IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
James R. Blackston
Bradley W. Barber
PLAINTIFFS,
vs. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - Case No. 99-A-295-N
State of Alabama, et. al.;
Circuit Judge Richard Dorrough,
Frank Gregory,
Bob Maddox,
DEFENDANTS
Amendment to Verified Complaint
Comes now plaintiffs Blackston and Barber and file an amendment to the Verified Complaint and state as follows:
1. Pursuant to Rule 32 (G), ARJA, at least once every four years, the Administrative Director of Courts (ADC) is required to review the child support guidelines and the Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations to ensure that their application results in appropriate child support determinations.
2. The Alabama Supreme Court appointed the Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines Updates and Enforcement (Committee) to coordinate with the Department of Human Resources concerning the state's child support program and to ensure compliance with various federal child support enforcement requirements.
3. The last guideline update occurred in 1993.
4. First Amendment problems occurred with the 1993 child support update process and the plaintiffs brought suit in federal court to protect their first amendment rights. (See Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 11th Cir. 1994.)
5. Pursuant to Blackston v. Alabama, the plaintiffs entered into a "Release and Settlement Agreement", (Consent Decree) with the State of Alabama, on December 15, 1995. (See Exhibit A, Attached to Verified Complaint.)
6. The Consent Decree successfully ended plaintiff Blackston and Barber's civil right's action against the State of Alabama and Judge Dorrough, challenging under the first amendment and various federal civil rights law, principally 42 U.S.C. §1983, the State of Alabama and Judge Dorrough's operation of the Alabama Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines Updates and Enforcement.
7. The Consent Decree was approved by the Middle District Court of Alabama.
8. The Consent Decree provided for Blackston to be appointed to the Committee with full rights and responsibilities as any other member of the Committee.
9. Each party entered into the agreement in a spirit of voluntary and good faith cooperation.
10. The Consent Decree is enforceable as if a contract between the parties.
11. A violation of the agreement may be used as grounds for a lawsuit for breach of contract in state or federal court.
12. In contravention of the Consent Decree and in bad faith, the defendants followed a course of conduct that started during the 1993 update process.
13. For six (6) years the defendants contemplated modifying Alabama's child support guidelines and contrived a scheme to eliminate or minimize Blackston's appointment to the Committee.
14. Last fall, sometime during September 1998, AOC contracted with Policy Studies, Inc. of Denver, Colorado, to update the schedule of basic child support obligations.
15. The defendant State of Alabama, by and through its Administrative Office of Courts notified the full Committee about the contract on February 17, 1999 by sending a Memorandum to all Committee members, (See Exhibit B, Attached to Verified Complaint.)
16. In its Memorandum, ADC gave the Committee members ten (10) days to respond to a predetermined update proposal from Policy Studies, Inc.
17. ADC limited the input from the Committee members to a mere approval of a predetermined set of child support guidelines.
18. The defendants, acting outside the auspices of the Committee, by and through AOC, initiated the update process approximately six (6) months before informing anyone about the contract with Policy Studies, Inc.
19. The defendants sought to eliminate the plaintiffs by stalling and delaying the update process, holding secret and closed meetings outside the auspices of the Committee, using the secret and closed meetings to preclude the plaintiffs from making a public record of their activities, changing the policy on times and places of Committee meetings and not notifying the plaintiffs, instigating a mail scheme to disseminate so-called input from other Committee members, using the mail scheme to freeze out the plaintiffs from knowledge about the Committee's activities, misappropriating the current 16% incentive payments from federal funds allocated for the update process - citing a budgetary problem facing the Unified Judicial System.
20. The Unified Judicial System has enough money to insure all judges and prosecutors in Alabama receive a fifty percent pay raise.
21. Now the State declares that Alabama's children do not deserve a deceit child support update process.
22. The Defendants conveniently and intentionally failed to provide any information about the Committee for the past six (6) years, contracting out important Committee functions to out of state contractors.
