State 3rd
Party in Marriage!
From: "Richard James, McDonald"
Subject: Good one, must read...]A Love Triangle, ha, ha...]]
TO ALL: One of our members in NJ is at this very moment having his
case being transferred to the Law Division from the Family Division.
Why? Because he has filed petitions to divorce the government from his
life. The courts are in an uproar over this and he is getting press
coverage. The courts and press originally called him a "gadfly" and
"loose cannon" but they are beginning to take him seriously. He has
sued judges in one county in federal court. Because of this, he created
a conflict of interest and they can no longer hear his cases. They had
to bring judges in from another county. He is bringing suit against
those judges as well. In NJ and NY we have found cases that say:
- "the state is a party at interest to the marriage contract
or status together with the husband and wife", Duerner v.
Duerner, 142 NJEq. 759 (under C.J.S. Marriage licenses); Anonymous v.
Anonymous, 62 NYS2d 130.
Also,
- "For many years the law has been that the state is a third
party, in fact if not in name, in every divorce action". Welch
v. Welch, 35 N.J.Super. 255.
-
- "Where there is a conflict between the interests of the
state and the interests of either of the spouses, the interests of the
state will be regarded as paramount". Feikert v. Feikert, 98
N.J.Eq. 444.
If the state has become a party, they can be sued as well. They do
not have sovereign immunity. I would like to know how the state became
a party to a marriage contract without ever telling anyone, without
offering any consideration or any specific performance (all elements
necessary to have a contract). If they are a party, let them provide
performance and consideration. I want the state to make me a
millionaire, pay for a trip around the world for me and my new wife,
buy me a Rolls-Royce for every day of the week. If they want to be a
party to the marriage then they have to perform. Next time you want to
find out who are the parties on a marriage license, look at the top of
the license. It says State of ______ Dept. of Health or some such
government agency. That is what they claim gives them 3rd party status.
Well, if they are a third party I want damages for their interference
with my marriage and parent-child relationship. I believe $19 Billion
(the NJ Budget) is in order. Bruce Eden, Divorce Reform Coalition of NJ
Have a great day
Richard James, McDonald
ICQ 259224
Fire Talk 30630
More on
Marriages
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC: Marriage w/o gov't permission
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris <ckerr@netcom.com>
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, dsipper@up.net wrote:
> I'm looking for information about getting married without
obtaining a license from any kind of "gov't" entity.
Charles A. Weisman put out a book called Laws and Principles of
Marriage. A name search on the web should turn it up. Otherwise contact
me by direct e-mail and I can dig it up.
> I think two people should be able to marry and simply sign
along with witnesses a "certificate"; only to serve as "legal" evidence
of the two person's intent to bind themselves in marriage.
It is only in the last decade (since the Uniform Marriage and
Marriage License Act around 1923), that people moved from getting
Marriage Certificates to licenses. But anyone can do either,
- "Marriage is a natural right. It was not created by law. It
existed before all law. Marriage is a right of personality."
Ramon v. Ramon, 34 N.Y.S. 2d 100, 105.
And according to Weisman:
In fact, I don't see why anyone would want to apply for a so-called
'license', "having their rights limited under the terms of its issuer
(the State). The State exercises its restrictions and limitations over
the most prevalent and important product of the marriage it sanctions -
that being the children. The terms of the marriage license that
pertains to the children, derived through the marriage, are so
all-encompassing that the State actually takes legal possession of
them, while allowing the parents to retain physical possession. Thus
the State actually becomes the legal guardian of the children making
the child a ward of the State.
- "Since marriage is a type of contract it was often found
appropriate to formalize the terms and conditions of the marriage by
setting them to writing and then signed by those involved. The marriage
certificate acts as an evidence or an official record that a marriage
did in fact take place. While its use was not made a requirement in all
the various states, when it is used, "the general rule is that a
properly authenticated marriage certificate or record is admissible to
prove the marriage" - American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., Vol 52,
154. Also see Gains v. Relf, 12 U.S. 472 (1851).
Generally the custom in the so-called USA is the publication of
marriage plans prior to marriage (announces the marriage to the
community and gives time for objections... running it in the paper for
2 weeks should be good), parental consent (in person to town or county
clerk or in writing), a formal ceremony and the marriage certificate
signed by the officiant, husband, wife and witnesses (a minimum of
two). It used to be registered too, the records to be kept by town or
county clerk or registrar (if no registrar, then by officiant).
