defendant (based upon his former employment with the Michigan Department of Corrections) that he no longer had. Further, and most troubling, the amended motion asserted that the problem with defendant's support obligation (apparently referring to but not specifically identifying the support order dated March 22, 2008), did not utilize SERF. Which Is to say that the amended motion again directed the court's gaze to the first FOC Recommendation's failure to utilize SERF, even though a subsequent FOC Recommendation clearly did apply SERF, which Recommendation was the basis of the Court's support order dated March 22, 2006. 12. The problem is that at the time the Friend of the Court's recommendations (whether not utilizing SERF as in the case of the first recommendation, or utilizing SCRF as in the case of the second recommendation) utilized defendant's former income from when he was employed, rather than the income that he was making when the FOC hearing actually transpired or when the Judgment was entered. 13. Plaintiffs answer to the amended motion, dated June 26, 2007, noted to the Court that the asserted basis of the amended motion (the FOC’s failure to apply SERF) was wrong, that pursuant to the Court’s opinion of February 28, 2006, the FOC had recalculated support utilizing SERF, and that a support order based upon such recalculation had been entered on March 22, 2006. The Court eventually denied defendant's motion, in its order dated August 10, 2007. Appropriately so. 14. The legal foundation of defendant's motion is two-fold. A. First, the Court's support order of March 22, 2006, violates 15 USC. §1673, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. That federal law prohibits the Court from entering an order that takes from any defendant, for support of a minor, more DIV-CI LIntecki Motinn 040809 jv doe a