0:02 OK, this is the next in the series regarding the Post Nuptial Agreement Series, and this one, I wanted to, OK, so. 0:12 Many of the things I'm showing you in this series are technical. 0:17 So they're showing you how to interact with the rest of the world, the court, the other parties invo...

OK, this is the next in the series regarding the Post Nuptial Agreement Series, and this one, I wanted to, OK, so.
Many of the things I'm showing you in this series are technical.
So they're showing you how to interact with the rest of the world, the court, the other parties involved.
What I want you to understand in this video is the underlying concept as to why we can do this, the ability that we have to do these things, and so I'm going to focus on the father and the husband, a marital relationship.
It is important, and, yeah, maybe it sounds biased, but just bear with me.
It is biased, there is not this equality that you hear people talking about, but I'm not really going to address that. What I want to explain is some very fundamental concepts, that I don't believe people are understanding, And it's not being presented in the schools or our system of law.
And I think it's really a core element of our entire society.
It's actually a big deal.
I can, I can show you guys how to write a trust, and you know, file a document in the court, but if you don't understand why, you even have the ability or standing, too, Do these things. You're going to be kind of weekend. So, let me just share this with you. I'm going to do is share. Share my screen here, and I want to show you, these are my notes.
And I'll just go through them here, bear with me, because I don't like to read to you, but it's going to help me as a guide.
So what I want to explain is that there are important roles in society, OK, there's the husband and the father in a family.
The husband becomes a husband by his choice.
He chooses to marry a woman and make her his wife and with that comes obligations.
And with that comes liabilities responsibilities, but it also brings with it prerogatives privileges and rights.
It has to, because the one who has the liability gets to make the rules, it really works out that way. And the husband does, that's our society. Now, I know that there's an agenda to try to make people believe the opposite that women can be the man and all this nonsense. And it's just destroying our culture, and in fact, this is why I'm even talking about this.
So what I wanted to explain here is the title of this section is Husband and Father versus the family court Franchise. The Franchise, It's a business, It's a corporation, family court as a business.
It's important to understand that a business is permitted to exist because of people.
So here's, let's get into this. So I just wanted to bring in some historical reference here, and I, I went, found a provision in The Bible y'all can find something, and I will add more to this set of notes. I'm going to add more, but I just thought that this was complete for now.
For this particular presentation, so I call it the Law of the Husband, and it's not just me, this is you'll find out that this is an old concept. OK, the law of the husband.
And in the Bible if I'm quoting Romans 72 for the woman, which hath and husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he lives.
But if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband until death do us part OK.
It's pretty serious.
The husband makes the law.
The husband makes the rules, because he has the liability. He takes all the risk. He takes the bullets, so to speak, OK.
That's what he wants. anyways. That's what I want. I want to be the person that does that.
So, we all understand the concept of husband for the most part.
But let's, there's, there's quite a few subtle roles that people don't really, it doesn't come into your consciousness on a regular basis, but the husband has to be responsible for all the fiscal matters or the monetary financial matters, I shouldn't say fiscal. But the financial matters of the family. And the financial matters, and in modern society, finance has to do with the ability to take care of people money. It's no longer, I'm gonna go out, You know, I have the physical strength, to go out, hunting, you know, and build a shelter, and these sorts of things, we can give the money. And we can pay people that do only that.
So today, it's a little bit different, but, with the, that role comes, you know, rights and responsibilities, So.
The husband, right, becomes a husband, B, because of his choice.
And he then has a relationship, a formal relationship, course with his wife. But his wife's family, the in-laws, right.
And there's the reciprocal relationship.
So the role of husband comes includes all these other things, these relationships just automatically OK. I'm not disparaging the wife's role, I'm just talking about the husband right now.
Um, it should be, it should be understood. Now, you can see here I'm still, I'm still writing this article, but I wanted to you know, it should be understood that these are exclusive and unique to the husband.
This is important concept.
Nobody else can have these rights and obligations.
The husband cannot even give them away.
These obligations and responsibilities along with the rights, they originate solely from the man's choice to become a husband.
Tell me I'm wrong. Right? There's no, there is. There is no other conclusion, OK? They don't originate from any other source, the self determination to incur the rights and obligations associated with the role of husband by the man who has chosen to become the husband are never and cannot be bestowed upon.
