No office of person, No sui juris, No UCC

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Satori

Doesn't the Constitution secure (not grant, obviously) unalienable rights? If these rights are God-given and impossible to give away even by choice, what possible set of circumstances could legitimately allow one's standing in law to be lowered to meet that of another, even just in a single matter?

Originally Posted by Codee

This is in error I believe. I have been given the right to life by god. I can CHOOSE to give it away by putting a gun in my mouth and pulling the trigger. This truth is self-evident to me.

Originally Posted by Satori

Here we get into speculative metaphysics, but I think you were given the right to existence by the Creator. I think that existence is not contingent upon your mortal frailties.

Words are getting interchanged which shouldn’t be. “The Right to Existence” may not be dependent upon mortal frailties however the “Right to Life” is what was secured by the constitution and the “Right to Life” is dependent upon mortal frailties, that is what the definition of mortal is. This example should not be confused with metaphysics, I am talking about the physical act of shooting ones self. It is the laws of nature which cannot be broken under the law. Here is what cannot be done. This is some Latin maxims so I will want to find it elsewhere later.

Originally Posted by BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 7th Ed. (1999), Appendix A, pp. 1615-1701 @ p. 1653:

Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The law does not compel to impossible ends.

Lex non intendi aliquid impossibile. The law does not intend anything impossible.

Lex neminem cogit ad vana seu inutilia peragenda. The law forces no one to do vain or useless things.

Originally Posted by BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed. (13th Reprint 1998), p. 756

Impossibilium nulla obligatio est [pronunciation omitted]. There is no obligation to do impossible things.

And this following code section should be seen as a limitation on the government ability to enforce law. Not as a “right” in some someway. When an agency, or something, is trying to mandate an impossible performance from a man, that man should not say “I have the right not to do it because of Civil Code Blah, Blah…” Rather the man should say “You do not have the limited prescribed authority to require me to do that. You have been prevented from acting from these codes which chain you and provide me with nothing.” In the first way of answering you have accepted a protection benefit from the state and in the later answer you have only noticed the entity with it’s lack of authority. Also in the later answer you have not defended yourself nor wielded a protective right in defense. You are still not a defendant or a party to the action. Your stance could have been revealed by anyone and anyone can give notice. Your protections reside in you and it is up to you to protect yourself with the law that is not written, but resides in you too, and with the state that resides in you. Use the codes as controls not as protections.

Originally Posted by CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED, CIVIL CODE (2000), Section 3531

"The law never requires impossibilities.

Originally Posted by CIVIL CODE (2000) Section 1597

"IMPOSSIBILITY, WHAT. Everything is deemed possible except that which is impossible in the nature of things."

Originally Posted by BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed. (13th Reprint, 1998), pp. 755-756 read in part

Impossibility. That which, in the constitution and course of nature or the law, no person can do or perform.
Impossibility is of the following several sorts:
An act is physically impossible when it is contrary to the course of nature. Such an impossibility may be either absolute, i.e., impossible in any case, (e.g., to stop earth rotation) or relative (sometimes called "impossibility in fact"), i.e., arising from the circumstances of the case (e.g., for A. to make a payment to B., he being a deceased person). To the latter class belongs what is sometimes called "practical impossibility," which exists when the act can be done, but only at an excessive or unreasonable cost. An act is legally or juridically impossible when a rule of law makes it impossible to do it; e.g., for A. to make a valid will before his majority. This class of acts must not be confounded with those which are possible, although forbidden by law, as to commit a theft. An act is logically impossible when it is contrary to the nature of the transaction, as where A. gives property to B. expressly for his own benefit, on condition that he transfers it to C. See also Legal Impossibility.
...
It is now recognized that a thing is impossible in legal contemplation when it is not practicable; and a thing is impracticable when it can only be done at an excessive and unreasonable cost. Transatlantic Fin. Corp. v. United States, 363 F.2d 312, 315.
...

