Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pjmellon
I am looking to cite California case law in my revocation/recission of marriage license affidavit. I need to cite law that acknowledges marriage license as a union between man, wife and state. That is what gives them the power to take your kids. Can anyone help me out?
Thanks
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pjmellon
I am specifically interested in nullifying the state's authority over my children under parens patriae. I need to cite California case law that acknowledges that a state marriage license is between 3 parties (man, wife and the state).
|
Until you understand the animal that you are dealing with your efforts will be for naught. The license is a non issue as Shoonra has explained. It does not concern you directly.
It concerns you indirectly, but once the damage has been done, once it has been procured, there is nothing you can do about it.
You see, a marriage contract, unlike others, is a lifetime proposition. The agreement was made prior to any subsequent action. The license was simply a prerequisite to the formalities involved with the legal registration of such, culminating in the issuance of a Certificate of Marriage.
Parens patriae can certainly be avoided, but only by a common law marriage. It is the registration of the
legal marriage that invokes parens patriae.
The licensed preacher, an agent of the state, performs the ceremony. By acquiesing to such a ceremomy you acknowledge your intent to be registered into their jurisdiction, as the preacher then becomes a witness to the certificate; which then becomes prima facia evidence of a fact.
But because the marriage has a lifetime term, the subsequent registration, which is also a contract, carries the same lifetime term, hence the lifetime parens patriae burden.
However, while signatures and certificates may be evidence of certain facts, how those facts were obtained is still questionable and do they carry any authority?
What is meant by this is that a certificate is only as good as the one so certifying, and in this case the one certifying is a corporate entity. Just as it is in the case of motor vehicles (a corporate definition) and the registration of land. In each case, it is the registration into the system that creates the contract, each of which has a specified term.
It doesn't matter what the certificate purports to be the evidence of. Such certification proves the jurisdiction first and the evidence second. This is true whether it relates to birth, marriage, death, motor vehicles, land, whatever. The certification always comes first so as to underwrite the scheme that is attached, to insure the underlying contract, a jurisdictional derivative of sorts.
And if you know anything of derivatives, you will know that these are time bombs waiting to go off, not a matter of if but when. Your remedy lies in the underlying contract (absence of full dislosure), not in the resulting documents emanating from them.
gldskr