Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[malcolm]

what REAL right does government have when they invade and dictate  personal relationships among common people?

My answer may surprise you, Kola.  The government has the right to take these actions by RUSSELL'S CONSENT.

That's right.  His consent.

When Russell SIGNED a marriage license, he gave the state his consent to enforce Family Law upon him.

When Russell allowed his name to be added to a birth certificate, whether through birth or adoption, he consented to the state's involvement.

[Jacobus]

Speaking for myself, I view all manner of enforcement -- with the exception of peaceable withholding of values, or ostracism -- to be objectively criminal in nature.

Let's suppose I borrow money from you.  I claim it will be used to build a fast food-restaurant.  Instead of starting a business, I blow it all on hookers and cocaine (sorry for the double pun).  I also tell you that I just changed my mind on how to use the money.  I've also decided not to repay you.  What recourse should you have to recover the funds I took from you by fraud?

You can approach associations with the idea that if it doesn't go the way you wanted, you'll use coercive force to try to correct it. 

I believe that is the wrong way to approach associations. 

Use an association gone sour to learn how to form better associations in the future, both in terms of the people you associate with and the details of the agreements.   

I thought thats what I was asking YOU...no one seems to have a viable answer here for an alternative.

What it is that you seek?  If it is a way to force Russell to give you the money you believe you are owed, then it would seem there is no answer.

[malcolm]

Let's suppose I borrow money from you.  I claim it will be used to build a fast food-restaurant.  Instead of starting a business, I blow it all on hookers and cocaine (sorry for the double pun).  I also tell you that I just changed my mind on how to use the money.  I've also decided not to repay you.  What recourse should you have to recover the funds I took from you by fraud?

You can approach associations with the idea that if it doesn't go the way you wanted, you'll use coercive force to try to correct it. 
I believe that is the wrong way to approach associations. 
Use an association gone sour to learn how to form better associations in the future, both in terms of the people you associate with and the details of the agreements.   

The issue here isn't an attempted, but failed, business venture.  The issue is fraud.

So you are saying that you should have no recourse against fraud?

[Notanumber]

Both people are aware of the risks. Fathers and mothers. He had legal recourse to see the children and yet he's in NH. I didn't move.

You know, RussellsEx, I created an account here JUST to talk to you.  I had an account here a while back, and didnt get along with Russell or Kat.  In fact, they sort of ran me off, so I have no love for either of them.  The only reason Im reading about this is I saw mention of it on Dave's Youtube.  I came over and read your posts, and I feel that have to call you on your bs.

Feel free to correct me if Im wrong, but Kat made a few statements that you dont dispute.

1. Russell didnt want to get divorced.
2. He offered to take the kids.

You say the guy was violent.  I dont buy it.  Why?  Because I know a fair number of women with kids of violent men.  Invariably those women would rather die than take a dime from the father.  They want NOTHING to do with them.

It seems to me that when you married Russell, you voluntarily entered into a life long contract to love, honor and obey, "for better or for worse", "till death do you part".  It also seems to me that you broke that contract unilaterally.  You destroyed the guy's family, took his kids away from him, and now, after you destroyed his life, you want him to pay you to take care of the kids you have taken from him.

Yeah, Russell had or adopted kids with you, within the contract of marriage.  He had a right to rely on your promise to stay with him forever.  You didnt keep your promise to him.  Yet you expect him to be your slave for close to two decades?  You have a job, you have choices.  You could have let Russell have the kids.  You could remarry.  Why is it that you feel entitled to dispose of Russell the man, yet feel entitled to Russell the wallet?  I guarantee that if Russell had those kids, he wouldn't expect a dime from you.  He DEFINITELY wouldnt have you put in prison for not paying him.

Im sure he loved you at some point.  Despite your claims, Im also sure he did you no harm when you left him.  All he wants is his life to be his own, and you deny him this.  You dont want him, but you dont want him to be free of you either, and you are willing to see him imprisoned to force him to serve you.  Thats just friggin evil.

I know a bit about California family law.  It works on 19th and early 20th century assumptions that women are all victims of men who just want to get laid, and then move on when the woman gets older.  It is designed to be punitive, and punish men for leaving their wives (who presumably cant support themselves, let alone the kids).  You are milking that system for your own benefit.

