| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sovprog |
Posted - 05 Aug 2003 : 16:50:40
After reading several articles online about marriage, it is urged by Christian patriots and the like that common law marriage is the only way to go when man and woman shall join as one. The consensus is that common law marriage is the right thing to do. Because under statutory law(contracts), a marriage license also "marries" you to the state. Therefore, in effect, your children can become wards of the state ultimately.
For those who have already gotten married under the statutory sense by applying for a marriage license from the state, what is the remedy for that? Is there a way to get out of that contract and still maintain an "official" married position?
Thanks.
|
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Manuel |
Posted - 20 Feb 2005 : 13:08:33
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
"Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed [are] they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed [are] they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 20 Feb 2005 : 12:50:56
Here is an example of GOVERNMENT RULES:
On the early 1900's, they decided that marriage licenses where important for their "shows."
So they wrote on their statutes that a marriage license was for interacial civil marriages... meaning miscegenation, and/or controlling mixing of races. Did they control those rules?
Now, on the twenty-first century they want to "control" homosexual "CIVIL" marriage licencing?
I say that whatever CIVIL GOVERNMENT wishes to license and/or control is exactly that - CONTROL...
Just like what many CIVIL controls do,like the CENTER OF DISEASE CONTROL do - control their
diseases. Symptoms are not the cause, but the results.
Fathers Grace and Light be upon you and your love ones,
I am,
Manuel |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 16 Feb 2005 : 08:53:38
"As you know I've been trying to live in the world of reality by claiming full freedom of thought for several years. Not the sort of freedom you and I had left after twelve years of government programming and statist indoctrination, but the real thing, without the coerced belief in democratic statism. Our generation has never enjoyed freedom of mind and spirit. At first this may seem to be improbable, but it is the simple truth. Try not believing in the invisible, immortal state. It's not optional. Explaining our predicament to someone who's programming is complete has proven very difficult. Most are content to live in the fantasy world that has developed over the years." - Robert: Bissett
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 16 Feb 2005 : 07:02:40
Letters to Jessica by Robert Bissett
Preface
Mankind has had in its possession reliable facts about the Kingdom of God for close to three thousand years. Its remoteness in time has caused that Kingdom to pass into the realm of mythology. But, the truth is that at a certain time and at a certain place there existed a people numbering in the millions who were ruled by the God-King, Yahweh. The significance of this period of history can not be overemphasized.
The name of those ancient people was Israel. For more than three hundred years the Israelites had nothing that could be identified as a legislature or an executive. After generations in Egypt under Pharaoh and while surrounded with nations who were ruled by human kings and princes, these Israelites did something never done before or since. When the Creator of Heavan and Earth offered them a covenant, they accepted. He would be their God-King and they would be His people.
Unless we feel deep down in our bones that the Kingdom of God really did exist on earth and in history, every bit as much as Greece, Rome, Spain, and England, then we're going to miss the point of the Bible. The Bible is the story of the Kingdom of God; what led up to it, how it was rejected by a later generation, and how it was reactivated and given to King Jesus [Yahushua], the Messiah.
The Kingdom is still here today. It sits majestically in our very midst awaiting the return of the chosen people, Israel. Under the new arrangement anyone can be naturalized, or born again, as an Israelite. But, a great many people want nothing whatever to do with a God-King who leaves no room for man's rule. These people have blocked the gates of the Kingdom. They will not go in themselves and they will not let others pass who would.
Some are now taking the Kingdom by force. They are storming the barricades and overrunning the ranks of the enemy. They have taken up the armor of God; the belt of truth, the coat of integrity, the shoes of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit. To further that struggle each copy of this book is intended to be a Truth-bomb and recruiting manual for the forces of good.
Once it is realized that the world system of nation-states is the domain of darkness, the thing from which Christians [the called out ones] are to turn, the rest follows naturally. From this simple but profound truth, plus a glimpse of the Kingdom, has come what you are about to read.
Robert Bissett
January, 1989
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/jessica/jessica.shtml
The Law by Frédéric Bastiat
“The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed.”
The Law
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| Caleb |
Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 22:07:17
Dear Mighty Mom,
My what a tangled web. Married long enough to have four children with an illegal immigrant. There is obviously more to this story.
The first question to ask is: what would a lawful outcome of your situation look like? The Law only works for us if we are standing on Truth. When it does not suit us, most of us want the Law to bend at just the right place to fit our situation.
