Concerning Marriage License

Bigger text (+)Smaller text (-)

Dear Monty:

Thank you for this cute anecdotal prose that probably is a complete fabrication based upon a short interview with the alleged de facto government agent and a whole lot of patriot mythology research but unfortunately without citing the relevant LANDMARK COURT OPINION from Illinois. See West v. West

This goes out to all who have a child support payment problem. The attached case is the absolute truth fact summed up in one of its paragraphs. Got child support you can't pay???

Well, void the trust agreement called a marriage license by revoking it and rescinding your signature due to commercial fraud, lack of full disclosure, and strongly held religious beliefs all of which you just now became aware due to the lack of full disclosure and fraud in the inducement.

There is no law that requires you to leave your asset in the trust forever. Oh, your asset?? It is your name and signature which are your most important and valuable asset.

Don't think your name and signature are your most valuable asset???

Well,,,, just think for a moment what won't happen in your world if you did not give your name and signature to some party, like for example the lights, water, gas, gasoline credit card, car dealership bank loan.

Test homework assignment if you still be not convinced. Withdraw your signature from the above cited applications and see how fast you ain't got no lights, (yeah, AH got mah de gree from the Bayou Goula ISD.) water, gas, credit card, car, etc.

The de factos have descended into commerce - the same rules apply.

Withdraw your signature from the marriage license and you are no longer subject to the benefit of having some spawn of Satan judge/trustee tell you what you, as the fiduciary of all caps trust property, are going to do for him and the property of the trust he is managing. Relinquish all your supposed rights and benefits and assign the property of the trust, i.e.: the all cap letter name wife and child to "this state" and to the judge as conservator/trustee/fiduciary. That will give the spawn of Satan judge a reason to make a phone call to a smarter spawn of Satan.

From that point on all you do is continuously ask for "Show me the trust agreement." Answer all presentments with "Show me the trust agreement." Don't ratify anything until you see the verified trust agreement/license. After you rescind your signature they don't have an agreement with your verified signature on it.

And here is some free advice that came to me by way of a very old judge (and I don't know if judge Cid... is dead yet so I ain't mentioning any last names) who had pity upon me back in Tarrant county in 1994: as he was signing the commitment order to put me in jail for half a day for contempt so thugs with guns could go out to my house and steal my truck:..."Son, don't ever identify your own signature even if you know it is your signature because you are the only one who can identify that signature and we need your identification of your signature to make legal all the unconstitutional things we do to you by contract."

It was good advice. That nice guy identification with a qualification of lack of full disclosure that I made in court cost me 20,000 bux.

I ain't never forgot that advice. Once you rescind your signature on a particular piece of paper, from that point own, you cannot ever see it again on that piece of paper or a copy of that piece of paper.

The Matrix is real, but it is all predicated upon your approval.

L -o-

P.S.: Now all of you know why I told you this "A4V" and "1099OID" nonsense would ultimately lead to failure because I and a few others were using commercial discharge way back in 1993 and one thing we learned is that the spawn of Satan will send out thugs with machine guns to take back the stuff in your possession and even if it is true that the money is fake, i.e.: it is FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES, and not Federal reserve notes which is what the law says, (the spawn know the money is fake, that is why they want you to pay back with your sweat energy) and all the unconstitutional acts are predicated upon your name and signature that you once willingly gave to the spawn of Satan agents of the de facto government Matrix for something they offered and you wanted.

Again. The de factos have descended into commerce. Make them live by the rules. I did. And I had them beaten until I tried to qualify my signature. Remember, once you revoke the agreement and rescind your signature it is not ever observable by you ever again on that agreement. If I had known that one trick of the de facto Matrix back in 93 judge Cid... would have made the bank settle the account. Now look at your child support problem. They still have your signed agreement.

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:32 AM, Monty Ervin <> wrote:

Subject: marriage license.doc
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:30:55 -0600

Here's the Marriage License explanation...very revealing on the mixing of fictions with the Living...

Marriage Licenses: The REAL Truth

Originally posted by Virgil Cooper

An Enlightening Conversation with a Marriage License Bureau

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26 years, filed for divorce. We had seven (7) children: five (5) daughters and two (2) sons. Our youngest at the time, our second son, was five years old. At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.

I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25. I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license. She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona. He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states – but there are differences.

One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states. The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of Louisiana, which is a Napoleonic Code state.

He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a dotted line, and NOT officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.

He said if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a "dotted line" they will have to add in their own minds. The state's marriage license is "strictly secular," he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a "dotted line" meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.

In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other "dotted line." He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the case in the secular realm of the state's marriage license contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each other by another "dotted line."

The picture he was trying to "paint" was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a "dotted line" merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.

Marriage License - Secular Contract Diagram

[The diagram is not translating correctly but it pictures a triangle with the State at the top and the man and woman at each of the bottom angles. It shows that God isn't even part of the diagram.]

Marriage License - Secular Contract Diagram

                                STATE (primary party)

HUSBAND (secondary party)   WIFE (secondary party).    GOD

He further mentioned that this "religious overtone" is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been "deputized" by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property" by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau's administrative assistant. He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself – the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is "the ‘privilege’ to be regulated by statute." He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along – even though the husband and wife didn't realize that.

My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract.

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract." Such a contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this.

He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" – meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of "In Loco Parentis".

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions. He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State.

His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, "You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license."

I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the marriage license. The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."

"... when the people want to do something I can't find anything in the Constitution expressly forbidding them to do, I say, whether I like it or not, 'Goddammit, let 'em do it.'"
Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965)

NOTICE: Unknown author is not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.
Share/Save/Bookmark Subscribe

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
Admiralty related itemsBelligerent Claimant
BondsAttention Signing the Constitution Away
Citizenship / nationality related itemsEducation
Jerry KirkAware
JurisdictionLaw related items
Lewis MohrLuis Ewing
MoneyOath related items
Reading MaterialReading Room
StuffTax matters
Travel relatedTruth
AntiShyster MagazineVideo
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!

Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generaly presented as "" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of used throughout.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commecial enterprise and operation as there is no charge for things presented
this site relys on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.
The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct; use the service in a way that harms us or anyone connected with or whose work is presented; damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site) or interfere with anyone's use and enjoyment of the website.
All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the site or material contained within.

Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2016
All Rights Reserved