NOTICE TO COURT OBJECTION NON-ASSUMPSIT

Your name
Your address
[City, ST ZIP Code]

[COURT NAME]

[PLAINTIFF'S NAME],

Plaintiff,
vs.
[DEFENDANT'S NAME],

Defendant
Case No.: [Number]

NOTICE TO COURT
OBJECTION
NON-ASSUMPSIT CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO CLAIMED OBLIGATION OR
CLAIMED DEFAULT OF DEBT OBLIGATION DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)

NOTICE TO COURT NON-ASSUMPSITCLAIMED BY RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE

TOPETITIONER’S CLAIMED OBLIGATION OR CLAIMED DEFAULT OF DEBT OBLIGATIONAND
DISMISSAL FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6)
1. OBJECTION, THE UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENT BY FILING THIS NOTICE TO THE COURT IS
NOT CONSENTING TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OR ENFORCEMENT
OF CHILD SUPPORT ARISING UNDER 42 USC SECTION 654(3) TITLE IV-D.
2. OBJECTION, IT IS A FACT BEFORE THE COURT THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THECONCLUSION OF
LAW, PRESCRIBED BYTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OR SCOTUS IN MATTER
BLESSING V FREESTONE, 520 US 329 (1997) THAT STATE LAWS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
ESTABLISHMENT AND ENFORCEMENT AREARISING UNDER FEDERAL STATUTE 42 USC
SECTION 654(3), THAT WERE INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE STATES, BECAUSE THE PAYMENT OF
CHILD SUPPORT BY OBLIGORS AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS ARE USED FOR THE
RECOUPMENT OF STATE WELFARE EXPENDITURES, ANDTHESE PAYMENTS BY OBLIGORS AND
NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS WERE NOT INTENDED TO BENEFIT THE FAMILY OR CHILDREN, AS
OBLIGORS AND NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS ARE LED TO BELIEVE AND FURTHERMORE ARE
FORCED INTO COMPLIANCE WITH BY THESE MISLEADING LAWS BY FORCING COMPLIANCE
WITH THREATS OF ARREST, SUSPENSION OF DRIVING PRIVILEGES, RUINING CREDIT, AND
RESTRAINING BANK ACCOUNT TO ACHIEVE THE STATE’S TITLE IV-D CHILD SUPPORT
COLLECTIONSINCENTIVE GOALS, SO THE STATE CAN BE COMPENSATED WITH MILLIONS OF
FEDERAL INCENTIVE FUNDS PAYMENTS UNDER 42 USC SECTION 658a TITLE IV-D,OF WHICH
66% FOR EVERY DOLLAR COLLECTED OR ENFORCED IS PAID TO THE STATE, BUT, BY THE
UNDERSIGNEDPLEADING NON-ASSUMPSIT IS INFORMING THE COURT AND THE PROSECUTOR
THAT HE REQUIRES PROOF OF EVIDENCE THAT HE ENTERED INTO AN UNDETAKING TO REPAY
AN OBLIGATION BECAUSE HENEVER ENTERED INTO A UNDERTAKING FOR OBLIGATION TO
REPAY A DEBT WITH A TITLE IV-D AGENCY.
3. OBJECTION, IT IS A FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME COURT
IN MATTER BLESSING V FREESTONE, 520 US 329 (1997) THAT ANY FORCED PAYMENT OF CHILD
SUPPORT IN TITLE IV-D PROCEEDINGS IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECOUPMENT OF
STATEWELFARE EXPENDITURES AND NOT FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILD OR FAMILY AS CHILD
SUPPORT AGENCY ADVERTISES OR IMPLIES. [“But the requirement that a State operate its child
support program in "substantial compliance" with Title IV—D was not intended to benefit individual
children and custodial parents, and therefore it does not constitute a federal right”Blessing v. Freestone,
520 US 329 - Supreme Court 1997 ]
4. OBJECTION, IT IS A FACT BEFORE THIS COURT, THAT THIS COURT CANNOT PROSECUTE
THE UNDERSIGNED FOR NONPERFORMANCE OF AN OBLIGATION AGREEMENT WITHOUT
ACTUAL PROOF OF AN AGREEMENT OR UNDERTAKING WITH WRITTEN TERMS EXPLAINING
HOW AND WHEN TO REPAY THE DEBT OBLIGATION.
5. OBJECTION, IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNDERSIGNED THAT BY FILING THIS
NOTICE OF NON-ASSUMPSIT, THE UNDERSIGNED IS ASSERTING THAT HE DID NOT
UNDERTAKE OR PLEDGE AN OBLIGATION AS CLAIMED OR IMPLIED BY THE PETITIONER AND IS
COMPELLING THE COURT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF AN UNDERTAKING FOR OBLIGATION
REQUIRING THE PERFORMANCE OF PAYMENTS TO REPAY AN OBLIGATION.
6. OBJECTION, IT IS A FACT AND CONCLSUION OF LAW PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME COURT
IN MATTER LUJAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S.
555 (1992) THAT THE PETITIONER IS REQUIRED BY LAW 28 USC SECTION 2072 TO MEET THE
BURDEN OF PROOF TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT TO MEET THE MINIMUM
OF STANDING IN COURT, WHICH UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE EVIDENCE THE
UNDERSIGNED’S NONPERFORMANCE IN RESPONSE TO A PLEDGE TO REPAY A DEBT
OBLIGATION.“Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of
standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of
a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422
