Some Practical Advice for Support Contemnors in the State of Washington
A Way to Walk a Mile in a Noncustodial Parent's Moccasins.
For those being persecuted by the Child Support Crusade, there is a great deal of practical advice on this web site. But there are many who do not believe that citing the Antipeonage Act is "practical".
I understand.
From 1867 through 1967, the "practical" thing for an interracial couple who wished to get married was to leave the state where antimiscegenation laws prohibited couples of diverse races from marrying and never return. The "practical" thing for gay people to do is to live and work where gays are tolerated and accepted. The "practical" thing for black people used to be to ride in the back of the bus. The "practical" thing for any employee is to not piss off the boss!
And for Iraqis, the "practical" thing to do right now is to DUCK!!!!
But in State v. Thompson, (June 24, 2004) ____ Wash. 2d. _____, 92 P. 3d. 228 the Supreme Court of Washington made an interesting finding: RCW 10.31.040 does not provide police and other law enforcement officers with the authority to break and enter buildings to effect an arrest on a civil warrant. It only provides for such authority on a criminal warrant. Mr. Thompson's convictions for illegal drugs were vacated because the police broke and entered based on a CHILD SUPPORT warrant, which is a civil warrant and is not a criminal warrant. This reversed the Court of Appeals findings at 112 Wash. App. 787, 51 P. 3d. 143.
I am not going to tell you that you should appear at your hearing on child support contempt. Such hearings are declared null and void by 42 U.S.C. §1994 and constitute the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. §1581. They lead to imprisonment for debt which is prohibited by Article I Section 17 of the Washington Constitution.
But we are afflicted with a government that refuses to obey its own law and an ignorant or indifferent public who does not seem to care that the Child Support Crusade is running roughshod over the Rule of Law and imperils the freedoms of ALL citizens.
So if you choose not to attend such a hearing, the commissioner or judge will no doubt issue a bench warrant for your arrest. Deputy sheriffs of the support warrant unit may come to arrest you and haul you off to jail.
Just keep your house locked and don't answer the door when they come knocking.
If they break in and arrest you anyway, sue them for exceeding their authority under Thompson.
You might as well add a cause of action for violating the Antipeonage Act.
It occurred to me that the folks who know and love noncustodial parents need some practical advice too. Like:
NEVER ACTUALLY LIE TO A POLICE OFFICER OR DEPUTY SHERIFF!!!!!
Believe it or not, Washington law, RCW 9A.72.030, defines that to be perjury. Yeah, I know, you aren't in a courtroom and you are not under oath. Fortunately, the statute actually requires that any statement of fact be false and that you know it to be false. So here comes the corollary to this rule:
WHEN YOU KEEP YOUR TRAP SHUT YOU ARE NOT LYING!!!!!
This is where Martha Stewart and her broker made their big mistake! They lied to the investigator looking into their sale of the ImClone stock.
What were they suppose to do? They know the stock is going to tank. The owner of the company and his daughter have put all of their shares up for sale. The feds have denied approval for the company's fancy new wonder drug, and while this was not yet public information, it was not a secret to the broker and his client.
So they unloaded it.
Who would not have done the same?
When the feds came calling, what they should have done is refer them to their lawyers and SAY NOTHING ELSE.
What is the point in having a billion dollars to one's name if one does not have a fancy lawyer who is with a fancy law firm, complete with former judges (and current pro tem judges) and Harvard Law School graduates and the like to refer the authorities to when they come to ask embarrassing questions? Yet Stewart and her broker made the one mistake any first year law student, paralegal, police academy student, football player majoring in criminal justice (future big guy cop), or detective novel fan could have advised them against: they concocted a lie and babbled it instead of EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
So, you may legitimately ask, how does all of this apply to the boyfriend, girlfriend, brother, sister, parent, friend, etc. of a noncustodial parent with one of these civil child support warrants out?
Well, Thompson really puts 'em in a spot! Kinda makes you giggle to think about it! They come to a house, everything is quiet. They knock on the door, banging loudly. Announce themselves loudly. "Sheriff's Department! We have a child support warrant for Clinton Ferry! Is Mr. Ferry in?!" No sound, no sign of life. Not even a toilet flushing. Before Thompson, they had the option of waiting a moment after knocking and announcing and then busting in! That is what they can still do with a criminal warrant. If no one is home, well, that is what they report to their dispatcher over the police radio.
But since Thompson, they have a difficult choice to make! They can wait outside the house like a cat at a mouse hole. If he's home, he just quietly crawls into bed and sleeps. If he's not home, a neighbor or somebody can quietly make a telephone call to warn him of the police presence. When the deputies finally give up and leave, the friendly neighbor makes another call and gives the all-clear.
Of course, if the blinds are not all the way closed, the deputies can look right at you through the window. It's a child support warrant. Just raise your glass to salute them and go back to watching television. Shucks! You put in a VHS tape of a police movie! JUST DON'T SAY ANYTHING.
"Is Clinton Ferry in?" "Do you know where he is?"
This is where you can run afoul of the perjury statute, RCW 9A.72.030. If you say Clinton is not in, and he is, you've done it! If you say you don't know where he is, and you do, again, you have lied to a public servant to mislead him in the performance of his duties. That is a crime, perjury in the second degree, a Class C felony.
But NOT if you say NOTHING. Or you say "I am not answering any questions, deputy. You propose to arrest Clint with the intent to place or return him to a condition of peonage and for me to help you with any answer at all, is to aid and abet a federal felony. I am not going to do that."
At this point, the deputy may get incredibly angry, obnoxious, and with willful intent, intimidating. This is where COURAGE comes in.
"Then we'll arrest you for criminal assistance!"
"Well, in that case, I refuse to answer any questions on the grounds any answer may incriminate me."
You see, how can it be criminal assistance, if it is a CIVIL warrant? RCW 9A.76.050 applies its definition of "rendering criminal assistance" ONLY to those who assist in the avoidance of apprehension by law enforcement those who committed a crime or juvenile offense or are sought for committing a crime or juvenile offense. It does not apply to where the person is sought on a CIVIL WARRANT! And you are now exercising a well recognized Constitutional right!
After an exchange like this, he may still arrest you and haul you off to jail, but you will be released and your attorney can go after him for false arrest! You just gotta stand your ground on this point of principle come Hell or high water!
Unfortunately, too many people don't understand that. Those who do DESERVE to call themselves Americans. Those who don't, don't.
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.