Another another man, to make him a husband, it can't be bestowed upon him, put it that way. No one can make a husband.
No one can impose upon a man.
The role of husband, think about it.
If someone's a husband, it's because he chose it.
That's a that's a law of nature.
But it's also when the husband is created, OK? When he's entered into that relationship.
It is a civil matter, really, But it's where the husband has all the Civil Authority. I'll explain the rights and obligations of husbands, certainly, don't originate from any statute, OK, that, of course, just said there is no law that said you have to be a husband, right?
You can even have statutes that govern husbandry and the role of husband and they do and they do.
But they actually don't have the authority.
We give them authority.
We, we participate in them, but ultimately, once you, this is the understanding I want you to have, is that the husband is the one with all the power.
It doesn't matter if there's a statute or there's a court, or there's even a police power.
The husband has all the power.
The rights and obligation don't originate from any statute or in any vote of the legislative power.
What does this? So, imagine I just, we all understand the concept. Let's step back just a second here.
The choice to become a husband originates and is solely within the power and rights of the man.
Please argue with that, please show me a counterpoint.
Who gets to choose to be a husband?
No one but the husband.
So, if that's the case, if you can't argue with me on that, if you can't show me a counterpoint, then how the **** can a statute impose that duty on somebody and therefore, regulate that role?
If a statute cannot create the role of husband, how then can the statute tell a husband what to do?
And who wrote the statute, a group of people?
Well, that's even worse, now, a group of people, So, one person doesn't have the authority to make someone a husband except the husband himself.
But now, a group of people, same problem.
The state legislature is without the power to create the husband as well.
Unless, of course, you can find some sort of, you know counterpoint here but I don't think you will. None of these outside parties were involved with the man's decision to become a husband cannot be involved at any point during the husband's fulfillment and enjoyment.
Of his role as husband, now I should put, cannot, therefore be involved. I'm going to put.
Therefore, it's like a conclusion, right? Cannot, therefore, be involved at any point.
You didn't create it. You can't regulate it.
It doesn't operate by your permission.
I choose to be a husband or not.
No one gets to tell me that I have to be a husband. The moment I choose to be husband, it's nobody's business. But mine and my wives.
It is unique and exclusive to the husband.
These responsibilities and these prerogatives.
The husband's interaction with his wife is unique and exclusive to all others.
Of course, it is, that's what the definition of marriages and being a husband is, You create an exclusive relationship. Guess what guys?
Private and membership associations sound familiar.
That's another example of what that is a marriage.
Now a marriage is a PMA, right, and a marriage with children family is a PMA two types of PMS.
One's a subset of the other, right?
No one, but the husband was involved in the exercise of his rights to choose his wife.
The state, nor any of us agents, should have really should, or could have, or have no one else, But the husband is populated with the husband the wife, from the for the commencement or from the commencement of his role as husband.
Now, there's a bit of an idealistic here, OK.
So, but I'm just saying copulation is the or the or we call it the, the consecration of the marriage, right.
The state never did that.
The state is a corporation, can't do that, Lacks the ability, right.
So the man did that, that forms the marriage, that is the basis. The foundation of the authority.
And so, you know, I get into a couple of things here about the unlikely, because you guys are going to come up with some unlike the situation, is the fact is that.
Only the husband can become the husband, the state legislature cannot make somebody become the husband so forth and so on. It cannot act in any capacity as the husband at any time, therefore, can never usurp if that were even possible. The role of the husband, OK? Disregard is true regarding the care of the wife.
The state legislature is not going to care for the wife.
They want to, they want to, they want to subsidize the care of the wife because they want to destroy the family.
But truly a corporation cannot because you can throw money at a marriage, you can, you can reward a wife in divorcing her husband, that this is happening all the time. This one even doing this.
But ultimately you can never usurp the role of husband, This is what the state wants to try to do his obligations to protect her and provide her provider with love shelter, food, and comfort. You can't replace that, you can't usurp it.
The state is making a very good effort to do that OK.
The intruder never cared the intruder being the state never cared.