U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);[1] and (b) "actual or
imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' " Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
U. S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct
complained of—the injury has to be "fairly. . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and
not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Simon v. Eastern
Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976). Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to
merely "speculative," that the injury will be "redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43” LUJAN,
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
7. OBJECTION, IT IS A FACT, AND A CONCLUSION OF LAW UNDER 28 USC SECTION 2072 THAT
REQUIRES THIS COURT TO REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO MEET THE REQUIRED BURDEN OF
PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF STANDING OF AN INJURY IN FACT AS PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN MATTER LUJAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v.
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992) THAT THE PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO MEET
THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND FAILEDTO STATE A CLAIM BY PROVIDING THE COURT ACTUAL
EVIDENCE OF AN INJURYIN FACT.
8. OBJECTION, IT IS A FACT BEFORE THIS COURT AND A CONCLUSION OF LAW THATDISMISSAL
IS REQUIRED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6), WHICH IN THIS
MATTER WOULD BE AN INJURY SUFFERED BY PETITIONER BY NONPERFORMANCE BY THE
UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENT AND WITHOUT PRESCRIBED EVIDENCE OF AN INJURY IN FACT
THIS COURT HAS NO DISCRETION BUT TO IMMEDIATELY DISMISS THIS MATTER WITH
PREJUDICEOR IT IS ACTING IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S OBLIGATION TO BE BOUNDUNDER
SUPREMACY CLAUSE ARTICLE 6 SECTION 2, THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND THATTAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY STATE LAW OR AGENCY PROCEDURE
THAT MAY COME INTO CONFLICT THEREOF. “Over the years, our cases have established that the
irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have
suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.
S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);[1] and (b) "actual or imminent, not `conjectural' or `hypothetical,' "
Whitmore, supra, at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)). Second, there must
be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be "fairly. . .
trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of
some third party not before the court." Simon v. Eastern Ky.. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26,
41-42 (1976). Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be
"redressed by a favorable decision." Id., at 38, 43” LUJAN, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR v.
DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE et al. 504 U.S. 555 (1992) Howlett v. Rose, 496 US 356 1990 ” the
Supremacy Clause forbids state courts to dissociate themselves from federal law because of
disagreement with its content or a refusal to recognize the superior authority of its source” “There is no
merit to respondent's argument that a federal court has no power to compel a state court to entertain a
claim over which it lacks jurisdiction under state law. The fact that a rule is denominated jurisdictional
does not provide a state court an excuse to avoid the obligation to enforce federal law if the rule does not
reflect the concerns of power over the person and competence over the subject matter that jurisdictional
rules are designed to protect”
9. OBJECTION, IT IS A FACT, AND CONCLUSION OF LAW PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES IN MATTER HOWLETT V ROSE 496 US 356 1990 THAT FEDERAL LAWS
ARE ENFORCED IN STATE COURTS, THEREFORE WITHOUT EVIDENCE BY THE PETITIONER,
THE PETITIONER FAILED TO MEET BURDEN OF PROOF AND FAILED STATE A CLAIM REQUIRING
THIS COURT TO PERFORM THE NON-DISCRETIONARY MINISTERIAL ACT TO DISMISS UNDER
FEDERAL LAW 12(B)(6) WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF AN UNDERSTAKING BETWEEN THE PETITIONER
AND UNDERSIGNED RESPONDENT THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE OF DEFAULT OF AN
OBLIGATION AGREEMENT.

Dated this [day] of [Month], [year].

Your Name
NOTICE TO COURTOBJECTIONNON-ASSUMPSIT CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO
CLAIMED OBLIGATION OR CLAIMED DEFAULT OF DEBT OBLIGATION DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE
TO STATE A CLAIM FEDERAL RULE 12(B)(6) - 10