|
Story submitted
by KDivine 10 05 09 Maybe there is hope! ja I make the effort to share this information because it gives me, at last, a plausible answer
to a long-unanswered question: Why, no matter how much intelligent goodwill exists in the world, is there so much war, suffering
and injustice? It doesn't seem to matter what creative plan, ideology, religion, or philosophy great minds come up with, nothing
seems to improve our lot. Since the dawn of civilization, this pattern repeats itself over and over again. The answer is that civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations,
our own included, have been built on slavery and mass murder. Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development
of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, cheat, steal, torture, manipulate, and generally inflict great
suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse, in order to establish their own sense of security through domination.
The inventor of civilization - the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled mass murderers
- was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed a significant advantage
over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies - especially military hierarchies. Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve
their disproportionate power. And as their power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate. We
are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld - the overlapping criminal syndicates that lurk above ordinary society and
law just as the underworld lurks below it. During the past fifty years, psychopaths
have gained almost absolute control of all the branches of government. You can notice this if you observe carefully that no
matter what illegal thing a modern politician does, no one will really take him to task. All of the so called scandals
that have come up, any one of which would have taken down an authentic administration, are just farces played out for the
public, to distract them, to make them think that the democracy is still working. One of the main factors to consider in
terms of how a society can be taken over by a group of pathological deviants is that the psychopaths' only limitation is the
participation of susceptible individuals within that given society. Lobaczewski gives an average figure for the most active
deviants of approximately 6% of a given population. (1% essential psychopaths and up to 5% other psychopathies and characteropathies.)
The essential psychopath is at the center of the web. The others form the first tier of the psychopath's control system. The next tier of such a system is composed of individuals who were born normal,
but are either already warped by long-term exposure to psychopathic material via familial or social influences, or who, through
psychic weakness have chosen to meet the demands of psychopathy for their own selfish ends. Numerically, according to Lobaczewski,
this group is about 12% of a given population under normal conditions. So approximately 18% of any given population is active in the creation and imposition of a Pathocracy. The 6% group
constitutes the Pathocratic nobility and the 12% group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous.
When you understand the true nature of psychopathic influence, that it is conscienceless, emotionless,
selfish, cold and calculating, and devoid of any moral or ethical standards, you are horrified, but at the same time everything
suddenly begins to makes sense. Our society is ever more soulless because the people who lead it and who set the example are
soulless - they literally have no conscience. In his book Political Ponerology,
Andrej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks
of social hierarchies. Because they can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured
by lie detector tests), psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want. In court, for example, psychopaths
can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped by an emotional predisposition
to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in
the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath. As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with
decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies. The result
is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy with psychopaths. Since psychopaths have no limitations on what they can
or will do to get to the top, the ones in charge are generally pathological. It is not power that corrupts, it is that
corrupt individuals seek power. How can we distinguish between psychopaths
and healthy people? What is the portrait of a true psychopath? Such a dangerous question has almost never been successfully asked. The reason is that we mistakenly
confuse healthy for normal. Human psychological diversity is the health of our race. There is no
normal because healthy humans continuously evolve beyond all normalizing standards. The terrorism of searching
through hierarchies for anyone deviating from normal is no different from witch hunts or Inquisitions. You must remember
that hierarchies thrive on such low dramas, torturing victims until they confess to evil beliefs. Not so long ago
the church and state ongoingly acquired significant income and property through witch hunts and Inquisitions. This continued
for over two hundred and fifty years. Ten generations of Europeans understood pogrom as normal life. Let us not return to
that nightmare. Testing for normal is guaranteed to backfire in our face. There is no normal. But there is
conscience. We have very little empirical evidence to support the idea that true psychopathy
is the result of an abused childhood, and much empirical evidence to support that it is genetic. The neurobiological model
offers us the greatest hope of being able to identify even the most devious psychopath. Other recent studies lead to similar
results and conclusions: that psychopaths have great difficulty processing verbal and nonverbal affective (emotional) material,
that they tend to confuse the emotional significance of events, and most importantly, that these deficits show up in brain
scans! A missing internal connection between the feeling heart and the thinking brain is detectable. Psychopaths are incapable of authentic deep emotions. In fact, when Robert Hare, a Canadian psychologist who
spent his career studying psychopathy, did brain scans on psychopaths while showing them two sets of words, one set of neutral
words with no emotional associations and a second set with emotionally charged words, while different areas of the brain lit
up in the non-psychopathic control group, in the psychopaths, both sets were processed in the same area of the brain, the
area that deals with language. They did not have an emotional reaction until they intellectually concluded that it would be
better if they had one, and then they whipped up an emotional response just for show. The
simplest, clearest and truest portrait of the psychopath is given in the titles of three seminal works on the subject: Without
Conscience by Robert Hare, The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley, and Snakes in Suits by Robert Hare
and Paul Babiak. A psychopath is exactly that: conscienceless. The most important thing to remember is that this lack of conscience
is hidden from view behind a mask of normality that is often so convincing that even experts are deceived. As a result, psychopaths
become the Snakes in Suits that control our world. Psychopaths lack a sense of remorse or
empathy with others. They can be extremely charming and are experts at using talk to charm and hypnotize their prey. They
are also irresponsible. Nothing is ever their fault; someone else or the world at large is always to blame for all of their
problems or their mistakes. Martha Stout, in her book The Sociopath Next Door, identifies what she calls the pity ploy. Psychopaths use pity to manipulate. They convince you to give them one more
chance, and to not tell anyone about what they have done. So another trait - and a very important one - is their ability to
control the flow of information. They also seem to have little real conception of past or
future, living entirely for their immediate needs and desires. Because of the barren quality of their inner life, they are
often seeking new thrills, anything from feeling the power of manipulating others to engaging in illegal activities simply
for the rush of adrenaline. Another trait of the psychopath is what Lobaczewski calls
their special psychological knowledge of normal people. They have studied us. They know us better than we know ourselves.
