Possibility of Arbitration Board for Plural Unions

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I understand that. But what's to stop them from taking up a case against one or all parties if it is seen as polygamy? The state if they find out can take all sides for polygamy. I am asking how do you stop the state from picking up polygamy or bigamy charges if it has to go in front a legal court?

Actually there are two types of law going on here. There is negative law (laws stricken down by court precedent) and positive law (those that still exist on the law books). Right now by negative law sexual acts among consenting adults is legal and so is cohabitation. As far as positive law more than two people cannot apply for a marriage license. Thus there are two spheres where people can work within the legal bounds.

There is now no criminal prosecution for private sexual acts among adults who consent. This was made clear by the Lawrence vs. Texas Case where the Supreme Court Ruled that the sexual morality laws cannot apply to consenting adults. This is the case where police entered a home on a warrant and found two men engaged in homosexual acts. They arrested the men based on the Texas law against homosexual acts and this case went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court struck down those laws.

Plus bigamy is only for those who marry without one spouse knowing about the other spouse. So those laws would not apply to these matters. Cohabitation agreements are among those who all know each other and agree to it.

So now any adult in this nation who consents to sexual acts with another adult can do so without threat of prosecution. The police cannot prosecute with any real sense of authority. So there is about as much chance of a polygynist being prosecuted as there is of a homosexual being prosecuted.

The issue here I think could be worked out if we get the right minds working on the legal contract piece. Maybe some templates could be developed.

For example, right now people can live together under legal cohabitation agreements. The executive and judicial branchs do not recognize that type of agreement as a marriage (they only see marriages as those with a license). For those areas where common law marriage applies if a contract calls it specifically as a cohabitation agreement then that would take precedence.

If cohabitation agreements are legal (or whatever states honor those) then it seems like to me if we get the right people involved then we could develop a system of contracts that incorporate only one additional piece into them, which would be an arbitration board clause. I think it would be possible and I imagine there are some who would like this type of protection. For those who don't want or like accountability or that type of accountability so be it, but some would as it sounds. At that point the state sees the union as a cohabitation and the spiritual board (Arbitration board) would be free to see it as a Christian union based upon biblical law.

Oh, one other point. The courts would not be the ones ruling on anything if the contract provided for an arbitration board. If we were able to set it up that way the courts then are bound by the decision of the arbitration board. In this case the arbitration board would be a council of elders (or board of neutral people who are voluntarily chosen by the ones who choose the contract). Many business contracts and personal contracts allow for an arbitration board to be the final body who decides the facts. If the people VOLUNTARILY enter into a legally valid contract that binds the people to arbitration the courts will not judge facts after the arbitration board renders a decision. As I understand it they will then only rule on the compliance or non-compliance of the contract parties in light of the board's ruling. Then the courts only issue orders to back up the arbitration boards decision. It is like when the police show up by court order to force a church member to leave the premises of church property. The court or police do not get into why or why not the member was disciplined, they only enforce the decision of the elders or leaders of the church. That is how I think this could be set up if it is done wisely.

So what I am trying to do is find those who might like to try and work on this. Do we have any people in these forums or in this movement who have a JD degree and specialize in contract law? Any ideas from anyone on who might be of help to explore how to go about this? I think there is enough room for this with two spheres of law that now exist. No one is being prosecuted for polygyny or homosexuality in this nation now because of this room now in the law code system. So I think with the right people working on this we can find a way to develop something like this so that couples who desire a protective covering can have that.

I think it is needed and certainly wise, but putting the details in place will take time and help by those who have expertise in contract law. In theory is should be simple, a cohabitation agreement that adds one additional piece, an arbitration clause.

So again I go back to my question. For those (men and women) who would like to have this as a viable option for protection (kinda like they had in the Israel's law code system) are there any ideas on what a cohabitation agreement would need to include, look like, say, and who might be of help with contract law?

Suggestions on what it should look like or say or how it should be set up?

Dr. Allen

 

[Tlaloc]

Ok, I'm going to keep this as simple as possible

Cohabitation is the basis for common law marriage. A formal board dealing in polygamous cohabitation agreements screams prosecute me to any activist judge that wants some fame.

