The Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part IX - The Ol' Quasharoo, Reprise

********************************************************************************************
UPDATE:  Sorry guys, there has, as yet, been no decision made concerning the subpoena served.  I will tell you that the defending county attorney that argued for the quash used the words "Oppressive" and "Burdensome" at least 500 times each.  That's all for now.  I'm sure we'll get the order AND the quash about...oh, 12 hours before trial, I'll venture
*******************************************************************************************

Welcome back, kids, to another episode of "Let's quash the subpoenas of everyone that might incriminate themselves in the process of testifying, before they get in real trouble".  There has been called, a hearing, this very morning at 11:00 to quash the only subpoena in this case that was able to be legally served, on one John P. Sarcone, Polk County Iowa Attorney.  Boooo, Hisssss....

Before we go on the air, why don't we post a statement that I intend to make, prior to Her honorable Jeannie Vaudt makes her ruling on the matter.  Please return after 12:00 p.m. Central time to see the results of this hearing, which I intend to post right at the top of this article.

"I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby place in the record of the court, a statement concerning the quash of the suppoenas, both of John P. Sarcone on this date, and of the subpoenas of the 29 elected officials that were allowed to quash their subpoenas on the date of April 8th, 2016, in case FECR292312.

Each of these people whose subpoenas both Judge Blink quashed, and whom Jesse Ramirez now moves to quash all claim these subpoenas to be burdensome, mainly based on the fact that the called witnesses simply state they have no knowledge of the cases, and because they would have to take time out of their busy lives to come all the way down to the courthouse, where most of them work quite near or in anyway, to testify on a case they merely SAY they know nothing about.  The petitioner in this case, or, the defendant in the case we’re deliberating, was, in fact, never given an opportunity to prove to the court that these witnesses most certainly did or did not know anything about the case.  Wouldn’t and shouldn’t the burden of proof of whether they do or do not know anything about the case on the petitioner/defendant or his/her council to prove to the court or the jury, one way or the other?  How can any judge just up and decide that witnesses have no knowledge about a case, or take their word for that fact?  Why couldn’t every witness called claim this then, and get out of testifying, including the defendants themselves in every criminal case?  Isn’t dismissing called witnesses for the defense essentially denying the defense due process of law, by essentially denying him or her the right to defend themselves by dismissing the very witnesses that could, feasibly, prove their innocence, just because they’re friends or co-workers of the court?

John P. Sarcone, and those in official capacity in their respective offices do not want to testify, on the record of this case, the case it concerns, or any other case that they were involved in, because they would then have to admit that they most assuredly DID know about them, as well as what they did in them.  Most importantly, their testimony would indeed show that this was a conspiracy against the rights of the Petitioner.  The court is here to make sure that undue harassment and embarrassment does not happen, not because the witnesses are not present, or on the stand, but while they’re on the stand, that is what Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.611 is about, therefore this rule cannot be used to excuse this or any other elected official from testifying.I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby place in the record of the court, a statement concerning the quash of the suppoenas, both of John P. Sarcone on this date, and of the subpoenas of the 29 elected officials that were allowed to quash their subpoenas on the date of April 8th, 2016, in case FECR292312.

It amazes me that the court so easily dismisses witnesses based simply on the fact that they work for the system in some capacity, but forces all others to comply with the orders of the court, even to the point of holding them in contempt or jailing them.  The very fact that the same sort of witnesses were excused in the last case is at issue in this case, because there was evidence and testimony concerning the part each of those witnesses played that was excused, at the last moment no less.  Those subpoenas were served lawfully by a licensed private detective, properly, to each and every one of those witnesses, and yet all of them, if they had any importance at all, were all quashed, and allowed to not testify on the behalf of the defendant, causing him to lose his case.

Lastly, I’ll state again that an affidavit has been filed, showing obvious deception and unprofessional behavior on the part of the agent who accepted the service of this subpoena, in an effort to get out of her acceptance of his subpoena.  Moreover, someone immediately called and harassed my server following the filing of this affidavit, using her number listed at the bottom of it.  This sort of behavior is most unbecoming of an official, in any capacity.

