Law is not contract

[rushpat]

Okay, here is some hysterical email I received recently, bashing everything in site.

This is not my post, I'm only passing along what this guy is ranting about.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Part 1:






Laws of a state are "RULES" enforced unilaterally (meaning enforced against any person within the territory of the state whether he likes it or not, without any negotiation, without his personal consent). Laws are Laws, (not Contracts). A "Contract" on the other hand is a Bi-Lateral agreement between two parties. Statutes are not "contracts". The US Constitution is not a "Contract". The US Constitution is, and was ratified as "The Supreme Law of the Land."

A LAW is a unilateral COMMAND by the Sovereign (e.g., the People duly represented) directed to all the persons in the territory controlled by the Sovereign:

John Austin explained:

(1) "Law is the command of the sovereign, which is backed by threat of sanction for noncompliance;
(2) X is a sovereign within a community if and only if (a) the bulk of the community is in the habit of obedience or submission to X, and (b) X is not in the habit of obedience to any person or group of persons in that community."
The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) John Austin http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~brink/c...Handout-1A.htm

In Leviathan, Hobbes wrote:

"And first it is manifest, that Law in generall, is not Counsell, but Command; nor a Command of any man to any man; but only of him, whose Command is addressed to one formerly obliged to obey him. And as for Civill Law, it addeth only the name of the person Commanding, which is Persona Civitatis, the Person of the Commonwealth. Which considered, I define Civill Law in this manner. CIVILL LAW, Is to every Subject, those Rules, which the Common-wealth hath Commanded him, by Word, Writing, or other sufficient Sign of the Will, to make use of, for the Distinction of Right, and Wrong; that is to say, of what is contrary, and what is not contrary to the Rule.(33)" Leviathan, Hobbes http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/hobbes.htm http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Es...uePete/Law.htm

Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries simplified this Olde English for the benefit of American colonists as follows:

"Law is properly defined to be ``a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong''. Let us endeavour to explain it's several properties, as they arise out of this definition.

"And, first, it is a rule: not a transient sudden order from a superior, to or concerning a particular person; but something permanent, uniform, and universal. Therefore a particular act of the legislature to confiscate the goods of Titius, or to attaint him of high treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law: for the operation of this act is spent upon Titius only, and has no relation to the community in general; it is rather a sentence than a law. But an act to declare that the crime of which Titius is accused shall be deemed high treason; this has permanency, uniformity, and universality, and therefore is properly a rule. It is also called a rule, to distinguish it from advice or counsel, which we are at liberty to follow or not, as we see proper, and to judge upon the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the thing advised: whereas our obedience to the law depends not upon our approbation, but upon the maker's will. Counsel is only matter of persuasion, law is matter of injunction; counsel acts only upon the willing, law upon the unwilling also.

"It is also called a rule, to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, ``1 will, or will not, do this''; that of a law is, ``thou shalt, or shalt not, do it''. It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts, we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws, we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising any thing at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be ``a rule''.

http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/po...e.int.s02.html

The Revolutionary American theory that the People are the Sovereign and that their "Consent" is the source of Law, was restated in CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793):

"[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. ... Of this plan the author of [Blackstone's] Commentaries was, if not the introducer, at least the great supporter. He has been followed in it by writers later and less known; and his doctrines have, both on the other and this side of the Atlantic,been implicitly and generally received by those, who neither examined their principles nor their consequences, The principle is, that all human law must be prescribed by a superior. This principle I mean not now to examine. Suffice it, at present to say, that another principle, very different in its nature and operations, forms, in my judgment, the basis of sound and genuine jurisprudence; laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the CONSENT of those, whose obedience they require.. " CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/2/419.html

The above Definition of "Law" articulated by Blackstone in his famous Commentaries is the Meaning of the word "Law" as adopted by Americans and as used in the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment and elsewhere in the US Constitution:

As Daniel Webster argued in the Dartmouth College case: "Are then these acts of the legislature, which affect only particular persons and their particular privileges, laws of the land? Let this question be answered by the text of Blackstone: 'And first, it (i.e. law) is a rule: not a transient sudden order from a superior, to, or concerning, a particular person; but something permanent, uniform, and universal. Therefore, a particular act of the legislature to confiscate the goods of Titius, or to attaint him of high treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law: for the operation of this act is spent upon Titius only, and has no relation to the community in general; it is rather a sentence than a law.' Lord Coke is equally decisive and emphatic. Citing and commenting on the celebrated 29th chap. of Magna Charta, he says, 'no man shall be disseized, &c. unless it be by the lawful judgment, that is, verdict of equals, or by the law of the land, that is, (to speak it once for all,) by the due course and process of law.'" (Emphasis as in source.) Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 580-581.

Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/336us56.html

See Generally: "LAW, A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA FOR PEACE" at www.billstclair.com/ferran and compare with the following:

Rule of Law versus Unlimited Rule
by James Bovard, February 2003
Early Americans venerated the law and saw it as the key to safeguarding their freedom. Thomas Paine wrote in 1776 that “in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

In 1780, the Massachusetts Bill of Rights stated as its goal the establishment of a “government of laws and not of men.” John Phillip Reid, in his unrecognized classic 1986 study, noted, “It is sometimes assumed by legal scholars that law was command during the era of the American Revolution, but that is an error. To a remarkable extent law even in the eighteenth century was still thought of as it had been in medieval times, as the sovereign and not as the command emanating from the sovereign.”

Americans of the Revolutionary era glorified the law because it was seen as a means to restrain government and to secure the rights of the citizens. Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek defined the rule of law in 1944: “Government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand — rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers.” Hayek later observed, “Because the rule of law means that government must never coerce an individual except in the enforcement of a known rule, it constitutes a limitation on the powers of all government.” The rule of law aims to minimize discretionary power.



continued...

[rushpat]

Part 2:

The rule of law is a recognition of the government’s obligation to the citizenry. Political theorist Joseph Towers wrote in 1774, “In arbitrary governments, all are equally slaves. . .. A vague and indefinite obedience, to the fluctuating and arbitrary will of any superior, is the most abject and complete slavery.” Arbitrary power means personal subjugation to the bureaucratic and political rulers who can exercise their personal will over the subjects.

Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of the term “law” is an invitation to the abuse of power. The English jurist Sir William Blackstone declared in 1765 that “law is not a transient order from a superior to or concerning a particular person or thing, but something permanent, uniform, and universal.” The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1907, “‘Law’ is a statement of the circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon men through the courts.”

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302d.asp

Oliver Wendel Holmes explained:

"[A]ll law emanates from the sovereign, even when the first human beings to enunciate it are the judges, or you may think that law is the voice of the Zeitgeist, or what you like. It is all one to my present purpose. Even if every decision required the sanction of an emperor with despotic power and a whimsical turn of mind, we should be interested none the less, still with a view to prediction, in discovering some order, some rational explanation, and some principle of growth for the rules which he laid down. In every system there are such explanations and principles to be found." http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm

Contracts are Bi-Lateral (voluntary mutual agreements between man and man). Laws are Unilateral Commands ("Obey or Suffer").

Some Laws, such as the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, are En-Forced AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, on behalf of the People: See "The Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment" at www.billstclair.com/ferran

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866). LINK: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html

"The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, later incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, was intended to give Americans at least the protection against governmental power that they had enjoyed as Englishmen against the power of the Crown." Ingraham v. Write, 430 U.S. 651, 672-3 (1976). http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

In particular, the Fourteenth Amendment clothes a citizen:

"with the right, when his privileges and immunities are invaded by partial and discriminating legislation, to appeal from his State to his Nation, and gives him the assurance that, for his protection, he can invoke the whole power of the government." http://billstclair.com/ferran/fourteenth.html

Yet, some of the most ruthless PAYtriots-for-Profit, such as the infamous Anti-"American" "L.B.Bork" of PAC-in-Law actually go so far as to teach stupid people to disavow their country ("America") and to promote DISrespect for their Constitutional rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment. See: Our Struggle to Keep Aztlan at http://billstclair.com/ferran

As a result of their Redemption cult programming, some "Redemption" victims expressly disavow their explicit Constitutionally secured Rights, in vile words like these actual words written: "Who cares about the constitution and any of the amendments? We are not parties to the original CONTRACT called the constitution, nor the amendments. These do not affect us in any way."

The US Constitution is not a "Contract". The US Constitution is, and was ratified by the People as "The Supreme Law of the Land."

The "Redemption" freaks are therefore making it more difficult for ordinary law-abiding citizens to compel their rulers to RESPECT their rights under the Constitution. Redemptionists are therefore Traitors against the People, and are aiding and abetting the disintegration of the Rule of Law that protects the People from tyrannical government.

All Laws are "LAWS" (not "Contracts") because they are "Rules" that are *En-Forced* *unilaterally* (by the physical force of police during emergencies, and by the judicial process of summonses and traffic tickets after the emergency has passed).

Many of the PAYtriot Myths are sold to fools by mischaracterizing "Laws" (e.g., Traffic Control statutes) as matters of mere "commercial" "contract" (subject to renegotiation etc.). I do not mean to say that all laws must always be followed to the letter under all circumstances: See for example when it is lawfull to "speed": A Need For Speed = Justification at http://billstclair.com/ferran

"The subject has liberty to disobey the sovereign's command if it contravene the law that the right of self-preservation cannot be abrogated, unless it be to endanger himself for the preservation of the commonwealth, as with soldiers. The subjects' obligation of obedience lasts so long as the sovereign's power of defending them, that being the purpose of his being made sovereign." HOBBES - FROM LEVIATHAN http://www.publicbookshelf.com/publi...htenm_bgd.html


The false notion that Laws are mere Contracts or "commercial" instruments is the basis of the Self-Destructive Myth called "Redemption" (The misrepresentation of Law as mere "commercial" Contract). See http://www.trumpetamerica.org/Resource02.txt and
See: The "Redemption" Argument http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UCC.htm

When a PAYtriot-for-Profit finds a person ignorant and foolish enough to mistake the nature of a Law and call it a mere "commercial" "contract" he has found a victim that can be preyed upon mercilessly and almost indefinitely. The Victim will often be parted with his money, given a ream of USELESS wishful thinking by the PAYtriot, and will only later be confronted with the reality of en-forcment of the Law (including prison confinement) as Law. The Victim goes off like a Moth Attracted to the light (the false promise of getting something for nothing), only to get ZAPPED (by the En-Forcement of LAW) before he reaches it. In some cases, the victims are so stupid that when they see the Moth ahead of them get ZAPPED, they think that if they only try to find a new way to get to the light, they won't get zapped themselves. Here is a testimonial from one stupid Moth on his way to getting ZAPPED despite knowing that other Moths pursuing the same Light have been ZAPPED ahead of him:

ive been following the patriot,redemption stuff since 1999. At first i wasnt shocked by the outrageous money people were asking for different redemption schemes because it was all new to me and others and we felt, hey, we finally got "THE" silver bullet and its gonna cost a lot but it is worth it. then i like others woke up and realized that we havent gotten to the end of the road like we thought. ... If you look at the track record, the people who are charging the large amounts arent producing like they said. ... Seems every few months they come along with some new was to improve their redemption paperwork. New people are at first taken in by this stuff and soon find out they are better off thinking for themselves. Well, one day we will get this all right, BUT WE BETTER DO IT AS A TEAM, only then will the government realize they are up against a organized force."

These silly lawless traitorous greedy fools (who used to be somewhat respectable citizens) think they are "organized" because they mainly associate with each other and do not seek credible counsel in the real world. But they are not as "organized" as are the PEOPLE of the STATES who enacted LAWS and who established Governments to En-FORCE those Laws. All that the "Redemption" wackos really accomplish is to make a laughing stock out of white patriotic Christian Americans! The more the "Redemption" wackos promote their nonsensical schemes, while dwelling in their own made-up world where "everything is commerce", the more they will give up on their claims to actual legal rights secured under the constitution and laws. www.billstclair.com/ferran And, when they step out of that little fairy tale world into the real world and try to impose their gibberish on the People of the united States, the Laws of the People are En-Forced against them and they suffer, because they are totally defenseless and can only irritate the judges and prosecutors whom they confront with their nonsense.

[rushpat]

Part 3:



The Leftist ADL loves the "redemption" criminals, because it supports their arguments that white Christian Americans are unfit to keep and carry guns and unfit to govern the united States:

"Scam artists and right-wing extremists are hawking a pseudo-legal strategy that promises both financial gain and the opportunity to take revenge against what is seen as a sham government. Called "redemption," the technique has earned its promoters untold profits, buried courts and other agencies under tons of worthless paper, and led to scores of arrests and convictions throughout the United States. ... What redemption promoters sell — through hundreds of pricey books, tapes, CD-ROMs, Web sites and interminably dull seminars saturated with quasi-legalistic mumbo-jumbo — is a ****amamie version of U.S. history in which the federal government has enslaved its citizens by using them as collateral against foreign debt. ... Redemption is a charade. It is time-consuming, nonsensical, and virtually impossible to understand. That it doesn't work goes without saying — many people now in prison are mute testimony to the scam's many perils. And it costs a small fortune to master. For while redemptionists say they'll make you rich, they almost always want to be paid first, in dollars printed by the government they hate. " http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...cle.jsp?aid=74

