Who, in reality, owns the marriage— The State, or its individual United States citizens who freely associate and reside within it?

Question(s) Presented My case challenges the authority and practices of California’s divorce industry, and hence, collectivism in general, by virtue of posing the question, “Who, in reality, owns the marriage— The State, or its individual United States citizens who freely associate and reside within it?” Based in this overall question are these related questions: * Has California authority to license holy matrimonies? + Has California authority to institute marriage, and hence its divorce industry, under state venue? * Has California authority to define the terms of the holy matrimonies it licenses? ¢ Has California authority to racketeer (solve the problem it causes) its no-fault divorce industry by nullifying a marriage contract under agreement of only one signatory, terminable at will? * Has California authority to mandate community property? ¢ Has California authority to pass laws construed to deny or disparage the rights of individuals through its practice of licensing communities (e.g. Marriage Licenses), beyond delineated geographic boundaries, such as municipalities? * Has California authority to issue, without a criminal conviction, a stay-away order to an owner from his own deeded real estate? * Has California the authority to, without due process, enforce the evictions of U.S. citizens from. their own solvent deeded real estates, without immediate compensation, for private use? ¢ Has California authority to mandate family law, generally? * Has California authority to issue, without a criminal conviction, a stay-away order to an owner, parent, and guardian, from his own child? * Has California authority to, without due process, usurp parental duties against their will? ¢ Has California authority to, without due process, place minors at risk of predation? + Has California authority to, without due process, alienate from individuals their freedom of speech, press, and the right to freely associate with their own family members? Has California authority to issue to non-criminals seek-work orders when currently not receiving state benefits specific to unemployment? * Has California authority to issue to non-criminals orders to employed ; individuals when currently not receiving state benefits specific to unemployment? ¢ Has California authority to punish its non-criminal residential citizens by revoking our licenses, when those punishments do not pertain directly to the function of each license? * Has California authority to issue Titles Of Nobility through marriage license? + Has California authority to define the search criteria of seek-work orders to non-criminals, when not currently receiving state benefits specific to unemployment? + Has California authority to sign, or order a signature, or override a signature on a stipulation without criminal conviction or valid medical evaluation? ¢ Has California authority to, without due process or valid medical diagnosis, represent the legal will of individuals against their consent? Page 2 of 5 Austin v. California . Monday, June 28, 2021 ¢ Has California authority to kidnap children from legal guardians, then racketeer through Child Support Services, as the result of its no-fault divorce? ¢ Has California authority to issue to non-criminal dependents seek-work orders, pursuant to support of other dependents domiciled by the same head of household? ¢ Has California authority to employ individuals or groups biased toward support of groups or individuals—such as Child Protective Services—beyond Californians? * Has California authority to issue without a judge’s order civil standby escorts? ¢ Has California authority to invoke variables of custody or visitation inversely proportional to monetary support of children? ¢ Has California authority to utilize as witness tax-funded entities—such as Child Protective Services—that are biased toward groups or individuals, except Californians? * Has California authority to differentiate orders between restrained persons and protected pe