Marital Legalities

By Matthew Goldstein

A maid, and love hunting all venire, For, to walk in the woods so wild, And naught to have been a wife, and be with child. Naught while I know the company of man. Now help me, lady, sit ye may and can, -Chaucer, The Knight s Tale ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Often, in the Men s Rights Movement, a call to end marriage is heard. Young men learn of the horrors waiting, should they partake in this corrupt institution, from their elders, who have been robbed of their babies and children, their liberty, and their livelihood. Seeing as these remain second-hand stories, nonetheless, it is not hard to see why they still have a degree of doubt. Mankind seems only to learn things the hard way. Thus an explanation of the laws that govern this pact is merited to prove to those, who have not experienced its riggers, is necessitated to make clear how corrupt a bargain it is for any man. Matrimonial Law is governed by the innate assumption that two parties, of their own free will, agree to live together in a monogamous relationship. This pact can take one of two forms in western society. The first is the eldest of the two, essentially dating back to the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. This form was considered a very private matter, and the Church now as then, makes this kind less susceptible to outside interventions and infringements into the marriage pact. The Second kind is known currently as a civil marriage or a state-licensed marriage. This pact is made with a third party- the state, who assumes the responsibility of ensuring their contract is completed. This form of marriage is not private. As early as the 1700 s professional genital-checkers existed at a wife s beck and call, for the sole purpose of getting an annulment, on the basis of spousal infertility. Many a man was legally forced to strip in front of these women to be examined by their vile hands. During these forced examinations, the man was often subjected to humiliating mockery by the maids, on the subject of his, supposedly most private parts. The assumption, however, that the two parties enter into their pact, of their own free will, is wrong. Many husbands were and still are forced into marital contract, at literal gunpoint, in what is known as a shotgun marriage. As will be seen, a woman, with all her marital privileges, may both conscript a husband and have special rights to terminate their supposed eternal contract. Never is it considered that such a man has signed under life-threatening duress, and that the contract is therefore insincere and invalid. And this is not the only right of conscripted husbandry that exists.

There exists a plethora of methods in which a woman may commit fraud to secure a spouse, either in reality or in effect. Take for instance the case of Dubay v. Wells. These two young lovers entered into a verbal contract, by which it was assured to Mr. Dubay of Michigan that no children could come of their relationship, due to Ms. Wells s claims of biological incapability to reproduce. Several years later they broke up. A while after that she came to him pregnant. Already we have one count of fraud, in their first verbal contract. As they discussed the issue together that night, and, over the following period they entered into a second verbal contract. They agree to put the child up for adoption; but, once Ms. Wells gave birth, she quickly filed for custody of the child, and child support. This would be the second breach of contract. Mr. Dubay was crestfallen. He never asked to be a father; he was promised he wouldn t be, only to be lied to again! In response to the order to pay the child support, he filed a counter suit, maintaining that Michigan does not force women to make child support payments for children that they do not want to parent, and accordingly, men should not have to either. Once we examine the Michigan Paternity Act, we see his claim was reasonable and legally correct. But, sadly marital laws are not made for the likes of men; and, when the case was appealed to the 6th Circuit, they rejected his case saying: The Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways." As we can see before us, the claims of women being the oppressed class is a lie, that if actually acknowledged to be as farcical, as it truly is, we could see the oppression of men lifted, with full legal rights restored, such as the right to have contracts upheld, and not be mislead by fallacious lies. We see before us the state saying outright, as in the Dubay case, that the power of discrimination against men lies with the States of the Union themselves! Dubay v. Wells is often called the Roe v. Wade of men; the only difference being that Roe, and females in kind, were granted their right to due process and privacy. And this isn t the only case of forced husbandry by effect. At the time of this writing, debtor s prison laws still exist within the territories of the United States. There are many cases of men being imprisoned for being too poor to meet the child support payments that as shown in the Dubay case, are often ill-gotten. One such case of tragedy is the story of Frank Hatley of Georgia. His girlfriend got pregnant in 1980. He has been required to pay child support since that time. He was, however, too poor to pay it so he has been paying it off in back payments for the last three decades. As we all know, child support is supposed to end, when a child reaches the age of 18; but for Frank Hatley that was not enough. He was ordered to keep paying beyond that point. He was robbed, until, he lost his job, and, literally could not even buy food to feed himself. To that the state imprisoned him, to work off his debt in jail. What s more, the boy wasn t even his. DNA tests confirmed in both 2000 and 2008 that it was never his to begin with; and, the Judge, Dane Perkins, knew that in advance of ordering additional back payments after the child was of 20 years of age! They also knew that, while he was out on the street, failing to meet their thievish demands. They knew that, when they imprisoned him for failing to meet their ill-gotten debts! This is only one case among many, of women lying about being faithful and forcing men to pay the price for their whorish escapades. Now we see that among the many marital privileges that women have is impunity for adultery. Even within marriage, a woman can cheat, thus forcing the husband to call for divorce, on grounds of the broken marital vows. In the divorce we see more female privileges,

