{"id":126,"date":"2010-10-25T22:37:25","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T22:37:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/?p=126"},"modified":"2011-02-09T04:19:18","modified_gmt":"2011-02-09T04:19:18","slug":"marriage-license-permission-to-marry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/?p=126","title":{"rendered":"Marriage License, Permission to MARRY?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
What did people do before the corporate-state existed?
\n<\/span><\/span><\/strong>Read this before you start having children! \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0JUST SAY NO<\/span> to ‘Birth Certificates’, ‘S.S. #s’, and the ‘Marriage License’. \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0Name the child\u00c2\u00a0after leaving the hospital. Just politely say; “Dear Mr socialist, fabian, anti-liberty, thug, damnable STATE bureaucrat, no thanks<\/span><\/span><\/strong>.”Why a ‘state marriage license<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/a>‘ gives your children to the corporate state as ‘wards of the state’ until they are the age of 18. \u00c2\u00a0How you may [<\/span>avoid<\/span>] the state license and have, of ‘liberty’, a ‘governed free’, ‘private contract’<\/span> (non-statutory)<\/span> marriage’ which the courts have a duty to uphold. All with God’s blessing.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

>>>
\nDefinition, generally of ‘License’: \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0Permission to do that which is illegal without permission from an authority.
\nGod said; “Man and woman shall become one”, thus a God given ‘right’.
\nNow remember “rights’ can never be abridged, they can only be waived by contract.<\/span><\/div>\n

>>
\nGo apply for a (corporate) state marriage license.
\nGet married.
\nHave a child.
\nYou decide to take the child home with out the hospitals permission because ya didn’t allow them to vaccinate him, and\/or you did not want to get a social security number or birth certificate, for the little one just yet, or they (future) wanted to implant an identification chip in the child.
\nYou get home, put the child to bed, sit to enjoy the first night home with your new family and you hear a knock on the door and the Sheriff greats you with a stern look and says; “Buba please turn and put your hands behind your head, you are under arrest.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 ((Parentspotria<\/strong>))
\nAnd you say; “what fer.”
\nOfficer says; “It has been reported that you have taken the state property from the hospital without permission.”
\nAnd you say; “state property, all I picked up today was my wife and new born son.”
\nOfficer says; “where is what you claim as ‘your<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span> ‘ son.”<\/span><\/p>\n

The above is a general example of true stories in every state of the union. \u00c2\u00a0If you do not believe it just do the above and call me on the results. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

Yes, with a marriage license you just told the government that you are seeking their aid, government can then presume you are incompetent to handle the property produced from the union (marriage). \u00c2\u00a0Ya just contracted your rights away and you did not have a clue to what you where doing. <\/span><\/p>\n

You just granted the authority of the state over all produce of the new couple that has now become one.
\nWelcome to being subject to all statutes to address every conceivable issue your marriage could ever possible encounter.<\/p>\n

Yes the child is now ‘state property’ of (____________) and ‘you’ are charged with caring for him as ‘they’ see fit.<\/p>\n

Now if the franchise (state) see you spank Johnny, the force of the state will be upon you to the magnitude of a 1000 man Nazi regime, ya can run but ya can not hide.<\/p>\n

Oh I forgot to say, If you would of just got married (contractually committed to each other) before your family, friends and God, as is your ‘right, liberty’, (man and Gods Law) the ‘corporate’ state would have virtually no jurisdiction unless you violate Johnny’s ‘God given rights’. \u00c2\u00a0God says; “spank him when needed, least ye raise a
\nbrat.” PHRS<\/p>\n

California Proposed Bill – \u00e2\u20ac\u0153According to AB 2943, a Parent who spanks their child would be placed on probation for a minimum of four years, and would be forced to attend a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcnonviolent parental education class\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and the child would receive a criminal court protective order \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcprotecting the victim from further acts of violence or threats\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcresidence exclusion or stay-away conditions’.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

State ownership of children, which is no more than the collective will of the people – as “a force for good” and “shadow minister for families”. \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0We are government and we are here to help you, as the gun is pointed at you for your safety.<\/p>\n