Originally Posted by Satori

Ultimately, it might be a moot point anyway, as many do choose to destroy their own existences (souls) through the choices they make. You seem to have a point, but the case instance is less than tangible. Let's try the other one.

Ok the point is just this:

Originally Posted by satori

Doesn't the Constitution secure (not grant, obviously) unalienable rights? If these rights are God-given and impossible to give away…

The Constitution secures the right to *Life*, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that God gave them. However I can waive my right to life by voluntarily killing myself and some cases by just mere lack of will to live. How can suicide not be considered a waiver of the right to life?” freedom is birthed as an idea when one declares to themselves that they are independent. Freedom grows in to a state when one declares it to others and enforces it with acts, all with the knowledge of independence counseling his acts.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Codee

I think I can also choose to give up my liberty or anything else.

Originally Posted by Satori

Hmm. Perhaps I get where you're going on this. I have friends in the BDSM scene, and some of them contract with each other to give up their liberty. But in doing so, they're excercising their liberty to give up their liberty. It comes across to me as psychological paper-shuffling from one pile to another, and it makes my head hurt. Isn't it paradoxical to have to have the liberty to give up your liberty in order to have had liberty in the first place? It's as if the concept of liberty has been set at odds against itself. "If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so heavy he himself can't lift it?"

No it does not seem paradoxical to me. Lets say you have a dollar in your pocket. That dollar is yours until you give it away. Same thing with liberty. When you choose with contract to give up liberty then you don’t have it anymore. Now most persons aren’t allowed by procedure in the states of this country to contract for liberty. Only the state of sovereigns is allowed to this. That is why everything must be prosecuted in their name. As for the god paradox I am not sure where “all powerful” comes from but seems that if the phrase was taken at face value then I would ask “Why couldn’t he make a race of man that didn’t sin all the time?” So I do think God (Hebrew) has his limitations somewhat because he spends the first half of the Bible being mad all the time. So are you asking can god cut off a certain part of his/him power/himself and not get it back as part of him again? I would ass-u-me so though I am no expert in these matters, since I can cut off my finger and watch it die and I am not ever going to get it back after that, and I was built in gods image. But perhaps souls don’t work like minds and bodies. I do not know. But now we are getting into metaphysics.

Originally Posted by Codee

By allowing you to give up some rights and contract is fulfilling your right to happiness and liberty.

[quote=Satori]
It just seems like such a set-up, particularly with the state of the Union.[/QUOTE=Satori]
Well Satori I ask you this. How can you have public servants and compel them to perform and make them take oaths and file bonds/promises if he cannot be allowed to sacrifice some of his freedoms? I think the rule your mind is wanting is that no should be able to force another to-give up, or have taken from them, those freedoms.

Originally Posted by Codee

Then what recourse does the servant have if the master can rule over one party with powers not a part of the contract? If there is no recourse possible then what good is the contract?

Originally Posted by Satori

If he be truly a master, a contract would be unneccessary. Masters and servants, generally, though, are beneath the dignity of those in American common law.

In the past Rome had master/servant relations. Back in that society there was sui juris and “not under the authority of another” and “another” meant another one man, but not the state. A servant/slave was not sui juris and had no power to contract. I believe this is the way it was done in most slave keeping societies.

Originally Posted by Satori

If they be equal private Citizens, one rendering a service to another, then we have simple hire between two equals and the problem of unequal standing is aleviated.

The real question is “What makes them “equal” citizens?” The equalizer is the placing of both parties under the same law for the purposes of the contract generally. Specific terms of the contract however will often override a more general term or even process with force of law. That is to say that the law they create with the instrument itself does not need to treat both parties with absolute equitable fairness, just fairness of the general laws applying to the contracts such as enforceability of contract or, standing to contract, and things like that.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Codee

Yes. The constitution is not the source of the law, you are. If you want to contract your rights away you cannot rely on another of your contracts to save you. The constitution offers protections and gives services to Citizens and persons, not sovereigns. No where in that document does it mention protections for sovereigns. If you want to be a party to the constitution you must devise yourself to the level of Citizen or person

