Let’s Laugh at Spam


I work at a law library and people email me reference questions about the law pretty regularly. On rare occasions I get people emailing me their ideas about the law. This past Friday I received one from someone by the name of sdsdfe dsdfewsf (typed entirely with the left hand, if you can believe it) urging me to “fix the legal system.” In the email, sdsdfe unfurls a lengthy and positively astonishing exegesis in which he or she argues that marriage is equivalent to slavery that the government’s control of marriage with marriage licenses and divorce courts should be interpreted as an “act of slavery.” Never mind that marriage is entered into freely by both parties and that the legal essence of the marriage partnership really only pertains to joint ownership of property and joint guardianship over children and that no real restrictions are placed on one’s personal volition or agency. But whatever. It’s an amusing misapplication of logic, and I shall quote it at length below. First, however, I must do my due diligence in pointing out that this message does appear elsewhere on the internet. Some parody news website called thespoof.com published a gag piece in which large portions of sdsdfe’s email are attributed to Justin Bieber. At first the writer splits up the text into quotes like a normal news story, but then, about half-way through he get’s lazy and just copy/pastes the remainder directly into the article. I guess this article’s “author” received the email too.

I looked into thespoof.com and it appears to be a lot of artless link bait generated by about 75 different writers, all of whom became staff writers by providing an email address, username and password. That’s right, the requirements to be a writer for Spoof are about as stringent as becoming a poster on reddit. It’s basically just a content-production scam masquerading as a humor site. This is almost like the automated language production one finds in spam (see Robot Poems) except that it’s made by human beings, at least ostensibly. As that little plagiarism move of sdsdfe’s email demonstrates, not everything here is original content. Still, there does seem to be some amount of curation that’s done because the collection of articles displayed on the home page is at least semi-coherent. It’s actually kind of an interesting exercise in search engine trolling. Associate celebrity names with random concepts and splashy keywords and just watch the organic search traffic roll in. A counter on the site displaying the number of live readers never drops below 150, so I guess they’re doing alright.

Anyway, without further ado…


s In the constitution it says that slavery will not be tolerated and yet marriage licenses and divorce courts commit the act of slavery when they impose their authority on the union of a man or woman yet the judiciary and the state don’t impose their authority on the union of free animals in the wild.

A man and a woman can unite and separate in any fashion they want and any person or government that stands in between that unity or separation is violating the constitution. A police officer can arrest someone for domestic violence, or for imposing their own form of slavery by not allowing someone to leave the union, but when it is of a consensual nature nobody can dictate what the couple does with each other. Marriage licenses and divorce courts are illegal and the state government needs to be held accountable for their gross violations of the constitution.

When the government gives rights and benefits to married couples and not to unmarried couples the congress is violating the 14th amendment: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Rights and benefits are being given to married couples while the constitution is being violated and the state is imposing slavery on men and women who are subjected to laws pertaining to marriage. If a person has to go to court to file for divorce that is a subjugation of a person’s will. If a person is offered a marriage license that is a subjugation of a person’s will because it puts the person under the condition of slavery by the state and the judiciary. If a person is offered a marriage license with the lure of benefits from the government that is double the subjugation of a person’s will because the state laws are used as a snare or trap to place the victim under the subjugation of the state, or under the condition of slavery.

Since the constitution is an active mandate, any spouse can invoke the Constitution at any moment and they don’t have to appear in court for any divorce proceedings and the case would be considered frozen which means no judgment can be given unless the spouse decides to show up in court. The spouse might not show up in court for 100 years and the case would remain frozen without judgment for 100 years. No judgment can be given because the divorce court is in violation of the constitution and it’s considered an illegal court.

They have medical specialist that give people marriage counseling, the courts should deal with law.

The constitution doesn’t authorize marriage licenses, marriage laws, and divorce courts. The constitution does condemn the subjugation of male and female couples through the use of marriage licenses, marriage laws, and divorce courts, because it’s against Amendment XIII, section 1 of the constitution.

Unmarried couples are free from the subjugation and so should other couples be free as well. When the union is of a consensual nature nobody can dictate what the couple can do with each other. Marriage licenses, marriage laws, and divorce courts are illegal and the state government needs to be held accountable for their gross violations of the constitution.

The violation of slavery is even more serious when the courts use the police and the jail system to enforce their illegal marriage laws.

Men and women can engage in any type of marriage they want with conditions set on a paper, but that paper cannot be used in court to separate the couple or to keep the couple together. The courts could solve issues of child custody and financial responsibilities over biological children. The courts could solve issues over personal and real property or joint partnerships in a business, but those issues can not be attached to marriage or unions because it would violate the constitution. In the future, several thousand years from now, this is how these issues will be resolved because it is logical.