In fact even with supplementing or rewarding the wife for leaving the husband for example. It still doesn't care. It still doesn't love the wife. It's not gonna necessarily protect the wife. Can't it's a creature without a conscience. The State legislature has no conscience. A public office has no conscience. That's why it's regulated by rules. People that created that office had to create rules to regulate the performance of the office because the office holder is acting without a conscience, even though it's a human being, right?
The judge, he's fulfilling an official duty of the state.
It's a creature without a conscience. Yeah, he has a conscience, and he can think and all these things.
He's a creature of reason, but in his official capacity, as the judge, OK, he's an insane person.
They're just happy it's just the way it is.
The role of the husband his rights and obligations, prerogatives, you know, responsibilities, lie those, all these things.
His standing, as husband, his duty to the wife, these are unassailable.
They are inviolable.
Cannot be attacked changed.
Altered, usurped.
The purpose and powers of the husband are unassailable and inviolable no man and no group of men can intrude upon the purposes and powers of the husband.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Tell me I'm wrong.
I can use violence, but that still doesn't overcome the power and purpose of the husband.
Likewise, the husband himself cannot forfeit or waive his role as husband by asking another man or group of men to assume any of his obligations.
Show me a situation where that even is, acceptable?
It is the nature of choosing to become and becoming a husband that establishes this immutable aspect, or role of the husband. This answers the inevitable question on the foundation that the state's intrusion or in the intrusion into the husbands, purposes and powers was created by men and other husbands.
Like I just explained, you have the family court, which is run by judges, right, And you have the state legislature, and the judges are acting under the statutory provisions that were written adopted by the state legislature, but who are those people?
They were acting in the capacity of their official capacities as lawmakers and judicial officers. These are men, some of her women.
But these are men, OK? Again, it goes back to no man can intrude.
It's a marriage, it's the role of husband. You can't usurp it. You can't take it, and it cannot even be forfeited.
No matter what you call yourself.
This has been, and is undertaken every day without authority.
So yeah, the fact that they're doing it, doesn't make it right, might, does not make right, Might look like it at first, but it's not in the end.
We'll get to that in a second. There's more.
So a petition made by the wife, Or another man, or group of men, likewise, does not overcome the purposes and powers of the husband, at least for the reason that the roll, the wave originated, wire, the role of the wife, the status of the wife. Where'd that come from?
The moment, the man chose to be a husband.
The wife was created. That rolf wife. You see how that works.
It was his choice alone to take her as his wife.
She, therefore, has no right to seek the involvement of anyone else in her marriage.
She has no right To ask.
No right to ask anyone to intervene in the marriage.
She can only ask the husband, she's under his dominion, this is how it works.
It's workless way for centuries.
If you want to destroy society though, you tricked people into believing that this is not how it works.
You get all kinds of chaos, then you get people like me doing these types of videos. Fortunately, we have the technology today or writing books. That sound like crazy people for awhile. Alright?
So, she, therefore has no right to seek the involvement of anyone else in our marriage and must therefore make every effort to co-operate with her husband and no other man or group of men, or women, whatever.
OK, I'm not saying that a legislature has to be a man.
Let's think about this for a second.
When, like, if I had a contract with somebody, could I go to the if I don't like the contract, for some reason?
Well, what's my remedy.
I go to the other party, right? And I ask for it to be changed.
And if the other party says, no, well, I have to really kinda follow the contract. Because what's the point of having a contract, If I could just change it, ***** nilly Right. If there's a good reason, I'm sure the other party would agree with me: but what if I don't like the fact that the other party either doesn't want to change or change it the way I want.
Do I get to go to another man, another person, another group, another corporation, some other outside party that has no interest in the contract.
And somehow it used some outside authority beyond the authority of the two parties that created the contract. Since when can I use someone else's authority to intrude upon the contract that they were not involved with in the beginning and they still have no interest in nor will they ever have any interest?
What business does this non party have, to come into the contract and change it, according to what I want, against the Will of the other party?
Then, we don't ever have a contract. Then, we don't really even have law.
So, what role what Authority does any judge or court family court, have to do just what I just described?
Family courts should not even exist.
The family is the Court OK?
The judge in your courthouse downtown, that's not family court.
These are invaders intruders, their pillaging property.
It's a scam.
Your court is you, OK, as the husband.
You are the court, you're the judge, OK?
