Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ICE
[I disagree. The Sovereign has only exercised his right to contract... PERIOD.]
|
No, I disagree. The sovereign exercised his right to contract “under a flag or certain set of laws.” In order to be brought under the law one must be recognized by the law. Let’s say you as a sovereign sign a contract with a Chinese man in China. Are you still sovereign for that contract? Nope. Do the laws of China even recognize you as sovereign? No. You have for all purposes of the contract placed yourself under the Chinese law of contracts. That is what the law of flags is all about. It is about submission, not ascension. Bottom line is you are a “contracted person” as China defines it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ICE
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?]
|
This country does not operate under the premise that we are naturally sovereign. You might find a something that says so but in reality people in North America made the King sign a treaty/contract after a war. We won our sovereignty. We were not born with political sovereignty until a generation later. The King by way of contract let the sovereignty “fall” on the people who then possessed it. So for all purposes of the contract (every thing in the Americas), all people in America will be considered independently sovereign from the King. This is also backed up by the May flower compact/contract.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ICE
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.]
|
My view on the UCC is just that it only protects the “remedy of contract” of persons in a corporate/contracting status. I think we agree there. Where we don’t agree is what makes one that corporate/personal status.
Lets imagine ICE that you sign a contract with me that I mailed to you in an envelope with a zip code and postal stamp (flag) on it. I tell you that the contract will be considered entered into in my state. My state where I reside is STATE OF CALIFORNIA a sub state of U.S. Now could I pull you into statutory court and sue for my remedy if you default? YES. You agreed to on your OWN VOLUNTARY DECLARATION TO THAT EFFECT when you knowingly contracted with an agent (citizen) of a state and in that state. The only way to avoid that jurisdiction is to not physically get found and served in that jurisdiction.
Imagine the King of England (with no army) moseying on over to Spain and saying “I am sovereign until I explicitly state otherwise.” What is going to happen? The English King will get a hard lesson in “entering” and how the places/things you enter affect your sovereignty and how he is now under another flag facing treason.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ICE
Would you not consider a "waiver" of Sovereign rights to be a declaration that one is now a "Person"?? If a Sovereign makes application for a license, waives his rights by such application and agrees henceforth to be subject to the rules and regulations of the "Person" spoken of within those rules and regulations... is that not a Sovereigns "Declaration" of change in status, class, standing?
|
I would argue that men are always “persons” it is just what type of person that is the question.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bouvier's Law Dictionary
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
...
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/17/Note1.htm
American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:
"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition."
|
However the man is not the status of a person so long as he retains his status as sovereign.
Quote:
US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
|
The type of person you are depends on how the laws of the land/society define you. You are brought under societies laws when you accept a benefit from, or contract with an agent (citizen) of that society under a declaration of jurisdiction (a flag). In the UCC you do not want to be a person. So don’t make contracts in the land governed by UCC “and” with someone subject to those laws. Subjects/persons of the UCC must use it when contracting on any territorial limit of the UCC. A corporation is ruled and created by statute and cannot as law contract with you independent of the UCC. You as the source of law are expected to know this.
More specifically the declaration or waiver did not change your status/standing. Standing and status are how one ranks in society. A waiver is a “term” of a contract. There must be some other party who receives the contract in order for it to have effect. Lets say that I waive my right not to get punched in the face. Unless I present that waiver to someone and they give me some kind of benefit then there is no contract and no effect to one of the terms of it. There is no way for someone to know of my waiver unless I present it. No one has the right to accept my waiver without providing a benefit. (lets say I right the waiver generally, forget about it and then someone picks it up and finds me.) We have no agreement so there is nothing “binding” me to the “term” or my word. What changes your status is when that term is a part of a contract you ascended to.
This makes more sense (hopefully) if you have read my essay on Venue, Jurisdictoin and Standing. However I will point out this definition even though I see ICE is not impressed with code and legal definitions, and rightfully so if he has not been contracted under the jurisdiction of those definitions. I will assume that the “waiver” took place in a government jurisdiction or other place where there is adequate enforcement.
Quote:
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_c.htm
Contract:
…The reciprocal or mutual assent of two or more persons competent to contract…
Every agreement ought to be so certain and complete, that each party may have an action upon it; and the agreement would be incomplete if either party withheld his assent to any of its terms. Peake's R. 227; 3 T. R. 653; 1 B. & A. 681 1 Pick. R. 278. The agreement must, in general, be obligatory on both parties, or it binds neither.
|
Quote:
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_a.htm
ACCEPTANCE, contracts. [color=”purple”]An agreement [/color] to receive something which has been offered.
2. [color=”purple”]To complete the contract, [/color] the acceptance must be absolute and past recall, 10 Pick. 826; 1 Pick. 278; and communicated to the party making the offer at the time and place appointed. 4. Wheat. R. 225; 6 Wend. 103.
3. In many cases acceptance of a thing waives the right which the party receiving before had; as, for example, the acceptance of rent after notice to quit, in general waives. the notice. See Co. Litt. 211, b; Id. 215, a.; and Notice to quit.
|
In the first two definitions we see that it is the acceptance which completes the contract and that a contract must have two parties and
be obligatory on both.
Also I think the following is where ICE and I differ again. I believe what he thinks (ask him though as I do not speak for him) is necessary for a contract is “consent” where really all that is needed is assent.