No office of person, No sui juris, No UCC

[Ice]

Deliberation: reflection, thought, consideraton, care, forethought, weighing up.
Antonym:Impulsiveness

Especially: particularly, in particular, specially, above all, more than ever, mainly, chiefly, principally.

Think on that when you consider "Assent".

"Assent implies agreement especially as a result of deliberation."

This cannot mean an impulsive act or that which is not done without careful consideration. So, if you haven't considered a matter, reflected upon it, given it forethought, weighed it... is there "assent''??

How long does it take to carefully consider a matter?

Are there not always more questions with all of this gobble dee gook?

Here's another difference we have. You allow all of these definitions and codes to muddle everything up. You refuse to believe, for some reason, that a Sovereign always remains a Sovereign until he declares otherwise. This is in the nature of Sovereignty.

There is only one other way that a Sovereign can lose that standing - ONLY ONE. And you have not approached it at all. You believe that sovereignty is contracted away... lost by assent... but that is an impossibility for a Sovereign.

The only other way a Sovereign can lose his Sovereignty is by an ACT OF WAR upon him. He is then chained into slavery. He then is forced to live in a system foreign to him. He is then a mere "Person"... a "Thing."

It is my belief that you have allowed that "system" to form your theory of Sovereignty being something that MUST be waived in order to contract with people or things of lesser class, standing or status.

Let me ask you this: Is there anything that stops you from taking any action whatsoever?

Does the law actually stop you from doing contrary to the law? No?

Then why is that not Sovereignty?

If you contract with someone... what holds you to the contract? Do you not have the ability to do contrary to the terms of the agreement? You do?

Then why is that not Sovereignty?

Just because a Sovereign contracts with a "lesser", it does not mean he has given up his Sovereignty because he still has all the attributes of the Sovereign and can take action.

My hand still has the ability to type, regardless of any contract, and it will type until it is dealt a fatal blow... which is an act of war.

Think on that and consider the slave. Does he not still have the ability to act? Does he not still have the ability to fight, to run and to do those things needed to be free? He does?

And, if he does them... is that not the act of a Sovereign?

If he does them not, is that not the act of someone that has given up his Sovereignty?

As I demonstrated in the opening of this post, anyone can cite definitions and codes and other things.

But very few truly understand what it means to be Sovereign.

It is not something you ever have to give away or change in order to "contract" --- unless you are a slave and your Master declares that to be the case. And if you are a slave... then you are not Sovereign.

When I walk into a room... it does not change my status as Sovereign. But you imply that it can because walking into that room puts me into some foreign jurisdiction and that jurisdiction somehow negates my Sovereignty.

That's hogwash... and deep down, you know it.

Take away all your codes, rules, regulations, UCC's and Maxims --- what are you left with?

You are left with your very own capacity to think for yourself. Is that not Sovereignty?

When you are done reading all those codes and such, the only thing that will have changed is that your mind will be filled with them. The mind is a funny thing... be careful what you put into it.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

Remember this should we ever meet: I will always retain my Sovereignty. Even should I cross the threshhold of your door and join you in ale, it will still be mine.

Ice

[Ice]

Allow me to add this one other note...

Some refer to the "sheeple" in this land as those that blindly fall into step with the evil masters that control their every movement and thought.

I refer to them as "sleepers" because they still have the ability to act as Sovereigns and only need to awakened to that fact.

If those sleepers woke up...

what would the result be?

Ice

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by Ice

Allow me to add this one other note...

Some refer to the "sheeple" in this land as those that blindly fall into step with the evil masters that control their every movement and thought.

I refer to them as "sleepers" because they still have the ability to act as Sovereigns and only need to awakened to that fact.

If those sleepers woke up...

what would the result be?

Ice

A Revolutionary WAR?

[ezrhythm]

Sheeple + Sleeper = Shleeple or Shleepers!

[charlesa6]

Yeah, stand corrected. Grin

[RickA]

Allow me to add this one other note...

Some refer to the "sheeple" in this land as those that blindly fall into step with the evil masters that control their every movement and thought.

I refer to them as "sleepers" because they still have the ability to act as Sovereigns and only need to awakened to that fact.

If those sleepers woke up...

what would the result be?

I would like to think as serious an asswhooping as has ever been seen, but I suspect the result will be tyranny in it's cruelest form....?

Ice

[Akira]

Sovereignty = free will

Originally Posted by Akira

Sovereignty = free will

What... pray tell ... is "free will"?

