Legal Marriage issues

Hello there,

Let us say that someone has a legal marriage in Colorado and bought the license and signed the papers many years ago. Now let us guess that the man or woman wishes to get out from under the license and it's pitfall's, but is a bit stuck as he/she cannot just leave as the "State" has record of the original pledge.

I wonder if a declaration by the parties declaring their status, discounting the original pledge as constructive fraud then recorded at the CTY Clerk; provided public notice, may suffice in place of the "standard" legal forms offered by the judiciary.

Let us also assume that this man & woman are "in the system" with the accompanying control features offered by the State.

I look forward to many nifty replies.

Eros

It would seem to me that one or the other would include the State in a novation (911 call, divorce, custody etc.) for there to be any problem.

This might not be the answer your looking for. http://www.marysadvocates.org/civil/civil.html


Federal and State legislatures are restricted from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. According to authoritative church teaching, those who choose Roman Catholic Marriage, may not hand over their marital contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State. According to the government's Bill of Rights, legislatures are forbidden from prohibiting people to freely exercise of their religion; for many, the terms of the marriage contract are specified by their chosen religion. If the state requires that everyone register marriages with the County Recorder, the state legislators can't force Catholic citizens to accept an entirely anti-Catholic set of terms for marriage contracts - binding parties to routine, no-fault divorce. The Catholic Marriage contract explicitly omits no-fault divorce and specifies grounds for separation while the marriage bond remains, and designates a third party arbitrator. The marriage bond remains for life. (See Divorce, Terms of Marriage in left menu) Mary's Advocates invites everyone who chooses True Serious Religious Marriage to bind themselves in writing, with a prenuptial agreement, to follow the rules of their church regarding separation, divorce, upbringing of children and support.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The legal union of two people. Once a couple is married, their rights and responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are defined by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be terminated by a court granting a divorce or annulment.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

A legally recognized marriage that can arise in some jurisdictions without a license or ceremony. Many states recognize a common-law marriage when two people capable of getting married live together as spouses and hold themselves out as such for a specified amount of time. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common-law_marriage

Colorado is one of a few states remaining which still allows parties to enter into a common law marriage, or a marriage without formal ceremonies.

"A common law marriage is established by the mutual consent or agreement of the parties to be husband and wife, followed by a mutual and open assumption of a marital relationship." People v. Lucero, 747 P.2d 660 (Colo. 1987).

This is the classic definition of a common law marriage, but as relationships end, there are often disputes as to whether the couple had a common law marriage. There is no hard and fast rule as to what constitutes a Colorado common law marriage, nor even one law which directly covers it. C.R.S. 14-2-104(3), part of the law which establishes the requirements for a Colorado marriage, simply states: "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to repeal or render invalid any otherwise valid common law marriage between one man and one woman."
http://www.colorado-family-law.com/e...iage/index.htm

Thank you Chex;


My simplistic approach is that there is a public notice of your marriage to the State at the county clerk and recorder office. That is actually where you were married, and you chose to have (I presume) a religious ceremony afterward where the ignorant pastor may have even required to see that you were married to the State prior to the ceremony.

I recall when I was married I was so ignorant that I showed the marriage certificate to the pastor after the ceremony. He was annoyed that I insisted and tried to explain how I was defiling the Christian ritual by showing it. I treated him like he was some kind of fringe outlaw! I am ashamed of myself now.

The State proceeds on the presumption you are married UNDER it. Grab the Reception # of the certificate and both of you sign an affidavit that you are married Under God and do not resort to the State for privileges regarding love, sex and issuance of children etc. If you have the marriage certificate signed by two witnesses found in many bibles publish that too.


P.S. Notice how neither spouse signs a marriage certificate. The authority is in the two witnesses. Publish that at the county C&R and your whole county bears witness to your marriage to God, and your recantation under knowledge (Fornication Under Carnal Knowledge = FUCK) of your ignorant marriage to the State. Quit fucking with the State and it will quit responding in kind.

David,

Another great start to my nearly unending education from here to Sui Juris club. I suppose that the simple matter of even just providing public notice and not recording may be sufficient, as I think in Colorado if you break the marriage LAW they try to sanction you as a member of the BAR.

Going down another road might be making a claim based on the FSIA that I am one of the people and such and such and then finish with the whole marriage enchilada. Maybe that is clouding the issue here as I brought in a whole new stream of thought along the lines of Albert Barecroft and the FSIA.

Like I said if you are stuck in the system and one way to get out is possibly a novation of sorts, eliminating the State as a party, or trying to. If you take the legal marriage and attempt novation and divorce by agreement at the private level what can the State do?

