UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx,(divorced) xxxxxxx xxxxxxx, And xxxxxx xxxxxxx, (married) AND All Others Similarly Situated.
The Governments Of;
New Jersey & All Counties ET.AL. I.E. Monmouth;
Somerset; Passiac; Morris; STATES:
Pennsylvania & All
Counties And As Yet Other Unknown Jane And John Does,; In Their Official And Individual Capacities
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
U.S. Constitution, Amendment One; Right To Petition The Government For Redress Of Grievances;
A SHOW CAUSE PROCEDING FOR AND ORDER:
In the nature of an injunction & declaratory judgment all other Constitutional relief and in the nature of divorce. And an order of protection from spousal government abuse.
FRAUD;(all permutations) DEMAND: Dissolution of all contracts; express or implied or adhesion; due to fraud; obtained through the marriage license.
The Petitioners Herein Above Are By Way Of This Document/Petition, Are By Right, Thru The Power And Authority Of The Constitution For The People Of The United States, By And Through The First Amendment, Do Petition The Government(S)For The Redress Of Their Grievances; As Follows;
James Kent Commentaries on American Law:
'Of the Government and Jurisprudence of the United States – Lecture X – Of The History Of The American Union' :
THE government of the United States was erected by the free voice and joint will of the people of America, for their common defence and general welfare. Its powers apply to those great interests which relate to this country in its national capacity, and which depend for their stability and protection on the consolidation of the Union. It is clothed with the principal attributes of political sovereignty, and it is justly deemed the guardian of our best rights, the source of our highest civil and political duties, and the sure means of national greatness.
As stated in
Kents’ commentaries above, the Federal Government exists for the purpose of being the GUARDIAN
Of Our Best Rights, Common Defence And Was Brought Into Existence For This Purpose.
OF COURSE, the constitution provides the basis for the operation, of the three branches, on behalf of the people. Though some two hundred years have passed since the inception, yet the purpose remains the same? As such, the petitioner(s) herein above seek to have the Federal Government enforce and protect the constitution which thereby, protects the people’s rights.
Jurisdiction is conferred upon this court by way of the following; as grievances for redress against the governments:
AMENDMENT 1, “Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment Of Religion, Or Prohibiting The Free Exercise Thereof;….” AND;
AMENDMENT(S);*IV (Privacy); V (Due Process) ; VII (Damages Substantially Exceed The Statutory Minimum); VIII (Nor Cruel And Unusual Punishment Inflicted);IX (Unenumerated Rights); AND Finally The – XIV –(Equal Protection).*(Means Shall Be In All Its Relevant Parts) AND;
I. SECTION 10. “No State Shall … Pass Any ….. ,Ex Post
OR Law Impairing The Obligation Of Contracts…..” AND;
TITLE 28 USC SECTION 1332 DIVERSITY
TITLE 28 USC SECTION 1343 ET. SEQ.
TITLE 42 USC SECTION 1983 ET. SEQ.
TITLE 18 USC SECTION 241 & 242
TITLE 28 USC SECTION(S) “FRAUD”
Misprision of Felony –
United States Code (USC) Sec. 4 – States in relevant part:
“Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both”.
Federal And State Governments, Allowing For The Imprisonment For Debt, Are Laws Impairing Contracts And Ex-Post Facto … AND Certainly Unconstitutional.
Since The Respondents/Governments Claim To Have Entered Into A Contract, There Is No Immunity — (
US S.CT.) case site available upon request of the Court herein —
EVIDENCE for the above petitioner/s statements: “For Many Years The Law Has Been That The State Is A Third Party, In Fact If Not In Name, In Every Divorce Action”. welch v welch 35 njsup 255 (no marriage? no divorce?)
Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856
The Constitution of the
United States, art. 1, sec. 10, forbids the states to pass any ex post facto law; which has been defined to be one which renders the act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed. 6 Cranch, 138. This definition extends to laws passed after the act, and affecting a person by way of punishment of that act, either in his person or estate. 3 Dall. 386; 1 Blackf.
Ind. R. 193; 2 Pet.
U. S. Rep. 413; 1 Kent, Com. 408; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.
STATUS. The condition of persons. It also means estate, because it signifies the condition or circumstances in which the owner stands with regard to his property. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1689.
The petitioners, herein above have all been, either:
PREVIOUSLY and CURRENTLY INJURED or, are attempting to avoid injury. All the Petitioners have been defrauded, into an alleged, “contract”, with the various counties and therefore the governments of the various States. 
The petitioners are located in the several states of
New Jersey and/or have and are being subjected to the “Alleged Contract By The Government(S) Both, County And “State” By Public Servants In Positions Of Public Trust”.
Other “Governments” alleging partnership involved with these Petitioners include counties within the States of:
New York, leading directly into the involvement, of the federal governments public servants.
(see title 42 section 651 et. seq. & title 18 usc section 228 H.R.3811 as public “law” 105-187 and all other related federal involvement, under color of law)
The Respondents, Are Self Explanatory And Includes All The Judges In The Respective Counties For Injunction.
The Petitioners, were shocked, as are all those being informed in the press and everywhere else, to find that the Respondents (public servants in positions of public trust) claim to be, have clamed to be, and will continue to claim to be; — “parties in the marriage contract”  —
WITH these Petitioners and all others similarly situated;
All Of The Members Of The Press Are Similarly Situated, As Are The Police, Military, Non-Lawyers In The Government Legislative Or Executive Branches And The List Goes On And On ET.AL.
All Those Who, Have Been Tricked, Into Signing The Alleged Contract, By Way Of The Marriage License, At There Respective, Individually Chosen, Places Of Worship, In Their Individually Chosen Faiths.
Actually Anyone, Who Was/Is Not Clearly And Plainly Noticed, Of The Governments Alleged Involvement, As A Party In The Marriage, Has And Is, Being Denied Due Process, And Are Defrauded, As Are The Petitioners.
Yet, In Common Law Marriage “If Parties Subsequent To Divorce, Entered Into Common Law Marriage, Then Nothing Either Party Did Or Did Not Do Thereafter Could Dissolve Marriage. — THOMAS V THOMAS APP 565 P2D 722 – Why Not ? Is it because if there is No marriage license there is no polygamy (3rd party). Or there is No waiver of constitutional rights.
The Governments Have Taken Over The Established Religions;
The Marriage License Is Used As The Means To Obtain, Through Fraud, The “Agreement”, Of Those Who Trust Their Spiritual Leaders, To Wave The Constitution And The Restraints It Imposes Upon The Governments.
The Violation Of The Separation Of Church and State:
There Is No Notification, — On The Document / License, — By The Government/s Overriding Partnership / Superior Controlling Position And That The Governments Interest Comes First In a Dissolution of the Marriage Contract or That The ‘Church / Religion’ Is Under Government Control Due To The Mandatory ‘Marriage License’.
That The Marriage License Is A Fraudulent Contract Of Adhesion Or It Is An Implied Contract, Obtained Without Disclosure To The Signators; Of Its Conditions, Meanings, Parties, Obligations, Waivers, And Without “Consideration” To Be A Partner [which means an agreed upon payment which must exist in order to enter into a mutually agreed upon contract a dollar is often adequate], Provided As “Quid Pro Quo” And; Where Is The Copy Of The Contract? The governments allege exist, and they claim to enforce.
Furthermore, All Laws Passed After The Marriage Are Ex-Post Facto And Violate The Contract Clauses.
In All Marriages The Contract Is Made Prior, To The Ceremony, Between The Man And Woman, And License “Deal”.
U.S. Constitution And The Constitutions Of The States, Meant To Control The Governments, Have Been And Are Being Disregarded, As To Those Divorced Or Married, Why??
This Can Only Be, Actions By All, The Involved Public Servants In Positions Of Public Trust Consciously Acting Under The Color Of Law, which shocks the Conscience.
The Petitioners, Affirm That They Have Never Knowingly, Intentionally Or Voluntarily Waived Any Of Their Rights, As Such, Have Been Duped, Tricked, Fooled Hrough Fraudulent Means Into Marrying The Governments.
The Governments, Of The States, Have Established Their Own Religions. This Has Been Accomplished, By Tricking The Various Established Judeo-Christian, As Well As, All The Other Religious Institutions, To Compel, Those Wishing To Marry, In Accordance With Their Respective Faith, To Obtain A License; In Order To Obtain The Blessings Of Their Spiritual Leaders.
While This Seems Innocent Enough On The Surface, It Is A Sinister Trap, With Malice Aforethought.
Not Only Is This A Clear Violation Of The Separation Of “Church And State”, But Constitutes A Deception/Fraud Of All Those, Expecting The
Independence Of Their Respective Religions From The Governments Of The States.
Further the public servants in positions of public trust, in a clear conflict of interests (OATHS), have claimed the abrogation of the constitutionally protected rights of those signing the marriage license.
This includes the abstention of the federal courts defending the constitution (A DUTY) and thus the respective rights of all those, to whom, the “STATE” government(S) allege to be married to.
If this were true, As Claimed In The Court Cases Attached, it constitutes polygamy, anathema, to all common religious, spiritual beliefs. Yet It Persists.
The Public Servants/Governments, Are In Actuality Claiming, “They” Have The “Authority”, To Confiscate Property; (See Status Def)Or Is It Owned Through Dowery?)
ALSO; Imprison Everyone For Debt (Extortion/Ransom From The Families For Freedom), While Imposing The Debt Themselves (20 To25 %Of Those In Prison Are There Due To Divorce Debt); With Kick Backs To The Governments;
Kidnap The Children Of Those Divorced In Sex Based Discriminatory “Custody” “Awards” (Right Now 95 To 97 % Of Divorced Woman Are Given “Custody” Constituting, Sex Discrimination);
Allege To Be The “Parens Patriae”  Of Those Married Or Divorced; And Are Planning (Currently In The Nj Legislature) To Compel All Children In The Fifth Grade To Choose Their Final Occupation — (any interference by parents to be a crime whether married or divorced) — Thus, Vacating The Fourth Amendment Right To Privacy;
Any Parent Contradicting The Indoctrination Of Their Children At School Would Be Committing A Crime (‘UN Rights’?).
“They” Are In Fact Denying Due Process; And Impartial Tribunals, The Courts Have A Personal Interest.
The Imposition Of Slavery/Involuntary Servitude (Work Release To Pay Of Debt) Supported By The Use Of Threats, Force, Duress (the Bastille) and Coercion, (amend 13) Just Call
Pa. Or NJ Courts;
Is Consistent With Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Vacating The Eight Amendment;
The Usurpation Of The Unenumerated Rights Of, We (All) The People, Thus Vacating The Ninth Amendment;
The Denial, (Through The Use Of, Evasion, Subterfuge, Bias And Personal Interest), Of The 14th Amendment, Equal Protection, That Of Being Free From Governmental Frauds And Unconstitutional Misconduct.
This Is Not To Be Construed To Be An Action, Complaint, Suit Or Any Other Descriptive Noun; Other Than A 1st Amendment Petition Against The Governments; Not; Again Not; Against The “State” , Which Is Actually The People, Including The Petitioners Herein, Who Are Not Petitioning Against Themselves, Nor Their Friends Or Family Or Any Of Those Alleged; By The Governments, To Be Married, To The Governments.
The petitioners seek an injunction stopping the unconstitutional, human rights violations, by the respondents, claiming to be married to the petitioners.
An order of protection, from “spousal” abuse and mental cruelty, by the respondents/governments alleging to be married to the petitioners et.al.
A declaratory judgment, that the petitioners are not nor have they ever been married to the espondents/governments.
An order directing the production of the “contract” – — Since The Governments Allege There Is Such A Thing.
An Injunction, Preventing The Respondents/Governments From Establishing Or Using The Established Religions Or Forcing, The Established Religions, Into Using Licenses.
Said Use, Fraudulently Leads To The Claims Of Marriage, By/To The Respondents/Governments And The Unintentional Waiver Of Constitutional Rights.
Nor Can The Duping Of The Naive, Spiritual Leaders, Into Accidentally, Innocently Causing Injury, To Their Trusting Followers Be Allowed To Continue And Must Be Enjoined.
Public Notice, By Way Of Full Disclosure,On Tv, Radio And Press, Of The Governments/Respondents Claims, To Be Married, To All Those Who Are Married Or Intend To Be Married And All Proof Thereof And Consequences, Presented Publicly, Forthwith.
A Trial By Jury For Damages, Which Shall Exceed The Statutory Minimum Substantially And Child Support And Alimony To Be Paid To The Petitioners.
An Injunction Freezing All Federal Funds Until This Is Resolved. Pari Passu=Equal Protection.
An Order; Freezing All Respondents/Governments Bank Accounts. Pari Passu=Equal Protection.
An Order; Compelling The Restoration Of All Constitutional Rights.
An Order; Compelling The Return Of All Kidnapped Children.
An Injunction Stopping All Future Unconstitutional Misconduct Of The Public Servants In Positions Of Public Trust (Aka) The Respondents/Governments.
An Order; For Pendente Lite [temporary support until final resolution by Order of the Court] Of One Million Dollars A Month Each For The Petitioners ET.AL.
Psychological Evaluations, Of The Respondents Claiming To Be Married To The Petitioners, Including The County Judges But Not Limited To These.
A declaratory judgment that petitioners upon discovering the fraud do not acquiesce to it.(see below)
The Petitioners Reserve The Right To Amend This Petition.
BOUVIERS LAW DICTIONARY 1856:
ACQUIESCENCE, contracts. The consent which is impliedly given by one or both parties, to a proposition, a clause, a condition, a judgment, or to any act whatever.
2. When a party is bound to elect between a paramount right and a testamentary disposition, his acquiescence in a state of things which indicates an election, when he was aware of his rights will be prima facie evidence of such election. Vide 2 Ves. Jr. 371; 12 Ves. 136; 1 Ves. Jr. 335; 3 P. Wms. 315; 2 Rop. Leg. 439.
3. The acts of acquiescence which constitute an implied election, must be decided rather by the circumstances of each case than by any general principle. 1 Swanst. R. 382, note, and the numerous cases there cited.
Bill to impeach a decree on the ground of fraud. When a decree has been obtained by fraud, it may be impeached by original bill, without leave of court. As the principal point in issue, is the fraud in obtaining it, it must be established before the propriety of the decree can be investigated, and the fraud must be distinctly stated in the bill. The prayer must necessarily be varied according to the nature of the fraud used, and the extent of its operation in obtaining an improper decision of the court. When the decree to set aside a fraudulent decree has been obtained, the court will restore the parties to their former situation, whatever their rights may be. Mitf. Eq. Pl. 84; Sto. Eq. Pl. §426
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ======================= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Last print of C.J.S. [Corpus Juris Secundom] Divorce/marriage license/interest of state/etc.ET.AL. ”the state is a party at interest to the marriage contract or status, together with the husband and wife…NY ANONYMOUS V ANONYMOUS 62 NYS2d 130 IN NJ..DUERNER V DUERNER 142 NJEq 759 (SEE MORE IN EX. A)
2. See Corpus Juris Secundom 27a Section 7, 8,(Key 4) Etc. Et. Al. For Entirety
3. “Definition”-Term Refers Traditionally To Role Of State As Sovereign And
Guardian Of Persons Under Legal Disability. Originates From English Common Law The King Had A Royal Prerogative To Act As Guardian For Idiots-Lunatics.
4. IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES;  “where there is a conflict between the interests of the state and the interests of either of the spouses, the interests of the state will be regarded as paramount” feikert v feikert 98 njeq 444, marum v marum 10misc2d695
5. STATE, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights. BOUVIERS 1856