"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - - - Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 Whatever the evil (poison) is, it must be presented in a mix of something good, or good for you. Rat poison is like this, 99.5% of the ingredients are tasty and nutritious for the rat (otherwise, they wouldn't eat it, would they?).  Only .5% (1/2 percent) is deadly.

of News, Current Events & Comment for March 2004 October 2003 <==== November 2003 <==== December 2003 <====  January 2004 the URL for this page can be found by returning to the previous page (if a contributing editor, wishes recognition, they should so indicate with their submission) Best printing w/a black only printer is accomplished when your settings are for "black text and black lines"

To save on the amount of forced emails that consume MEGA bytes of HD space,  these pages are created for your convenience. Pictures can be saved by right clicking then follow the yellow brick road, and original of reports can be located by available links in the articles and saved as you would other web pages. I am reminded of Dad's special brownies.  It is the same truth.

This week the police around Carlsbad, California raided the home of a mother and three children.  The police gained access to the electric bill of the family and determined that they were using too much electricity.  Based solely on the amount of electricity used, the police determined the family had a weed farm.  In other words that they were growing marijuana.  Was high bill the ONLY evidence they used to TERRORISTICALLY attack (and terrorism it was) this family?  YES.

What authority do cops have gaining access to your utility bills and usage?  NONE.  Do cops have to do an real work prior to making a determination that you have weeds in your home?  OBVIOUSLY NOT.  Do the courts grant warrants on such flimsy and shoddy police work?  YES.

Police say they've apologized verbally several times but insist they acted properly.  Is is proper to not get good facts and evidence before terrorizing a family?  In the new USSA it obviously is.  Are the police apologizing for making a gross mistake or for breaking down the front door (which the cops probably will not fix)?

If high electric bills are signs of marijuana, then raiding a home that does not have a crime within its walls is a sign of inept cops.

What you and everyone needs to ask is who are the real terrorists.  Who is hiding behind color of law to violate law and deprive you of your liberties?  OUR COPS/MILITARY?  Who denies they did anything wrong?  OUR COPS/MILITARY?  Who takes credit for their wrong doing?  AL QUEDA?  BIN LADEN?

Assorted news article can be found at
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2955532/detail.html
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/2950274/detail.html
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1742316&nav=5D7lBwNh
 
 

In 2 different parts of the country, these men died yesterday.  It has been established that they both made the trip to Hell.

The reports are yet early, but it seems that today Satan put in an emergency call to God. Satan was pleading with God to remove both men from Hell.  It seems that these men together, after only 1 day, the 2 men had already raised enough money to install air conditioning.
 
 

A North Carolina couple is outraged by a book their first-grade daughter brought home from the school library in which a prince finds his true love in the form of another prince.

The leading character in "King & King," Prince Bertie, waves off a bevy of eligible princesses before falling for Prince Lee, Associated Press reported. The book ends with the two "marrying" and sharing a kiss.

"I was flabbergasted," Michael Hartsell of Wilmington, N.C., told the news service. "My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."

AP reports the 32-page book by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland was published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press of Berkeley, Calif. A follow-up, "King & King & Family," was recently published. The publisher says the book is intended for readers age 6 and up.

The principal of Freeman Elementary School defended the book.

"What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing," Principal Elizabeth Miars is quoted as saying.

Hartsell and his wife, Tonya, said they intend to file a written complaint with the committee that reviews library books for the district and are considering transferring their daughter.

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
 
 

..

Many of you probably have seen the reports like the headline above.

I have tried to repeat the process described in these reports that claim a new model 20 frn will explode or burn if subjected to microwave energy, such as a microwave oven.

The bill was exposed for a minute and it did not get warm or burn or explode.  Nothing like indicated in the stories.

This is not to say there is no marker in the bills, but only that they do not react to radiation as reported.

You should try your own experiments.
 
 

Thanks D
 
 

[This will be in your neighborhood soon.  Nay you say?  I truly hope I never get to say I told you so.]

...
 