23. Alabama's child support guidelines are sufficiently complicated and contain legalese that requires time to digest. Ten (10) days is wholly insufficient to rebut a predetermined, professionally prepared, proposal spanning six (6) years in the making.
24. The defendants took an extra two (2) years to began the update process, utilizing the extra time to plot against the plaintiffs and the Consent Decree.
25. Officially, Blackston was not on the Committee for a period of about six (6) months, during the past six (6) years. Blackston was reappointed only after a stern demand for an updated Committee member list.
26. All activities of the Committee were secret and hidden until February 17, 1999, wherein Blackston received his "after the fact" memo from AOC. (Exhibit B.)
27. The defendants, deviously and with much secrecy, contracted with Policy Studies, Inc. for a predetermined and finalized child support guideline, during the period of time Blackston was illegally removed from the Committee.
28. The decision to contract with Policy Studies, Inc. was a decision formulated in a secret meeting, not open to the public or other Committee members.
29. Alabama's "public meeting" requirement is for the benefit of the public to ensure that it has the opportunity to become informed about the affairs of its governmental bodies.
30. It is intended that the whole deliberative process be open to public scrutiny, rather than that there be the mere formal announcement of decisions already made in private.
31. According to paragraph 10 of the Consent Decree, the plaintiffs waited patiently, with good faith for some word of the Committee's activities over the past six (6) years.
32. The defendants had Blackston's correct address and telephone number but failed to communicate with him on any basis.
33. The defendants do not have an excuse for not complying with the Consent Decree and acted with bad faith for six (6) years.
34. By holding secret meetings ADC, by and through the defendants, effectively eliminated the plaintiffs from the Committee's activities.
35. ADC, by and through the defendants, eliminated the plaintiff's rights to record any Committee meetings by operating the Committee by mail and also by secretly contracting with Policy Studies, Inc.
36. ADC, by and through the defendants, violated the plaintiffs First Amendment rights and contract rights under the Consent Decree, acting under color of state law.
I.
State of Alabama Waives Immunity
37. The plaintiff's seventy six (76) factual statement, Verified Complaint states a claim for relief which can be granted.
38. All defendants including the State of Alabama entered into a Consent Decree, in 1994, thereby giving their consent to be sued in state or federal court. (See Plaintiff's Exhibit A, paragraph 9.)
39. The defendants consent to suit in federal court (paragraph 9 of Consent Decree,) and the instant case involves prospective injunctive relief to end the defendants continuing violation of the plaintiff's right to record the Committee's activities, (first amendment,) and the defendants crafty but illegal maneuvers to eliminate Blackston from the Committee, (Consent Decree).
40. The Consent Decree gives all parties to the agreement explicit rights to bring an action in state or federal court - venue to be chosen by the plaintiff.
41. The identity of the present defendants is significant, given that the State of Alabama is the primary defendant.
42. The State of Alabama was the principle defendant in the 1994 case, Blackston v. Alabama, Supra, that resulted in the signing and approval of the Consent Decree.
43. The Committee was appointed by the Alabama Supreme Court to coordinate with the Department of Human Resources concerning the state's child support program and to ensure compliance with various federal child support enforcement requirements.
44. The Committee is an entity of the judicial department, (Supreme Court) of the State of Alabama and is absolutely forbidden from performing legislative functions by Alabama's Constitution, 1901, Article III. (Separation of Powers Doctrine.)
45. The child support guidelines are rules of court.
46. The Committee is an entity of the judicial department, (Alabama Supreme Court) and is absolutely forbidden from performing legislative functions by Alabama's Constitution, 1901, Article III. (Separation of Powers Doctrine.)
47. Little doubt remains that the defendants intend to usurp the Power of the Alabama Legislature.
48. The plaintiffs, in the 1993 child support guidelines update process, attempted to record the activities of the Committee and were partially thwarted by defendant Dorrough.
