Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Little g is JEALOUS of BIG G

Expand Messages
  • Patrick M
    A parent who actually does spend time with their child & HOME-SCHOOLS them, may be FORCED to put them into PUBLIC SCHOOLS for REASONS totally UNRELATED to
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      A parent who actually does spend time with their child & HOME-SCHOOLS them, may be FORCED to put them into PUBLIC SCHOOLS for REASONS totally UNRELATED to their kid’s ACADEMIC performance.

       

      The New Hampshire Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a 10-year-old home-schooled New Hampshire girl ordered into a government-run school.  On Sept. 17, a lower court judge refused to reconsider or stay the order.  An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney represents the mother of the girl.

      “Courts can settle disputes, but they cannot legitimately order a child into a government-run school on the basis that her religious views need to be mixed with other views.  That’s precisely what the lower court admitted it is doing in this case, and that’s where our concern lies,” said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton .

      “The court illegitimately altered a method of education that the court itself stated is working.  It admitted the girl is ‘well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level,’ but then it ordered her out of the home schooling she loves so that her religious views will be challenged at a government school.  That’s where the court went too far,” Simmons explained.

       

      http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5139

       

      IMAGINE THAT.

       

      Patrick in California

       

      "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

       

    • Fred Marshall
      I don t claim to be an authority on this, and encourage you to confirm what I m saying, but I m pretty certain my understanding of this that I m about to share
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't claim to be an authority on this, and encourage you to confirm
        what I'm saying, but I'm pretty certain my understanding of this that
        I'm about to share is correct. (If it isn't, then I'm open to be
        straightened out with verifiable facts.)

        When the state arrogantly asserts some sort of authority over a child,
        basically usurping the parents' authority, it abuses something called
        /parens patriae/, Latin for "parent of the country". When couples obtain
        a marriage license (license being permission to do that which is
        otherwise illegal), they unknowingly enter into a contract with the
        state, essentially marrying the state, in a sense. Because the state
        becomes a party to the marriage (legal polygamy, sort of), it also has
        legal interest in whatever is produced by the marriage, i.e. children.

        Years ago there was a case of a couple in Minnesota, I think, who went
        on vacation and left their children to fend for themselves in an
        apartment. When that state's department of family & children services
        (whatever it's called there) tried to take the children from the home,
        they couldn't lawfully do it because the couple had no marriage license
        with the state, and the state had no jurisdiction.

        Contrast that with conscientious, loving parents who believe that
        spanking is a normal part of discipline being anonymously reported by a
        nosy liberal neighbor for child abuse. DFACS comes in, takes the
        children away, and if challenged as their authority to do that, if they
        really knew, they'd say "your marriage license gives us jurisdiction."
        Then the parents have to endure the legal hassle of fighting to get
        their children back from the state. (I knew a guy who works for DFACS,
        and I asked him how many reports of child abuse turn out to be bogus. He
        said most were. It's tragic either way - true child abuse, and parents
        being wrongly accused of it.)

        Again, this is my understanding of the situation. (There is more history
        to how marriage licenses originated.) Also, marriage is a covenant
        between a husband, wife, and Y'shua, and in the "old days" would be
        recorded in the family's Scripture & witnessed. I appreciate when
        pastors perform wedding ceremonies and omit the part that says "and now,
        by the power vested in me by the state of [state]", and just say "I now
        pronounce you husband & wife." The power to marry is vested by our
        Creator, not the state.

