IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

1. Subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to The United States Constitution, Amendments I, IV, V, IX, XIV, 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988.

2. This action is brought pursuant to The United States Constitution, Article I, § 10 (Obligation of Contracts); 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, (Title VII, Civil Rights Act); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., (RICO); P. L. 98-378, (The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984); P. L. 100-485, (The Family Support Act of 1988); Constitution of Alabama, 1901, Article I, §§ 4, 6, 13, 22, 25, 35, (Declaration of Rights); Article IV, §95 (Obligation of Contracts) and a Consent Decree entered into by the above plaintiffs and defendants on December 15, 1995, (Contempt of Court).

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, James R. Blackston, is a citizen of the United States of America, residing in Walker County, Jasper, Alabama, within this district and division, and a divorced father. James R. Blackston currently serves on the Alabama Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines Updates and Enforcement and is a party plaintiff to said Consent Decree above (See Exhibit A.)

4. Plaintiff, Bradley W. Barber, is a citizen of the United States of America, residing in Jefferson County, Gardendale, Alabama, within this district and division, and a divorced father subject to the laws of the State of Alabama's Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement and a party plaintiff to said Consent Decree above.

5. The State of Alabama has the supreme authority over its citizens, subject to the United States Constitution, and is a part of these United States, and for purposes of this 1983 action has waived any and all immunities under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, entering into a Consent Decree between said plaintiffs and defendants..

6. Defendant, Richard Dorrough, is the Chairman of the Alabama Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement. Richard Dorrough is a party defendant to the Consent Decree above.

7. Defendant, Director Frank Gregory, is the Director of the Administrative Office of Courts.

8. Defendant, Bob Maddox, is an employee of the Administrative Office of Courts.

9. Defendants are citizens and residents of Alabama, are subject to the jurisdiction of this court as to both service of process and venue and can be made a party defendant herein without depriving the court of jurisdiction.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1 The Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Child Support Enforcement 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.

2 The committee is composed of judges, attorneys and representatives of the Department of Human Resources.

3 In 1974, Congress established a federal child support enforcement program.

4 The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-378) revamped the federal child support enforcement program and required all states to develop an enforcement plan.

5 One requirement was the adoption of state guidelines for the determination of child support awards.

6 Shortly after the implementation of the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, Governor George C. Wallace appointed the Alabama Commission on Child Support to examine and study the operation of the State's child support system in view of the amendments and to make recommendations for legislative, administrative, or rule changes.

7 In March 1986, then Chief Justice C. C. Torbert, Jr. established the Child Support Committee to study and make recommendations on a number of issues including child support guidelines.

8 In September 1987, based on the recommendations of that committee, the Alabama Supreme Court adopted Rule 32, Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration, which provided an advisory guideline, which could be used by the courts in establishing child support.

9 This advisory guideline was based on the income shares model which was developed by the National Center for State Courts and which encompasses the concept that a child should continue to receive the same level of support that he or she would have received if the family unit had remained in tact.

10 The Family Support Act of 1988 (PL. 100-485) established further requirements for state child support enforcement programs, including the provision to establish child support guidelines as a rebuttable presumption and to include provisions in the guidelines for a review every four years.

11 In August 1989, the Alabama Supreme Court amended the state's child support guidelines to incorporate these new requirements.

12 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.

13 Some of the child support issues addressed by the Committee in 1993 include:
( 1) Child care costs; ( 2) Criteria for rebuttal; ( 3) Guidelines as the basis for modifications; ( 4) Revised schedule of child support obligations basic presumptions; ( 5) Tax exemptions; ( 6) Health insurance/ medical costs/ enforcement; ( 7) Further modifications as administrative procedure; ( 8) Shared physical custody; ( 9) Visitation abatements costs; ( 10) Post minority support/ education; ( 11) Multiple support orders; ( 12) Other children/ dependents; ( 13) Household income; and ( 14) Automatic recording of Judgments.

14 Problems occurred with the 1993 child support update process that required the plaintiffs bring suit in federal court to protect their constitutional rights. (See Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117)

15 As a result of Blackston v. Alabama, the parties entered into a Consent Decree. (See Exhibit A)

16 The Child Support Committee's guidelines update process is contrary to established practice and methods and violates the Consent Decree entered into by the State of Alabama et. al. and the plaintiffs. (See Exhibit B, AOC Memo)

17 The plaintiffs and many fathers throughout Alabama may be incarcerated, resulting in an indefinite loss of liberty and property, by "rules of court" as a direct result of the defendant's actions.

18 Temporary and Permanent Restraining Orders and Injunctions are routinely placed upon non-custodial parents, without due process, as a direct result of Alabama's child support guideline rules.