It may work in a few states if well reviewed on several angles, but to do this on a national scale would be a matter of when, not if, everyone goes to jail.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

As previously noted, since the case of Lawrence vs. Texas by the Supreme Court no homosexual, "non-married" (civil sense) couples living in cohabitation, lesbian, or polygamous people have been prosecuted in any court of the United States simply because of their living arrangments. Legally they cannot use those laws in and of themselves to prosecute. Sometimes other issues are used, (incest, underage marriages, fraud, etc) but sexual unions alone, or living arrangements alone, have been stricken down as legal issues.

Granted, an activist judge somewhere might try and do something that defies higher court precedent, but that could be done with any judge on any issue. The reality though is that if such were to happen (which would be rare and highly unlikely) it would not have much weight once appealed due to higher law precedent from the Supreme Court level.

But in any case, in that sphere where I am speaking of (under the umbrella of the Lawrence vs Texas case law and precedent; and under the legal sphere of contract law), I am trying to find those who may have ideas on how legal cohabitation unions with an arbitration agreement could be formed.

Any ideas or suggestions from anyone on how this might be done? Is there anyone herein with a JD degree or a person who specializes in this type of contract law that might be of help in this endeavor?

Dr. Allen

 

[Mark C]

What I am trying to brainstorm about is a way to indeed keep the secular non-Christian courts out of a civil spiritual matter.

In a strictly "legal" sense (as opposed to "lawful", in what has become a "nation of men, not of law") it boils down to jurisdiction.

When one takes a license from a "superior authority", or accepts the certificate of incorporation (whether for a 'church', or an 'organization', or any other artificial legal construct) there are always "adherent contracts". Fine print, if you will.

The "creator" of an incorporated ('tax exempt' 501c(3) faith-based institution) is not 'god' - it is Caesar. It belongs to him, and do not doubt that he knows it, and will enforce his dominion - from tribute to "hate speech".

Bottom line: one cannot serve two masters. Do not be confused or misled. There is no longer any way to reasonably deny the animosity between the commandments of YHVH and the 'ordinances' of man in post-Constitutional Amerika.

There is a very good reason that He ultimately tells us (Rev. 18:4) that once her sins have reached "unto heaven" that the right answer is to "come out of her".

The Founding Fathers referred to it as "withdrawing consent".

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

For those who would like to have a legal cohabitation contract with an arbitration agreement (I know not all desire or prefer that type of acountability), I'm trying to figure out how it would be written, what it would look like, and how it might be done.

Any ideas on how it might be set up, written, proposed, developed? Has any patterns or precedents been set up in the past that can be viewed, reviewed, improved upon or modified?

Dr. Allen

 

[Tlaloc]

All Lawrence vs Texas means is that nobody gets in trouble for sleeping around. It does not in any way protect polygamists from being prosecuted via common law marriage by cohabitation. If you recall no State at that time recognized same-sex unions period, so this case has nothing whatsoever to do with weather polygamists can be charged as polygamists when in cohabitation. Granted it would be only the man that was liable, but that is bad enough.

You've assumed way too much precedent from that case, and no judge is required to take your specific view on exactly what precedent was set, and there is no reason to think for a second that it would need to reach the supreme court or that the supreme court would uphold your view. Case Law is subject to politics and interpretations, and quite frankly it's not your interpretations that mater.

You have recent prosecutions on polygamy charges in your country, they may have been bundled with other charges but the gate is open to charge for bigamy alone if someone is so foolish to make a spectacle of themselves.

Homosexual cohabitation never did constitute a common law marriage, heterosexual cohabitation may, Lawrence vs. Texas did not address that difference in any way and does not give you the protection you think it does.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Speaking from within the legal system of criminal law here in the United States, there has not been any people prosecuted for solely being in a poly relationship in this country since the sexual immorality laws have been struck down. All of the cases that have dealt with polygmay have had other issues (crimes) that have led to the prosecution (bigamy, underage sexuality, fraud, forced sexual unions, etc). The police as well as the judicial officers do not sign arrest warrants based solely upon people cohabitating together (so long as it is consensual and everyone involved is of adult age). That is now a non-issue among the executive and judicial branches of government. In the eye of the state unless there is a license (or civil union document from the state), or a male and female who enter into a common law union (only the first two are recognized), the state does not see it as a marriage union.

