[Codee]

Now I want to talk about “sui juris” and how it creates one hell of paradox or it leads to one of two simple conclusions (the author believes in the paradox.)(I also hope this paragraph does not get me banned from here.) One of the microelements of the definitions of “sui juris” is “one with the power to contract.” If that is not a part of the historical definition you use, and you have a credible, cited source then this paragraph may seem erroneous and in error to you, rightfully so. The other part of the definition is thus “Not under the power of another.) If it is part of the definition however then I ask this of yet another class, those who believe that entering into a driver’s license makes you not a sui juris person, how can I sign a promise to appear? How can I obtain a credit card? How can I sign a recognizance? How can I sign a plea bargain? Are any of these things contracts? I believe so. How can the state take my signature on these items AFTER I obtain a driver’s license if the act of me getting a license BARS me from being able to enter a contract? Hmmm… I believe that sui juris either:

1) Has no place in American law where English is the official language (except maybe old Louisiana, I don’t know about that state.)

Or…

2) Is a status/title/title of nobility/fiction, not lost or devised of when contracting for things like driver’s licenses. (Which the author obviously believes is not true do to the logic in the first two paragraphs of this essay and the other part of the sui juris definition “One not under the control of another.” The best solution to my mind is this is a piece from Rome which does not fit well in the American sovereigns puzzle.)

In a Christian aspect no man is sovereign nor sui juris because he/ she is under The Lord. And we know that God is the source of the law because it was God who gave the law to Moses. So no Christian is sovereign nor sui juris, not under the authority of another. (Only pagan Romans claimed to be sui juris, even if they “claimed” to be Christians.)

The UCC and why it only protects CORPORATIONS and legal fictions. Some people think that UCC provisions such as 1-308 somehow protect them from the jurisdiction of the code. This contention could not be more in error. Lets take a look at two classic UCC cites.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-308

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

So it should be clear that this section only provides protections to “parties.” Lets now look up “party” so we know what it is, since I doubt this section is protecting fraternity keggers. I think it should be easy to see that “a party is a person subject to the commercial code.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 26

(26) "Party", as distinguished from "third party", means a person that has engaged in a transaction or made an agreement subject to [the Uniform Commercial Code].

And lets go ahead and see what the code says about “persons.” Remember, I am claiming “this code only protects corporations and legal fictions.”

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 27

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

So now we have put some light on UCC 1-308 and exposed it. Lets take a look now at one word in UCC 1-308, the word “right.” Lets see if we want to use any section of this code based around it preserving or giving rights.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 34

(34) "Right" includes remedy.

Hmmm… Rights only mean remedy huh??? Ok lets take a look at remedy and what it means. WARNING- there is a double circular definition in here, but that was the lawyers fault. (derivation of remedy used in its own definition and “right” used in its own definition.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 32 & 2

[(32) "Remedy" means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal.

(2) "Aggrieved party" means a party entitled to pursue a remedy.

So we see that UCC rights are only those things to which a “party” is entitled to. Now just go back up a few paragraphs of this document and follow where party leads.

Latin vs. English
Romans law used Latin. Attorneys today use Latin as a warning that you coming under democratic civil law. They could just use translated equivalents but that would not produce the desired effect of alienating you from your jurisdiction and the way you conduct your affairs. No one speaks Latin and it is the “dead language” in law. It is foreign to everyone. Can a court make me use Latin to describe my self. I have not seen a statute authorizing any branch of government the authority to make me use a Latin term in court. I have however found a remedy for anyone making that assertion. This remedy is only for persons, but an exact remedy exists, unwritten, and uncodified, for the sovereign man. DO NOT USE WRITTEN STATUTE FOR AUTHORITY TO ACT, INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTION. I could be a person under the Constitution and not under the Codes however because the Constitution does not read as blended to gether with the codes, as the codes do with themselves. This does illustrate however that I can use just plain English and it is their policy to accept it.

Originally Posted by West's Ann.Cal.Constitution (2001), article 3, section 6

(b) English as the Official Language of California.
English is the official language of the State of California.
(c) Enforcement.
The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the State of California is preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the State of California.
(d) Personal right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts.
Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of California shall have standing to sue the State of California to enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this section.

But I also claim that a fictional jurisdiction needs a specific statute to authorize any use of Latin. Is that true?

Originally Posted by West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2001), § 8

Writing includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement, or record is required or authorized by this code, it shall be made in writing in the English language unless it is expressly provided otherwise.

And specifically applying to courts…

Originally Posted by West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. (2001), § 185

(a) Every written proceeding in a court of justice in this state shall be in the English language, and judicial proceedings shall be conducted, preserved, and published in no other.

Wow. Is there really only Latin ‘titles” of appearing (I don’t think so and have never seen a statute stating so.) If so… Then they cannot make me take a title, or they cannot make me appear. How badly do you want be “rem” or “in propria persona” or “sui juris” or “Pro se” or “rem natura” or whatever?

And in closing I will state that although I am not a Mormon they do make a really good point concerning the first estate (See George Mercier’s writings for clarification if needed.) Under the “As is above so will be below” did God really put use here and then later create unilateral contract law? Or did we, Me and The Lord, both agree for me to be placed under god’s law before my birth and his commandments were just an Earthly reminder as the communication between God and his children became more scarce? When God dealt with humanity in the beginning it wasn’t pretty all the time. Then later as contract and law set upon the Earth did not God devise himself of his supreme existence and give us the man Jesus. Even God I think follows the rule of engaging on a level playing field.