Transcript of Unmasking Child Support: A Tech Pro's Legal Battlefield | TJ Tillman DSH #1005

2024, 713 million dollars to states to find you guilty in their own state hearing. Based on their performance, the more child support they collect, the more careers, the more paternity they establish, based on their performance, they get to tap into that 713 million. And that's just for the fiscal year of 2024.

All right, guys. Tj Tillman here. Very important story. I got a large male audience here, so thanks for coming on, man.

Oh, man. Thank you for having me.

Absolutely. Yeah, the child support fraud case. I mean, that set the tone for a lot of people, I feel like.

Yeah. I mean, it doesn't discriminate no matter whether you're rich, poor, middle class, it does not discriminate. We see it all the time on television. You see celebrities getting hit, the biggest celebrities with the biggest attorneys. And for some reason, them attorneys just don't They don't know how to deal with child support.

I feel like you were the first one to win that case.

I am the only person, well, not the only, now, but I was the first person that I know of who got their case dismissed for fraud. If there is someone who got their case dismissed for fraud, I would love to converse with them.

What year was that when you got that?

That was 2018. Wow. Six years ago. It's been six years.

I don't know anyone that's... Everyone I know that's dealt with has breached a settlement or lost.

It's designed like that, bro. It is designed for us to... Anyone going through that process is designed for you to lose because they are incentivized to win.

It's a very traumatizing experience for the male because with my dad, I was telling you off camera, it costs a lot of money to fight this.

Yeah. So luckily for me, what I did was I filed for a fee waiver. And a lot of people don't even know that they have fee waivers. So if you're in a financial situation, you can apply for a fee waiver and your cost is waived. Wow. So for me, I didn't have a problem with... I I was in it myself for two years. No legal background. I'm on a fee waiver, so they're the ones spending all the money. So I have nothing but time. So it worked out for me.

I love it. So you had to learn all the lingo in two years?

Yeah. I mean, I did some I was studying and researching beforehand, but I did a lot of on-the-job training. A lot of the things that I learned, I learned it on the job. Based on their responses is how I learned more, because as they responded to my filings, I went and researched that, and I came back with new evidence. And at that point, it just got to a point to where they were boxed in and they couldn't... It was nowhere more room for them to go. Dang.

So you were filing stuff yourself?

Yeah, I filed everything for myself. Holy crap. I researched it, typed it up, filed it, everything myself. No legal background. It was just common sense. What I did was I kept it real simple. Once I read their policy and I knew what they had to do, I just kept it real simple. Back in the day when you asked, Do you want to go with me? Yes or no? Did you follow your own policy? Yes or no? Here's your policy. Did you follow it? Yes or no? If you did, okay, then now I'm going to challenge to make sure that you did If you didn't, your policy says this is what's supposed to happen in regards to remedy. Man, these people are so criminal. I proved that they didn't do nothing right. For over two years yet, we're still arguing points, and they didn't lay down until the fake judge actually forced them to close the case.

You said fake judge?

Yeah, it was a fake judge.

Was it during COVID?

No, it was Because in child support hearings, a lot of people don't notice, child support hearings are not judicial. They're an administrative process. So your child support hearing is with an attorney acting as a temporary judge. What? Yes. So they are trained to hear and decide, well, not to decide, to recommend a decision to the actual judge. And you have to stipulate to that. So if you don't stipulate, which I didn't I agreed to my case being heard by a fake judge, but they forced me to do it anyway. But ironically, when the case got dismissed, right before it was getting dismissed, child support attorney said, Well, hey, wait, hold up, judge, before you make that decision. Remember he said he didn't want his case heard by a fake judge. Let's get him to a real judge. Oh, so now you want me to... These are the games that they played. They played these games until the last minute.

See, I would have had no idea if I was fighting this case It was a fake judge.

