"Divorcing the State" by John Jay Singleton.
Educational series on divorcing the state what I'm seeing is this huge billion dollar bill multi-billion dollar market run by a franchise we know as the family court and they're just abusing men. 79 or 80% of petitions for child custody, separation, and divorce are filed by women, wives, girlfriends, people, and women. So what I'm going to talk about is going to sound biased in favor of men, and I'm not going to apologize for that, maybe I am, cuz I'm explaining myself, but it's going to be that way.
This is pro-father, pro-husband, and that's just the way it is. I want to describe what's happening in a divorce, or one of these petitions, because you don't have to be married to be involved in this; you just have to have your girlfriend or wife file a petition in the courts, and that's where it begins.
1:43. what's happening is because you're the father and or the husband usually starts out as husband in any case because you have the liabilityNnohis is just the way it goes for centuries. You have the authority, meaning you are the court. You are the final arbiter, and when the wife/ girlfriend doesn't want to obey, doesn't want to participate or wants to leave that relationship, and she wants to force you to reallocate your resources. Now this is a language I'm giving you, guys. This has to do with child custody. That's a property right. Your income, assets, and I don't care if a wife makes more money than you, money that goes into the household, we are going to say that it is property of the trust, in which the father and the husband is the trustee. I know that's a generalization. Just go with it because I want you to understand these basic concepts. So the wife goes outside the marriage. Now, remember, the wife is the beneficiary. The role of the wife is created by the father/husband. It doesn't exist without the man saying, "Yeah, I'm going to marry you. Yes, you can live with me, okay? So she goes outside this to countermand your authority. She goes and gets an attorney, whatever, and goes to the court the court uses and abuses its power of contempt to coerce the man, the husband, and the father, into reallocating his resources. Now, there is no adversarial relationship between the husband and wife, girlfriend/ boyfriend. We have to say girlfriend/boyfriend. If you have a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship, it's husband and wife. The wife doesn't agree with you on a material aspect. Maybe she wants to take a child out of the country. Maybe she wants to leave the household and have her own household and still make you pay for it. This is where she gets the police involved. When I say police, I'm talking about the police power of the court. The court is judicial but it has a police power known as contempt. On this is what's going on, there is not even a statutory authority for contempt that I'm aware of. Contempt just came out of a fiction that the court created to enforce orders, and to some extent, we want that but I think we want to limit that to Criminal Court. But that's another matter. So the wife goes outside and, in fact, many times she uses the resources of the trust, this relationship. She uses those and misuses them to try and pillage the trust. Beneficiaries can't do that.
4:58. Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to show you this list here. These are bullet points. I'm going to do a screen share, so you can follow along in writing and you can go see for yourself. Now, I have not come here . . . the complete legal brief which is coming. There's a legal brief for all of these points here. Ultimately what we are saying is that the court does not have the authority to force the man to reallocate his resources outside of his will. What he decides, he is the final arbiter on matters in the marriage or the live-in relationship, which are considered settled. Courts do not impose contractual terms. Sometimes the court has to make a decision on a dispute within a contract, but if you look at all the case law and if you look at all our jurisprudence for centuries dating back to England, you'll find that courts do not create contractual terms and impose them upon either party. They decide matters that are decidable between adversaries.
6:13. Here are my bullet points. I'm going to start off by saying that your family court is simply destroying the family. You guys know this already. You don't have to be a victim of it. I'm going to show you how you don't have to be. The path here. Now this applies even if you've already been through court and the court has ordered a divorce decree, a judgment, you know, established alimony, child support, all these things, child custody.
HERE ARE THE POINTS
POINT #1: THERE IS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN HUSBAND & WIFE
There is no justiceable controversy between husband and wife. Justiceable you can't judge a controversy between a husband and wife because the nature of a husband and wife is the union. Every law in our jurisprudence . . . Jurisprudence means the way we do things in law the way we relate to each other legally . . . recognizes husband and wife as a single person even in every type of contract, even with your tax returns, legal protections, things of this nature. But what the heck are they doing when you come into court on a marriage?
A marriage is a special contract. It's not a contract between adversaries. So the court can only hear cases where there is an adversarial matter and where matters are disputed that have not already been decided. That's where the court, we want the court to hear those matters. Well, a marriage is already decided, and the final arbiter has already made a decision, and I'll show you how that works. The final Arbiter is the husband and the father.
8:00. POINT #2: THE NATURE OF A MARITAL UNION IS NOT AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP SUCH AS IN A BUSINESS CONTRACT
The nature of a marital Union is not an adversarial relationship such as in a business contract. For example, custody of children in an allocation of money and other resources is already settled. Let me explain.
POINT #3: CUSTODY OF CHILDREN AND ALLOCATION OF MONEY AND OTHER RESOURCES IS ALREADY SETTLED; COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO INTRUDE UPON AN ESTABLISHED AGREEMENT
The court lacks jurisdiction to intrude upon an established agreement . . . watch any case you want to pull, you'll see that the court is observing an agreement and maybe it's making a decision as to the rights and liabilities expressed in a contract and sometimes the written agreement, or the contract, sometimes there's not a written agreement. So based on the facts, the court has to discover an agreement. It doesn't matter if it's in writing or not. It's helpful if it's in writing but your marriage, or your live-in relationship, has provisions and terms that are already established, and because you're following those, for example, who pays the light bill? The man's paycheck, let's say, pays the light bill, but maybe the wife makes money, too. But still, that money goes into the household, and the man is the trustee of that money. This is what I'm saying. The man is the trustee of the money. So now he has a fiduciary obligation to the wife, girlfriend, and or children. These are matters already settled. You just never thought of it that way.
POINT #4: NATURE OF MARRIAGE; GIVEN NOTICE IT IS AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST PRECLUDING ANYONE FROM INTRUDING OR PILLAGING MARITAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, INCLUDING INTANGIBLE PRIVATE PROPERTY (E.G., THE EXERCISE OF ONE'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE)
So when a divorce petition is filed, for example, it's asking the court to discover finances and then reallocate those according to some standard, like the state legislature decided, or whatever the wife wants, her desires, whatever that is, whatever can be argued. It is the nature of marriage. So what we do is we give notice to the court that the marriage is based upon and irrevocable trust. You cannot escape the role of Father/ husband, and therefore the wife is always the wife because it's irrevocable; it's a matter of nature. It's just how it works. For example, let's say I become the president of a corporation. Well, then I can resign and someone else can become the president. Well, if I'm the father or husband, I don't get to do that. I'm always going to be. So the irrevocable nature of the trust precludes anyone from intruding upon, or pillaging, stealing, destroying, marital property rights. I'll explain what that means. I'll tell you something you've never even thought of before. Intangible private property rights. For example, the exercise of one's right to choose.
10:40. Here is an example of that. The husband and wife, girlfriend and boyfriend, they decide who's going to pay what bills. This is the simple version. Who gets to review that [decision]? Well, the people paying the bills, right, the husband and wife. That is an exercise of an intangible private property right. That is a settled matter, the right to do that, to choose has been exercised and an arrangement has been reached. If you don't have that in writing, that's fine, most everybody doesn't and why would you, right? But we can reverse engineer that based upon what you're doing, so the contract in the marriage, the different provisions of the contract are established by what you have been doing. That is the standard. But what the state what the state is trying to do is impose its own standard that was written by the state legislature, and I would have to say that it's arbitrary and capricious because it has nothing to do with what the father and the husband has decided as the final Arbiter. Matters are already settled. So now I'm not even talking about a situation where they're is a post-nuptial or prenuptial written agreement. That would be nice if you had one, but you don't need it because marriage in itself is a special type of agreement in which matters are settled and continuously settled and revised by the husband and wife. And it's an exclusive and unique relationship. No one can intrude upon that. Why? Because no one has the liability and the obligations within that marriage arrangement. No one else can benefit from it. The wife is the beneficiary. The children are the beneficiaries. There's no adversarial relationship between trustee and beneficiary.
POINT #5: MARRIAGE AND MARITAL COMMUNITY CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION NOT SUBJECT TO INTERVENTION ABSENT EVIDENCE OF CONDUCT CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIALLY EVIL
12:20. So it is a private membership association. Right now, the way the law works on private membership associations, and I'll give you an example of one, a church. As you've heard news over the years, churches cannot be investigated for certain things. This is the same thing with a marriage. It's just like a church, okay? It's a private membership association. It's not subject to intervention absent evidence of conduct considered, this is an important term here, "substantively evil." This is the standard by which a private membership Association, such as a marriage, could be intruded upon. And it's not really intruded upon if there's something that's substantively evil happening in it. For example, if you're using a marriage relationship to traffic children. That sounds like a crazy example but that would be substantively evil okay.
POINT #6: NO ALLEGATIONS THAT ANY CONDUCT IS SUBSTANTIALLY EVIL
So, in a pleading, a cry to the court, a petition to the court for divorce or separation or child custody, there would not be any allegations that conduct is substantively totally evil. I mean I've not seen it, and it's actually not the pleading standard. You're not going to see that. It's not required in a divorce petition, to please something is substantively evil. It's not even within the cognizance of most attorneys or all attorneys. They don't hear this, they're not trained like this. But this is the nature of what we're dealing with, and it's completely ignored right now.
POINT #7: NO ALLEGATION OF DIMINISHED CAPACITY
There would not be any allegations of diminished capacity and I'm not sure how that factors in. I don't hear that too much, but, for example, maybe because of diminished capacity, the father or husband can't carry out his fiduciary obligations. Maybe that would be a reason why the court could get involved. But again, it wouldn't be family court; it would be circuit court for other types of relief, like injunctive relief, not divorce.
POINT #8: NO ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT
All right, so there would not be an allegation of abuse or neglect, or, if there is, there would have to be supporting evidence. Sometimes you'll have that, and then sometimes it's justified. I mean, I grew up in a household where there was, okay. So I understand that. My mother was afraid to do anything until we got older. In any case, I understand what that is. In most cases, that I've seen that have come before me where people want help, there may be an implication of abuse or neglect, but I've never seen an evidentiary hearing. Now I am sure there are some, and you should have an evidentiary hearing.
POINT #9: NO EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT
Evidence is required to substantiate allegations of abuse or neglect. If you're the one being the abuser or being neglectful, I'm sorry, I can't help you there. You're the one being the abuser or being neglectful, I'm sorry, I can't help you there. This doesn't apply. But I'm assuming that those of you who are watching this that need help you're trying to do the right thing and there is no abuse or neglect okay
No comments:
Post a Comment