by Bruce Eden 

... to Protest Denial of His Parental and Other Constitutional Rights. Mr. Amir Sanjari, was divorced after a 17 year marriage. He's a UK Citizen who ...

    ... was originally invited to the United States to Stony Brook University, New York for a research position.

Now he's destitute and on a hungar strike in jail to protest the unconstitutional denial of fathers' rights and more.

Initially, Sanjari and his ex-wife shared equal custody of their children and had similar incomes. Nevertheless he was ordered to pay $1,000 a month in child support. Such a payment is the first sign that something is seriously amiss.

But when he lost his job and applied for a reduction in "child support", it was denied. This denial is also not unusual, wrong, but not unusual. His ability in the recession to get a job to cover the outrageous child support payment faded. It brought on hardships for him.

Eventually his ex-wife won sole custody of the children, he says, by lying about him while he was out of the country on vacation.

Sanjari, a competent man, was not idle though. He learned the law to fight for his children and his rights to see them and care for them on his own. He fought in the Indiana family court, its district court, and eventually in federal courts. He had to go on the run to stay out of jail for not paying what he couldn't pay - a common circumstance for fathers under such 'child extortion' orders. He spent time helping other parents with their family court cases while he was on the run.

Unfortunately, though well-versed in constitutional and federal legal processes, it became apparent that he'd get no due process to protect rights clearly denied to him. For the child support he couldn't pay, he's been sent to jail.

Amir is now on a hunger strike to try to expose his plight and that of other fathers under this tyrannical anti-father system that separates fathers from their children and turn them into criminals.

The problem with the entire process is that child support is not criminal in nature.  It is a civil matter.  Every federal court of appeals that has broached the subject, has said that child support is a common, civil, commercial debt.  They've said it is NOT a "special kind of debt".  It is like any other debt in commerce--mortgage debt, auto loan debt, credit card debt, etc.  But, as a society, we don't jail people for these kinds of debts, otherwise there would be a revolt of the largest magnitude.  Yet, we unconstitutionally jail for child support debt.  The same federal courts have said that there can be no probable cause to arrest in a civil matter.  Probable cause to arrest can only exist in criminal matters.  Anyone arrested in a civil matter has been falsely arrested, assaulted by government officials, falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted, and in the case of child support, falsely imprisoned for debt.  This warrants the bringing of constitutional rights and civil rights violations claims. 

In the case of Amir Sanjari, given that child support emanates out of federal Child Support Enforcement laws found in the Social Security Act, Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 651-669, a federal habeas corpus action must be brought to show that his detention/arrest/incarceration is not only unlawful, but unconstitutional.

Sanjari hasn't had any solid food since March 26, the day he was arrested. Once trim at 150 lbs, he's now down to 115. He drinks some nutritional supplements with potassium and sodium to keep his brain functioning normally.

I stress that the constitutional denials Sanjari has had to face that set him up for his tribulations are not unusual for fit fathers under family court actions. Yet Amir's personal sacrifice to garner some public notice is honorable.

The denials he faces are unjustified. He knows it, and many other decent fathers know it. And his efforts will in large part be suppressed by both the courts and all those who profit by the present day denial of fathers rights.

Fathers' Rights means basic constitutional rights for a fit father to maintain physical and legal custody of his children to the same extent of that of a 'fit' mother, and then, of course, all other fundamental rights due a free person.  Most state statutes call for custody of children involved in divorce to be equal if both parents are found fit.  However, we have given family court judges too much authority to use their discretion to decide these matters.  They always inevitably grant custody to mothers, because of pressure from radical feminist groups, pressure from bar associations to preserve status quo that the man is the "breadwinner" for purposes of profit and gain and restribution of the wealth of the family into the lawyers' pockets, and lastly and most importantly, pressure from the state government itself in obtaining as much federal funding for child support collections and enforcement by maintaining artificially inflated child support awards.  Discretion is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as a judge's personal decision based on his experiences and expertise, which can only be used after he/she has exhausted all of the relevant facts of a case, and all of the relevant law involved.  Instead, judges use discretion first, and then fit the facts and law to their decisions.  Not only is this improper, it is an egregious violation of due process and equal protection guarantees.

The denial of a fit father's rights begin in a state's county family court where his children are essentially kidnapped from him without the required constitutional due process to prove unfitness nor assigning him equal physical and legal custody of his children. The family court simply usurps all his rights by declaring that it will assign custody to one parent and make the other parent pay whatever it assigns as "child support".

And why? Because the court claims it can deny fundamental rights based on it's "alleged" right to determine what's in the "best interests of children" who have fit parents. It's an absurd claim when both parents are fit and willing to parent fully or at least equally to the other. It's absurd because the "best interest" standard is unconstitutional.

However, collectively, a multibillion dollar industry has grown up around the denial of a father's rights because of the enormous benefits that can then accrue to them. Benefits include child support, collection fees, lawyers' fees, GAL fees, course fees, and more, extracted directly from fathers.

And then there are additional benefits from enormous government money transfer to family courts systems, state revenue agencies, domestic violence agencies and organizations, and federal revenue collections too.  This is known as the federal reimbursement incentive to the states for support collections and enforcement.  This law can be found at 42 U.S.C. Section 658(a).  The more states award and collect in support, the more money they get from the federal government as a reimbursement incentive.  The statute shows that the state receives 66 cents on every dollar expended on collections and administrative fees.

However, there are other incentive monies added on by the federal government, including but not limited to enforcement costs and other ancillary fees.  In some instances the federal government is giving over 100% of what the state's total child support amounts collected are.  This is a massive fraudulent taxpayer rip-off that needs to be investigated under the "Whistleblower" statutes or under the RICO (Racketeering) statutes.  Why?  Because they are arresting and incarcerating innocent people to extort and embezzlement as much as they can out of them, or their families and friends, under the guise that it's "for the children".
Who supports this extortion industry? 

Just follow the money. And with all that money comes plenty of propaganda to justify what happens based on extraneous reasons and vilifying men or fathers-- but always steering clear of the clear constitutional rights violations that this system depends upon.

Unfortunately even the federal courts are afraid to over-rule the unconstitutional family court procedures and orders as is their duty when states' procedures violate the U.S. Constitution. There's just too much money and political push to make waves against the "divorce and domestic violence industry".

That's what Amir Sanjari found out - as others have too. What will you do when it's your turn to go to court?  Maybe enough of you will band together and form a militia to fight back against the unlawful arresting and imprisoning of people for child support debts.

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)--New Jersey

---