They are experts in knowing how to push our buttons, to use our emotions against us. But beyond that, they even seem to have
some sort of hypnotic power over us. When we begin to get caught up in the web of the psychopath, our ability to think deteriorates,
gets muddied. They seem to cast some sort of spell over us. It is only later when we are no longer in their presence, out
of their spell, that the clarity of thought returns and we find ourselves wondering how it was that we were unable to respond
or counter what they were doing. Psychopaths learn to recognize each other in a crowd as
early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to themselves. They also become
conscious of being of a different world from the majority of other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance.
Think about the ramifications of this statement: Psychopaths are, to some extent, self-aware
as a group even in childhood! Recognizing their fundamental difference from the rest of humanity, their allegiance would be
to others of their kind, that is, to other psychopaths. Their own twisted sense of honor compels
them to cheat and revile non-psychopaths and their values. In contradiction to the ideals of normal people, psychopaths feel
breaking promises and agreements is normal behavior. Not only do they covet possessions and
power and feel they have the right to them just because they exist and can take them, but they gain special pleasure in usurping
and taking from others; what they can plagiarize, swindle, and extort are fruits far sweeter than those they can earn through
honest labor. They also learn very early how their personalities can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of non-psychopaths,
and how to take advantage of this root of terror for purposes of achieving their goals. So now, imagine how human beings who are totally in the
dark about the presence of psychopaths can be easily deceived and manipulated by these individuals, gaining power in different
countries, pretending to be loyal to the local populations while at the same time playing up obvious and easily discernable
physical differences between groups (such as race, skin color, religion, etc). Psychologically normal humans would be set
against one another on the basis of unimportant differences (think of Rwanda 1994, think of Israelis and Palestinians) while
the deviants in power, with a fundamental difference from the rest of us, a lack of conscience, an inability to feel for another
human being, reaped the benefits and pulled the strings. We are seeing the final desperate power-grab
or endgame (Alex Jones) of brutal, cunning gangs of CIA drug-runners and President-killers; money-laundering international
bankers and their hit-men - economic and otherwise; corrupt military contractors and gung-ho generals; corporate predators
and their political enablers; brainwashers and mind-rapists euphemistically known as psy-ops and PR specialists - in short,
the whole crew of certifiable psychopaths running our so-called civilization. And they are running scared. Why does the Pathocracy fear losing its control? Because it is threatened by the spread of knowledge. The
greatest fear of any psychopath is of being found out. Psychopaths go through life knowing that
they are completely different from other people. Deep down they know something is missing in them. They quickly learn to hide
their lack of empathy, while carefully studying others' emotions so as to mimic normalcy while cold-bloodedly manipulating
the normals. Today, thanks to new information technologies, we are on the brink of unmasking
the psychopaths and building a civilization of, by and for the healthy human being - a civilization without war, a civilization
based on truth, a civilization in which the saintly few rather than the diabolical few would gravitate to positions of power.
We already have the knowledge necessary to diagnose psychopathic personalities and keep them out of power. We have the knowledge
necessary to dismantle the institutions in which psychopaths especially flourish - militaries, intelligence agencies, large
corporations, and secret societies. We simply need to disseminate this knowledge, and the will to use it, as widely and as
quickly as possible. Until the knowledge and awareness of pathological human
beings is given the attention it deserves and becomes part of the general knowledge of all human beings, there is no way that
things can be changed in any way that is effective and long-lasting. If half the people agitating for truth or stopping the
war or saving the earth would focus their efforts, time and money on exposing psychopathy, we might get somewhere.
One might ask if the weak
point of our society has been our tolerance of psychopathic behavior? Our disbelief that someone could seem like an intelligent
leader and still be acting deceptively on their own behalf without conscience? Or is it merely ignorance? If the general voting public is not aware that there exists a category of people we sometimes perceive as
almost human, who look like us, who work with us, who are found in every race, every culture, speaking every language,
but who are lacking conscience, how can the general public take care to block them from taking over the hierarchies? General
ignorance of psychopathology may prove to be the downfall of civilization. We stand by like grazing sheep as political/corporate
elites throw armies of our innocent sons and daughters against fabricated enemies as a way of generating trillions in profits,
vying against each other for pathological hegemony. Nearly everyone who has been part of
an organization working for social change has probably seen the same dynamic play out: The good and sincere work of many can
be destroyed by the actions of one person. That doesn't bode well for bringing some sort of justice to the planet! In fact,
if psychopaths dominate political hierarchies, is it any wonder that peaceful demonstrations have zero impact on the outcome
of political decisions? Perhaps it is time to choose something other than massive, distant hierarchies as a way of governing
ourselves? So many efforts to provide essays, research reports, exposés and
books to leaders so they might take the new information to heart and change their behavior have come to naught. For example,
in the final paragraph of his revised edition of the book, The Party's Over, Richard Heinberg writes: I still believe that if the people of the world can be helped to understand the situation we
are in, the options available, and the consequences of the path we are currently on, then it is at least possible that they
can be persuaded to undertake the considerable effort and sacrifice that will be entailed in a peaceful transition to a sustainable,
locally based, decentralized, low-energy, resource-conserving social regime. But inspired leadership will be required.