        Fred

        Patrick M wrote:
        >
        > A parent who actually does spend time with their child & HOME-SCHOOLS
        > them, may be FORCED to put them into PUBLIC SCHOOLS for REASONS
        > totally UNRELATED to their kid’s ACADEMIC performance.
        >
        > The New Hampshire Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a
        > 10-year-old home-schooled New Hampshire girl ordered into a
        > government-run school. On Sept. 17, a lower court judge refused to
        > reconsider or stay the order. An Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney
        > represents the mother of the girl.
        >
        > “Courts can settle disputes, but they cannot legitimately order a
        > child into a government-run school on the basis that her religious
        > views need to be mixed with other views. That’s precisely what the
        > lower court admitted it is doing in this case, and that’s where our
        > concern lies,” said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons of Hampton.
        >
        > “The court illegitimately altered a method of education that the court
        > itself stated is working. *It admitted the girl is ‘well liked, social
        > and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and
        > intellectually at or superior to grade level,’ but then it ordered her
        > out of the home schooling she loves so that her religious views will
        > be challenged at a government school.* That’s where the court went too
        > far,” Simmons explained.
        >
        > http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5139
        > <http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=5139>
        >
        > IMAGINE THAT.
        >
        > Patrick in California
        >
        > "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin'
        > on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
        >
        >

        --
        ABOLISH the FEDERAL RESERVE.
        It's not Federal, and there is no Reserve.
        Contact your Congressman to support HR 2755.
        Our republic is dying, and the Fed has been bleeding it dry since its inception in 1913. It's time for some serious CPR, and this is it. You can make a difference.
        God save America! The bailout needs to be from Him.
      • Patrick M
        MARRIAGE LICENSES are a perfect way to illustrate people s UNQUESTIONING obedience to SUPPOSED authority. LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          MARRIAGE LICENSES are a perfect way to illustrate people's UNQUESTIONING
          obedience to SUPPOSED authority.



          LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act,
          which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing
          which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353;
          15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85. (Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856)

          License fee or tar. The price paid to governmental or municipal authority
          for a license to engage in and pursue a particular calling or occupation.
          See home Ins. Co. v. Angusta, 50 Ga. 537; Levi v. Louisville, 97 Ky. 394, 30
          S. W. 073, 28 L B- A. 480. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, pg. 724





          LICENSE. A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts
          on land without possessing any estate or interest thereon, and is ordinarily
          revocable at the will of the licenser... The permission by competent
          authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a
          trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable. Leave to do thing which
          licenser could prevent. Permission to do a particular thing, to exercise a
          certain privilege or carry on a particular business or to pursue a certain
          occupation.

          A permit granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for a
          consideration, to a person, firm or corporation to pursue some occupation or
          to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power. A
          license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere
          personal permit.

          A permit to use the streets is a mere permit revocable at pleasure. The
          privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon by
          motor carriers for hire can be acquired only by permission or license from
          the state or its political subdivisions. (Emphasis added) BLACK’S LAW
          DICTIONARY, 4th EDITION



          Given the above DEFINITIONS, WHY would some need to be LICENSED unless the
          SPECIFIC ACTIVITY was one which was “subject to regulation under the police
          power” & DESIGNATED so in law?



          PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 5352. The use of the public highways for the
          transportation of passengers for compensation is a business affected with a
          public interest. It is the purpose of this chapter to preserve for the
          public full benefit and use of public highways consistent with the needs of
          commerce without unnecessary congestion or wear and tear upon the highways;
          to secure to the people adequate and dependable transportation by carriers
          operating upon the highways; to secure full and unrestricted flow of traffic
          by motor carriers over the highways which will adequately meet reasonable
          public demands by providing for the regulation of all transportation
          agencies with respect to accident indemnity so that adequate and dependable
          service by all necessary transportation agencies shall be maintained and the
          full use of the highways preserved to the public; and to promote carrier and
          public safety through its safety enforcement regulations.

          http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc
          <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=puc&group=05001-06000
          &file=5351-5363> &group=05001-06000&file=5351-5363



          So why would anyone today need a MARRIAGE LICENSE unless they planned on
          marrying a BLOOD RELATIVE such as a brother, sister or first cousin?



          Of course if someone wants the STATE to be a PARTY to the contract between a
          HUSBAND & WIFE and for the STATE to have a say in the FRUITS (children,
          assets, etc.) of the MARRIAGE, then getting a marriage license would be a
          good thing.



          “This state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as
          well as the guardian of their morals.” Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d
          871 (1947)

          http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp2d/81/871.html



          That is if you like having a PARTNER who CONTRIBUTES nothing and can tell
          you what to do.



          "When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a
          license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are
          required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as
          school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the
          future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition
          the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man,
          the woman, and the State.” West v. West, 689 N.E.2d 1215 (1998)



          And WHAT IF the STATE says NO? After all IF the STATE can GRANT permission
          to marry, CAN’T it also WITHHOLD it?



          Could this scenario happen one day in America?



          Social services 'to take baby from teenager deemed too stupid to marry'

          A mother-to-be, who was banned from marrying after social workers said she
          is not intelligent enough, is to have her baby taken away immediately after
          giving birth.



          Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, has been told that
          she will not be allowed to bring up her own child, who she has already named
          Ben.



          Last month Miss Robertson was prevented from marrying her fiancé Mark
          McDougall, 25, after council officials claimed that she “did not understand
          the implications of getting married”.



          She has now been warned that she will only be allowed a few hours with her
          baby, which is due in January, before it is taken into foster care.



          After hearing the news, Miss Robertson, of Dunfermline, Fife, who is 26
          weeks pregnant, said: “I couldn't believe it. I am so upset – I can't stop
          crying.”



          Mr McDougall, an artist, said he wants to take on full responsibility for
          his son but claims that he is powerless because he is not married to Miss
          Robertson.



          He added: “Social Services are ruining our lives. As we are not married –
          because social workers would not let us marry – it seems I have no rights as
          a dad at all.

          …

          Two days before the ceremony, two social workers visited their flat and told
          them that the marriage was illegal because of Miss Robertson’s learning
          difficulties.



          The service and reception for 20 guests had to be called off despite the
          couple having already bought rings and a wedding dress.



          At the time, Miss Robertson said: “I know what marriage is. It is when two
          folks want to spend the rest of their lives together. I love Mark and I want
          to get married to him.”



          Mr McDougall added: “Despite arguing that we loved one another and didn't
          want our baby to be born to unwed parents, they would not budge. It's a
          nightmare.”



          He claims that social services have exaggerated the extent of Miss
          Robertson’s learning difficulties and that she is hoping to go back to
          college to catch up academically.

          …

          In May it was disclosed that Rachel Pullen, 24, had her three-year-old
          daughter taken away from her by social services when she was six months old
          after Nottingham City Council officials deemed her too stupid to look after
          the child.



          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6365363/Social-
          services-to-take-baby-from-teenager-deemed-too-stupid-to-marry.html



          Patrick in California



          "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya
          is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus



          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Fred Marshall <fredm07@...> wrote:



          >When couples obtain

          > a marriage license (license being permission to do that which is

          > otherwise illegal), they unknowingly enter into a contract with the

          > state, essentially marrying the state, in a sense. Because the state

          > becomes a party to the marriage (legal polygamy, sort of), it also has

          > legal interest in whatever is produced by the marriage, i.e. children.

          >
        • Frog Farmer
          ... That s how I believe it to be as well. Evidence seems to prove it. But then I wonder, why didn t *I* have to get one?! What saved this lowly peasant
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 7, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Fred Marshall wrote:

            > I don't claim to be an authority on this, and encourage you to confirm
            > what I'm saying, but I'm pretty certain my understanding of this that
            > I'm about to share is correct. (If it isn't, then I'm open to be
            > straightened out with verifiable facts.)
            >
            ...
            > When couples obtain
            > a marriage license (license being permission to do that which is
            > otherwise illegal), they unknowingly enter into a contract with the
            > state, essentially marrying the state, in a sense. Because the state
            > becomes a party to the marriage (legal polygamy, sort of), it also has
            > legal interest in whatever is produced by the marriage, i.e. children.