The petitioner has submitted more than enough evidence to show why the petitioner needs these people to testify, and why.  The petitioner requests that the court uphold the service of this subpoena, like you would any common witness.  I guarantee, if her honor allows me to put him on the stand, and let me ask him a few questions, I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he knows something about every case I’ve been in, and more.  Thank you."

The Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part VIII - As Usual, Desperation Sets In

Well kids, some interesting developments after a tiring day of trying to get subpoenas served on those defending themselves in a truly unwinnable case.  To start with, there was only one subpoena served lawfully...and then thrown back at the server, once the person who accepted it realized that it was a subpoena, and that she had messed up by accepting it...on none other than the criminal Polk County Attorney, John P. Sarcone.  'Magine that.

To start with, let us post the story of the serve in the words of the very person that served it.  The name has been blotted out to protect the innocent.

I, Blankety-Blank, who represents the Petitioner in the capacity of process server, do
hereby swear that the following is true, concerning witness John P. Sarcone:

"That I did enter the Polk County Justice Center, for the purpose of serving John P.
Sarcone with a subpoena for this case, on June 26th, 2017, at approximately 12:30 p.m.
I spoke with one Jenny Diaz, who, after agreeing to take the papers for John Sarcone,
then accepted them. After reading that the papers were a subpoena, Ms. Diaz then
threw them back at me, and stated loudly that she would not accept them, and that it
wasn’t a legal service, because it was a civil matter concerning a criminal case, and that
I would have to serve them at 111 Court Avenue (The Polk County Treasurer’s office). I
took the papers and left the Justice Center, not knowing if this was the truth or not, to
serve them at 111 Court Avenue.

Upon my arrival at 111 Court Avenue, I was told that John Sarcone had no office at the
Treasurer’s building, and that if I wanted to serve these papers, I would need to serve
them to him at the Polk County Justice Center.

It is my personal belief that, after seeing that a subpoena was being served on John
Sarcone, his agent, Jenny Diaz, who accepted the papers like she does it all the time,
was merely trying to avoid getting in trouble for accepting a subpoena for her boss, John
Sarcone. This entire interaction between me and Ms. Diaz was recorded on their
security cameras, including her taking the papers, reading them and throwing them back
at me."

In case you didn't quite get what happened there, let me put it in layman's terms, for your better understanding:

She served the subpoena to the guy LEGALLY, in the correct place, to the right person.  John P. only comes out of his well-guarded castle around once a year...probably on the day of the blood moon to make a sacrifice to the Devil, or something...to tell Polk County the yearly arrest numbers.  The rest of the time, the guy sits behind 2" of bulletproof glass, with security cameras everywhere (a classic criminal's set up), locked in his office behind thousands of assistants, paralegals, and secretaries.

How do we know that it was served legally?

Not even an hour after this affidavit was filed, the server's phone began to ring...and ring...and ring.  No message was left.  Finally, she calls it back...and the voice on the other end?  The caller's name was Tom.  No last name.  We assume this was Tom Miller, the Attorney General.  Who else would have such quick access to the affidavit, complete with the server's phone number? There are no other Toms even associated with the case.  This person began questioning whether she served the criminal John...she hung up on the guy....whoever he was (the author gives a chuckle here).

IMMEDIATELY following this, the next morning, a motion to quash is filed.  Of course you can see it, I insist:

"COMES NOW the Polk County Attorney John P. Sarcone, pursuant to Iowa Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.1701(4),1 and moves to quash a subpoena purportedly served upon Polk
County Attorney John P. Sarcone. In support therefore:

1. On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff through process server Tanya Meyers filed an
Affidavit of Service, which purported to serve a subpoena upon Polk County Attorney John P.
Sarcone.

2. Mr. Sarcone is not in possession of the subpoena2 and a copy of said subpoena
was not attached to the Affidavit of Service. It is presumed the subpoena sought to compel Mr.
Sarcone’s testimony at the trial on Plaintiff’s Petition for Postconviction Relief scheduled for
July 5 and 6, 2017.