The way that sphere of law works is that a common law marriage sees only two of the cohabitants as married (the first two) and the third and subsequent members only as cohabitants (possibly adulterous but not as legally married). By common law standards it cannot attach the idea of marriage to more than two people. If it does then it has by defacto then legalized poly by its attachment of the word marriage. Thus, the common law cohabitation ideology/law can only apply to the first two in the union, the rest would not be legally considered as wives.

Thus, I go back to my question I am researching. If a contract cohabitation union can be made and an arbitration agreement inserted into it how might it look? What would need to be in it? How would it be worded? What rights or duties would need to be spelled out in it for both genders?

Any thoughts or suggestions on how that might be done? That's focus I'm trying to gain perspectives on herein in this post.

 

[Mark C]

Speaking from within the legal system of criminal law here in the United States, there has not been any people prosecuted for solely being in a poly relationship in this country since the sexual immorality laws have been struck down.

Sorry, but wrong. The concept is called "selective enforcement". The charges (domestic violence is extremely popular - all it takes is a complain from a neighbor) are enough to destroy lives. The first thing that will happen is a "protection order" utterly prohibiting ALL contact. (BTW, NOT having a license does not constitute legal protection, of course. The system will presume jurisdiction.)

The police as well as the judicial officers do not sign arrest warrants based solely upon people cohabitating together...

VERY wrong! You would doubtless be very surprised at the 'laws' (harmonized across multiple state jurisdictions, given the desire to expand the DV rationale for prohibiting firearm possession, etc) which mandate "NO discretion" whatsoever for both police and DAs.

I'm a proponent of "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness." Come out of a dishonest, YHVH-denying system in every way possible is my personal suggestion. (Look around...the economic/legal situation should make most aspects of the ripening "fruit" of rebellion obvious.)

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Criminal Domestic Violence charges arise from allegations of just that, violence (not consensual relationships by adults), protection orders, order of restraints, etc. are not granted b/c of sexual orientation or due to any consenting adults simply living together with a legal cohabitation contract. Those all come about due to other crimes or allegations of other crimes.

Leaving that discussion to another time and for a different post, and moving along to the essence of the questions in relation to this topic being researched, does anyone have any ideas on how a cohabitation agreement could be done and set up? What would be good to have in one, what would one need in such a contract, and would it be possible to incorporate into it a arbitration clause of some sort?

Does anyone have one that could be used a model template?

Any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions on how it might be done? Any links, templates, or examples that those interested in this could follow or model in establishing a new type of contract?

Dr. Allen

 

[Tlaloc]

Sigh, for someone who talks about humility and authority so much you've really puffed yourself up against some serious and glaring problems in your plan presented by several people coming from several different angles. Common law certainly can attach the idea of marriage to more than two people. You're common law has the same roots as our common law and it was done here (in polygamy's favour), if someone wanted to prosecute you for this under common law they certainly could and it would not need to go to higher courts unless you had a very skilled lawyer and a lot of luck to push it there.

I don't honestly know how long you've been researching this, but many of the nay sayers here have put a lot of years of effort into seeing how legally polygamy can be done. You'd do well not to dismiss the problems here presented. Case law is not black and white, it is highly politicized, a lot of people want to get polygamists because its prestigious (also just happened here a couple years back). Winston made it out ok here, but he has a lot more law in his favour and a more tolerant social atmosphere(for better and worse). The Lawerence Vs Texas you keep harping on is nothing compared to what Winston had to back him and he still had extensive trouble.

If it does then it has by defacto then legalized poly by its attachment of the word marriage.

Bigamy requires the word marriage attached to it for charges to be laid. This is the whole concept of 'illegal marriage unions'. This line is nonsense.

Look, if you're too proud to take any of the many words of caution spoken here that is going to be your problem and the problem for any who follow you into the mess you intend to create. If you want to ignore the problems and want me to stop posting about them after this then I will.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Again, my questions revolve around how to develop a cohabitation contract (with a possibility of arbitration involved which keeps it out of court). Once I can see how one of those might look, what would need to be in it, I would like to then take the ideas to those who specialize in contract law. Those with JD degrees and who practice business law or contract law would be the experts in their respective sphere. There may be some in or connected to this organization.

I'm not an expert on civil law, just trying to come up with solutions and ideas for people who desire to marry/unite without a license. But, of course, some of the issues pointed out thus far I think may not be applicable to contracts that specifically are defined under the sphere of cohabitation agreements. I'm getting conflicting information (some who say there is a way and others who say there is not a good way).

For those who don't like the idea that is fine. Some do like the idea, some don't, and there is no harm done in getting ideas on how a cohabitation agreement would or could look, and then trying to see if an arbitration clause can be added in order to obey 1 Cor. 6:1-8.

Once that information is gained or resources for that is found then further research can be done to see if such a contract could be made or not made. It might work or it might not. But my points are focused on something that would not define the union as a marriage before the court of law, but would allow those in the Spiritual realm to define it by their own religious perspective. Some of the concerns thus far expressed have to do with the contract being defined as a marriage. A few scholars among the libertarian party have actually suggested similar ideas to what I have proposed herein but just with a different twist without the arbitration clause.

What I am trying to figure out is how to write or develop a contract that is legally a cohabitation agreement, not a civil marriage agreement, that could be defined or arbitrated by a religious sphere group chosen by the individuals. Some who are in the legal system do think there is a way but it would require some careful planning and specificity.

I keep asking the same question not to belabor the point (or to be obnoxious or anything like that) but to try and find anyone who has an actual cohabitation agreement that I could look at, consider, and work from as a base. From that point more ideas could be examined. Also, I'm wondering if anyone reading these forums actually work in civil law or know of a contract lawyer or someone with a JD degree in contract law. If I can find that type of professional on the forums (or in this community) that would go a long way.

I may have been unclear in what I am asking for. If so I apologize for the confusion. Maybe it would help if I ask specific questions by number so the "should" or "should not" issue will not be the focus of the thread (which is not my purpose):
1. Does anyone have a cohabitation agreement that I (and others interested in this) could see as a form or as a model?
2. Does anyone know of anyone in or connected to these forums that has a JD degree with a focus in contract law?
3. Does anyone have any contract or form that spells out how an arbitration board can legally work?
4. Has anyone in or connected with this organization been a part of any arbitration hearing over any issue?

Again, just to be clear, I'm not trying to debate the issue of should or should not we steer clear of court room litigation; 1 Cor. 6:1-8 makes it clear that we are to do our best to settle disputes outside of the court of law (trivial matters). Thus, that issue seems very clear. My goal is to look at what has been tried (what worked, did not work, what might have worked had it been stated differently, etc.), what cohabitation contracts actually look like and say (I can't seem to find a template to examine online or in legal books I have; if I could I would have not asked for this herein), and to then examine how arbitration boards work, to what degree or extent they can make binding rulings, and how the two fields (contract law and arbitration boards can merged in one document).

I know this post keeps going back to the "why" this should not be done. But that is not my question. I'm not asking for a "why or why not" response. Like I said, some don't like the idea, and some do like the idea. For those who do like the idea I am trying to find some resources to examine and then to place before a JD scholar who might be able to see if there is any potential of combining two ideas into one (a cohabitation, non-marriage, contract with an arbitration clause). If I can simply get some type of cohabitation contract model, and maybe an arbitration model to look at and work from then later the "why or why not" issue can be examined individually by those who would like to consider it.

Shucks, I might even get a lot of information together, find someone to help write it up, and then still look at it myself and weigh the advantages and disadvantages and even say myself, this is not something that is good for anyone. Or I might look at it and see more advantages than disadvantages. But before I can get to that point I have to at least be able to see a contract that might be a possible template.

But I would like to see if there are any options or unique ideas that can be discovered in this process. I have seen some bad scenarios where those who married without a civil license were without protection of anyone (civil, or religious sphere). It was and still is heartbreaking. Thus, I'm driven to explore this from every angle I can. My problem though is that I simply have no sample contracts to even examine to begin with. If I can start with that then maybe step by step puzzle pieces could come together. Something may come out of it or it may not, but it seems worth the attempt in my opinion. I know some don't think so (and that is fine), but for those who do that is why I am trying to get some options (templates) to review.