The state may someday force you to educate in specific vocational set standards.
\nThe state may start forcing vaccinations that may do great future damage.
\nThe state decides all issues in separation, alimony, child support. \u00c2\u00a0(I would much
\nrather trust a (preselected) [your church] arbitration forum or a jury to decide such
\ninstead of a pro state judge.)
\nThe state can force perverse teaching on your children. \u00c2\u00a0(Same sex marriages,
\nhomosexuality, etc. \u00c2\u00a0(Just study history, the\/a state can get pretty sick.)
\nThe Bible says; “raise up a child in the ways of the Lord and he shall not depart from it.”
\nThe state says; “raise up the child in the ways of the state and he shall not depart from it.”
\n>>
\nRocked by a nationwide storm of criticism, the Los Angeles County court that declared homeschooling illegal in California has agreed to rehear the case in June 2008. At issue is Justice H. Walter Croskey’s Feb. 28 decree, which ordered the parents of “Rachel L.” to send her away to a public or private school, where she can get a “legal education.”
\n>><\/p>\n

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License<\/span> by <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
Pastor Matt Trewhella<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, “everybody else gets one.” This pamphlet attempts to answer the question – why should we not get one?<\/span><\/div>\n

1. The definition of a “license” demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.” \u00c2\u00a0We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says “no”? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to
\nprohibit. A license by definition “confers a right” to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right. <\/span><\/p>\n

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own (that is produced after the corporate marr <\/span><\/em>age was created). There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, “your marriage license and their birth certificates<\/span><\/span>.” Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws (state statute). Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children. <\/span><\/p>\n

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! \u00c2\u00a0I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.<\/p>\n

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” \u00c2\u00a0((In time past the ceremony would ask if anyone is present to object to the union of the couple, this portion is now days rare. \u00c2\u00a0Essentially the community had the 15 days as stated below to insure that close relatives were not marrying, or one that is not already married was involved, plus I assume other valid reasons.))<\/p>\n

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.<\/p>\n

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.<\/p>\n

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, “You don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t need your parents permission, you need our permission.” If parents are opposed to their child\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s permission, and marry anyway.
\nThis is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.<\/p>\n

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying (contracting with) the State.<\/p>\n

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled “With This Ring I Thee Wed.” It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle “Marriage Vows” states,
\n“Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract<\/span>. There are three parties to thatcontract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.”<\/span><\/p>\n

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. \u00c2\u00a0You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State. <\/span><\/p>\n

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?<\/p>\n

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons – 1). in the case of divorce, and 2).
\nwhen crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.<\/p>\n

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor.
\nThey should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.<\/p>\n

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime. \u00c2\u00a0((Essentially the state can get involved in divorce (with out no state liscense) because they have jurisdiction to insure that the parties adhere to their standing marriage \u00c2\u00a0[common law contract] promise, just like any other contract the court steps in an enforces the terms of the agreement. \u00c2\u00a0So I Hansen recommend a well prayed out agreement that can be refereed to frequently by both parties of their promise before man and God, and if worst comes to worst the parties can call upon the court to use its authority to enforce the terms therein.)) <\/span>((Basically a court has two ways of gaining jurisdiction: a. Called upon to enforce a contract. b. Violation of a parties rights [enforcement of general law].)) <\/span><\/p>\n

((Statutory law is contractual.))<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

History of Marriage Licenses in America<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

George Washington was married without a marriage license. \u00c2\u00a0So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?<\/span><\/div>\n

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. <\/span><\/p>\n

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Law Dictionary
\nas, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”<\/p>\n

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”)
\nNot long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every corporate state had adopted marriage license laws.<\/p>\n

What Should We Do?<\/p>\n

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, “If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t really married.” Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask
\nourselves, “If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license – who\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a
\nmarriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. \u00c2\u00a0(As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God’s law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.)<\/p>\n

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.<\/p>\n

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage “record”. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.<\/p>\n

(Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.)<\/p>\n

This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope. \u00c2\u00a0Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave.<\/p>\n

PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 www.mercyseat.net)\\<\/p>\n

>>
\nI Paul John can give you a list of pastors in Omaha, Nebraska who marry only people that follow the biblical example as listed above.
\n>><\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Marriage Licenses: \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0((God gives us children should we then give them to the STATE.))<\/p>\n

The Real Truth<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

by Virgil Cooper
\nultrac21@whitemtns.com <\/span><\/p>\n

Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau. . . .<\/p>\n

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26 \u00c2\u00a0years, filed for
\ndivorce. We had seven (7) children: five (5) daughters and two
\n(2) sons. \u00c2\u00a0Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five
\nyears old. \u00c2\u00a0At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition
\nfor Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.<\/p>\n

I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior
\nCourt, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage
\nlicense bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25. \u00c2\u00a0I asked
\nher to explain to me the general and statutory implications of
\nthe marriage license. \u00c2\u00a0She was very cooperative, and called in
\nan Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an
\nOperations Manual for internal departmental use.<\/p>\n

She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant.
\nHe walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as
\nit operates in Arizona. \u00c2\u00a0He mentioned that marriage licensing is
\npretty much the same in the other states –but there are differences.
\nOne significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of
\neight western states that are Community Property states. \u00c2\u00a0The other
\nstates are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of
\nLouisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.<\/p>\n

He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage
\nlicense. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular
\nContract between the parties and the State. \u00c2\u00a0The State is the
\nprincipal party in that Secular Contract. \u00c2\u00a0The husband and wife are
\nsecondary or inferior parties. \u00c2\u00a0The Secular Contract is a three-way
\ncontract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife
\nas the other two legs of the Contract.<\/p>\n

He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between
\nthe husband and wife and God. \u00c2\u00a0But in the Secular Contract with
\nthe state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially
\nconsidered included in the Secular Contract at all.<\/p>\n

He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in
\ntheir marriage, that is a “dotted line” they will have to add in
\ntheir own minds. \u00c2\u00a0The state’s marriage license is “strictly secular,”
\nhe said. \u00c2\u00a0He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to
\nGod being a “dotted line” meant that the State regards any mention
\nof God as irrelevant, even meaningless.<\/p>\n

In his description of the marriage license contract, the related
\none other “dotted line.” \u00c2\u00a0He said in the traditional religious
\ncontext, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and
\nGod with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the case in
\nthe secular realm of the state’s marriage license contract. The
\nState is the Principal or dominant party. \u00c2\u00a0The husband and wife
\nare merely contractually “joined” as business partners, not in any
\nreligious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected
\nto each other by another “dotted line.”<\/p>\n

The picture he was trying to “paint” was that of a triangle with
\nthe State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex,
\nthe State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid
\nline extending down the right side to the wife, a “dotted line”
\nmerely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into
\na religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.<\/p>\n

Marriage License
\nSecular Contract Diagram<\/p>\n

STATE
\n(primary party)<\/p>\n

HUSBAND \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0WIFE \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0.
\n(secondary party) (secondary party) .<\/p>\n

GOD
\nHe further mentioned that this “religious overtone” is recognized by
\nthe State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either
\nby a state official or by a minister of religion that has been
\n“deputized” by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make
\na return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.<\/p>\n

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship
\nso far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a
\n“privileged business enterprise” various tax advantages and other
\npolitical privileges have become attached to the marriage license
\ncontract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious
\ncovenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.<\/p>\n

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on
\nmarriage, one of the best is “Principles of Community Property,”
\nby William Defuniak. \u00c2\u00a0At the outset, he explains that Community
\nProperty law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes,
\n600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.<\/p>\n

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit
\nventure or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually
\nproduce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the
\nlocal market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the
\nmarriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.
\nTo restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a
\nbusiness venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. \u00c2\u00a0Moreover,
\nas children come into the marriage household, the business venture
\nis considered to have “borne fruit.”<\/p>\n

Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior
\nCourt, Marriage Bureau’s administrative Assistant. \u00c2\u00a0He went on to
\nexplain that every contract must have consideration. \u00c2\u00a0The State
\noffers consideration in the form of the actual license itself –
\nthe piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. \u00c2\u00a0The other part
\nof consideration by the State is “the privilege to be regulated by
\nstatute.” He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute
\nincludes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled
\non by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future
\nin the years following the commencement of the marriage. \u00c2\u00a0He said
\nin a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible,
\never-changing contract as time goes along – even though the husband
\nand wife didn’t realize that.<\/p>\n

My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract
\nas one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full
\ndisclosure of the terms and conditions. \u00c2\u00a0A contract must be
\nentered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with
\nfully informed consent. \u00c2\u00a0Otherwise, technically there is no contract.<\/p>\n

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State
\nis as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate,
\nunequal parties. Again, a flawed “contract.” \u00c2\u00a0Such a contract with
\nthe State is said to be a “specific performance” contract as to
\nthe privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.<\/p>\n

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee
\npaid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes,
\nrules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to
\nmarriage law, family law, children, and property. \u00c2\u00a0He emphasized
\nthat this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places
\nthem in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject
\nto the State. \u00c2\u00a0He commented that very few people realize this.<\/p>\n

He also said that it is very important to understand that children
\nborn to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing
\nfruit” -meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even
\nthough the law never comes out and says so in so many words.<\/p>\n

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the
\ncontract bearing fruit,” he said it is vitally important for
\nparents to understand two doctrines that became established in
\nthe United States during the 1930s. \u00c2\u00a0The first is the Doctrine of
\nParens Patriae. \u00c2\u00a0The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.<\/p>\n

Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to
\nstate it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent.
\nAlong this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that
\nparents have no property right in their children, and have custody of
\ntheir children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State.
\nThis means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody
\nof their children as long as they don’t offend the State, but if they
\nin some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any
\ntime and exercise its superior status and take custody and control
\nof its children – the parents are only conditional caretakers.
\n[Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]<\/p>\n

He also added a few more technical details. \u00c2\u00a0The marriage license
\nis an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. \u00c2\u00a0Technically,
\nthe marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and
\nwife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third
\nparties and contract mortgages and debts. \u00c2\u00a0They can get car loans,
\nhome mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage
\nbecause it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by
\nthe State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit
\nbusiness enterprise. \u00c2\u00a0The marriage contract acquires property through
\nout its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.<\/p>\n

Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children.
\nIf sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results
\nthe contract continues in existence. The “divorce” is merely a
\ncontractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions
\nof the contract. \u00c2\u00a0Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage,
\nover the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues
\nover all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over
\nchildren brought into the marriage.<\/p>\n

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls
\n“divorce” a dissolution of the marriage because the contract
\ncontinues in operation but in amended or modified form. \u00c2\u00a0He also
\npointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the
\nstrongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has
\non people.<\/p>\n

At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked
\nif other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking?
\nThe Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked
\nthere, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions.
\nHe added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the
\nlegal implications of the marriage license and the contractual
\nrelationship it creates with the State.<\/p>\n

His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated,
\n“You have to understand that people who come in here to get a
\nmarriage license are in heat. \u00c2\u00a0The last thing they want to know is
\ntechnical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license.”<\/p>\n

I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in
\ngetting more familiar with the contractual implications of the
\nmarriage license. \u00c2\u00a0The marriage license as we know it didn’t
\ncome into existence until after the Civil War and didn’t become
\nstandard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming
\nfirmly established by 1920. \u00c2\u00a0In effect, the states or governments
\nappropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in
\nthe process declared Common Law applicable to marriages “abrogated.”<\/p>\n

Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.
\n>><\/p>\n

Remember that the ‘Birth Certificate<\/span>‘ is a document of delivering the produce (baby) to the government warehouse.
\nYou deliver the goods and get a certificate as proof of delivery. \u00c2\u00a0This is what the judges have told people I have talked with.
\nWhen you take corn to the grain elevator you get a ‘Certified Grain Receipt’ as proof of entrusting the grain to the elevator.
\nWhen you take the birth (baby) to the warehouse (government) as proof of entrusting the goods in their system you get a ‘Birth Certificate’ as documented proof.
\nYes the court claim jurisdiction over minors by receiving the evidence of the Birth Certificates, and\/or the Marriage License.
\n<\/span>To avoid the above and the creation of a SS number (Social Security Identifier Number) just say that due to religious beliefs,you do not name the child until after the character starts to develop. \u00c2\u00a0No name = no number, no certificates, no forms, no registration. This is what my friend did with little problem, but try the same thing with a marriage license and you would most likely be arrested, for not caring for their (STATE) property.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

>><\/span><\/div>\n
———<\/span>The controversy of state-sanctioned “gay marriages” \u00c2\u00a0by Don Harkins \u00c2\u00a0Gay couples feel like social progress is being made because some cities and states are allowing them to obtain marriage licenses. The controversy has gotten a lot of press lately, largely due to the commonly held belief that the institution of marriage will be destroyed by state sanctioning of gay marriages. It’s too late. State licensing has already destroyed the institution of marriage. \u00c2\u00a0Marriage, in the state licensed sense, is a purely secular, for-profit arrangement binding parties to contractual obligations that protect the principle (the state)’s interests, which are the assets (properties, children) generated under the auspices of the license. \u00c2\u00a0Marriage, in the spiritual sense, is a covenant between a man, a woman and their God as the principle; His main purpose is to provide the union wherein a spiritual base for the proper rearing of children will prepare them for well-adjusted adulthood. \u00c2\u00a0Look at the percentages of licensed marriages that fail and the dollar value attached to the children and properties over which the state claims contractual rights of disposal. In the broader sense, the state destroys everything it licenses to justify the necessity of issuing licenses. \u00c2\u00a0Think about this: The state is no longer beneficent: It is evil. To invite the state into your marriage by contract of license means that you have just opted to supercede a covenant with God and have entered into a three-party contract between you, your betrothed and Satan (STATE).<\/div>\n

((The STATE as is Satan is a fearful master.)) <\/span><\/p>\n

The chances for happy lives and healthy children are probably greater if a contract with Satan is not consummated. \u00c2\u00a0For the purpose of raising children, a man and a woman should view their marriage as entering into a covenant with God and understand that no state licenses are required in God’s kingdom. \u00c2\u00a0For the purpose
\nof contract, anyone naive enough to volunteer their relationship into the jurisdiction of the state, in the hopes of realizing some benefit by obtaining a state license, should be allowed to do so at their own peril. \u00c2\u00a0A covenant with God and a license with the state are completely different issues. Break a covenant with God and your soul is sacrificed; break a contract with the state and it takes your worldly possessions and turns your life into a living hell. \u00c2\u00a0Those who seek state licensure for marriage, gay or otherwise, have themselves opted to participate in the demise of the institution of marriage. The state’s interests are best served when licensed marriages dissolve and it’s able to swoop down one people’s wrecked lives and take possession of whatever value remains and assign liability for future collections. \u00c2\u00a0Men and women in love should be married before witnesses in the eyes of God and should never sign a separate contract with the secular state. If those of us who can be married in the eyes of God stopped begging for the state to license our marriage, and we strengthened the sanctity of marriage through our commitments to our spouse and to God, then the state’s licensing of gay marriages can be given the exact amount of attention it deserves: None.
\nLet those who cannot be married in the eyes of God (Pagans \/ Those who love evil).
\nLet us get on with reestablishing our relationships with God, not the state, as our anchor.
\n—The Idaho ObserverP.O. Box 457Spirit Lake,
\nIdaho 83869Phone: 208-255-2307Email: observer@coldreams.com<\/p>\n

((I Paul John had a dream that people were lined up by the thousands as they sang ‘God Bless America’.
\nAs they sang without looking to ether side of them one in three where being shot in the head.
\nThis dream was symbolic of one in three people conceived in america are aborted.))<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