In law, only the children of slaves and animals follow the condition of the mother. So in a case of divorce, the Law dictates that the children go with the husband. Still interested in the Law? The only thing you can do lawfully at this point is to stop the divorce. But this means keeping the children by staying with your husband. Is this a realistic outcome?
If preventing the COURT from issuing the DIVORCE is your goal, here is what you need to do.
1) Default the State for failing to respond to your Notice. This should be done in two steps:
First, write up a Notice to the effect that by their silence, they have agreed to the following ...
An example of this (using another issue) can be found here:
http://www.svpvril.com/vehicle.html
You do not need to go around and around. Just lay out all the facts, such as that the contract is now null and void. Give them fourteen days to respond.
Second, send a final Default Notice stating that their agreement by silence is now complete. Send both Notices by registered mail, return receipt, or hand deliver them, getting a stamp saying they were received.
2) In COURT you cannot, must not, shall not have a lawyer, attorney, etc. RE-present you. They speak for dead CORPORATE entities only. Your marriage license was issued to the FICTION, regardless of how it is written. Incidentally, mine was ALL CAPS on EVERYTHING. You must be the one to present your series of Notices to the COURT.
3) File a Motion for a Change of Venue with the COURT. Explain that, as you are a living soul, you cannot be heard in a statutory COURT (you are not a creature of statute). Say that any proceedings against you by your husband or the State, can only be heard in a common law venue.
4) If at the COURT hearing they try to proceed without addressing your substantive matter, object and bring up the series of Notices and the Motion for a Change of Venue. Never answer to THE NAME, only discuss these issues.
Letters to Jessica is a start, but does not give you the full picture. Much of what you are saying is technically correct but contains the fatal wish of most to squeeze blood out of a turnip. You will NEVER get justice in a statutory COURT. They are playing by their own rules (equity, not the Law). Don't waste your time thinking you can make them change. You can't. Learn how to find the venue where the rules favor you.
I am trying to lay this out in more detail on the thread, "People get the government they deserve." So read that, as I hope to have it completed in a few more days.
Also, the only way to get an abusive husband out of the picture lawfully is to charge him with a real crime. If he is merely shouting at you, or not being loving, the answer will be found in marriage counselling, not actions at Law. If he is causing physical injury to you or any of the children, have him arrested the next time it happens. Call the Sheriff (not the SHERIFF or the POLICE) and charge him in common law.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 19:27:31
Greetings to the children of the Great King.
For years now, Yahushuah's words, "in the resurrection {re-generation} they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angel's", I have not been able to understand.
Keep seeking, and ye shall find. Well, I have been doing just that.
The first resurrection, is for here and Now. This is The Faith we are to contend for...as Judah, Yahushua's blood brother stated...in his brief letter, to the Saints. The Faith, was already slipping away, underground, as a spring of living water does. It appears, and descends unto the earth. And comes forth again.
How do we resurrect? We must die firstly. It is not good that one of a marriage dies, and resurrects, while the partner, stays ALIVE, though dead. Roman's 7:3 explains when one dies, and the other stay's ALIVE. and she is free to marry...for the husband is dead, and she is not under the Law. {Later on Paul recommends she stay unmarried]. This is all a great mystery. {anyone like Agatha Christie...well read the Great Mystery...scripture}.
Many of us have died...a civil death. {sorry..a few of us} Civil= Catholic. I do not know what "many" really means. Every civil marriage union was pronounced a "done deal" by a civil authority...be it a 501-C-3 pastor, ot a magistrate. All were pronounced MARRIED, by the POWER of the STATE. Well, this was the way things were done, for some time now.
Since here on earth, most all law...is contract law, and not Scripture Law, we see the mess we have brought upon ourselves!
To entertain thoughts in the spirit realm, abstract thinking is a must. And it hurts! Paul is so bold to say, "the natural man doesn't have a clue"...well I enbellished some, but the Truth remains.
All the "problems" started in the Garden...between a man and a wo-man, and a third party. All the problems, all of em, everything else is filler.
One will chase a hundred, two a thousand. See the principal?
I see, One man and One wo-man, united together, by their Father in the Heavenlies, will tear down all the kingdom's of the world. It is... this simple!
Yahushuah wants to marry His Bride. Heaven's knows...that He died for Her.
