English colonists brought the English common law with them, when they came to America.  The common law remained the law after July 4, 1776 and even after the 1783 Treaty of Paris recognized the thirteen states as free and independent of Great Britain, the English common law was still the law of the people. Only in […]

read more



  1. Joel Boyce on November 25th, 2008 9:37 pm

    Some delegates attending the Constitutional convention observed that certain provisions of that document would put the states and the federal governments at enmity, and cited the force retained by the feds to militarily quash and overrule the states by the original terms of the constitution.

    Amendment II may seem to resolve that threat, but note the United States controls the hypothetical “state” militia with a U.S. standing military, which can be forced into any dissenting state to bully federal rule.

    This enmity has existed for over 200 years, and the Feds have from the Civil War’s conclusion ruled the states. These two government entities, the one having subjugated the other in war, have nearly brought enmity also between man and woman by regulating and licensing their marriages, and the consequent state interventions and family discords wrought upon family and married life.

    Thus my preference is for marriage by Common Law and private consent of the man and woman in California the geographically boundaried state. Why need we countenance the “within the State” marriage – meaning the legal licensed political marriage with “State of California” standing in the circle?

    Had this (written) constitution been adopted by the first President Elect George Washington by his taking the Article VI oath “to support this constitution”, then in that scenario that President of the United States of America would have also caused this (written) constitution to become “adopted”, setting the stage for all government to leave Common Law courts to work for the people in the people’s own separate and foreign jurisdiction.

    The legislative courts would have had no deceit by which they could have begun hoodwinking the population about having jurisdiction over private non government people as is erroneously done today by government enforcers acting outside legitimate authority.

    Those courts would have adjudicated exclusively the government written law for government and its employees within the territorial and other ceded property boundaries owned by the United States of America. That is only the United States (Washington DC) and territorial districts “within the” 50 States of ” “.

    Article III courts under this scenario would have likewise become “ordained”, and as the verb suggests, acting under a ministerial Christian orientation, harmonizing, acknowledging and curtailing government law to not overstep the Commom Law decisions of the people.

    Sadly legislative courts today lie to Americans by calling common law “the cumulative decisions of the (legislative) courts”, pure nonsense when one has an understanding that government law and Common Law are the twain that shall never and can never meet.

    Dr. Rivera explains that Common Law marriage is not recognized by the state. This reminds me of the comment by the Iraq War U.S. Army recruit. When asked how do U.S. military people act when the populace or counter insurgents do not accept their presence as foreign occupiers of Iraq? He said “we are taught to act as though we do not hear them or notice them in their protests”. Thus we see the military mind of the U.S. and state governments inside the U.S. takes the identical viewpoint toward our Common Law and C.L. marriages, acting as if they do not exist. We need to act the same way toward the usurpers in all areas of our free and liberated lives. To us they do not exist, for they are truly a foreign jurisdiction.

    Could Dr. Rivera suggest possible remedies for those legally married couples who agree with me in preferring marriage by Common Law?
    In other words, what is the practical application of your article on Common Law and marriage in todays political environment?