Child Support Debtors is the group. It is the unequal treatment of debt towards the non-custodial parent. All debt is equal in uniform commerce.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, UNITED STATES, February 11, 2022 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Joe Blessett is the United States and Texas for discrimination against Child Support Debtors in U.S Federal Court. The Texas Title IV-D, Child Support Agency, claims that Joe Blessett has a financial obligation to the State agency but has never shown proof of that obligation. Texas Title IV-D, Child Support Agency, has an obligation under uniform commerce laws of Equity to provide evidence of debt. The Law requires the Texas Title IV-D Child Support agency to follow the federal statutes of the Congressional Act and constitutional restraints on State governments. Child Support is contracted debt. Child support is a loan made to yourself (the father) for the child’s welfare under a marriage contract. The Fathers or the noncustodial parents are the primary lenders of the money used to pay the contracted debt. Title IV-D program challenges the laws of equity, by creating defects in equity that remain unchallenged by the creditors.

The Title IV-D Child Support program federal statutes single out the Child Support Debtors as a specific group of debtors. Child Support Debtors are denied equal interstate contract commerce clause protections under the terms of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. It is the unequal treatment of debt that is discrimination. The fathers or the noncustodial parent receive unequal treatment. All in avoidance of uniform commerce and U.S. Constitution protections. There is no other codified statute for debt in the United States that allows the seizure of practice licenses, employer reporting of wages, loss of U.S. passport rights, or threat of incarceration, among others. The underlying problem is that there is no written contract between the Child Support debtors and the Title IV-D program. Child Support debtors are not given full disclosure of these infringements being applied to them.

The Title IV-D Child Support program is a debt collection business. The program uses deceptive practices that edged out private contracts, specifically divorce decrees, private agreements between unwed parents, and other 3rd party child support collection agencies in violation of the Sherman Act. (15 U.S.C. §§ 1-38 in Title 15 of the U.S. Code)
Under 42 U.S.C. Section 666 (a)(5)(C) and (D) the program is voluntary. The father/Noncustodial parent has the right to decline voluntary paternity establishment under Title IV-D terms. The program is voluntary, and the father or noncustodial parent can say No. It is a codified law under 42 U.S.C. 666. The father/Noncustodial parent does not receive any benefits, and It is an adhesion contract. It is a voidable contract, that is repugnant to the United States Constitution. U. S. Congress cannot remove individual immunities, personal liberties, and freedoms from the people to enact laws or constitutional amendments just because they owe a debt.


Blessett thereby seeks declaratory injunction against the U.S. State Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety for applying Title IV-D Child Support penalties under the color of Law, without due process.

Blessett also seeks declaratory injunction against the State of Texas for discriminatory Bills of Attainder against child support debtors, again without due process or contractual agreement of the terms or penalties.

Blessett seeks injunctive relief against the Texas Office of the Atty General Child Support division for the application of Title IV-D Child Support under the color of Law, absent the evidence of a contract, no presence of a modification of the divorce decree, and finally, without due process.

Blessett additionally seeks declaratory injunction towards the HHS (Health and Human Services) to apply Title IV-D Child Support penalties and certify an invalid debt with various government agencies without evidence of a debt.

Finally, Blessett seeks a permanent injunction against the United States Government to stop Title IV-D Child Support penalties for the lack of full disclosure.

A man cannot be bound to a contract that he has not made or authorized. Free consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts.” Quoting Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)


Blessett’s federal civil lawsuit challenges the application of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act on Family Law as a deceptive, predatory, and unlawful program repugnant to the U.S. Constitution.


Joe Blessett has the right to his 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendment rights to enjoy his Final Divorce Decree.

Joe Blessett
Joe Blessett Music
+1 281-667-1174
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Twitter

Excuse Me | Joe Blessett Music

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.