On the common law note… No where is it written that the common law provides any “protections” to the sovereign King. Do you have all the privileges and prerogatives of the King? The King enjoyed not needing the protections of the Magna Carta, nor any provision of the Charter of the Forest, nor the common law. The King though did enjoy his interest in the Americas by way of the federal Constitution after a mildly unfortunate rebellion. The protection the King enjoys is the bought and paid for plenary power of congress of the United States.
Ok so now think about a foreign company doing business with a certain nation, like the Dutch Bank or the Rothchilds. Now the elected representatives of The Nation break the internal laws of its society and “fleece” the country to these bankers for certain sums of incentive. As foreign agent are you going to listen to the complaint that the contract that was made was invalid. Especially after 70+ years? It has been a long time since 1933 and we still as a whole have not elected a congress that objects. If I were a big banker I would also assumed that the contract was valid after 70 years of no formal objection. The people’s recourse is sadly against there own stupidity.
SO NOW TO RESPOND TO ICE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codee (red), (ICE in blue)
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].
|
Ok I have mistated myself or was misunderstood I think. I agree that full disclosure of terms does apply to all contracts. I just don't think that disclosing how the entire governeng law of a contract is part of that disclosure. Yes a party must disclose all "terms" of the contract but do they need to disclose all the law and explain how it all effects you? The state already provided you with that "disclosure" anyway when it published its California Commercial Code or the UCC or whatever is going to govern.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ICE (my emphasis in purple)
[...If he [The King] 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?]
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ICE
[Whoever taught you that "life" was "fair"??? Or even "had" to be?]
|
I do associate "Just" with "Fair." If there is no requirement to be "fair" then what requirement is there for a King to be "just." And no the sovereign must adhere to his contract, and must not "trespass" for that is a contract crime. This is from the ancient laws of men which were the common law to the Kingdom. They were the laws of men before William the conqueror. The law of the kingdom became our common law. However William was tough cookie and the people gave up sovereignty to him and they did not retain it as we did. If the King goes around and breaks contracts then no would ever contract with him.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ICE
[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?]
|
If the King mad those private agreements with a Subject then the King became as subject to the contract/agreement/terms as the Subject, and also became as subject to the laws governing that contract as the Subject. If the King contracts with a foreign sovereign then it is the laws of the King of the country the contract was struck in. I f the King uses his power as King to try to get out of obligation someone will kindly remind him with swords that the contract law even governs Sovereigns. What do you think would happen to the King if he did not give the assassin his promised land. That assassins sister who worked in the Kitchen would poison him or the assassin would kill the King himself. The King was claiming divine right. He has his power from god and if he breaks contracts thus breaking his contract with god then the people would lose faith in the King. So people are bound by God’s common law all the way to today’s American common law. And I don’t think the King used his “powers as King” to strike the deal because the other person in the contract did not posses those powers. The power to contract is not exclusive to the sovereign. The word King means he is making it in the personal capacity. He will now descend to the level of those he contracts with.