Originally Posted by Satori (My emphasis in blue)

" ...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved upon the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country... with none to govern but themselves." Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

Originally Posted by earlier post of Satori

I get that sovereignty rests with the People, plural, rather than a single sovereign,

Sovereignty does reside in the people individually. Look at the paragraph you cited from Chrisholm v. Georgia. Look at the word “themselves.” If “the people” meant the “state of people” then the statement means even though the state was sovereign then it could not for some reason govern over the men under it. This logic doesn’t fit right and seems arbitrary. If the “Themselves” refers to people individually then the statement would be read to mean that each man is sovereign, but not over each other. And this logic does make sense and does not seem like two rules arbitrarily stuck together.

Originally Posted by Satori

The Constitution was devised to secure rights, not create nor grant them. Securing god-given rights is different than granting protections to subordinates owing fealty; this might be the primary distinction between the original, organic Constitution and the later mock-up. The Constitution was drafted to secure rights given by the Creator, was in fact a set of express limitations upon government rather than a list of the rights of the People, and this is why the ennumeration of these pre-existing rights did not limit nor preclude other rights held by people who became Citizens of the Union.

I liked your contracting example. For brevity, let me snip down to the relevant quote to which I wanted to respond.

Originally Posted by Codee

When we contract we have to know what laws are applying to the contract because as men we do not have the power to just kill one another over an equitable dispute. We have to agree to be under the SAME law and I cannot give you the law that is above you, so I must come down to your level (level playing field) to place us under THE SAME laws.

Originally Posted by Satori

And it's just that the same laws, within the Union, are the laws of the state we share, and if we're in different states, the federal policies. They exist to moderate interstate commerce as a public service to the people for whom their offices exist.

Yes. The federal procedures apply to disputes (Unwritten to implied contracts, like a crime creates a type contractual relation with the victim who has been deprived and needs accord on that deprivation) between those under different laws at the time or for its own Municipal Citizenry. Allowing two different states to contract under the same law and the ability to define that law, is the fundamental principle behind the constitution, and gave the states the power to really unite. If two people from different states contract it is the laws of the state where the contract was signed and entered in to which usually will determine the laws governing the contract.
The tendency for them lately to call every private activity “commerce” doesn't suddenly put it in their venue.
The playing field/battle field is the analogy that is used in court. They will usually usher all of the “defendants” off the battlefield before their officers leave the “court.” Now you will go to this administrative court where they have already determined some presumptions. One of these is these is that you are the receiver of a benefit from a contractual relationship. “He who benefits should also bear the disadvantage.” On a battle field in Roman times the high ground was the advantageous position to have. Is this why the magistrate sits on an elevated thrown? Is it noticing me that I am at a disadvantage before the “trial” even starts? These are the administrative courts.

Originally Posted by Satori

it's just another paltry excuse for extortion under color of law and authority. So as Citizens of States of the Union, we retain an equal standing in law and have the same laws. Mind you, the subtlety of the federal government moderating interstate commerce (that involving financial gain instead of simple hire or contract law) rather than interpersonal relations seems to indicate that that anything else was moderated simply by the common law.

They don’t even need to claim that you have made financial gain for them to start claiming interstate commerce authority. Read the California marijuana case again. Nobody needs to be selling anything to invoke commerce clause was there ruling. All they need is for you to be a person under that law. Have you contracted to be under that law? Maybe.

And back to these “courts” and persons. The incorporated courts are persons that can sue and be sued. However “the court” has been changed from the tribunal part to the service provider of the business court. The magistrate is an agent for the business and the lawyers represent the other businesses. The magistrate and lawyers are all agents and contractors of some legal persons, they have devised themselves to that to come there and “do business” as the judicial council authorized them to do. Do you want to join their playing field? Do not contract with these persons and grant them their law for the terms of the contract. How do you contract with a magistrate? I believe the devil book UCC describes a contract, as the effectual part of an agreement or some thing like that (Sorry I don’t have that exact quote right now, I will edit it in later). After you contract with a judge you are a public servant standing just like he. So a contract might be any offer to you to which you reply OK. The magistrate might offer you any one of many attractive things and if you think “well, just one won’t hurt.” Think again.