Yeah. So there are instances where you are before an actual real judge. And this is, like you said, your dad went through a divorce, right? Yeah. So in a divorce, a divorce is a judicial process. So that's before an actual judge. The problem is when they're adding on this administrative process onto this judicial process, that violates the separation of powers. What is the separation of powers? This is something that they taught us in school. There are three branches of government: Judicial, legislative, and executive branch. If you partake in one branch of government, you cannot participate in the other branch. But how are you mixing judicio with administrative? That's a part of the executive branch. So this is That in itself alone makes child support a fraud because they're operating in all three branches of government. They're creating their own codes. That's legislative because they have their own family codes. They're enforcing their own codes. That's administrative Administrative, that's executive branch, and they're finding you guilty in their own state hearings, which is the judicial process. I believe it's Minnesota. There's a Minnesota Supreme Court case law where child Report was literally it said that it violated the separation of powers.

Wow. It's called Humberg versus Humberg.

And these courts want these cases because they're making money off it.

They are incentivized. So this is the crazy part. And this is when people always ask me, How is child support a fraud? So there's something called the United States Constitution. In the United States Constitution, in the 14th Amendment, it says, We have a right to be... No person shall be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law. You have the right to be heard and a right to a fair trial. How can you get a fair trial in a state hearing where the states are incentivized on a back-end to find you guilty in the first place? Now look at this. There's a United States Code. It's 42, USC 658A. That's incentive payments to states. The United States Treasury, they authorize in the year of 2024, $713 million to states to find you guilty in their own state hearing. Based on their performance, the more child support they collect, the the more arrears, the more paternity they establish, based on their performance, they get to tap into that 713 million. And that's just for the fiscal year of 2024.

Holy crap. That's almost a billion dollars.

Almost a billion dollars. So you don't think that they're going to cut no corners or they're not going to... You're going in there presenting evidence to show that this case should be dismissed. You think they're going to just lay down when they got 713 million dollars to tap into? Come on now.

Who's going to do that? It's like a police officer They're with a quota. Exactly. They want to hit those numbers.

And the incentive, what is an incentive? An incentive is a kickback. It's a bonus. This ain't got nothing to do with their regular salary pay. So this is based on your performance, you get extra money to find people guilty in your own state hearing.

Man, these athletes need to be hitting you up, man.

How can you get a fair trial? You can't. You can't.

And people don't know this. You see these headlines every week of a new child support number.

They're going to know it now because I'm here Sean Kelly.

Oh, yeah. Let's get it out there, man. I mean, 50 % of people are getting divorced, so this is important.

Yeah. I mean, I've said this in... Man, when you go through that process, So ultimately, what they're telling you is family is a private matter. They're saying that you are incompetent because you came to us and you guys couldn't create your own agreement between yourselves Therefore, you're now coming to us for our services. So our services come with fees. There's two types of child support cases. There's Title 4D, and then there's non-4D. What is Title 4D? Title 4D is It is government assistance, where there's the cash aid, the Medicaid, and the food stamps. So if a mother or father goes and get the cash aid, then they're automatically waiving your rights for their benefits. I'm going to say that again. They're receiving benefits, but they're waiving your rights because now they're coming after you to repay back money that was given as a grant. Because this started in 1935. In 1935 was the Social Security Act, where they started the program where they created the government assistance. But then in 1975, they did an amendment which came out to be child support. I like to call it child support. You got to put some extras on it because child support is the marketing strategy for Title 4D.

But Title 4D isn't sexy. If I said, Sean, you paid your Title 4D? And it's like, What is Title 4D? But when I say, Did you pay your child support? It taps into those emotions. It's like, Oh, you're not taking care of your kids. That's why you have this negative stigma on child support when actually it should be called state support because that's what it's actually for. And this is not my opinion. This is child support's own opinion in the Supreme Court case law, Blessing versus Freestone. In Blessing versus Freestone, five women from Arizona, they sued child support because they were getting the Title IVD. They were receiving the cash aid, and they gave up the father's, and now child support was taking all of the money. When the women are getting their child support checks, they're looking at them and they're short. They're like, Hey, why are you keeping all of the money? And child support said, Hey, that's not your money. So they actually sued child support, and they said, That's not your money. Then it came out and they had to tell on themselves. They said that child support was never intended to benefit the child nor the custodial parent.

It was intended to benefit the state. Wow. They literally said that. It literally says that. It's a Supreme Court case law called Blessing versus Free Stone. It is the backbone case law, anything dealing with child support.

So what was the conclusion of that?

