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 events.

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.