Child Support
The arrest of non-custodial parents in which men make up the significant majority of the arrestees is "gender-profiling", "gender biased discrimination" and a "gender biased hate crime" in that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A man, pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States, cannot be arrested in a civil matter, as a woman is not.
"Probable Cause" to arrest requires a showing that both a crime has been, or is being, committed and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense, U.
S.
Constitution, Amendment the Fourth.
Therefore, seeking of body attachment, bench warrant, or arrest by the Petitioner, and/or issuing of the same by the court, in this civil case would be against the law and the Constitution.
Under U.
S.
v.
Rylander, ignorance of the order or the inability to comply with the (child support) order, to pay, would be a complete defense to any contempt sanction, violation of a court order or violation of the litigant's rights.
If a person is arrested on less than probable cause, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the aggrieved party has a cause of action under 42 U.
S.
C.
§1983 for violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.
S.
547, 87 S.
Ct.
1213 (1967).
Harlow v.
Fitzgerald 457 U.
S.
800, 818 (there can be no objective reasonableness where officials violate clearly established constitutional rights such as: ·U.
S.
Constitution, Fourth Amendment (including Warrants Clause); ·U.
S.
Constitution, Fifth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection); ·U.
S.
Constitution, Ninth Amendment (Rights to Privacy and Liberty); ·U.
S.
Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection.
The Supreme Court ruled in Malley v.
Briggs, 475 U.
S.
335, 344 (1986), that the mere fact that a judge or magistrate issues an arrest warrant does not automatically insulate the officer from liability for an unconstitutional arrest.
"Only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable...
will the shied of immunity be lost" (Malley 344-45).
As can be ascertained, a body attachment is a debt-collecting tool using unlawful arrests and unlawful imprisonment for debt to collect a debt.
Hence, it is illegal and unconstitutional, hence, rendering the issuing authority of such an order in violation of the law and the Constitution, stripping him of his jurisdiction, and, therefore, his judicial immunity.
Furthermore, it would also render the Plaintiff (and her attorney) liable to prosecution under federal (and state) statutes.
A man, pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States, cannot be arrested in a civil matter, as a woman is not.
"Probable Cause" to arrest requires a showing that both a crime has been, or is being, committed and that the person sought to be arrested committed the offense, U.
S.
Constitution, Amendment the Fourth.
Therefore, seeking of body attachment, bench warrant, or arrest by the Petitioner, and/or issuing of the same by the court, in this civil case would be against the law and the Constitution.
Under U.
S.
v.
Rylander, ignorance of the order or the inability to comply with the (child support) order, to pay, would be a complete defense to any contempt sanction, violation of a court order or violation of the litigant's rights.
If a person is arrested on less than probable cause, the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the aggrieved party has a cause of action under 42 U.
S.
C.
§1983 for violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
Pierson v.
Ray, 386 U.
S.
547, 87 S.
Ct.
1213 (1967).
Harlow v.
Fitzgerald 457 U.
S.
800, 818 (there can be no objective reasonableness where officials violate clearly established constitutional rights such as: ·U.
S.
Constitution, Fourth Amendment (including Warrants Clause); ·U.
S.
Constitution, Fifth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection); ·U.
S.
Constitution, Ninth Amendment (Rights to Privacy and Liberty); ·U.
S.
Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection.
The Supreme Court ruled in Malley v.
Briggs, 475 U.
S.
335, 344 (1986), that the mere fact that a judge or magistrate issues an arrest warrant does not automatically insulate the officer from liability for an unconstitutional arrest.
"Only where the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable...
will the shied of immunity be lost" (Malley 344-45).
As can be ascertained, a body attachment is a debt-collecting tool using unlawful arrests and unlawful imprisonment for debt to collect a debt.
Hence, it is illegal and unconstitutional, hence, rendering the issuing authority of such an order in violation of the law and the Constitution, stripping him of his jurisdiction, and, therefore, his judicial immunity.
Furthermore, it would also render the Plaintiff (and her attorney) liable to prosecution under federal (and state) statutes.
Source...