You say you want Russell take responsibility, and that this is 'just for the kids'.  Prove it.  Offer him a solution that doesnt force him to become your economic slave.   As an example, you could offer split custody.  There are various ways Russell can take care of his kids without having to pay you.  Get creative

Personally, I think youll keep him in jail, because I think that this isnt about the kids for you.  Its about money, and making Russell pay for some perceived slight or wrong you think you have endured.  You are being vindictive and cruel.

Russel is a free man, not an ATM machine.  The fact that the courts allow you to have him locked in a cage doesnt make it right for you to make it happen.

[Lex]

Do you realize that Russell could spend the next 10 years in prison and in the end you will still get no money?

If I was a child and my mother sent my father to prison for 10 years because of me I don't know if I could have a normal relationship with my parents in my adult life.

I think no matter how you slice or dice this situation 10 years in prison for Russell today will not solve any problems and is a case of where the punishment does not fit the crime.

Consider also how long it will take Russell to pay off this child support debt. It could easily take more than ten years and that would be in addition to current payments he would have to make.

Russell would have to choose between being in a physical prison but staying true to his beliefs vs being relatively free physically but compromising his personal beliefs to slave for the sake of children he cannot be with.

You cannot cherry pick a mans contribution to his children. Either you let him be a part of their life both to help raise them and to take care of them financialy or you completely distance him.

If you are going to hold Russell responsible for paying for children he never sees than it only makes sense that you also hold responsible the parents of the adopted children as well. The parents of your adopted children divorced themselves from those kids and are no longer obligated to care for them. Russell has been divorced from your family as well, so why does he have to support the kids he does not see?

[kola]

Do you realize that Russell could spend the next 10 years in prison and in the end you will still get no money?

This is what I am implying and I think it is cutting right to the chase.

What is it you want Mindy?(russells ex).



Kola

[Notanumber]

Let's suppose I borrow money from you.  I claim it will be used to build a fast food-restaurant.  Instead of starting a business, I blow it all on hookers and cocaine (sorry for the double pun).  I also tell you that I just changed my mind on how to use the money.  I've also decided not to repay you.  What recourse should you have to recover the funds I took from you by fraud?

You can approach associations with the idea that if it doesn't go the way you wanted, you'll use coercive force to try to correct it. 
I believe that is the wrong way to approach associations. 
Use an association gone sour to learn how to form better associations in the future, both in terms of the people you associate with and the details of the agreements.   

The issue here isn't an attempted, but failed, business venture.  The issue is fraud.

So you are saying that you should have no recourse against fraud?

This isnt fraud.  Russell either had or adopted those kids in the context of a marriage contract.  This contract was unilaterally terminated by RussellsEx.  Fraud requires scienter.  Im sure when Russell married, and signed birth certificates, he was not contemplating being ejected from his family and his children in the future.

As for your argument that Russell has consented to be bound by California family law, that is bogus.  .Gov forces us to sign alot of things in life, just to work, or eat, or have kids, or what have you.  Consent requires knowledge and freedom of choice.  No layman understands California family code, and its not like you can have a family without being FORCED to sign these forms in California.  There is a pretty good argument that any contract between Russell and the state is so one sided in terms of knowing consent and unequal bargaining power as to be void if it were a contract between two private parties.

try again.

[malcolm]

This isnt fraud.  Russell either had or adopted those kids in the context of a marriage contract.  This contract was unilaterally terminated by RussellsEx.  Fraud requires scienter.  Im sure when Russell married, and signed birth certificates, he was not contemplating being ejected from his family and his children in the future.

As for your argument that Russell has consented to be bound by California family law, that is bogus.  .Gov forces us to sign alot of things in life, just to work, or eat, or have kids, or what have you.  Consent requires knowledge and freedom of choice.  No layman understands California family code, and its not like you can have a family without being FORCED to sign these forms in California.  There is a pretty good argument that any contract between Russell and the state is so one sided in terms of knowing consent and unequal bargaining power as to be void if it were a contract between two private parties.

I have no argument with what you have said.  I was originally asking srqrebel how he'd go about enforcing a contract entered into when the other party intended to defraud.

If you look at my earlier posts you will see that I also view family law as very destructive.  It would have been better (IMHO) for Russell to avoid marriage and children than to spend time in prison.  The easiest way to avoid the government is to not make a target of yourself.

Russell may not have thought his wife would leave him.  If that were the case, he made a decision without doing his due diligence.  Women initiate 75% of all divorces, usually for frivolous reasons, with false allegations of domestic violence.  Fifty percent of all marriage end in divorce (75% in California), financially decimating the man.  Most marriages that do not lead to divorce are stifling, sexless, oppressive living arrangements that leave a man bankrupt, obese, psychologically taxed and prone to depression.