3. Mr. Sarcone was not given prior notice as to what testimony Plaintiff seeks to
elicit.

4. Mr. Sarcone has had no contact with Defendant except to be on the receiving end
of numerous communications and prior attempts to solicit his testimony.

5. Most importantly, Mr. Sarcone has not had any contact with the Plaintiff
concerning the facts of the underlying charges in this case. He has no personal knowledge of any
fact or legal matter admissible or relevant in this proceeding.

6. Based upon Plaintiff’s Statement to the Court filed on June 26, 2017, it can be
assumed Plaintiff seeks to compel Mr. Sacrone’s testimony as part of his baseless, wholly
unsubstantiated claim of a massive conspiracy between the witness, the county, the Department
of Human Services, numerous members of the Iowa judiciary, journalists at CityView and the
Des Register, and the victim in the underlying criminal case. See Statement to the Court.

7. It would be unreasonable or oppressive for Mr. Sarcone to attend this trial when
he has no connection to the case outside of his supervisory role over all criminal prosecutions in
Polk County.

8. This is not Plaintiff’s first abuse of the subpoena power. In the underlying
criminal case, Plaintiff subpoenaed Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, Attorney General
Thomas Miller, Judge William Price, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director Charles
Palmer, several DHS employees, Assistant Attorney General Grant Dugdale, numerous assistant
Polk County attorneys, several private attorneys, and police officers. All of Plaintiff’s subpoenas
were quashed. See Exhibit 1—Ruling.

For these reasons Polk County Attorney John Sarcone respectfully requests the district
court to quash the subpoena as unreasonable or oppressive under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure
1.701(4).

1 Alternatively, the witness requests the subpoena be quashed under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.611 as
harassing.

2 Because the undersigned is not in possession of the subpoena, the witness cannot verify whether the
subpoena was issued in compliance with Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1701(1), (2).

Respectfully Submitted, Jesse Ramirez, Asst. Polk County Attorney."

That rule, by the way, Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.611, goes like this...at least the portion they're trying to get it quashed with:

"Rule 5.611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation. a. Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment."

Oh God no, we wouldn't want this poor guy to get harassed, and, most importantly, would want him to be embarrassed....not when he's the only one that can legally harass and embarrass the defendant, huh?  Harassed....keep in mind, this Petitioner has only served the poor man twice...ever.  He hasn't appeared either time...keep that in mind as well.

I would like to, as a preamble here, bring up this point:  If this was an illegal serve....then why are we motioning to quash the subpoena?  Oh, and another thing...how are we "purportedly" serving a subpoena?  And if it is purportedly, again, why are they motioning to quash a subpoena we "purportedly" served??  I thought we'd just get that one out of the way, toot de suite.

Let's go over the details, quickly.  First, notice that John P. Sarcone is "coming", as himself, to quash his own subpoena.  Is this legal??

Note, also, that, supposedly, I am supposed to give the guy prior notice about what he might be testifying about??  I never had to do that in the first case...why do I have to do that now?  When did this start becoming a norm, or become the law of the land?

Note also some more, that in the pursuit of my innocence, I am, by serving anyone in elected office, ABUSING the power of the Subpoena...and that the subpoenas, in the first case that we're disputing, are PART OF THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE (see "The Post-Conviction Case, Part IV, found here:

http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-post-conviction-relief-case-part-iv.html

to be clear about what we're talking about)

Let's follow this up with my very quickly put together "Motion to resist the Quash"

"I, the petitioner, Christopher (Bruce) the living man, do hereby submit this motion to
resist the defense’s motion to quash the subpoena for John P. Sarcone:

1. According to the affidavit of service filed in this case, it is obvious that the office of the
county attorney misled the server, Tanya Myers, to believe that she had made an illegal
serve at the rightful offices of the county attorney, and to someone who claimed to be his
agent and accepted the service. So how can a subpoena be quashed that wasn’t
legally served? The County Attorney WAS legally served. It was because of this
UNLAWFUL misdirection that the County Attorney does not have a copy of the
Subpoena.