Here is a typical "Redemption" sales-pitch made by the PAYtriot criminals that appeals to stupid and gullible and often desperate people (promising something for nothing) if only they will disavow all their actual legal rights and "Join" a "redemption" cult:

"Learn Commercial Redemption.....Pay all your debts for Dollar.....for more details ....Join Stephen Gottfried".

Sometimes, even the PAYtriot criminals who invent and promote these lawless and useless schemes get what is coming to them:

Redemption Scheme Leader Arrested in Minnesota
http://www.adl.org/learn/news/Roger_Elvick_arrested.asp

White supremacist and anti-government extremist Roger Elvick was arrested in Minnesota on September 3, 2003, after being indicted in Ohio on multiple charges related to a bogus check scheme called "redemption."

Redemption, created by Elvick in the late 1990s, is an elaborate scheme promulgated by anti-government extremist groups around the country. Promoters of the scheme hold seminars at which they claim that the United States went bankrupt in 1933 when it went off the gold standard, and to pay the country's debt to "international bankers," the U.S. collateralized American citizens themselves, registering their birth certificates as securities. ...

Redemption spread across the country after 1999, becoming one of the most popular anti-government extremist tactics. Redemption practitioners have been convicted on a variety of charges in Oregon, Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and other states.

Elvick is charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The indictment claims that Elvick and others (many of whom have since been convicted on a variety of charges) engaged in a criminal enterprise involving Redemption groups holding seminars to teach people Redemption and how to use bogus sight drafts.

Elvick is also charged with two counts of extortion, five counts of intimidation, two counts of conspiracy to commit intimidation, five counts of retaliation, four counts of complicity in the commission of forgery, and one count of conspiracy to commit engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.

Elvick and three others were arrested and convicted in 1990 on a 19-count indictment. According to federal prosecutors, "Elvick started the operation and communicated his ideas, which were picked up by the others." Elvick was subsequently convicted in another trial on charges of filing false IRS 1099 forms in order to harass public officials.

As a result of these convictions, Elvick spent most of the 1990s in jail. According to Redemptionists, he used his time in prison to hone his theories, and indeed, the Redemption scheme, also involving ... a variation on Elvick's original scheme.

http://www.adl.org/learn/news/Roger_Elvick_arrested.asp

"Twelve Western Michigan residents were convicted today in federal court on 67 counts of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion. The anti-government extremists, members of the "sovereign citizen" movement, had attempted to use bogus Internal Revenue Service filings to trigger IRS inquiries against 18 judges. ... "We applaud the convictions in this important case," said Jennifer Doeren, Assistant Director of the Anti-Defamation League's Detroit office. "ADL has long been concerned about efforts by anti-government extremists to harass and intimidate law enforcement officers and public officials in Michigan and elsewhere."... The defendants were practitioners of an anti-government scheme known as "redemption" or "accept for value," which has become increasingly popular among anti-government extremists since 1999. Adherents of the "redemption" tactic make uniform commercial code filings that they claim allows them ... to pay off their debts and liabilities. Creditors, public officials, or law enforcement officers who disagree are subjected to harassing IRS Form 8300 filings, among other attempts at intimidation. Redemptionists have been convicted on a variety of charges in Ohio, Oregon, Idaho, and several other states."

http://www.adl.org/learn/news/gov_plotter.asp

Redemption cult members are basically all worshiping "Money", and put the pursuit of Easy Money ahead of God and ahead of learning, advocating and defending their actual legal rights of themselves and the rights of their fellow citizens. Most Redemptionists are entirely uninterested in Demanding the Government to Respect their actual Rights secured by the US Constitution, leaving rulers free to withhold, violate, deny and disavow those rights. See www.billstclair.com/ferran

Thus, Peddlers of "Redemption" are subverting the People's Resistance to Tyranny, one victim at a time.