In your own Way, make these words come alive...in your life. |
| Nurse_Mighty_Mom |
Posted - 17 Apr 2004 : 02:25:43
Kirkguardian,
AGAIN, thank you for responding to my request. AGAIN, your points may be valid, but so are mine. AGAIN, I am asking for help, NOT hinderance. Do you NOT remember responding to my request a mere 3 weeks ago? You may want to read through the full 3 pages which make up this particular topic to refresh what has already been discussed.
Thank you,
Nurse Mighty Mom
|
| kirkguardian |
Posted - 16 Apr 2004 : 11:16:12
quote:
Originally posted by Nurse_Mighty_Mom
I have rescinded my signature on said application for marriage license, based on fraud, non-disclosure on behalf of the state. I have sent said intent to the proper authorities (I think - that is why I am asking for help here). These authorities have so much time with which to respond to my letter of intent. If they do not, they agree with what I have submitted - silence equates agreement. Once they agree that I can rescind my signature, the application is no longer valid, thus the 3-way contract is no longer valid. Thus, the divorce case pending cannot exist. All that the court can do, then, is undo everything that it has done over the past 22 months. My thinking in all this is that I will have to take it to Federal court and sue the State of Illinois for a fraudulent contract.
You've stated, "I am asking for help here." I'll help as best as I can, although you'll probably think that all I'm trying to do is rain on your parade.
I've personally known dozens of people who have gone down your same exact path before. None have ever prevailed, and for good reason. There's simply no legal merit to the positions of:
1. A license or contract can be rescinded absent the acquiesense of all parties to the license or contract.
2. Silence (lack of State response) equates with agreement.
3. Lack of full disclosure on the face of the license itself is a fraud.
All three of these theories not only have no basis in law, they're simply illogical. Let me suggest that before you head down this path that so many others have gone down before (and every one has crashed and burned), take the time to do some legal research. See if you can identify any cases of anyone, in any jurisdiction, who has ever won any of the arguments you have posited here.
If you can find any such cases, do us all a favor and post the citations here. I have never found any such cases. Many people have told me they exist, but for some mysterious reason, when I ask them to give me some citations, they never seem to be able to do so.
Lastly, please let us know the final outcome of your case. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 14 Apr 2004 : 00:49:29
"If opponents of same-sex unions truly wish to save marriage -- and liberty -- they must wake up soon to the fact that homosexual marriage will not destroy the institution of heterosexual marriage. It is already rising from the ashes."
-Stephen Baskerville, Professor of Political Science at Howard University.
|
| Manuel |
Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 23:05:42
His Grace and Light be upon all whom enter His House. Ours is a struggle against powers and principalities, wherein the Truth shall set us free. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 21:22:24
My dear sister, Marie:
Peace be unto the house.
Welcome to the awakening.
Twice you have said this:
#1 “WE are the sovereigns in this country - NOT the government. How can something created have power over that which created it? Think on that for a moment.”
#2 “How can the created (the government) have power over that, which created it?”
First WE created it, then it created US, or rather our PERSONS. It is this PERSON, which they lawfully have power over and we have unwittingly stood surety for this “stranger”. Why is it a “stranger”…we didn’t even know it was created, let alone “who” it was; NOW, THAT IS A STRANGER.
Within Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “person”:
…Scope and delineation of term is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since this Amendment expressly applies to “person.”[Emphasis added]
And here you even referred to yourself as a “person”: “It takes persons like myself to put our feet down and show them where they erred.”
Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p. 2136.
Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English – copyright 1988, page 257:
civil law 1 the body of codified law developed from Roman law and still in force in many European and American nations: distinguished from the COMMON LAW.
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:
"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently [IN APPEARANCE ONLY] natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons... The law of persons is the law of status or condition."
Yahu'aqob [James] 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced [convicted] of the law as transgressors.
Your situation is too entangled at this point for us to offer any advice on how to regain stewardship over your children. Sorry.
We shall put you and your children in our prayers, as no doubt, the rest of the brothers and sisters of this Ecclesia are doing at this very moment.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 14:41:55
Greetings to all,
Was not Thomas Jefferson the man who said that the germ of destruction was in the judiciary,
stating that once it spread its TENTACLES throughout all branches, "for impeachment is but a scarecrow," it would inevitably CHOKE the nation.