That's the conclusion, that those women, there was no entitlement to child support. You have no right to child support. That was the conclusion. Oh, wow. Those five women from Arizona, they lost. In that, child support had to tell on themselves and say that, A, child support was never intended to benefit the child. It was intended to benefit the state. That's crazy. So it should be called state support.

Dude, that's nuts. There's a couple other cases you've studied, Burnham Superior Court?

Oh, yeah. That one, that involves the fake judge, because in Burnham versus superior Court, they said that these cases, your case has to be... So in my case, my case was signed... Once I went through the discovery and I looked at it, it said Judge Pro-Tem. So I'm like, Judge Pro-Tem? So then I started looking, doing more research. I'm like, what is a judge Pro-Tem? And that's how I found out Judge Pro-Tem is an attorney acting as a temporary judge. So in different regions, they call them different things. Like on the West Coast, they're called commissioners. Down south, it's attorney generals or the Department of Revenue. Up north, they have the friend of the courts on the East Coast, it's the magistries, but they're all attorneys acting as temporary judges. In that case, it said that in order to enforce a money judgment, it has to be signed by an actual judge. So in a lot of these cases, it's being signed by attorneys acting as temporary judges. They're not judicial officers, so it lacks a judicial signature. So therefore, it's not enforceable. But how do they get away with it because there's something called prima facie, and always talk about this.

In America, I'm sure you've heard the term innocent to proving guilty. That's supposed to be the backbone of our judicial system. But in these administrative hearings, because child support is not judicio, they operate under prima facie. Prima facie says, The courts take whatever is filed as true and correct until you provide evidence to say that it's not. So if you don't provide any evidence to challenge what they file, they're taking it as true and correct. So this is how myself and a lot of others are getting caught up in these hearings, because until you file something to challenge it, they're going to take it as what it is, because in these hearings, they work under presumption. They presume that if you don't respond, we presume that you agree.

Wow. And that's not common knowledge for people to know. It's not.

Child support hearings work under presumption. And I'm going to say that again. Where's my camera? This one right here. Child support hearings work under presumption. If you do not object, they presume that you agree. I was an oblivious objector in my child support hearing. Anything that I didn't agree with, I objected to it because I understood presumption. So I'll give you a perfect example. During the process, my very first day, I walk in my hearing, the Commissioner, he's reading my paperwork. And as I'm walking in, he hadn't even started yet. Under his breath, he said, Oh, you're a constitutionalist. Objection. Everybody's looking like, Wait, what are you objecting to? We haven't even started yet. I said, Well, he just called me a constitutionalist, so now I have to remove him because I can't get a fair trial under due process because now he just said that I'm a constitutionalist, therefore he just made a judgment over me, therefore I can't get a fair trial with him. So I ended up removing him. Then I had to come back to a new hearing to get a new person. Holy crap. Another prime example. Child support attorney, she tried to introduce a whole thick stack of documents Payments for over the 22 years, saying within this time frame, Mr. Tillman made voluntary payments.

Objection. Those payments were not made voluntarily. They were made under duress. You suspended my license. You sent income withholding orders to my employer. You put a lien on my name. You put it on my credit report. I was incarcerated because my license was suspended. That's not voluntary. That's duress. So I understood what she was trying to do, because if I didn't object to her saying I made voluntary payments, is I'm now agreeing to what she said. Wow. So, yeah.

That's nuts. For people watching this that haven't heard of your case, could you briefly explain what happened, too?

In my case, when I turned 18 years old, they retroactively went back and started child support on me for Title IVD to when I was 12 years old. Ultimately, I was made liable for a child when I was 12 years old. During that time, I found out about my child support case seven years after it opened. So seven years after I turned 18, I'm now working because I was in the streets hustling. But then when I finally got a job, about six months in, HR gives me a call. Say, Hey, we want to talk to you, and it's on payday. I go in there and they like, Hey, well, Mr. Tillman, we got an income withholding order. I'm like, An income withholding order? I'm like, What is that? And they was like, Well, yeah, they're going to start garnishing your checks effective immediately. I'm like, Who's going to start going to share my check? What do you mean? And she was like, Child support. I'm like, Child support? What do you mean child support? She said, Well, here's a notice that they gave to me, and she had me my check. I'm looking at my check.

