PREFACE - The "U.N. Convention (Treaty) on the Rights
of the Child" contains the following statement:
"For human rights activists every where this work is
invaluable to promote this new concept of separate rights
for children with the Government accepting responsibility
for protecting the child from the power of the
parents."
(In Executive Order # 13107 President Clinton imposed the
provisions of this treaty even though it has never been ratified
by the Senate).
In a message dated 10/29/1999 5:33:44 PM Central Daylight
Time,
avoice@molalla.net writes:
Parents Gather Against DSS In Candlelight Vigil on
Cape Cod
State condemned for child
abductions
Massachusetts News
By Edward G. Oliver
October 29--A solemn group of distraught parents assembled at
the Village Green in Hyannis on Sunday evening, October 17th.
The drizzly weather matched their mood as they set up for a
lonely candlelight vigil. They were there to draw notice to the
plight of their children scattered in foster homes and facilities,
some of whom are suffering, according to the parents.
They dedicated this third annual vigil to "the seventy-one
children who have died in the past 4 years while in the
'protective care' of DSS." Their organization is "Justice For
Families," a parents' support group comprised of people who are
battling to get their children back from DSS.
Against a wall on the sheltered stage, a row of signs voice
silent screams reading, "Save the children from the child-savers,
help us light their way home," "Governor Cellucci, 71 dead foster
children is not a 'few mistakes,' how do you sleep at night?" and
"Missing: DSS took Tarri." A flyer reads, "STATE LEGISLATORS need
to hear our stories & make drastic changes to STOP state
sanctioned child abductions."
DSS spokesman David Van Dam denies that seventy-one have died
in state custody but declined to give a number. "I don't have that
number, but it's lower," he tells Massachusetts News. Nev Moore,
founder of the group claims Van Dam himself gave her that number
in a moment of candor that surprised her.
Founded In 1997
Nev and Tom Moore from Barnstable founded the group in early
1997 only weeks after DSS suddenly seized their two children. DSS
had taken notice of the family after a one-time domestic incident
between the two outside the house thirteen months prior. Nev, who
feels she's seen enough to justify her cynicism, theorizes perhaps
DSS had some slots to fill for their vendors and went looking
through old case files for potential candidates. "They need twenty
to twenty five children a day to place with their vendors to
justify their half-billion dollar budget," says Moore, adding she
was lucky to get her children back. From that eye-opening
experience, she grew to be a knowledgeable and tenacious family
rights advocate.
As darkness settled, Nev Moore began to speak as an intimate
friend to the row of candlelit faces while standing behind a
literature table holding a microphone, "It weighs heavily on my
heart to see so many of the same faces, because I know that means
that we're now going into our third year where you've been
separated from your children and your children have been separated
from you. I know you are still carrying the wounds that have been
inflicted by this out-of-control bureaucracy.
"I know whose children have been abused and harmed in foster
care, and I know whose children have been raped. I know whose
children have been drugged into submission, and I know whose
children are covered in injuries and bruises from daily violent
restraints and straitjackets, and I know whose children have died.
All in the best interest of the child they say, and in the loving
care of the Department of Social Services.
"If a parent has a dirty house, it's front page news, but
seventy-one dead kids don't warrant mention in the Globe or the
Herald. It's too embarrassing for the administration."
Moore describes a confrontation she had with Governor Cellucci
on WRKO asking him why he won't demand an investigation into the
deaths of seventy-one children. "Governor Cellucci responded by
saying, 'I'm tired of hearing about DSS's few mistakes.' " she
recounts.
"He might have been caught off-guard, but when we tell him, he
has a bound duty to listen. Are we saying our children are better
off dead in state custody than having a chance at life with their
less-than-perfect parents?" If we buy into that standard, then a
lot of high level politicians and government officials will be
losing their children; people whose dysfunctional alcoholism and
social misconduct is public knowledge. But we know that nothing
happens because it's child abuse only if you can't afford a
lawyer."
Plain Folks
After meeting some of the parents, the magnitude of their loss
is clear from their emotions. These are plain folks, obviously
sincere, who readily admit their faults and imperfections but know
they are good parents who love their kids. They are eager to show
photographs of their cavorting children, faces beaming in the
bosom of their family. The stories are all similar, an argument, a
fight, a slap, absent-mindedness, a misunderstanding, normal daily
human interaction somehow gets reported to DSS and twisted into an
intolerably risky situation that demands removal of their
child.
Maybe the state doesn't take the child right away, but failure
to follow the prescribed service plan of numerous appointments
during working hours will result in the loss of the child. Parents
try to jump through the hoops in hopes of getting their kids back.
At first they're afraid to speak out for fear of reprisal.
Then DSS, they say, keeps changing the rules, moving the goal
posts until eventually parents realize the kids aren't coming back
without a fight. All the while the child is traumatized by an
abrupt removal to a strange succession of places far worse than
any situation at home with the parents, if it was ever bad at home
to begin with.
Among the group of twenty or so attending the vigil were Heidi
Polanza from Mashpee, who lost two daughters to DSS, and the
Petersons of Hyannis who lost all six children. Massachusetts News
will take a closer look at their experiences with DSS in future
installments. Eric Bleiken of Yarmouth attended, with his son
Matt. He ran last election as the Republican opponent to
Congressman Delahunt in 1998, getting a third of the vote. He
offered moral support to the group and advised them to work
against unresponsive representatives.
Children Are Abducted by State
Nev goes on speaking to the group. "Tommy and I started this
because we realized that thousands of children are literally
abducted by government agents from loving, adequate homes and
families where there has been no abuse or neglect. We discovered
that there is so much more behind this. A huge ugly picture, a
picture so frightening that I don't even want to tell people about
it. I don't want to be the messenger of their
disillusionment.
"The issue is about greed, it's about feeding children into a
gargantuan money machine. The money machine is about two-bit junk
psychologists forming multi-million dollar contracts with DSS.
It's about massive Medicaid fraud and it's about bringing federal
dollars into the state."
She then alludes to underlying causes beyond the greed,
something at a higher level that is being worked out, totalitarian
in nature and driven by ideologues, "Hillary Clinton stated openly
in a speech in New York this summer that her goal was to have a
social worker in every home, except of course her own."
Moore then took off the gloves. "The time for being nice has
now passed. We've tried being nice, we've dressed up and we've
gone to the statehouse, we've made appointments and we've had
meetings, we talked to the legislators and we talked to the media.
We've asked them very nicely to please stop the atrocities and the
brutal destruction of decent families. Being nice has not worked.
The time has come to fight for our lives and our children's lives,
to fight for our Constitution and our freedom."
Proposed Legislation Would Help "Justice for Families" has
four bills in the House which would do the following:
All questioning of children by DSS would be videotaped. A
comprehensive guide would be available to give people the benefit
of hard-won experience on how to deal with DSS, DSS would be
prevented from viewing children in a state of nudity, The fourth
is what Nev calls "Tarri's bill." It would provide a hotline that
must be available to all children in state care. Tarri is one of
the Peterson's daughters who ran away from foster care claiming
abuse, was recaptured by DSS and her whereabouts are now a
mystery.
Starting a Lawsuit
Justice for Families is starting a lawsuit with attorney Greg
Hession from Belchertown who exudes confidence in his case when he
says, "Believe me, they are dead." Hession says he is probably
going to do it as a coalition with the Constitutional Legal
Institute of New England and Family Legal Service and it will
require five to ten lawyers by the time they are done. He explains
DSS operates under "an enormous and almost hideous web of federal
mandates" which require state compliance in order to keep getting
federal money.
He's also working with an attorney in Utah who's filing a
similar suit. The Utah attorney informed Hession his state is
getting "a minimum of twenty-five thousand dollars per kid
snatched and as much as $250,000."
Hession says he filed a Freedom of Information Request from
DSS seeking data on federal funding and wants the cover sheets for
all revenue requests to the feds as well as an accounting of all
federal dollars: "where it came in, and where it went out." He
asked for a long list of information as well such as how many kids
die in DSS custody, how many are forced to have abortions in their
custody, etc. "I'm going to the mat on this one," he says. "Part
of what they do is, they take children so they can make money," he
says matter-of-factly. "Another part of what they do is, they
destroy families instead of doing what the law requires and that
is to try to reunite them. At the bottom line that is what they
do, they destroy families."
With help from Justice for Families, he has dozens of families
lined up along with their complete case files containing "tales
that would break your heart." Instead of a class-action suit, he
will probably file the cases individually. When asked, he provides
an example of one of the cases involved, "A guy is accused of
satanic, ritual, sexual abuse. No trial, no hearing, nothing. Just
one of these 209A ex parte deals, he has no idea of what's going
on. The old lady accuses him and dad hasn't seen his kids in four
years with no evidentiary hearing." He explains further, "The
typical way that DSS does this is they get involved in some way,
and then they coerce the mom to get a restraining order and throw
the man out or they take the kids. Another case I have is DSS told
one of my clients he could spank his children if they disobey; he
did so, they took the kids. This is nine months ago, hasn't seen
them since. It's not just men, it's men and women, for no
reasonable basis they keep children and families apart."
Hession explains that DSS wields the 51A child abuse reporting
statute and the 209A abuse/restraining order statute and "bounce
those two things off of each other and use them in a sort of a
symbiotic way to destroy families, I call it the 'Unholy
Triumvirate.'"
Nev Moore continues her speech by raising the standard of law
and order: "Let the police handle child abuse and neglect, because
if there is no evidence of child abuse and neglect. then no one
can lose their children." She makes the point that a child suffers
trauma every time it is abruptly taken from the mother, but the
use of trained investigative professionals like the police can
prevent that from happening to innocent families.
She calls for DSS to be dismantled saying, "We need to
disassemble the multimillion dollar contracts DSS has with its
service providers." She says they are a recipe for corruption.
Moore then quotes statistics from Health and Human Services
saying, "68% of all substantiated cases of abuse and neglect do
not involve child maltreatment; well what the hell do they
involve?" She then cites another statistic from HHS when she says;
"At least 1.5 million parents per year are falsely accused of
child maltreatment. We're not saying there is no such thing as
child abuse, but we're here representing the 1.5 million people!
And how many children do you think that represents? Two, three,
five million children? Massachusetts is leading the pack in these
statistics. Child protective services is a 12 billion-dollar per
year industry in this country, and Massachusetts gets at least
half a billion. You do the math. Who's getting the biggest piece
of that pie? Massachusetts."
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
Key word phrases
common law marriage
common law trust
common law contract
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?
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."
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
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?"