 

I N S I G H T

GUYS' RULES
contributing editor D

We always hear about "the rules" from the female side.   Now here are the rules from the male side.   These are our rules!  Please note...  these are all numbered "1" ON PURPOSE!

1.     Learn to work the toilet seat.  You're a big girl.  If it's up, put it down.  We need it up, you need it down.  You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down.  Be thankful we invented the toilet and you no longer have to use a hole in the ground.
1.     Sunday sports and other male activities.  They are like the full moon or the changing of the tides.  Let it be.
1.     Shopping is NOT a sport.  And no, we are never going to think of it that way
1.     Crying is blackmail.  Blackmail is a crime.
1.     Ask for what you want.  Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work!  Strong hints do not work!  Obvious hints do not work!  Just say it!
1.     "Yes" and "No" are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.
1.     Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it.  That's what we do.  Sympathy is why girlfriends were made.
1.     A headache (or other condition) that lasts for 17 months is a problem.  See a doctor.
1.     Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument.  In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days.
1.     If you won't dress like the Victoria's Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys.
1.     If you think you're fat, you probably are.  Don't ask us.
1.     If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.
1.     You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done - Not both.  If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.
1.     Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.
1.     Christopher Columbus did not need directions and neither do we.
1.     ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings or a small box of crayons.  Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color.  Pumpkin is also a fruit.  We have no idea what mauve is.
1.     If it itches, it will be scratched.  It is what we do.
1.     If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong.  We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.
1.     If you ask a question to which you do not want an answer, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
1.     When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine...Really
1.     Don't ask us about what we're thinking unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, the shotgun formation, monster trucks, computers and other guy things.
1.     You have enough clothes.
1.     You have too many shoes.
1.     I am in shape.  Round is a shape.
1.     If you want attention, give attention.

Thank you for reading this.  Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight; but you should know men really don't mind that?  It's kind of like camping.
 
 

The Flat Earth Report

Women Are More Likely Than Men to Go from Right to Wrong
this will not set well with half the people

Q - In multiple-choice tests, I’m often told to resist the urge to go back and change my anwser.  “First choice are more often accurate,” I hear.  However, I have seen no scientific evidence to support this claim.  What do you think of it?
-- Ann McClure, Castro Valley, California

A - Nicholas Skinner, a psychologist at King’s College in Ontario, says nearly every study on the matter shows the following surprise.

About 50% of changes go from wrong to right; 25% go from right to wrong; and 25% go from wrong to wrong [another wrong – ed].  His own research found that women change their answers more often than men, and women are more likely than men to go from right to wrong, maybe due to a lack of self-confidence.

What does all this mean?  No studies actually prove the claim wrong, because we don’t know how those who stay with their first answers fare.  But scientific evidence does not support the claim.

Source: Ask Marilyn, by Marilyn vos Savant, Parade magazine, 02/29/04
 
 

[You need to goto this page [http://research.microsoft.com/research/hwsystems/] to see other gadgets.  Not only is there ever more evidence of Big Brother upon us, but fulfillment of prophecy.  As nifty as some things are, it is their mis-use that surely will happen that is the most frightening.  --  Tribble]

SenseCam is a badge-sized wearable camera that captures up to 2000 VGA images per day.  In addition, sensor data such as movement, light level and temperature is recorded.  This is similar to an aircraft “Black Box” accident recorder but miniaturised for the human body.  It could help with memory recall, e.g. where did I leave my spectacles or keys? who did I meet last week? by doing a “rewind” of the days events. If a person has an accident, the events and images leading up to this will be recorded, and these could be useful to health workers.  It could also be used for automatic blog generation.

Sensors trigger a new recording.  For example, each time the person walks into a new room, this is detected and the image is captured with an ultra wide angle lens. Other triggers include, time, a person nearby,  change in light level, or sudden movement.  A hand gesture can also manually capture an image or a change in acceleration.  An accelerometer is used for image stabilisation to reduce blurred images caused by motion. The SenseCam can also capture handwritten notes and pictures. The current prototype interfaces with Windows XP to show images and sensor data. Future version will capture audio and heart rate.
 
