PDF File Downloads

Joe Blessett's Reply Brief, Blessett v Abbott, U.S 5th Circuit Court, 22-40378

Blessett performed a private administrative process with terms and monetary penalties for nonresponse as a contractual agreement with UCC 3—305(b) enforcement available for the Certificates of Nonresponse now recorded with U.S. Federal Courts.

Blessett v Abbott, U.S 5th Circuit Court, 22-40378, 2022

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

Texas District Court Decision against Blessett May 17, 2022

Blessett is holding a $18 million dollar private judgment with all notarize documented evidence submitted to the U.S. District Court. Blessett performed a private administrative discovery process with stipulated penalties for failure to respond.

Blessett's May 17, 2022 Objection and Order For Partial Summary Judgment against Greg Abbott, Ken Paxton and Steven McCraw

The State Title IV-D agencies will never produce the documentation for the federal child support debt collect program because they don't have it. They don't want the noncustodial parent to know you can decline their services and most Title IV-D cases are being enforced under the color of law. Without documentation or evidence of full disclosure and consent to of all the obligations and penalties they are illegally collecting child support. The District Court dismissed Blessett to Block this document!

Joe Blessett v Texas et al 3:2022cv00009

Blessett demands the OAG show material evidence of Blessett’s informed consent or a valid judicial state court order to the contractual terms of the Title IV-D program.

Injunctive Relief, Estoppel of all Texas Office of Attorney General Child Support Enforcement Division

Injunctive Relief, Estoppel of all Texas Office of Attorney General Child Support Enforcement Division against BLESSETT.

Injunctive Relief, Estoppel of Title IV-D Administrative Enforcement Penalties

Cause of action equitable estoppel ‘of Title IV-D Administrative Enforcement penalties under 42 U.S. Code § 652, 42 U.S. Code § 654 (16), 42 U.S. Code § 654 (20), 42 U.S. Code § 654 (21), 42 U.S. Code § 654 (27)(B)(ii), 42 U.S. Code § 654 (31), 42 U.S. Code § 664 and 42 U.S. Code § 666 No sane person of maturity would submit to a Title IV-D financial obligation if made aware of their right to decline the federal program services.

Injunctive Relief, Estoppel of all Department of Health and Human Services

There is no obligation in law for the father to accept the terms of Title IV of the Social Security Act nationwide program or provisions enforced by the Hague Convention for child support. It is a contract, you can say no.

Injunctive Relief, Equitable Estoppel of Texas Family Code Sec. 158.210 and Sec.232.0022

Texas Family Code Sec. 158.210 and Sec.232.0022 Suspension or Nonrenewal of Motor Vehicle Registration interfere with the freedom and liberty to travel and restrictions on interstate commerce. Joe Blessett challenged the state codes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403 as repugnant to the U.S. Constitution and conflicts with federal statutes of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

Joe Blessett v. Texas Office of the Attorney General Galveston County Child Support Enforcement Division No. 21-999. U.S. Supreme Court

Petition for writ of cetiorari in the above entitled case was filed on December 3, 2021 and place on the docket January 13, 2022 as No.21-999

American Bar Association

The American Bar Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Committee originally decided that the interstate aspects of child support enforcement could be adequately addressed through amendments to Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act revision (RURESA). This was all done by design so that everbody gets the big payment except for the noncustodial parent and custodial parents under Title IV-A

Joe Blessett's Motion for Production of Documents from Texas.pdf

The production of documents is a demand for the Texas Title IV-D program present the evidence. Without verifiable evidence for standing to enforce child support. It just lies the child support agencies are using to enfoce the Title IV-D program under the color of law

TEXAS STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Standard defensive to protect Gregg Abbott, Ken Paxton and Steven McCraw using 11th amendment immunity. Ex Parte Young prevents this defensive move to protect state officials

TEXAS STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Texas defense moves to stop Blesset's production of documents. Ths is the normal playbook move by the defense to stop the exposure of the corruption

OBJECTION TO TEXAS STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

In Family Law Discovery is stayed to prevent the corruption in The Title IV of the Social Security Act

OBJECTION TO COURT DECSION FOR SINKIN LAW FIRM

Sinkin Law Firm defaulted under Rule 55, the District Court ignored Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and Bass v Hoagland U.S. 5th cir.court 1949, precendent for default. There is no equal justise for child support debtors in th Americal Judicial system