2. Moreover, the county attorney has full access to the record of the court in this case,
I’m sure, if not himself, through his lackey, Mr. Ramirez. There is a copy of the
Petitioner’s “Minutes of Testimony” on the record of this case; should he need to see
why the Petitioner needs him to testify, he can find that information on the record.

3. As to the subpoena being “Harassing”, the county attorney has only been served a
subpoena from this Petitioner twice. Moreover, he was able to get the subpoena in
FECR292312 (the proceeding from which this case springs) quashed as well. This
subpoena is not, by any legal definition of the word, “harassing.”

The petitioner, hereby, asks the court that another copy of the subpoena be picked up by
Mr. Sarcone, (which should be easy, since he is RIGHT NEXT DOOR) and that he be
compelled to testify in this matter.

Mr. Sarcone himself, along with Linda Lane, at that time, an assistant Polk County
Attorney, fed a libel-filled article to the Des Moines Register, and the Petitioner fully
intends to compel Mr. Sarcone, who opted to officially comment on the case that he
supposedly knows NOTHING ABOUT, FECR292312, in that article. This is why the
plaintiff needs him to testify (see Petitioner’s Exhibit, J, “Christopher Bruce, Domestic
Terrorist”, Exhibit filed in this case on 2/9/2017, and the Amended Minutes of Testimony,
filed 2/20/2017)"

Of course, I await, with the usual baited breath, the order to quash the only subpoena I was able to get served.  Details will come when I know more.

The Post-Conviction Relief Case, Part VII - The Pre-Trial Blues

Here I stand, head in hand, turn my face to the wall,

If she's gone I can't go on, feeling two-foot small

Everywhere, people stare, each and every day,

I can see them laugh at me, and I hear them say,

Hey, you've got to hide your love away.

Hey, you've got to hide your love away

How can I even try, I can never win,

Hearing them, seeing them, in the state I'm in

How could she say to me, love will find a way,

Gather round all you clowns, let me hear you say:

Hey, you've got to hide your love away,

Hey, you've got to hide your love away.

- The Beatles

Well America, once again, it looks as though this writer may be royally screwed again by those of the Polk County courts.  I'm afraid nothing looks good, where getting justice due is concerned...about the only hope I have left is that the Judge, Jeannie Vaudt, may be an honest and good judge.  I would be surprised, if I didn't know better.  I've thought the judge might be fair in a case before (i.e., Judge Blink, the man primarily responsible for the filing of this case), and have been let down; so for however this judge may be, I am, of course, prepared by expecting the worst.

We'll begin by stating that none that I had hoped to have served to testify on my behalf have been served.  This is, of course, due to the main fact that I did not use either a private investigator or the Polk County Iowa Sheriff's office (who I obviously have no intention to fund in any manner...including paying their ridiculous request for over $8,000 in "Room and Board" for the year I spent in jail, let alone pay them to do their job that I already, with my taxes, pay them to do anyway.)  This is also due to how well those involved have hidden themselves in their respective ivory towers, behind 2" thick bulletproof glass and behind an army of assistants, secretaries, pages and scribes.  Others have retired, disappeared and are nowhere to be found or seen.  Gee...I wonder why.  The only one that will be there will be my "Stand-By Attorney", Lucas Taylor, already called as the ONLY witness...for the prosecution.  You had best believe that I intend to grill this man for all he's worth, in his cross-examination by me...about 7 other witnesses worth, the others that will never see the courtroom in this case, just like it was in the other cases I subpoenaed them to show up for, including the one this case is about.  I am quite certain that, even if I had paid some private investigator to find and serve these criminals, that they would have found a way to not be there anyway, and there would have been $500 down the drain.  I can't say that I'm disappointed that the $75 that I shelled out to have a friend do it for me (they were to get another $75 upon the job's completion...which of course, it couldn't be completed, due to the trouble each person was to find, let alone serve) was all that I had to pay out.  Anything more would have just been more of a waste of what little money I have/make.

So, as a final post, pre-trial, I plan to make the usual prediction as to the outcome of this little party...there will be no justice...there will be no news crews, there will be no witnesses for the defense, and the PUBLIC record, describing the events of the case in question, as well as the case itself, will reflect the court's perfect execution of both trials, with the Petitioner in the usual place...the loser's box.

