0:03 Hello, everybody, thanks for watching this. Appreciate you subscribing to this content. 0:08 I'm going to begin the series of videos. 0:10 It's a series of lectures and presentations that concern what I call the divorcing the state from a marriage or other ability to be involved in 18 and ...

Hello, everybody, thanks for watching this. Appreciate you subscribing to this content.
I'm going to begin the series of videos.
It's a series of lectures and presentations that concern what I call the divorcing the state from a marriage or other ability to be involved in 18 and say a couples agreement or cohabitation, I even hate that term but let's just say marriage generally.
But this also applies to people who are living together in that capacity. Not in that way.
It's not just for the purpose of, hey, let's just do this, because we can. We can do it, and we can.
We can protest things that have been happening for a long time and we can weekend, let's say, get around the system. I'm not trying to do that. I think there's a definite need, and I think this is a pragmatic solution.
And as I cover some of these points, I think it will become apparent, but so let me So what I've done here is I'm just going to show you my screen. OK? These are just my notes.
And the reason I'm showing this, because I have a tendency to get talk fast, I want you to be able to look at my notes, even with the volume off.
And you consider some of these points, and use them to do some research.
Maybe for some read, that means searching for things on the internet, so hopefully, it's not going to need that.
But maybe I give you some pretty good leads.
So or why or wanting to prevent a situation where people that live together, that are married, girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever, that they can have their own determination.
They can exercise their own Destiny, if you will, it without, without being unfairly intruded upon by the State now, there are conditions and situations where we want the state to be involved.
I mean, I do as much as, you all may hear that but I think where there is substantial abuse, right or neglect.
Where someone has been suffering substantial harm, I think I would want the police powerball, and sure enough, by doing this, will not preclude the police power from becoming involved.
This is for people that want to be responsible, OK, and not be the victim of the state, Not be the victim of your legislature.
So, let me do a screen share here.
I'm just going to show you what I got.
This is my notes, OK, so here we are about three pages here, So I'm gonna review this right now.
OK, I'm not going to go into too much detail, I'm going to explain, this, is an overview of the concept involved. So, you can see, that, I call it, you know, it's an introduction to post natural.
Can also be pre-nuptial, Asked to do with marriage, right.
But it have to be, it can be a couples agreement, It could be an agreement between two people living together, OK.
Ultimately, what I want to do is divorced state, as it turns out, in the process of doing this, you'll find out that it can actually make, if there's going to be a separation or divorce of some kind.
It makes it a lot smoother. In my opinion, I think it makes it a lot less costly.
And you'll see why I think so.
So, like this is what I'm saying in the very beginning here.
Um, yeah, this could be, I know, it sounds unusual.
Like, how would I, would I get a person on the sheriff's department with right, I'm having a romantic relationship with, how would I get that person to agree, that's non romantic?
Contract, Right.
It takes some creativity.
Let's deal with that later.
But let me just go over, let's just say, between two rational thinking adults, hopefully you can be, hopefully you can be. If you're gonna be living together, sharing expenses or especially if you're getting married, commit yourselves to live, right?
So, hopefully this makes a whole heck of a lot of sense.
What we're trying to do is prevent either party from using the court system to exploit the other party.
To get an unfair, let's call it advantage, or create a mess.
Just create, have this agreement.
It's intended to, If the responsibility on the people it effects, and not allow any of those to go outside of the agreement, and bring in third parties that can be used in bullying, the other Party, as it turns out, many times, is used over the years.
Excuse me.
Quick example, part of my motivation is, I've heard this, are met for many years, and I don't get involved in these types of cases.
And I don't like using the court system as a means just to resolve disputes.
As much as I might understand that process, I really think people solution is outside of the core system, and this is what I've created here, a way to keep Brazil disputes at a minimum, and stay while standing out of the court system, even though we might be able to use the court system.
In the end, for its intended purpose, the court was given the police power, a monopoly on the police power, so we can resolve a dispute to come up with a final decision ourselves, And I'll show you how here, and then we can ask the court to agree to that. The court has no choice, but to agree unless there's fraud or something.
And then once that happens, we can then use the facilities of the court that we intended to enforce the agreement. If we want, we can also control that aspect as well.
So I'll get into that.