Montesquie also wrote of this horrible encroachment on "The spirit of the law."
"LORD" Acton also mentioned that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
James Madison wrote, regarding tyrrany, "Any same-hands group or faction having effective control of all government is the very definition of tyrrany."
The reason I say this is to make you all aware, which I am sure most of you know already, is to remind you that the wagon has been placed before the horses.
Again, I remind you:
"Good government "follow" the Laws of Father, bad government does not "follow" the Laws of Father, and UGLY government neither "follows" the Laws of Father nor "follow" their own."
And as the masses continue to VOTE these scoundrels into this cesspool of LOCUSTS, they will continue to reap what they sow.
Some reminders to follow:
The Law
Frederic Bastiat
(1801-1850)
Source: Excerpted by Larry Fischer
"… But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to
its proper functions… The law has gone further.. ; it has
acted in direct opposition of its own purpose… It has been
applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to
maintain… The law has placed the collective force at the
disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to
exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has
converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder.
And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order
to punish defense… The law has been perverted by the
influence of two entirely different causes: … greed and
false philanthropy.
"… It is evident.. that the proper purpose of law is to use
the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency
to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law
should protect property and punish plunder… But, generally,
the law is made by one man or one class of men… This fact,
combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of
man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains
the almost universal perversion of the law. [This is how ] law…
becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. [It become
understandable] why the law is used by the legislator to
destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people,
their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by
oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done
for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in
proportion to the power that he holds…
"… You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it
is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists
desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists,
like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their
weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism,
how can it be used against socialism?…
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEES
RANKED BY ATTRACTIVENESS & PRESTIGE (1989)
with Percentage of Lawyers Shown
(Note: Total House Membership in 1989 was only 42% lawyers)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Rank Lawyer Members(%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules 1 53
Ways & Means 2 44
Appropriations 3 49
Budget 4 47
Energy & Commerce 5 61
Armed Services 6 45
Gov't Operations 7 41
Foreign Affairs 8 48
Agriculture 9 34
Merchant Marine & Fisheries 10 41
Public Works & Transport 11 29
Sceince & Technology 12 55
Interior & Insular Affairs 13 33
Judiciary 14 97
House Administration 15 32
Banking and Urban Affairs 16 35
Veterans Affairs 17 36
Dist of Columbia 18 20
Post Office & Civil Service 19 39
Education and Labor 20 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
. Glenn R. Parker & Suzanne L. Parker
..also see Lawrence Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer
Percentage of Lawyer Members of National Legislatures for Selected Countries during Various Time Periods
.
Country Percent Year(s)
Columbia 66% late 1960's
United States 45% 1993
India 33% 1980
Canada 25% 1988
Venezuela 25% 1986
Australia 20% 1985
Netherlands 20% 1980-1985
Italy 17% 1976
United Kingdom 16% 1945-1974
Brazil 14% 1980-1985
Norway 10% 1980-1985
France 5% 1981
West Germany 5% 1969-1983
Denmark 4% 1945-1974
.
Source: Mark C. Miller - page 60 - HIGH PRIESTS OF AMERICAN POLITICS
"dis-sim-u-late \ vt : to hide under a false appearance :
DISSEMBLE ~ vi : to engage in dissembling -
dis-sim-u-la- tion ....
"dis-sem-ble \ vt 1 : to hide under a false appearance 2 :
to put on the appearance of : SIMULATE ~ vi : to put on a
false appearance : conceal facts, intentions, or feelings
under some pretense syn see DISGUISE -- dis- sem-bler ..."
- Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1972 Ed.
"It is lawyers who run our civilization for us - our governments,
our businesses, our private lives... We cannot buy a home or
rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced,
we cannot leave our property to our children without calling on
the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a
maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have
created... The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class
racket.
- Fred Rodell, Professor of Law, Yale University, Woe Unto You, Lawyers.
"... it is never too late to challenge the usurpation of power...
Usurpation - the exercise of power-not-granted is not legitimized
by repetition."
- Raoul Berger, Professor of Law, Harvard University.
... "I should apologize perhaps, for the style of this bill. I dislike the verbose and intricate style of English statutes, and in our revised code I endeavored to restore it to the simple one of ancient statutes, in such original bills as I drew in the work. I suppose the reformation has not been acceptable, as it has been little followed. You, however, can easily correct this bill to the taste of my brother lawyers, by making every other word 'said' or 'aforesaid' and saying everything over two or three times, so nobody but we of the craft can untwist the diction, and find out what it means; and that, too, not so plainly but that we may conscientiously divide one half on each side.. "...
. Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
..."In their recent book, *Judicial Dictatorship*, law professors William Quirk and Randall Bridwell point out that as of 1993 courts controlled '80% of all state prison systems and about 33% of the 500 largest jails.'"
...The Supreme Court, they write, 'routinely overrules the actions of the local police, boards of education, and the state laws under which they act. The beneficiares of the court's protection are criminals, homosexuals, flag burners, Indians, illegal entrants, including terrorists, convicts, the mentally ill, and pornographers'. It's an even bet who are the greater threats to society, the criminals whom the judges emancipate or the judges who turn them lose."
..."The perpetual discovery of new 'rights' and the hopes of defense lawyers of inducing judges to invent such rights for their clients contribute to the clogging of the courts, which contributes to plea bargining and dropping charges, which contributes to letting known criminals return to the streets."
. Samuel Francis (1945 - present)
..."The Problem with any attempt to amend the Constitution is that the Federal government will probably find a way around it even if it's ratified. Drafting amendments is easy. Drafting uncircumventable amendments is another matter. The Framers were no match for modern lawyers.
What we need is an amendment forbiding the circumvention of the Constitution. It could read 'The Constitution shall not be circumvented.' I just got a big laugh from any lawyers who may be reading this.
Still I think I've come up with amendment that would actually restrain the federal government. It would read: 'Any state may, by an act of its legislature, secede from the United States.' Laugh that off, you lawyers."
. Joseph Sobran (1946 - present)
|
| Nurse_Mighty_Mom |
Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 14:22:31
Lewish and Daniel Jacob, Thank you both for your input. I know it was sent with the best of intents. I understand the comment that the driver's license itself does not contain the rules and regulations, but you also need to remember that we are required to take classes and KNOW what is contained in the rules and regulations book, we have to pass a written as well as a road test BEFORE they will give us this license. This is not so with the marriage license. Could you see what would happen if they made us take classes concerning marriage and told us that if we don't do exactly as they say, raise our children exactly as they say, that they are giving themselves power through the marriage license to take our children away from us basically for any reason at all? The marriage license is a trap no matter which angle you look at it.
My "divorce" has not yet been finalized. My intent in all this is as follows. I have rescinded my signature on said application for marriage license, based on fraud, non-disclosure on behalf of the state. I have sent said intent to the proper authorities (I think - that is why I am asking for help here). These authorities have so much time with which to respond to my letter of intent. If they do not, they agree with what I have submitted - silence equates agreement. Once they agree that I can rescind my signature, the application is no longer valid, thus the 3-way contract is no longer valid. Thus, the divorce case pending cannot exist. All that the court can do, then, is undo everything that it has done over the past 22 months. My thinking in all this is that I will have to take it to Federal court and sue the State of Illinois for a fraudulent contract.
I have posted my questions and request for help, hoping someone out there has been through this. There is a case somewhere on the east coast I believe (in my shuffle of paperwork, I've lost the exact case) where it was a man who went through this exact process. His failure was that he discovered all this AFTER the divorce was granted. This process has been done before.
Daniel Jacob, I understand all too well what you are referring to concerning the children. We give the State authority over our children in so many ways. First, through the marriage license, then through obtaining a birth certificate, and of course the good-old SSN. Do you know that each State's Department of child services gets money each time it takes a child away from a parent? I know a girl whose 5 children were taken away from her. She moved out of the state and had another child. She returned to the original state to visit friends and the case worker who took her first 5 children walked into the house of the friend where she was visiting - WITHOUT EVEN KNOCKING - and had the girl not been in the bathroom with her new baby, the case worker would have taken that baby too! The caseworker yelled at her through the closed bathroom door something to the effect that she doesn't deserve to have that baby and she (the caseworker) was going to see to it that this baby gets taken away from her, too!