DON'T GET MARRIED!!  Do you guys want to end up in prison?  This is what happens.

[mackler]

As for your argument that Russell has consented to be bound by California family law, that is bogus.  .Gov forces us to sign alot of things in life, just to...have kids...

What does government force you to sign in order to have kids?

[Notanumber]

As for your argument that Russell has consented to be bound by California family law, that is bogus.  .Gov forces us to sign alot of things in life, just to...have kids...

What does government force you to sign in order to have kids?

Well, lets see how many kid related documents that must be signed in the course of a lifetime.  If you adopt, you must sign.  (in the old days, agreeing to take care of someones kid or be godparent sufficed), If you give birth in a hospital, a birth certificate is created, upon which the mother is expected to place her name and the name of the father. (who would deny their own child?)  If you expect to enroll that kid in school (even private schools), you must sign certain documents attesting to your parental status, and that certain regulations concerning the public health must be met.  If you expect your child to inherit without probate, you must name him in a will.  There are many signatures required to bring a child from birth to adulthood. 

[kola]

They do not really force us..its the fact that they fool us.

They take advantage by creating a one sided contract and most commonfolk do not even understand what it really means. Its deception by design.

Kola

[Notanumber]

They do not really force us..its the fact that they fool us.

They take advantage by creating a one sided contract and most commonfolk do not even understand what it really means. Its deception by design.

Kola

Deception is fraud.  Fraud is unconscionable.  Unconscionable contracts are voidable between private parties.  Why should a lesser standard apply to an unconscionable one sided deceptive fraudulent contract imposed by the state?

[mackler]

what REAL right does government have when they invade and dictate  personal relationships among common people?

My answer may surprise you, Kola.  The government has the right to take these actions by RUSSELL'S CONSENT.

That's right.  His consent.

When Russell SIGNED a marriage license, he gave the state his consent to enforce Family Law upon him.

When Russell allowed his name to be added to a birth certificate, whether through birth or adoption, he consented to the state's involvement.

There is something to what you're saying here, Malcom.  I have two reservations about agreeing with you:

• 1. Do we know that Russell did in fact apply for and receive a State marriage license and state-issued birth certificates for his children?  If he entered his innocent children into the state-system that they will not be able to extricate themselves from before they were old enough to object, that's a major blow against the legitimacy of any claim he might make that he's "outside the system" and shouldn't be subject to the system's violence.  However, I haven't seen the evidence that he did such things, I've not heard any allegations that he did such things, and I'm not about to assume he did such things until I see some evidence.
• 2. Would the law under which Russell is being held still apply even if there were no state-marriage license and birth certificates?  If the answer to this question is "yes," then it makes it harder to say that he deserves the current violence by reason of his earlier collusion with the government.

[Notanumber]

what REAL right does government have when they invade and dictate  personal relationships among common people?

My answer may surprise you, Kola.  The government has the right to take these actions by RUSSELL'S CONSENT.

That's right.  His consent.

When Russell SIGNED a marriage license, he gave the state his consent to enforce Family Law upon him.

When Russell allowed his name to be added to a birth certificate, whether through birth or adoption, he consented to the state's involvement.

There is something to what you're saying here, Malcom.  I have two reservations about agreeing with you:

• 1. Do we know that Russell did in fact apply for and receive a State marriage license and state-issued birth certificates for his children?  If he entered his innocent children into the state-system that they will not be able to extricate themselves from before they were old enough to object, that's a major blow against the legitimacy of any claim he might make that he's "outside the system" and shouldn't be subject to the system's violence.  However, I haven't seen the evidence that he did such things, I've not heard any allegations that he did such things, and I'm not about to assume he did such things until I see some evidence.
• 2. Would the law under which Russell is being held still apply even if there were no state-marriage license and birth certificates?  If the answer to this question is "yes," then it makes it harder to say that he deserves the current violence by reason of his earlier collusion with the government.

I believe two of the kids are adopted.  Surely he had to sign some state document to adopt.  Im not sure it matters though, as if he had these children naturally and didnt sign a birth certificate, he would still be subject to this process on the mother's claim.  His only defense would likely be a DNA test to prove he was not the biological father.

[RussellsEx]

Russell was not always a 'free-stater'...he signed quite happily, I might add, all these aforementioned documents...