EROS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Thank you Chex;


My simplistic approach is that there is a public notice of your marriage to the State at the county clerk and recorder office. That is actually where you were married, and you chose to have (I presume) a religious ceremony afterward where the ignorant pastor may have even required to see that you were married to the State prior to the ceremony.

I recall when I was married I was so ignorant that I showed the marriage certificate to the pastor after the ceremony. He was annoyed that I insisted and tried to explain how I was defiling the Christian ritual by showing it. I treated him like he was some kind of fringe outlaw! I am ashamed of myself now.

The State proceeds on the presumption you are married UNDER it. Grab the Reception # of the certificate and both of you sign an affidavit that you are married Under God and do not resort to the State for privileges regarding love, sex and issuance of children etc. If you have the marriage certificate signed by two witnesses found in many bibles publish that too.


P.S. Notice how neither spouse signs a marriage certificate. The authority is in the two witnesses. Publish that at the county C&R and your whole county bears witness to your marriage to God, and your recantation under knowledge (Fornication Under Carnal Knowledge = FUCK) of your ignorant marriage to the State. Quit fucking with the State and it will quit responding in kind.

---

Colorado would have it no other way. Even if you are just sleeping together then you are "married" in common law. But that is only if it is convenient to the State.

In other words look at my first post. Keep the State out of your marriage by not involving the State in your marriage (any more). If you had never gotten a marriage license it would likely be the same story.

I know of a fellow who rather than kill the criminal in his crawl space dialed 911 and told them to handle it. They wanted him to sign a complaint and he refused to. They told the potential killer he was free so long as he left the State and took anger management/alcohol classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Colorado would have it no other way. Even if you are just sleeping together then you are "married" in common law. But that is only if it is convenient to the State.

In other words look at my first post. Keep the State out of your marriage by not involving the State in your marriage (any more). If you had never gotten a marriage license it would likely be the same story.

---

It might be worth asking: "Am I a holder or an owner of a marriage license issued by the State of ___?" Another thing that might be worth considering is that the mainstream media seems set to train women and children to enforce against the MALE/FATHER party to any "MARRIAGE LICENSE" or "BIRTH CERTIFICATE". Getting the WIFE and KIDS to stop being tortfeasors for the State against you is another matter.... So even if you know what is going on....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I know of a fellow who rather than kill the criminal in his crawl space dialed 911 and told them to handle it. They wanted him to sign a complaint and he refused to. They told the potential killer he was free so long as he left the State and took anger management/alcohol classes.

---

It might be that calling 911 and formalizing the act on paper is pretty much an act of hiring the county sheriff, the State AG and the AG's subordinates and pretty much every organization/person subscribing to the Police Computer Network. Had he signed their complaint form I figure he would have been deemed to have become a plaintiff in the State's circuit court and thusly party to a case--likely presumption of residence in the State would come with it. NAME .. ADDRESS.. CITY, STATE ZIP CODE. Signing the complaint form would likely trigger a case against a 'defendant' in the State's circuit court.

Actually, the F-word comes from the German "ficken", meaning " to strike". I've read about this etymology of the word elsewhere (it might be in "The Book of Misinformation", but I'm not sure.

The discussion of common-law marriages reminds me of a divorce case with which I am familiar (no, it wasn't mine) from the early 80s. The wife goes in to see a lawyer, seeking a divorce; and in due course the lawyer asks when she and her husband were married. She replied something like "oh, we never had a formal wedding. We lived together for a while; and then my husband pointed out that we were married under common law." The woman was shocked to realize that she lived in a state which no longer recognizes common law; and even more shocked to realize that she did not have the rights which a state-recognized marriage gives to a couple. Eventually she got child support for her son; but alimony was out of the question, even though her fake-husband was making good money in construction work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbinville

Actually, the F-word comes from the German "ficken", meaning " to strike". I've read about this etymology of the word elsewhere (it might be in "The Book of Misinformation", but I'm not sure.
...

---

Ficken does not mean "to strike" in any German dialect I've ever come across, and certainly not in Hochdeutsch, which is the standardized German language of the corporate industrial school system there.
However, every German school child would know what that word really means.

Do cohabiting couples need more legal rights? Apparently, a recent ruling in Brazil is once more bringing the political theater of meaning of marriage to the front and conservatives in the South American nation are up in arms. BBC News reports that a notary in Sao Paulo has recognized a civil union between 3 individuals two women and one male. According to Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, the trio has lived together long enough to warrant family rights, and Brazilian regulation has nothing that forbids such an arrangement.