In re Washington. 98-56936
This case is on appeal from the Ct of Assizes, 3 Geo. 13, that rode through the royal colonies of Va. N.C., S.C., Georgia and Seminole territory. This issue arose under the then House of Burgesses Statute, 32 Geo. 456, 14 Wm. 34, "Rules For the Sanctification And Comportment of Marriage."
Two questions arise for us in this case. The first is whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal on certiorari from the present State of Virginia based on a law enacted under a predecessor sovereign but enforced by the State of Virginia under 1821. Cf. In Flagrante Burr, 5 Nyle 18 (1802). The second issue raises the question of whether a marriage law promulgated by a predecessor monarch, the head of the established church of the Royal Colony of Virginia could make laws affecting citizens or residents of the United States and the State of Virginia in perpetuity. See From Colony to Sovereignty: The Case Against Starry Recesses Prior to a Declaration of Independence, 32 Cucamonga Correspondence Law School Journal 19 (1994). The third question is whether both parties dead for more than 150 years still have standing to come before this court or ought be crated into these hallowed chambers in decayed form or virtually by means of certificates of burial. The attorneys of record stipulate that both parties are buried check by jowl undisturbed within the jurisdiction of the State of Virginia.
In 1972, Katherine MacKinnon, then a domiciliary of the State of Minnesota and an suppository professor of law at the University of Minnesota could bring an action on behalf of Martha Washington, nee Goldfinckel, under 23 U.S.C. §1290 (a) 4(j)(k1) which, in part, reads:
Spouses married under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction shall nevertheless enjoy the same rights to dissolution of marriage, asset liquidation, attorney fees and liens, issues of alimony and or maintenance and the support of issue notwithstanding any conditions to the contrary under the original contract of welded (sic) bliss.
Martha, nee Goldfinckel, daughter of Haddeus Goldfinckel and Diphtheria Moosbacher having been married under 12 Geo. Statutes 344 in the then Colony of Virginia in 1735, in the parish church at Mount Vernon, in the County of Alexandria, can have brought on her behalf by a person or persons non-consanguineous an action to annul a marriage based on alleged infamous breach of alienation of affection by one Samuel Dickelpepper, keeper of an Inn within the bounds of said County, and also an disreputable house operated by an Innkeeper of Democratic persuasion.
Democrats have a proclivity to operate taverns. Republicans are more inclined to be observed at country clubs and cocktail lounges with persons of opposite or indeterminate gender not their spouses. This action is further complicated by the fact that the United States Department of State has no record of entering into a reciprocal agreement with the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom, 234 Eliz. Statute 898, governing the marriage and divorce of subjects of the sovereign or those formerly such subjects "until the unhappy rebellion of her Majesty's beloved subjects and taxpayers," by the grace of God, Sovereign, Head of the Church of England and Empress of her realms and possessions beyond the seas or whatsoever be left of them.
While the Court acknowledges the abstruse legal skill of Counsel Katherine MacKinnon and notes our sister has been duly admitted to practice before this Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, and is joined in this action by Lesbia Schwartz-Castrati, assistant chief attorney for the Solicitor General of the United States, it cannot dissolve the bonds of matrimony between the parties because this Court lacks both in personem jurisdiction over the body or teeth of the defendant, one George, represented by former Special Independent Counsel, Robert Bork, otherwise a disgrace to the profession (Thomas, Scalia, JJ, dissenting wildly) and in rem jurisdiction as the estates of both parties have subsequent to their deaths passed through several generations or are now in trust to the United States Parks Service, MacDonald Beefburger and Fries, Inc. or the Ray Kroc Foundation, a foreign foundation incorporated under the laws of California. See Burr v. Virginia and dux et al., 2 Wheat 69 (1814); Jolly Roger v. Consolidated Textiles, Pty. 420 U.S. 54 (1988); Virginia Military Institute v. State of Virginia (1995). The latter case cited in this syllabus by Thomas, Scalia, JJ. Dissenting and Souter, Kennedy, JJ. and Alrod pro temp J. (casting a proxy vote for Ginsburg who was attending a alternate lifestyle convention in Sweden at the time this certificate of certiorari was unsealed and who thereby recused herself. Thomas, Scalia, JJ. opined the hope that it would be permanent.
Counsel for PLAINTIFF distressed wife moves dissolution of the marriage under 38 U.S.C. §567-12467ff. as null and void ab ibito based on the allegation that the clergyman, the Rt. Rev. Stanley Laurel of the Anglican Church in Virginia was improperly ordained being a bigamist, violates U.S. Const. Amend. 1, §4 which forbids the establishment of religion. See Bivens v. Seven Indian Tribes, 344 U.S. 207; In re Marvin, 244 Cal. Reporter 688, 508 P.2d 1214 (1983); ACLU v. God, 414 U.S. 93, cert. denied by a higher authority cf. Hebrew National v. the Deity (1986); Manville (54x) v. Manville (812x), 414 S.W. 468 (1944).2 2 As the Rev. Laurel was not a minister at the time the ceremony was performed and was at best a bigamist and imposter who frequented Dickelpepper's house of disrepute, the court should not have waded into the murky waters of the establishment question. Thomas, Scalia, JJ dissenting. This court issues a demurral--and throws in some forged paintings - on the issue as its authority to create binding law by spontaneous combustion had not been established concurrent with the purported origin of the case or controversy arising herewith. Marbury v. Madison 2 Wall 18 (1801).
There record below is scantily clad of evidence or findings that the phrase "Father Of His Country" referred literally to certain alleged scandals conducted by George Washington. It is also unsettled whether evidence elicited from minutes of cabinet meeting is a violation of the attorney-client privilege. See FRCP § 15-3 and Clinton v. Jones, 544 U.S. 1267 (1995). Cf. Can a Sitting (or Standing) President Grope With Immunity Under the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, Ireland, 18 Michigan Law School Feminist Legal Review 411.
Held: This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. It is hereby remanded to the Eastern District of Virginia from whence this action was filed for a hearing in conformity with this ruling.
O'Connor, Rehnquist, P, concurring in part, dissenting in part. Breyer (called for an ice cream adjournment)
Thomas, Scalia, JJ. dissenting:
Whether our first president inseminated a large portion of the free, white, female population of Virginia and thereby earned the sobriquet, "Father of His Country" is as a matter undeterminable under law. But it is obviously an attempt by Gloria Alrod, Esq. et. al. to advance their reductionist version of history and to compromise the reputation of George Washington and the legitimacy of our Founding Fathers. See MacKinnon, The Ass-end density of Our Founding Mothers, 41 Harvard Jrnl. of Gender Studies, 345 (1990)
If you would like to receive such unofficial reports from the Supreme Court of the United States, send a blank check with your signature to Basil Metabolism, POB 244, Tupelo, MI. 80897-23657120066
University of Southeastern Nevada, Western Division, School of Law, Winnamucca, NV. Linda Elrod, Dean, Dean of Admissions, Chaplain and Professor of Transsexual Law
General Disclaimer
These official syllabi of the Supreme Court of the United States are provided as a free service. No warrant is made that either the court or we are competent to practice law. We hereby notice that we are to be held harmless for any consequential damages that arise from any foolhardy reliance of this service or its provider by the reader.
QUIT
|