Is There A State / Are You a Citizen ?

[KaosTheory]

So you are saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court's definition of a citizen?

Lysander Spooner is basically laying out the essential elements of a valid contract.

You are saying that signing a contract in order for it to be valid is some kind of unfounded theory?



KT

[Jerseee]

KT,

What are you talking about?

Did you even read my response?

What is this fascination with Lysander Spoon?

Now we're talking about contracts?

Man, you're all over the place and not making too much sense to me right now. It seems you just want to chit chat about this and that and demand proof by asking loaded questions.

And I have yet to read any reference to verbal contracts. You keep harping about written ones and you never mention verbal ones.

Citizenship is voluntary. Can you prove otherwise?

You are asking for proof of things and offering nothing in return except more demands for proof of something that you do not believe in.

I think I have went above and beyond with providing statements, dictionary facts and whatnot.

Stay focused KT, I see why you are confused as to how government functions and operates and where you fit in the scheme of things.

[KaosTheory]

KT,

1. What are you talking about?

2. Did you even read my response?

3. What is this fascination with Lysander Spoon?

4. Now we're talking about contracts?

5. Man, you're all over the place and not making too much sense to me right now. It seems you just want to chit chat about this and that and demand proof by asking loaded questions.

6. And I have yet to read any reference to verbal contracts. You keep harping about written ones and you never mention verbal ones.

7. Citizenship is voluntary. Can you prove otherwise?

8. You are asking for proof of things and offering nothing in return except more demands for proof of something that you do not believe in.

9. I think I have went above and beyond with providing statements, dictionary facts and whatnot.

10. Stay focused KT, I see why you are confused as to how government functions and operates and where you fit in the scheme of things.

1. The foundation on which the alleged "State" or "STATE" is built.

2. Yes, I noticed you ignored most of my questions and only focused on my apparent misunderstanding of you contradicting yourself.

3. I don't see how agreeing with Lysander Spooner, i.e. that contracts should be signed in order to be valid, could be construed as a fascination with Lysander Spooner.

4. We've been talking about contracts from the git go. This all revolves around valid contracts. The "State", "Citizens", "Law","Conferring Jurisdiction". None of it means anything without a valid contract being in force.

5. I have yet to demand proof of anything. If you interpret asking for facts to support your opinion then I guess it's demanding proof then. As for being all over the place, it really boils down to a valid contract either existing or not. It all starts with the Constitution being (factually) only a written instrument awaiting signatures. It is not a contract, by definition, without them.

6. Are you actually saying that the Constitution is meant to be a verbal Contract? Now who is talking about unfounded theories?

7. I already said citizenship is voluntary. You said citizenship is a right of a soveriegn. I also said citizenship is aquired via contract. If it is only aquired because one decides to think they are a citizen then what is an illegal alien?

8. Again, I have yet to demand proof. I have asked for the facts on which you base your opinion that a "STATE" or "State" exists without the existence of a valid contract as it's foundation. If anything, all I've been doing is asking questions.

9. I agree except for the 'facts' part.

10. How can you see how I am confused? The only thing I am confused about is how you can believe that the foundation for the entire U.S. rests on 4 pieces of paper that no one has signed. I am focused. I am focused on a non-existent "STATE" or "State". Either it is brought about via valid contract or it doesn't exist.

KT

[Jerseee]

KT,

i will answer your questions but before I do, what is the goal you are trying to achieve?

I do not understand how you cannot comprehend what I stated earlier.

ACCEPTANCE. Mutual assent. Meeting of the minds. agreement.

Just because you do not agree does not mean that others do or do not.

You need to read up my man.... on verbal contracts. Swearing to an oath is a verbal contract.

[Jerseee]

KT,

To refresh your memory a bit:

KT,

You are part right my friend. My beef is that the UCC Redemption method leaves some hanging. Also, it is that the UCC changes willy-nilly and with every deep breath someone takes.

As far as the Constitution and my thoughts on it, you still keep forgetting the “acceptance” key in all of this. Even when you try to explain my position on the Constitution. You have apparently accepted that the Constitution does not exist. You have also cited case law to support your position. Which is excellent by the way.

Your first case you posted explains that Citizenship is voluntary--that is all. It does not state there are NO Citizens. If you decide to be a member of that society then it is just that----MEMBERSHIP.

Your second case you posted merely explains that the police can't be everywhere to stop crime and that they are not liable for negligence just because they cannot stop or prevent every criminal act. It states nothing about there is NO United States or NO Constitution. I think you may have chosen the wrong cases to support your position. But you don't really need U.S. case law to state there is NO United States.

Furthermore and most importantly, I'm not sure how you can use case law from a something that you say does not exist to prove that it does not exist....but keep trying.


However, I doubt if you can explain why public officials swear to it before taking office. Yet you do not believe in it. Is it possible that the cases you have cited were decided on the premise that the Constitution does not apply to those particular cases and that the participants probably all agreed (either knowingly or unknowingly) that they do not wish to participate with the spirit and meaning of the Constitution either verbally or through their actions?

It is a contract. And what do you need to make a contract valid? Mutual Assent.

It is all about acceptance. You accepted a truth for yourself and I for myself. The Constitution is a living contract (document). It is either alive to you or dead. It is all based on acceptance. You have accepted a truth for yourself according to your last post. So it must be true for you. In any event, it declares that both of us have that god given right to do either—without reprisal. The only thing that can guarantee your freedom is you. It forces every individual to be responsible for themselves but it also allows those not capable of this to have a jural society and government that will gladly do that for you. So if you want to categorize me, please make a separate category labeled, “ Everyone Welcome to the Table, just don’t infringe on my rights”.

[Jerseee]

KT,

More refreshing the memory:

KT,

Here are your answers:

1. With reference to your spelling of state, that is a commercial venture “STATE”. However, “State” is a political organized body of people usually occupying a specific territory. One that is sovereign. One of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government.

2. “citizen” is one to the rights and privileges of freemen. A member of a state.

3. First it is a contract. Then it is an established law or custom. Also, its an act of establishing, making, or setting up.

4. Standards accepted by citizens who agree that certain measures are necessary to maintain a safe, fair, and civil society amongst those that submit part of their freedoms for the benefit of the whole. A binding custom or practice of a community.

5. The authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate. It is acquired in a couple of ways, through trickery, consent, silence, contract, etc… And it depends on who wants it from the sovereign. Anyone can try to acquire jurisdiction. Even by me answering your post like this—I’m giving up some jurisdiction to you. It is only a really big deal when your accusor cannot prove their accusations without your testimony (whether willfully or through deceit and slight of hand).

6. No, I did sign a Constitution, I swore to it in front of witnesses. I believe you are familiar with verbal contracts as well as written, so that should answer this question. And as far as me witnessing someone signing it—no, I have not seen anyone sign it but, I have witnessed people swear to it. Forgive me, I have seen people sign Constitutions, when starting charter organizations and establishing bylaws for its members (citizens).



Those FACTS (if there are any facts) came from a regular dictionary

[Jerseee]

KT,

Here is a complaint, a declaration and a contract all in one:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refuted his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. --And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[KaosTheory]

It looks like you are just saying that the Constitution is meant to be a verbal contract.

This Declaration is fine but it is not a contract by definition. Who are the parties? Is there a meeting of the minds? Is there mutual consent? or assent? If anything, it is a complaint against King George sworn to by the authors in the presence of God.

I don't even see the point here.

If you are saying to me that you believe that the Constitution is a verbal agreement and that each "State" Constitution is the same thing, then fine. That's all I really need to know.

KT

[Jerseee]

KT,

Here are a couple of definitions for you. I found them just by doing a regular search on the net. Please take notice of a particular word that I have been stressing from the beginning (ACCEPTANCE).

citizen
n. person who by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or by going through the naturalization process has sworn loyalty to a nation. The United States has traditionally taken the position that an American citizen is subject to losing his/her citizenship if he/she commits acts showing loyalty to another country, including serving in armed forces potentially unfriendly to the United States, or voting in a foreign country. However, if the foreign nation recognizes dual citizenship (Canada, Israel, and Ireland are common examples) the U.S. will overlook this duality of nationalities.


contract
1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance, if the contract is "unilateral". A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date.) A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday.) Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all of another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law. 2) v. to enter into an agreement.

REF: http://dictionary.law.com/lookup2.asp

[Jerseee]

KT,

The Constitution is an agreement between sovereigns to live in a jural society by creating government amongst them.

ALmost everything in life is a contract of some sort.

My position is this, The Constitution is a contract that I can use. It does not expire unless I decide it does--just like you have decided that it is not valid to you.

There are some who do agree with your beliefs and there are some who agree with mine--in any event it does not change the fact that the Contract needs to be ACCEPTED first. Whether you believe or not, ACCEPTANCE in any direction is ACCEPTANCE.

You accept that it is not worth a crap and I accept that it is the rules for the government which derive their just powers from the people (sovereign). Now I did not say that it was perfect or not corrupt--I am speaking on the principle of the theory of government.

I know it is a fiction but an agreement is not fiction. Even a disagreement is not fiction but nonetheless, there is ACCEPTANCE on either side.