[Codee]

Originally Posted by Ice

First of all...

Any contract without full disclosure is void ab initio. They know and understand this. Therefore, there is no contract if, in fact, you are not given all of the specific terms of the contract. Well, since that didn't happen, where is the contract? Quite simply, there isn't one and never has been (void ab initio). Not even the accepting of a benefit can solidify this type of contract.

My view is that full disclosure is not applicable. Full disclosure does not apply to laws governing contracts, only the provisions of the contract. All they have to do is notify you what set of laws are governing the contract. They can notice by simply signing the contract within the desired jurisdictional limits of the jurisdiction to govern the contract, they can fly/print a flag (maybe even a bar code is sufficent), give written notice as a stipulation to the contract. They do not however have to give you all the laws on the lex merchant, the UCC, or whatever is governing. It is up to you to know the laws, it is up to the contractor to supply the terms of the agreement.
The divestment does not occur because of “specific terms of the contract” it because of the “general laws” of contracting. So I would claim that accepting benefits does make the contract and what makes you subject as a person is not a hidden term.

2) On the side I do not think you need ab initio. That is the difference between “Void” and “voidable.” Void is void from the inception, voidable is void from the time of declaration.

Originally Posted by Ice

There is no reason that a Sovereign cannot contract or make an agreement with a "Person". Kings made contracts (agreements) with lesser people...

The reason is fairness or levelness.
Did the king make these contacts as “King Louie” or did he use his Christen name? The Kings and Popes were acting as corporate soles and were still contracting in there proprietary capacity. And how many contracts did the King sign himself? I am guessing not allot. I remember a story of a King who contracted with a bunch of “lesser men” and made a Magna Charta. I recall later that a King thought he would overturn the Magna Carta thinking he was still “supremely sovereign.” This later King also got a bunch of swords at his throat so what did he do, he contracted again to save his life. He was not sovereign anymore concerning the terms of the Magna Charta.
Think about this… If the King did not devise himself to the level of the thing contracted with how could anyone ever enforce the Magna Charta? I mean if the King stays sovereign after he signs the Magna Charta what is preventing him from declaring it void. Under the logic you have suggested I get the feeling the Magna Charta would have been lawfully repealed and that there would be no valid claim to it today. The only way we can have recourse with the Magna Charta is if we hold the King to the same obligation as that he is contracting with. Like I said I cannot stress this enough so here is the most overlooked quote in the sovereign movement (I take a little liberty with that I know.)

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.
It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transaction of that company of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. 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.

Originally Posted by Ice

did they not? If not, then how did they keep their throne? There was always "friends of the King" that watched his back... and in turn he did things for them, a lot of time, by private agreement. That doesn't mean that he became less than "King" to do so.

1) Not all kings did keep their thrones and heads.
2) Maybe he had friends
3) If the King was no less than all powerful then how could you enforce an agreement with him.
At least one King felt he was above the contracts he made with men and also felt that he could not be forced to uphold his agreement as he was sovereign. Study the history of why there isConfirmio Cartarum: (1297) Just read the first paragraph on the linked site.

Originally Posted by Ice

And, since a Sovereign is the only one that can waive his rights (or standing, status, class) then without declaring he has done so... it hasn't been done.

The sovereign has silently declared that he has done so by contracting and placing/submitting himself under contract law.

Originally Posted by Ice

Even if the waitress is a person... it makes no difference to the Sovereign, nor can it alter his status by doing business with the restaraunt owner through the owners "agent", the waitress.

So what makes the sovereign pay for his meal?

Originally Posted by Ice

The definitions you cite tell the story of "what" those words mean... but do not tell the entire story. You also need the "how" those things operate.

I am not sure exactly what you are talking about… but if you elaborate it sounds worth investigating.

Originally Posted by Ice

Now a lot people will cite UCC... but I won't do that because it doesn't apply to me. I am Sovereign... not a fantasy. The UCC applies to illusions. (Check the word "fiction" and find that what I am really referring to here is the "deception" as a whole).

Why deal within the "fantasy"... the monopoly game? Stand outside of it. Move the pieces around the board. Watch them scurry along... one is the Hat, another the Car... and there goes the Thimble!!

Ice

1)Well that is a hoot. I just played Monopoly yesterday and I was the thimble.
2) I think you are agreeing with me then about the UCC stuff at least, no?
3) I just do not see anyevidence that one becomes a person due to a hidden office nor do I see any evidence that one becomes a person due to an undisclosed term of a contract. Is there any real proof for these positions? I would like to study the material that leads to that school of thought but all I have found is conjecture.

Thank you Ice for elaborating. Take care.
God Bless