Adam Todd George, the alleged custodial parent of the parties minor child, the biological father, in fact, wrote the Office of Child Support for the State of Vermont, Kelly Seargent on Wednesday, June 11th, 2014, when he received garnishment payments from Delta Airlines, Inc in the amount of $251.87. It also shows according to Kelly Seargent there were ex parte communications with the Vermont Supreme Court regarding the appeal Bahji had filed concerning her rights which were knowingly at all times being denied her. Access to the Office of Child Support was one of those rights being denied her, intentionally for FFP, Federal Financial Participation funds to the State Coffers and directly linked to the employment of the Office of Child Support Staff salaries. She states, "she did not file all the documents she was supposed to and the court will be dismissing it..." meaning they know the outcome of the decision before the decision has officially been made.
Kelly Sergeants also informs and makes it clear to Mr. George that Bahji had filed a workers compensation claim, regarding the events of June 21st, 2014 when Delta Airlines, inc refused to provide Bahji with reasonable accommodations and sent her home from work with no return date in which to return to work. She claims the worker's compensation contacted her and that they have no idea what the claim is regarding, yet. The alleged claim was filed with the worker's compensation on May 31st, 2014. However, Kelly Sergeant believes she is at liberty to discuss medical impairments of Bahji Adams with Mr. George and violate HIPPA laws. Adam George's response is that of his receipt of $251.87 from two weeks of pay for the month of June, showing that the alleged $301.00, which he claimed he had rights to have garnished from her pay could not reasonably garnish, even at 60% of her pay the full alleged amount he had claimed owed to him. This, fact, alone is a clear indication that the Office of Child Support and Adam George worked in tandem to deny Bahji access to the Office of Child Support for purpose of modification of the alleged child support amount, which they both had knowledge could not be fulfilled, by their own admissions via their own emails.
Adam also acknowledges abuse of the tax intercept, for the fraud upon the tax agency that he knowingly was performing against Bahji rights and denial of her rights to access and enforce her rights pursuant to the United States Constitutions. Agencies do not have the authority to violate individual procedural or substantive rights as clearly stated in the Turner v. Rogers the United States Supreme Court case. Adam also continues to speak libel for his attitude towards Bahji, in her standing on her rights, standing grounds against his abusive known fraud, oppression against her human rights as a "rant", showing bias attitudes and intent of Office of Child Support and Mr. George to knowingly deprive and subject her to oppression for abuse under color of law.
Despite the notice of dismissal of multiple Trustee of Process, if anybody is not convinced that the Office of Child Support, its state agents are not obligated to act as Trustees of the public trust of the social security act, they clearly do not understand nor comprehend trust law. The Trustee process was dismissed as due to Federal law it was not in compliance with the goals and hearts of public law 93-647, which is the congressional authority in which they all purported to act. They can not claim a trustee process and go against public law 93-647 for it erodes the authority granted to the alleged state-actors of any authority in which to act, meaning they at all times knowingly acted outside of Congressional Authority, known as abuse under color of law, using a public office for private benefit.
Despite this evidence, the Office of Child Support Kristen Vanckren knowingly continued to use the court systems in which to oppress, via terrorism via paper war she had declared against Bahji Adams most basic fundamental rights of human rights and it continued for upward of two more years.
Notice the federal law governing the Consumer Debt on the Information of Wage withholding garnishment. At no time does the alleged notice list a right for access to the Office of Child Support for modification, even though, remember the Federal Office of Child Support, OCSE, stated that States are required to provide notification to both parents of their rights in accessing the programs. The notice is written with no notice to the alleged noncustodial parent regarding any ability or right in order to access the office of child support for purpose of modification or that they are authorized and mandated to modify the child support order without request or authorization from either alleged parent. This demonstrates intent of the programs failure to perform in accordance not only with Federal laws governing equal access and rights to non-custodial parents, it demonstrates an intent to act in custom, by design of covert sophistication in order to continue to deny non-custodial parents their rights, so that they are forced into dealing with abuse and not provided their rights and then rubber-stamping their actions so that no one is able to stand up against them. The Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. 1673 (b) is listed regarding the limits which can be wage-withheld. That notice and their awareness of federal laws did not stop them from abusing that law against Bahji and them modifying the alleged order to read "annually" and taking upward of $800.00 dollars from an alleged authorized amount of only $601.00 a month, by saying they somehow have a right to annualize child support even if the alleged order reads, "monthly". The notice further clarifies that behavior is unlawful, in that it reads clearly, "If the entire amount cannot be withheld from your wages, any unpaid child support accumulations as an arrears balance (a debt owed either to the state or the custodial parent...)" At no time, did the Courts of either Georgia or Vermont authorize any alleged "arrears" payments, yet despite that, the Office of Child Support via Kelly Sergeant and Kristen Vankren and ultimately the State Courts in an attempt to cover up the unlawful actions turned arrears payments into "annual" authorization for the Office of Child Support to collect, yet claim this is not a modification of the alleged original order. That behavior smells like the most disgusting rotten odor possible to imagine, as it is in every essence stating the Office of Child Support will modify any alleged order for enforcement breaking further rights, yet deny alleged non-custodial parents rights for purpose of modification even when their own records at the maximum federal limits demonstrates that the alleged original order cannot in any way be maintained or fulfilled.
