Nunc Pro Tunc Registration & Exam Application By Law Student: Fill & Download for Free

A question for a local divorce lawyer, actually. It’s not necessarily a simple call.Typically, at least in the U.S., the marriage is considered valid—at least between the parties—if solemnisation (the formal exchange of vows, supervised as may be by an officiant) occurred. The returning of the licence to the clerk, usually done by the officiant, is a mere ministerial act. Testimony from the parties might be required to prove that solemnisation occurred, but if it was solemnised, the parties are married, and the filing of the delinquent licence might be excused or directed nunc pro tunc.Now it’s possible that the parties did not solemnise the marriage and one or both of them knew it wasn’t solemnised. This might cause the marriage to be ruled void. Certainly if nothing else appeared and someone questioned the marriage, it might be found out that the marriage had never, officially, happened.In a few states, “common law” marriage is still recognised and a defectively solemnised marriage might still be evaluated under the standards applicable to that concept. “Common law” marriage requires verba in praesenti, the couple’s explicit agreements to each other to be married—the exchange of vows, as it were—though that does not have to be done in the form of a “ceremony.”But this isn’t the end of the story either. A concept called “equitable estoppel” might get thrown into the mix, especially if only one of the spouses were aware of the lack of proper formality or the significance of the same. Equitable estoppel is the principle that you can’t take a position to a party in a dispute or to the judicial system itself, and then backtrack in the middle when the first position is no longer advantageous to you. Attempting to do so (at least if the other party has “clean hands”) may result in the court saying “nuh-uh… what you told us the first time is going to control.”This would be a possibility if the party to be estopped had held themself out as benefiting from the marriage notwithstanding its defects—say to obtain tax benefits or some other perk of marriage—or had induced the other party to rely on the supposed fact of the marriage to their detriment.For example, suppose the wife is the one who knew the marriage wasn’t done properly, but husband was injured in a car accident, and wife had his lawyer include a claim for loss of consortium. Or suppose wife told husband, “oh, I took care of this” and husband then relied on her representation that she had done so to sign a joint tax return that included a penalty for wife’s failure to pay estimated taxes. When the couple finally separate, Wife would not be permitted to object to a claim for spousal support or equitable distribution on the grounds that the parties were never, in fact, married.This comes up more often when there is a legal disability that attaches to the marriage, most often a prior marriage, but certainly could apply in the hypothetical here if appropriate other facts were supplied to justify its application.The way this works varies case by case and is also affected by local case law and statutes, some of which have saving provisions setting some of this out explicitly or modifying the application of the doctrine. Which is why a definitive answer in a particular case could only come from a local attorney.

Nunc Pro Tunc.This is a standing invitation to my fellow Americans: If congress ever enacts a law mandating the registration and/or a production ban of detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles then you are hereby invited to the town square of your local community. There, burn barrels will be set up and we will publicly burn Form 4473s, FFL Bound Books, state and local registration records, and the sales receipts for every firearm in the United States. On that same day, FFL holders and public officials holding electronic firearms records will simultaneously erase those records, permanently and irretrievably. (Using special file erasure software such as Blancco,X-Ways, and Stellar Wipe, or though the physical destruction of disk drives.)Spontaneous Gatherings, Spontaneous CombustionThis burn barrel day–likely to be held the day after the President signs any new draconian legislation–will include speeches, public prayers, and the blessing of those who have gathered by ministers, rabbis, and priests.The core of the activities on that day will be stalwart public defiance of any new unconstitutional law(s), the open and notorious destruction of records that might be used to enslave us, and vocal public affirmations of solidarity of free men and women, in the face of tyranny. This will be a defining moment for America–a line drawn in the sand. We will forthrightly declare that we will not obey any unconstitutional law and that we will treat it dismissively, as if it had never been enacted — nunc pro tunc. We will pledge ourselves to the defense of liberty, both individually and collectively. We will vow that if ever called to jury duty, we will nullify any unconstitutional laws, vacating the charges against the accused, in accordance with our long-standing right as jurors. (See: www.FIJA.org.)The Law is On Our SideWe will publicly re-affirm some long standing precepts of American jurisprudence, to wit:“The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” – 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256Never Again!Recognizing the many sad lessons of civilian disarmament and subsequent genocides in the 20th Century, we will make bold and forthright statement: Never Again! Wewill not submit to the unlawful decrees of tyrants. We will not meekly go their jails and internment camps. We will fight for our liberty, to our dying breath.Come Armed, Come MaskedI recommend that all adults who publicly assemble at these burn barrel events do soarmed, as is our right. And those who come armed should also wear masks, to protect themselves from malicious prosecution. I plan to wear a Guy Fawkes mask, but you can wear a bandana, face muffler, or the face mask of your choice. Joining you, also wearing masks, will be many mayors, sheriffs and their deputies, chiefs of police and their officers, town council members, clergy, and people of all walks of life. We vastly outnumber the tyrants. The tyrants deserve nothing but our scorn and derision. Their fate is already sealed.Plausible DenialAfter this fateful day has come and gone, FFL holders and public officials will be able to recount: “I had no choice. My records were taken by men with guns who were wearing masks!” (So they’ll have no excuse if they don’t cooperate with this nationwide display of civil disobedience.)God Bless The Republic. Down with Tyrants. We Will Prevail!– James Wesley, Rawles – January 28, 2013Note: Permission to reprint or re-post this piece in full by any method (printed or electronically) is granted by the author (James Wesley, Rawles), as a long as it is not altered in any way and it is reproduced in full.