's parental rights to force verging on interminable and coerced installments from him. This forced and blackmailed "commitment" damages the thirteenth amendment's disallowance of automatic bondage. *Family court precludes fit fathers from securing their parental right without required due procedure: There's no substantive due procedure to family court's dissent of one guardian's privilege - overwhelmingly the father's - under a separation or paternity suit. Family court is a common court yet makes arranges that successfully deny our most principal rights - refusals and requests that were beforehand connected with discipline for criminal wrongs. Without verification of unfitness nor whatever other confirmation - and without a jury trial - family court judges prevent the parental right from claiming the father in order to honor the mother her parental right by giving her legitimate and physical authority of her youngsters and afterward promote monetary qualifications from the father. 'More noteworthy's benefit' pardon utilized by the court for this is 'the best enthusiasm of the youngster'. Not just is this reason not relevant when fit folks exist, but rather it's in direct infringement of U.S. Preeminent Court decisions that give parental right the same assurance as every single basic right. *Criminal discipline forced for no wrong done: The family court singularly doles out the fit father to a noncustodial class that offers no viable parental right to a father however blackmails from him with risk of prison, or suspending other of his rights, verging on perpetual week by week installments to the mother or the state for up to 22 years. These installments are quite often monetary weakening to him, regularly putting him underneath the neediness level; they are far in abundance of a base support as given under child care for consideration of a tyke, and they ascend as his wage rises. These installments are indirectly called 'tyke support' however no law confines how the mother may spend them. The term is 'Orwellian newspeak' for offering to the general population this verging on perpetual obligation forced by the state no wrong dedicated and no unfitness demonstrated as his obligation as a father. In the nineteenth century, the burden of tyke bolster installments was discipline for criminal disregard of a youngster. It required a jury trial and the installments were just least upkeep. However, today's family court has usurped the utilization of criminal disciplines overwhelmingly on fathers with no wrong carried out. The family court likewise overlooks a proverb of law that 'he who profits by a right conveys the commitments of it'; thus, just with a privilege does an obligation exist. That is on the grounds that the embodiment of flexibility incorporates obligation combined with freedom intrigues. At the point when your freedom advantages are denied, you have just a slave's obligation. Slaves have obligations without rights - or any commendable rights. Ultimately the forced installments on father speak to verging on perpetual obligation installments coerced by forcing prison. Correctional facility for account holders has for some time been ruled unlawful yet not for these installments. It's basically characterized as 'not a debt'!..another Orwellian strategy. Presently, past unpaid kid bolster installments are nonforgiveable. You should pay all - regardless of how unreasonably they were forced - or go to imprison. *Family Court's forced commitment on fathers as noncustodial folks additionally disregards the thirteenth Amendment against subjugation and automatic bondage Family court's request to blackmail kid bolster installments on a fit father denied his parental rights to bolster his youngsters specifically disregards the thirteenth amendment - "Neither subjugation nor automatic bondage, aside from as a discipline for wrongdoing whereof the gathering might have been appropriately sentenced, should exist inside the United States, or wherever subject to their purview." Denying his parental right while coercing installments with prison puts a father into automatic bondage. Automatic subjugation alludes to a man held by real drive, dangers of power, or dangers of legitimate pressure in a state of servitude - mandatory administration or work without wanting to. This incorporates the condition in which individuals are constrained to work by an "atmosphere of trepidation" evoked by the utilization of power, the risk of power, or the danger of legitimate pressure (i.e., endure lawful results unless consistent with requests made upon them) which is adequate to force administration. In Bailey v. Alabama (1911), the U.S. Incomparable Court decided that such peonage laws damaged the alteration's prohibition on automatic bondage. It he doesn't completely pay what's requested it is blackmailed from him by prison, dissent of travel, refusal of licenses to work, disavowal of an auto permit, and other coercive strategies including grabbing any property he has whenever. (The state even overlooks the disallowance of borrower's jail regardless of those indebted individuals uninhibitedly getting their obligation without compulsion!) The U.S. Incomparable Court has said, "For, the general concept that man might be constrained to hold his life, or the method for living, or any material right vital to the happiness regarding life, at the negligible will of another, is by all accounts horrendous in any nation where flexibility wins, just like the embodiment of servitude itself." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). Indeed, even the popular Black's Legal Dictionary characterizes "free" as: "Not subject to lawful requirement of another. Unconstrained; having energy to take after the manages of his own will. Not subject to the domain of another. Not constrained to automatic subjugation. Unmistakably noncustodial fit fathers who are illegally denied their entitlement to parent their youngsters and afterward illegally put into automatic bondage to the state are not free by any measure of opportunity.