Concerning immigration, the department of immigration can protect themselves from illegal immigration by having papers filed to show a union between a person and their foreign spouse. If there is a separation of the union within two years then the foreign spouse would lose their legal immigration status and they would have to return to their country of origin. A person and their foreign spouse would be allowed to unite and separate without restrictions but under the rules of the department of immigration. The purpose of the union is to raise a family and anything out of that purpose would be illegal. There is no slavery because people can unite and separate at will and they would return to their original state before the union.



Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Slav – er – ry: The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Christ’s Teachings on Divorce


Jesus professes on the topic of divorce twice in the gospels, once in Matthew 5:31-32 and once in Mark 10:1-12. In either instance, he makes his position clear, saying in Matthew “…whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery,” and in Mark, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” It would appear that Christ’s teaching is perfectly unambiguous on this topic: divorce is tantamount to adultery. But if we look closer at the passage in Mark, we find that there is some nuance in what Jesus said about divorce, when he said it, and with whom he spoke about it. In Mark 10:10, we are told that Jesus made this pronouncement to the disciples, though no context is given nor any indication as to how the discussion might of went, other than that the disciples had asked him about divorce. In a separate discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus says the following: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Mark 10:6-9) Using language from Genesis, Christ associates the marriage bond to being physically attached to another person as “one flesh.” It is curious then that in Mark this anecdote should follow immediately after the famous ‘if thy hand offend thee” illustration: “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter in life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.” (Mark 9:43) Is it possible to draw an analogy between the offending hand and the problematic marital bond? Yes, you and your spouse may be one flesh, but if being joined to a husband or wife should cause you to jeopardize your own salvation, shouldn’t you amputate that part of you just as you would the hand that causes you to offend? It is a similar argument to that which John Milton makes in Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, about which I wrote several weeks ago. It’s difficult to say whether this interpretation can be given any credence. Once could point out, just as Milton’s contemporaries did, the concluding verse spoken to the Pharisees: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:9) There is no license being given here that would allow men and women to determine their own separation. But is it permissible to think that while man cannot put asunder the marriage bond, God can? And if so, what would that look like? Can marriages end without anyone ever deciding to end them? Perhaps, independent of any legal petitions or church sanctions, a marriage can just dissolve on its own. Maybe, just as two people are destined to be together, they are also destined to separate.

homeless jesus

Milton on Divorce


Although he is known today as a poet and the author of Paradise Lost, John Milton spent most of his life working as a public official in Britain’s nascent civil sector. Peerless in his command of Latin and Greek, a master of law and rhetoric, and conversant in all of the vernacular languages of Europe, Milton’s contemporaries esteemed him to be a man of tremendous genius and one of the best minds in England. And during his most productive years, Milton gave that mind over to public discourse and political debate. During and before the English Civil War, he wrote a number of treatises and pamphlets espousing what we would identify today as plain liberal thought. He wrote about reforming the prelaty and reorganizing the university curriculum. His most famous work of prose, Areopagitica, is one of the greatest and most influential defenses of freedom of expression anyone has ever written.

My favorite of Milton’s prose works is The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, wherein he argues that church doctrine should make allowances to grant divorce between individuals for whom marriage has failed but who nevertheless must remain wed in obedience to the dispensation of the church. This defense of divorce probably provoked more scorn and controversy among his contemporaries than any of his political writings. It was a challenge to one of the most basic and unquestioned moral tenants of the common church, that marriage was a sacred and irreversible bond created by God, which man had no license to dissolve. But Milton saw that it was possible that the conjugal union could in certain cases interfere with an individual’s covenant God and so should not be given precedence over moral freedom that is necessary for a soul to realize its own salvation. He writes, “Yet thus much I shall now insist on, that what ever the institution were, it could not be so enormous, nor so rebellious against both nature and reason as to exalt it selfe above the end and person for whom it was instituted.” Milton argues that marriage is not an avenue of salvation in and of itself but rather an aid which God has granted to men and women to help them endure the world and live righteous lives. Should the torment of an unhappy marriage actually weaken one’s moral resolve, causing him or her to despair over life, it stands to reason that an individual should be permitted to escape the arrangement for the sake of his or her own salvation. Here he describes how if a marriage, which is devised by God to allay human loneliness, should actually cause greater loneliness and function counter to its intended purpose, then it is no marriage at all and more harmful to one’s standing as a christian not to withdraw from it:

“And the solitarines of man, which God had namely and principally orderd to prevent by mariage, hath no remedy, but lies under a worse condition then the loneliest single life; for in single life the absence and remotenes of a helper might inure him to expect his own comforts out of himselfe, or to seek with hope; but here the continuall sight of his deluded thoughts without cure, must needs be to him, if especially his complexion incline him to melancholy, a daily trouble and paine of losse in som degree like that which Reprobats feel.”