 

Maddoux died Thursday morning, March 4, 2004.

Maddoux's radio program, Point of View, did a lot to alert the people to many current events in this country and around the world.  While his religious doctrines were based in the misguided premises of being already saved and will be raptured out of here (taken before the tribulation), he still did good works.

An example of the good works Maddoux and his crew did, was that some decades ago Maddoux did not understand about Home Schooling and was against it, as he thought it was promoted by whacky extremists who kept their children in the basement.  After a few good interviews on the matter, Maddoux learned better and became a strong promoter, voice and outlet for Home Schooling.

You do not have to agree with his doctrines to appreciate the good updates and alerts on current events he made.
 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

Marriage Licenses & what about Same Sex Licenses
by Tribble

We are hearing a LOT about individuals and public officials violating law and statutes to marry people of same sex.  What follows is a treatise on marriage and license.  After you read it, you will then be able to understand that people of the same sex who want to be married to each other MUST get a license, and a license is the ONLY way they can be married.  This does not mean that a license SHOULD be issued, only that the only way they can be married is by license.  Without a license, they are not married.  Even with a license, it is only a "legal" status and not a "lawful" status.  At the bottom of the matter is that a marriage of people of the same sex is unlawful.  The license will not make them legitimate, but by definition, should garner protection from the government against those who will perceive the union as wrong - and wrong it would be..
 

First, a couple very important question and you should take your time thinking about it before you answer.

1 -- Since when has it been unlawful to be married?

2 -- Why do you have an  unlawful  husband or wife?

Now a review of a few terms

Lawful: The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law.  To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law.  To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.  Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical [moral] content than does "legal".  (Black's 5th)

License: The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.  (Black's 5th)

License is a tool of legal to circumnavigate (get around) the law.

Trespass: An unlawful interference with one's person, property, or rights.  (Black's 5th)

Equity: is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction, differing in its origin, theory and methods from the common law...  A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of law.  (Black's 5th)

    In a society where people choose not to be responsible they still must choose, albeit ignorantly and/or silently, to function in a legal capacity, rather than Lawful.

    Those who choose to be responsible naturally choose, usually knowingly, to function in a Lawful capacity, not legal.

    Licenses are operations of legal contemplation. Licenses are tools for circumventing the Law.  When an entity gives license to someone for conducting an unlawful act, the issuer of the license is contracting to protect the licensee from retribution for the still unlawful act.

    As an aside, both systems (Common Law and equity) are referenced in the Constitution of the united States of America, Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1, & c.), although most people are subject to equity, having exchanged Rights at Law for government granted/revocable privileges/"civil rights" - or slavery by contract/consent.  'Legal' is the mere FORM of law, while 'lawful' contemplates the SUBSTANCE of law.  While one may CONTRACT into equity, he cannot be lawfully COMPELLED to abandon the Law.

    Licensing is the 'legal' method to circumvent the Law - licensees CONSENT to statutes which run COUNTER to Law, subjecting themselves VOLUNTARILY to equity jurisdiction.

    This is not to condemn equity itself or 'legal', but rather to illuminate the methodology (force and deception) used to draw people under its umbrella.

    So from where does the aspect of licensing marriage originate?

Marriage License: The license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry. (Black's 5th)

Intermarriage: See Miscegenation.  (Black's 5th)

Miscegenation: Mix of races; marriage between persons of different races. (Black's 5th)

    Now consider some other fundamental facets.  What is the purpose of most any contract?  Fundamentally, contracts are formed by parties, each of whom perceives that he will thereby gain.  In other words, to obtain something you did not have - a gain or a profit.  If you take a thingamajig for repair, you will obtain something you did not have - a fixed thingamajig and the repairman will obtain something he did not have - commonly a medium of exchange oft times called money. Your profit was from broken to fixed.  The repairman's profit was from no (or little) medium of exchange to more of it.  In marriages, what is usually the "profit"?  When you get married what might you not have at first, then later have?  Answer: children.