revealed. She can than demand alimony pedente lite[during the litigation], which forces the husband to pay for the prosecution against his name and honor! In these hearings the onus probandi [burden of proof] then falls upon him! He then has to prove against the lawyers, he was made to pay for, that he was indeed cheated on. During the hearings his treacherous wife can make any number of claims, with complete impunity, which slander him. And should they have had children, the adulteress has precedence in common law to be awarded his children, as was the case with Agar-Ellis v. Lascelles. And, to add injury to insult, the husband is then subject to post-marital alimony and child support! As was shown before, he will be imprisoned for failure to pay the one, who has tormented, slandered, and lied to him! As is apparent, Women have no legal liability for fornication and breaking their marriage contracts. In modern law, it is always males, who are found culpable for the crimes of others. Even if one is raped, one will be made into a forced husband by effect. Take, for instance, the case of Jane Crane of Ohio, who statutorily raped a minor and got pregnant. The court ordered that the rape victim pay her child support! And to boot, he can only see his own daughter seven hours a week, because his rapist, a sex offender, who obviously has no problem with touching children inappropriately, was awarded custody! More infuriating, the people that his daughter will be growing up with, instead of him, have another criminal in their mists. The stepfather of Ms. Crane was convicted of domestic violence, for brandishing a deadly weapon against his family. According to Ohio law 2907.04, she is supposed to give $1000 to her victim; but, instead they make him pay her, until he's 33. This is just the state of affairs in the Western world. While women have complete impunity from every crime they commit, men are found culpable by the crimes of others. As shown elsewhere, men are denied the right to have their contracts upheld. Even sperm donors, who sign contracts of mutual and supposedly binding agreement to give or sell their sperm to women, who want to have children in-vitro, without being financially obligated to the child, are denied their rights, through the female privilege to commit open fraud. Such was the case with Kevin Zoernig of New Mexico, who was forced to pay child support to a Ms. Janna Mintz. She was, however at the time with another woman, which is why a sperm donor was necessary for her to have children. When they broke up, Ms. Mintz had custody of the child, and she remained friends with the sperm donor. She even wanted a second child, by him, and made the same agreement for the second child. After the second child was born, she began to seek child support payments, disregarding her end of their bargain. As can be seen, husbandry, in any form is entirely undesirable. As is also apparent, wifery, in any form is entirely desirable. A wife has at her disposal the ability to openly break laws, through various means; and, many laws discriminate in her favor, such as the before mentioned alimony pendente lite. Often, one of her nefarious means is to use children as an excuse to gain funds and other safety nets. The phrase Women and children first! shows how they tack their names onto higher priority, by placing the children s names after theirs. It is unbelievable how their sense of entitlement places them as a priority, before everyone and everything. This is well-represented in the laws they utilize and thus endorse. As a matter of legal fact, men are often the first to die in a marriage.

So far, we have examined the privileges of women in obtaining a husband, and have seen they are permitted to commit open fraud in their endeavors. Now we will examine the privileges of women, once in a marital pact. Perhaps the vilest of their privileges is near impunity from murdering their husband. When one looks at murder cases, one finds that seldom, wives are made to pay for their murderous action. This is an age-old privilege. To this day, a woman, who hires an assassin to kill her husband, is not found as equally liable for the murder, as is the assassin. It get s filed, for all intensive purposes, as the abetting of a murder, since she did not pull the trigger. In addition, take for instance the running of him over. In 1894, a Mrs. Jane Payne thrust her husband off a horse-drawn wagon, and then deliberately backed the horses, driving the wheels over him twice. Both legs fractured. He died a few hours afterwards. She was convicted of only manslaughter [homicide without malice aforethought], implying that she did not really mean to kill him! This case has a modern day parallel. In 2002, a Ms. Clara Harris of Texas ran over her husband three times, with an automobile. There were five witnesses at the scene, who attested to the surreal and grisly sight. As a result of her slaying, she has been awarded one million dollars, from her husband s estate! Even in death, he is made to pay for his wife s slanderous attacks against him in court, in what can only be dubbed post mortus alimony pendente lite. Even in the court, she was allowed to commit perjury with impunity, when she bold-faced lied to the court, that it was an accident. Like the Payne case, Ms. Harris ran her husband over repeated times, and therefore, cannot be unintentional. The witnesses at the scene attest to her grim efficiency. Audio tapes from Blue Moon Investigators that were turned over to the state and court have witnesses revealing she was even committing adultery! She was convicted of murder; but, due to the court counting her deadly rage as a mitigating factor of sudden passion , she will likely be paroled very early in her stay at prison. This is not the only way in which wives may legally harry, assault, and murder their husbands. Take, for instance, the setting of him on fire. As before, we shall examine one old and one new case. In 1893, a Ms. Jane Baker pleaded guilty to manslaughter of her husband and child by throwing a lighted lamp at the former. She was sentenced to three days' imprisonment, which meant her immediate release, and on leaving the dock remarked, amid the sympathy of the Court, that she was a childless widow, alone in the world! Compare this travesty of justice to Carolyn Grines of Kansas, who used rubbing alcohol to light her husband on fire; and, was only charged with domestic violence! At the time of this writing, court proceedings are going forward; but, her charge is so small, that she will likely get off with only having to attend a few anger management classes. There is a monstrous amount of cases like these spanning the centuries.