And that is the just-murdered fantasy. There are no inspired leaders anymore. And in
hierarchical structures there can't be. Assuming that you can elect men or women to office who will see reason and the light
of day, and who will change and learn and grow, make compassionate decisions and take conscientious actions... is a foolish,
childish dream. Continuing to dream it simply plays into psychopathic agendas. Only when
the 75% of humanity with a healthy conscience come to understand that we have a natural predator, a group of people who live
amongst us, viewing us as powerless victims to be freely fed upon for achieving their inhuman ends, only then will we take
the fierce and immediate actions needed to defend what is preciously human. Psychological
deviants have to be removed from any position of power over people of conscience, period. People must be made aware that such
individuals exist and must learn how to spot them and their manipulations. The hard part is that one must also struggle against
those tendencies to mercy and kindness in oneself in order not to become prey. The real
problem is that the knowledge of psychopathy and how psychopaths rule the world has been effectively hidden. People do not
have the adequate, nuanced knowledge they need to really make a change from the bottom up. Again and again, throughout history
it has been meet the new boss, same as the old boss. If there is any work that is deserving of full time efforts
and devotion for the sake of helping humanity in this present dark time, it is the study of psychopathy and the propagation
of this information as far and wide and fast as possible. There are only two things that can bring
a psychopath under submission: A bigger psychopath. The non-violent, absolute refusal to submit to psychopathic controls no matter the consequences
(non-violent noncompliance).
Let us choose path 2! If individuals simply sat down and
refused to lift a hand to further one single aim of the psychopathic agenda, if people refused to pay taxes, if soldiers refused
to fight, if government workers and corporate drones and prison guards refused to go to work, if doctors refused to treat
psychopathic elites and their families, the whole system would grind to a screeching halt. True
change happens in the moment that a person becomes aware of psychopathy in all its chilling details. From this new awareness,
the world looks different, and entirely new actions can be taken. Distinguishing between human and psychopathic qualities
begins the foundation of responsibility upon which we have a real chance to create sustainable culture.
Story submitted by Kristi Divine 9 14 09 And we shall go
a court ing.. as we three shall go a court ing. I think it is fraud, just like the state's fraud in being part of the marriage
contract, to wit...
D R A F T
State as Third Party to Marriage Contract
On or about
14 February 1988, Petitioner, one George-Leedom entered into what he believed, at the time, to be a valid Christian marriage
agreement solely between he and Plaintiff, one Malia Lynn Westlund. The Petitioner’s understanding was based on
the Scriptures, which were read at the ceremony:
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2:24
“And he answered and said unto them,
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man
leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain,
but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matthew 19:4-6
The
purported marriage ceremony of or about 3 June 1989 at Simsbury, Connecticut was conducted by Rev. Timothy Christenson. In
performance of his duties, Rev. Christenson did not inform Petitioner, either prior to or during said ceremony of the State
of Connecticut nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts nor the State of California nor the United States [hereafter, ‘State’]
as third parties to a contract between Petitioner and Plaintiff.
There was no notice, warning, caveat, disclaimer
or any other information or disclosure(s) contained within the alleged marriage license of 23 May 1989 informing Petitioner
that the State was third party to the alleged contract between Petitioner and Plaintiff.
Petitioner, in conduct of his
own due diligence on the matter, only recently discovered the existence of this undisclosed material fact with regard to any
state being a third party to Petitioner’s purported marriage contract.[1] “The State makes itself a party
to all marriages, in that it requires the marriage contract to be entered into before officers designated by itself, and with
certain formalities which it has prescribed.” Dennis v. Dennis, 68 Conn. 186, 196 (1896). What marriages between
our own citizens shall be recognized as valid in this Commonwealth is a subject within the power of the Legislature
to regulate. But when the statutes are silent, questions of the validity of marriages are to be determined by the jus gentium,
the common law of nations, the law of nature as generally recognized by all civilized peoples. Commonwealth v. Lane,
113 Mass. 458, 463 (Mass. 1873). Even US Code, TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 7 states in its
Definition
of “marriage” and “spouse” In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage”
means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only
to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Much to Petitioner’s surprise and legal peril, the
existence of the State as a third party to marriage contracts is not a novel development, nor is it exclusive to the great
State of Connecticut nor the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts :
“Marriage is a contract but it is not merely
a civil contract, for it can only be entered into in a manner recognized by law, and can only be dissolved in a like manner.
