NOTICE OF NON CONSENT
202507110576 ACLARK1
07/11/2025 02:28:27 PM
AUDITOR, Pierce County, WASHINGTON
lan Dior of the Family Mayberry
3801 N 27th Street Unit 6996 Republic of Washington,
Tacoma Non Domestic: Real Land North America
Pierce County Superior Court Chief Judge:
• SUSAN ADAMS
Clerk of Court:
• CONSTANCE R. WHITE
930 TACOMA AVENUE S, RM. 110 TACOMA, WA 99122
RE: IAN DIOR MAYBERRY.
ID@ SSNXXX-XX
VID- Customer id# 25-3-01840-6
Notice of No Consent to Association With the IV-D Agency and to Participation in the IV-D Program
June 9.2025
By due process of law Respondents are herein Notified that I lan Dior of the Family Mayberry do not consent to participate in the federally operated and funded IV-D program on the basis of these facts: (1) I am not qualified to participate in the federally operated and funded program; (2) I do not consent to associate with the alone, detached and disconnected organizational unit; and (3) I do not consent to participate in the federally operated and funded program.
Facts in Support of My Claims
Receipt and confirmation of aggravating facts are derived from About the Office. of Child Support Services | The Administration for Children and Families (hhs.gov); Glossary of Common Child Support Terms (hhs.gov); and 77-089.job (govinto.gov) Which provide that the IV-D program is a “partnership” between the federal government and the states. This renders the IV-D program an association of two or more persons as co-owners of a business for profit. See Uniform Partnership Act, § 6(1). 77-089.job (govinfo.gov) p. 47 confirms that “However, every Federal agency is responsible for responding to a IV-D program in the State as if the Federal agency were a private business;” p.65 confirms that States still make a profit from the IV-D program and is free to spend its share of collections in any manner it sees fit.
Evidence provides that this business profits from customers, see About the Office of Child Support Services | The Administration for Children and Families “OCSS is the (federal agency) that oversees the national IV-D program.” Communicating with our Customers | The Administration for Children and Families provides “Everything OCSS publishes goes through an internal clearance process to make sure it’s clear, accurate, and relevant to our customers. See also “Our customer service team works with parents.” See also Contacts within Division of Child Support | DSHS Division of Child Support EFT “Customer Service, P.O. Box 9010 Olympia, Washington 98507-9010. 45 C.F.R. § 301.1 defines the IV-D agency as the alone, detached and disconnected organizational unit; “in” the State that has the responsibility for supervising the administration of the IV-D plan under title IV-D of the Act. As a partner of a private business for profit the federal operated and funded unit, “A ‘single’ thing of any kind.” State ex rel. S. Monroe Son Co. .v Tracy, 129 Ohio St. 550, 196 N.E. 650, cannot compel Plaintiff to do business therewith.
The unit has the right to choose who they do business with, see 42 U.S.C. § 601(b) No individual entitlement: This part shall not be interpreted to entitle any individual or family to assistance under any State program funded under this part, just as lan has the right to choose whom I do business with. Clearly the unit can refuse service for the afore reason, however they cannot compel me to do business with them against my will. Authority
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights clashes with the units’ core message and to not associate with the unit protects my right not to join that organization. lan cannot be forced to associate with the people of the unit whose views and messages conflict with my own. The unit cannot compel Plaintiff to associate therewith on the basis that I disagree with IV-D units officious intermeddling. This includes 42 U.S.C. §603 (a)(5)(iii) Noncustodial parents: An entity that operates a project with funds provided under this paragraph may use the funds to “provide services” (i) to noncustodial parents. As such I am exercising my right to ask or receive any services.
“The Court has explained that [i]n many cases, government interference with one form of protected association will also burden the other form of association. Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537, 54 (1987); “The notion of constitutional protection of the freedom of association was a First Amendment doctrine and little more”. Ultimately, the Court recognized two different strands of freedom of association, tying the freedom of expressive association to the First Amendment and the freedom of intimate association primarily to the Fourteenth Amendment. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 617-18 (1984); Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. at 460-61 (stating that ti is immaterial, for First Amendment purposes, whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious, or cultural matters”.
Preservation of Life, Liberty, and My Pursuit of Happiness
Respondents shall observe Plaintiffs First Amendment inalienable right to not associate with the federally operated and funded organizational unit as a partner private business that profits from customers. In this free market of an economic system prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers, set solely by the bids and offers of the “participants,” not federal guidelines, or contracts. The unwanted association and involuntary participation will deprive Plaintiff of my right to choose where I spend the notes obtained for the trade of my time and labor, and which person or businesses I decided to spend those notes with.
The unwanted association and involuntary participation will deprive Plaintiff of my inherent rights to acquire life sustaining provisions essential for survival, to pursue my own goals and aspirations, and to strive for a fulfilling and happy life. This will deprive me of my inherent freedom to actively pursue my own path to well-being for me and my family. It will encroach upon my rights to life and my liberty depriving me the fundamental conditions of my existence and my freedom from oppression under IV-D of the Act.
Lawful Standard
The Declaration of Independence guarantees my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the First, Amendment guarantees and protects my right not to associate w i t h the VI-D agency, and my right to not participate in the federally funded IV-D program. Furthermore, association and participation requires my consent to which I do not.
Any attempt to compel Ian to association with the unit against my will and or to participation will result in your legal malfeasance by subjecting me to conduct that is occurring under color of federal and state law, and depriving me of my rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed by the US.. Constitution, Federal and State Law, and will be encroaching upon my inherent and my inalienable rights to life, liberty and my pursuit of happiness. Conclusion
“A governing principal of our Constitutional democracy is that “[all]” the officers of government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity.” Butz v. Economou, 438, U.S. 478, 506 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S., at 220 (1882).
By: Ian Dior of the Family Mayberry
IDX-1018247
August 15, 22, 29, 2025