Really, I guess my motivation is a gentleman was telling me the other day, that he ended up getting a divorce because his wife wanted to divorce after so many years. She took the children and he's end up paying, or 75% of his income, and this person is not a slob cheese. Is it the snake? I'll just start a new business venture, starting to do really well?
No, she's getting 75%, isn't that's crazy?
I don't, I don't know how long that lasts or how you know that he's gonna have to do more.
It's just, it creates a situation where, I hate to say, but he's gonna have to make more money.
That's just ridiculous.
They didn't have to have enjoyed. The time with the children's gets crazy.
This should not be so, Anyways, The agreement will prevent, I hope, the other party from exploiting, the other, bullying, the other one.
Such as allowing a woman to take them, as well, and children away, just because.
She would normally be favorite court.
It's not the judges are prejudiced, that I'm not saying that.
What's happened is your state legislature has written rules and criteria and instructions, things like this.
The best at the core of having discretion to use good judgement.
Your legislatures and same person, your legislature, is by law or by definition, an insane person, OK.
Your legislature consists of many people, and it makes decisions about your life.
It's not.
It doesn't basses decisions on what you're doing it to pay basis, decisions on who knows what, let's call it arbitrary.
It's called arbitrary conditions and numbers, quantity, quality and things of that nature.
What else can you do if you're going to write a law governing someone's life? I think you're overstep your authority. In any case, this is what we have, OK.
So we have our State legislatures intruding upon the families or whatever political agenda agenda or economic agenda is desired.
And using the courts as a conduit through which that can be accomplished.
Now some of the judges are participating in this.
You know, some of them, some of them are involved in babies, but here's what we do.
Instead of gambling with it, we complete have the complete authority, the ability of the means, and the legal framework has already, it's already have. It already exists, and it's there available to us.
We can already use the Federal Arbitration Act.
two, move any disputes, route them toward an arbitration process, which doesn't use a judge, per se, but it gives us someone with each judicial awareness or that capacity.
And it gives you more latitude as to who to use Delicious talk about.
We can get into all kinds of things, and we will later on. But right now I just want to explain, we have a system of arbitration in this country that's pretty well developed.
And so there are arbitrators and mediators that can perform this function.
You can go there right now, and you can sign up for a mediator, and you can put it on a calendar. And you can resolve a dispute, or somewhat part of the dispute.
You can, you can talk to an impartial person, an arbitrator, or mediator.
And you can even make it to wear whatever binding the arbitrator arrive that it can be binding on both parties.
It's not set it to appeal.
You can also make it aware that the termination is subject to appeal.
Very interesting.
And it doesn't have to be appealed to the court. It can be.
But it doesn't have to be. So we actually are where people are the ones that create governmentally.
We are the government, Right? We just can't do everything.
We need someone to keep take care of the roads. We need some of the rest of the guys, things like that.
The Courts' overstepped its boundaries.
I'm not saying it's illegal, but it puts a burden on us now to step in and say, OK, Well, we need to do something about this because we're getting torn apart.
My proposal is use the Federal Arbitration Act, two, write an agreement, the agreed terms to say, if there's a dispute in the future, we're going to agree to resolve it before an arbitrator.
And there's different ways of convening an arbitration proceeding, and they've done a partially, OK. We we can go through a voting process and elect the arbitrator back, we can even choose an arbitration panel.
It can be two people, one person, that can be three, It can be 15 people, if you wanted to.
It wouldn't be: most arbitration processes aren't taking place with one arbitrator, OK. Or one mediator.
That will be in this, let's call it pre-nuptial or post an actual agreement.
There are some things we can we can exclude from arbitration and some things we want to include. So you have you have a lot of control here. What do we want to include in arbitration?
Well, I think whatever we don't want the court to decide on, you leave something open, you can open up to the court to come in their step in, which is the whole point that you want to avoid that my opinion.
So what we could do I mean, let me give the example of the 75% of the gentleman's income as being having to be paid to the former Y and if he doesn't do it, it can be held in contempt.
Contempt powers are just made up by the court.
They're unchallenged really the court, just there's no statutory authority for contempt.
It just came out judges, ordering people to jail for refusing to comply with court orders.
Well, if this gentleman can't pay for some reason, the Court may determine that it's wilful and if that's the case, the court can cause him to be imprisoned.
Or 30, 60, 90 days, an asset. At the conclusion of that, the court has the free rein to do it all over again.
So, how does that?