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC: Marriage w/o gov't permission
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 18:18:57 -0400
From: Charles Talley <ctalley@macisp.net>
THERE IS A VERY HELPFUL LADY THAT HAS A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE
PACKAGE: "HOW TO ENTER INTO A MARRIAGE THAT IS HONORED BY LAW AND GOD,
WITHOUT A LICENSE MAKING THE STATE A THIRD PARTY AND THE "KEEPER OF
YOUR MORALS". INCLUDES MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE . 50.00 FRN's She is Lynne
Meredith at We The People.
Check or money order- c/o 17011 Beach Blvd. #900 Huntington Beach
Calif. 92647 714 375-6630 fax 714 375 6699 She has the best information
on sovereignty, income tax fed and state and many other frauds. She is
a lawyer and has never filed a 1040 form in her life and has never been
hassled. if you understood sovereignty then you would understand the
answer to some other things you mentioned. Anyway that I can help you
to be free, I love it Charles D. Talley
dsipper@up.net wrote:
> I'm looking for information about getting married without
obtaining a license from any kind of "gov't" entity.
I believe most gov'ts recognize marriage as a "civil" contract. The
US Constitution specifies no state can infringe upon a person's right
to contract. Common sense (I know--somewhat an oxymoron in today's
society) therefore dictates that two people can marry without first
obtaining a license.
> I think two people should be able to marry and simply sign
along with witnesses a "certificate"; only to serve as "legal" evidence
of the two person's intent to bind themselves in marriage.
I realize most people "authorized" to "officiate" weddings will
probably not participate in this idea. No license, no marriage will be
the majority attitude.
> I'm not interested in flying to some remote part of the world
to avoid a license. I just want to exercise some basic "Constitutional
protected" rights.
Furthermore, traditionally a woman changes her last name to that of
her husband's (please, no social commentaries--I'm just looking for
practical applications). If one marries without a license, will the
wife, if she chooses to change her name, experience problems because
the gov't has no record (license) of the marriage?
If two people marry without a license, what recommendations do you
have to maintain autonomy in a gov't system that will most likely
attempt to "void" or not recognize the marriage since no license was
ever applied for?
Etc., etc.
Any comments and direction to further reading is appreciated.
TIA
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC: Marriage w/o gov't permission
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 23:44:52 -0400
From: phntmfngrs <phntmfngrs@bigfoot.com>
...throw my 2 cents worth in...
I'm a pastor who 2 years ago ceased signing gov. marriage
certificates.... several reasons, primary among them was that I grew
tired of people marrying in the "eyes of God", then throwing the
marriage and their children upon the mercy of the court when things
became tough....
Through the years I have been doing a little research... Black's
Law Dictionary gives the following definition of a "marriage
licence."...
- "a license or permission granted by public authority to
persons who intend to intermarry, usually addressed to the minister or
magistrate who is to perform the ceremony, or, in general terms, to any
one authorized to solemnize marriages. By statute in most
jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful
solemnization of the marriage."
-
I was intriqued by the word "intermarry"....Black's defines it as
"See miscegenation"..so I did....Miscegenation -
- "mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage
between persons of different races."
What are the ramifications of this? Were "marriage licences"
established for governmental control of marriage of differing races?
What races are involved?
It looks obvious that that which was established for one purpose is
now considered to be a "standard practice" in our culture. Stay the
course. Refuse the licence.
Blessings!
dsipper@up.net wrote:
> I'll search for the book. Some good cites, too. Thanks.
Congrats are premature. There is a fine lady with whom I hope--ah,
I'm just thinking ahead. I just can't stand the thought of any gov't
granting "permission" for something that has existed long before gov'ts
even dreamed of giving permission. To me, a marriage is a covenant
between two people. The gov't? Who are they?
Subject: [fwo] PRAC/ESEX/CURE: Marriage
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:36:23 PDT
From: "nonconformist, fool" <desertrat@hotmail.com>
Marriage without government permission?
What is this "permission?"