You're the arbiter. Must get into that.
The husband is the final arbiter.
He's the only arbiter.
Yeah, and it's self-serving, and that's just the way it is, because why, the husband has what, all the liability, right? Most of it all of it.
The husband carries a load.
Assuming that any stranger to the relation, a husband has with his wife has authority, let's just assume for a second that someone else you know, has some authority.
Typically, this is expressed with the court, so let's assume for a second the Court has some authority, right, imposing terms on the use an allocation of the husband's money following its own declaration of divorce.
So let's say, my my thinking here is that I'm giving you an example. So typically, where the court gets involved is the allocation of money.
So the husband is making the money.
And if the wife wants a separation or something that, let's say, for example, as the court gets involved.
And the court starts, in fact, the court has written statutes to follow regarding the re-allocation of the resources or the money that creates or acquires the resources for the family, the husband or wife. I'm not talking about children yet.
So let's just say the court has the authority for that, right.
Well, does it have the authority when to copulate with the wife, does it have authority, what to decide to buy for food, does it have the authority to decide what type of shelter is going to be provided to the wife?
What authority does it have, Does it have any authority whatsoever That the husband pass, and if it does, how did it acquire that authority, the husband, we already know how did he acquired that authority, because he took on the liability, didn't he?
Where did the court do nothing?
So, let's just say, if the court has authority to decide financial matters from the husband right, and then take that over, usurped that power, right? Well, what does that also do?
If adversely affects the other obligations of the husband, you see how that works.
It's a it's a train wreck.
So the court can even if it had the authority to to re-allocate or change the way the husband was using resources or his own money.
It would necessarily adversely impact his other duties.
So the court, in that sense doesn't have the authority.
It doesn't have the authority at all at all for anything.
But I'm just saying, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and see where this leads us.
If we let it take over the authority for the money, well then it's going to automatically impede the husband's ability to take care of the other matters that involve the use of the money.
Makes sense, right?
So, we know for sure, we can verify this many different ways. It doesn't make any sense.
It's not logical, it's not even natural that a corporation, the court, the judge, these are all corporations, like these are corporate bodies, can interfere with the role of the husband. The purposes and powers of the husband, can't do it.
Husband is the final arbiter.
so this works very much the same thing as binding arbitration. So, if you have a contract with Binding Arbitration Clause, it divest the court of its authority to hear the merits of the dispute.
The Court can the Court can memorialize the the final agreement, resolution or whatever, like, from an arbitration award, but it cannot get involved in the merits.
So when it comes to a marriage, the husband by default is the final arbiter. There is no other arbiter. You can't have an arbitration forum. Now I know in my my post national agreement, we put that in there, OK? We have to take the step at a time, OK? But I want you to understand the very, very core concepts here.
Even if the court had authority, we get into this, you know, for the same reason, the Court is just going to interfere with their husband's role.
So so not even money, We can't even say that money would be that the court would have the authority to deal with the money or change the money. No Court no judge, no State, no political body, no group of men, especially no corporation may intrude upon the purposes and powers.
Of the husband were left with one conclusion that the husband is the final arbiter regarding any matters between the husband, the husband and his wife.
This by current law, precludes the courts are intruding in the same manner, as the courts are precluded from hearing matters, which are subject to compulsory and binding arbitration.
So in order to make this, like in today's language, let's just say, you know, as I just explained, a contract or a written contract where binding arbitration is, you know, a provision in the contract, binding arbitration, not mediation, not a description where you can choose arbitration, or you can go to the court. There are those kinds of kinds of contracts, as well.
But if we have a contract with binding arbitration, like you see in the post nuptial agreement, that the court's gonna agree it doesn't have the jurisdiction, when I'm telling you, is, you don't even need to have that.
Do you need to have a written agreement once you understand this that the you would argue that the husband is the final arbiter?
The husband is that compulsory arbitration forum.
Now the Court's not ready to hear this, it's going to take time so In the meantime that's why I have the post nuptial and the way I've written it.
but I want you all to understand what power the husband has.
Now, of course, we get into, but if we do what we're supposed to be doing, the court could hold me in contempt of course because we gave the court the monopoly on the police power this is called, contempt. The Court has a power of contempt, that that was something that was created by the court system. I don't even think that was an act of any state legislature. I think it came out of England.