Chain of authority.
God--> State of I Am --> State of We Are --> State of We Are government --> State of We are governmental officers --> State of We Are Incorporated --> State of We are Incorporated employees / contractors *** There is no going up the chain, only down!
When people from the STATE OF and the State of contract what law is it under if not explicitly stated? What state was it signed in? Are you contracting in that state/doing business while claiming non-residency?

One last thing to think about. Common law always seems to be used as a defense. Why is that? Is it because the Magna Carta is such a big piece of the common law? Think about being sovereign. Who was sovereign under the common law of England? Did the common law protect the sovereign or the subjects?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ICE

If you believe you are "Sovereign" and not a "person", the Waitress has no idea ... she just accepts that she is a "person" and the owner of the restaraunt could care less about such matters because he's only interested in the profits that come through his register... how is a contract possible when YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED to change and have the unalienable right to keep your "class", "status" or "standing" as "Sovereign"?

1) as an “employee” the waitress is a person and has an employee contract under the laws of some state that require her to be a person while engaged in the performance of her employment contract. She cannot just be sovereign and act in performance of the contract. She has clipped sovereignty and is a person for the terms of the contract.

2) No one ever makes a sovereign contract with a person.

By entering their restaurant you agree to be a person for all matters in commerce with that restaurant. That restaurant
is residing in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, not you sovereign state. You enter and place yourself under the same law as the business is “in”/under for the purposes of effectuating the contract. Sure the owner of the restaurant could care less about your sovereignty or anything because for his purposes you are a person and he will win on that in any tribunal proceeding if it is argued, even a common law venue.

Originally Posted by ICE

The point is that no one has to lower themself to any other status in order to "contract". You are what and who you are... regardless. This doesn't mean that you can't waive your rights in order to change your "class", "status" or "standing".

Right, one only descends for the effects of the contract.

Originally Posted by ICE

Your application for a license is not a contract (someone once told me SS app. is not a contract and in my ignorance I refused to believe them... however, I have grown more knowledgeable).

It may be true that the “application” is not a contract, but the “accepting of benefits” is where the contract is formed, not the application for benefits. What if there was an “implied consent contract.” Or a “residency contract” in there too that you did not see because they were “Implied” like committing and injurious crime on another?

Originally Posted by Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Consent

Consent: An agreement to something proposed, and differs from assent. (q. v.) Wolff, Ins. Nat. part 1, SSSS 27-30; Pard. Dr. Com. part 2, tit. 1, n. 1, 38 to 178. Consent supposes, 1. a physical power to act; 2. a moral power of acting; 3. a serious, determined, and free use of these powers. Fonb. Eq. B; 1, c. 2, s. 1; Grot. de Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. 2, c. 11, s. 6.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 (b) 3

"Agreement", as distinguished from "contract", means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade as provided in Section 1-303.

Originally Posted by Bouvier's Law Dictionary

BARGAIN AND SALE, conveyancing, contracts. This is the most common mode of conveyance in the United States.

Keep in mind UCC does not require "in writing" but accepts "inferred."

Originally Posted by Bouvier's Law Dictionary

CONVEYANCE, The instrument which conveys the property is also called a conveyance.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 (b) 12

"Contract", as distinguished from "agreement", means the total legal obligation that results from the parties' agreement as determined by [the Uniform Commercial Code] as supplemented by any other applicable laws.

Could you take a crack at that logic for me Ice. I do not doubt that you could be right, but I would appreciate your input as I do value your opinion even if you haven’t spent four years “studding”, “law.” (I understand it is something like 20yrs???)

[Ice]

First of all...