If something belongs to me and you ask to use it, I give you my
permission. If you want to do something TO me or WITH me, I give you my
permission. But I can't give you permission to take something that
doesn't belong to me, you must get permission from someone else,
whoever owns it, and I can't give you permission to do something to or
with another person, you must get that permission from that other
person.
If two people who want to live together, be "married," they must
give each other their permission first, and it seems to me that these
are the only people who need or can give their permission.
"Government" is not really something that can own people or things.
"Government" can't give or deny permission unless you believe that
"government" is something more than what it really is, that is,
control, force and fraud. To imagine that "government" can deny you the
permission to live with another person, or to imagine that it is
necessary to get some license from the "government" before "marriage,"
is to imagine that "government" is some sort of sentient being or
entity that can own you, that you are not the owner of yourself, or
that the person you wish to "marry" is not the owner of himself or
herself. It is to believe that you are, or that the person you intend
to "marry" is, not free.
You are enlightened to a degree if you believe that your choice of
who you wish to live with, have sex with, "marry," is none of the
"government's" business. You are more enlightened if you believe that
the only persons whose business it is are those persons who choose
voluntarily to live together, have sex with each other or "marry."
Whatever conditions are placed on the association, whatever "contracts"
are signed, are no one's business but those persons involved.
If two people choose to live together, they must give each other
permission. This permission is a "contract" whether it takes the form
of a written document, a verbal agreement or even a non-verbal
"understanding."
> My "contract" is between me, my future wife, and God.
First, if it is between you and your future spouse, you must give
permission to each other, this is how things are done without the
"government's" permission. Beyond that, if you believe there is a "god"
that must also give "his" permission, then go get it in whatever way
you believe that "god" gives it.
It is unfortunate that so many humans have these kinds of delusions
and even more unfortunate that they act on them by attempting to
disrupt "marriages" of men with men, of women with women and of
multiple men and women in triads and other multiple "marriages,"
believing that such voluntary arrangements can be forcibly disrupted
because some "god" has not given "his" permission.
> I'm not interested in living with a woman without marriage.
That is not an option for me.
In other words, you believe that not only do you need to give your
future spouse your permission to live with you, and she needs to give
you her permission to live with her, but you need to get permission
from someone else, not "government," maybe not "society," but perhaps
from some "god," and you are interested in finding out how to get that
permission so that you can show others that you are "officially
married" and not just living with each other without anyone's
permission other than you and your future mate.
It sounds a bit strange to me.
The big difference between "getting married" and just living
together is this thing known as the "marriage contract."
But whenever two people choose to begin a close association, they
form some sort of a "contract" or "understanding" if only that each
will continue to associate with the other so long as it is pleasing for
them to do so.
It's unfortunate that when two people begin a close intimate
relationship, they don't bother explaining to each other what
expectations each has of their future mate.
In the case of a simple friendship, when one individual doesn't
live up to the other individual's expectations, they resolve the
problem if it's easy enough to resolve or they discontinue the
association. The intensity of emotions in intimate relations and the
complexities of starting a family naturally make living together as
mates much more difficult.
Unfortunately, the less verbal the "understanding" is, the greater
your disappointment will be when you discover that what you understood
was not the same as what your partner understood. Each person forming
part of the relationship, whether they call themselves spouses or just
friends, has certain expectations of the other person that the other
person may not be aware of. You would be wise to forget about your
expectations and enjoy the other person's company for what it is at the
moment, and for as long as that moment lasts.
> I'm not interested in flying to some remote part of the world
to avoid a license. I just want to exercise some basic "Constitutional
protected" rights.
Is the constitution supposed to guarantee a person's right to "get
married" without the "government's" permission? I don't get it.
On the other hand, I'm opposed to the idea of "marriage"
philosophically, so it's not surprising that I don't get it.
For anyone interested in the philosophical argument against
marriage, I've included some articles on my web page taken from
Benjamin Tucker's "Liberty."
The Abolition of Marriage < http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6181/abolmar.htm
>
The Woman Question < http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6181/womanq.htm
>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 19:32:29 -0500
From: Craig Alan <cmears@southeast.net>
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC: Love & the IRS
Oscar J Meyer wrote:
I am brand new to your group; I like all I see so far, & I'm
not sure if practical politics and love-life problems are appropriate
for this forum, but here goes:
A "40-something" lady who has recently gotten herself out of the
IRS snare, is planning to re-marry a successful entrepreneur who has
his own 1-man excavation business (for twenty years). He plans on using
her as a deduction on his Income Tax Forms. He is a middle-of-the-road
Christian-establishment businessman who knows not, and apparently cares
not for our legal and historical truths. She is a Christian physical
therapist who has awoken to reality, and does not want to get re-snared.