And see also: Old Wine, New Bottles: Paper Terrorism, Paper Scams and Paper “Redemption” http://www.militia-watchdog.org/redemption.asp

Here are some published cases which have correctly rejected this lunacy: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UCC.htm

Oliver Wendell Holmes explained that the study of "Law" is a way to try to predict what a Judge (and the Sheriff taking his orders) is going to do in particular circumstances:

"But, as I shall try to show, a legal duty so called is nothing but a prediction that if a man does or omits certain things he will be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court; and so of a legal right. ... The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it — and nothing else. If you commit a tort, you are liable to pay a compensatory sum." http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm

And:

"When we study law we are not studying a mystery but a well-known profession. We are studying what we shall want in order to appear before judges, or to advise people in such a way as to keep them out of court. The reason why it is a profession, why people will pay lawyers to argue for them or to advise them, is that in societies like ours the command of the public force is intrusted to the judges in certain cases, and the whole power of the state will be put forth, if necessary, to carry out their judgments and decrees. People want to know under what circumstances and how far they will run the risk of coming against what is so much stronger than themselves, and hence it becomes a business to find out when this danger is to be feared. The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts."

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm

See also: Law, a Revolutionary Idea for Peace at http://billstclair.com/ferran

What Mr. Steel refers to as "Fantasy Law" are the various childish ideas that are basically made-up by dishonest or delusional people and which have absolutely zero "predictive value" because they are NOT "The Law" that Judges (Lawyers) study and that will be en-forced by the "whole power of the state." Most often, the "Fantasy Law" ideas of con-men SHOULD NOT BE "THE LAW" because the en-forcement of such nonsensical ideas such would lead to chaos, weakness, and invasion. Mankind has had thousands of years of experience to help it to decide what SHOULD BE "THE LAW" OF THE LAND.

If a person expects to predict what a Judge, or a Sheriff, is going to do by simply declaring self-suficiency (e.g., "I rely upon LOGIC. Think for yourself.") that person is going to have ZERO effectiveness in Court. People have to study what Judges declare that the Law is, because that is theoretically the best way to predict what will happen. This has been true since the role of Judges to explain and declare the Law was defined in the Bible's Old Testament.

[rushpat]

Part 4 (last):


Also, ignorance or reckless disregard of the principle that Law is a Rule En-Forced is why you see so many silly fools going around declaring themselves "Sovereigns" as if they had the individual power to enact laws and to establish "Common Law Courts" and to subject others and even the officers of the established Government to their own personal jurisdiction. The People (citizens of the United States), not individuals, are Sovereign in this Country and in each of the united States. CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/2/419.html

www.billstclair.com/ferran

Qui molitur insidias in patriam, id facit quod insanusnauta perforans navem in qua vehitur. He who betrays his country, is like the insane sailor who bores a hole in the ship which carries him. 3 Co. Inst. 36. See: Our Struggle to Keep Aztlan at http://billstclair.com/ferran/






<<< Please keep in mind that these aren't my thoughts, but those of someone else... >>>>

Oh yeah? Try NOT signing EVERYTHING presented to you if you are ever arrested or issued a citation and see how quick them fools gonna prove to you its a contract by kicking your butt for refusing to SIGN their contracts. Besides, ive got about 5 documents concerning the contractual nature of the courts that the judge had sealed. duh, why do slaves want everybody to stay on tha plantation with them?

[iamfreeru2]

Kgod,

I am with you man. I got this same email today with what RP posted. After reading Jean Keating's Treatise do not tell me the courts are not commercial. As far as I am concerned what I do is exactly what I should be doing. I am excited about having Jean Keating here for a seminar and frankly, I wish it were today because we need what he has to teach. It's all about Commercial Law and how it is being used against us. We definitely need to turn the tables and I believe Jean can provide the missing elements to do that.

[seeker]

And let's face it, if you don't sign it, they 'sign' it for you!

Seeker

[charlene]

The author of this needs to study CONTRACT LAW.
Charlene

[KaosTheory]

So......the LAW applies to everyone within the "STATE".

Ok, here we go again.....

"Factually and only factually......What is the "STATE"?"

"Factually and only factually......What is a LAW?"

The problem that the author is having, is that he doesn't even know what a "STATE" is....or maybe he's hoping that his readers don't. He doesn't seem to know what a law is either.

Contract? If it ain't voluntary it ain't a contract.

KT

[weishaupt1776]

Anything written under duress does not constitute a valid signature or handwriting.