That said, there has been a final "pre-trail" statement made to the "court" of Polk County, and those who represent their brand and breed of "Justice."  America has to get her copy as well....of course.

"I, Christopher (Bruce), the Living Man, do hereby make this final pre-trial statement to the court of Polk County, Iowa, Judge Jeanie Vaudt, and those who seek to deprive this Petitioner of his rightful remedy, those of the Polk County Attorney’s offices.

Three years ago, the Department of Human Services, in a conspiracy with the courts of Polk County, Iowa, overseen by the criminal Judge William A. Price, and prosecuted by another conspirator, John P. Sarcone, without good cause, removed my wife’s daughter from her loving parents.  Since that day, the petitioner chose to expose what the criminals in these courts had done, and continued to do, online.  Because of this, the parents had their rights terminated...also without cause.  2 months later, the agency that removed her admitted they did wrong, removed the parents from the abuse registry, cleared them of the Department’s allegations, and expunged their records of any wrong-doing.  That decision was backed up by the director of that agency...and still the crooked courts of Polk County and the State of Iowa Supreme Court refused to acknowledge that wrong-doing, even in the face of that decision, and would not restore our rights or return our daughter; because to find in our favor would have garnered too much of the wrong kind of attention on the myriad of judges, county attorneys and Supreme Court judges involved, and would have endangered a very lucrative and successful industry in the State of Iowa, by causing a very unwanted light on the activities of the corrupted officials who profit greatly by these wrongful actions, both through income and jobs related to the industry of child removal.

In order to complete their success against us in our juvenile cases, the county attorney of Polk County conspired with the Des Moines Police Department’s detective Jake Lancaster to cause the father and mother (who had, by this time, secretly moved away from Des Moines) to miss their termination hearing.  As any person involved in these cases know, parents in Iowa who miss their termination hearings have, by statute, no standing to appeal their cases to the Supreme Court.  Because they could not find the parents, they enlisted the help of the United States Secret Service to have the father arrested for the first time in 12 years.  Since then, the father has been arrested for the same crimes (harassment being the easiest crime to charge and prove against someone in the State of Iowa) three additional times; the last costing him a year of his life in the Polk County Jail; even though he had no record to speak of prior to this time, save for 3 simple misdemeanors over a 30 year span, with NO violence, NO drug related offences, and, most importantly, NO record of harassment. stalking, or any other aggravated or related behavior.

In order to successfully lock the father away, the courts of Polk County conspired with John P. Sarcone’s offices, Darren Tromblay of CityView magazine, Jeanne Munson, and Mark Worthington to file charges of harassment and stalking against the petitioner, and find him guilty of the same.  Prior to the arrests made in cases SMAC359086 and FECR292312, the petitioner had been in constant contact with all three of these people for over 2 years, and had no issues with any of them.  In a one week period, all 3 would file charges against the petitioner, at the behest of John Sarcone’s offices.  “The Rest of the Story” you can find on the record of the Polk County courts.

Since this petitioner’s incarceration, the Petitioner has noted no real change in the way he has been treated in the courts of Iowa in the past.  Those who choose to represent themselves without legal council (this has and will continue to be the case, since it is obvious that those that are appointed to represent those of perceived lesser value have no care or concern of those they represent, and work with the courts to deprive these citizens of their defenses...as is the case in THIS action) are not only discriminated against, they are told that they cannot do so without consequence and punishment if the rules of criminal, court and civil procedures of the State of Iowa are not known fully and followed to the letter.  These same rules of Civil Procedure obviously do not apply to those who work in the system, and the system makes it as difficult as humanly possible for someone who tries to have those wrongs righted.