            That's how I believe it to be as well. Evidence seems to prove it. But
            then I wonder, why didn't *I* have to get one?! What saved this lowly
            peasant from the trap? I was never specially informed. Why do I not
            seem to fit in?!

            > Patrick M wrote:
            > >
            > > A parent who actually does spend time with their child & HOME-
            > SCHOOLS
            > > them, may be FORCED to put them into PUBLIC SCHOOLS for REASONS
            > > totally UNRELATED to their kid's ACADEMIC performance.

            This is a result of people who apply for and sign contracts out of peer
            group pressure, false beliefs, for whatever reason they do it (I don't
            do it!) and then they want to back out later when the specific
            performances they agreed to but of which they claim they were now
            unaware make themselves felt and are experienced as being uncomfortable.

            Maybe this phenomenon might go away soon since we all have Google to
            satisfy any vestiges of curiosity out there. Maybe the ignorant will
            die out. Not much hope of that, is there? I can think of no way to
            stop people from doing "whatever-everybody-else-does". I do admit I get
            a lot of entertainment watching them do these things that they will
            defend to the death but cannot articulately defend their reasons for so
            doing. An accountant told me to "talk to the hand" the other day. I
            Googled the phrase later. I had held out 3 different U.S. coins each
            purporting to be a dollar (all of different substances and weights), and
            2 pure 1 oz. silver rounds the same size as the latest minted "dollar"
            coin, and asked, "how would you report all of this as income if I had
            received it for my own property that I delivered in return?" I wanted
            to see if she knew anything about the Kahre cases, and the answer would
            prove it. I never learned. I just got insulted.

            No, I cannot stop people from believing lies and acting upon them. I
            have spent a long time trying and cannot even stop my own family from
            being like lemmings. People will continue to buy licenses they don't
            need, and pay taxes they don't owe, and believe false science, and not
            read basic laws until it is too late for them to do the right thing
            anymore. "Nobody told me, boo hoo!" Yes, nobody will tell you because
            they do not have the time and odds are, you do not have the curiosity
            and any respect for their time.

            Here's a bottom line: If there is something you do not like, and you
            have the brains to avoid it and not embrace it like a Tar Baby, there is
            a law (or laws you can use in conjunction) out there somewhere for you
            to use to get away from it. I have personally invalidated and
            disqualified all antagonistic offensive arrogant "contestants" (for
            credibility??) for decades now. The reason is, I wanted to do it before
            I did it!! I didn't wait until it was too late and I didn't engage in
            paper contracts with my signature to obtain the privilege of regulation
            by those I disqualified. That would have been hypocrisy, which I
            personally despise.

            It appears the momentum of the masses cannot be resisted. Things are
            getting worse. The plane is headed for the cliffs. Please do what you
            can to prepare your own parachutes if you know how. If you don't know
            how, you'll never have as much an opportunity to learn as now with the
            internet. All the info is out there somewhere now. I quit doing my old
            things because too many were doing it all way better. It's like we've
            all jumped out of the plane and are now dependent upon our own
            parachutes and how well they were packed pre-flight.

            May you all land softly!

            Regards,

            FF
          • The Handyman
            It just so happens that I am working on a divorce case settlement in New York using the money issue and in my research found the following admission: At
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 8, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              It just so happens that I am working on a divorce case settlement in New York using the money issue and in my research found the following admission:

              "At common law the courts of this State had no jurisdiction over matrimonial matters and, hence the power of the Supreme Court over such matters is derived solely by virtue of statutory grants of authority. (Langerman v. Langerman, 303 N. Y. 465, 470, supra.) * * *

              <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 291 N.Y.S.2d 123; 57 Misc. 2d 86

              At common law there was no license.

