[Quick Tips #1] The no common law marriage law trap.

oldredder · 2015-10-07T03:55:08+00:00

Laws almost never apply retroactively. Such a situation is rare as football sized diamonds.

Downvote for inaccuracy and fear-mongering.

By all means if you want to avoid cohabitation just avoid it. We go our own way, do what we want individually.

99% of the time having legal jurisdiction right now that there's no common-law marriage means it stays that way for good on your current situation, planet-wide.

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2015-10-07T03:17:21+00:00

The biggest thing men need to realize is EVERY woman on earth understands Hypergamy. The know that nitty gritty truth. Sit down with a few women one on one, pry a little bit and hypergamy will start leaking out. I've never had one woman prove me wrong and I went into those conversations open minded

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2015-10-07T18:34:44+00:00

Even without a retroactive "common law" statute...

There are many ways in which "cohabiting" can (and does) end up being construed by courts as the equivalent of marriage.

First and foremost, several courts have ruled that a man who has taken on the "role" of a "dad/father" to children for any significant period of time (apparently anything longer than a year) -- especially if/when he has provided a "home" and/or some additional basic needs and/or financial support for children -- can then open himself up to the possibility of being permanently "saddled" with that as a legally-binding financial burden by a judge in a "child support" lawsuit¹ -- even entirely absent any formal/legal adoption or biological relationship. Yes this kind of thing CAN be legally fought against, and with such opposition & absent legal/formal paperwork, the woman's CS claim is far from a "slam dunk" -- but even fighting it can be costly, and the courts ARE likely to allow the case to go forward, even on relatively "flimsy" evidence. Solution: NEVER play at being "daddy" to some single-mom's kids. And especially NEVER allow her/them to "move in with you" not even "just for a while".

Secondly, as I've noted in other places -- any man who allows a woman (ANY woman² much less a woman with crotch-spawn baggage) to move into and "establish formal/legal residency"³ in his 'home' (rented or owned), a thing which they can do without the man's consent/knowledge via something as simple as changing their address⁴ on a drivers license or with a post-office -- is opening himself up to being "kicked out" from (at least temporarily⁵ ) and even forbidden/prevented by police from returning to or living in his own home (via a 911 call claiming "domestic violence" and/or filing for a "protection/restraining order"⁵ ). Solution: DON'T allow any woman to "move in", most especially do NOT allow her to have "her own key"³ access.

Footnotes (longish, but with important details):

You have to remember that "child support" lawsuits are CIVIL LAW cases, which have a much lower legal "standard of proof" than criminal cases; and moreover are cases that are looked at (ostensibly) around the "best interests of the child(ren)" that generally translates into "for the benefit of the woman/mother" with everyone else's status a distant non-concern -- technically speaking anyone can "sue" (or at least "file" a lawsuit and obtain an "initial hearing") virtually anyone else, at any time, for virtually any reason (no matter how absurd). If a civil lawsuit case is ridiculously absurd, then the judge CAN (and officially SHOULD) dismiss it, and with prejudice (preventing a refile) -- but it's really at the judge's "discretion" based on their rather subjective opinion of the matter at hand -- and worse, because of the way the welfare system is constructed, in recent decades "child support" cases have become things that the court/state tend to have a significant "vested interest" in and around which they have developed rather contorted & somewhat arbitrary legal "logic" for that heavily biases them (and arguably in some instances in a fully "corrupt" manner) against any person (invariably a MAN) against whom such a suit is brought: men more or less start off by default as "guilty" and need to prove why the burden SHOULDN'T be imposed on them. (It's twisted, absurd, ridiculous, even insane -- but it's REALITY in many jurisdictions.)
That "any woman" is meant literally, it can be wife, girlfriend, daughter, sister, niece, etc -- I personally know of a case where a guy who felt "sorry" for his slut-hoe sister (and child), and so allowed them to move into his house... then he got into a "heated argument" with his sister -- she called 911, and got him locked up for "domestic violence", and then got a restraining order against him (making him "homeless") based on her stated "fear" that he might harm her. The point is that you don't HAVE to be in a "romantic/sexual" relationship with a woman for her to play the DV/VAWA card. (Technically speaking ANY room/house-mate -- regardless of gender or relationship -- could pull this on any other room/house-mate; but the reality is that law enforcement & courts are heavilygender-biased towards women.)
Many jurisdictions have an established (either statutory or "case law") principle and laws around "de facto tenancy" and/or "official residence" -- and any/all of the "eviction" timelines can and do come into play -- often REGARDLESS of whether there is any formal "rental" agreement, or name on title, etc. In essence "squatters" who are physically present at an address (especially if they have confused matters with official or even semi-quasi-official records {things like name + address on utility bills}) are presumed to have a right to remain on the property -- it is then the burden of the landlord/owner/leaseholder to prove they do not and/or to follow formal "eviction" procedures (all of which can take several weeks, if not months to execute, depending on the local laws/process).
Obviously there is even the possibility of some "fraud" (similar to identity theft) in this regard -- keep in mind that most places like state DMV offices (and in some cases this can even be done instantly online now) don't really do ANYTHING AT ALL for a "formal verification" regarding an address change request*, the request is just PRESUMED to be valid, and the records changed accordingly -- so some woman (or person) could intentionally and formally/legally list/claim an address -- usually of some 'celebrity' or 'rich' target -- that they has never resided in. And while this kind of thing apparently HAS happened, it's a fairly remote risk in terms of total strangers (i.e. some crazed woman standing at a curb calling police to help her gain access to a home that her DL lists as her address, but which she lacks keys to any locks, etc). But that's where her "having a key" (or worse, gaining access and changing the locks so ONLY she has a "key") is so critical because it becomes a sort of "possession is 9/10ths of the law" kind of thing, police will (IMO quite understandably, at least initially) "accept" the combination of a "residence of record" (i.e. government issued Driver License, etc) along with the physical "key" based property access control - and assume that this woman has LEGAL access. IOW they can be "duped" and cannot be expected to know about your "private" arrangements. (Hells bells, if a woman really wanted to "fuck with you" she could probably create some fake "rental agreement" - with a 'forged' scribble for your signature, and claim to be the SOLE legal renter. Is it paranoid to imagine that? Maybe, but there are "crazy/vengeful bitches" out there that wouldn't blink an eye at this kind of thing... and you have to remember they often get a "pussy pass" on the most absurd crap.)
And most of these -- while ostensibly requiring a "hearing" -- are "granted" as an "emergency" on a virtually immediate basis... with said "hearing" being scheduled a week or two later; in the meantime the police WILL treat it as valid, and they WILL use force against you should you try to return. EVENTUALLY of course (over weeks/months) you CAN get all of this shit sorted out/resolved, get the restraining order overturned, get her ass evicted, etc. -- but in the meantime ANY woman (for any reason, or really no reason at all, simply that she is "pissed off" at you) can manipulate the system to gain control of your home (and virtually any/all it contains), and make your life a LIVING HELL (not to mention cost you thousands of dollars in legal fees, property damage, etc.) Oh, and please don't make me laugh with any claim that you can "sue" her or "file charges" against her to recoup your losses -- in 99% of these cases the very REASON that you allowed some woman in your home was because she didn't HAVE a proverbial "pot to piss in"; so suing her would be a (virtually) pointless waste of time AND even more money.

* As absurd as this may sound, I (again personally) know of one case where a (rather crazy -- crazy like a fox) woman went to an online form and simply CHANGED the official state database records of a long-standing-corporation so that HER name and address were the "official" registered agent/office of the corporation -- the only "verification"? Well, really none -- just an online checkbox "attestation" that she had "authorization" to do so (which she didn't, but there was nothing preventing her from simply LYING about it, and the system didn't even do any "notification" of the change to the previous agent/address). The change of record was only inadvertently discovered about 3 months later. Exactly why she did that is still essentially unknown. (Oh, as icing on the cake, and this is important -- the woman who did this suffered ZERO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for the fraud; despite the fact that such fraud was a blatant violation of several state laws, *the local DA {quelle surprise, a woman} simply refused to do anything about it and informed the corporation's attorneys & directors that THEY could/should "sue" the woman in civil court; but as there were technically no "material damages" to claim {at least that they were aware of} that too was rather pointless, and in fact would have cost the corporation significant money {probably several thousand dollars}, which it was unlikely to recoup, even if it did "win" a judgement.)*

Appleseed12333 · 2015-10-07T01:41:58+00:00

THIS RIGHT HERE! This is the reason AWALT and I MGTOW, the law makes it so every cohabitation relationship inherently favours the woman. British Columbia (in Canada) passed a law making all 2 year long cohabitation relationships into MARRIED couples, applicable immediately and RETROACTIVELY 2 years previously. So your ex-gf can come sue your ass for your money 2 YEARS after you broke up with her.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/common-law-couples-as-good-as-married-in-b-c-1.1413551

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2015-10-07T19:28:04+00:00

EDIT: Addendum: I was intrigued by Appleseed's comment and it looks like this scenario might have already happened. I'm not versed in law and this is just a relatively quick Google search but this analysis (no idea about accuracy) indicates that in the BC common law case this was essentially enforced done via legal trickery. If I understand correctly they changed the definition of 'spouse' so that after the law is in effect if you were at the time in a 'married like relationship' for 2 or more years you are a 'spouse'. Hence the moment the law was enacted you would be married. This was not ex post facto in the sense that if you lived with someone for 2 years in the past but separated before the law was enacted there would be no consequences for you.