I grew up just like 95% of all americans. I went to public school and was brain-washed into believing the power of the all-mighty government. You are right. The State has my children and they loved (past tense) watching me jump through their hoops. They derived great pleasure at watching me break down in tears because of what they did to me. If they had allowed me to keep the children, their daddy would have been long gone back to Mexico. Then where would the money be coming from concerning this particular case? All they are doing is feeding into the ego of a full-blooded vindictive mexican (get this - who is here illegally on top of everything else !!!) whose only goal in life is to make me "pay for everything she (me) has ever done". This is exactly what he told the judge when the judge told him to drop the abduction charges against me because he didn't see that they applied. The judge knew he (the judge) made a huge mistake, but like I stated in my last posting, no one likes to admit they are wrong. The judge wanted Eduardo (my ex-2-B) to make all this go away so he (the judge) didn't have to fess up that he screwed up. By the way, I've attempted to bring up Eduardo's abuses against us; all the guardian ad lidem has to say is that that was in the past. I am the bad guy now, because I have a relationship with my heavenly Father !! But that is the way it goes on this earth, with satan running rampant.
The light at the end of the tunnel for me is the fact that I have become (or am in the process thereof) as Neo in the Matrix - I have been enlightened to the truth. Fortunately, too, I am now living with a group of people who are "enlightened" also in this, and many other things. This fact, unfortuneately will hinder my ever getting my children back because the courts know of who we are and the fact that we have "escaped" their web. I guess if I have to make a choice - which I have in a sense - I would rather be free than raise my children. But then again, they will be 18 one of these days, yes? I will consider myself an even more successful parent when my children seek me out once they have become adults. They already see through the games daddy is playing and they still remember all the abuse he perpetrated upon them.
Again, thank you all for your input. I will still be proceeding with this, so I will keep you posted on the results. Any further help and/or guidance will still be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Nurse Mighty Mom |
| Lewish |
Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 13:02:17
quote:
quote:
Lewish, That may be so, but you are still missing the MAIN point. A contract is NULL AND VOID if full disclosure is not made.
While it is true that a contract is NULL and VOID if full disclosure has not been made, you are missing the fact that it has been made. It is in your state's statutes and codes. Your argument doesn't hold water. If it did, then you could argue that they can't give you a speeding ticket for having a driver's license because the license doesn't disclose that you aren't allowed to speed.
You have surely heard the old saying "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse". Well, it applies here.
I would also add the saying from Jefferson (I think) "To know the Law is Impossible".
Peace,
Lewis |
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 11:32:53
Mom,
Let me say that I didn't loose the fruit of my seed when I was divorced some fourteen years ago, so I don't have any idea what you and some others on these threads are going through concerning those feelings; I can only imagine what that would have been like.
Most people are trying to play a game that they don't know the rules for. What I mean is you don't play football using baseball rules and the same applies to your case. It is your status, in relation to the State, that determines which laws, and how there operation, is going to be effected upon you. In your case, it is not only your status, but the status of the children. You can dissolve the so-called marriage but that only changes a particular part of your status and the status of your children and shifts the rules to an other status. We can discuss how status is changed at an other time because it wouldn't make any difference in your case and would only exacerbate the problems that you are facing. Personally, I don't see how you are going to get your children back without playing by the rules of the system that they are currently caught up in. Concentrate your efforts on learning everything you can about parental custody, family court, family law, etc.. Go spend some time in the civil court. Watch and learn about your adversary.
It's immaterial at this point whether you entered in a contract in the past. With the divorce, those conditions changed. You say that the father is abusive, get the evidence to present to the court to back up your testimony. It's all about the evidence. Use the system; get social services involved on your behalf if you have too. Once you have your children back, then, and only then, should you worry about how to change your status and theirs with regard to the State. Use what you already know to start to lay the groundwork for future actions; don't enter into any additional "contracts" without doing it "at arms length".
|
| Nurse_Mighty_Mom |
Posted - 23 Mar 2004 : 22:26:22
Kirkguardian, I am not going to sit here and play tit for tat with you. Firstly, though, I will apologize for my comment. It was unnecessary. But you know what is funny? As soon as you slapped my hand for doing it, you turned around and did it yourself. But guess what? Neither one of us has full knowledge of all things, thusly, neither one of us can claim to have the correct perspective of what is going on concerning this topic. Yes, it is frustrating for me, as my ignorance of what a marriage license actually is has cost me my children. And to clear up another matter, I do not use all caps to yell, but to stress my point. OK?