The state is the third party to every such contract, and has a direct interest therein” (citing to Blank v. Nohl, 112
Mo. Loc. Cit. 167, 20 S.W. 477, 18 L.R.A. 350; State v. Bittick, 103 Mo. 183, 15 S.W. 325, 11 L.R.A. 587) (emphasis added).
In Trammell v. Vaughan, 158 Mo. 214, 59 S.W. 79, 81 Am. St. 302, 51 L.R.A. 854 (1900), the Supreme Court of Missouri .
Petitioner also discovered that the concept of the State
as a third party to marriage contracts is not some antiquated notion which died out with horse-drawn buggies and oil lamps,
but is still a contemporary and integral part of any marriage contract (see State v. Lynch, 301 N.C. 479, 486, 272 S.E.2d
349, 13 A.L.R.4TH 1317 [1980]: the State is a third party to a marriage contract) and in Blackman v. Iles, 4 N.J. 82, 89 (1950),
"The legislature, in dealing with the subject of marriage, has plenary power, as marriage differs from ordinary common
law contracts, and is subject to control and regulation by the state." The State argues it has the right to determine
at all times what a valid marriage is:
As Justice Spina acknowledges, the common law is "continually evolving."
Ante at 361 (Spina, J., concurring). Moreover, the many changing contours of the common law will vary from State to State.
It is appropriate for a court to resort to the common law of its own jurisdiction to fill in the gaps and interstices of statutes,
see Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309, 318-320, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003), and to modify that common law where
circumstances so require. In some circumstances it may also be appropriate for a court to plumb the common law of another
State. These well-established jurisprudential practices avail nothing in the face of a Massachusetts statute that directs
our courts to employ a specific set of criteria for determining the law of another State. Cote-Whitacre v. Dep't of
Pub. Health, 446 Mass. 350, 387 (Mass. 2006)
Petitioner now finds himself enmeshed in a civil matter involving the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts as an unannounced third party[2], the ramifications of which were not fully disclosed to Petitioner at the
time he purportedly entered into what he believed, at the time, to be a valid marriage agreement involving solely Petitioner
and Plaintiff. That this material fact was withheld from Petitioner prior to entering into the alleged marriage agreement
is tantamount to fraud in any jurisdiction and by any standard.
Definition of “Contract”
Black’s
Law Dictionary defines “contract” simply as “An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation
to do or not to do a particular thing…Its essentials are competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration,
mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.” That marriage is construed to be a contract cannot be disputed.
Sir William Blackstone says that : " Our law considers marriage in no other light than a civil contract. The holiness
of the matrimonial state is left entirely to ecclesiastical law. Such a contract is good and valid, if the parties were,
at the time of making it, willing to contract, able to contract, and actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities
required by law." Hull v. Hull 2 Strobh. Eq (S.C.) 174, Duke v. Fulmer, 5 Rich. Eq. (S.C.) 21 (emphasis added)
Although Massachusetts case law holds that marriage is not merely a contract between the parties when Massachusetts
is attempting to not jeopardize marriage contract integrity (. It is the foundation of the family. It is a social institution
of the highest importance. The Commonwealth has a deep interest that its integrity not be jeopardized. Austin v. Austin, 62
Mass. App. Ct. 719 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004), in Picarella v. Picarella, 20 Md. App. 499, 316 A.2d 826, 832, n.10 (1974), quoting
1 BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, ch. 15, § 433 (Lewis's Ed.), the court ruled that “the law treats marriage ‘as
it does all other contracts: allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties at the time of making it were,
in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms
and solemnities required by law.’” (emphasis added).
Perhaps Connecticut , and Massachusetts should be more
forthcoming as to the terms of contracting with them. The Petioner did not understand and therefore did not consent
to contract with the State of Connecticut or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . To wit note Connecticut has nothing
“precise” as it promulgates marriage: “Our statutory scheme specifies no precise form for the celebration
of marriage; nor does it explicitly require that the parties declare that they take one another as husband and wife . . .
. No requirement is made concerning witnesses, but, like consent, the physical presence of the parties before an official
is an implicit requirement to the performance of a marriage in this state.” Hames v. Hames, 163 Conn. 588, 596, 316
A.2d 379 (1972). “Consent of the participants is a necessary condition to the creation of a valid marriage relationship,
and there must be an intention of the parties to enter into the marriage
status.” Bernstein v. Bernstein, 25 Conn.
Sup. 239, 201 A.2d 660 (1964)
But the nature of consent is to have consent with understatnding. Petitioner
finds the Connecticut marriage license is a permission granted by the state of Connecticut to commit the “unlawful”
act of marriage, in direct conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of liberty. In 1923, the Supreme
Court defined liberty as, among other things, “...the ability to freely marry, establish a home, and bring up children.”4
Given the foregoing, an essential element to a civil contract, then, be it marriage or otherwise, is competency on the part
of both parties. The issue of competency in re marriage contracts is clarified admirably in No insane person or idiot
is capable of contracting a marriage. An engagement to marry being an executory contract, it requires the intelligent
assent of both parties, and a person lacking in mental capacity to understand the nature of the marriage agreement is incapable
of entering the marriage status. Middleborough v. Rochester , 12 Mass. 363.