My check is short. Now, mind you, at this time, I'm not doing good at all. I'm in a county program. I'm receiving cash aid myself, food stamps myself, and the benefits. So I'm not doing good. I'm in a county program, so the county is coming after me, taking my money, yet they are the one that's paying me for my employer. It's crazy. So I contact them and they saying, Well, and I'm like, well, what's going on? She said, well, Mr. Tillman, unfortunately, there's nothing that you can do because you have six months to respond and it's been seven years. I'm like, wait, what do you mean it's been seven years? She said, yeah, this case was open seven years ago. You may want to contact the family law facilitator. And this is a self-help people inside of the court. They're supposed to help people that's not attorneys. I go in there, they tell me the same thing, and they're like, well, under California Code, something, you had six months to respond. You're The response is untimely. There's nothing that you can do. So I'm under this presumption that I didn't went to the courts, and the courts telling me, ain't nothing I can do.

So this went on for another 13 years. So at this point, I'm on child support for 20 years. Now, During that process, they're suspending my license. I get arrested, I go to jail. The judge tell me, If you come back here on suspended license again, I'm giving you 180 days in a county jail. I'm like, I'm not finna do 180 days in jail for child support because my license is suspended, I need to fix it. So I go to child support, and now I'm forced to make an agreement with them to pay them additional $50 on top of the money that they already taken so they don't suspend my license. We have this agreement, but every year my license is still getting suspended for a system error. So year 13, my license gets suspended. Now I got to call them, pay the DMV money to reinstate my license. And I'm on the phone with the lady. I'm like, Yo, why do we keep going through this? I'm paying you extra money so my license don't get suspended. Why do I keep going through this? And I'm like, I I don't even know why I'm going through this anyway.

It's fraud anyway. And the lady said, Fraud? What do you mean fraud? You got served. I said, Well, wait, what? I got served? She said, Yeah, you got served. I said, Well, tell me what day did I get served? Because I've been with me every day of my life. I know how to get served. She said, Hold on one second. I bull crap you not. I'm on hold. The lady comes back. I'm sorry, Mr. Tillman, we don't have your signature. I'm like, Well, I know you didn't have my signature. But before I could say anything, she said, That don't even matter because you volunteered into the program. I did what? She said, Yeah, you volunteered into the program. I said, Well, tell me what day I volunteered. She said, Yeah, we had your signature. I said, Oh, you do. Tell me what day I sign. She said, I'll be right back. I'm on hold again. She comes back. I'm sorry, Mr. Gentlemen, we don't not have your same job. I'm like, going crazy on the phone. At this point, I want to speak to the supervisor, the president. I need to speak to somebody because you're all tripping.

But what she did was, here are the gems. She told me that I had to get served, and she told me that child support was voluntary because she said, I volunteered into the program. So I said, Hmm. Light bulb went on. What else are you supposed to do? Because I know you didn't do those two things. So now I start researching, what else are you supposed to do? Now, this is how I came across their policy on the guidelines on what child support is supposed to do and how they're supposed to open these cases. And what I found was mind-blowing. I ended up taking them to court after 20 years, and I represented myself. And it was a 12-round heavyweight battle. Ding. Damn. It was mayhem. And we going in there. I already told you how my first day went. And then from that point, I'm now just representing myself going through the process. Now, in this process, what I found out as well that, say you have these documents. There's a United States code. It's 28 U. S. C. 1691. This applies to all states because it's a United States code that says that all rights and processes issued in the court of the United States shall be under the seal of the court and signed by the clerk thereof.

So I'm looking at my summons, my complaint, my proof of service. I had a default and my actual judgment. So I'm looking at my documents, I'm like, it says Deputy clerk, not the County clerk. So now I'm looking at the Supreme Court case law, Scamby versus Tryon. Scamby versus Tryon says that where the Ritz is signed by a deputy clerk, it's void for lack of a judicial signature. It says Deputy clerk. My documents don't have a seal of the court. It says if it doesn't have the seal of the court, that means it's void. So they're not even following their own procedures when they open these cases. But until we provide evidence to challenge it, the course is taking it as true and correct.

Wow.