Milton addressed The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce to the Long Parliament of the 1640s which had just asserted its autonomy as a representative government by rejecting the king’s order to dissolve. His hope was that this new order that was fast emerging would reorganize not only the civil but also the spiritual life of the people of Britain. Parliament at this time was populated by puritans of all stripes who were aggressive in their reform of church practices and religious law; however, it appears that Milton failed to persuade them to revise the marriage tradition. Most were of the belief that the liturgy simply did not support his view. It also is notable that Milton neglects the subject of children and parenting altogether in his discussion of marriage. This is likely why even modern liberal society, which aligns itself around the primacy of the family and the cultivation of children into good citizens, ultimately rejected this thesis as well. It has only been in this new and most recent age of our own, which elevates self-interested happiness and individual prosperity above all other concerns, that Milton’s views on marriage even begin to make sense. Because central to what Milton is saying is that one must be happy and one must love, and if there is anything in one’s life which dispels happiness and which prevents one from experiencing love fully and properly, then one has a moral responsiblity to push this impediment aside and progress in life.

“When therfore this originall and sinles Penury or Lonelines of the soul cannot lay it selfe down by the side of such a meet and acceptable union as God ordain’d in marriage, at least in some proportion, it cannot conceive and bring forth Love, but remains utterly unmarried under a formall wedlock, and still burnes in the proper meaning of S.Paul. Then enters Hate, not that Hate that sins, but that which onely is naturall dissatisfaction, and the turning aside from a mistaken object: if that mistake have done injury, it fails not to dismisse with recompence; for to retain still, and not be able to love, is to heap up more injury.”


Division of Assets

Effective May 1st, 2013, X_____ K____ and Erik Beck shall be physically separated.

Parties shall accept sole responsibility for paying all costs of residence associated with their respective dwellings, such as rent, utilities, cable or phone service, and newly acquired furnishings. Any special use of one party’s dwelling by the other shall be duly compensated for an amount previously agreed to.

Ownership of the family vehicle (1998 Volvo S70 T5, Silver) shall fall to Erik Beck. To compensate Ximena Keogh for her stake in the automobile, Erik Beck shall tender to Ms K____ a single payment of $2800. Upon receiving this payment, Ms K____ shall transfer title of the automobile to Erik and relinquish all claims of ownership to the vehicle. Should Ms K____ decline to sign the vehicle’s title over to Mr. Beck, Ms K____ will be responsible for compensating Mr. Beck in full for a repair made to the vehicle on June 14th, 2013 by Swedish Motors Inc. of Boulder, Colorado for the amount of $560.38.

X_____ K____ shall retain ownership of Tobias the cat and shall remain his protector and guardian.

Parties shall maintain separate bank accounts and shall relinquish all control and claim to bank accounts established in the other party’s name. Erik Beck shall be the sole owner of the Chase Bank checking account ending in xxxx and all monies held therein. X_____ K____ shall be the sole owner of Chase Bank accounts ending in xxxx and xxxx. Parties MUST NOT withdraw or transfer any monies or make any payments from any account to which his or her name is not associated.

Parties shall maintain separate loans and separate lines of credit and shall be separately responsible for repayment of debts incurred in his or her name.

X_____ K____ shall be solely responsible for repayment of any and all credit card debit, student loan debt, hospital bills, or any other loans or debt which she has incurred in her own name, whether in or out of marriage with Erik Beck.

Erik Beck shall be solely responsible for repayment of any and all credit card debit, student loan debt, hospital bills, or any other loans or debt which he has incurred in his own name, whether in or out of marriage with X_____ K____.

Parties hereby recognize that no debt incurred by either Mr. Beck or Ms K____ was entered into jointly. Parties accepted all loans, whether in or out of marriage with one another, independently and separately benefited from these loans.

With the following signatures, Erik Beck and X_____ K____ willfully consent to all of the conditions stated above, on this day, Saturday, August 3rd, 2013.

Letter to Landlord

Hi Geri,

I’m writing to let you know that Ximena will not be joining me on next year’s lease. With your consent, I will be signing alone. Additionally, our cat Toby will not be in the apartment either, therefore next year’s lease will not need the extra pet deposit. Rather than refunding this portion of the deposit, I was thinking you might use it to repair some damage that we caused to the carpet and wall at the top of the apartment’s stairway. There is a bright orange nail polish stain which we are taking responsibility for and will incur the cost of fixing. Other than that, I think the apartment is in pretty decent shape. It does appear that the tub may be in need of some re-caulking. There are some cracks in a few of the seems and I’m afraid water may be getting into the floor and wall.

So, please let me know when you have the new lease written up and what you would like to do about the property damage I mentioned above.


sent June 5th, 2013