We, ______________ and __________________, in no way agree to statutory control of this covenant. WE, ______________ and __________________, agree only to the constitution's restraint on the government, our god-given , human and fundamental rights done in full knowledge of the following:

The findings in and by the court orders that they are third parties in fact, if not in name, and that their interests are paramount, unconstitutionally becomes the practice, policy and custom of the judges who follow. E.g:

[ a ] "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

[ b ] "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

[ c ] "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

[ d ] "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

Judges are as human as anyone and as likely as others to see the world through their own eyes and find the "collective conscience" remarkably similar to their own. Cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 518-519 (1965) (BLACK, J., dissenting); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 350-351 (1969) (BLACK, J., dissenting).

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. -- Samuel Adams, 1772

Documents:

The US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights: are to be understood, in their plain and ordinarily clear and concise meaning of/by the average person, without distortion of their original meaning/s, but with consideration for technical advancements..

1. Such as - a car equals. A horse, for the purpose of the right to travel.

2. Slavery equals being compelled to work or provide the fruits of labor.

At no time whatsoever is this to be construed, that we, ______________ and __________________ , are incompetent in anyway to handle ourselves or the affairs of our children by allegations of parens patria.

We do not individually or jointly waive our rights in any form whatsoever.

If the Government claims that we have waived our rights or act like we have, they must provide proof by clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that we intentionally, knowingly and willfully intended to waive said right in question.

We do not agree jointly, individually or on behalf of Children to any contract of adhesion or implied contract that might be alleged by government agents.

We waive any help from Government unless we jointly ask for it in writing.

We do not intentionally, knowingly and willfully ask for any help in Domestic matters from Government agencies, but will seek help from family or friends that we will identify in this Covenant as being impartial overseers

This matter will never go to Family/Equity [or any similar term or meaning] Court but will be dealt with under Common Law.

The STATE is not a party to this CONTRACT in any way.

DEFINITIONS:

Divorce -- independent contract -- court has no authority to modify. --Under Arkansas case law, a court has no authority to modify an independent contract that is made part of a divorce decree.

In case of this marriage Dissolving:

It will be a breaking of this Covenant not getting DIVORCED

http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw
Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d 871
[Civ. No. 15818. Second Dist., Div. Two. Oct. 17, 1947.]
ROSALIE THERESA ROBERTS, Appellant, v. LEE ROBERTS, Respondent.

COUNSEL

Hardy and Hardy and Carlos S. Hardy for Appellant.

Reynolds, Painter & Cherniss and Louis Miller for Respondent.

OPINION

MOORE, P. J.

[4] In all domestic concerns each state of the Union is to be deemed an independent sovereignty. As such, it is its province and its duty to forbid interference by another state as well as by any foreign power with the status of its own citizens. Unless at least one of the spouses is a resident thereof in good faith, the courts of such sister state or of such foreign power cannot acquire jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of those who have an established domicile in the state which resents such interference with matters which disturb its social serenity or affect the morals of its inhabitants. [5] Jurisdiction over divorce proceedings of residents of California by the courts of a sister state cannot be conferred by agreement of the litigants. [6] As protector of the morals of her people it is the duty of a court of this commonwealth to prevent the dissolution of a marriage by the decree of a court of another jurisdiction pursuant to the collusion of the spouses. If by surrendering its power it evades the performance of such duty, marriage will ultimately be considered as a formal device and its dissolution freed from legal inhibitions. [7] Not only is a divorce of California [81 Cal.App.2d 880] residents by a court of another state void because of the plaintiff's lack of bona fide residence in the foreign state, but it is void also for lack of the court's jurisdiction over the State of California. [8] This state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardian of their morals. Not only can the litigants by their collusion not confer jurisdiction upon Nevada courts over themselves but neither can they confer such jurisdiction over this state.

[9] It therefore follows that a judgment of divorce by a court of Nevada without first having pursuant to its own laws acquired