But it gets deeper, though. It gets deeper. Not only did they not follow their own procedures on paper, what I found was I'm looking at the proof of service. I say proof of service, it says that they served a Michael Tillman. I'm like, Michael Tillman? Well, my name ain't Michael. Michael is a common name, but ironically, there's no one named Michael in my entire family. So I proved that there was no Michael in my family. How did I do that? When you have obituaries, unfortunately, my grandmother had just passed right before this hearing process. And on the back of my grandmother's or in the obituary, it had a list of her brothers, her sisters, siblings, all of that. All of that. There's nobody named Michael in here anywhere. Now, my grandmother on my father's side, they live in Alabama. And ironically, I just went to go see them, and I haven't seen them in 25 years. There's a Facebook Facebook posts. I'm with my uncles. Ain't seeing them in 25 years. These are the Tillmans. So I use my grandmother's obituary and this Facebook post because they use it against us and they use it against these rappers.

So I use their own evidence against them. There's nobody named Michael in my family, so we established that. Now I'm looking at the proof of service. I'm looking at the address, and I'm like, I didn't live there, bro. So I'm looking at the address We did live there at one point, but we moved when I was still a minor. So if my grandmother and mother move, that means I move because I'm a minor. I can't go get an apartment on my own. So what I did was I sent a subpoena to the owner of the home and the Los Angeles County Department of Water and Power. I need you to come testify on who lived at this place at this time in this day. The owner of the home came and testified and said, Well, on this day, I didn't have any tenants there. The Department of Water and Power came and said, On this date, we didn't have any power at this house, so there's no way that you could have served somebody at this house. Nobody lived there. So they serve me at a vacant house. Why would they do that? That goes back to these incentives, this $713 million that they were incentivized in 2024.

Back then, the incentive, it was like $400 60-something million. It just keeps going up. So I proved that they serve me at a vacant house. So that's why I found out about the case seven years after it opened. So they intentionally falsified the proof of service to get a default judgment. Why? Because they're incentivized on the back end to open these cases. It's like you eat what you kill. So at that point, I still Still, you would think the case should just be over at this point. We still argue on points because now I have to prove. They said, Well, yeah. They said, Oh, key. They said the proof of service was invalid. But the average person would have just took that small win. And I said, No, it was fraud. So what I did was I came back the very next hearing on a big screen. I put the definition of invalid and the definition of fraud right next to each other. Invalid is consistent with fraud. It says the exact same thing. When I said that, the fake judge, she leaned over, she put her glasses down and she was like, I was reluctant to call it what it is.

But I now have to say that it is fraud. Objection. This is child support attorney said, your objection is noted. Because again, if they don't object, they presume they agree with what she just said. So they didn't agree with what she just said. So at this point, but what is reluctant? Reluctance means I'm struggling. Why are you struggling to call it fraud when all of the evidence in front of you has said that it was fraud? Because she is part of their actual program. So long story short, after that, I then now have to prove that my order wasn't signed by a judge. They said that it was signed by a commissioner. They said, I said, Well, the commission is not a judge. I had to prove that. Then they said, Well, you're right. He wasn't a judge. He was a judicial officer. So now I have to come back and prove that he wasn't even a judicial officer. So where did I go? I went to their own website, frequently Next question. It literally says, You are not a judicial officer. And they said that they can't even take pictures of themselves in them black robes.

Why? Because it literally says, Because it's not intended to to deter you from putting it on your application, it is to protect the public from believing that you are a judicial officer. When I filed that, all hell broke. They were like, Hey, man, get him up out of here because he They're going to blow up in the whole system. Ultimately, they set aside my default judgment. My case got dismissed for extrinsic fraud, and the case is closed, and it can never be opened again.

Did they have to pay you? Yes, they did.

Good shit. So immediately Immediately after the case was dismissed. Now we're in here. Child Support attorney says, Well, Your Honor, if we're dismissing the entire case, all of the money has to go back to them. But it's not in the best interests of the child to make the mother pay back the money because the state of California just didn't get the money. She got some money, too. But it's not in the best interest of the child to make her pay back the money. What did I do? Objection. Because remember the blessing versus free stone, when you all told them five women from Arizona that child support wasn't in the best interests of the child? So don't try to use it against me. Remember, stand on your business. You said that it's not in the best interests of the child, so don't try to use it against me. The court said, Hey, he's actually right. So from that point, they made me... Since then, they made me three settlement offers, and I declined them because it just wasn't enough. I needed interest. I needed damages for 22 years. Finally, I will say... I'm going to say as much as I can, but last month, we just came to terms on the amount on how much they got to pay back.

