Was it REALLY a Colo. Common law marriage?

Post by **nephron** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:06 pm

Here's a basic description of Colorado Law for Common Law marriage.

"A common law marriage in Colorado is valid for all purposes, the same as a ceremonial marriage. It can be terminated only by death or divorce. The common law elements of a valid marriage are that the couple (1) is free to contract a valid ceremonial marriage, i.e., they are not already married to someone else; (2) holds themselves out as husband and wife; (3) consents to the marriage; (4) cohabits; and (5) has the reputation in the community as being married. The single most important element under common law was the mutual consent of the couple presently to be husband and wife"

Note the terms:

1) holds themselves out as husband and wife
2) cohabits (note: not 1 night)
3) and MOST IMPORTANTLY: has the reputation in the community as being married
4) notice also: MUTUAL CONSENT

From what I've read, heard, etc., Jim did not provide mutual consent.

How did that cunt get away with what she got away with?

Perhaps you could comment on this, Vince?

Post by **sullen and aborted** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:16 pm

I believe that Jim Morrison left a will giving his assets to Pam Courson. Otherwise, it would have been decided by Probate Court in California which probably would have awarded the assets to Admiral Morrison and Clara Morrison.

Post by **windchime** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:53 pm

Here's how, it is as Jim wished.

http://www.rockmine.com/Doors/Will.html

Post by **nephron** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:57 pm

I'm not really talking about the will. More, the lie. The lie that she was able to pull off. How could that happen?

Was not, in fact, the marriage confirmed in some way postmortem?

Everything you read about this relationship indicates that they not only were far from being married, but that this was a basically psychotic co-dependent relationship. One where both partners beat each other, cheated on each other, and otherwise failed to live up to the standards of true love.

Anyone here have kids? Think about your love for your child. I love my gal as much, and probably more, than my own children. There's no beating, cheating, chiding, morose arguments or mental abuse n.o.s. NOT that I'm better than anyone else here, there, or anywhere. Just that I cannot imagine where a court of law could shittingly POSSIBLY call that a marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!

Post by **windchime** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:09 pm

nephron wrote:I'm not really talking about the will. More, the lie. The lie that she was able to pull off. How could that happen?

Was not, in fact, the marriage confirmed in some way postmortem?

Everything you read about this relationship indicates that they not only were far from being married, but that this was a basically psychotic co-dependent relationship. One where both partners beat each other, cheated on each other, and otherwise failed to live up to the standards of true love.

Anyone here have kids? Think about your love for your child. I love my gal as much, and probably more, than my own children. There's no beating, cheating, chiding, morose arguments or mental abuse n.o.s. NOT that I'm better than anyone else here, there, or anywhere. Just that I cannot imagine where a court of law could shittingly POSSIBLY call that a marriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!

Hmm, well maybe they were a mess with their respective addictions?? They were not married (we all know that), but some relationships are just very disfunctional, this was one of them. Yes, there was co-dependency on both ends (Pam did not need Jim however, she had many lovers that worshiped her and were far richer than Jim), as Jim had many lovers as well. They were both addicts and both had many lovers. Pehaps it was the only way they knew how to love, only they really know (which is all I have maintained all along). It is not what I would want out of a man, and most men would not want that out of their woman, but it worked for them obviously. Again, only thw two of them knew what they had and anyone that has ever been in a serious relationship (married or not) knows this in spades.

Also, I do not have children Nephron but I do love my husband beyond measure and would not be in a relationship with that kind of abuse either. However a lot of this is just what people have said and both are dead. Who knows what the REAL TRUTH really is. Seems everyone just wanted to make a buck no matter who it hurt. Who knows, only them I guess. Who really knows if any of these allegations are really true, most people have agendas where Jim is concerned and think they know him (as well as Pam), this simply is not the case.

Cheers~

Post by **nephron** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:12 pm

but it worked for them obviously

In what way?