    Contracts are based on mutual consent, not force.  No one forced you to get the license (contract), there is no law or statute requiring it except the one condition, as mentioned hereabove - miscegenation.

    Now consider why the state is willing and eager to be a party to your contract.  The children of said contract are wards of the state.  You say NO, then why can they tell you how to care for their children? Whether it is where to school them, to give them dangerous shots, spank them or not, and on and on.

    Who do you want to have authority over your children?

    Are you considering getting a "Civil" divorce (from the state - getting out from under the authority of the state) and advancing to the front lines your "Ecclesiastical" union (marriage under God)?

    Are you considering not getting a "Civil" marriage (under authority of the state) in addition and in conflict with your Godly union or are you considering only a union under authority of God?  Choose ye (Joshua 24:15).

    When you and your spouse (or your intended spouse) stood before witnesses and professed your vows, WHO MARRIED YOU?  Most people say "the preacher".  Pardon me!!!  I thought your spouse married you and you married your spouse.  All the preacher did was conduct himself as a master of ceremonies (EMCEE or MC).  He only helped you make the process go smoothly during your moments of nervousness, or as in many cases, you REALLY were not ready (you probably did not know the information contained herein - why did/do you need a coach?).

    The EMCEE says "I now pronounce you man and wife" (or some such thing).  This utterance from him is not a consummating act, does not make the act official, has no meaning other than it is merely a pronouncement.  I can look to the sky and see clouds then say "I now pronounce the sky is cloudy".  Does that make it so, NO.  I merely pronounced what already was, I announced it.  The two people in marriage, by their expressed vows, before God and witnesses, made the act official.

    What if you and a person of opposite sex were the only people, whether as the only survivors of mass destruction or proverbially stranded on an island?  Would your expression to each other before God make you married?  Of course!  Ceremony, in and of itself does not a marriage make.

    The only requirements for the ceremony of the wedding are to express your intentions before “I AM”/Israel (the creator) and before witnesses.

    The elements of a marriage are to hold yourselves out to the world (public) as husband and wife, to live as husband and wife, to consummate the union (sexual intercourse).

    The following is an excerpt edited from a study and paper filed in Arkansas courts which should prove enlightening.  Remember, some of the local cites are Arkansas, but should, and often do, have a corollary to most, if not all, other republics in the union of the States of America.
 

    Two people not having a state issued marriage license, have no contract with the state, there is no nexus in equity with the state, and without such nexus a court of equity does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

    In the spirit of Alexander Hamilton, the principle which shall be assumed here is -- that the established rules of morality and justice are applicable to the state and its divisions as well as to Individuals; that the former as well as the latter are bound to keep their promises, to fulfill their engagements, to respect the Rights of others and to follow the Law.

    Without this, there is an end of all distinct ideas of right or wrong, justice or injustice in relation to Society or government.  Without this, there can be no such thing as Rights -- no such thing as Property or Liberty.  All the boasted advantages of a Constitution of Government vanish in air.  Every thing must float on the variable and vague opinions of the governing party of whomsoever composed.

    ACA 9-11-201 "All persons hereafter contracting‚ marriage in this state are required to first obtain a license‚ ..‚. "

Contract: An agreement between two or more [entities] ... .‚ Its essentials are competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation. (Black's 5th)

License: The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.  (Black's 5th)

Lawful: The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law.  ... Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal". (Black's 5th)

    Marriage under God is a three way contract between you, your spouse and God.  Marriage in the state is a three way contract between you, your spouse and the state.  This may well mean you have two (2) three way contracts.  And we all know Yahshua (Christ) said no man can serve two (2) masters (Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13). And in Joshua the example is set to serve either man (government) or God and Joshua chooses for him and his house to serve God.  What have you chosen?  What will you choose?

    Licensing is the 'legal' method to circumvent the Law - licensees CONSENTING to statutes which run COUNTER to Law, subjecting themselves VOLUNTARILY to equity jurisdiction.

    This is not to condemn equity itself, but rather the methodology (force and deception) used to draw people under its umbrella.