Well done, man. What a fight. It's been years.

Yeah, it's been years. So it's all coming back.

A lot of people wouldn't want to go through that process.

A lot of people don't want to go through that process. A lot of people don't know how to go through that process. And that's why I end up writing a book called How I Stop Child Support Legally, because I didn't want my success to be an individual success. And the way I wrote that book was for the average person like me that don't have no legal background, that don't know where to get started. Chapter one of my book is definitions because you need to know primuphatia, you need to know presumption. I highlighted these definitions of things that you need to know going through this process. Chapter 2 is titled WTF because that was my mindset when I found out that I was on child support for seven years and didn't even know. Chapter 3 is getting started because now, like I said, a lot of people just don't know where to get started. So in Chapter 3, I highlight what I went to, what was I looking for, what evidence was I looking for, why I was looking for it? What documents did I get from the court? Why did I get it? Here's the codes.

Here's the case law. It's my entire process on getting started. Chapter 4 is the hearing. Now we're going through the entire hearing process. You see documents that I filed in court, the documents the child support file, they're all in the book. And then Chapter 5 is called child support institutionalized because it's just a mindset of a person being institutionalized. It's just like, I was on child support for 22 years. It's like, just because you said the case is dismissed, it's like, at that point, I was still scared to put things in my name because they take all of your money out your account. They do a bank levy. So I was scared to put things in my name because they would come and take it. It's crazy. So it was just like, I had to struggle with myself. It's like, you're not on child support no more. You can go and open up a bank account. They're not going to take your money. It's closed.

You got some trauma.

Man, that's why I held out, and they had to come with a right number. Damn.

So what were they doing before child support? Because you said that that was enacted recently, right?

Yes. So what was they doing before child support? What do you mean?

When someone got separated and they had kids, was there a system before child support?

No. So this child support started in 1975. Wow. So that's when child support enforcement actually started. So just to give you a history, and I touched on it before. So Tidal So 4A started in 1935. That's the 1935 Social Security Act. Because in 1935, this was around the Great Depression. So men were going to war or whether they left their women or in their family, women couldn't really work in 1935. If they did, they wouldn't get paid much to support their family if they was a single mother. So they had to come up with this program. So they came up with a program, Aid to Dependent Children. So it was ADC. And I believe it was like 1962, they did an amendment to AFDC, Aid to dependent families and children. But then this money is a grant. If you look at their website today, the Social Security Administration website, it literally says that Title IVA is a grant. So what is a grant?

Government money, right?

A grant is a gift. A gift is something that's given without any counterbalancing payment. So if you're giving out Title IVA money, cash, Medicaid, and in FUSEPs to assist for needy families, it's a grant. But then they start looking at it and saying, Wait a minute. Where are we giving out all of this free money to? Then they start looking, Oh, it's going to a lot of underprivileged areas. This is not what it was designed for. So in 1975, they did an amendment, Title IVD. This is when they created the child support enforcement program to go after the non-custodial parent to repay That's the exact money that was given out as a grant. But here's the thing, how can you be enforced to repay money that was given out for free?

That's interesting.

It's only 50 years old.Yeah..

That's our generation. Yeah.

So it started in 1975. So before then, there was no child support enforcement program in place until 1975.

Crazy. It's up to 700 million now. So it's probably going to hit a billion if it keeps going.

It's going up. It's definitely going Like I said, back then, when I found out, on me, it was 400-something million. The fiscal year, in 2024, they authorized 713 million dollars, and it's only going up. That's not us. So when you have these elections and they're talking about taxes and where they get money from, they're giving away 713 million dollars in free money to enforce child support. Tap into that money because it's free money.

How much of that actually goes to the mother, you think?

So in 40 cases, child support can keep up to 66 % of that money.

Holy crap.

Yeah. So they can keep up to 66 %. What? Yes. Because you're receiving incentive. I mean, you're receiving benefits. So that's why they came up with this program to reimbourse the money that they was given out for Title IA. So that's why I say it should be called state support and not child support, because it's not for the children. It's for the state.

So people watching this, if they're going through a divorce, they should just work on an agreement between husband and wife. They shouldn't even involve child support, right?

You shouldn't, but you have when relationships fail, because there are some people to where they've been there from day one and haven't given the other person anything to show them just because we separated that that person will not be there for their children. Yet you went and put them on child support. So it's like, you have to... The best thing to do is to create a private agreement, a Agreement between yourself. And I've said this, it's like, for me, had I known what I'd known today, I wouldn't have signed my children's birth certificate. Whoa. I would not signed it. I would have created my own agreement in regard as far as... Because what that is, it is establishing the parent-child relationship. But I don't need you to establish the parent-child relationship. So before the birth certificate was signed, just say, for instance, you signed a birth certificate on day three while you're in a hospital after you then gave birth. So you're telling me that this wasn't my child on day one and day two? This was already my child. So it establishes the parent-child relationship and you're now going into receiving their benefits. I don't thank you, but no thank you.

I don't want your services because once you say you want my benefits, you're waiving your rights. I would have created my own agreement. So it's best to go private and stay private. America was built on... That's why we have the United States Constitution. Right. And those are private rights. You have these rights. But once you partake in these benefits, you are slowly waiving those rights.

That is so interesting. Yeah. So what if both parents don't sign? Who owns the kid at that point?

At that point, you For them, they're going to make you sign it.

Oh, they're going to make you.

If you have a child in that hospital, you use our own services. If you didn't want our services, you should have had a baby at your house. Because when you look at, there's something called the acknowledgement of paternity. So this is when you have the child and everybody's happy. After the quiet hour, you get your time with your child in the school, and here comes a lady. She walks in with a clipboard. No rush. Take your time. You're looking at this and you're like, Oh, acknowledgement of paternity, it establishes the parent-child relationship. Your name will be on your child's birth certificate. But if you read the bottom or you flip it over and read the back because it changes in different states, it tells you that it's a dual contract with child support services. Wow.

That's crazy.

It tells you, and it tells you before signing this, you may want to seek legal representation. Why do I need to seek legal representation if I'm just signing this so that my child can have my last name. It literally says that you are entering into a dual contract with child support services. But here's the problem for them. Here's the problem. There is a code to where is 42USC, what? 42usc or 45 CFR 303.5. I'm going to say that again. 45 CFR, that's Code of Federal Regulations 303.5. That is the voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. What that says is state birth record agencies, the birth certificate people, and the hospitals, in order for them to open up a child support case, they have to establish paternity. That's that document they just slid to you. You can acknowledge paternity several ways. You can just voluntarily acknowledge paternity, or you can sign that voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, or later on, you can do a DNA testing. But 45 CFR 303.5 6.5 says, whenever paternity is being established, they must, at a minimum, I'm going to say this again, they must, at a minimum, provide the mother and alleged father five things.

They must provide you the opportunity to establish paternity. They must give it to you written, but they also must give it to you the legal consequences of establishing voluntary paternity. What are the legal consequences? License suspensions, passport withholdings, income withholding orders, bank levy, putting it on your credit report, possible jail time. These are the legal consequences of establishing paternity. But they don't tell you that. No. But this is how they have to give it to you. They have to give it to you by audio, meaning having you put on some headphones watching the TV screen. You have to watch it, listen to it by audio, by video, or verbally telling you these are the legal consequences of establishing paternity. And they must provide you the opportunity to speak with a trained staff that's trained to answer questions about establishing paternity because they presume that if I told you, Hey, Sean, you just had this kid before you sign this document, look, this is acknowledgement of paternity, but it's a dual contract with child support services before signing this, By signing this, you are agreeing to license suspensions, passport withholding, income withholding order, bank levies, all of these things.

A person in a right mind would say, You know what? No, I don't think I want to sign this. I think I want to talk to an attorney first. It literally says that on that document. And that's why I took it back to the very beginning. It starts with the origin. A lot of people don't know this. They are coercing and withholding information to enter you into these contracts. They're not providing you with the full disclosures. I'm sure you bought a car before. When you purchased a car, what did they give you? They gave you that long CVS receipt. It's the full disclosures of entering into this contract. It's the same thing. They have to provide you the legal disclosures of the legal consequences of entering into this contract, and they do not.