Jerry

[Codee]

Does the use of a name spelled with all capital letters, name a persona of a man engaged in a contractual relationship as to the point that one is under the jurisdiction of a government, acting in its proprietary capacity, and that government’s laws governing contracts? Think about the mysterious (U)nited States of America and how it relates to the use of Capitals.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
CAPITAL, political economy, commerce. In political economy, it is that portion of the produce of a country, which may be made directly available either to support the human species or to the facilitating of production.

The U.S. pledged its citizens as collateral to a debt and uses the citizens labor to pay the interest of a loan. The produce of the country would be all the goods one would sell, and the contracts one would enter into. The produce also is all of the corporations of which exist at the will of the government.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
CAPITAL, 2. In commerce, as applied to individuals, it is those objects, whether consisting of money or other property, which a merchant, trader, or other person adventures in an undertaking, or which he contributes to the common stock of a partnership. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1458.

(Notice “he” instead of “person”, the “he” is already considered to be using a persona when he contracts at all so no distinction is necessary.)
This is your contract, and the name of your persona and sometimes your money (Stock.) The partnership means there is a contract. The thing contributed was your “property” and consists of your fiction/persona. It usually does not mean however the reserve of a corporation as the next two definitions will illuminate.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
CAPITAL, 3. It signifies money put out at interest.

CAPITAL, 4. The fund of a trading company or corporation is also called capital, but in this sense the word stock is generally added to it; thus we say the capital stock of the Bank of North America.

[BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY]
LETTER, contracts. In the civil law, locator, and in the French law, locateur, loueur, or bailleur, is he who, being the owner of a thing, lets it out to another for hire or compensation. See Hire; Locator; Conductor; Story on Bailm. §369.

Have I really contributed/let capital to a “partnership just by contracting? (P.S. on the side it is also more evidence that “sui juris” means a “person” and particularly in a contractual sense.) Am I a "Capital Letter" when I contract. I think so but keep in mind that this is just me.
And after you have let your name to a contract it can be used virtually to the fullest extent to further that contract...

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
LETTERS. 2. According to the French and civil law, in virtue of the contract, the letter of a thing to hire impliedly engages that the hirer shall have the full use and enjoyment of the thing hired, and that he will fulfil his own engagements and trusts in respect to it, according to the original intention of the parties. This implies an obligation to deliver the thing to the hirer; to refrain from every obstruction to the use of it by the hirer during the period of the bailment; to do no act which shall deprive the hirer of the thing; to warrant the title and possession to the hirer, to enable him to use the thing or to perform the service;

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
PARTNERS, contracts. Persons who have united together and formed a partnership. 2. Every person sui juris is competent to contract the relation of a partner. An infant may by law be a partner. 5 B & A. 159

I will quickly relate this definition back to the argument earlier that when one contracts they are using a persona and that persona must “unite” with the partner to a contract. Can two people “unite” while still existing under different governing laws? Or must they unite under law in common (not “the common law”.) The Constitution put “interstate” commerce (commerce under multiple jurisdictions) under the authority of the federal government (One law in common to all.) I just cannot point out all the support to this “theory” however here is the definition of “unity (the concept of being united),” see if you follow my logic here.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
UNITY, estates. An agreement or coincidence of certain qualities in the title of a joint estate [contractual relation] or an estate in common.

So in order to be partners/parties to a contract the parties must have coincidence of certain qualities in common. Hmmm… sound like that divestment thing again.

Well that’s all great Cody but do I have to be a “persona” to contract. Yes. What kind of person and what laws are to govern however are up to your “conscious” decisions and/or your actions (contracting.) There are only parties and partners to a contract; they are synonymous with each other. Can a jurisdiction prosecute me under a corporate persona’s name (The one given in commerce/contracts?) And does that name “mean” contractual relation? Do not under estimate “his name AS partner” it is not “The use of his name.” Please, read on…

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
PARTNERS, 3. Partners are considered as ostensible, dormant, or nominal partners. 1. An actual ostensible partner is a party who not only participates, in the profits and contributes to the losses, but who appears and exhibits himself to the world as a person connected with the partnership, and as forming a component member of a firm. He is clearly answerable for the debts and engagements of, the partnership; his right to a share of the, profits, or the permitted exhibition of his name as partner, would be sufficient to render him responsible. 6 Serg. & Rawle, 259, 337; Barnard. 343; 2 Blackst. R. 998; 17 Ves. 404;. 18 Ves. 301; 1 Rose, 297; 16 Johns. R. 40; 3 Hayw. R. 78.

The partner is…
1) appears and exhibits himself to the world as a person.


AND

2) The partner is clearly answerable, but to what is he answerable to? The governing laws of the contract that is what.

