Letter to the Editor:
Mass. Family Courts are Marxist at the Core

To the Editors,
       The Communistic "Transfer of Wealth" scheme is alive and well in the
family courts of Mass. As stated by Karl Marx, in his "Communist
Manifesto", the plan is; "From the rich, according to their means, to the
poor, according to their needs." In the family courts of Massachusetts,
that has been changed slightly, to: "From the fathers, regardless of their
means , to the mothers, regardless of their needs."
       Case in point; judge Ricci handed down a ruling that clearly caps the fathers' child support obligation at a certain amount from the date of the order until the emancipation of the couples' child. Several years later, she ignores that ruling, in response to a verbal motion by the mother, and establishes an arrearage of $20,000, supposedly accumulated in the years AFTER the obligation was terminated. The father appeals, and Judge DeLeo insists that the plain English reading of the original order is "against public policy".
       She adamantly refuses to uphold the original order as written. The father is punished by a retroactive order for support, based on DiLeos'
"supposition" that the wording, so clearly written, was not intended by
Judge Ricci. To add insult to injury, the Department of Revenue DOUBLES the arrearage by adding "fees, interest, and penalties".

       Such is the standard treatment for fathers in the family courts. We
are not allowed to rely on the plain language reading of an order, but may
have that order overturned and reversed without a hearing. Fathers are
expected to comply TO THE LETTER with court rules for filing motions, but
the mother is allowed to enter verbal motions without notice. We are
expected to provide child support, even when indigent, or when the custodial mother declares in open court that circumstances have not changed, nor have the needs of the child increased.
       Supposedly, the parents are held responsible for sharing child support costs equally, according to their share of the total parental income available. But the mother receives a "self support reserve" setback of income of $20,000 before her income is calculated into the equation. The father's income is taxed at the gross pay level, before taxes, with no self support reserve discounted.
       The reason of course, is to first provide an entitlement to women,
according to the feminist agenda, and the Communistic "Transfer of Wealth" scheme mentioned above. However the state benefits through the collection of "incentive" money paid by the federal government for collecting child support. Those payments currently run to the tens of millions of dollars per year. Recent federal regulations require each state to demonstrate increased vigor in their efforts to collect the DDT (Divorced Daddy Tax), or suffer reductions in the amount of profit they receive. As a result, the actions of the court and DOR have become even more draconian and contrary to a father's right to due process.
       To insure the cooperation of the courts, federal legislation has authorized the child support collection agency to pay the courts additional monies to hear child support cases. That, of course, violates the Separation of Powers mandate in the state constitutiton, and presents a conflict of interest for the judge. The current payoff (bribe) in Mass. is well over Three Million Dollars per year. And that, dear editors, is why such outrageous decisions as the above are routinely inflicted on fathers.

Paul M. Clements
Concord, NH
603-226-1904
DADD (Dads Against Divorce Discrimination)