[Codee]

Originally Posted by Codee

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

Originally Posted by Satori

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).

Originally Posted by Codee

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.

Originally Posted by Satori

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?

Because I did not injure a private interested party in the above scenario, only a public person. Nor did I take any “other” property and specifically I did not “take” anything. Lets call the company US FABRIC. Ok now, US FABRIC “sent” and “delivered” some “goods.” I accepted and received the goods. Now the only person hurt was the company. Let’s say you are a shareholder of US FABRIC (I think this is the type of situation you were asking about.) and now you are upset because $100,000 is no longer with the company. You now have a claim against the company and it’s president/CEO or whoever is responsible. I did not injure the shareholder however. I injured the company. Since the company cannot bring an action at law against the sovereign his only recourse in the future is to not deal with a sovereign. So on this respect it is good to be able to lower yourself in “special” circumstances so that you can engage in commerce and buy food and cloths and fuel. See when there are two different playing fields I used my rules but the company cannot. I cannot elevate the company to my standing because I simply posses rights that society will not allow a corporation to posses. I can however fall to the level of the corporation and deal with it on those terms. I will also point out however that in my example I may devise myself to the level of person by contracting it through a crime upon it. Inflicting a crime on someone maybe contracting in a sense and you have created a situation where someone is deprived and is needing satisfaction.
The divestment occurs all over. God comes to Earth to deal with man AS Jesus, a man.
Imagine trying to talk to a never before exposed little kid about the stuff on this forum. Obviously your knowledge is “superior” to his on the subject and if you try to talk to the kid like he was me and have a conversation of this caliber the child would probably not be able to benefit at all. When teaching or interacting in general it always requires the one in the superior position to bring oneself down to the lower position. In rare circumstances one in a superior position can raise another from an inferior but not usually. The only real way to really raise someone to a superior position in any meaningful or spiritual sense is teaching, learning, and training, NOT contracting. (Have you ever noticed how many adults will start to talk to a baby in a baby voice when they see the baby. They try to lower themselves automatically because it seems a natural thing to do for interaction to be smooth.)
I just cannot stress this point hard enough so I will post it again. There are not many cases talking about sovereignty capacity and contracting with non-sovereigns.

Originally Posted by The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed. 244. (my emphasis in blue)

Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted.