[Satori]

Originally Posted by Codee

I appologize if it was rammbling on and hard to follow. I wrote it while watching Television last night after I had my evening ale.

I found it to be well-crafted in the sense that the concepts were presented coherently, and comprehensive enough to get a few of the major points that needed getting to. Your explanation, by the way, accounts for why "person" is always some kind of corporate entity. Heck, they could've made it an agent of a corporate entity, as the UNITED STATES is one itself... Oh. Back to your argument about leaving trails of breadcrumbs in the statutes to demonstrate their lawless presumptions. It's less about what the statutes say, and more about them being Exhibit A in a case for treason. It's all extortion under color of authority, and the statutory words of art are, I think, just a means of keeping them all in lockstep with each other. It's a co-ordinated effort, and I think the statutory drift we're seeing is no more and no less than the drumbeat to which they march. On a practical level for the citizenry, it doesn't really matter what justifications and excuses they use in the course of their extortion under color of law and authority, since they're invalid anyway. It only matters to them. If you're familiar with the arguments for and against the 13th Amendment barring titles of nobility having been lawfully ratified, you're probably aware that one excuse is made by their side, and when we disprove it they get into finer and finer points until they're just hairsplitting. It didn't make sense to me at the time why, but as a means of keeping the party line for their side together, it makes sense to always have some cover story, however weak. Better than no alibi at all, or so they seem to think. I wonder if that's where we can get 'em; they opt for plausible denial as a modus operandi even when the arguments left to them are so weak that they're implausible.

Chief Justice Marshall's exposition in Cohens v Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L Ed 257, (1821), wrote what might be construed as evidence of this policy of using statutes and case law as a means of publishing the latest party line (possibly why they're not much concerned with a stare decesis, despite all the visible fawning over case precedant); he wrote that a court "must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them." (Emphasis mine.) Consider what happens in their courts; attorneys research case precedant and bring it to a magistrate. Litigants argue based on case cite. They base their cases on the words of another magistrate. If the current magistrate or attorneys are unaware of a case cite (unusual) they have it presented to them or look it up. The attorneys and the lawyers keep up with this output in the course of their daily work. It synchronizes them, and their words of art and the weak excuses get more diluted and arbitrary, until they've visibly outmoded the law altogether (and society completes the crumbling of which it's in the process).

Lets say you are a CORPORATION who is selling bolts of imported fabric. I am a sovereign man.
Now let's say I order a $100,000 order of cloth from you and you send it over to me. Upon receipt of the cloth I send you a letter "Dear LLC I received your goods. Being that I am a sovereign and can create law and you cannot I have decided you are entitled not to be paid in anyway. You cannot sue me in court or I will claim sovereign immunity and I will be upset with you and injure you some more. I am sorry you contracted with someone with different rules than you and that hurt you. Better luck next time!" And that would be that.

Great example. Why wouldn't the owner or someone else who has a financial interest in the corporation not have a private claim against you, the same as if you'd taken any of his other personal property? Why are we looking for reasons to sully our nature in law?

This is in error I believe. I have been given the right to life by god. I can CHOOSE to give it away by putting a gun in my mouth and pulling the trigger. This truth is self-evident to me.

Here we get into speculative metaphysics, but I think you were given the right to existence by the Creator. I think that existence is not contingent upon your mortal frailties. Ultimately, it might be a moot point anyway, as many do choose to destroy their own existences (souls) through the choices they make. You seem to have a point, but the case instance is less than tangible. Let's try the other one.

I think I can also choose to give up my liberty or anything else.

Hmm. Perhaps I get where you're going on this. I have friends in the BDSM scene, and some of them contract with each other to give up their liberty. But in doing so, they're excercising their liberty to give up their liberty. It comes across to me as psychological paper-shuffling from one pile to another, and it makes my head hurt. Isn't it paradoxical to have to have the liberty to give up your liberty in order to have had liberty in the first place? It's as if the concept of liberty has been set at odds against itself. "If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so heavy he himself can't lift it?"

By allowing you to give up some rights and contract is fullfilling your right to happiness and liberty.

It just seems like such a set-up, particularly with the state of the Union.

Then what recourse does the servant have if the master can rule over one party with powers not a part of the contract? If there is no recourse possible then what good is the contract?

If he be truly a master, a contract would be unneccessary. Masters and servants, generally, though, are beneath the dignity of those in American common law. If they be equal private Citizens, one rendering a service to another, then we have simple hire between two equals and the problem of unequal standing is aleviated.

Yes. The constitution is not the source of the law, you are. If you want to contract your rights away you cannot rely on another of your contracts to save you. The constitution offers protections and gives services to Citizens and persons, not sovereigns. No where in that document does it mention protections for sovereigns. If you want to be a party to the constitution you must devise yourself to the level of Citizen or person

" ...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved upon the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country... with none to govern but themselves." Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

The Constitution was devised to secure rights, not create nor grant them. Securing god-given rights is different than granting protections to subordinates owing fealty; this might be the primary distinction between the original, organic Constitution and the later mock-up. The Constitution was drafted to secure rights given by the Creator, was in fact a set of express limitations upon government rather than a list of the rights of the People, and this is why the ennumeration of these pre-existing rights did not limit nor preclude other rights held by people who became Citizens of the Union.

I liked your contracting example. For brevity, let me snip down to the relevant quote to which I wanted to respond.

When we contract we have to know what laws are applying to the contract because as men we do not have the power to just kill one another over an equitable dispute. We have to agree to be under the SAME law and I cannot give you the law that is above you, so I must come down to your level (level playing field) to place us under THE SAME laws.

And it's just that the same laws, within the Union, are the laws of the state we share, and if we're in different states, the federal policies. They exist to moderate interstate commerce as a public service to the people for whom their offices exist. The tendancy for them lately to call every private activity commerce doesn't suddenly put it in their venue, it's just another paltry excuse for extortion under color of law and authority. So as Citizens of States of the Union, we retain an equal standing in law and have the same laws. Mind you, the subtlety of the federal government moderating interstate commerce (that involving financial gain instead of simple hire or contract law) rather than interpersonal relations seems to indicate that that anything else was moderated simply by the common law.


Be well,

- Satori