Any contract without full disclosure is void ab initio. They know and understand this. Therefore, there is no contract if, in fact, you are not given all of the specific terms of the contract. Well, since that didn't happen, where is the contract? Quite simply, there isn't one and never has been (void ab initio). Not even the accepting of a benefit can solidify this type of contract.

There is no reason that a Sovereign cannot contract or make an agreement with a "Person". Kings made contracts (agreements) with lesser people... did they not? If not, then how did they keep their throne? There was always "friends of the King" that watched his back... and in turn he did things for them, a lot of time, by private agreement. That doesn't mean that he became less than "King" to do so.

And, since a Sovereign is the only one that can waive his rights (or standing, status, class) then without declaring he has done so... it hasn't been done.

Even if the waitress is a person... it makes no difference to the Sovereign, nor can it alter his status by doing business with the restaraunt owner through the owners "agent", the waitress.

The definitions you cite tell the story of "what" those words mean... but do not tell the entire story. You also need the "how" those things operate.

Now a lot people will cite UCC... but I won't do that because it doesn't apply to me. I am Sovereign... not a fantasy. The UCC applies to illusions. (Check the word "fiction" and find that what I am really referring to here is the "deception" as a whole).

Why deal within the "fantasy"... the monopoly game? Stand outside of it. Move the pieces around the board. Watch them scurry along... one is the Hat, another the Car... and there goes the Thimble!!

Ice

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Ice

First of all...

Any contract without full disclosure is void ab initio. They know and understand this. Therefore, there is no contract if, in fact, you are not given all of the specific terms of the contract. Well, since that didn't happen, where is the contract? Quite simply, there isn't one and never has been (void ab initio). Not even the accepting of a benefit can solidify this type of contract.

My view is that full disclosure is not applicable. Full disclosure does not apply to laws governing contracts, only the provisions of the contract. All they have to do is notify you what set of laws are governing the contract. They can notice by simply signing the contract within the desired jurisdictional limits of the jurisdiction to govern the contract, they can fly/print a flag (maybe even a bar code is sufficent), give written notice as a stipulation to the contract. They do not however have to give you all the laws on the lex merchant, the UCC, or whatever is governing. It is up to you to know the laws, it is up to the contractor to supply the terms of the agreement.
The divestment does not occur because of “specific terms of the contract” it because of the “general laws” of contracting. So I would claim that accepting benefits does make the contract and what makes you subject as a person is not a hidden term.

2) On the side I do not think you need ab initio. That is the difference between “Void” and “voidable.” Void is void from the inception, voidable is void from the time of declaration.

Originally Posted by Ice

There is no reason that a Sovereign cannot contract or make an agreement with a "Person". Kings made contracts (agreements) with lesser people...

The reason is fairness or levelness.
Did the king make these contacts as “King Louie” or did he use his Christen name? The Kings and Popes were acting as corporate soles and were still contracting in there proprietary capacity. And how many contracts did the King sign himself? I am guessing not allot. I remember a story of a King who contracted with a bunch of “lesser men” and made a Magna Charta. I recall later that a King thought he would overturn the Magna Carta thinking he was still “supremely sovereign.” This later King also got a bunch of swords at his throat so what did he do, he contracted again to save his life. He was not sovereign anymore concerning the terms of the Magna Charta.
Think about this… If the King did not devise himself to the level of the thing contracted with how could anyone ever enforce the Magna Charta? I mean if the King stays sovereign after he signs the Magna Charta what is preventing him from declaring it void. Under the logic you have suggested I get the feeling the Magna Charta would have been lawfully repealed and that there would be no valid claim to it today. The only way we can have recourse with the Magna Charta is if we hold the King to the same obligation as that he is contracting with. Like I said I cannot stress this enough so here is the most overlooked quote in the sovereign movement (I take a little liberty with that I know.)

The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed. 244.
It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transaction of that company of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted.

Originally Posted by Ice

did they not? If not, then how did they keep their throne? There was always "friends of the King" that watched his back... and in turn he did things for them, a lot of time, by private agreement. That doesn't mean that he became less than "King" to do so.

