Discussing MA Challenge of No-Fault Divorce Statute

Discussing MA Challenge of No-Fault Divorce Statute

  • Posted by Mary's Advocates
  • On March 21, 2023
  • 2 Comments

Bai Macfarlane of Mary’s Advocates discusses the constitutional challenge against the Massachusetts no-fault divorce statute with guest, Matthew Johnston. Matthew is extremely knowledgable about the strategy used by the defendant, which focusses on the “illegality” of any legislation that enacts viewpoint-based statutes.

The defendant challenging n0-fault divorce is Mark Dallmeyer and he invites other divorce defendants to contact him who are interested in making similar challenge in their own state. He can be reached at IrretrievableDallmeyer@gmail.com. It is important for defendants to act quickly to avoid forfeiting their ability to make their own constitutional challenge.

COURT EVENTS

October 2, 2020 – Wife’s Complaint for Divorce
Feb. 15, 2023 – Mark’s Motion to Dismiss .
UPDATED after Feb. 22, 2023.
Feb. 22, 2023 – Court Order for Submission of Briefs
Feb. 24, 2023 – Mark’s Notice to Massachusetts Attorney General.
Mar. 3, 2023 – Mark (Defendant’s) Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Other Commentary

Video commentary by Jeff Morgan
Mar. 26, 2023 – Introduction
April 1, 2023 – The Factual Background

 

2 Comments

Mark Feliz
Matt J. spoke at the Ruth Institute annual Summit years ago and impressed a lawyer on the panel so much that the latter strongly suggested that Matt go to law school. I pray he does. I am intrigued by the concept that the courts should not rule on a divorce case based on a spouse's view or opinion that a marriage is irretrievably broken. The marital abandoner has to assert an injury has occurred or a right has been violated. Courts do not rule in any other cases based on a plantiff's or defendant's conjecture or opinion, so Family courts shouldn't either. 2nd: a petitioner doesn't even have standing to bring a case before the court because often the petitioner or plantiff isn't claiming injury or other violations of "rights, duties or obligations". I fear the Federal appellate courts would cite decades of precedence and will end up doing nothing to require legislatures to repeal no-fault divorce so-called law. Grounds of divorce are just statutory not based on common law? Courts should not "discriminate" between viewpoints. For example, husband contests and the court discriminates against him in favor of the wife's mere opinion. Finally, Proofs or evidence are not necessary and thus cannot be favorable for either party in a divorce proceeding, therefore, Constitutional due process or the 14th Amendment is violated. How does a husband prove "incompatible differences" for instance? He can assert he and his wife tried this course of action or that intense counseling to no avail and claim that is proof enough?? How does state involvement in divorce case violate Federal contract law? States do not violate the Constitution because marriage is a civil contract not a private contract, based on the Dartmouth case precedent? The state cannot infringe or intervene, if the breaking of the contract is without mutual agreement or one contests the action of the other party's breaking of the contract; as this would violate the Constitutional contract stipulation...??? If you or Matt could put all this letter form, I am willing to send it out to law students, legal publications, etc. Thanks
Joan
Wrongful of court to deny spouse of their free choice to maintain their vow of "LIFELONG MARRIAGE COMMITMENT". COURT is wrong to equate 1 year separation with "IRRETREVABLE BREAKDOWN".Sound like a "Self Fulfilling Prophesy".I AGREE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DIVORCE BASED ON "NO FAULT" BECAUSE NO WRONG DOING REQUIRED, OXYMORON .Spouses are not perfect. Spouses are free to vow to have a "life long Marriage". This gives them as much time as needed to repair wrongs.The sooner the better to give RELIEF and healing to OUR Spouse , Family ,Church and Community.Good work again . Massachusetts is #14 (13.5 % rate) on the USA abortion list right after #13 Michigan(14.2 %) Ohio #28 (9.4%) Prop 3 in Michigan is based on "out of State opinions" & $47 Million, spend seducing the vote of 2,483.949 Michigan Citizens, 1,900.659 voters could not overpower. Approximately 83 Of Michigan's Youngest Citizens die everyday based on the popular opinion.USA's 2 greatest problems are fed by popular opinion. Thank you for the insight again. We must not let someone's wrong opinion take over our clear thinking minds.

Leave Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *