The “Deadbeat Dad” issue is dead and has been since 1988 (see footnote)
Its time for society to revisit the “Deadbeat Dad” issue in the major media and to examine abuses of this obsolete issue.
The Attorney General of Texas is the official record keeper for all child support payments in Texas. The Attorney General of Texas is a bully and has an extensive history of abusing this power.
The Attorney General of Texas uses the obsolete concept of the "Deadbeat Dad" to justify his severe bullying.
Jaye Mosier is the Poster Dad for the Abuse Under the Color of Authority inflicted by the Attorney General of Texas.
Now Gregg Abbott, the Attorney General of Texas wants to be the Governor of Texas.
I simply wish to plead my case to the court of public opinion with a large campaign of full page ads in several highly politically influential newspapers in Texas and the United States detailing the abuses that I have suffered.
Title I of the 1988 FSA implemented a national Child Support Enforcement System based upon the uniform application of a State-developed formula to ensure absent parents were held responsible for maintaining their children. Section 101 requires every State to implement various procedures for immediate and mandatory wage-withholding for all support orders being enforced by the State’s CSEA. This law required the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Family Support within DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services) to administer the Child Support Enforcement Program.
Mandated that by 1994, states implement presumptive, rather than advisory, guidelines.
Enacted "immediate" wage withholding.
The Attorney General of Texas, Greg Abbott is knowingly and willfully usurping, denying and depriving the Plaintiff, Jay Mosier of his Constitutional Civil Rights. Specifically, the actions of the Defendant are depriving the Plaintiff of Liberty and Property without due process (Exhibit A). Plaintiff believes that the actions of the Defendant constitute direct violations of State and Federal Law and that the malicious and blatant violations of these laws constitute criminal behavior under the Color of Authority.
Specifically, the Defendant has and will issue to any employer of the Plaintiff a Notice to Withhold Income in direct violation of Federal Law (Exhibit B). The Plaintiff has the required evidence to satisfy and to justify the conditions of this Federal Law however, the Defendant will not consider the Plaintiffs evidence. This lack of consideration is in direct violation of Texas State Law (Exhibit C). Plaintiff has submitted his evidence numerous times and the Defendant has ignored his evidence each and every time that the Plaintiff has presented his evidence.
HISTORY OF EVENTS
In November 2000, Randall County District Attorney, James Farren obtained a Grand Jury Felony Indictment for Criminal Non-Support against the Plaintiff. (Exhibit D)
An extradition arrest warrant was issued to the State of Virginia against the Plaintiff. (Exhibit E)
Plaintiff was arrested in Fairfax County VA.
Plaintiff posted bond and retained an extradition Attorney, James Love.
Plaintiffs’ ex-wife faxed a handwritten affidavit affirming that the Plaintiff was current with his support obligation and was not in arrears as of January 17, 2001. (Exhibit F)
Plaintiffs’ extradition Attorney, James Love forwarded this acknowledgement to the Randall County District Attorneys office in order to negotiate a self-surrender agreement. (Exhibit G)
Plaintiff appeared in District court to answer charges of felony criminal non-support. Plaintiff was placed on probation for one year with among other conditions of probation the explicit condition that the Plaintiff would remain current with his support obligation. (Exhibit H)
After one year, Plaintiff successfully completed the terms of probation. Plaintiffs’ criminal non-support case was closed with a disposition of “Restitution Made”.
In 2003 it became clear to the Plaintiff that the Defendant, The Attorney General of Texas had been unaware of Plaintiffs prosecution and was maintaining the arrears for which the Plaintiff had been prosecuted on the Plaintiffs record of payments. Plaintiff notified the Defendant by U.S. Mail that the payment record was not accurate. Defendant ignored this notification and in violation of Texas Law (Exhibit C) threatened all manors of legal and punitive remedies for non-payment.