1) Not all kings did keep their thrones and heads.
2) Maybe he had friends
3) If the King was no less than all powerful then how could you enforce an agreement with him.
At least one King felt he was above the contracts he made with men and also felt that he could not be forced to uphold his agreement as he was sovereign. Study the history of why there isConfirmio Cartarum: (1297) Just read the first paragraph on the linked site.

Originally Posted by Ice

And, since a Sovereign is the only one that can waive his rights (or standing, status, class) then without declaring he has done so... it hasn't been done.

The sovereign has silently declared that he has done so by contracting and placing/submitting himself under contract law.

Originally Posted by Ice

Even if the waitress is a person... it makes no difference to the Sovereign, nor can it alter his status by doing business with the restaraunt owner through the owners "agent", the waitress.

So what makes the sovereign pay for his meal?

Originally Posted by Ice

The definitions you cite tell the story of "what" those words mean... but do not tell the entire story. You also need the "how" those things operate.

I am not sure exactly what you are talking about… but if you elaborate it sounds worth investigating.

Originally Posted by Ice

Now a lot people will cite UCC... but I won't do that because it doesn't apply to me. I am Sovereign... not a fantasy. The UCC applies to illusions. (Check the word "fiction" and find that what I am really referring to here is the "deception" as a whole).

Why deal within the "fantasy"... the monopoly game? Stand outside of it. Move the pieces around the board. Watch them scurry along... one is the Hat, another the Car... and there goes the Thimble!!

Ice

1)Well that is a hoot. I just played Monopoly yesterday and I was the thimble.
2) I think you are agreeing with me then about the UCC stuff at least, no?
3) I just do not see anyevidence that one becomes a person due to a hidden office nor do I see any evidence that one becomes a person due to an undisclosed term of a contract. Is there any real proof for these positions? I would like to study the material that leads to that school of thought but all I have found is conjecture.

Thank you Ice for elaborating. Take care.
God Bless

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Codee

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]. Full disclosure does not apply to laws governing contracts, only the provisions of the contract. All they have to do is notify you what set of laws are governing the contract. They can notice by simply signing the contract within the desired jurisdictional limits of the jurisdiction to govern the contract, they can fly/print a flag (maybe even a bar code is sufficent), give written notice as a stipulation to the contract. They do not however have to give you all the laws on the lex merchant, the UCC, or whatever is governing. It is up to you to know the laws, it is up to the contractor to supply the terms of the agreement.
The divestment does not occur because of “specific terms of the contract” it because of the “general laws” of contracting. So I would claim that accepting benefits does make the contract and what makes you subject as a person is not a hidden term.

2) On the side I do not think you need ab initio. That is the difference between “Void” and “voidable.” Void is void from the inception, voidable is void from the time of declaration.


The reason is fairness or levelness. [Whoever taught you that "life" was "fair"??? Or even "had" to be?]
Did the king make these contacts as “King Louie” or did he use his Christen name? The Kings and Popes were acting as corporate soles and were still contracting in there proprietary capacity. And how many contracts did the King sign himself? [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?] I am guessing not allot. I remember a story of a King who contracted with a bunch of “lesser men” and made a Magna Charta. I recall later that a King thought he would overturn the Magna Charta thinking he was still “supremely sovereign.” This later King also got a bunch of swords at his throat so what did he do, he contracted again to save his life. He was not sovereign anymore concerning the terms of the Magna Charta.
Think about this… If the King did not devise himself to the level of the thing contracted with how could anyone ever enforce the Magna Charta? I mean if the King stays sovereign after he signs the Magna Charta what is preventing him from declaring it void. Under the logic you have suggested I get the feeling the Magna Charta would have been lawfully repealed and that there would be no valid claim to it today. The only way we can have recourse with the Magna Charta is if we hold the King to the same obligation as that he is contracting with. Like I said I cannot stress this enough so here is the most overlooked quote in the sovereign movement (I take a little liberty with that I know.) [hmmm... a King contracted with "lesser" people in the Magna Charta?? YOU DON'T SAY!!]