Except for this political difference, they are much in love, with a
March wedding date. What will work in this situation---any compromises?
What would be your advice for this couple, if you were "Dear Ayn Rand
Landers...?"
ThanX
Oscar
Dear Oscar:
Will the marriage be State sanctioned as evidenced by the
application for a marriage license?
Will the wife give her husband her social security number so that
he may use it on his tax form?
If yes, then she is screwed. Welcome back into the world!!!
I suggest
1. She pay him $1200 or so a year to compensate him for not getting
his tax deduction.
2. They enjoy the Covenant of Marriage, a sacrament of the Church,
and leave the State out of their blissful existance. If anybody is
screwing her then let it be her husband and not a menage-a-trois.
Craig
From: jph@cvtv.net
Subject: Re: [fwo] PRAC - Marriage License
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:07:39 -0700
If one looks up the definition of "marriage license" in a law
dictionary, it seems that the privilege is granted, by the state, for
"inter-racial" marriages. This obviously dates the origination of the
licensing to a more prejudiced time.
Otherwise a "marriage contract" would be the most traditional form,
even if it is only a record of the event in a family bible (which is
not necessarily the same as the "holy" bible).
Which brings up another bit of information not commonly known.
"Bible" is not a specifically religious term, as the roots of the
word [biblia] translates originally from Byblos, a Phonecian city which
exported papyrus. A bible is merely a book, however it has been
generalized to mean the religious variety in most cases. Webster does
offer another definition - "A publication that is considered
authoritative for it's subject" that would apply to the use in the term
"Family Bible" in a non-religious sense.
A "Family Bible" is then the record of births, deaths and marriages
within a particular family. Prior to Big Brother keeping all the
information on everyone, the individual families would keep their own
records in the "Family Bible," a biblography of the geneology of the
family.
Granted, many "Holy" bibles also have pages for this information.
Making them a multipurpose bible which chronicles both the family and
the religious aspects.
Sharing another relatively useless piece of trivia,
Tanstaafl
From - Mon Sep 27 20:40:34 1999
From: steve.tassio@cobe.com
Subject: RE: [fwo] PRAC - Marriage License
Hello Gordon,
It sounds like you have hit the the nail on the head regarding
marriage. The reason the STATE OF issues you a license is so that the
Prince (governor) can adjudicate your marriage for you (as well as make
money for fees etc) At common law a marriage was non dissolvable even
given that Jesus said divorce was permitted for adultery. Marriage was
handled by ecclesiastical courts which had jurisdiction over everyone
because in England there was a state religion. Here with freedom of
religion ecclesiastical courts are impractical if not impossible. By
making your marriage a commerce contract the Prince can nullify it for
you (for a fee of course). Also by granting you the 'privilege' to be
married the Prince can stick his nose under your tent side. The only
thing I would comment on is that you might want to have a 'Certficate
of Marriage' rather than a 'Marriage Certificate'. It is obviously a
word thing but words are important in law. Perhaps someone on the list
is better at these constructions than I am. But nevertheless, all the
best and congratulations!
I am America - Don't Tread on Me!
Steve Tassio
Brothers in Christ and Sons of Liberty
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" Benjamin Franklin, July
1776
Steve.Tassio@cobe.com
The Truth is here... http://members.iex.net/~stassio
From: eb@financier.com [mailto:eb@financier.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 12:14
To: fwo@topica.com
Subject: [fwo] PRAC - Marriage License
Dear Scott,
Keep up the great work - I always read your posts among the first
(of the thousand or so to arrive daily ;-). I am writing with regard to
the inquiry below which you received pertaining to the "marriage
license". The best question that budding (and engaged) patriots can ask
themselves on this topic is this:
"Is our desire to marry each other a common law covenant of
inalienable Right ordained and blessed by God, or a state regulated
privilege granted by Caesar upon application for permission?"