Clearly, ignorance of the existence
of a third party on the part of the parties allegedly contracting, specifically Petitioner in particular and, in all likelihood,
Plaintiff, unquestionably evidences a fundamental lack of understanding of the “special nature of the contract and duties
and responsibilities which it entails.” Therefore, if one of the “essential elements” of a contract was
absent ab initio, as is the case in the above-captioned matter, a contract cannot be said to have existed in the first instance
between Petitioner and Plaintiff. Absence of any valid and binding contract, it would logically follow, therefore deprives
this Court of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
That Massachusetts and California or other corporations or persons,
even at the request of Plaintiff, could be added to the parties to the agreement is also challenged:
Though a
sealed instrument may be ratified by parol it cannot be so ratified by persons not named therein as principals. An undisclosed
principal cannot become bound in this manner by a sealed instrument. Nor, if the instrument does not show on its face that
any persons other than the signer were intended to be bound thereby, can the seal be treated as surplusage. Moran v. Manning,
306 Mass. 404 (Mass. 1940)
Definition of “Fraud”
“Fraud” is defined in Black’s
Law Dictionary as:
An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part
with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, whether
by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which
deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive,
whether by a single act or combination or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct
falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture…As distinguished from negligence, it
is always positive, intentional. It comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a breach of a legal or equitable
duty and resulting in damage to another. (emphasis added)
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , the answer to the question
“What is fraud?” was answered in Hurwitz v. Prime Communs., 2 Mass. L. Rep. 74 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1994) An action
for the tort of deceit or misrepresentation consists of five elements: 1) Misrepresentation as to a matter of fact. 2) Misrepresentation
made with the intention to induce another to act upon it. 3) Misrepresentation made with knowledge of its untruth or was made
of a fact susceptible of actual knowledge with recklessness as to its truth or falsehood, or was the utterance of a half-truth.
4) Defendant intended that the misrepresentation should be acted upon, and it was acted upon, and 5) Damage resulted directly
therefrom.
In Reynolds v. Reynolds 85 Mass. 605, a marriage was annulled where a man had been entrapped into an undisclosed
aspect of the contract. In White v. Bigelow, 154 Mass. 593: "To satisfy the statute [of frauds], the agreement
or memorandum must, either by its own terms or by reference to some other writing, express with reasonable certainty all the
conditions and essential elements of the bargain." (emphasis added) The agreement was alleged to have been made
upon consideration of marriage. Hayes v. Jackson, 159 Mass. 451, 457 (Mass. 1893)
Petitioner submits to this
Honorable Court that all of the essential elements of fraud, as previously enumerated herein, have been perpetrated in the
alleged marriage contract via the purported marriage ceremony as well as the alleged marriage license allegedly attaching
to Petitioner and Plaintiff, to wit:
(1) the material fact was represented that said alleged marriage contract
was solely between Petitioner and Plaintiff; nowhere was “the Commonwealth” plainly and unmistakably referenced
as a third party, either on the alleged license itself or during the alleged marriage ceremony;
(2) there
can be little question as to the materiality of an unknown third party to what was initially represented strictly as an alleged
two-party contract between Petitioner and Plaintiff;
(3) that the purported marriage contract was solely
between two parties, Petitioner and Plaintiff, was and continues to be a blatant misrepresentation by the PLAINTIFFS, THE
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, State of California, and Malia L. Mason;
(4)
Tim Christenson cannot be said to have concealed the fact that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was a third party to Petitioner’s
and respondent’s purported marriage contract; rather, in consideration of the fact that Tim Christenson never mentioned
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a third party during the alleged marriage ceremony, Tim Christenson appears, to the reasonable
mind, to have been ignorant of the existence of this material fact;
(5) Tim Christenson clearly intended
for both Petitioner and Plaintiff to act upon their alleged covenants and promises made during said alleged marriage ceremony,
irrespective of the fact that both were oblivious to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s interests, as a third party,
in the purported marriage contract;
(6) Petitioner was blithely unaware of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
as a third party to Petitioner’s alleged marriage, but the Commonwealth and its agents moved forward that day under
the fraudulent representation that the purported marriage contract was strictly between Petitioner and Plaintiff;
(7)
heretofore, Petitioner relied upon the legitimacy of Tim Christenson’s alleged marriage ceremony, as well as upon the
purported marriage license which affirmed that said alleged marriage involved only Petitioner and Plaintiff, only to recently
discover the fraud and misrepresentations attendant to both;
(8) Petitioner, at the time under mistaken
belief that he was party to a legitimate marriage ceremony and legitimate marriage contract, was well within his rights to
rely upon the representations made both by Tim Christenson during said alleged marriage ceremony as well as upon the representations
made within said alleged marriage license;
(9) Petitioner has already been financially damaged, to date,
by attorney’s and other state actor’s and department’s fees attendant to resolution of the above-captioned
matter; Petitioner also now finds himself on the business end of a Contempt Judgment ordering him to pay to some $17,000 to
Plaintiff via the Commonwealth’s “Department of Revenue” or face bodily attachment in the form of a jail
sentence.
Fraud vitiates any contract, including a marriage contract.. The Petitioner had no knowledge Rev. Tim
Christiansen was an agent or representative of Connecticut and/or Massachusetts and could bind him to a contract with either.