Ok. When one applies for a fishing license - as I did at the local Walmart - they gave me a rules and regulations book pertaining to my newly acquired fishing license. Do they hand out any such book when applying for a marriage license? As I stated once already, if the State made full disclosure as to it's involvement in a couples marriage, NOONE in their right mind would apply for one. What it boils down to is that the original intent of the marriage license was to regulate marriages between whites and blacks - because blacks who had been born in this country because of their status as a slave were not - according to the constitution - citizens. By the way, do you know that the 13th and 14th amendments were never ratified properly? Anyway . . . Over the years, the power-hungry government lead it's natural born citizens to believe that a marriage license was necessary. As the government got its hands in the churches, the churches then began to "require" that a license was necessary to perform the marriage ceremony. And actually, I would like to pose a question to you here. If the license forms a 3-way circus of which the State is the head, why does the CHURCH - which should be run by God - need a license? It doesn't. NOONE needs a license to participate in the holy union of matrimony. BUT the government would have us think otherwise. The government has no power, except that which we give it. When we allow such things as a marriage license to exist, we give the government power over something it has no power over. See, the government will try to do something - like impose the marriage license. Then, if noone objects to it, it becomes such common practice that pretty soon, everyone believes that it is a necessity. The government relies on our ignorance.
In the early days of my court proceedings, I would sit in the courtroom and listen to the other divorce proceedings. I don't remember the exacts of what had happened, but the judge had done something which it was brought to his attention - through case law AND statutes - that he had done something in err. Do you know what is response was? He does it everyday, which meant he was in the right !! See, whatever it was that he had done, because noone had contested it - he just kept on doing it, until he had it in his head that he was right in what he was doing. It's like the child who steals candy from the candy jar and doesn't get caught. They will keep doing more and more wrongs because noone challenges them. It almost becomes a game to some of them, doing that which they know is wrong, just to see if they can get away with it.
I made a suggestion to read "Letters to Jessica". This gives a good description of what is going on in this country, although it is not all-inclusive. I never claimed to know it all, as I stated before. I do know that I - as well as others - have touched upon something here, but MOST do not want to touch it because it's not "what we do everyday"! I made a comment earlier which I hope can be taken seriously now. How can the created (the government) have power over that which created it? I am assuming you have knowledge of the trilogy "The Matrix". You can liken our government to the machines. The government "got smart" and has figured out ways to control us. The marriage license is just one means. SSN is another. The driver's license is another. I understand your comment that the "rules and regulations" are there for the finding in any law library. So I guess in order not to be taken to the cleaners by the government, I need spend the rest of my life with my head in a law book. I am not trying to ridicule your comment here, but it does seem ridiculous that one needs to look further than the actual "contract" itself to obtain the information that belongs right there, in black and white, on said contract.
We could sit here and argue our VIEWS forever. What it boils down to is that the government has deceived us and we let it. The questions are, first, how do we get the government to admit they deceived us (YA RIGHT !!) and secondly, how to get our God-given rights back. The second is the easiest. Noone can control you unless you let them. Educate yourself and others. The government sure ain't gonna !! Prevention is the best medicine. In the case of the marriage license, the hardest part will be to convince others that they do NOT need that license to live the law of holy matrimony. Heck, I don't know of one church that will marry a couple without it! A couple will have to be very strong in their convictions to overcome the ridicule perpetrated upon them by society for living in a state of holy matrimony without that fraudulent license. Of course, in a Godly marriage, there is still that 3rd party - God !! And he does not condone divorce. I guess a couple would also have to know in their hearts that they want to spend eternity with this person before entering into THIS contract! (Yes, a marriage blessed by our heavenly Father is for ETERNITY - not just until death do us part - but that is another topic altogether!)
Nobody likes to admit that they did something wrong - especially the all-powerful (HA-HA-HA) government. It takes persons like myself to put our feet down and show them where they erred. But most people just let the government keep doing what they do. Why? Noone has the time. They are too busy with their lives to much care - until it happens to them. I am example number 1 !!!!!
In closing . . . My "opinions" DO have basis in law - God's law. I will consider your "answers" as factual when you have been where I am, are doing what I am trying to do, and have brought the fight for your God-given rights to be restored back to the government. The "answer" - the TRUTH of the matter at hand does make me happy. I do hope you will accept this message with the intent with which it was written. Blessings to you, Nurse Mighty Mom |
| Manuel |
Posted - 23 Mar 2004 : 20:43:38
Devils work is devils pay |
| kirkguardian |
Posted - 23 Mar 2004 : 17:54:52
quote:
Originally posted by Nurse_Mighty_Mom
Kirkguardian, I appreciate your time in responding to my request, but just where do you get your information? Let's us examine a definition taken from Black's Law Dictionary..... The fact that the State becomes a 3rd party to the contract needs to be STATED ON THE APPLICATION FOR MARRIAGE LICENSE !!
