NurseWords.com

I’m considered ‘rhetorically’ to be the husband of a dead woman. (Conservatives have such a refined sense of humor, they can ‘find’ new and amazing governmental “rights” – for themselves – everywhere.)

Now, I was ordered to pay child support for a child, apparently sired years after her “mother’s” death…

Like I said….conservatives and that sense of humor!

Of course the neighbors were never permitted to get to know us that well, ” the psyche nurses” insisted on moving allot and oddly would change eye color and such…They were apparently allocated me in lue of other compensations for having been shot in the head for no reason other than religious convictions and loosing my wife / pregnant with child. Did you know the justice department OK’ed the murder of US citizens during the Reagan, Bush senior and early Clinton years, and Clinton ordered them to admit this? It was done “to aid the finances of the ‘CIA’ asset, the Contras,” following Congress’ denial of federal funds.
So, the question is: do I have an argument that common law as a constitutional fact is retained? Is a woman under common law marriable at a younger age than 18? Is the man that cohabitates with a non-kin woman over 7 years common law married? Is therefore my rhetorical youngest, actually married to the cad (conservative) that is under deadbeat dad law sueing me for 0,000 in “child support”? Is she therefore legally emancipated as per statute thus no longer eligable for child support?

I say yes, she must be his common law bride as there is no constitutional ammendment breaking with the present retention by constitution of common law by the people. Who am I to take away his and her right to common law marriage? At the time of the Constitution there was no 18 year to marry law. By common law she could marry and would have been married.

Thus she is emancipated.

Thus he is a bigamist and must be arrested!