    We all know that a license does not make an act right or Lawful, it does not relieve a person from moral and just obligations. It merely signifies a general (though improper) condonation by the body politic or its representatives.

    Now the obvious question should be "what about marriage is unlawful".  For that, we need a historical study of the marriage license and the resultant definition, to wit:

Marriage License: The license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry. (Black's 5th)

Intermarriage: See Miscegenation.  (Black's 5th)

Miscegenation: Mix of races; marriage between persons of different races. (Black's 5th)

    In a historical study into the unlawfulness of marriage, it is significant to consider the origins of the institution of marriage and to understand that it is necessary to understand that marriage is an institution created and ordained by the Lord God. For without the Lord God there would not be marriage.  By the same index, it is necessary to understand the restrictions of marriage.

    The unlawfulness of marriage is established by the Lord God in commandments to Israel and can be found in such passages as Ezra 10:10&11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Joshua 23:12&13, Jeremiah 2:21&25 and more.  God commanded such, non-mixing, to preserve the seedlines, nations, and such is exactly what he said, regardless of our like or dislike for it. For thousands of years this commandment was known and understood by all, then circa 1860 in Pennsylvania the first marriage license was created and issued in Pennsylvania to quash the ostracizing of persons wanting to marry between the races.  The Pennsylvania legislature attempting to please a sector of their constituents, cleverly devised the marriage license as a means to circumvent the Law against marriage outside the racial (nation) family.  This beget the definition, supra.  Now, the Chief Counsel in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has stated that "a marriage license under Pennsylvania law is directory only [as also is the case in Arkansas, see Wright v Vales, 1 Ark App 175 and DePotty v DePotty, 226 Ark 881].  Thus, in [Arkansas], a couple may be married with a license or they may contract a common law marriage" (letter dated August 16, 1985).  This reflects the dual rule system, discussed later herein.

    This raises the question "how did people get married prior to circa the 19th century?".   Obviously, they were married "LAWFULLY" not "legally", in substance and form, not simply form. Prior to the the 19th century no person could even get a license to marry.

    Michael C. Turpen, the Attorney General of Oklahoma, clearly stated "The essence of the common law marriage is that it exists outside, and is therefore not governed by, a state's statutes regarding the requirements for a valid marriage".  (also see Marvin v Marvin, 557 P. 2d 106)

    The Common Law is the Law.  Existential thinking and training cause people to believe that what is legal is the law, when in fact it at best can only be the form of law not the substance . The Common Law is the Law.  Existential thinking and [false] training cause people to believe that what is legal is the law, when in fact it at best can only be the form of law not the substance.  Many existential thinking people might say "I do not go in for that Common Law stuff, if I do not do it legally I will not do it".  The mere expression of this statement is clear evidence of incomplete historical training/learning, quite existential (now is the only time, yesterday did not happen, tomorrow is not here, only what is now matters without consideration for how you got to now), not knowing that the Law is the foundation, substance and form, while legal is merely, at best only form without substance and extending from law.  Not knowing that the Law always was and always will be, while legal is fleeting (existential).

    The Law, the Common Law, is the rule of decision and legal appears to have the form of the rule of decision.  Legal may often parallel Common Law like parallel train tracks, but never could legal have the substance of Law and therefore never can legal extinguish the Law. The best legal can do is supplant the Law in specific types of cases or circumstances.

    A people thereafter must choose, knowingly or unknowingly, consciously or unconsciously, to follow and/or adopt Law or legal, apparently parallel rules of decision. It may even be that a people or person would change rules, for any variety of reasons.

    While many magistrates, chancellors, and the like in Arkansas refuse to recognize the Law, the Arkansas legislature rightfully recognizes the Law and the LAWFULNESS of Common Law marriages:

ACA 1-2-119  "The Common Law ... shall be the rule of decision in this state unless altered or repealed by the general assembly of this state."