[Codee]

Well here is “answer.”

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
ANSWER, pleading in equity. A defence in writing made by a defendant, to the charges contained in a bill or information, filed by the plaintiff against him in a court of equity. The word answer involves a double sense; it is one thing when it simply replies to a question, another when it meets a charge; the answer in equity includes both senses, and may be divided into an examination and a defence. In that part which consists of an examination, a direct and full answer, or reply, must in general be given to every question asked. In that part which consists of a defence, the defendant must state his, case distinctly; but is not required to give information respecting the proofs that are to maintain it. Gresl . Eq. Ev. 19. [BOLD] Is it not weird that the spelling of defense has been changed.

To “meet” a charge the defendant must be brought “under” jurisdiction (the same level as the prosecution.)

And what did the old spelling of “defence” entail.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
DEFENCE, 2. Defence is of two descriptions; first half defence, which is as follows, "venit et defendit vim et injuriam, et dicit," &c.; or secondly, full defence, "venit et defendit vim et injuriam, quando," &c. meaning "quando et ubi curia consideravit," (or when and where it shall behoove him,) " et damna et quicquid quod ipse defendere debet et dicit," &c. Co. Litt. 127, b; Bac. Abr. Pleas, D Willis, 41.

DEFENCE,3. In strictness, the words quando, &c. ought not to be added when only half defence is to be made; and after the words "venit et defendit vim et injuriam," the subject matter of the plea should immediately be stated. Gilb. C. P. 188; 8 T. R. 6 3 2; 3 B. & P. 9, n. a.

DEFENCE,5. If full defence were made expressly by the words "when and where it shall behoove him," and "the damages and whatever else he ought to defend," the defendant would be precluded from pleading to the jurisdiction or in abatement, for by defending when and where it shall behoove him, the defendant acknowledges the jurisdiction of the court and by defending the damages he waives all. exception to the person of the plaintiff. 2 Saund. 209, c.; 3 Bl. Com. 297 Co. Litt. 127, b Bac. Abr. Pleas, D.

Waives all exceptions to the person of the plaintiff? Oh yeah BABY!!! If you have “united”/contracted with this plaintiff then you cannot claim to be sovereign when the plaintiff is not!!!!!!!!!!!!(That means period.) It amazes me that I have never read this quote before anywhere in the patriot movement yet seems to be one of the oldest “in personam” and a good “subject matter” jurisdiction cites out there.” So the plaintiff is not “a person”, but “a person(a)” is something that the plaintiff possesses (“of the plaintiff”.) Gives more legitimacy to “In Rem”, eh? Hmmm… Back to more on partners to contracts.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
PARTNERS, 6. A partner in a private commercial partnership cannot introduce a stranger [foreign jurisdiction] into the firm as a partner without the consent of all the copartners [Everyone must agree to be under the same laws.] If he should attempt to do so, this may make such stranger a partner with the partner who has associated with such third person; this will be a partnership, distinct from the first, and limited to the share of that partner who has so joined himself with another. 2 Rose 255; Domat, de la Societe, tit. 8, s. 2, n. 5.

One last citation to show that “partners” or “parties” to the contract are bound by the status of the lowest rank/personage/jurisdiction of the two.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
PARTNERS, 8. Partners are bound by what is done by “one” in the course of the business of the partnership. Their liability under contracts is commensurate and coextensive with their rights. Although the general rule of law is, that no one is liable upon any contract except such as are privy to it; yet this is not contravened by the liability of partners, as they are imagined virtually present at and sanctioning the proceedings they singly enter into in the course of trade; or as each is vested with a power enabling him to act, at once as principal and as the authorized agent of his copartners.

It should be pretty clear that the state power to act as your “authorized” agent.

If you partner with me you might be a partner to a partner to a third party (the STATE.) So when you enforce your contract with me it will be under the UCC. Lets say I buy a bottle of liquor from the liquor store and I am twenty years old, and I hurt myself with the liquor. I cannot sue the store under my own private law because the commercial transaction was placed under UCC by the fact that they had a license and were incorporated under the state which requires its license and the notoriously gave notice by taxing the product under the corporate state law, and I cannot sue the store under anything other then the corporate laws of the state the store was incorporated under.

(Totally independent) Ok the definition of person means to have “rank (look rank up)”. Calling one’s self “Propria Persona” or “Sui Juris” is to rank your self in society.

Could it be that they are not charging the man who has sovereign immunity but it is an in rem porceding against his “persona.”

Are the statutes “at large” (without restraint) because they are not constrained by the constitution because they exist under plenary powers of the contractual corporate state?