Marriage Defenders

With Justice for ALL (quote from the pledge of allegience U.S.A.)

This is an informational website offering support not legal advise

Oregon State Legal Objection

Oregon State Objection


1. Respondent herein asks the Court to declare that the following statutes are invalid as they violate the constitutional rights of the Respondent.

2. Section 28.020 of the Ore. Rev. Stat. states, "Any person . . . whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a constitutional [or] statute . . . may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under any such . . . constitution [or] statute and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder." Or.Rev. Stat. (1997). OREGON STATUTE 107.036(1) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

3. Respondent asks the Court to declare that Or. Rev. Stat. 107.036 (1) is invalid as it denies him the "due course of law" remedy promised by Article 1, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution. Section 107.036 (1) states, "The doctrines of fault and of in pari delicto are abolished in suits for the annulment or dissolution of a marriage or for separation."

4. No legislature can abolish the doctrines of fault in a divorce suit. Courts of this state are open for remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation. There must be an injury before the jurisdiction of the court can be invoked. For there to be an injury, someone must be guilty, and another must be innocent. The legislature cannot eliminate concepts of "fault," if that word means guilt or innocence. The ancient doctrines of "fault" regarding marriage and divorce meant that only a deserving (innocent) spouse could sever the marital tie with a divorce. Without the concept of fault, a guilty spouse may prematurely and arbitrarily end a marriage at the expense of the innocent spouse. This violates the Respondent's right to defend himself in court, a fundamental promise of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. XIV Amend. Therefore, the abolishment of concepts of "fault" in divorce proceedings by statute is unconstitutional. The Respondent asks the Court this statute invalid and enjoin its enforcement in this proceeding. OREGON REVISED STATUTE 107.036(2) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

5. Or. Rev. Stat. 107.036(2) states, "The court shall not receive evidence of specific acts of misconduct, excepting where child custody is an issue and such evidence is relevant to that issue, or excepting at a hearing when the court finds such evidence necessary to prove irreconcilable differences."

6. Respondent asks the Court to declare that Or. Rev. Stat. 107.036(2) is unconstitutional and void in that it denies him a remedy for the injury done to him by the divorce suit itself. If the Court is not allowed to hear evidence of misconduct, the Court cannot know the true reason why the Petitioner is seeking a divorce. If the Respondent has done nothing wrong within the marriage, he is innocent, and the Petitioner - through operation of law - is depriving him of the important status of being married without presenting any facts at all. A judicial decision made without reference to facts is void, and the statue in question requires the Court to make its decision without any facts before it.

7. The essence of due process of law, as found in the United States Constitution, is that if a person is attacked in his person, property, or reputation, there he may defend. The defense must be real, and must offer some hope of victory. A law which requires the judicial entry of a certain verdict without reference to the facts is an irrebutable presumption which violates equal protection and due process of law guarantees of the United States Constitution.

8. The law in question requires the Court to divorce a person who seeks a divorce, even if that person was guilty and the person seeking to defend against the divorce is innocent. The Court must deafen itself to the true facts the Petitioner would bring before the Court, and grant a divorce even if no evidence at all is offered. This is a meaningless hearing from the point of view of the Respondent, and the statute disallowing evidence of marital misconduct violates his constitutional rights. The Respondent asks the Court to declare this law invalid, and enjoin its enforcement in this proceeding. OREGON REVISED STATUTE 107.055 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

9. Or. Rev. Stat. 107.055 states, "The respondent shall not be required to answer a petition for annulment or dissolution of a marriage or for separation except by filing a general appearance or a general appearance with counterclaims relating to matters other than the grounds for annulment, dissolution or separation. Affirmative defenses are abolished."

10. The plain meaning of this statute is a message to the Respondent, "Abandon all hope those who enter this courtroom. You have already lost!"

11. Such a message is the opposite of due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. People who are forced to settle their claims of right and duty through the judicial process must be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Bodie v. Connectiticut, 91 S.Ct. 780, 785 (1971). This is the doctrine that wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend. Id. The statute cited absolutely deprives the Respondent of the opportunity to defend, to defeat the lawsuit by legal means. Such a deprivation of a defense violates any sensible view of due process and is obviously unconstitutional.

12. The statute in question also violates the due course of law guarantee of the Oregon Constitution. Or. Const. Art. 1, section 10. The remedy clause violated when the legislature abolishes a cause of action and leaves the injured party completely without a remedy. The Respondent is injured because he is sued for divorce. He is completely without a remedy because he cannot assert any affirmative defense. He cannot defend his marriage against attack.

13. For these reasons, the Respondent asks the Court to declare that Or. Rev. Stat. Section 107.055 is invalid, and enjoin its enforcement in this proceeding. or is not responsible for any opinions expressed on this site.

E-mail Web Master -

Return to Main Site Index Biblical Aspects