ACA 9-11-215 (b) "It shall be lawful for religious societies who reject formal ceremonies to join together in marriage persons who are members of the society, according to the forms, customs, or rites of the society to which they belong"

 "Any marriage regularly made according to the Common Law, without observing the statute regulations, would still be a valid marriage.  While this doctrine was announced before many of the statutory regulations safeguarding marriage, ... it is still the rule‚, for there is no provision in the law [statute] that the failure of the parties and others having certain duties to perform under the statute to comply with those duties will render the marriage void."

  "A marriage good at the Common Law is good under our statutes, for there is nothing in them prohibiting such marriages or declaring them void, or prescribing that a failure to comply with the provisions of the statutes upon marriages shall render the marriage contract void".
(Fountain v Fountain, 80 Ark 485; shepardized as still controlling and Stare decisis)

  "We have seen that by the Law which precedes all statutes [Common Law, God's Law] a mere mutual present consent of competent parties, expressed in whatever form, or with no formalities, constitutes marriage".

  "Whatever be the form of the ceremony, or if all ceremony was dispensed with, if the parties agree presently to take each other for husband and wife, and from the time on live professedly in that relation, proof of these facts would be sufficient to constitute proof of a marriage‚ ...".‚
(Darling v Dent, 82 Ark 81; shepardized as still controlling and Stare decisis)

  "Whatever presumptions are indulged are in favor of the legitimacy of such relationship.  Because of the high favor in which marriage is held by the Law, we have transmitted to us the special maxim, Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio‚, always presume marriage.  When a man and woman are living together as husband and wife, the Law will hold them to be such, even against strong probabilities that they are not".
(Darling v Dent, 82 Ark 82; shepardized as still controlling and Stare decisis)

    The general assembly has rightfully not tampered with God's institution and the sanctity of marriage, including trying to outlaw God's Law (an oxymoron).

    This Nation and Arkansas were founded as, and are, religious societies in which the Law is superior to statute, where the foundation and rule of decision in this Nation and Arkansas, is the Law of the Lord God, as promulgated by the 97th Congress in Public Law 97-280 and proclaimed and recognized by Arkansas in celebration of Christian heritage Week, February/March and ACA 1-2-119; and by many other decisions and rulings.

    The Bible (the Law) is the rock on which our Republic rests and that applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies is of clear value and that we, as a nation and individually, need to study and apply the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

    The family law statutes of Arkansas are equity (chancery), while the Common Law is outside the jurisdiction of this court.  (see letter from Turpen, supra, and also see Marvin v Marvin, 557 P. 2d 106)

Equity: is a body of jurisprudence, or field of jurisdiction, differing in its origin, theory and methods from the common law...  A system of jurisprudence collateral to, and in some respects independent of law.  (Black's 5th)

    Licensing is the "legal" method to circumvent the Law - licensees CONSENTING to statutes which run COUNTER to Law, subject themselves VOLUNTARILY to equity jurisdiction.

    This is not to condemn equity itself, but rather the methodology (force and deception) used to draw people under its umbrella.

    The union/marriage of the parties in question was at the Common Law, not a state privilege, license or contract.  Arkansas has no statute (and lawfully could not have) providing that a marriage is void when no license is obtained, Wright v Vales, 1 Ark App 175.  The argument that a license is needed to have a marriage is not valid.  A license is needed merely as the binding instrument for "contract" with the state, and then for miscegenation, while a marriage without a license is, always was and always will be valid, "as the statute providing for procurement of a license is merely directory, not mandatory", DePotty v DePotty, 226 Ark 881. Therefore, the union between the parties is not bound by a contract which this court can adjudicate.

"Provisions of Family Law [chancery] do not govern distribution of property acquired during a nonmarital [no state contract] relationship; such a relationship remains subject solely to judicial decision [non chancery]" Marvin v Marvin, 557 P. 2d 106

 "Public policy is to foster and promote the institution of marriage, but perpetuation of judicial rules which result in an equitable [chancery] distribution of property accumulated during a nonmarital [no state contract] relationship is neither a just nor effective way of carrying out that policy". Marvin, supra.
    A "Complaint alleging [an arraignment] while man and woman lived together they would ... share ... property accumulated could be amended to state a cause of action independent of allegations of express contract, ... contract or equitable relief".  Marvin, supra.