I say, enough is enough.  Even though no one has been able to be served to testify on the events of this case for the side of the Petitioner, the Petitioner will still show up to fight the State on this matter, regardless.  Randy Osborn has retired.  Grant Rogers does not have an office at the Register, and cannot be reached, either by phone or email.  Judges in Polk County are never NOT in court, and none have a listed home address anywhere on file (for many self-conceived reasons, I can only imagine).  The Assistant Polk County attorney formerly in charge of the case in question has resigned her position, and conveniently cannot be located or found as working in any official capacity anywhere else at this time.  The Polk County Attorney himself works in a well-guarded castle, and does not appear in person or answer the phone for anyone...for such as myself anyway.  This, if nothing else, should be an obvious enough testament to the wrongs done against this Petitioner in these cases, as well as speaks loudly to the wrongs done to countless other residents of the county, in a concerted and unified effort that keeps those in power in their jobs, and make the county and the state money, utilizing the taxes off of the backs of those who cannot afford to fight their own cases, even though it is those very people who work hardest to produce these same taxes for the state, that go to pay these same state and county officials their salaries, so that they can then prosecute them incessantly, until they ultimately win out against those who seek justice for themselves, due to their lack of money, connections, constitution and endurance, honest attorneys to choose from, and actual time to devote to their efforts.

The Petitioner has endured the constant persecution (as well as prosecution, obviously) by the criminals involved in the wrongful removal of his daughter for 3 long years, as of the date of July 21st, 2017.  When is enough to be enough?

Unless the record of the court in the case in question has been doctored (as it has been proven to have been in the past, even as recently as the case in question), the court record itself SHOULD stand as enough evidence on its own of the wrongs done the Petitioner in the case in question.  The witnesses the Petitioner had intended to have testify should not even be needed; the record should speak volumes on its own.

This petitioner sincerely hopes that there is just one remaining judge in all of Polk County/The State of Iowa that remains true to the meaning of justice, and that the same judge is the one assigned to this case.  If not, and should the Petitioner once again be denied his due, the Petitioner reiterates that this case will by no means be the end of the fight for true justice for the Petitioner and his now destroyed and separated family, and the Petitioner’s ruined good name and reputation, thanks to the continuing criminal actions of those in office in Polk County, who supposedly represent those wronged citizens of Iowa...most who know nothing of the character, nor anything of the events that led to this conspiracy and violations against the civil rights and due process of the Petitioner during the course of the case in question.  These events were blotted from the eyes of the jury deciding this case (using the tired excuse of confidentiality.) In its place was put an obvious attempt to sway the jury from making an un-biased decision concerning the Petitioner, a libelous article fed to Iowa’s premier newspaper, The Des Moines Register, redefining the Petitioner as a lawless, possibly dangerous and murderous “Domestic Terrorist”, which was printed one day before the jury was to go into deliberations.  This article not only succeeded and did its job well, it also cost the petitioner his home in Carroll Iowa, where he had lived for over a year without issue.

During the course of this case, the Petitioner’s right to defend himself in his own person was denied him (while incarcerated,) his ability to bail himself out reasonably was deprived him, lowering of the same was never addressed or suggested by stand-by council, depositions were also never suggested or done, the Petitioner’s right to appeal was ignored, all of his important witnesses were dismissed from testifying (the Friday before the Monday of trial), all pertinent evidence filed by the petitioner was ruled irrelevant (the Friday before the Monday trial) and no promised “poll of the jury” to determine whether a new trial was needed was ever done, following the verdict of the jury.  Every due process and civil right of the Petitioner has been violated in the process of these proceedings; and the State of Iowa still stands in their pulpit with innocent puppy eyes and blatantly denies a single wrong-doing.  This petitioner will, without question, continue to show that Polk County does not believe in true justice, for what could very well be the rest of his days, should this judge prove no better than her peers, by deciding against the Petitioner in this case.  The Petitioner, in conclusion, hopes to be surprised by the decision, in opposition to the expected one.

Respectfully,
Christopher (Bruce) The Living Man"

Stay tuned for the results of this fiasco, following my return to my new home, on July 7th or 8th.  Quite possibly, this will only be a one day trial, considering the fact that I, once again, have no real witnesses that need to testify.  Kind of reminds me of the last case, where they dismissed all of the witnesses that could hurt their case, leaving me with only 11 character witnesses....who they then asked to go home for the first two days, since the prosecution was still parading THEIR list of witnesses...on the 3rd day...as they and I both expected, these remaining 11 witnesses just...didn't show up again.  Gee, I can't understand why not??