How does that serve the interests that they're if they're truly the 75% of his income? If that's truly going to pay for his children, and really help his ex-wife out.
I was him being in jail, going to help them at all.
Know, it'll probably forever diminishes, earning capacity. It'll, it'll hinder that or forever, probably.
Who wants to work with him, if he's been to jail?
If he has a mugshot, it doesn't matter why people are very, very naive.
They're very easily influenced by things of this nature, you know, mug shots, criminal records, arrest records. An arrest record doesn't mean someone committed a crime.
They may possibly be an assembler suspected of committing a crime.
In a case like this, it was contempt. there's no crime involved, really.
This isn't the judge exercise the authority he has to tell the police there in this courtroom, Hey, this guy jail. It's like, that's what I tell.
No. You see what I'm saying?
So what if we just remove that?
Let's remove content powers so that even if we're reaching arbitration determination, we cannot still bring the court in for contempt over that the order.
However, we still need to take measures to make sure that the parties comply or come real close to it, and so, you'll see it. There's a couple of things in here.
So, what we want to do is we wanted to that's the court, not just the whole proceeding, but later on, intent, or at least temper the courts' involvement.
Instead, we can use prepaid methods, like escrow, a trust arrangement, bonce, promises, future promises of future performance, and I'm not going to get into too much detail at this point. We'll do that later.
We can, we can make, we can persuade people to fulfill their obligations under a completed arbitration agreement, OK.
We can probably even make it compulsory without the need for going going to jail.
So what we also want to do is prevent the state from taking custody of the children.
This is an important thing.
And this is a big factor in human trafficking and with this type of agreement.
Divorcing the State, we can prevent the Court for taking children and trafficking.
Now some cases that they're not really traffic and some, sometimes they're actually helping children now, and I read the stats on it, that's less than 5% in most jurisdictions is where there's an actual need or intervening with the Child Protective Services for the welfare of children, OK.
So for the most part, the state and the court is they're involved with taking custody in some cases of children for money.
There's money that they qualify for by doing that.
So, this is known as trafficking, they won't say it like that. But that's what it is, if we had this agreement in place, we can prevent that from happening very effectively.
We're now, if there's abuse or neglect, states gotta get involved.
Now, of course, somebody can make a false accusation.
I know that's happened with an arbitration clause of this nature. And I'm not showing you the contract. I'm just showing you what I'm saying is the benefits and certain types of provisions and their benefits.
It would cause the Court to slow down because it would have to analyze the arbitration agreement to determine what, you know, how it can proceed.
And it's gonna, it's gonna be a need for an evidentiary hearing to establish the voracity of plans for neglect and abuse.
It will cost to slow down because you're not doing this Agreement to most people get into an arrangement that later they may petition the Court for a thing, like a petition the Court for a separation or divorce proceeding or something of that nature or protective order, right?
A restraining order to get the court involved. Right.
And they do so by default.
They didn't already have written terms with the other party. So this is what the Court has actually exploited your, your lack of planning.
This won't work for everybody, because some of you will not take this seriously, and you'll think, I don't need to do that just like a Pre-nuptial agreement.
Yeah, I don't think it's about preventing the woman from getting your stuff. Well, OK, maybe it is.
Doesn't have to be exactly that, but a Pre-nuptial agreement think about like this.
A pre-nuptial agreement that handles secures property rights in a mayoral community to one spouse or the other.
isn't necessarily always about the, including the other spouse from accessing them.
It is an estate planning tool that can be used to protect the family against outside creditors.
If there's a pre-nuptial agreement at all and our arrangement already set up it with the best a creditor of stepping into the mirror community, they take property.
You see, I've never heard people talk like this, but I'm explaining to you.
There's a lot more to these types of arrangements, and this comes in exercising property rights that we never heard of before. Of course, think about it.
We were never even presented with the idea that everybody in society has to know the law in school.
We weren't even taken, we weren't even given courses to take, no, the study of law is only for the practitioner.
What does this total bullshit? And you'll find out, I'm going to make fun of the bar.
We're going to tear it apart apart there, we're going to get into that, but.
Anyways, this is a vehicle that you can use to have control over the situation, All right.
Now what I also do in the pre nuptial post nutshell this agreement, OK, this couple's agreement, is I create a trust inside the agreement.
So the agreement is about the people, custody rights, and liability as to who owes who what, based on what happens in the end, OK?
