[Codee]

My response to ICE follows this essay.
Written by Cody James; His family is Roberts.

Sorry I had my ale first again. ****!”

Standing, Jurisdiction and Venue, How all three must be on a level playing field.
(Where we are/venue needs to be the same. What level/standing we are on needs to be the same. And what law/jurisdiction must be the same.)

Level/Standing: Things must be on a similar level to interact. That principle is what kept Tesla alive when he stood amidst 1000s of volts of energy. The energy was on an incompatible frequency. The frequency/status of the energy had to come down to hurt Tesla despite of all the electricity’s force/power. Tesla and the electricity could not connect. Imagine now a fifty foot tall man walking up to someone and that someone and the fifty foot tall person wants to shake hands. What will happen? More than likely the fifty foot tall man would have to bend/come down to interact with the man “below” him. It is not natural to think that the shorter man should somehow jump up that high. Ascension comes from internal growth, not from contract. Contracts bind. The constitution bound the Feds with the states and your contracts bind you under law to other “persons.” The federal government in America is limited and low in standing. Being lower means more above and more pressure on that which is below. That is why lower/limited governments should not be able to do as much. They are chained and pressured and that makes it hard to move around and act. Similarly fractions cannot be added together until they both are reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Venue/Place: Also in order to “meet” or associate two parties must have a/one place to meet. In law the place of decision of the contract is the venue. Imagine trying to shake hands with someone in another state. It will not happen. Try to enforce a California born contract in/with another state, it will not happen. Venue is where two parties “presume” to meet to decide the contract in which they have an interest.

All uppercase names: = a contracting party to a contract governed by STATE procedure and is being administered as such.

The all upper-case name is the name of the “persona” assigned to an individual when the individual creates a lower persona via contract/association

1) Contracts publicly
2) Is employed for compensation to do the act complained of. (These two things are really the same since employment public corporation is a public contract in itself. And very rarely does one contract with another in their sovereign capacity and exclude the state so as not to devise themselves by standing of the law that those sovereigns choose as a term too such contract.)

I will state that is my belief that any injury one inflicts by way of crime creates a contract relationship between the victim and the violator and is such that the public has an interest in the violator’s end of the contract only. The contract is implied and exists only to serve the ends of justice in favor of the victim.

Generally when one contracts they make the state a silent third party, because it is the state that will be responsible to enforce the contract with its courts and marshals and agents. The silent presumed party of the state makes the contract a public contract This is a public contract and all of the parties must be placed under one Uniform Law. If the state is a party the contract cannot exist at common law AT ALL!!! The State is not a creature known at common law. There was no de jure state of sovereigns by constitution in England common law. So the state would have no rights, no obligations nor any definition at common law. What law can the sovereign man enter? Only the subjects of government can enjoy common law. So two sovereigns cannot just say, “This contract is under common law,” because the presumption that the state is an enforcement party has not been rebutted by your contract. It is too late to try to exclude the State after it is a party to the contract just as you would not be able to exclude the first, or second party to the contract after the fact. Divestment occurs when the sovereign government (For the individual sovereign the self-government) contracts with another party of a “lower” or maybe more accurately maybe a “more limited” person. So when the state, which always acts in its corporate fictional capacity contracts, it uses its fictional name and gives one to you to give notice to the FACT that the man has fallen to the status of the corporate state and the “fallen man” will not be considered in his sovereign capacity under either, Christian /or, common law. Understand that when contracts are concerned the UCC which the state is under is more mandatory for the state to follow then your chosen law is for you, and the UCC is also more limiting and more specific terms then other laws are. Specifics contribute quite a bit in determining statutory/written/contract law. And also remember that your own private internal laws do not apply when “interacting” or “interCONTRacting.”
So where is the proof and reasons that the state needs to have a name for persons engaged in the two activities I listed above.

"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract. " Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.

The act should not be included to embrace the “accused” when there is no charge that the accused was employed for compensation. Now the accused could be a sovereign man, but the code does not embrace him absent the contract OR a leveling with the state as a party. If you have contracted with the state you have created another “person(a),”, or more specific way of dealing with society (include definition of persona in here somewhere) under the laws of the STATE. So the state assigns this new persona a name.

Originally Posted by Cal Jur (notice the name is not given, it only consists partly of a name given.

Volume 46, CALIFORNIA JURISPRUDENCE, THIRD EDITION, NAMES.
Section 1. In general; what constitutes a personal name.
A personal name is a designation assigned to or assumed by an individual, and it serves to distinguish him from others [1].

The contract is under the laws of the state because the state can only do what a statute allows and that includes contracting. Different names presume different person(a)s.

Volume 46, CALIFORNIA JURISPRUDENCE, THIRD EDITION, NAMES.
Section 3. Identity of name
… Different names presumptively indicate different persons [19. Brum v Ivins, 154 C 17, 96 P 876.];

By charging you under the ALL CAPS NAME they are noticing (They are not giving notice, they are noticing who you are by what you did.) that you are not entitled to all your rights in your capacity as Christen Man, but rather in your personal capacity. What else gives silent judicial notice that the accused is different then the sovereign posterity, and that he is a “person” under statutory governing law by way of contract. That is all it takes to get you, a contract with an inferior status then you want exist at.

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.

If that status truly is beneath you then why on Earth would you contract it and make deals with it. Even street gangs look “down” on contracting with the enemy. Do you stick your hand in every pile of dog doo? No! It’s gross so don’t contact/contract it. (Contract, like in acquire an inferior little germ.)