Dr. Allen

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

Instead of a contract such as you are mentioning, I would use a Trust or limited partnership (business) type "legal umbrella" for the financial aspect of PM.
That can outline that if party A wished to "get out" then it would outline the result for party B and C or if party B and C want out of 'partnership' with party A then it would outline that result, That way all parties involved know what the "cost" is.

Yes, this doesn't have the enforcement arm that that a board could have but it provides financial determinations ahead of time.
It would have nothing to do with "relationships" but with joint finances. We can not contract morality. The Creator of all things already did that and provided what we need to know in the Scriptures. So I doubt it would be fruitful to included clauses in such argeement like "if party A has an affair and then wishes "out" then A only gets $, otherwise A gets $$$". I think the ony clauses that change results should be if a party commits a serious crime such as murder, incest, etc. then that could change result. That would stand up to legal issues if ever forced to, but anything else other than a financial issues would cause legal problems in the USA and any country with similar legal precedent.

I know one PM family that has the home and pretty much all their finances part of a business and every member has a share, so if one wishes to leave they are entitled to that share, each share is equal in value. I think they all have something like a lease agreement through the 'company', so that if the family wants one out of the house they can evict based on the lease or at least not renew the lease when time for renewal.
- - - I know that the all equal is not biblical for accepting the husband's authority and those matters but I think they felt it was the best solution that would have any validity if it ever had to have legal enforcement. - - - -

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

T-C's Rebeka,

Thank you so much for that information.

I greatly appreciate that input. I'll jot that info down and keep it handy as I gather resources.

A business, or a partnership.....hummmmm....good food for thought.

Dr. Allen

 

[T-C's Rebeka]

There are some legal issues that no agreement can undo. I will give you a personal example.

If for some wacko reason my husband and I decide to get a divorce, there is absolutely no way I will be able to have legal custody of my kids. He could be in jail for life and the government will place them if needed with complete strangers before me because I am white. I can't legally raise a Native American child without another Native American helping me. Period. It doesn't matter that my kids' are fair skinned and blue eyed like me. That's the law, in my husband's country and in the USA. We could write a living will that if both of us die to have our children raise by whoever, but if that person does not have a certified pedigree (yes that is what it is.) to prove their race then our wishes don't matter.
(Which is why if he ever was to take on a 2nd wife race would be an important factor.)

So there are somethings you can't arbitrate or contract out of...

It is unlikely that a lawyer would openly give information online due to possible legal issues. No one should truely expect privacy online so anything typed can't really be that confidential thus no client - lawyer safenet.
I would look for a really good family law attorney. That would be the best place to look, but I emphasize really good so that means really $$$$$$. Having used lawyers, a good one is worth the money so chose carefully.

 

[DawoodSaar]

I know I'm a whole teenager too late to this conversation, and this one went nowhere by the last post 13 years ago when I was a dottering imp in highschool...

Therefore, I claim this thread as "abandoned property" and place a lien of two thousand temple sheckels on it.

(@FollowingHim Request to revive this and ship it over to the Torah-keeping clubhouse.)

I want to discuss forming a Beit Din for the other 11 tribes of Israel that aren't Judah. I see @MarkC already has an inkling what I'm thinking and has tried to express such in this thread.

Specifically, there's a legal precedent that's regaining some interest, which is arbitration via "a jury of peers." The Beit Din only makes the rules by which arbitration is conducted, and *maybe* assist in jury selection, and can be an appalate court should the jury decide to appeal. The jury as a body are the arbitrators, and is comprised of third parties who are at least somewhat personally aware of the character of the arbitratees, and have been taught in accordance with whatever Law the agreement was written under... In our case, Torah, rather than U.S. civil law or what system our kiwi friends got shafted with by mother England.