49. The plaintiffs disobeyed Dorrough's directive and recorded the Committee's meeting anyway.
50. Because Dorrough's actions prevented the plaintiffs from gathering information of a political nature, the plaintiffs filed suit and upon appeal the Eleventh Circuit stated that "their claim is not moot because this situation is 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.'" See Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, n.1 (11th Cir. 1994.)
51. The present defendant Dorrough is the same defendant Dorrough in Blackston, supra, above.
52. Judge Dorrough did not deny the plaintiffs access to the Committee meeting and its deliberations, and did not prohibit them from communicating what they observed to others.
53. However, his attempt to prohibit them from recording the proceedings did have some impact on how they were able to obtain access to and present information about the Committee and its proceedings.
54. Thus, Judge Dorrough's actions touched on expressive conduct protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
55. Judge Dorrough's actions may be regarded as a "time, place, and manner" restriction on expressive conduct.
56. The Eleventh Circuit was correct when it said the situation is "capable of repetition."
57. Judge Dorrough's prohibition of tape recording was not "content-neutral."
58. The prohibition was directed at the plaintiffs because they were non-custodial fathers who were unhappy with the Committee.
59. By virtue of the Consent Decree and Blackston, Supra, the defendants knew and understood that their conduct violated clear and established principles of law.
60. Plaintiffs Blackston and Barber maintain that all defendants, including the State of Alabama, have given their consent to be sued pursuant to paragraph nine (9) of said Consent Decree.
II
First Amendment Freedom of Speech
61. The continuing saga developing across the past six (6) years includes The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Blackston, Supra,
62. Judge Dorrough's actions touched on expressive conduct protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
63. The defendants followed a secretive course of action that destroyed the petitioners efforts to obtain information of a public and political nature.
64. One of the purposes of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, (N.C.F.C.) is to obtain information of a political nature to distribute to the membership.
65. The information is needed to make informed decisions about their children and families and is used in discussions of political candidates for public office.
66. Since Blackston's appointment to the Child Support Committee, a primary purpose of N.C.F.C. is to assist in every way possible in drafting a just and reasonable child support guideline and to disseminate that information to all Alabama citizens.
67. The Committee is a structure and form of government charged with the reviewing and updating of the Child Support Guidelines.
68. The right to know the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such matters relating to political processes is a right and privilege of the petitioners, Blackston and Barber.
69. Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as the Supreme Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.
70. Child Support is a very hotly contested issue in Alabama's courts, (DEADBEAT DADS).
71. Mothers use child support and false abuse accusations against fathers to obtain an unfair advantage over fathers in court.
72. Why would ADC, through and by the defendants, instigate a secret process to update Alabama's child support guidelines, establish a set of predetermined guidelines and present the guidelines for approval on a limited basis to Committee members for approval?
73. Plaintiffs maintain that the defendant's actions were designed to eliminate Blackston's appointment to the Committee and limit or destroy N.C.F.C.'S and the plaintiffs ability to exercise their first amendment rights to free speech.
74. The defendants are so enraged with the plaintiff's assertions to gain meaningful access to the Committee's activities that the defendants changed organized meetings to operating the Committee by mail.
75. In Blackston, Supra, the plaintiffs attempted to record the activities of the Committee and were partially thwarted by defendant Dorrough.
76. The plaintiff disobeyed Dorrough's directive and recorded the Committee's meeting anyway.
77. The defendants violated the substantive rights of petitioners Blackston and Barber by operating the Committee in secret and contracting important Committee functions to Policy Studies, Inc.
78. The defendants failed to make a record of any meetings wherein the decision was made to contract with Policy Studies, Inc.
79. Adding insult to injury, the defendants limited Committee members, particularly Blackston, to 10 days to respond to a predetermined and finalize proposal from Policy Studies, Inc.
80. It is sufficient to conclude that the defendants are sustaining a course of action that adversely affects the plaintiff's right to know the affairs of their government; a clear First Amendment violation.
81. There is evidence that the defendants, the State policy-maker in this case, affirmatively decided to limit petitioners Blackston and Barber's right to make a record of any meeting conducted by the Committee.