              Moderator/Bear: Although courts acknowledge and respect the General Assembly's authority to modify or abrogate common law, such changes will not be recognized unless they are clearly expressed. Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004). Therefore, absent clear legislative intent, the common law prevails in any conflict with statutory law. Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998).
            • Email41@aol.com
              Marriage licenses provided for by civil statute were grants of privileges for interracial unions forbidden by the Scripture. The requirement for all US
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 9, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Marriage licenses provided for by civil statute were grants of privileges for interracial unions forbidden by the Scripture. The requirement for all "US citizens" to make an application for a license for marriage was instituted under A. Lincoln shortly after the military conflicts ended in the occupied territories.

                A very good primer on this issue could be found in the article "Prolegomena to Current Martial Rule" found here: http://ecclesia.org/truth/prolegomena.html


                "At common law the courts of this State had no jurisdiction over matrimonial matters and, hence the power of the Supreme Court over such matters is derived solely by virtue of statutory grants of authority. (Langerman v. Langerman, 303 N. Y. 465, 470, supra.) * * *

                <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 291 N.Y.S.2d 123; 57 Misc. 2d 86


              • CarlS
                When I got married almost 25 years ago, I blindly accepted and followed the instruction of well-meaning friends, and even our pastor, that we must get a
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 10, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  When I got married almost 25 years ago, I blindly accepted and followed the instruction of well-meaning friends, and even our pastor, that we must get a marriage license. When I asked why I needed a license, they said it's necessary to get certain government benefits, yada, yada, yada. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have applied for a license (permission!!!) to marry. I know now that I don't need, nor do I even desire, the government's permission to marry. Rather than ask the government's permission, I simply tell the government that I'm married, and the government has no say in the matter. In fact, as I see it, no human has the authority to marry me or to pronounce me as "husband." The only authority another human has is to recognize me as being married (because I'm married even without his/her recognition), witness the vows that we make before man and God, and with my permission and blessing, present me and my bride to those present at the ceremony.

                  Regarding dissolution of marriage, it pleases me to say that I can't speak from experience. I've been married to the same woman for all these years. It's interesting to imagine, though, what it would be like to tell the court, in essence, that since the state had no part in my marriage, the state has no authority and no say in its dissolution.
                • enilak666@yahoo.com
                  If you and your spouse believe alike, you can always divorce and then remarry as you wish, without a state license or permission. I agree with all that you ve
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 10, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If you and your spouse believe alike, you can always divorce and then remarry as you wish, without a state license or permission. I agree with all that you've said on the subject of marriage licenses. From what I've seen on the Web it is that the requirement for a government license to marry originated when a mixed race couple wanted to unite. This was because back in the olden days (1) a black person was considered to be property and needed permission to marry, and (2) because any offspring would be half black, a question of inheriting property would arise, since property couldn't own property. Also, by including the government as a party to the marriage contract, it gave the state the right to dictate how you raised your children and required attendance at school to receive an education.
                    That is how child welfare services came to control your children's welfare, even to sending them off to war and die. There are many aspects to this issue.  

                    --- On Thu, 12/10/09, CarlS <Carl@...> wrote:

                    From: CarlS <Carl@...>
                    Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Marriage License
                    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 5:00 AM

                     
                    When I got married almost 25 years ago, I blindly accepted and followed the instruction of well-meaning friends, and even our pastor, that we must get a marriage license. When I asked why I needed a license, they said it's necessary to get certain government benefits, yada, yada, yada. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have applied for a license (permission! !!) to marry. I know now that I don't need, nor do I even desire, the government's permission to marry. Rather than ask the government's permission, I simply tell the government that I'm married, and the government has no say in the matter. In fact, as I see it, no human has the authority to marry me or to pronounce me as "husband." The only authority another human has is to recognize me as being married (because I'm married even without his/her recognition) , witness the vows that we make before man and God, and with my permission and blessing, present me and my bride to those present at the ceremony.

                    Regarding dissolution of marriage, it pleases me to say that I can't speak from experience. I've been married to the same woman for all these years. It's interesting to imagine, though, what it would be like to tell the court, in essence, that since the state had no part in my marriage, the state has no authority and no say in its dissolution.