BINGO, you nailed it.

This is EXACTLY how these kinds of de facto "ex post facto" (or retroactive "redefinition") laws are imposed while skirting around the issue and avoiding being labeled as technically "ex post facto".

As I noted in another example, this kind of legalistic legerdemain has been used with increasing frequency with things like the ADA laws "Americans with Disability Act" -- to essentially retroactively alter "building codes". Doesn't matter WHEN your building was constructed, whether it was a year ago or 100 years ago -- your building can effectively be "condemned" (and you can be sued for "non-compliance") if you fail to ALTER it to match the requirements of the entirely "new" law. The fact that your building was -- at the time it was constructed -- in full "compliance" with the many laws (and regulations, and ancillary "codes" etc) is regarded as fundamentally irrelevant; with certain exceptions (for so called "historic" buildings, etc) the legal concept of something having been "grandfathered" has simply been tossed out the window -- overridden by the many and various "needs of the state" principles (which in the end are arbitrary, capricious, and virtually unlimited).

As others have noted in comments in this thread -- as formal/official "marriage" gets both "gutted" of it's meaning (by the people, courts & government), gets increasingly AVOIDED by most couples, and thus essentially rendered as an archaic and virtually pointless "moot" thing -- well, the government and especially the legal & taxation aspects (and per example "child support" IS in fact a form of "taxation" even though imposed on an individual & case by case basis) are GOING to adapt to whatever people are doing, including "following" them outside of that "formal/official" system.

I think it's also important to remember that said "formal/official 'marriage'" (with GOVERNMENT permit/registration being the determining factor or requirement) is really NOT the long-standing tradition or legal concept that people seem to think it is -- in fact, it's a relatively recent "aberration" that really only existed for about 100 years -- prior to that, marriages and marriage "records" (such that existed) were either "common law" or else a matter of non-governments (or in cases of nations with official state-sponsored-churches, quasi-governmental) community organization records... to wit, the "formality" and the "officiation" as well as the "record keeping" were all generally in the hands of your local church (and sometimes via local ordinances, some town "clerk").

The government could and would "accept" and "acknowledge" those records as being evidence of the marriage -- but the absence of such a formal record was NOT, in and of itself, seen as definitive. (Indeed, think of people who immigrated as already married couples from some European country to the US -- they MAY have been "formally/officially" married by some priest or other clergy decades prior and had it "officially" recorded in the books of that church or with that government -- but such records were fundamentally inaccessible and irrelevant as far a court here would be concerned.)

Modern documentation, record keeping, databases and communications might SEEM to make such formalities MORE of a requirement... but if people are specifically AVOIDING them it really doesn't follow that courts/governments are going to simply "surrender", rather they will "adapt" to what people are actually/factually doing -- and that WILL mean a reversion to that (far more "messy") informal system -- and inevitably it will lead to governments simply "defining" things in terms that best suit it's (government's) OWN needs & purposes; and they're definitely NOT going to be concerned if that means some people (especially individual, rather foolish MEN, on a case by case basis) end up getting "buggered" by the change.

Nor are the masses likely to rise up in "revolt" at it -- in part because it won't affect them all at anything like the same time, or in the same way or to the same extent -- it will be more of a random "decimation"; moreover one that is to the detriment of the "minority" gender, and to the benefit of the "majority" (especially in terms of "voting").

2015-10-06T23:38:02+00:00

[deleted]

Deckard41277 · 2015-10-08T16:22:26+00:00

The very first palimony case ever.

Actor Lee Marvin was unmarried but his girlfriends lawyer came up with the idea of palimony and the judge agreed and so even though he was unmarried to her Lee Marvin had to start making alimony-like payments to a woman he never married.

All this crap of ignoring settled law and making it up as the liberals / feminists go along started with the Nuremberg Trials when Nazis were just following legally given orders and were then found to be criminals instead. The conservative Winston Churchill saw what a farce it was, knew Germany had been militarily defeated and fore-saw the kind of madness such a breach of Western Jurisprudence would lead to so he pulled The Brits out of the Nuremburg Trials on Priniple.

Title	[Quick Tips #1] The no common law marriage law trap.
Author	HaveTheLastLaugh
Upvotes	11
Comments	20
Date	October 6, 2015 10:42 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/3nrn2v/quick_tips_1_the_no_common_law_marriage_law_trap/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/quick-tips-1-the-no-common-law-marriage-law-trap.641109 https://theredarchive.com/post/641109

Comments