82. In so doing, the defendants froze out petitioners Blackston and Barber's ability to provide valuable information to their constituents.
83. Because of the defendant's actions, petitioners are unable to report to their respective support groups, the entire proceedings of the Committee.
84. Plaintiff Blackston is eliminated from the Committee and the plaintiff's right to know the manner in which government (the Committee) is operated and all such matters relating to the representative, democratic government is breached.
III
Clear and Present Harm
85. The clear and present harm experienced by the plaintiffs is delineated in the Verified Complaint.
86. The present harm is NOT overshadowed by any perceived, speculative or future harm the defendants define.
87. Plaintiff James R. Blackston is NOT now or in the future obligated to pay child support.
88. Blackston's sole purpose and intent in the present case is to ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity to be involved in the child support guidelines update process and all Committee activities, as a duly appointed committee member.
89. Blackston and Barber's involvement includes a first amendment right to record the Committee's activities, pursuant to Blackston v. Alabama, Supra.
90. The defendants, thus far, have thwarted every reasonable attempt for Blackston to participate in the update process and all Committee activities, including but not limited to failing to notify him of any public or private meetings, contracting with outside firms to conduct Committee business at the exclusion of the Committee, failing to mail all the information submitted by other members of the Committee, holding closed or otherwise secret meetings outside the Committee to plot against the plaintiffs, i.e. Judicial Conference on January 21, 1999, stalling and delaying the update process, holding secret and closed meetings outside the auspices of the Committee, using the secret and closed meetings to preclude the plaintiffs from making a public record of their activities, changing the policy on times and places of Committee meetings and not notifying the plaintiffs, instigating a mail scheme to disseminate so-called input from other Committee members and using the mail scheme to freeze out the plaintiffs from knowledge about the Committee's activities.
91. The Unified Judicial System supposedly has a budgetary problem. However the AOC has enough money to hold extravagant judicial conferences at Alabama children's expense.
92. In consideration of the above, plaintiff Blackston cannot be harmed by any modifications to the child support guidelines, of, in, or by itself or intrinsically.
93. Plaintiff Blackston is not subject to the Alabama Child Support Guidelines.
94. Blackston's sole purpose and intent in the present case is to ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity to be involved in the child support guidelines update process and all Committee activities, as a duly appointed committee member.
95. Anything less is effectively no appointment to the Committee at all, in name only.
96. The defendant's treatment of Blackston, in relation to Committee membership, is hardly in comparison to what might properly be expected.
97. Blackston's appointment is, as a representative of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, denoting a large presence and responsibility to a group of citizens.
IV
Violations of Consent Decree
Contempt of Court and Injunctive Relief
Immunities Abrogated
98. By virtue of Blackston's appointment to the Committee, the Consent Decree's injunctive effect in this case, obligates the defendants, State of Alabama, to stop holding secret meetings to freeze out Blackston from the Committee.
99. The Consent Decree obligates the defendants to allow the plaintiffs to make a recording of the Committee's activities, pursuant to their first amendment rights.
100. The Consent Decree obligates the defendants to inform Blackston about all the activities and information about the Committee.
101. The Consent Decree obligates the defendants to include Blackston in the decision to hire out of state contractors to author an entire set of child support guidelines and present the guidelines for rubber stamp approval.
102. This case represents a continuing controversy capable of repetition, yet evading review.
103. The reasonable expectation or a demonstrated probability that the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party presents itself again in the instant case.
104. The evidence is clear from Blackston v. Alabama, Supra, that the defendants intend to pursue a course of action designed to eliminate Blackston from the Committee and preclude the plaintiffs from recording any Committee activity.
105. Plaintiffs Blackston and Barber moves the court for an order to show cause, citing the precise provision of the Decree that the defendants had allegedly disobeyed, we are confident that the district court will promptly issue an order to show cause, and--after receiving the defendant's response--schedule a contempt hearing.