                  • vze4bqdp@optonline.net
                    ... This raises some very curious questions. How, then, is an unlicensed marriage properly dissolved, for example? How was property accumulated during the
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 11, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 08:00 AM 12/10/2009, you wrote:
                      >Regarding dissolution of marriage, it pleases me to say that I can't
                      >speak from experience. I've been married to the same woman for all
                      >these years. It's interesting to imagine, though, what it would be
                      >like to tell the court, in essence, that since the state had no part
                      >in my marriage, the state has no authority and no say in its dissolution.

                      This raises some very curious questions.

                      How, then, is an "unlicensed" marriage properly dissolved, for
                      example? How was property accumulated during the marriage and, now,
                      how is it distributed between two potentially mean spirited
                      antagonists? What about foreign marriages, particularly those never
                      having been subject to licensing? What jurisdictional limitations
                      might be in place barring court intrusions, if any? Which are the courts?
                    • Jim
                      http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/SovChristianMarriage/SovChristianMarriage.htm Sent from my iPhone Moderator/Bear: I m letting this on because sedm.org links to
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 11, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        http://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/SovChristianMarriage/SovChristianMarriage.htm

                        Sent from my iPhone

                        Moderator/Bear: I'm letting this on because sedm.org links to me. But, I do so w/ the caveat that this is not the best place to get doctrine or teaching on spiritual principles.

                        On Dec 11, 2009, at 12:52 AM, enilak666@... wrote:

                        > If you and your spouse believe alike, you can always divorce and
                        > then remarry as you wish, without a state license or permission. I
                        > agree with all that you've said on the subject of marriage licenses.
                      • The Handyman
                        I was married at 64 and again at 72 using this certificate which I recorded at the Parish courthouse for $5.00. CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE This is to certify a
                        Message 11 of 13 , Dec 11, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment

                          I was married at 64 and again at 72 using this certificate which I recorded at the Parish courthouse for $5.00.

                           

                          CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE

                           

                                      This is to certify a contract of marriage between:

                          Robert ____________ and Josephine ________________

                          Joined this ____day of _________, in the year of our Redeemer, Yahshua Messiah,__________, in the Holy Bonds of Matrimony.  Know All Men by these Present, that we; Robert ___________ and Josephine ______________, have mutually promised and agreed to enter into the Holy bonds of matrimony, which having been publicly known, do now come together this day to unite ourselves as husband and wife; and that we do so this day in the sight of our Father, Yahweh, and done in accordance with and under His Divine Laws, do now freely make the following pledges to unite as husband and wife:

                           

                          I, Robert _____________, being a free, white, single male, in agreement to the above, do promise to take this woman, Josephine _______________, to be my lawful and wedded wife, to live together after the Holy Precepts of our Heavenly Father; to love, honor, and protect her; forsake all others; keep myself faithful and loyal to her; for better or worse, in sickness and in health; and to cleave unto her so long as we both shall live.

                           

                          I, Josephine ______________, being a free, white single female, in agreement to the above, do promise to take this man, Robert _________________ , to be my lawful and wedded husband, to live together after the Holy Precepts of our Heavenly Father; to love, honor, and obey him; forsake all others; keep myself faithful and loyal to him; for better or worse, in sickness and in health; and to cleave unto him so long as we both shall live.

                           

                          By these present under the Laws of Yahweh, we the undersigned declare to all, that we are husband and wife and pray in the Name of Yahweh that joy, peace, health, and prosperity attend our wedded life.

                           

                           

                          Husband                                                                                  Wife

                           

                          What Yahweh Has Joined Together, Let No Man Put Assunder!

                           

                          Witnessed:

                           

                          _____________________
                          _____________________
                          _____________________
                          _____________________

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: CarlS
                          Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 7:00 AM
                          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Marriage License

                           

                          When I got married almost 25 years ago, I blindly accepted and followed the instruction of well-meaning friends, and even our pastor, that we must get a marriage license. When I asked why I needed a license, they said it's necessary to get certain government benefits, yada, yada, yada. Had I known then what I know now, I would not

                          .