19 Some fathers will be innocent of false charges and others will be indigent, unable to afford an attorney.

20 Other fathers will simply be trying to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children.

21 Other fathers, and some mothers, will have their property permanently confiscated, without due process.

22 As a member of the Child Support Committee, Blackston represents thousands of non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, that will lose property and liberty and subsequently the ability to parent their child.

23 The contrary actions of the defendants renders Blackston's ability to represent Alabama's non-custodial parents ineffective and is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Consent Decree.

CLAIM ONE
Violation of Consent Decree and
Contempt of Alabama Supreme Court's Order

24 On or about December 15, 1995, Richard Dorrough, acting in his official capacity as an officer of the State of Alabama, entered into a Release and Settlement Agreement, (Consent Decree,) concerning Civil Action No. 93-H-623-N. (See Blackston v. Alabama, 30 F.3d 117)

25 Paragraph 6 of said Consent Decree established plaintiff James R Blackston as the representative of the National Congress for Fathers and Children on the Alabama Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement, effective on the date of the execution of the Consent Decree.

26 The parties recognize and respect their rights and obligations both as litigants in this case and as persons sharing, within the State of Alabama, the common goal of performing a public service to the tax paying citizens of the State.

27 The Consent Decree was entered into by the parties in a spirit of voluntary and good faith cooperation and to avoid the time and expense of continued contested litigation.

28 The good faith provision specifically includes use of all reasonable efforts to achieve the goals of the Consent Decree.

29 On February 17, 1999, defendant Dorrough, collaborating with and in concert with Administrative Office of Court's (AOC), defendants Gregory and Maddox admitted to operating the Child Support Committee without the consent and knowledge of all the Committee's members, particularly James R. Blackston. (See Exhibit B, AOC Memo)

30 Select members of the Child Support 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. of Denver, Colorado (PSI), to update the schedule of basic child support obligations.

31 The determination of basic child support obligations and whether to award contracts to a disqualified agency (PSI), is the exclusive job of the Child Support Committee and is not to be undertaken outside the Committee in a secret meeting between Dorrough and AOC.

32 PSI's contract violates the spirit and intent of Paragraph 6,9 and 10 of said Consent Decree. (See Exhibit A, Consent Decree)

33 The actions of Dorrough and AOC are preplanned and orchestrated to bypass and exclude Blackston's participation on the Child Support Committee.

34 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 Child Support Committee.

35 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.

36 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.

37 Alabama's Child Support Committee is therefore an entity of state government, mandated and funded by federal funds.

38 Obviously the federal funds intended to be used for child support guidelines updates has been allocated to other state projects, therefore, the defendants admit to misusing public funds.

39 Through a pattern of established events, previous to plaintiff Blackston and Barber's 1993 lawsuit, (Civil Action 93-H-623-N), and subsequent Consent Decree, the Child Support Committee always held meetings wherein most of the committee members were physically present.

40 Public meetings or the update process by mail violate paragraph 6, 9 and 10 of the Consent Decree and the plaintiffs' first amendment rights.

41 The defendant's attempts to conduct the child support update guideline's process by mail is a carefully orchestrated plan to eliminate Blackston from the Child Support Committee.

42 The extremely important task of ensuring Alabama's child support guidelines results in appropriate child support determinations cannot be lightly passed over by self-proclaimed budgetary problems.

43 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.

44 The defendant's secret actions deny the Child Support Committee's determination that federal funds are properly used for the update process.

45 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.

46 Alabama's finest accommodations and gourmet styled food were served at the Judicial Conference. Surely Alabama's children deserve more than a token consideration.

47 The "Judicial Conference" was used to plot against the plaintiffs and acted as a breeding ground for hate and discontent for the plaintiffs.

48 The defendants actively sought ways to retaliate against the plaintiffs for exercising their constitutional rights.

49 Alabama is the only state in the nation to take the Child Support Guidelines update process so lightly while plotting to eliminate non-custodial parent's input.

50 The term "law" in our jurisprudence includes the rules of court decisions as well as legislative action. Law is the body of principles, standards, and rules of the courts of a particular state apply in the resolution of controversies brought before them.

51 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.

52 The defendant's impose a ten (10) day restriction to replies by mail to the illegally mailed information purporting to be Alabama's child support guideline's update process.

53 The extremely short time constants imposed by the defendants to respond to their ill conceived and illegal request, preclude Blackston and the pubic's input to the child support update process.

54The 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 all members of the Child Support Committee.

55 The defendants, during the past six (6) years, operate in secret with no public announcements to the general public or news media about the update process and resisted Blackston's reappointment on the Child Support Committee.

56 The defendants use the United States mail to avoid the plaintiff's right to record committee activities for public review and public dissemination.

57 The defendant's 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 to eliminate or severely limit plaintiff Blackston's participation on the Child Support Committee - a violation of paragraph 6,9 and 10 of said Consent Decree.