1) Not all kings did keep their thrones and heads.
2) Maybe he had friends
3) If the King was no less than all powerful then how could you enforce an agreement with him. [gee... the King couldn't have an agreement forced upon him? Sure he could... he is a "man", right?]
At least one King felt he was above the contracts he made with men and also felt that he could not be forced to uphold his agreement as he was sovereign. Study the history of why there isConfirmio Cartarum: (1297) Just read the first paragraph on the linked site.

The sovereign has silently declared that he has done so by contracting and placing/submitting himself under contract law.

[I disagree. The Sovereign has only exercised his right to contract... PERIOD.]

So what makes the sovereign pay for his meal?

[His agreement. If he 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?]


I am not sure exactly what you are talking about… but if you elaborate it sounds worth investigating.

[Defining a word does not, in itself, explain anything. To define the word "contract" is only a part of the explaination... the "rules", "regulations" and "law" governing "contract" are the rest of the explaination... the "how" they operate part. If there is not full disclosure or if "fraud" be found... any contract or agreement is void.]

1)Well that is a hoot. I just played Monopoly yesterday and I was the thimble.
2) I think you are agreeing with me then about the UCC stuff at least, no? [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.]
3) I just do not see anyevidence that one becomes a person do to a hidden office nor do I see any evidence that one becomes a person due to an undisclosed term of a contract. Is there any real proof for these positions? I would like to study the material that leads to that school of thought but all I have found is conjecture.

Thank you Ice for elaborating. Take care.
God Bless

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 think it must be. Don't you?

Ice
Don't you just love these types of conversations?? How many folks do you think are checking into the actual details of what we are discussing? Only the serious people, I'm sure.

[Codee]

My response to ICE follows this essay.
Written by Cody James; His family is Roberts.

Sorry I had my ale first again. ****!”

Standing, Jurisdiction and Venue, How all three must be on a level playing field.
(Where we are/venue needs to be the same. What level/standing we are on needs to be the same. And what law/jurisdiction must be the same.)

Level/Standing: Things must be on a similar level to interact. That principle is what kept Tesla alive when he stood amidst 1000s of volts of energy. The energy was on an incompatible frequency. The frequency/status of the energy had to come down to hurt Tesla despite of all the electricity’s force/power. Tesla and the electricity could not connect. Imagine now a fifty foot tall man walking up to someone and that someone and the fifty foot tall person wants to shake hands. What will happen? More than likely the fifty foot tall man would have to bend/come down to interact with the man “below” him. It is not natural to think that the shorter man should somehow jump up that high. Ascension comes from internal growth, not from contract. Contracts bind. The constitution bound the Feds with the states and your contracts bind you under law to other “persons.” The federal government in America is limited and low in standing. Being lower means more above and more pressure on that which is below. That is why lower/limited governments should not be able to do as much. They are chained and pressured and that makes it hard to move around and act. Similarly fractions cannot be added together until they both are reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Venue/Place: Also in order to “meet” or associate two parties must have a/one place to meet. In law the place of decision of the contract is the venue. Imagine trying to shake hands with someone in another state. It will not happen. Try to enforce a California born contract in/with another state, it will not happen. Venue is where two parties “presume” to meet to decide the contract in which they have an interest.

All uppercase names: = a contracting party to a contract governed by STATE procedure and is being administered as such.

The all upper-case name is the name of the “persona” assigned to an individual when the individual creates a lower persona via contract/association

1) Contracts publicly
2) Is employed for compensation to do the act complained of. (These two things are really the same since employment public corporation is a public contract in itself. And very rarely does one contract with another in their sovereign capacity and exclude the state so as not to devise themselves by standing of the law that those sovereigns choose as a term too such contract.)