                        • Slipinn@aol.com
                          Marriage to the State and limitations and benefits: Here is a true life example. Man and wife married for 44 years. They reach retirement age. Man has always
                          Message 12 of 13 , Dec 11, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Marriage to the State and limitations and benefits:
                             
                            Here is a true life example.
                             
                            Man and wife married for 44 years. They reach retirement age. Man has always worked, Wife, due to physical limitations worked very little. Both are US Vet's from the USMC.
                             
                            Her SSN check upon reaching 65 is a less than 200.00 a month. His is less than 900.00 a month.
                             
                            They review Veteran benefit's and notice that there is a pension benefit for any vet who has served during wartime and has a honorable discharge. Research show's that the age 65 Vet may collect up to 1800.00 a month if they have little or no income.
                             
                            Husband contact's Veteran's administration and makes an inquiry for the female vet. They say why yes, she is eligible.
                             
                            Husband begins answering questions and at one point the clerk ask's "What is YOUR relationship to her?"
                             
                            The response is, I am her husband. The clerk then ask, "What is YOUR income?" Husband ask's what doe's that have to do with her benefits? Clerk replies" We have to take in consideration what the husband makes to see if SHE qualifies'".
                             
                            So Husband respond's "So, Since we are both VET's, you mean to tell me that if we were divorced, neither of us would have to consider the other's income in this application? Now we hear a sputter on the phone as the clerk say.. ER.. why yes, but we do not recommend anyone get divorced in order to collect those retirement benefit's."
                             
                            So now we have the two people, both vet's married with a LICENSE who now get about 995 a month together for their retirement. IF they were to divorce, both VET's would qualify for 1800.00 each for a total of 3600.00 a month in income by simply loosing the State or 3rd party out of the marriage.
                             
                            In essence, being married in a case of this nature is an expensive prospect. The pension information for VET's can be found on the VA web site should anyone care to read them.
                             
                             
                            Chuck
                             
                            In a message dated 12/11/2009 1:32:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vze4bqdp@... writes:
                             

                            At 08:00 AM 12/10/2009, you wrote:
                            >Regarding dissolution of marriage, it pleases me to say that I can't
                            >speak from experience. I've been married to the same woman for all
                            >these years. It's interesting to imagine, though, what it would be
                            >like to tell the court, in essence, that since the state had no part
                            >in my marriage, the state has no authority and no say in its dissolution.

                            This raises some very curious questions.

                            How, then, is an "unlicensed" marriage properly dissolved, for
                            example? How was property accumulated during the marriage and, now,
                            how is it distributed between two potentially mean spirited
                            antagonists? What about foreign marriages, particularly those never
                            having been subject to licensing? What jurisdictional limitations
                            might be in place barring court intrusions, if any? Which are the courts?

                          • vicki mangum
                            I used a similar format for my now husband to do a common law divorce from his estranged wife. It is filed in the Prowers County Clerk s office. Common law
                            Message 13 of 13 , Dec 11, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I used a similar format for my now husband to do a common law divorce from his estranged wife. It is filed in the Prowers County Clerk's office. Common law marriage has not and cannot be repealed.

                              --- On Fri, 12/11/09, The Handyman <ebobie@...> wrote:


                              I was married at 64 and again at 72 using this
                              certificate which I recorded at the Parish courthouse for
                              $5.00.
                               
                              CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE

                              This is to certify a contract of
                              marriage between:
                              Robert ____________ and Josephine
                              ____________ ____
                              Joined this ____day of _________, in the year of our
                              Redeemer, Yahshua Messiah,____ ______, in the Holy Bonds of Matrimony.  Know All Men by these Present, that we;
                              Robert ___________ and Josephine
                              ____________ __, have mutually promised and agreed to enter into the Holy
                              bonds of matrimony, which having been publicly known, do now come together this
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.