I read about
your [J.A.I.L.] activities in Los Angeles, California in an e-mail
posted by [Professor] Stephen Baskerville.
Just thought I'd apprise you of another scam the judges are working.
It involves child support collections, and returns millions directly, and
quasi legally, to the judges. You see, when courts hear a case involving
child support, they are paid directly by the child support collection agency.
Since they are being paid for the same time by the state, this makes for
a tidy profit. It also constitutes a breach of the mandate for separation
of powers in the state and federal constitution. The judicial branch
is not allowed to accept payments from executive/administrative branch
agencies. Furthermore, it is a conflict of interest. It means,
in real terms, that when a [parent] goes to court on child support
related matters, [they are] facing a judge who is being paid by
the opposition. An opposition who profits from the judges decision.
(The collection agency is paid a commission for collecting.) *
We have a letter
on file with the State Supreme Court in New Hampshire from a federal attorney
involved in a law suit contesting this practice which clearly states that
the money is being paid to the court to insure "maximum result."
That means "bribe"! The payoff to the courts in N.H. is over $290,000
per year (based on two year old figures). In Massachusetts, a slightly
larger state, the payoff was $2,000,000. California, being much more
populous, must be raking in tens of millions.
To gain proof
of this allegation, simply petition the child support agency for any and
all documents relating to a contract between themselves and the courts
regarding child support collections. Each state is required to have
such an agreement in force in order to secure the federal kickbacks.
P. Clements - N.H.