Catching Up with Mark Davis

We've received the following communication from Mark Davis. We have his permission to publish it in toto and unedited:

I filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission about Alabama DHR reporting me to the credit reporting agencies when there is no Alabama statute that grants it.

The complaint was forwarded to the federal government's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov).

Word arrived today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now has an active investigation regarding the issue.



Also there was a state level hearing with the DHR on their acting adverse to me.

As I have said since 2010, federal regulations mandate the previous Tennessee child support judgment that ordered me to directly support our daughter be registered in Alabama in accordance to a particular mandate.

The state hearing officer Louise Shaddix verbally agreed with me on this issue and said "everyone at DHR knows well that an out of state judgment must be registered in Alabama."

Well, that was never done.

This means my being jailed was illegal.  I am fully supporting Katie consistent with the only valid court order... the Tenn order.

Although, the hearing officer will not issue an order for 30 days, I suspect she might cover for DHR. She is employed by DHR.

Another federal violation by the DHR  is that Federal law indicates I am to have an independent hearing by an independent hearing officer.

I have attached a written summary of the issues addressed in the DHR hearing. The summary includes quotes from the Alabama child support and procedures manual showing the DHR fraudulent failures.

I have redacted personal information including my daughters name. You have my permission to publish it, either as a whole or in sections.

This involves public monies and the public should know about it.

Finally, the federal regulation regarding an administrative hearing CFR 205.10 said that I am entitled to view "all documents" in the DHR case file prior to the hearing. I have requested to review the case file since December 2013.

Chris Connolly objected and said that I am not entitled to view it. The hearing officer agreed indicating the file is "confidential".

The 8th federal circuit court of appeals quoting the US supreme court said when Alabama agreed to accepted federal funding it is mandated to follow federal regulations regardless of the state agency policies, otherwise the state agency is violating the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. See the first page of the summary.

Chris Connolly's response on my viewing the DHR case file is that he is not required to follow 8th federal circuit case law. Connolly said we are in the 11th federal circuit. Never mind, the 8th circuit is quoting the US Supreme Court.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws not of men. Yet, Chris Connolly is of the opinion he is above the law.

*****

We welcome comments on Alabama DHR!



Shoalanda