Replies

This so-called "marriage" is invalid for so many reasons, they are almost too numerous to list!

But those who know me know that I'll plow right ahead anyway!

1. One must consent to be married. It's a contract. She was being held captive. This puts a serious dent in any contention that she consented.

2. Mitchell may not have even been legally divorced from the previous one of his many previous wives. If you're broken up with your spouse, you can't remarry unless you have a piece of paper that says "Judgment of Divorce." Even then, some states have a waiting period between the time the divorce is final and the time when you can marry again. I doubt Mitchell even got to the point of having a judgment of divorce.

3. Although people can obviously get married in their religion's ceremony (and are not required to duplicate the ceremony with a justice of the peace), still, the religion has to be recognized in some official way, and the celebrant also has to have some legal status which allows him to perform a marriage. Neither of the above applies to Mitchell or his so-called "religion."

4. A small matter, but where's the license? The license, btw, is different from the actual marriage certificate.

5. As far as I know, even if Mitchell had had legal recognition as a person who could perform marriages, the celebrant can't marry himself to someone. Sort of like, if you're a notary, you still can't notarize your own affidavit.

6. A legal marriage requires witnesses. This might be a curable defect, like the license thing, but still, it is just one of the many holes in the supposition that she was "married" to this psycho.

7. Are we entirely sure that Mitchell, sanity-wise, was himself competent to enter into a contract, such as marriage? Who knows but that he has been declared "non compos mentis" by some probate or other judge?