Well here is “answer.”
Quote:
[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
ANSWER, pleading in equity. A defence in writing made by a defendant, to the charges contained in a bill or information, filed by the plaintiff against him in a court of equity. The word answer involves a double sense; it is one thing when it simply replies to a question, another when it meets a charge; the answer in equity includes both senses, and may be divided into an examination and a defence. In that part which consists of an examination, a direct and full answer, or reply, must in general be given to every question asked. In that part which consists of a defence, the defendant must state his, case distinctly; but is not required to give information respecting the proofs that are to maintain it. Gresl . Eq. Ev. 19. [BOLD] Is it not weird that the spelling of defense has been changed.
|
To “meet” a charge the defendant must be brought “under” jurisdiction (the same level as the prosecution.)
And what did the old spelling of “defence” entail.
Quote:
[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
DEFENCE, 2. Defence is of two descriptions; first half defence, which is as follows, "venit et defendit vim et injuriam, et dicit," &c.; or secondly, full defence, "venit et defendit vim et injuriam, quando," &c. meaning "quando et ubi curia consideravit," (or when and where it shall behoove him,) " et damna et quicquid quod ipse defendere debet et dicit," &c. Co. Litt. 127, b; Bac. Abr. Pleas, D Willis, 41.
DEFENCE,3. In strictness, the words quando, &c. ought not to be added when only half defence is to be made; and after the words "venit et defendit vim et injuriam," the subject matter of the plea should immediately be stated. Gilb. C. P. 188; 8 T. R. 6 3 2; 3 B. & P. 9, n. a.
DEFENCE,5. If full defence were made expressly by the words "when and where it shall behoove him," and "the damages and whatever else he ought to defend," the defendant would be precluded from pleading to the jurisdiction or in abatement, for by defending when and where it shall behoove him, the defendant acknowledges the jurisdiction of the court and by defending the damages he waives all. exception to the person of the plaintiff. 2 Saund. 209, c.; 3 Bl. Com. 297 Co. Litt. 127, b Bac. Abr. Pleas, D.
|
Waives all exceptions to the person of the plaintiff? Oh yeah BABY!!! If you have “united”/contracted with this plaintiff then you cannot claim to be sovereign when the plaintiff is not!!!!!!!!!!!!(That means period.) It amazes me that I have never read this quote before anywhere in the patriot movement yet seems to be one of the oldest “in personam” and a good “subject matter” jurisdiction cites out there.” So the plaintiff is not “a person”, but “a person(a)” is something that the plaintiff possesses (“of the plaintiff”.) Gives more legitimacy to “In Rem”, eh? Hmmm… Back to more on partners to contracts.
Quote:
[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
PARTNERS, 6. A partner in a private commercial partnership cannot introduce a stranger [foreign jurisdiction] into the firm as a partner without the consent of all the copartners [Everyone must agree to be under the same laws.] If he should attempt to do so, this may make such stranger a partner with the partner who has associated with such third person; this will be a partnership, distinct from the first, and limited to the share of that partner who has so joined himself with another. 2 Rose 255; Domat, de la Societe, tit. 8, s. 2, n. 5.
|
One last citation to show that “partners” or “parties” to the contract are bound by the status of the lowest rank/personage/jurisdiction of the two.
Quote:
[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
PARTNERS, 8. Partners are bound by what is done by “one” in the course of the business of the partnership. Their liability under contracts is commensurate and coextensive with their rights. Although the general rule of law is, that no one is liable upon any contract except such as are privy to it; yet this is not contravened by the liability of partners, as they are imagined virtually present at and sanctioning the proceedings they singly enter into in the course of trade; or as each is vested with a power enabling him to act, at once as principal and as the authorized agent of his copartners.
|
It should be pretty clear that the state power to act as your “authorized” agent.
If you partner with me you might be a partner to a partner to a third party (the STATE.) So when you enforce your contract with me it will be under the UCC. Lets say I buy a bottle of liquor from the liquor store and I am twenty years old, and I hurt myself with the liquor. I cannot sue the store under my own private law because the commercial transaction was placed under UCC by the fact that they had a license and were incorporated under the state which requires its license and the notoriously gave notice by taxing the product under the corporate state law, and I cannot sue the store under anything other then the corporate laws of the state the store was incorporated under.
(Totally independent) Ok the definition of person means to have “rank (look rank up)”. Calling one’s self “Propria Persona” or “Sui Juris” is to rank your self in society.
Could it be that they are not charging the man who has sovereign immunity but it is an in rem porceding against his “persona.”
Are the statutes “at large” (without restraint) because they are not constrained by the constitution because they exist under plenary powers of the contractual corporate state?