>>>><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n

DIVORCE THE GOVERNMENT: DID YOU BUY A LICENSE TO MARRY IN THE UNITED STATES?
\nFiled Under GAY MARRIAGE, LAW OF THE LAND, LEARNING THE LAW, OBAMA, Oath of Office, PRESIDENTS,
\nProperTea Tax Tea Party, Territorial Jurisdiction | Leave a Comment
\nWhen a couple get a license to marry, they are contributing to the process of being ruled by the military
\ndictatorship begun by George Washington. \u00c2\u00a0It was Washington who made it possible by his election on February
\n4, 1789 to the Office of President and his switch in office to President of the United States. \u00c2\u00a0Big government was
\ninitiated by George Washington and will end when couples come together as a Tea Party for two. <\/span><\/p>\n

On April 30, 1789 took an oath of employment allegiance to the Congress of the United States, as 43 other
\nsneaky men have done after him. \u00c2\u00a0As the people are finding out with Barack Hussein Obama, Presidents of the
\nUnited States are faithless to the people.<\/p>\n

Whether or not George Washington was faithful to Martha is not the issue. \u00c2\u00a0Washington was just one of the first of many faithless men who have let the American people down by pretending to be something that they are not.<\/p>\n

Law is all about relationships. \u00c2\u00a0An otherwise auspicious one like marriage is easily ruined when an evil third party like government is made part of the relationship. \u00c2\u00a0When the marriage relationship ends and divorce appears, the last thing an unhappy couple needs is the long arm of military law in the form of a Black Robe
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u0153family law judge.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Common law marriage licenses aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t for sale because they don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t exist. \u00c2\u00a0The popular myth peddled by the government and its licensed media is that the English common law has been replaced by State Codes and the United States Code. \u00c2\u00a0Young people today are marrying and rearing children under both the common law and
\nwritten law. \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0All they need is a nudge in the direction of the truth and they will quit the written law.<\/p>\n

Divorce for couples who are married under the English common law, whether or not recognized by the State, cannot be an issue for the Black Robes. \u00c2\u00a0No paper marriage license means no marriage in the United States.
\nUnder the guise of caring for minor children, the Black Robes claim jurisdiction over children not within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.<\/p>\n

The State is just the business the oligarchy operates to manage its assets and yours, if you allow it. \u00c2\u00a0Learn to take your business elsewhere by contacting me at edrivera@edrivera.com<\/p>\n

Dr. Eduardo M. Rivera<\/p>\n

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><\/p>\n

A friend of mine named Ed Shell, who graduated from law school and refused to get a Bar Card helped in the following: \u00c2\u00a0 You may have heard of the group of home schooled children in Texas, I believe they had a Mormon community.\u00c2\u00a0 One day the government shows up, prompted by a weak complaint of child abuse.\u00c2\u00a0 Several hundred children were taken away from their family by the State over this one complaint.\u00c2\u00a0 Several weeks, possibly months went by and no resolve.\u00c2\u00a0 One of the people in Texas was told about Ed’s ability to see true jurisdiction so he gave Ed a call.\u00c2\u00a0 Ed told him to get a list of all the kids, by each name, write if the child was born of parents with a State Marriage License, and also if there was a Birth Certificate for that same child.\u00c2\u00a0 They did as instructed, delivering the same to the District Judge, the Judge looked at the document and immediately issued an order to release all children that had no connection to a State Marriage license or no Birth Certificate which I believe was most all of them, only a few were held back because there was some light evidence of abuse and was justified in my eyes for the State to do so.<\/p>\n

>><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n
<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What did people do before the corporate-state existed? Read this before you start having children! \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0JUST SAY NO to ‘Birth Certificates’, ‘S.S. #s’, and the ‘Marriage License’. \u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0Name the child\u00c2\u00a0after leaving the hospital. Just politely say; “Dear Mr socialist, fabian, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[34],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=126"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":127,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126\/revisions\/127"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pauljjhansen.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}