V
Defendants Eliminate Plaintiffs from Update process and
all Committee activities
thereby, violating Paragraph 6 of the Consent Decree
106. Paragraph six (6) of the Consent Decree established plaintiff James R. Blackston as the representative of the National Congress for Fathers and Children, (N.C.F.C.) on the Committee.
107. As an officer of N.C.F.C., and Committee member, Blackston provides a much needed presence for non-custodial parents, otherwise not represented on the Committee.
108. Blackston's desire is to regularly report the update process and all Committee activities to his constituents, exercising his first amendment.
109. The defendants, acting outside the auspices of the Committee, only sought input from the members of the Committee after formulating a new guideline and presenting the new guideline for rubber stamp approval.
110. The plaintiffs quickly saw through the defendant's scheme and promptly filed suit.
111. The decision to hire Policy Studies, Inc. is the responsibility of the Committee, not a select few, conspiring to operate a secret, subversive operation, designed to eliminate Blackston from the Committee.
112. Plaintiff and Committee member Blackston has NOT received any correspondence from the defendants relating to the child support guidelines update process and all Committee activities, prior to February 17, 1999.
113. The defendants continue to act single-handedly to update Alabama's child support guidelines without Blackston and other committee members' input.
114. In a Memo dated, February 17, 1999, defendant Dorrough, collaborating with and in concert with Administrative Office of Court's (AOC), defendants Gregory and Maddox admit operating the Committee without the consent and knowledge of all the Committee's members, particularly James R. Blackston. (See Exhibit B, AOC Memo.)
115. The AOC and the defendant members of the Committee have been operating for at least two years, without the full Committee's knowledge, and in the fall of 1998 entered into a contract with Policy Studies, Inc., to update the Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations. (See paragraph 1, Exhibit B, Attached to Verified Complaint.)
116. The contract with Policy Studies, Inc. violates the Consent Decree and completely freezes out the plaintiffs from the child support guidelines update process and all Committee activities.
117. The defendant's action in contracting with Policies Studies, Inc violated the Consent Decree by preforming the functions of the Committee without the knowledge or consent of all the committee's members.
118. Indeed, the defendants chose to act on their own accord in a fashion that completely froze out the other members of the committee, particularly the plaintiffs.
119. All phases of the child support guidelines update process and all Committee activities, from determining the data sources to be used in calculating Alabama's Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations to the actual determination of the child support guidelines tables, is a function of the committee and cannot be undertaken by one or two individuals acting outside the guidelines of the committee and outside the requirements of the Consent Decree.
120. The defendants held meetings and conspired to update the Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations without any public notice or notice to other committee members.
121. Meetings, held outside the sanction or approval and participation of other committee members, violate the Consent Decree and the essence of the original suit, Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117 (11th Cir 1994.)
122. The defendant's contract with Policy Studies, Inc. was a deliberate attempt to exclude Blackston and the general public from knowledge about the update process until "after the fact."
123. Such underhanded tactics deprive the plaintiffs of their first amendment rights under color of state law and contract rights under the Consent Decree.
124. The Committee, in the past, was charged with approving all phases of the update process including the determination of numerous contractor's written proposals.
125. The Committee and all the members, in the 1993 update process, were intrinsically involved in meetings with Policy Studies, Inc.
126. The Committee established a past practice wherein all members were expected to participate on a personal and intricate basis.
127. Today's update process changes all established practices to adhere to a secret, clandestine operation that must be condemned as being contrary to the furtherance of sound political-democratic government.
128. The defendants changed the purpose and functions of the Committee to freeze out Blackston's participation on the Committee and preclude the public's right to know about their government, a first amendment right.
129. Policy Studies Inc's contract violates the spirit and intent of Paragraph 6 and 10 of said Consent Decree. (See Exhibit A, Consent Decree)
130. The actions of Dorrough and AOC are preplanned and orchestrated to bypass and exclude Blackston's participation on the Committee.