So in order for that to be relevant, there has to be property inside the American community.
I'm not talking about future income, I'm just talking about stuff, chattels, right?
your electronics and your household, the household, the king of the family, the household of the marriage.
I'm talking about furniture, electronics, appliances, right, fixtures, clothing, jewelry, heirloom, jewelry, etcetera.
I'm also talking about what could be debts that that or accrued during the marriage or whatever, so, there's, there's chattels that what I want to do is remove them from the American community and hold them in trust, and as a default, I mean, we don't have to do it this way, but I would make the man the trustee, I would make duh, Maybe the woman, the successor trustee, maybe, then maybe the children the beneficiary, typically the children. Sometimes the parents can be the trustee, it depends.
And sometimes, maybe, you want your brother, Bob to be the trustee. There's all kinds of things we can do.
But here's the point, if I remove chattels from the Maryland community, my furniture, let's call it vehicles, Maybe vehicles, Maybe vessels, boats, maybe big ticket items that are not real estate or something of that nature.
If I remove it from the rural community, well, there's nothing to talk about, right? That's already settled.
If I have a trust agreement in relation to property that was previously in the mero community, and then that trust now owns the property, that means the property is no longer part of the Maryland community so that those matters are settled.
Wow, wouldn't that be a lot less costly if that was the case, right?
In a divorce, there's no stuff to talk about. It's already settled. Why?
Because the two people there, the couples, were had to add intelligence, the foresight to work it out now, work it out now.
And it's not so much with the big in mind that let's work it out now because someday we might hate each other now.
It's about: We know that that's probably, OK, kidney, but let's work it out now. Because it makes our lives easier, it makes things predictable and it also may protect our stuff from outside predators.
So, let me give an example of child support. So, let's go on to child support here. So, in this agreement, why is it that, let me give an example.
So why is it that a child support agreement that you may have been aware of throughout your life, you've heard them before in a child support agreement, why is it that, let's say, the man, for example, does not have primary custody of the children, is to children?
Yeah, he's paying child support.
Why not have the man take custody of the children in a primary primary custodian, primary parent most time with the father, for example?
And then diminish or eliminate, is payment of child support.
OK, but, or it could be the other way Round. I'm just, you know, as an example. Right?
Why don't? Why are we? Why we are taking custody way from one parent and making that parent in the majority of the child support or all the child support?
Know? and what is the standard? What is the standard of child support? Now, this is where I was telling you before you go to the state legislature, and we're going to cover this in my my course, videos here. This is just the introduction.
The legislature came up with these numbers, OK, I don't even know where they those numbers came from.
But if you compare them to cost of living for 1 Child 2 children, you'll see that there are different than what is published by, let's call it neutral government statistics from the US. Department of Agriculture, and we'll talk about that later.
So, why not make these payments consistent with what's already kind of estimated and been involved with keeping the children healthy and happy all these years?
Why use statistics that are developed too?
Presumably apply to everybody in the world at once?
Why not make the standard of child support and alimony pertinent to your particular family by going back and looking at the expenses, you're gonna look at the income statement anyways?
Why not look at those and parcel out expenses? Let's say, OK, that's our percentage. That's our share. Let's make it that way. Right?
We can also incorporate into the child support as a liability. Let's just say one or that one spouse has to pay, or are we agree to that, or we, can, we get to outline for this?
But let's just say, we can, we can take an asset.
Maybe that's part of the family.
Maybe you might not want, many people don't. But if you had an app, and I'm talking about, not a 400 K, that's, that's not an asset. I'm not talking about the house. That's not an asset. Your car is not an asset.
When I'm talking about, is something that you own.
Somebody owns us making money, it's a tool for making money and it doesn't create a new job. I mean maybe you have to manage it a little bit.
But it's making money and it's scalable.
Preferably, OK.
So let's say let us say I am, I own a laundromat, but also a full-time job and a career professional, this stuff, and made my wife does, right?
Maybe I have to pay child support during and after a long separation, well maybe I want to assign the income from the laundromat, Those payments are due a part of the contract to identify that describe it.
What that does is it it doesn't, it doesn't, but wait on my hourly wage for my salary, right?
It puts the weight on the asset, and you'll see later.
What I also consider in these agreements would be, uh, the best effort bases are this, let's all talk about child support now alomar, same idea, Alimony, if you're gonna have to pay. Alimony.