My information comes from case law, of which there are many hundreds of civil cases (primarily divorce and dissolution of marriage) that clearly demonstrate what I have already stated here. These are not deep, hidden legal secrets. They are well understood principles that have existed for at least as long as the marriage license itself.
Your reliance upon a mere law dictionary, particularly something as inadequate as a current version of Black's (I can see that you're not quoting from the 1st or 2nd edition) tells me that you need to spend some time in a law library ferreting out the facts for yourself. However, as I have already pointed out, determining for yourself that the state is a party to every marriage license doesn't even require a paralegal's accumen -- even your state bar association brochures on civil marriage will tell you that.
Your insistence that it the state's legal obligation to spell out for you all the legal terms and conditions of your marriage license on the license itself is a legal absurdity. That's simply not how the law works, and that's certainly not how any state-issued license of any kind operates. Does the state have a legal obligation to give you a copy of all the statutes that relate to any other license you ask for (e.g. hunting license, fishing license, building contractor's license, electrician's license, etc.)? There is no such legal obligation to the state. Rather, it is your own responsibility to know the laws which govern the license you asked for, which you and everyone else (and even prison inmates) are already guaranteed access to. The lawbooks are as close as your county courthouse, as well as even many public libraries (or if you want to save on gas, why not use the internet?). Arguing otherwise in any court would not bode well for you.
I can well appreciate your frustration, madame. However, I do not appreciate that frustration being taken out on me, or anyone else here, who speaks the truth (responding in all-caps sentences on the internet is called "yelling"). I find your comments (barbs and insults) about my alleged "ignorance" somewhat humorous, especially in light of your admission that you are "new to this." It would seem that you are of the opinion that the qualifications of a knowledgeable man is one who fully agrees with your opinions (even if your opinions have no basis in law). If you ask a question, you should expect to receive a factual answer, not the answer that necessarily makes you happy. |
| kirkguardian |
Posted - 23 Mar 2004 : 17:16:57
quote:
Originally posted by Robert-James
Well Kirk...one can die a civil death, meaning the MR. ALL CAP man never appears again. A marriage license is ALL CAP fiction, is it not?
No, it is not. At least in my case, the marriage license my wife and I took out 20 years ago (back before I knew what I was getting into with the State), our names are not all caps. Of all the marriage licenses I have reviewed, I have yet to see one where the names are all cap names.
Depending on the office that issues the license (varies state by state) some of them just hand you a marriage license and you fill the entire thing out yourself, sign it yourself, have your witnesses and officiating minister sign it, and then turn it back into the marriage license office. The clerk signs it, records it, and then gives it back to you. That's the way it was in our case, and after talking to many other folks, that appears to be a fairly consistent process.
As far as I can determine, arguing over all caps is irrelevant in this case. |
| Nurse_Mighty_Mom |
Posted - 23 Mar 2004 : 13:30:42
Lewish, That may be so, but you are still missing the MAIN point. A contract is NULL AND VOID if full disclosure is not made. Nowhere on the application for marriage license does it state that the State becomes a third party. The judge's comment is just further proof that people working in the legal system think they are all-powerful. They forget who "employed" them. When Jesus comes to fulfill the millenium, these people will "have their day in court!" People now-a-days are in such a state of ignorance - as was I until the courts have done to me what they have.
I have one better than the comment the judge made concerning kidnapping: If a mother takes her children out of state to protect them from their abusive father who had been stalking the family WHILE THERE WAS AN ORDER OF PROTECTION IN PLACE AGAINST THIS MAN - upon returning to the state to attend a court date concerning said court case pertaining to the abuse perpetrated by this man upon the family - get this - the mother gets arrested for child abduction and the children are given back to the father !!!!!
On another note, you have made some very interesting statements concerning not "owning". Have you even done any research on the law of consecration? I have been living such law for the past 2 years. If you are interested, feel free to contact me as I would proudly share what I know concerning said subject. Blessings, Nurse Mighty Mom |
|
|
