Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A good example of a brainwashed taxslave...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A good example of a brainwashed taxslave...

    Bishop wrote:
    Under the common law, a husband and wife were considered to be one unit.
    The husband and wife were considered as being ONE NATURAL PERSON for HE
    was THAT person.

    "the husband and wife are one person in law" - Blackstone
    A husband had control of his wife's person.
    FALSE. Her separate legal existence as a "person" was EXTINGUISHED.
    There's NOTHING to control.

    "a woman lost her independent legal identity" - R. v. Salituro

    For this reason, it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife.

    The reason why a husband couldn't "rape" his wife was NOT because he had
    control of her person, it was because there was only ONE person. It
    takes TWO persons to have a "rape" case. You are either a liar Bishop or
    one stupid moron.

    Husbands had a right to sex with their wives and, if necessary, were entitled to claim it by "reasonable force." A husband could sue someone else for "enticing" his wife to commit adultery or to leave him.
    That's because that "someone else" had person status. lol Not too bright
    are you Bishop.

    A husband also assumed possession of his wife's property.

    And why is that simpleton? Because she was no longer considered a PERSON
    in her own right, she was no longer considered a NATURAL PERSON. Indeed
    all her RIGHTS as a PERSON to her property was lost and given to HIS
    PERSON. So much for Abbot's assertion that the unalienable rights of a
    man are the same as the rights of a person granted by the MUNICIPAL LAWS
    of a CORPORATION eh.

    As an English judge called Blackstone said in the 18th century, "By marriage the husband and wife are one person in law. . . the very being or existence of the woman is suspended during marriage, or at least is incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband."
    Yes indeed and he CERTAINLY doesn't mean that it was her human body that
    was somehow suspended or that two human bodies were incorporated or
    consolidated together resulting in having but one human body as your
    mentor Abbot would suggest but rather it was her LEGAL PERSONA, her
    LEGAL IDENTITY, her PERSON that was suspended or at least incorporated
    or consolidated into that of the husband's.

    ------------------------------­------------------------------­----------------------
    READ ON MORON......
    ------------------------------­------------------------------­----------------------



    This from someone who has just proven himself to be as smart as a bag of
    hammers? lol

    Of course, this made things very difficult for women when marriages broke up. Their property remained in the hands of their husbands.

    Because all rights to that property had been lost when she lost her
    LEGAL IDENTITY, her PERSONHOOD, her status as a NATURAL PERSON.

    In the late years of the 19th century, the government passed statutes laws called the Married Women's Property Acts which gave women some control over their own property.
    The statute law changed to reflect the growing independence of women.

    And HOW were the statute laws changed simpleton? That's right, it
    obligated the courts to recognize TWO SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES and NOT
    just ONE.

    ----------
    http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/­hum/e...PROP­ERTY.htm


    Property Rights of Women in Nineteenth-Century England


    This law also dictated that when women married, their legal
    personalities were subsumed into their husbands'


    Furthermore, married women were legal as well as economic non-entities.


    Laurence notes, "English common law did not recognize pre-nuptial
    contracts; all contracts made by a woman were annulled by her marriage"


    In 1882, the twenty-seven year campaign for women's property rights
    culminated in the Married Women's Property Act of 1882. The Act,
    according to Stetson, "altered the common law doctrine of coverture to
    include the wife's right to own, buy, and sell her separate property"
    (90). This act obligated the courts to recognize a husband and a wife as
    two separate legal entities.
    ----------

    By the 1970s, family law acts were passed across Canada. In Canada, judges are asked to decide how the family law acts apply to complicated real-life problems.
    ------------------------------­------------------------------­---------------------------
    WHOA!! Looks like things changed here gomer....
    ------------------------------­------------------------------­---------------------------
    In making these rulings, judges are constantly being asked to respond to emerging trends. For example, in a recent case, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to decide what should happen when a mother with custody of the children wanted to move to Australia. The move meant that the father would not have the access to the children the couple had agreed to. The court found that the mother had the right to live where she wanted. The court then looked at what was in the best interests of the child, based on these new circumstances. They decided that the mother should keep custody of the child, while the father should have access in both countries.
    ------------------------------­------------------------------­------------------------------



    Yes indeed, in the eyes of the law a married woman was NONEXISTENT, she
    was a NON-PERSON and as such "She didn't even have custody rights of her
    children. 19th century American women had no legal expectation that they
    could gain custody of their children, even if they went to court to do
    so." It's too bad that you're too **** stupid to know why.

    ----------
    American Women's Legal and Social Status in the 19th Century
    by Ann Braude


    Ann Braude is director of the Women's Studies in Religion program and
    senior lecturer on American religious history at Harvard Divinity School.


    "The law said that the husband and wife were one, and that that "one"
    was the man.


    This law meant that the man had the legal possession of all of his
    wife's property, that her wages legally belonged to him, and that she
    couldn't enter into a contract. She had no independent legal existence.
    She didn't even have custody rights of her children. 19th century
    American women had no legal expectation that they could gain custody of
    their children, even if they went to court to do so. That was part of
    the legal nonexistence of women: You couldn't be a custodian unless you
    existed. Child-custody rights thus fell to fathers or any adult male who
    was de facto assumed to have legal rights."
    ----------

    Your reference to a 1765 law that no longer applies shows that you have no life.

    Ah but it most CERTAINLY evinces (as it was possible under the common
    law system) the FACT that a PERSON that is, a NATURAL PERSON (as it
    relates to man) is nothing more that a LEGAL PERSONA, a LEGAL EXISTENCE,
    a LEGAL IDENTITY, a LEGAL PERSONA that can be EXTINGUISHED, one that can
    be incorporated and consolidated into that of ANOTHER resulting in but
    ONE legal existence, one legal identity, one person, one NATURAL PERSON.

    It also shows the readers what a complete idiot you are and that you're
    nothing but an ignoramus who doesn't have a single clue of what he is
    talking about.

    There are hundreds of references to this all over the place challenging your ******* assertion.
    Yes we know as I have brought them forward unlike the constant demented
    rant which is all you offer.

    Take your ARTIFICIAL and NATURAL **** and shove it up your ***.

    Actually I just shoved it up yours. Now go back to your coloring book
    simpleton. lmao

    StaR

  • #2
    Still to come. You may have won the battles , but who will win the war?

    Comment


    • #3
      lol this is funny
      good post

      Comment

      The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
      Working...
      X