I mean, in my opinion, it makes sense, uh, for the most part, I don't think that should be the goal that shouldn't be used to subsidize a divorce. I think that's happening quite a bit in our society but you know, alimony has certain concerns and of course basic living expenses and that sort of thing.
I mean, yeah, that sounds naive down you really want all this, OK, right?
I'm just saying we have to cover everything here but my purpose in writing this was not to talk about divorce. It's divorcing, the state.
These provisions are so comprehensive. We can eliminate many of these.
If you're just going to come up with a two page agreement that says, any disputes we have will be resolved through binding arbitration that do this, that the marriage or the arrangement it did.
That's the core of getting involved, that's all you need. You don't need all these provisions in here.
So, what, what I'm introducing to you, it's what we could put in there.
We could just eliminate all these things. We're talking about shells word Alloy we don't need all that.
Let's say you're married you don't children.
Well, you're fine.
Let's just make sure that we're going to exclude court OK, you can do that much.
I mean, I have a case right now where we had to get rid of the attorneys because they're always in a way and got rid of one of the attorneys, we don't have power the other.
one of the one of the first things I suggested that this woman do is get into mediation, which they hated that the matter.
The other side there are vehemently opposed to that because they know that that case will probably get resolved.
It'll be in it. Which ends their billable hours.
Unfortunately, that's what a lot of the abuses coming from.
The attorneys are more interested in the billable hours than actually delivering a solution to people that are very difficult situation, emotionally, financially, et cetera.
So my first suggestion is, go into mediation.
With the goal being two, Make an agreement that all future disputes, including this going forward, are result or binding arbitration.
You have to get past all the arguing by the attorney.
But if we could do that, in most cases, you can avoid much of the abuse.
And yeah, maybe you will eliminate the attorneys. That's a really good thing in many cases. And they will like it because it's not their game, that's not happening.
Somebody else does, that's not as much, and you can't play on the system.
You can perpetuate discovery under the rules. And then you can't use it to these people, which is what these attorneys were doing.
We mentioned this earlier. We can have we can use arbitration to do many things, just like the Court can do.
So don't think that you're limited in your access to, let's call it, justice or fairness through arbitration.
Here's what we do here.
So once we get an award, we just go to the court system and get the court to rubber stamp. Basically the court is not allowed to review the merits of an arbitration award. And they're private.
I believe if you go to the court for confirmation, you don't have to do that, by the way, but you can do that.
I don't know if you can keep it private at that point so but in case if you want to keep it, private arbitration is the way to go.
I always have to tell you this, because I don't want you to defeat yourself and talk yourself out of something that may actually be beneficial.
Attorneys will tell you this is not possible only because they have a competing interest, what to dispute, get involved, OK, and unfortunately just about billable hours, that's it, It's just about billing hours.
It's that simple.
This is boring.
If you're an attorney and you practice divorce on most of them, their board and it's just it's hard of hearing all the excuses and all the complaints about each of the spouses. They have to sit through that nonsense for years. And so they just look at it like a numbers game.
As long as a dispute goes on, I'm going to make more money, that's the only thing. I just can't fault them for that.
So, marriage has to be a private membership association. You have a family, too.
If you include children, then you have a different type of private membership Association. You have the husband or wife with children that's different than just the husband or wife.
Those two exist independently, but they're now together.
We have to just really acknowledge that, OK.
Um, the court is also, this is what, really is going on.
When I discovered this, it just changed everything, because I realize that the court itself is not a court in the traditional sense. Yeah, It is public, and they're not running it that way.
And as as time goes on, you're going to find out how much of a court we don't have.
In fact, I would venture to speculate that we, we lost our core system in the nineties.
So what the heck do we have that? That's not a court system.
We have a church, it's always been that way.
It's Ecclesiastes Tikal I mean if you want to go to go to the most basic observation and it gets way deeper than this but if you go to a church on Sunday and you see that people they're sitting in the pews and they've got the person and the password feature He said that the pulpit and he's preaching the Bible.
It looks a lot like Judge, sitting in a courtroom full of people.
If you look at the books at statutes, like we don't do anymore, but if you go to the library and you pull it on paper, he pulled out paper, you open up the binder, and you see the statute's there and columns, chapters and numbers, versus numbers, line numbers.