And I think that it's it's being misused today.
I think, really, contempt has to do with decorum and conduct in the court, but it's being used for everything.
So, yeah.
Just because you have the Power of Violence, it does not confer authority.
If you go back and look at everything here, it doesn't give you authority. So the question you have is what what kind of interaction am I going to have here, and what am I willing to to deal with. And I would hope that you know you don't have to deal with a contempt issue and go into jail. It's really disruptive to your life.
And this is another reason why I have the post nutshell agreement, OK?
We do want to avoid this, but I really want, in this video, I want you to understand that just because the court can do those things, doesn't give it the right or the authority.
Yeah, I know, it's scary. I know. And Noah, it's inconvenient, again, at the very least, but we just have to understand, that doesn't give anyone, authority if I, if I want to steal your money or take your wallet, right?
Let's say you're walking down the street, I want to take your money, of course. I don't have the right to do that.
And maybe I can't do that, because you're you're bigger than me, right? You'll just overpower me, and you'll prevent me from taking your money.
But what if I come to you with a gun or some weapon? Right?
There isn't my chances are better, right?
I don't have any more authority with the gun.
I still have the authority, hence the gun, right?
So just understand the concept here, so Leslie, I'm gonna lead into this next necessary aspect of the husband.
We got the law, the father, which necessarily includes the law of the husband.
Now, we've expanded the role of the husband into that of the father. We've added some children into the mix. And so, it gives you, even more as the father, it gives you more duties and obligations, and it gives you more rights and prerogatives. You have to have them. I'll give you a quick example on this. This actually has to have this was an example.
There's two examples. one arm.
So it was a woman, single mom and she had her, her child, it was during the phoney pandemic, OK. So she was and she had enrolled her child and to some soccer club or something like that.
Oh, there was a there was a child custody dispute going on, but she had custody. She had 100% custody actually, of her child.
And then she was getting a hard time from, who was it, it was, the soccer league, or something like that.
And maybe it was the court also. But because she had child custody, what I was using is not any of these concepts here.
What I was using is, the fact that the court itself had, given her custody, I didn't go into all this, you know, philosophical background, I didn't need to.
But the point is that, because she had full custody, that meant she had all the liability of complying with the custody arrangement.
She had all the responsibility, Therefore, she had all the responsibility. Then she had the right to decide how to fulfill that responsibility. And no one else did.
So if she had custody by court order, then it was up to her to do it. And yes, she was fulfilling that the court order and all these things.
But then the court can't come in there and intrude upon that because it would have had to have given itself an aspect of custody or somebody else. Right.
Didn't do that. She was 100%. That's but in fact, that was the question I asked her when she explained the whole scenario. I said, Are you 100% custody? She said, yeah.
I said, well, then whoever has all the liability, the custody under the court order has all the ability can make the rules.
Same thing, there was another gentleman. Try to enroll his son in soccer, there was a soccer.
And similar similar situation. I'm like, I'll give you a little story. But anyways, so the law the father, necessarily includes a lot of the husband, OK? It imposes not only greater obligations upon the man who is the father, but greater prerogatives responsibilities, liabilities and therefore unique and exclusive rights and privileges. Again, it's unique and exclusive. You're this is no other.
These, these obligations don't exist anywhere, and within any other species, I mean, we're the only intelligent species on the planet, right?
I mean, people unless you want to include aliens, there's some **** like that, but I'm just saying, this is a very unique and exclusive relationship.
Father, husband, it's the man who chooses to become a father.
Whether naughtiest chosen to first become a husband, becoming a father brings with it the role of husband, no matter what you may call it.
Just like the law, the husband, the law, the father originates from the man who exercises his right to become the father.
This association is again in Violet, and perfect, with which no man group of men, nor the state or any corporation may interfere or intrude.
It's so important.
The law of the fathers created by the man, as I've explained here, but like the law the husband, is created and sustained by the obligations and responsibilities that define the role more of the same.
These are also unique and clues exclusive to the father and our superior to any rulemaking of any kind.
Why would these be superior? Because they originate from the father.
They originate from the father.
It's his responsibility.
He's paying for the whole party.