CLAIM TWO
Obstructing the Obligations of Contracts
United States Constitution, Art. 1, §10 and
Alabama Constitution, 1901 §§22 and 95

58 Paragraphs 1 thru 57are herein realized and incorporated as if fully rewritten.

59 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.

60 The above defendants seek to impair the obligations of said contract by drastically altering the established methods and operations of the Child Support Committee's update process in contravention of said Consent Decree, paragraph 6, 9 and 10.

61 Additionally, the Alabama legislature, in 1996, incorporated ARJA, Rule 32 into the Code of Alabama, 1975, § 30-3-155.

62 The Alabama legislature, ex post facto, incorporated a "rule of court" that impairs or obstructs the plaintiff's ability to exercise their rights under said contract (Consent Decree, paragraph 6, 9 and 10.) Therefore, Code of Alabama, § 30-3-155 is unconstitutional.

CLAIM THREE
Misappropriation of Federal Funds
The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (P. L. 98-378) and
The Family Support Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-485)

63 Paragraphs 1 thru 62 are herein realized and incorporated as if fully rewritten.

64 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.

65 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.

66 Data used to determine Alabama's guidelines are not from Alabama.

67 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.

68 The defendants above seek to increase Alabama's incentive payments through punitive and illegal enforcement procedures, mandated by severally flawed state child support guidelines.

69 The defendants misuse and misappropriate federal funds and perpetrate a fraud upon Alabama citizens in the present child support guidelines update process

CLAIM FOUR
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. (RICO)

70 Paragraphs 1 thru 69 are herein realized and incorporated as if fully rewritten.

71 The defendants conspire and agree to continue a course of action started before March 1993 wherein, secret, covert and clandestine activities were planned against the above named plaintiffs.

72 Defendants follow a criminal course of action to increase the state's allotment of federal incentive payments.

73 Defendants conduct or participate, directly and indirectly in a process that affects interstate commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity including:
a. interfering with the obligation of contracts.
b. Section 1341 - Frauds and swindles;
c. Section 1513 - Retaliation against plaintiffs;
d. Section 1951 - Interference with commerce by threats under color of official right. Interference with commerce by imposing medical and legal costs on victims, inhibiting travel by those who are subject to defendant's actions and lessening productivity.

74 Alabama's child support guidelines, initiated in illegal and secret proceedings by the above defendants, constituting a small group of unelected state officials, insures likelihood that the plaintiffs cannot access the damage and legality of child support awards.

75 The predetermined process makes illegal assumptions about the well being of Alabama's children and their parents and uses incomplete and false data to establish criteria that determines child support awards.

76 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 until a meaningful opportunity to address all the issues in this verified complaint.

3 Plaintiffs seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief and restitution under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 1983 et seq.

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.

DATED this the 12th day of March 1999.
______________________________
James R. Blackston

______________________________
Bradley W. Barber

Plaintiff's Address

James R. Blackston
6185 Hwy 195 North
Jasper, Ala 35503-3409
205-221-6558

Bradley W. Barber
4732 Hand Lane
Gardendale, Ala 35071-4732
205-631-9733

Defendant's Address

State of Alabama
Attorney General
Honorable Bill Pryor
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, Ala. 36130
205-242-7391

Administrative Office of Courts
Director Frank Gregory
817 South Court Street
Montgomery, Ala 36130-0101
1-800-392-8077

Committee on Child Support
Guidelines and Enforcement
Judge Richard Dorrough
Courthouse Annex
Montgomery, Ala 36192
205-832-4950

Bob Maddox
Administrative Office of Courts
300 Dexter Ave
Montgomery, Al 36130-0101
1-800-392-8077

VERIFICATION

I, James R. Blackston, am a plaintiff in the above entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief; and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on the 12th day of March 1999 at Birmingham, Alabama.

__________________________
James R. Blackston

I, Bradley W. Barber, am a plaintiff in the above entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief; and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on the 12th day of March 1999 at Birmingham, Alabama.

__________________________
Bradley W. Barber

STATE OF ALABAMA	)
	                )      ACKNOWLEDGMENT
COUNTY OF JEFFERSON 	)

I, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, do hereby certify that James R. Blackston and Bradley W. Barber, whose names are signed to the foregoing Petition and who is known to me, acknowledged before me on this date, that being informed of the contents of the instrument, they executed the same voluntarily on the day the same bears date.

Given under my hand and seal this the 12th day of March 1999.

(SEAL)__________________________
Notary Public

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James R. Blackston, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the Verified Complaint and Motion for Injunctive Relief on all defendants by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed on the ______ day of March 1999.

______________________________
James R. Blackston
6185 Hwy 195 North
Jasper, Al 35503-3409
Phone 205-221-6558

______________________________
Bradley W. Barber
4732 Hand Lane
Gardendale, Ala 35071-4732
205-631-9733

[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]