Just like the Bible The court isn't a ecclesiastes forum, but you're so is your family.
So your family has the exact same legal authority and role in society as the court does. It's just that you weren't told that.
Correct me, if I'm wrong, show me how that is, what I just said is incorrect.
So, we are the government, We already have a means by which we can resolve disputes. We just never thought of it before.
The court has been, I have to give it credit, It's been very sophisticated by, meaning, here's what it does, It's a third party, and it operates under rules of procedure or fairness.
Moche, most of which originate from England, Robert's Rules of Order.
You can look this up, Robert's Rules of Order, and you'll find versions of this known as parliamentary procedure.
And then, you'll find this in our actual court system, known as the Rules of Civil Procedure.
You have the state rules of civil procedure, the federal rules of civil procedure. Every jurisdiction has its own rules of procedure.
Small clave small claims court.
Those rules are nearly identical to the higher court circuit supreme superior courts.
And they're a little bit more administrative, OK? They don't have the formalities and things of that nature.
Why are why are families not arbitrary Ignoramuses because we didn't know we could, and we didn't think about it.
And we just didn't plan ahead. And I'm telling you this is a tool. How to plan ahead, seriously.
We really need it. You know, just like you go out into the world and you learn how to fill out forms that are penalty of perjury, and you think that's OK. You've accepted that.
You accept it. You have to keep your driver's license. Good standing, right?
You accept things that you have to do in society, so that you can be at least a responsible, productive member of society for the most of us. We think things like that, we're not going to go out drinking and driving, et cetera.
Why the heck were we not take initiative to be responsible for?
I mean, this is really about exercising care for those that we care about, Demonstrate that we care about them if we can come up with a way to handle disputes we might have with each other.
Like my family, we have, we have meetings, you know, family meetings. Often doesn't, like, my parents did that.
They were really screwed up, but we had family meetings nonetheless. I mean, at least they tried, you know.
And so, we do that, and so why should we not, why would this be unusual?
And I guess I'm saying it this way because maybe you're going to criticize, not want to accept the idea that your family's suited to the results or the students.
Now, I'm not saying that you can be impartial.
What I'm suggesting is that knowing that you have that power and that ability, and then I'm suggesting that you look at the resources that would allow you to do that. That's why I'm showing you here.
You can use commercial arbitration, a for-profit, or know, a paid service, a professional service of arbitrators and mediators that are professionals at that. That's what they do.
Maybe they're retired judges and attorneys. That's OK.
I have my own version of that, But that's what we have right now, OK.
So the Court's a PMA, their families have given.
It's the same legal standing, same capacity.
I think it serves us to administer our own dispute resolution, instead of just go into the Court all the time.
Now, you're bringing in your insane person of the legislature and all its broad, sweeping generalizations, arbitrary, iterations, you gotta live with that.
That was a, that was a summary of what I put here and notes. You know, I'm not reading this stuff, I'm going on top of my head because I wrote the stock.
Anyways, I'm just kind of living it.
So, let me take a shot at bar here.
Now, there's no such thing, I have to say this because, at some point, we're probably going to have to eliminate uncharted.
four, be ready to do it. Don't think that you need it.
Sometimes they can be helpful, but so can a software program that, that sometimes it's free, or that's 20 bucks a month, or nine bucks a month to help me look up some legal references, OK, because sometimes that's the worth of an uncharted I can tell you right now.
Anything that attorney files in court, 99% of the things that attorney files are documents written up by other attorneys that no longer practice law, possibly that are obtained through software.
and that were originally, before the software existed.
Those forms and documents that you pay so much money, like $2500, to have your attorney do the thing, He got that form document from a book in the Library.
I'm not making this up.
It could be that simple and sometimes it's not.
I mean, I'm gonna say, You're a defense attorneys for criminal prosecution.
Those are, I think, those are the ones that actually do real work with exception, but, for the most part, we don't need them.
There is no license to practice law.
The practice of law has been monopolized bye people that were practicing law that wanted to own the law.
And so they created a labor union known as the bar.
Then later because they were all board members.
And then those who were not part of the borrower were not allowed to take on clients and practice law.
And they were able to saturate the legislature and so forth, and then they criminalized non membership at the bar.
They didn't criminalize the purpose for which the bar was formed.
The purpose was to prevent people from suffering.
But that's but that's the, the way they promote it, right?
That's what their justification is to exist.