He's obligated. He's created these deliberately these obligations. He has all the interests.
No one has any other authority over him.
The father is the judge, the jury, the executioner, if you want to use that term. But, I mean, the father is the final arbiter as well.
With additional responsibilities, likewise, the obligations to father cannot be forfeited.
Sure you could put your child up for adoption. I'm not talking about that.
You still are the father, OK?
If you can't, they cannot be usurped.
This happens every day.
I just said they cannot be usurped, but yet, it happens every day. Well, OK.
Yeah, I guess you could, again, use violence or the threat of violence to impose your well, you're a corporation, or something on the father, but ultimately, as a matter of law, you're violating his his role.
But you can't do it any more than a king or legislature, or a group of people make a law that prevents rain on Tuesdays. I mean, it's a natural law. Being the father involves natural law.
So I use this analogy. You can, you can write the law.
You can take the action, but you don't have the right.
You don't have the power or the authority.
So, here's the demonstration of that. If, likewise, I make a similar law. Like, for example, that's supposed to prevent rain on Tuesdays. Yeah, I can, I could vote that line.
I could put a series of words on a piece of paper, but the rain may still fall on Tuesday.
While it's possible to make such a law that has place words in a series on some medium, and then no announcement to the world, still, it does not.
And cannot change the reality that rain may Volunteers Day, there's little need to restate the types of rights and duties of the father, as has been already expressed, so in the law the husband, so, but let us express the additional rights and duties at the far. let's just go into some of the duties of the father. You guys already know this, but let's just talk about first exclude the Adoptive Father.
Because, in most examples, this relationship is established by permission of the state, by statute.
So an adoption, I would argue, is governed by the rules of society and we have more memorialize, those rules in statutes. And I'm OK with that.
I don't think that's a problem, because we do have a public interest as soon as, you know, a child is out without his parents' there needs to be, it's an earache concerns, everyone, OK.
And so we can have many, many different people deciding what to do with the child. What we, what we can do, though is have many people hopefully that are moral people that come up with a way to handle that situation.
And then we take a uniform measure, do we adopt it and call it a law statute, and we can use it to the best for the benefit of the child and society.
And I'm all for that. So that's why I'm saying let's not talk about adopted children, because yes, I believe that involves privileges that originate from the State.
I mean, you still have the father. I'm not saying we don't.
But let's say the father died.
Maybe the father is the same.
There's all kinds of things that can happen that where we need to transfer this relationship into a situation where some other organization may have the authority, the new life, the new life preserves, man, OK. So it's very important with procreation, right? We're going to preserve our genetic information. Hopefully, it preserves our biology, our culture, et cetera. Our technology, we can pass on technology and things of this nature, we can develop technology with our next generation. But this is not disputed, however, the state continues to act as if it, in many circumstances has the authority to usurp or intrude upon the law the father. Of course, that's why I'm making this video.
So I'm not citing an authority when I say, britannic, I'm just giving you guys a reference here. It's interesting, when they have all, these are, you know, Latin phrases like patria, protest, us, I guess, is what they call power, the father.
I just want to show you that it doesn't. This idea does come from me. Now I didn't go read this first.
I just, I understand that if we're going to talk about these things, it's going to have to be described pretty much in this language. So when I started writing this, so I can give you this video, I started with a blank file and I thought, OK, so I'm gonna really talk about the role of the father, or the role of the husband. Let's start with that.
And, I'm going to have to call it The power of the husband.
And so as I wrote this, and I thought I'm going to go look this up and see if maybe, you know, go on the Internet and find if there's any Latin origins or biblical origins and sure enough.
I'm not the first one to have this, to think of this, and it's, it's old, it's older than our laws.
So, um, so I just want to demonstrate the history of the law of the father. It's nothing new. It's been deliberately removed from our society. In modern times, our educational system, it's gone, at least in the preceding century. At least in the last 100 years, right. The authority or understanding of the authority for the law, the father comes from the exercise of the rights, and duties of the father, as we can observe today, is, is so important, let me say it again.
The authority for the law of the father.
Again, it's unique and exclusive to the father.
It comes from the exercise of the rights and duties of the father that we observe today.
In other words, you can't argue with it. We already know what the father does.
That's the law, the father. What he does is the law, the father.