That's so crazy because signing a birth certificate, that's It should be one of your happiest moments.

It should be. And that's why they're coming to you when you're in your most vulnerable state.

Wow. Yeah, I never would have questioned that. But thank you for telling me that.

If you have it, anybody, if you got a copy of your acknowledgement of paternity, read the bottom, flip it over, whatever you need to do, I guarantee you it says that it's a dual contract with child support services and that you may want to seek legal representation before signing it.

Crazy. How much hate do you get from single mothers on social media?

It's fair. It's not as much as when I started, and that's why I came up with the slogan, Every time you hear me say child support is fraud, right after I'm usually saying, But take care of them kids, though, because this ain't no get-out-of-jail free car. Because before you even start, I want you to know that, yes, I'm challenging child support, but I'm not challenging a parent's responsibility to take care of their children. I'm challenging the child support system itself, the entire entity. So it's like, women, they come in and it's like, Well, are you teaching these deadbeats to do that? And I'm like, no, let's converse about this. I'm not educating anyone to beat child support or for a person not to take care of their kids. I'm a father. I take great care of my kids. I would never do nothing like that. But I am educating our people on these We have rights. And by accepting these benefits, you're waiving your rights without even knowing it and without them providing you the legal disclosures of letting you know that you are waiving your rights by accepting these benefits. So it's just a conversation.

And I just take it and I just keep it pushing, man. And I know after we converse, we had these conversations, whether it's in person or online or in the comments or whatever, and they see it's like, Oh, I see what he I see what he's on. There's some, it's still just like you're trying to help these deadbeats. I say, look, you have to understand these words, and especially when you look at a deadbeat A deadbeat says a person that's not paying their financial responsibility. So if you got a derogatory mark on your credit report from Chase T-Mobile, you ain't paid your light bill, you're a deadbeat by definition. It says the same thing. It's not specific to family. That just means that you skipped out on handling your responsibility, your financial debt. And that's a whole nother thing. It's like child support is a debt. I know there's going to be a lot of consumer law people that come and say, Hey, T. J. Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're going a little bit too far now. The FDPA says that child support is not a consumer debt. You're right. But there is a Supreme Court case law that says Because child support is a debt.

That's as much I'm going to say on that because I'm not an attorney, and I can't give you legal advice. Just my experience is dealing with child support.

I mean, you said yourself your credit score got messed up from this, It did. Technically, yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah. Ultimately, and here's another key thing. I provided so much evidence in that case within those two years. I had child support I moved from my credit report. I want to say probably about six years before the case got dismissed because there's... Shout out to my guy, one credit guy. He got it off there. But also, as far as my license, I made the court forced them to stop all enforcement until the outcome of the case. Then, of course, the case was dismissed for extrinsic fraud. It was all good.

Where can people find your book now and learn from you, man?

Everything is on childsupportifraud. Com. Com. There's the book. I do consultations. I do master classes. Everything is there. You can find me on Instagram, childsupportersfraud, YouTube. Everything is childsupportersfraud.

You got a trademark that.

No, it is trademark. It's definitely trademark. This ain't for play, play. This is the real deal Holyfield. You can go look it up yourself. It says child's 45. It is trademark.

There we go. Check out the site, guys. We'll link below. Thanks for coming on, DJ.

Man, thank you for having me.

Absolutely. Thanks for watching, guys. Check out the links below. See you next time. Peace.

Drinking or driving is a decision that could change your whole world. Things will never be the same if you ever get a DUI. Because legal fees and time in court are just the beginning. Getting into a crash is another way that your world can be turned upside down. Your vehicle may not be the only thing that gets damaged in that crash. You can face a life-altering injury or even death. But you're not the only one that can face those consequences. Your decision to drink and drive can permanently impact not just your world, but someone else's world as well, whether you injure them or leave their loved ones grieving. The next time you're out drinking, call a ride share, a taxi, a sober friend, or a designated sober driver. The only decision that will change your world for the better is the decision to call for a sober ride. Drive sober or get pulled over. Paid for by Netza.