State Ex Rel. Felson v. Allen , 129 Conn. 427, 431-432, 29 A.2d 306 (1942). “The plaintiffs appeared in Greenwich before
a person whom they believed to be a justice of the peace; he purported to join them in marriage, but they are unable to prove
that he was authorized by the statute to do so, and they do not claim that there is any basis upon which we can hold that
he was. The situation falls within the express terms of the statute, which declares such a marriage to be void.”
Gross fraud in the marriage, such as outrageous falsehood or misrepresentations by one of the parties to the contract is sufficient
to render a marriage voidable. 38Leavitt v. Leavitt, 13 Mich. 452; Cams v. Cams, 24 N. J. Eq. 516
So, marriage contracts
can be annulled based on fraud. Had Petitioner understood the State was a third party, and not God as the third party,
he would have rescinded the statutory part. The first part of 1855 Mass. Acts 145, § 11 is as follows: When the
validity of a marriage is doubted, either party may file a libel for annulling such marriage, or, when the validity of a marriage
is denied or doubted by either party, the other party may file a libel for affirming the same. The omission of the words,
"for fraud or other cause," contained in the Mass. Gen. Stat. ch. 107, § 4, and in 1855 Mass. Acts 27, does
not change the meaning of the provision. The statute assumes that there may be marriages which are legal in form but invalid
in fact. In terms it confers jurisdiction upon the court, but in reference to the law of marriage it is merely declaratory.
Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404 (Mass. 1898) "A marriage which is voidable . . . is presumably
valid and should
for all legal purposes be treated as a valid marriage unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction has annulled it or
entered a declaratory judgment determining that it is null." C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, supra at § 19:3.
See Robbins v. Robbins, 343 Mass. 247, 251-252, 178 N.E.2d 281 (1961) (voidable marriage considered valid until annulled);
Callow v. Thomas, 322 Mass. 550, 555, 78 N.E.2d 637 (1948) (same). In Massachusetts , for example, fraud that goes to the
essence of a marriage contract renders a marriage "voidable." See Reynolds v. Reynolds, 85 Mass. 605, 3 Allen 605,
609-611 (1862) v. Reynolds, 85 Mass. 605, 3 Allen 605, 609-611 (1862). Cote-Whitacre v. Dep't of Pub. Health, 446 Mass.
350, 361 (Mass. 2006)
Lack of Petitioner’s Signature Voids Marriage Contract and Divorce Orders of
the State
The requirement of the law that a marriage
must be proved as the first step in a suit for divorce is based upon the theory that it is necessary to first judicially and
legally determine the present status of the parties before any decree can be properly made which will affect their future
status. This is intended to preclude any fraud or error in any claim for relief in person or property in any suit for divorce
where no legal relationship, through marriage, ever existed.1212 Harman v. Ilarman, 16 11l. 85; Mangue v. Mangue, 1 Mass.
240; Vree- land v. Vreeland, 18 N. J. Eq. 43.
The term “signature” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary
as “The act of putting one’s name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity.” (emphasis added)
Petitioner submits that, pursuant to the foregoing definition, his bona fide signature is not affixed to the purported marriage
license allegedly pertaining to, and antecedent to, the alleged marriage ceremonies and alleged contract involving Petitioner
and Plaintiff.[3] This substantive issue of fact, viz, the lack of Petitioner’s signature on the purported marriage
license, gives rise to Washington ’s statute of frauds, which stipulates at RCW 19.36.010:
In the following cases,
specified in this section, any agreement, contract and promise shall be void, unless such agreement, contract or promise,
or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto
by him lawfully authorized, that is to say…(3) every agreement, promise or undertaking made upon consideration of marriage,
except mutual promises to marry…(emphasis added)
The phrase “upon consideration of marriage” within
the foregoing statute has been the subject of much legal wrangling. Koontz v. Koontz, 83 Wash. 180, 184-85, 145 P. 201 (1915),
citing Browne on the Statute of Frauds (5th ed.), SS 215b, is instructive in this regard:
The distinction should be carefully
noted between agreements in “consideration” of marriage, and agreements, which are merely in “expectation”
or “contemplation” of marriage. In order that the contract shall be within the statute, marriage or the promise
of marriage must have been its consideration or inducement. (emphasis added)
It would be difficult for any reasonable
person to consider the execution, in this case alleged execution, of a purported marriage license as being in consideration
of any purpose other than marriage. (See also Friedlander v. Friedlander, 80 Wn.2d 293, 300 494 P.2d 208 [1972]: “[M]arriage
is consideration of the highest value.”)
Petitioner respectfully reminds this Honorable Court that the statute
of frauds is not a doctrine in equity, it is a positive statutory mandate which renders void and unenforceable those undertakings
which offend it. See Forland v. Boyum, 53 Wash. 421, 102 Pac. 34 (1909); Farrell v. Mentzer, 102 Wash. 629, 174 Pac. 482 (1918);
Sposari v. Matt Malaspina & Co., 63 Wn.2d 679, 388 P.2d 970 (1964).