There's nothing to argue here.
But let me make one last point, and we'll, we'll just, I'll close the video for now, but I definitely wanna revisit this. So courts cannot change contracts. They don't.
they want to uphold contracts. They want to create a scituate situation of equity.
Courts encourage working disputes out, OK. So no judge court has the authority to change or alter contract. Look at all the cases brought before the courts, in any situation, do ever find where the Court, even the courts you'll find holdings item.
I could I could do a whole brief on this where the courts and the appeals courts and the supreme courts are concluding that the court had no authority to introduce a new concept, or term, or obligation, or write into an existing agreement.
And I'm talking about agreements that don't need to be in writing.
The fact that you're a husband or father does not require a written agreement.
OK, I've explained this many times, and other matters, where I'm doing private, I'm writing private membership associations, I'm not so much writing them. But I'm inserting the concept of those organizations into contracts for certain purposes.
Sometimes I write them, you know, I, I develop them, sometimes. It depends, but we don't need to.
So no one has the authority to modify a contract.
It, all, it's the context, the contracting parties, that's the beauty of a contract. That's what makes it what it is.
If anyone else can get involved well, then really, we don't really have the, the, the, the true contract, It's not really a contract. It's more like a gang bang, OK, really? The courts have been doing this for decades.
They don't care, it's a business, it's a business, of course, they're going to do it.
If you let him the attorneys writing the statutes and course acting accordingly believe that the statute creates the authority of jurisdiction for this intrusion and these violations, but of course they don't.
Of course, they don't go back up to what I was talking about before.
You cannot usurp or forfeit the power of the father, The power of the husband you can't.
You might think you can, you might think you're important.
You might think you're important because you make $300 now, and you weren't expensive suit, And then everyone, you know, things are important, You have a high salary, right?
But you're not, you're not, you're not more significant.
You're insignificant, especially compared with the father or husband, OK. Now you might be a father or husband. But that does that. Your role in society does not allow you to intrude upon another role in society.
No matter what your title is, no matter how smart you think you are, no law allows this.
The only you are getting away with it is because people aren't doing what I'm doing, they're not talking about it.
So let me just stop that sharing. You get the idea.
Hopefully, we're going to talk about this some more now. I'm gonna get into some other video series here that you're not gonna see too much of this type of discussion, but I really felt like it was important to give you guys a basic understanding.
So, the next one I'm going to get into is more likely going to be technical. It's probably gonna be on the trust aspect of the declaration of trust inside the ...
agreement somewhere in that.
Thanks for watching, I hope you got something out of it.

DS5 – Vol 4 Part I – The Role of a Father and Husband: Legal Boundaries and Natural Rights

In the continuation of the Post Nuptial Agreement Series, John Jay delves into the technicalities of understanding the foundational rights and roles of a husband and father in society. He argues that many modern understandings of these roles are misconstrued or not presented at all in schools or the legal system. Jay believes that the role of the husband and father, derived from the choices and responsibilities inherent to those roles, should not be subjected to interference by external entities, be it the state or other individuals. Drawing upon Biblical references and current societal practices, he challenges the authority of courts to redefine or interfere with marital and familial relationships, emphasizing the natural laws that govern these roles.

Key Points:

1. The video is part of the Post Nuptial Agreement Series, emphasizing the technicalities associated with marital agreements.
2. The role of a husband and father in society is paramount and has natural rights and obligations associated with it.
3. Modern society, including the educational and legal systems, does not adequately address or convey the core concepts of these roles.
4. A husband’s role is chosen, and thus, he enters into formal relationships with not just his spouse but also extended family.
5. The rights and responsibilities of a husband and father are derived from natural law and are not created by any statute.
6. Courts and statutes should not have the authority to define or interfere with the role of the husband.
7. Marriages are private and exclusive contracts, which should not be subject to external interference.
8. Court involvement in the allocation of resources or money during marital disputes can disrupt the natural order of familial roles.
9. The concept of “law of the father” is derived from natural laws and has a superior stance compared to any other rulemaking.
10. Drawing parallels with natural phenomena, Jay argues that just as one cannot legislate against rain on a Tuesday, the roles of fathers and husbands should not be artificially constrained or defined.