But what they're doing instead is not criminalized as legal advice. They've criminalize non membership in the bar so it doesn't matter if you get good advice.
Or if you're a good lawyer, if you're not a bar member, then the bar wants to criminalize your your profession.
All right? So here's what's interesting.
If we're each responsible for knowing the law and that ignorance of the law is not a legal defense, the bar's promise or claim is that it's protecting you against bad legal advice.
Well, how is the bargain to do that unless the bar member itself is going to accept financial responsibility?
Are you acting on even your own bad's legal advice?
Not gonna happen, right?
So the purpose of the bar is a total fraud.
It's a total sham.
And as you guys probably know, it's not a measure of competence.
In fact, if anything, it's a measure of incompetence, especially when you bill by the hour.
When you give someone a blank check, check to help you with the legal matter, and you just say, Yeah. I'll pay by the hour.
It doesn't tell you some idea of how long it will take, or how much money they will take.
I mean, everybody asked, but, still, if you don't put that in the contract, if you don't say, pay for your situation, I can, I can solve that for about $2200, I can solve that for $48,000.
You know, whatever, But, no, they don't do that for the most part.
Anyways, so far, members cannot protect the public or anyone for bad legal advice. while everyone expected to know the law, OK?
A recent law is not a defense, no bar member, north of ourselves able to identify, protect anybody, Is client or anyone. Even non client Against falling, bad legal advice.
Personally, it's all right. If everyone's, according to the law, and Civil law is not as if that's, how can the bar claim to protect the public, or anyone, therefore, it should exist on that premise.
Likewise, when the bar was formed, it didn't suddenly remove everyone else's, right, to form their own private associations of other practitioners who are already practicing law.
Why did someone else do that?
Know, the bar came in, and said, No, you have to be a member of our Bar Association. The other ones don't really matter.
People are forming bars this bar cessation over the persona, saying it didn't preclude us from doing the same time.
Nor did it preclude anyone from continuing to practice law without being a member, Even though they criminalize non membership.
That law, I would argue, is not, and not in conformity with the Constitution. I don't believe there's authority for it.
I don't wanna get too far into this, but, I want to tell you this, because I want to show you the underpinnings.
because when you look into this, consider this, and let's say you like the idea, right? Or maybe you want to confer with other people that, who would you talk to?
Lawyers, I want you to understand where they're coming from.
Lawyers have a competing interests with what I'm saying here.
This would likely exclude lawyers, likely exclude them.
So, you're going to have to pay for yourself, or if you want to talk to lawyers, which is fine.
Just understand who you're talking to.
It's a person who has an, maybe, Ann, an honor, not admitted conflict of interest.
But that's OK, Just so you know that.
All right, just understand who you're talking to.
Um, so anyways, and then I guess I was zero point one and zero point two.
And then, of course, I would argue the Supreme Court never had the authority to allow a private monopoly to, basically, on the law and decide how that law is administered and to ration out based on someone's desire, OK? That's really what's going on with bars, they seek to own the law.
So the Constitution ironically protects the right of association.
It protects that.
It doesn't allow one group of people to exercise their right of association to the exclusion of all others.
So, you have a couple of provisions here. Why?
Explain why the bar itself, the way it's being used I'm not saying the bar itself as illegal, but the way it's being used and protected is illegal.
Criminalizing, the partnership is illegal, Violates our laws.
So anyways, I just want to let you know, this is the kind of cool that we're swimming in here, OK?
There's, there's a, there's an interest in getting your children, the custody of them.
There's an interest in subsidizing the break-up of families and I'm not, I'm not criticizing women, I'm just saying that it's easier to manipulate women than men.
And so, that's why I mean that's why women were able to be tricked into thinking that.
They were wrong for not being allowed, let's say, or encouraged to have a career like a man in the fifties after World War II, OK.
The men, I mean, the women were tricked into believing they were they were slighted OK, by society or not being able to have a career, and then you had shows like the Mary Tyler Moore show right and all the snakes um, don't get me wrong. I'm all for that. My best managers are women level.
They did such a drastic John ..., I've had, when I worked in companies, I know very good managers, men or women, there, you know, they do equally well.
But at the same time, there was an agenda to trick women at that time into the workplace. So it took about 20, 25 years as we go into the seventies.
At a time in my own mother was an entrepreneur, she became an entrepreneur, which I thought was great.
It was good, it was good target, because my brother and I were old enough. And so the school, partially it was an empowerment and development thing for her, but it was after she was a mom and raised children. She reared children are safe to use. The bad word, is the real stuff. Cheered us, OK, she took care of us.
She was the mom, she wasn't trying to be the boss paid, right? Thanks to that.
And afterwards, she wanted to develop her own whatever, you know, when she made really good money and this sort of thing. So some of the women were tricked into the workplace.
What did it do for the number of W fours that were being filed?
What did I do for the tax base?
That double the tax things all of us kimbro close? What else did it do?
Tricking women into the workplace cause the State to become more apparent than the parents were.
What kind of mess are we in now?
How do you lock the women in the market? How do you lock them into the workplace?
You get them using credit cards.
Do you get the whole family in debt?
Student loans.
Why not come out of the gate, right, with lots of student loan debt, Credit card debt?
Get a debt to survive car loan.
So you do that.
And now you need two incomes, or three or whatever.
And then then we said that we subsidize the break-up of the family, we pay women to break up the family.
They're easy, they're easy to persuade.
I'm just saying, throughout history, this has been done.
This has been done, this is the way it's done. Just a breakdown of society.
So, you know, that's a big subject, but I'm just saying, I believe this is not going to cure society. I think it's going to this agreement. This strategy is going to give you control over your life.
It's gonna make you the mature, responsible adult that you should be.
It's going to give you the tools by which you can do that, and not be a victim and say, go to some lawyer, say, Please help me, I don't understand my rights.
They'll never tell you what your rights are, except he'll tell you that you have the right to pay him every time you send your bill.
I know, exaggerate a little bit, but, you know, it really sometimes it's frustrating for me when I see cases and I see what the lawyers did.
And I just get so angry that they did that technical despicable.
I'm gonna, I'm gonna address this comment to lawyers out there that you're hearing that's sustainable with some of you are doing.
You shouldn't even have the status in our society that you think you have.
You don't own the law.
So you act like you do.
So what I would like to do, with this agreement, this idea, this strategy, I would like to take it back, take ownership, and go back to the people in the law. Once again, they have access to the law.
Like they should, The warrior's can sit down and shut up.
All right, guys.
So this is the conclusion of my introduction here to the what I'm going to call it here to the post an actual Agreement.
Divorcing the State, OK.
Hope you enjoy that. And I will promise to give you some more technical references. As we move on, it's going to get a little technical. But too much, and we'll go into the different aspects of the actual green, OK, I'm not gonna show you agree with because I don't want somebody just taking, Oh, yeah.
Again, start thinking about taking responsibility. You want to understand what you're trying to do.
I don't want to sell you a document that you think is going to solve all your problems.
You don't just take a document, say, Yes, I've got the solution. No, you don't. You have to understand what it is we're trying to do, and why we are here. Hopefully, that I got that message box.
All right, Thank you.

DS1 – The Role of Post-Nuptial Agreements in Divorcing the State from Marriage


John Jay introduces the concept of post-nuptial agreements as a means to separate the state’s involvement from personal marital decisions. He emphasizes the importance of couples being able to decide their fate, and protect themselves from potential exploitation by the state and court system. Jay believes in the power of arbitration, arguing that it can be more effective, private, and fair than traditional court processes. He criticizes the modern court system, suggesting it has deviated from its original intent. Jay also highlights how these agreements can function as estate planning tools to protect assets. Throughout the talk, he emphasizes personal empowerment and the importance of understanding one’s rights.

Key Points:

1. John Jay discusses the concept of divorcing the state from marital decisions using post-nuptial agreements.
2. These agreements can apply to married couples and those simply living together.
3. Jay stresses the need for couples to make decisions without undue interference from the state, except in cases of abuse or neglect.
4. The main aim of these agreements is to prevent exploitation through the court system.
5. Arbitration is highlighted as a preferred method for resolving disputes, offering more flexibility and privacy.
6. Jay criticizes the current court system, suggesting it doesn’t serve the public as it should.
7. He believes many legal processes could be simplified and handled without attorneys.
8. Jay suggests that these agreements can also serve as estate planning tools, protecting assets from creditors.
9. The overarching message is personal empowerment and understanding one’s rights.
10. Jay encourages individuals to seek more information and use available resources to craft their agreements.