The future of marriage as defined in "The Book"

[PeterAndrewNolan]

Gents,

If you want to understand women these chapters from the first book will explain pretty much everything to you.

Women claimed “equalityâ€￾. You have heard that ringing in your ears for 40 years now. I have. But they lied. They do not want equality. They want MASSIVE PRIVILEGE via the tyranny of guvment. They want the right to get the guvment to steal your money and give it to them under the lie of “equalityâ€￾.

Now. How can we PROVE that women do not want “equalityâ€￾? I set out to do that in the first book. The book proposes the new way for managing marriage. A common law marriage agreement combined with an arbitration panel for contract disputes that are not resolved by any adjudication service the married couple might seek.

The relevant chapters are in the links below.

Now. THOUSANDS of women have seen these chapters. ALL women in BOTH houses of the Australian federal parliament have had this information presented to them and challenged to complete one of the two affidavits to define their lawful status.

To date, 18 months later, NOT ONE woman has completed an affidavit simply declaring their lawful status. What is worse the men in the MRA/MRM area are too chickenshit to notice this, too chickenshit to challenge women on this point, too chickenshit to rescind their consent to be married.

Right now. TODAY. Any man in the English speaking world can rescind his consent to be married. Rescind his consent to be governed. Create a common law marriage agreement, get his wife to complete one of the two affidavits.

Any man whos current wife will not complete one of the two affidavits is well advised to divorce her and move his assets to a safe place. His guvment WILL try and steal from him if he keeps his assets inside their reach.

Whether men move their assets to Switzerland via MBA or to some other place via some other service? They are free to choose what they do. But you can be SURE that your guvments will attack you as you try and get yourself out of their criminal grasp. They are criminals. Why would they NOT victimise you when you tried to rebut their criminal activities.

Now. Men who want to test women to see if “a woman is as good as her wordâ€￾? You have these affidavits and marriage agreement documents as templates. If women are so equal as they claim? They would have completed such forms.

http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx
http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx
http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx
http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx
http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx

[boycottamericanwomen]

Right now I am quite poor, but you can be sure that once my savings reach 20,000, I am moving all of that money to a Swiss bank account.

Otherwise, should a divorce ever happen, that money can be automatically taken off of me without my consent by the government via the criminal "divorce courts".

Guys, always remember. The real enemy here is the Family Court judges and lawyers. They are the true enemy. The women are just useful idiots and pawns in the hands of the judges and lawyers.

[ExpeditionSailor]

I agree with most of what you're saying.

However, the biggest problem with 'rescinding your consent to be married', is that when you get a marriage licence, you are entering into a contract with not only your wife, but the government as well. The government, not you or your wife, gets to set out the rules of the contract.

You cannot rescind the contract except by consent of the government - that consent is granted only by a divorce court judge and often at great expense, to say nothing of the emotional stress. If the judge orders that you pay support payments for a time before your divorce is officially granted, you are de facto contractually bound to pay, even if the marriage licence itself does not specify an obligation de jure.

One possible solution, in Canada at least, is for couples to enter into a common-law relationship. But even with such relationships, the wife still has most of the rights and privileges she already has under marriage. The only difference is that when it comes to assets, she has to prove with documentation, what she actually contributed to the household wealth after the relationship began. She is entitled to at least half of the post-union assets she can prove are the result of her agency.

Your suggestion is effectively a form of a pre-nuptial agreement. Depending on jurisdiction, the courts may or may not respect it. You best defence is to make sure that if you have substantial assets in your possession before (and not after) the union takes place, move those assets to a safe place out of governmental reach. Many jurisdictions consider pre-marital assets to be exempt from divorce proceedings anyway, regardless of whether your prospective wife signs a common-law affidavit or not.

An even better way to protect yourself is to exit your home country as soon as possible if you see a break-up coming, ideally in a jurisdiction that has no reciprocal civil enforcement agreements with your home country.

[PeterAndrewNolan]

[PeterAndrewNolan]

ExpeditionSailor
what you are not getting is that you can leave the jurisdiction of the guvment and all legislation and then use what is proposed regardless of anything else that may exist today.

One of the BIG LIES is that you are SUBJECT to guvment or even to "common law" meaning english common law. You are not subject to ANY law apart from NATURAL LAW or the law of the creator...whatever you like to call it.

[ExpeditionSailor]

You've got a point, Peter. Because no man-made law can ever trump natural law.

[Harvey]

[Harvey]

You've got a point, Peter. Because no man-made law can ever trump natural law.

This is a run-of-the-mill trick used by all con men. Place a little truth strategically in amongst a pack of proven lies and hopefully the more gullible among the readers will think it's all true. Think very carefully and do some research Expedition sailor. For God's sake google the idiot criminal's name and see what you find.

[boycottamericanwomen]

Another ASIO agent. Are you having fun trolling, Harvey?

[PeterAndrewNolan]

You've got a point, Peter. Because no man-made law can ever trump natural law.

Well...men like Plato and Aristotle discussed this at length. I can hardly claim it as my idea! LOL!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Since declaring sovereignty and looking INWARD rather than OUTWARD I have discovered that our creator has told us everything we need to know in order to know what is right and what is wrong. There is right and wrong now matter we want to have moral relativism to tells us not.

Does anyone imagine that the birds in the sky need "legislation" or "leaders" to tell them what to do? Are we not at least the equals of birds?

When you look inside and consider the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then you soon start to see how to live your life such that you live in peace with the rest of gods creations.

It really is THAT simple.

We are not enslaved by simplicity...we are enslaved by complexity...the Illluminati create a "complex" set of rules and we are drawn into them because we tend to love to do things in a more complex manner rather than a less complex manner.

Life is, in fact, very, very simple.

[PeterAndrewNolan]

Another ASIO agent. Are you having fun trolling, Harvey?

Yep...Harvey has already been exposed as a liar as he made the claim he knew I had covered the flip video recorder with a cardigan when david dunkley specifically mentions that I was video recording the meeting with what he assumed to be a cell phone. And David was a good 20 meters away as can be seen in the video.

But it never ceases to amaze me how many men will believe a man who is proven to be a liar just because they like the lies he is spreading.

When I was little I was told by my dad

"if someone tells you a lie, confront them on it. Give them one chance to apologise and admit their lie publicly and then you can continue to be friends with him. If he does not denounce his lie, if he does not apologise, have nothing to do with such boys ever again."

I have used that in my life. Men who lie to me and refuse to denounce the lie I am quite happy to denounce and I never do business with them or associate with them again......ever.

I guess most men did not have fathers who were as helpful in giving them guidelines for living life as my father. Apparently men are quite happy to be lied to and then give the liar another change to tell them more lies.

[boycottamericanwomen]

Yes, life is much more simple than these guys think. But they've been brainwashed by this extremely complex, sick modern society.

You guys need to stop trying to be over intelligent and just accept reality for what it is. Western women are shit. Plain and simple, nuff said. No need for 500 pages long essays about why western women are evil.

[Harvey]

Yes, life is much more simple than these guys think. But they've been brainwashed by this extremely complex, sick modern society.

You guys need to stop trying to be over intelligent and just accept reality for what it is. Western women are shit. Plain and simple, nuff said. No need for 500 pages long essays about why western women are evil.

Well stop doing it PETER proxy server. LOL

[boycottamericanwomen]

Sure thing. And since you ASIO guys have such advanced government surveilence technology, I guess you can't trace our both accounts back to TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

If this is the government intelligence agencies, you guys are a f***ing joke.