In April 2007 Plaintiff had determined that he was close to satisfying the entire support obligation and without credit for arrears to which the Plaintiff had been previously prosecuted, Plaintiff was in danger of over paying the entire obligation. Plaintiff again sent notice, including the evidence of the previous prosecution in an attempt to seek credit for the prior and satisfied arrears. Again the Defendant ignored this evidence in direct violation of Texas Law (Exhibit C).
In October 2007 the Defendant had scheduled a Hearing to Confirm Arrearages in Tarrant County Texas. Plaintiff traveled from Detroit Michigan to Fort Worth Texas in order to be present for the hearing. Plaintiff was prepared to present his evidence of having satisfied the arrears for which he was prosecuted. Upon notice that the Plaintiff had and was prepared to submit this evidence, the Attorney General promptly cancelled the hearing. The case was subsequently transferred to Randall County Texas.
In March 2008 another Hearing to Confirm Arrearages was scheduled in Randall County. Having previously lost his job in Detroit Michigan, Plaintiff was unable to travel to Amarillo Texas to attend the hearing in person. Three days before the date of the hearing, Plaintiff contacted the court and spoke to Caroline Woodburn, Court Clerk, to advise that he intended to exercise his right under Texas Law to participate in the hearing by telephone and fax. (Exhibit I) During that phone call Plaintiff was advised that he would be deprived of the right under Texas Law to participate by telephone and fax BECAUSE, the court had no speakerphone. Plaintiff requested to be notified in writing of this denial and the reason for it. Plaintiff was advised that a letter to that effect would have to be approved by the Judge and further advised that of course the Judge would not approve such a letter.
On March 6, 2008 Plaintiff attempted to exercise his right under Texas Law to participate in the scheduled hearing by telephone and fax. At approximately six a.m. Plaintiff faxed all his evidence to the fax machine at the court where the hearing was scheduled. At approximately nine a.m. Plaintiff called the court in an attempt to participate in the hearing and was advised by Caroline Woodburn that because the Plaintiff was not physically present for the hearing that a summary judgement had been entered against the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. (Exhibit J)
To this date, the Defendant has never acknowledged and has never considered Plaintiffs evidence as is required under Texas Law (Exhibit C).
DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW
Plaintiff acknowledges that after filing the above referenced complaint with the State Commission on Judicial Conduct the Defendant did not send orders to withhold income to any of the Plaintiffs employers or to any State paying the Plaintiff unemployment benefits. Defendant was in compliance with Federal Law (Exhibit B) for a period of approximately more than two years (March 2008 to October 2010).
DAMAGES BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE PLAINTIFF
On or about October 2010 Defendant issued an order to withhold ½ of Plaintiffs Income to two of Plaintiffs employers. Plaintiff was unable to afford to work under this income constraint.
On or about March 2011 Plaintiff obtained employment. Plaintiff promptly sent notice to the Attorney General, Greg Abbott by U.S. Mail (CRRR) advising that he had violated State and Federal Laws numerous times in order to steal ½ of the Plaintiffs net income. Plaintiff furthermore once again submitted his evidence of having satisfied the arrears still on the Plaintiffs payment record. Again, not only was the Plaintiffs evidence completely ignored, Defendant replied with a letter containing threats and intimidation. Defendant again issued an order to withhold ½ of Plaintiffs Income to the Plaintiffs current employer. After enduring this unjustified burden for approximately six months the Plaintiff suffered a mental breakdown and his employment was terminated.
On or about October 2012 Plaintiff again obtained employment. Within two weeks, Defendant issued an order to withhold ½ of Plaintiffs net income. Because of this unjustified burden the Plaintiff was unable to afford transportation to get to work and was unable to maintain employment. This action led to Plaintiff becoming homeless and forced the Plaintiff to now survive on the Social Welfare System and depend upon the Veterans Administration for shelter. As a direct result of the Defendants unjustified and illegal actions, the Plaintiff is homeless and lives in poverty. Plaintiff now suffers from multiple debilitating mental disorders as a direct result of the illegal actions over a period of many years perpetrated by the Defendant.