    In the Marvin case, Mr. Marvin, knowing there was no state contract, license or such to bind him in court (chancery), believed he could separate from Michelle and that Michelle would have no recourse (legal or such) by which she could make any claim. What is elicited from this case is that the couple had a Common Law marriage (union absent a license) and Michelle had a recourse by which she could make a lawful claim, albeit not in chancery, as explained in the decision of Marvin, supra.

    Jurisdiction of a chancery court is applicable to obtain prospective relief (id est, declare state recognition of parentage) but not on subject matter jurisdiction when there is no state contract upon which the court can adjudicate.  The doctrine of equity (chancery) compels the fair treatment of the parties in consideration of the contract between them.

    Hence, in such a case, chancery does not lie as between the parties.

    The chancery court can not assume, assert or take jurisdiction.  Once jurisdiction is challenged it must be proven by competent proof, Thomson v Gaskill, 315 US 442 and McNutt v General Motors, 298 U.S. 178. The burden of proof necessarily falls upon the party seeking the specific relief.

    For such a matter to proceed in chancery, the party seeking the specific relief should produce be served subpoena duces tecum, ordering them to produce in court the contract between the parties.

    At Law, without the state, a father is the natural guardian of the minor children and is entitled to his children's custody, even above the mother.  Up through circa 1921, statutory authority of licensed (contract) marriages was engendered and incorporated in a body of statutory law for specific type of cases and circumstances, supra, which ran parallel to the Common Law but …did not supplant the Common Law and marriages without the state contract/license or the guardianship and custody of minor children without the state license/contract.

    The statutory law of guardianship and custody of minor children circa 1921 began the evolution of the "Tender Years" doctrine, usually because the father, not the mother, was away at work while the mother, not the father, remained home. Circa 1964 to 1979 the general statutory rule of Arkansas became that each parent's right to custody was of equal dignity, and the primary consideration determining custody was the welfare and best interests of the children.  See Stephenson v Stephenson, 237 Ark 543 and DeCroo v DeCroo, 266 Ark 275.

    Such is only statutory, not law and is presented to demonstrate how statutes (equity) find it difficult to stray far from Law, even returning to the same direction as Law.  These statutory authorities of licensed marriages began to open new territory regarding the guardianship and custody of minor children only in state contracted marriages not marriages contracted without the state.  This was not a supplant of the Common Law with regards to anything. The common law was before and above every other rule.

    The Arkansas supreme court has clearly affirmed that

"The chancellor dismissed her [defendant] complaint for want of equity‚"

(Furth V Furth, 97 Ark 273; shepardized as still controlling)

    A non-state marriage is actionable at the Common Law and statutory authority does not lie in the matter.  The Father, should not be denied his rights At Law and should not be denied the excercise of his guardianship of his children, lest he have an action At Law for his remedy.

    Under public law, there is no state interest in such a matter of child custody.

End excerpt --

CASE LAW

Living together as man and wife under a mutual agreement to live in the relation constitutes a common-law marriage. Knight v. State, 55 Cr.R 243 116 S.W. 56 (1909)

Evidence of agreement between man and woman, both competent to marry, presently to become husband and wife, and actual cohabitation by them as such, pursuant to such agreement, while holding themselves out to the public as husband and wife, establishes valid “common-law marriage”. Hill v. Smith, 181 S.W.2d 1015 (1944)

To establish a common-law marriage, allegation and proof are necessary that parties entered into agreement between themselves, either express or implied, to take each other for husband and wife during their lives, followed by cohabitation as husband and wife and holding each other out to the public as their respective spouses, and none of the three essentials standing alone is sufficient.  DE Shazo v. Christian, 191 S.W.2d 495, ref. N.r.e. (Civ.App. 1946)

The essential elements of a “common-law marriage” are an agreement to be husband and wife, accompanied by cohabitation and the holding out to the public that such a relationship is intended by the parties.  Middlebrook v. Wideman, 203 S.W.2d 686 (Civ.App.. 1947)

To make a prima facie or tentative showing of a common-law marriage, three elements must exist:  (1) an agreement to be husband and wife’  (2) living together as husband and wife’ and  (3) a holding out to the public that the couple are husband and wife.  Ex parte Threet, 333 S.W.2d 361 (Sup. 1960)

Here are some more cites -

Smith v. White, 216 S.W.2d 672, ref. n.r.e. (CivApp. 1949)
Smith v. Smith, 257 S.W.2d 335, ref. n.r.e. (Civ.App. 1953)
McIlveen v. McIlveen, 332 S.W.2d 113 (Civ.App. 1960)
Williams v. Williams, 336 S.W.2d 757 (Civ.App. 1960)
Padilla v. Texas Emp. Ins Ass’n, 343 S.W.2d 473, ref. n.r.e. (Civ.App. 1970)
Gary v. Gary, 490 S.W.2d 929, ref. n.r.e. (Civ.App. 1973)
Chatman v. State, 513 S.W.2d 854 (Civ.App. 1974)
Winfield v. Renfro, 821 S.W.2d 640, (App. 1 Dist. 1991)
Garduno v. Garduno, 760 S.W.2d 735 (App. 13 Dist. 1988)
McChesney v. Johnson, 79 S.W.2d 658 (Civ.App. 1935)
 
 

[If these are true, they would make an interesting study in history for their origins.]
 

 In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female.  Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.

 (Like THAT makes sense.)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but is prohibited from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.

 (Do they look different reversed?)

 *~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also applies to undertakers. The organs of the deceased must be covered with a brick or piece of wood at all times.

 (A brick??)

 *~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.

 (Much worse than "going blind!")

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilege of having sex for the first time... Reason: Under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden for virgins to marry.

 (Let's just think for a minute; is there any job anywhere else in the world that even comes close to this?)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. The husband's lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.

 (Ah! Justice!)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in tropical fish stores.

 (But of course!)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens, her mother must be in the room to witness the act.

 (Makes one shudder at the thought.)

 *~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*
 In Santa Cruz, Bolivia, it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman and her daughter at the same time.

 (I presume this was a big enough problem that they had to pass this law?)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 In Maryland, it is illegal to sell condoms from vending machines with one exception: Prophylactics may be dispensed from a vending machine only "in places where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises."

 (Is this a great country or what? Not as great as Guam, though!)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 The ant can lift 50 times its own weight, can pull 30 times its own weight and always falls over on its right side when intoxicated.

 (From drinking little bottles of...? How did the govt. pay for this research??)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 Butterflies taste with their feet.

 (Ah, geez)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 An ostrich's eye is bigger than it's brain.

 (I know some people like that.)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 Starfish don't have brains.

 (I know some people like that, too)

 *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
 And, the best for last..... Turtles can breathe through their butts.

 (And you think you have bad breath?)
 
 

H U M O R

Ambiguity and Imponderables
contributing editor D, and J & B

Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.....

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

If a deaf person swears, does his mother wash his hands with soap?

If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it considered a hostage situation?

Is there another word for synonym?

Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?

If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Why do they lock gas station bathrooms? Are they afraid someone will clean them?

If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

If the police arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain silent?

What was the best thing before sliced bread?

One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

How is it possible to have a civil war?

If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do the rest drown, too?

If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have "S" in it?

Why are hemorrhoids called "hemorrhoids" instead of "assteroids"? (this requires you do know the meaning of the word hemo)
 

Others
 

If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

I went to a bookstore and asked the saleswoman, "Where's the self-help section?" She said if she told me, it would defeat the purpose.

Why do they put Braille on the drive-through bank machines? (Somebody please explain THIS ONE to me) (I know there's a logical explanation, but it escapes me)

How do they get deer to cross the road only at those yellow road signs?

Does the Little Mermaid wear an algebra? (needed to think about that one)

If you ate both pasta and antipasto, would you still be hungry? (this requires you to NOT know the meaning of antipasta)
 

goto top .....mailto: rockyview@tellme1st.net