My view is that full disclosure is not applicable.
[Your view is contrary the law. If full disclosure is not made prior to the signing or agreement for any contract and a fraud is then discovered... it's void... regardless of your view]. 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.
The reason is fairness or levelness.
[Whoever taught you that "life" was "fair"??? Or even "had" to be?]
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?
[What about all those private agreements he made with other fellas?? You know, "hey, you get rid of him and I'll give you his lands" kind of stuff? Did he make those as King or in his private capacity? If in his private capacity what gave him the right to use his power as "King" in order to strike the deal? Is there anything "fair" in that?] 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 Charta 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.)
[hmmm... a King contracted with "lesser" people in the Magna Charta?? YOU DON'T SAY!!]
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.
[gee... the King couldn't have an agreement forced upon him? Sure he could... he is a "man", right?]
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 is
Confirmio Cartarum: (1297) Just read the first paragraph on the linked site.
The sovereign has silently declared that he has done so by contracting and placing/submitting himself under contract law.
[I disagree. The Sovereign has only exercised his right to contract... PERIOD.]
So what makes the sovereign pay for his meal?
[His agreement. If he did not abide by his agreement, would he be a "just" Sovereign??... or something less? Does the Sovereign have the right to trespass upon others that are also endowed with the same "natural" sovereignty he claims... even if they do not claim their own?]
I am not sure exactly what you are talking about… but if you elaborate it sounds worth investigating.
[Defining a word does not, in itself, explain anything. To define the word "contract" is only a part of the explaination... the "rules", "regulations" and "law" governing "contract" are the rest of the explaination... the "how" they operate part. If there is not full disclosure or if "fraud" be found... any contract or agreement is void.]
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?
[I don't know... are we in agreement? Those codes do not apply to me because I am not a "person". And whether or not they apply to anyone else does not matter to me one bit. I am still and always will be Sovereign... without any doubt at all. And nothing can change that EXCEPT MY OWN VOLUNTARY DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT.]
3) I just do not see anyevidence that one becomes a person do 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