EDIT: In what way?

So she could succumb to an impotent drunk, and he could stick his limp one into a recently polluted birth canal?

Post by **windchime** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:48 pm

nephron wrote:
but it worked for them obviously
In what way?

EDIT: In what way? So she could succumb to an impotent drunk, and he could stick his limp one into a recently polluted birth canal?

I don't know as I did not know them and do not pretend to (like some here). Seems rather bizarre to me that people seem so interested in these two and think they knew them (even Vince). Although we may think an "alleged" abusive relationship that they had is sick and not love, they stayed together. Ray, Robby, and even John said Jim was in love with her. Vince has it twisted though, Pam did NOT need Jim and did not need his money. She had plenty of far richer men that worshipped her, but I do not pick it apart as I know I did not know her. As for their relatinship, I have said at least 50 times, only they know what they had and what went on in private. I have read different stories from different people with agendas of their own about the two of them. Fact is, it is pure speculation as they cannot back up the claims and both of them are DEAD!! They were together and according to even his band mates, they loved each other. I don't pretend to know them, so I really can't answer. Since Vince fancies himself an expert on almost everything under the sun, I will let him take the floor.

Go Vince!!!

Take care Nehpron

Post by **nephron** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:05 pm

Windchime, I agree with you that we have no idea of their private time. But you must agree that the so-called fruit that relationship bared to the external world was pretty sour.

Post by **windchime** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:21 pm

nephron wrote:Windchime, I agree with you that we have no idea of their private time. But you must agree that the so-called fruit that relationship bared to the external world was pretty sour.

From what others have said, yes I would agree. It is hard though to know what is truth, and what is pure speculation to sell books, make movies, etc. I see it like this though, it was 35+ years ago and again, no one knows why they loved each other the way they did but them. Why do some woman stay with a man that abuses and beats her? Why does any man stay with a woman that abuses him?? Only they konw. However in this case I think it is really all speculation about Pam and Jim, only they will ever know and they are long gone.

Have a nice night

Post by **nephron** » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:27 pm

One thing we have to remember, as I have said before, is that Vince spent a LOT of time around Jim. Man, if I could wear those fuckin' shoes....I'd give my left nut for it.

There's a lot of experience there. We ALL must respect that. That's why, after all, we are here. Correct?

Post by **windchime** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:16 am

nephron wrote:One thing we have to remember, as I have said before, is that Vince spent a LOT of time around Jim. Man, if I could wear those fuckin' shoes....I'd give my left nut for it.

There's a lot of experience there. We ALL must respect that. That's why, after all, we are here. Correct?

You would give a left nut, WOW!!

Post by **nephron** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:48 am

I've got a spare. And I'm done having kids anyway.

Post by **windchime** » Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:09 am

nephron wrote:I've got a spare. And I'm done having kids anyway.

LOL, you are goofy and I like it.

Post by **nephron** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 12:13 am

Considering the nature and conduct of Jim's relationship with that trollop, there can be no rational reasoning, nothing based on common sense or recognized acceptable behavior that would indicate that there was one shred of love between the two of them. Dependancy yes, but that is not love.

You don't have to convince me, Vince. At this point in time in my life, and with the limited information I have available, windchime and I have agreed to disagree. The pain of talking about your life with these guys is well noticed.

Post by **windchime** » Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:17 pm

Aww nehpron, so sweet to have you disagree with me in a respectful fashion (especially considering our respective ages). I hope you are having a lovely weekend and PM me sometime.

Much love and peace~

Post by **Hyacinth** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:01 am

I can say unequivocably from a close source that Jim made Pamela the beneficiary in his will as a way to placate her constant nagging about getting married. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only reason Ms. Courson sought the "common law marriage" status AFTER Jim died was because she needed the money from the "widow's stipend" while the Morrison estate went through a long and protracted probate. After all, Jim was her meal ticket for five years; why should a little thing like death get in the way?