In consideration of the foregoing, to wit, that
Petitioner’s signature is not literally, legally or lawfully affixed to any alleged marriage license pertaining to Plaintiff,
any alleged contract between Petitioner and Plaintiff is void ab initio and unenforceable. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
Remedy
Inasmuch as Petitioner
never signed the purported marriage license, and inasmuch as he is not, and cannot be, a party to this action, and inasmuch
as there is not currently, and never was, a contract between Petitioner and Plaintiff and the State of Connecticut and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of California, and the Massachusetts Department of Revenue owing to fraud, there
never was a marriage and so there is no controversy for this Honorable Court to adjudicate.
Henceforth, the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over Petitioner and over the subject matter. “A marriage ceremony, especially if apparently
legally performed, gives rise to a presumptively valid status of marriage which persists unless and until it is overthrown
by evidence in an appropriate judicial proceeding.” Perlstein v. Perlstein, 152 Conn. 152, 157, 204 A.2d 909 (1964).
This is that evidence and this is the judicial proceeding. Petitioner Notices this Court’s Judgment of Contempt
is void ab initio.
This marriage evidenced by the Connecticut license is fraudulent. It was not disclosed that
the woman in the dress was a legal entity, a fiction. It was not disclosed the de facto state was a party to the contract
of the de jure flesh and blood man George-Leedom with the de jure flesh and blood woman Malia Westlund in the church.
The marriage is a nullity. And therefore the divorce is void. Please find Undersigned’s status papers filed
into case, evidencing he is not a state-created legal entity.
Further, Petitioner respectfully directs this Court’s
attention to Coson v. Roehl, 63 Wn.2d 384 (1963), citing to Angerosa v. White Co., 248 App. Div. 425, 290 N. Y. S. 204 (1936):
". . . To deny relief to the victim of a deliberate fraud because of his own negligence would encourage falsehood
and dishonesty . . .
". . . In this jurisdiction protection is given to one who is injured by falsehood or deception;
fraud vitiates everything which it touches, and destroys the very thing which it was devised to support; the law does not
temporize with trickery or duplicity. A contract, the making of which was induced by deceitful methods or crafty device, is
nothing more than a scrap of paper, and it makes no difference whether the fraud goes to the factum, or whether it is preliminary
to the execution of the agreement itself. . . ." (emphasis added)
Pursuant to the foregoing, Petitioner also Notices all past orders and judgments of the Massachusetts Trial Court, Probate
and Family Court are void ab initio, thereby granting relief to the victim of the fraud(s) described herein. (See Marley v.
Dep't of Labor & Indus., 125 Wn.2d 533, 539, 886 P.2d 189 (1994): “A judgment is ‘void’ only when the
issuing court lacks personal jurisdiction over the party or subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.”)
This contract is rescinded. Please
find Notice of Rescission attached filed into case., per Fisher v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 160 Mass. 386 (Mass. 1894):
"I instruct you, as a general proposition of law, that if there had been misrepresentations made to her which induced
her to make the contract with the company, then she had a right to rescind the contract when she discovered the fact of these
misrepresentations having been made, and having thus rescinded the contract, and put the defendant in the condition it was
before the making of the contract, then she would have the right, as matter of law, to recover the money she had paid in pursuance
of the contract. She had the right to annul the contract, and, having annulled it, then you will observe that the defendant
had among its funds money of hers, received from her, which in equity and good conscience it ought not to hold, but should
pay it to her, provided she was
induced to make the contract by misrepresentations on the part of the company.”
Finally, for reasons unknown to
Petitioner, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through either negligence or willful intent, chose to not inform Petitioner
(and Plaintiff) at any juncture of any option other than the procurement of a purported marriage license (e.g. cohabitation
under God’s law), which license is fundamentally permission from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to do that which
otherwise would be illegal[4], in order for Petitioner and Plaintiff to work and cohabitate together and possibly raise a
family. Petitioner suggests that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts , as a body politic and through its myriad and often
indecipherable laws and regulations, has successfully inured to itself sufficient control over the lives and marriages of
others and is simply unwilling to surrender this control.
Moreover, based on this fraud, any collection methods pursued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department
of Revenue, the State of California, the United States Federal government, and/or its assigns, are in violation of U.S. Code
15 USC§ 1692e. False or misleading representations:
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or
misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application
of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(1) The false representation
or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including
the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.
(2) The false representation of--
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or
(B) any services rendered or
compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.
(3)
The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.
(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment
of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is
lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.
(5) The threat to take any action
that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
(6) The false representation or implication
that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to--
(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or
(B) become subject to any practice
prohibited by this title [15 USCS §§ 1692 et seq.].
(7) The false representation or implication
that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.
(8) Communicating
or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including
the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.
(9) The use or distribution of any written
communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official,
or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval.
(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt
or to obtain information concerning a consumer.
(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written
communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial
oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used
for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector,
except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.
(12)
The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value.
(13)
The false representation or implication that documents are legal process.
(14) The use of any business,
company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization.
(15)
The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer.
(16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer
reporting agency as defined by section 603(f) of this Act [15 USCS § 1681a(f)].
Petitioner respectfully avers that this is prima facie evidence why the State, as a whole, is unwilling to disclose options
other than State-licensed marriage.