Anyway, don't bother crossing your fingers.  I don't expect any real miracles, nor do I expect justice.  I just expect that this will be no different that any other trial....except that, as the loser, I'll end up having to owe them more than I already owe them for it.  :D

Concerning Iowa Child Support...(Child Support Enforcement, Part II)

Below is a letter contributed to me by a good friend from Iowa who has chosen to be anonymous.  I've already written a rather comprehensive article concerning child support and child support collection, "Child Support Enforcement" which can be found  here:

http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2014/04/im-sorry-america.html

Now, before we print the letter, let's quickly go over some facts that you may as yet not know.

First, a lot of people are not aware of the fact that child support and their collections are done by none other than?  The Department of Human Services...or social services....or whatever...the very people responsible for the business of child removal.  Imagine that.  In the article linked above, this had been something I had not been aware of.  Once I made it down the rabbit hole, a lot of things I had considered to be a mystery about this rather mysterious collections industry became a lot more clear.  For instance, how they had the power they had to do pretty much whatever they wanted to do to get those collections of our money, and the fact that they could, at any time, suspend your licence or get you arrested for not paying.  Needless to say, all of those mysteries are now abated, since I now know who's responsible for them.

Now, before you folks get the idea that I'm some sort of bum or useless deadbeat dad who's sore about having to pay to support his kids, keep these three things in mind:

1.  The child I supported was a product of rape....yes, my psychotic ex-wife raped me while I slept, then took off when she was sure she was pregnant.  I didn't see her again until my divorce hearing, after she had the baby.  Naturally, I avoided paying her child support for as long as was humanly possible.  When I was officially arrested for non-payment, I drew out the money to pay all of the back child support in one...huge...chunk, so it wouldn't happen again. So, did arrest actually help then, as I like to claim that it doesn't, in 99% of cases?  Well....yeah, in my case.  What the child support laws DON'T tell you is that you can only be arrested for non-payment three times.  After that, they have to dismiss the entire payment...present and past.  How long, do you believe, will it take deadbeat dads to figure that out?  I happen to know several who already have.  Once you've served time for all 3 arrests, they have to let you out of the entire obligation.

2.  Once your name has been assigned on the birth certificate?  If you were to find out later that the child was not yours, there's no way to get it changed, after the deed is done, if the child is more than a year old.  Even before, you have to have court intervention and pay fees to get it done, if before a year has passed.

3.  If, by chance. the child was never yours, and you paid support for what could be up to 22 years?  You may as well pretty much write off all that money, because you'll never in life get it back.  In addition to this, if, halfway through paying, you do find out who the father is (and of course, clear your name in the process) social services a.k.a. child support recovery may not, at their discretion, change who pays the support.  And, if by some miracle, you do get them to go after the right father, this is a rather timely process that may, for all intents and purposes, take almost as long as it took to find out who the real father really was.

This letter considers the musings of one of our U.S. armed services veterans, where this often criminal organization is concerned, so therefore needed some light shed, in this writer's opine.

"Dear Congressman,

I have a question regarding child support in Iowa.  I will keep it very simple and brief.

Currently, Iowa law allows that if the payor of child support receives social security disability, then their child support will be reduced upon request, however, there are many payors of child support who are disable, but they only receive disability from the VA.   These Veterans are struggling with employment and unable to pay the amount of child support that they are ordered to pay and they are finding themselves facing license sanctions and even jail time.  What is wrong with this picture?  Why can a person receiving SSDI have their child support reduced, but a veteran, who has served his or her country in a combat zone and became disabled due to a war, cannot share this same right?  Is there anything you can do to change this immediately?  Would it help if I wrote a proposed bill to address this issue?

This is not doing right by our veterans who have sacrificed so much.

Thank you,

It is not okay to send me solicitations, flyers, pamphlets etc. by mail or by e-mail for the purpose of elections, or for the purpose of advertisement of any political party or candidate."

I think it needs said...didn't you?