I recently went to a court hearing where opposing counsel disagreed with and moved to change recommendations of the custody evaluation people. I moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction. The "judge" gave us both two weeks to file a response. The following is the gist of my argument.
Affidavit in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Subject Matter and In Personam Jurisdiction
1. The right to contract is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution for the
United States and Article 1 Section 11 of the Minnesota state Constitution; and is governed by the rules
of the common law.
2. Marriage, and by extension, divorce is a fundamental right governed by the rules of the common law. See
Loving v.Virginia 388, U.S. 1 (1967)
3. A license/instrument/contract is valid only if entered into knowingly and voluntarily.
4. The Application for Marriage License signed by John Q.; Public purports to be an application for the
privilege to contract to marry. Upon further investigation it was determined that such license was not for
the privilege to contract to marry, but for the privilege to solemnize the marriage. Such license states in
relevant part; "To Persons Authorized to Solemnize Marriage within said state: License is granted to join as
HUSBAND AND WIFE....This shall be your authority for solemnizing the marriage....". See Exhibits A
and B
5. Whereas, there are no penalty provisions attaching to the parties who marry without a license; however, a
person who solemnizes a marriage without a license is subject to penalties. This must be true because as
stated in Miller v. U.S., 230 F 486, 489 "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime.".
6. Whereas, there are no civil officials or clergymen who will solemnize a marriage without a license, thereby,
through coercion and duress Respondent John Q; Public was compelled to purchase on behalf of clergy
Larry L. Bertram a license to solemnize his marriage.
7. Whereas, by purchasing such license Respondent unknowingly, unvoluntarily and without intent apparently
entered into an adhesion contract with the State of Minnesota in addition to giving power of attorney over
his person and property.
8. Whereas, Respondent, John Q; Public hereby enters into the record his Application for Marriage
License Revocation of Signature and Rescission of Power of Attorney.
9. Whereas, because of various elements of fraud, bad faith, coercion and threats of economic duress, said
adhesion contract is rendered null and void ab initio, including but not limited to any custody evaluation
reports, settlement recomendations, or orders of this court.
10. Whereas, in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 the Supreme Court states in relevant part;
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system,
while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, soveregnty itself remains with the
people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.".
11. Whereas, Respondent, John Q.; Public is the sovereign spoken of in Yick Wo v. Hopkins .
12. Whereas, statutes, codes and regulations are administrative and only apply to artificial entities, or to those
that elect to be regarded as such by receiving benefits from the State of Minnesota through contract.
Respondent, John Q.; Public, a flesh and blood sovereign individual, denies the existence of any such
contract.
13. Whereas, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed further in this matter and must dismiss as a
matter of fact and law.
14. Whereas, this court lacks in personam jurisdiction over the sovereign, John Q.; Public, in this
administrative proceeding and must dismiss as a matter of fact and law.
Questions?
1. Since I have challenged the courts jurisdiction, should my motion now be in the form of a petition?
2. Should my affidavit contain a phrase granting special jurisdiction to hear the jurisdictional issues only?
3. The court obviously wants me to respond to opposing counsel's motion and is baiting me. Should I return the motion to sender and file an affidavit in the record showing why I cannot respond and pointing out the judge's possible abuse of discretion/process?
4. Marriage is a fundamental right and may be regulated if there is a compelling state interest. However, such regulation must be strictly construed and narrowly tailored. Obviously the administrative codes are neither. In light of this, how does one stand on firm ground as a result of the following commentary? Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/125/190.html
Any advice is appeciated
gldskr