I will state that is my belief that any injury one inflicts by way of crime creates a contract relationship between the victim and the violator and is such that the public has an interest in the violator’s end of the contract only. The contract is implied and exists only to serve the ends of justice in favor of the victim.

Generally when one contracts they make the state a silent third party, because it is the state that will be responsible to enforce the contract with its courts and marshals and agents. The silent presumed party of the state makes the contract a public contract This is a public contract and all of the parties must be placed under one Uniform Law. If the state is a party the contract cannot exist at common law AT ALL!!! The State is not a creature known at common law. There was no de jure state of sovereigns by constitution in England common law. So the state would have no rights, no obligations nor any definition at common law. What law can the sovereign man enter? Only the subjects of government can enjoy common law. So two sovereigns cannot just say, “This contract is under common law,” because the presumption that the state is an enforcement party has not been rebutted by your contract. It is too late to try to exclude the State after it is a party to the contract just as you would not be able to exclude the first, or second party to the contract after the fact. Divestment occurs when the sovereign government (For the individual sovereign the self-government) contracts with another party of a “lower” or maybe more accurately maybe a “more limited” person. So when the state, which always acts in its corporate fictional capacity contracts, it uses its fictional name and gives one to you to give notice to the FACT that the man has fallen to the status of the corporate state and the “fallen man” will not be considered in his sovereign capacity under either, Christian /or, common law. Understand that when contracts are concerned the UCC which the state is under is more mandatory for the state to follow then your chosen law is for you, and the UCC is also more limiting and more specific terms then other laws are. Specifics contribute quite a bit in determining statutory/written/contract law. And also remember that your own private internal laws do not apply when “interacting” or “interCONTRacting.”
So where is the proof and reasons that the state needs to have a name for persons engaged in the two activities I listed above.

"Agency, or party sitting for the agency, (which would be the magistrate of a municipal court) has no authority to enforce as to any licensee unless he is acting for compensation. Such an act is highly penal in nature, and should not be construed to include anything which is not embraced within its terms. (Where) there is no charge within a complaint that the accused was employed for compensation to do the act complained of, or that the act constituted part of a contract. " Schomig v. Kaiser, 189 Cal 596.

The act should not be included to embrace the “accused” when there is no charge that the accused was employed for compensation. Now the accused could be a sovereign man, but the code does not embrace him absent the contract OR a leveling with the state as a party. If you have contracted with the state you have created another “person(a),”, or more specific way of dealing with society (include definition of persona in here somewhere) under the laws of the STATE. So the state assigns this new persona a name.

Originally Posted by Cal Jur (notice the name is not given, it only consists partly of a name given.

Volume 46, CALIFORNIA JURISPRUDENCE, THIRD EDITION, NAMES.
Section 1. In general; what constitutes a personal name.
A personal name is a designation assigned to or assumed by an individual, and it serves to distinguish him from others [1].

The contract is under the laws of the state because the state can only do what a statute allows and that includes contracting. Different names presume different person(a)s.

Volume 46, CALIFORNIA JURISPRUDENCE, THIRD EDITION, NAMES.
Section 3. Identity of name
… Different names presumptively indicate different persons [19. Brum v Ivins, 154 C 17, 96 P 876.];

By charging you under the ALL CAPS NAME they are noticing (They are not giving notice, they are noticing who you are by what you did.) that you are not entitled to all your rights in your capacity as Christen Man, but rather in your personal capacity. What else gives silent judicial notice that the accused is different then the sovereign posterity, and that he is a “person” under statutory governing law by way of contract. That is all it takes to get you, a contract with an inferior status then you want exist at.

The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed. 244.
It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transaction of that company of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted.

If that status truly is beneath you then why on Earth would you contract it and make deals with it. Even street gangs look “down” on contracting with the enemy. Do you stick your hand in every pile of dog doo? No! It’s gross so don’t contact/contract it. (Contract, like in acquire an inferior little germ.)

[Codee]

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

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.

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?]

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.

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.

[Codee]

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.

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.

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) m