______________________________
____________________
George-Leedom: Mason
Date
AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE-LEEDOM: MASON
I, George-Leedom: Mason (hereinafter
“affiant”), being first duly sworn according to law, having first hand knowledge of the facts contained herein,
and being competent to testify, do affirm the following:
1.
During purported marriage ceremony involving affiant and Plaintiff on or about 3 June 1989, conductor of the alleged ceremony
Tim Christenson made the material representation that said alleged ceremony, and ensuing alleged marriage contract, was solely
between affiant and Plaintiff. The same material representation was made to affiant on purported marriage license.
2.
Neither prior to nor during alleged marriage ceremony between affiant and Plaintiff on or about 3 June 1989 was affiant informed
of the existence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as third party to any alleged marriage contract between affiant and
Plaintiff. No mention was or is made on purported marriage license allegedly attaching to affiant and Plaintiff that the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts was to be a third party to this purported contract.
3.
The representation by Tim Christenson that said marriage ceremony, held on or about 3 June 1989 , strictly involved affiant
and Plaintiff was false. The representation contained within purported marriage license that affiant and Plaintiff are the
sole parties involved in said alleged marriage ceremony was and is false.
4.
Based upon knowledge and belief, affiant attests that Tim Christenson, prior to and during his conducting of the alleged marriage
ceremony between affiant and Plaintiff, was ignorant of the truth that said marriage also involved the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
as a third party.
5.
Affiant attests that Tim Christenson intended that affiant should act upon the representations made during alleged marriage
ceremony held on or about 3 June 1989 . Affiant attests that the purpose of the alleged marriage license was for the parties
involved to rely upon its truthfulness that any ensuing alleged marriage was solely between the two parties, specifically
affiant and Plaintiff.
6.
Affiant attests that, prior to and during alleged marriage ceremony between affiant and Plaintiff on or about 3 June 1989
affiant was ignorant of the false representation made by Tim Christenson that the purported marriage was solely between affiant
and Plaintiff; until recently, affiant was unaware of the existence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a third party
to this alleged contract. Affiant, until recently, was also ignorant of the false representations contained within alleged
marriage license that the purported marriage was solely between affiant and Plaintiff.
7.
Affiant heretofore relied upon the truth of the representation made by Tim Christenson during the purported marriage ceremony
held on or about 3 June 1989 , viz, that said purported marriage ceremony only involved affiant and Plaintiff. Affiant heretofore
relied upon the truth of the same representations contained within the alleged marriage license.
8.
Affiant, although at the time ignorant of the falsity of the representation made during alleged marriage ceremony on or about
3 June 1989 that said alleged ceremony involved only affiant and Plaintiff as interested parties, had a right to rely upon
the representations made therein. Affiant also had a right to rely upon the representations contained within alleged marriage
license.
9.
Affiant has been damaged monetarily in the amount of $90,000 in attorney’s and other fees due to affiant’s reliance
upon the representations made by Tim Christenson to affiant during purported marriage ceremony held on or about 3 June 1989
and also due to affiant’s reliance upon the representations contained within alleged marriage license; said attorney’s
and other fees are a direct consequence of the fraud and misrepresentations perpetrated upon affiant.
10.
Affiant’s signature is not affixed to any alleged marriage license or alleged contract pertaining to affiant and Plaintiff
in the above-captioned matter.
11.
Affiant is not now, and never was, married, by definition, to Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.
12.
Affiant has no contract with either Plaintiff or with Commonwealth of Massachusetts .
13.
Affiant’s bona fide signature is not affixed to any other documents, including but not limited to bank accounts, checks,
drafts, promissory notes, certificates, agreements, contracts, applications, mortgages, leases, loans, tax returns, and any
other document(s) of which Petitioner may, at this time, be unaware, which documents allegedly attach or pertain to any purported
marriage contract between Petitioner and Plaintiff.
Further affiant saith not.
____________________________________
George-Leedom: Mason
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
ss.
COUNTY OF WORCESTER
)
On this _____ day of_______________,
in the year 2009, George-Leedom: Mason did appear before me,_____________________________________, a Notary Public in and
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and being duly sworn, acknowledged that he executed the foregoing as his free act and
deed.
______________________________________
Notary Public in and
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
residing at: ___________________________
__________________________
[1] Petitioner was also surprised to learn that, via marriage license together with birth
certificate, any children (or “issue”) that are the product of any marriage contract are effectively, by operation
of law, wards of the State.
[2] Petitioner submits that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should fulfill its role
as third party to, and allocate funds in support of, Plaintiff’s request for financial support.
[3] Petitioner
further attests that his bona fide signature is not affixed to any other documents, including but not limited to bank accounts,
checks, drafts, promissory notes, certificates, agreements, contracts, applications, mortgages, leases, loans, tax returns,
and any other documents of which Petitioner may, at this time, be unaware, which documents allegedly attach or pertain to
any alleged marriage contract between Petitioner and Plaintiff, and of which document(s) this Court may desire to take silent
judicial notice.
[4] Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as “The permission by competent
authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable.”
Petitioner, to date, has been unable to locate any statute, law, rule, regulation, finding or prohibition against non-statutory
marriage thus necessitating a license.
|
