Common Law Versus Equity Law In Divorce
Judges are acting illegally and without immunity
TODAY EQUITY LAW IS USED TO VEST POWER IN THE JUDGES AND STATE THAT THE
CONSTITUTION NEVER GRANTS ANY GOVERNMENT. The SJC had exclusive jurisdiction of
divorce and custody cases until 1889, it did not get equity jurisdiction till
1877. The government was initially making Common Law determinations when
implementing natural rights (the Blackstone quote regarding natural law being
equivalent to God's Divine Will) during divorce and custody hearings were doing
so under the Common Law. Even the 'Tender Years' was based on a
re-interpretation of nature's laws in a Common Law jurisdiction.
The once blind obedience to natural law decision based on immutable and
unalienable natural rights has been transformed into blind obedience to the
state. This unlawful conversion from law to equity means that unless the state
is willing revert back to natural law, the state must provide some at law remedy
such as a trial by jury regarding these issues and not convert to equity. Wrong
venue and/or jurisdiction means the judges do not have immunity.
How drastically different our current system of Family Law is from when it was
initially constructed. It has changed so much that at law precedence claims
regarding no right to a trial by jury, cannot be made under today's equity
determination since the state was implementing the natural law; i.e., God's Will
(per Blackstone), and no one at that time questioned God's Will; also they were
made at law and are distinguishable and are not relevant in current divorce and
custody cases done under equity jurisdiction. Let's review the chronology of
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Paper debated the corrupt use of equity
determination to circumvent the rule of law. As a result here in America, equity
cannot act when there is full and complete remedy at law and the government
cannot convert those things that had been done AT LAW at the signing of the
Constitution into equity. The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the
oppression and injustice similar to the Tutor 'Star Chamber' and 'Privy Counsil'
would repeat itself.
The legislature in Massachusetts (prior to the signing of the state
Constitution), and the executive branch (subsequent to signing the state
Constitution), had to be petitioned for a divorce. It was not until 1785
(Statutes 1785, Chapter 69) in Massachusetts that the State Supreme Judicial
Court (SJC) was given EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over divorce and custody cases
(because, in part, the cost imposed upon a citizen in traveling to Boston and
the workload on the Governor). It is important to note that it was not until
1877 (Statutes 1877, Chapter 178) that the SJC was given equity jurisdiction. In
1889, Superior Court was given jurisdiction (Statutes 1889, Chapter 332). And in
1922, Probate Court was given jurisdiction (Acts 1922, Chapter 542).
Subsequently, we see in Commonwealth v. Briggs, 33 Mass. 203 (1834), that child
custody was not an action in equity. Briggs clearly shows that the action was
Natural/Common Lawrights, not equity. No input from the body politic at all. To
re-inforce just how simple divorce and custody issues are, note that one of the
main reasons for the transfer from the the governor to the SJC in the statutes
of 1785 was the cost of traveling to Boston. Imagine the trip to Boston
being the largest financial concern in a divorce.
Now the government, a natural rights based, Lockean, Natural Law social compact
per the Massachusetts Constitution, has converted these sacred rights to equity
determination based on a Bolshevik jurisprudence model that says the state is
not the servant of the people but the master of the people. These act, in
effect, makes war against both the state and Federal Constitutions; the very
definition of treason. The once blind obedience to God's Divine Will is
transformed into blind obedience to the state. A despotic, oligarchic,
Krytrocracy where fraud, treason, and unenlightened judicial self-interest have
become the rule of law.
The recent referendum regarding divorce custody in Massachusetts shows that at least 85% of the people disagree with the
way the way Family Courts operate; they are not only at odds with natural rights but with the voice of the people.
The driving force in the divorce industry is not the law nor the will of the people.
The bottom line is that our government is without foundational or organic authority when it usurps the rights of free and
sovereign citizens. The emperor has no clothes but as along as everyone goes along it does not matter much.