131. By excluding Blackston and all non-custodial parents from the determination of basic child support obligations, the defendants decide in secret the whole and heart of Alabama's child support guidelines and effectively freeze out Blackston's participation on the Committee.
132. Blackston's Committee appointment was in name only.
133. Blackston's Committee appointment, in name only, is a fraudulent scheme to update the guidelines in secret, to further a much larger scheme to defraud Alabama's children and families out of millions of dollars in child support each year.
134. The State of Alabama collects, from the federal government, sixteen (16) cents for every dollar collected in child support.
135. Any reasonable person can easily see the defendant's necessity for eliminating any opposition to punitive and over-bearing child support rules.
VI
Defendants Diverted Federal Funds from Update Process
136. In furtherance of the secretive scheme to defraud Alabama fathers and the federal government, defendants diverted federal funds, intended to be used for the child support guidelines update process, into a "personal-for-profit" scheme.
137. As a proximate consequence of defendants contracting with Policy Studies, Inc. and misappropriating federal funds, resulting in a breach of contract, plaintiffs were caused to suffer an adverse action resulting in great pain and physical suffering, severe mental anguish and/or emotional distress.
138. The defendants cite budgetary problems facing the Unified Judicial System for reasons to complete a federally mandated review of the Child Support Guidelines by mail.
139. The Office of Health and Human Services appropriates certain funds to the State of Alabama for the express purpose of studying and updating Alabama's Child Support Guidelines.
140. Alabama's Child Support Committee is therefore an entity of state government, mandated and funded by federal funds.
141. The federal funds intended for use in the child support guidelines update process, has been allocated to other state projects, therefore, the defendants admit to misusing public funds.
142. The defendants declare a lack of funds to hold a meaningful update process, while AOC holds an extravagant "Judicial Conference" at the Montgomery Embassy Suites Hotel on January 21, 1999.
143. Alabama's finest accommodations were used and gourmet styled food was served at the Judicial Conference.
144. Alabama's children deserve more than a token consideration.
145. The "Judicial Conference" was used to plot against the plaintiffs and acted as a breeding ground for hate and discontent for the plaintiffs.
146. Child support and matters involving the well-being of Alabama's children were discussed at the judicial conference.
147. The defendants actively sought ways to retaliate against the plaintiffs to prevent the plaintiffs from recording the Committee's activities.
148. The committee is currently reviewing the state's child support guidelines (Rule 32, Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration) in accordance with the requirement of the Family Support Act of 1988.
149. Select members of the Committee have been operating for at least two years, without Blackston or the full Committee's knowledge, and in the fall of 1998 entered into a contract with Policy Studies, Inc.
150. The determination of basic child support obligations and whether to award contracts to an "out of state" contractor, is the exclusive function of the Committee and is not to be undertaken outside the Committee in a secret meeting between defendant Dorrough and AOC.
151. The defendants above follow a course of action designed to author and implement rules of court that violate paragraph 6, 9 and 10 of the Consent Decree.
152. Through a pattern of established events, previous to plaintiff Blackston and Barber's 1994 lawsuit, (Civil Action 93-H-623-N), and subsequent Consent Decree, the Committee always held meetings wherein most of the committee members were physically present.
153. Public meetings attended by all Committee members were the rule of the 1993 update process.
154. The defendant's attempts to conduct the child support guideline's update process and all Committee activities by mail is a carefully orchestrated plan to eliminate Blackston from the Committee.
155. The extremely important task of ensuring Alabama's child support guidelines, results in appropriate child support determinations, cannot be passed over lightly, by self-proclaimed budgetary problems.
156. Plaintiffs and Alabama citizens, subject to Alabama's child support guidelines, deserve an accounting of the federal funds Alabama receives for the child support update process.
157. The defendant's secret actions to circumvent the Consent Decree and eliminate Blackston from the Committee preclude any determination that federal funds are properly used for the update process.
158. The defendant's imposed a ten (10) day restriction to replies by mail to the information purporting to be Alabama's child support guideline's update process.