However exposing this terrorism is somehow according to Adam Todd George, a "rant". When in fact, Kelly Seargent states that the alleged additional amount of the two months above the alleged $601.00 a month is, justifiable, as, "OCS did not receive/garnish the full obligation of $601 that month and we should have if the funds were available, this is in addition to the $500 voluntary payment." The payment in order to get her passport, a mandatorily required item for employment. In fact, her email shows how the Office of Child Support for the State of Vermont modified the payments of the child support amount, and at the same time refused to provide Bahji access for purpose of modification to the program. She continues to state how the garnishment is actual arrearages and not payments towards the monthly child support in the justification of, "The extra funds in the months when there are five periods will offset the shortages for the months with only four pay periods. It all works out in the end if there are consistent payments." That has never been what any alleged Court order said they had authority to do, in fact, NO court issued any alleged child support arrears which demonstrate the Office of Child Support modified the conditions of the alleged child support original order while continuing to deny Bahji access for modification when they knew her monthly paychecks could not sustain such abusive amounts.
Kristen Vankcrekn, being a Bar attorney must report the fraud and abuse, she had access to knowledge of such and refused to perform in accordance with governing rights and law, and that is no different than domestic terrorism, treason against the United States Constitution, even if done by means of sophistication via paper; fundamentally the simulating of legal process under color of law is no different than extremist such as Isis using physical terrorism. As she works for the State, she must stop the abuse, as she is directly duty-bound. Her refusal demonstrates intent too use the same oppression, abuse, via continual terror inflicting fear in the human being. However, don't take the author's words for it, read it in the transcript that the United States Supreme Court, in not so many words acknowledges, that the program regarding alleged child support, is "broken" and does not work, "JUSTICE KAGAN: -- suppose the Court thinks
that -- suppose the Court looks at this record and
thinks this is a broken system and a violation of due
process...".
The attorney arguing showed the government statics, "MR. WAXMAN: I think it is -- the contrary
is true. According to government statistics, 70
percent of noncustodial parents either have no income or
have income less than $10,000, and, therefore, in a
State -- in every State that accepts TANF funds, which
is every State, they are represented by the State the agency, and South Carolina, in this case, has made a rule
that in-State cases -- and that also includes nonwelfare
cases where the -- a custodial parent has chosen to be
represented by the State -- the State entirely carries
its prosecutorial burden by filing a rule to show cause
and an affidavit showing the arrearages, and that places
the burden, which South Carolina says is a heavy burden,
on the defendant to prove an inability to comply as a
condition of maintaining his liberty. In this, demonstrating in the case of Bahji, the Office of Child Support was placed on legal notice to perform for purpose of equal access to the programs, instead, they knowingly inflicted torture upon her mentally, emotionally, and ultimately physical by way of declaring paper wars on her financially. They claimed a private person was supporting Bahji, which was untrue and they make it clear that maybe the private person would help her out again, so much for the laws governing the heart of public law 93-647 which is for self-support in order for individuals on welfare to eliminate, reduce, and prevent their own dependency on the federally funded Title IV-A programs, and anyone actually questions who in this case is telling the truth.
Kelly Sergeants Email 2014 to Adam George and his response
Withdrawal of Trustee Process
Evidence of knowingly violating the Federal Consumer Protection Act
Title IV-D
Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts
Turner v Rogers Transcript
No comments:
Post a Comment