This way, by making a Beit Din which sets the rules of arbitration, the Laws are clear, simple, and easy to understand. The question would not be whether or not the Torah applies, but how it applies to this or that case. It would have the same jurisdictional authority as any other Beit Din in America, because it is by consent of the governed. Once agreed to by the arbitration agreement, it is binding. If a party wants out, the Beit Din, via jury of peers, is the exit door. Even if a party tries to subvert the Beit Din by fraud, I'm sure we can work that out.

The Beit Din does not have to be in one place, it can be comprised of individuals across the U.S. or abroad and can use modern communication tools. The jury could even meet by... Well... Not Zoom or Discord, but you get the point.

At least in the U.S. we have a Constitutional protection that prohibits laws being made which interfere with contract agreements. Even if it is regularly disregarded, or abused by the state to get you into agreements to give up your rights in the 1st, 2nd, and 14th amendments, technically that right to make agreements without interference still exists.

I want to immediately preclude some answers I anticipate:
1) "We are no longer under Torah!" You might not be. Bravo to you! Those who willingly sign an agreement based on Torah would be bound under the Laws of Moses and subject to them by agreement. It is necessary, especially for the elders in such communities to provide judgement, as it is a specific command even in the new testament that the elders arbitrate disputes.
2) "But nobody wants to submit to random old men!" You don't have to! Yay! Enjoy divorce or small-claims court instead!
3) "Don't do it not-Anakim! The gov has the high ground!" You underestimate YH's power. Oh ye of little force... Ahem...
4) "It's been tried before and didn't work! It's impossible!" Said everyone to Edison, the Wright brothers, SpaceX and a yound shepherd named Dawid.

So in essence...TLDR... Copy our Jewish brothers and make official "Dins for Dan." (Copywrite reserved!!!! Also recommended new name for this thread with current thread name as subtitle.)

P.s. I'm aware the "kingdom courts" thread is there, but that seems to be stuck in the Torah vs. Not debate, which I'm hoping to specifically preclude by just assuming a Beit Din absolutely CAN be done in the U.S. because... There's nearly one for every state and major city... And they work fine.

 

[FollowingHim]

Given the amount of non-Hebrew-Roots discussion in this thread I'd prefer not to move it. But you make a good point @DawoodSaar that the Beit Din system offers a good precedent for anyone seeking to build something like this.

 

[DawoodSaar]

Cool. I'll make a new one then.

Farewell old post! Relinquishing my claim, this is abandoned property again, but still a massively important topic.

On any "standard" pre-nuptial or cohabitation agreement you'll have a line something like:

"15. Dispute Resolution. In the event disputes arise regarding this Agreement, the Parties shall enjoin compulsory binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association."

"...the rules of the ABA" is exactly what the thread is about. The Torah folks can make a Beit Din in accordance with Torah rules. The others on this forum would probably appreciate some "Ecclesiastical council" which functions similarly.

In the U.S. they can be 508a1 "automatically exempt unincorporated entities." No state jurisdiction! Just get qualified elders together and announce it on some public venue... Like right here.

I'm not qualified else I'd have jumped on it already. Because there is power available here, all the folks in the U.S. need to do is lay claim to the rights they have, else the state considers it abandoned property. Having an arbitration authority that folk can put in their legal agreements gives them a lot more power than just doing nothing.

 

[steve]

Cool. I'll make a new one then.

Farewell old post! Relinquishing my claim, this is abandoned property again, but still a massively important topic.

On any "standard" pre-nuptial or cohabitation agreement you'll have a line something like:

"15. Dispute Resolution. In the event disputes arise regarding this Agreement, the Parties shall enjoin compulsory binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association."

"...the rules of the ABA" is exactly what the thread is about. The Torah folks can make a Beit Din in accordance with Torah rules. The others on this forum would probably appreciate some "Ecclesiastical council" which functions similarly.

In the U.S. they can be 508a1 "automatically exempt unincorporated entities." No state jurisdiction! Just get qualified elders together and announce it on some public venue... Like right here.

I'm not qualified else I'd have jumped on it already. Because there is power available here, all the folks in the U.S. need to do is lay claim to the rights they have, else the state considers it abandoned property. Having an arbitration authority that folk can put in their legal agreements gives them a lot more power than just doing nothing.

Like most people, I want it for everyone else.
But not for myself.