159. The extremely short time constraints imposed by the defendants to respond to their ill conceived and illegal request, preclude Blackston and the public's input to the child support update process and all Committee activities.
160. The defendant's actions must be clarified and carefully understood that the defendants decided in secret the whole and heart of Alabama's Child Support Guidelines and presented for approval a final product without the agreed upon prerequisite input from Blackston or all Committee members.
161. The defendants, during the past six (6) years, operated in secret with no public announcements to the general public or news media about the update process and resisted Blackston's reappointment on the Committee.
162. The defendants use the United States mail to avoid the plaintiff's right to record committee activities for public review and public dissemination.
163. The defendants create a very crafty subversion, skilled in deception and clever maneuvers to subvert the people's right to know the affairs of government and designed a scheme to eliminate or severely limit plaintiff Blackston's participation on the Committee - a violation of paragraph 6 and 10 of said Consent Decree.
164. The State of Alabama, by and though State officials entered into a contract between the State of Alabama and the above plaintiffs on December 15, 1995 (Consent Decree).
165. The above defendants breech the clear terms of the contract and seek to impair the obligations of said contract by drastically altering the established methods and operations of the Committee's update process and all Committee activities in contravention of said Consent Decree, paragraph 6 and 10.
166. The Department of Health and Human Services allocates the funds for the child support update.
167. Alabama's officials charged with the update process misused and misappropriated the funds for other purposes.
168. The defendants misused federal funds by funding an extravagant judicial conference on January 21, 1999.
169. AOC and the defendants regularly divert the federal funds intended for child support updates into employee salaries and fringe benefits.
170. The federal mandate is that a child support order is supposed to be just and appropriate in each individual case, and be subject to a rebuttal.
171. Without any meaningful direct correlation between what it truly costs to raise a particular child in a specific location in Alabama, it is truly impossible to rebut the guideline amount.
172. Policy Studies, Inc.'s data, used to determine Alabama's guidelines, are not from Alabama.
173. Pursuant to the Family Support Act of 1988, P.L. 100-485, Alabama's incentive payments are hinged, among other factors, upon the total amount of child support collected during the fiscal year and certain paternity establishment requirements.
174. The defendants above seek to increase Alabama's incentive payments through punitive and illegal enforcement procedures, mandated by severally flawed state child support guidelines.
175. The defendants conspire and continue a course of action started during March 1993 wherein, secret, covert and clandestine activities were planned and implemented against the above named plaintiffs.
176. Defendants follow a criminal course of action to increase the state's allotment of federal incentive payments.
177. The defendants changed the purpose and functions of the Committee to freeze out Blackston's participation on the Committee and preclude the public's right to know about their government, a first amendment right.
178. The plaintiff shows an actual or imminent injury.
179. The injury is traceable to the alleged unlawful conduct of the defendants and the relief requested will likely remedy the plaintiff's injury.
180. The defendant's obligations to the plaintiffs are so coupled with matters of mental concern and solicitude, and with the feelings of the plaintiffs to whom the duty is owed, that a breach of that duty is necessarily and reasonably resulting in mental anguish and suffering.
Wherefore premises considered, the plaintiffs respectfully request that:
1 Plaintiffs seek an order to show cause, from the court that entered the decree and that retained jurisdiction over it, why the defendants should not be held in civil and criminal contempt for plotting to destroy or nullify the Consent Decree.
2 The plaintiffs challenge implementation of the child support update process and all Committee activities until a meaningful opportunity exists to address all the issues in this verified complaint.
3 Plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief and restitution under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
4 That damages be awarded, commensurate with the degree of harm suffered by the plaintiffs, an amount to be determined by a jury.
5 That each plaintiff prays for such other, further and different relief to which he may be entitled and for general relief.
Respectfully submitted this the 8th day of July 1999.
______________________________
James R. Blackston
______________________________
Bradley W. Barber
National Congress for Fathers and Children
Birmingham Alabama Branch
[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]