No office of person, No sui juris, No UCC

[Codee]

Charlsea6, Akira, Jerry Pitts,Big AL,ezrhythm and RickA welcome to the thread.

Protecting One’s Ass in Society.

Ice,

Originally Posted by Ice

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

Law. I am left with whatever governing law there is for where that contract took place. If you take away law too what you are left with is no effective way of dealing with your world and somebody bigger than you is going to come along and kick the crap out of you for no reason and then tell me how sovereign you are while laying in an unimproved street bleeding to death after being mugged. And who will help you. Well not the society which was running on rules. If you want no rules or codes or law around go tribal and leave society. Be a man and not a person. When in Rome...

Your theories on personal Sovereignty are right on. The power is within me to do as I may until I can't (Act of War) or I voluntarily decide not to do something. I guess in this sense of the word one's sovereignty is clipped only by one's conscience, morals, and personal deliberations. Even slaves have this personal sovereignty. A slave can choose as he will how much of societies laws he will adhere to and what wrath he will endure. If you use your own law for interactions then society will declare war on you and fines or prison time will abound.

While submersed in a collective state the individuals communicate with words. These words are defined with definitions so that people can reasonably communicate with one another.

And on the note of definitions I must use defined words to communicate. These definitions are the ones people have been using, that is why they’re in the dictionary. If one is going to be in society one must be able to communicate.

As far as codes go I do not think that society of free men in this country intend for men or sovereign persons to be subject to codes. The American society will place man under common law for his actions and under contract law for his agreements.

I do think however that what I am talking about is a man in a society and how his sovereignty stands amongst his fellow men.

[http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm]
PERSON...In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

Men created a sovereign state so that the largest most domineering sovereigns do not get to enforce the “might makes right” doctrines. This state is created by the will and minds of the free people. The state is sovereign in that it is collective to offer protection to the people from war, to induce war to better the standing of the men, and also it is to provide foundational law to sovereigns who interact. While I am in society and surrounded by fellow men we will have cause to interact. Where is the authority of this state? It is in the men who create it. Those men want the state, create the state, and power the state. The state is not to exist for the sole protection of one. It does not exist so as to aid one person in acquiring a fortune. THE STATE CAN BE USED AS WEAPON AGAINST AN AFRONT ON SOCIETY. If some rogue sovereign comes to the land of the state (territorial jurisdiction) and thinks he will contract there but not adhere to the laws created by the sovereigns which govern contracts, that is an affront to that society and society now wants to protect the contracted person who is not “at large.” The state will come down on the sovereign and charge him with violation of law and lock his sovereign butt up. However if the sovereign never takes from society nor contracts with or within that society, then the society never has standing to enforce against you according t that societies own rules.

Now if you want to be personally sovereign without a state that is fine. If you hurt someone and that someone claims such, there is a problem for you. The state men is much larger then the state of a man. If you acted contrary to the rules of society or humanity while amongst the society then that society will punish you. Your only recourse is to use that society’s rules when engaging in societal doings. The power of thousands and millions of sovereigns will dominate that of the individual sovereign. If the sovereign individual does not like the laws of humanity and society he may eject himself from such standing and cease to be a person. Ultimately when in society will leave you alone unless you contract with it. This is international law of the states and the states collectively enforce international law or the law of humanity (not statute.) Society even will take an interest in protecting a foreigner’s interest in a contract because it strengthens the moral fabric of society and allows for better production when contracts are enforced. However society will not enforce the contract of an enemy to the state because the state does not protect an enemy of the people.

[http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_p.htm]
PARTIES, 11. The contracts of alien enemies may in, general be avoided, except when made under the license of the government, either express or implied. 1 Kent, Com. 104. See 15 John. 6; Dougl. 641. As to the persons who make contracts in equity, see Newl. Cont. c. 1, pp. l to 33.

Now not every interaction is a contract with society. You must receive a societal benefit. Says who? Society, the thing that is going to kick your ass. How did society say so, through custom. That is why custom or common law is such great thing.

I will just say that a contract is not intrapersonal. A contract is interpersonal and you cannot have your own individual sovereignty when contracting to do things with another.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Codee

Ice,

Law. I am left with whatever governing law there is for where that contract took place. [Is not the law of nature unwritten? And to get religious... is not the law "written upon their hearts"??] If you take away law too what you are left with is no effective way of dealing with your world and somebody bigger than you is going to come along and kick the crap out of you for no reason and then tell me how sovereign you are while laying in an unimproved street bleeding to death after being mugged. And who will help you. Well not the society which was running on rules. If you want no rules or codes or law around go tribal and leave society. Be a man and not a person. When in Rome... [I dare someone to even attempt to try and kick my Sovereign ass! They'll find out what "self defense" is all about!... and it won't be pretty. The only one that you can really depend on to protect you is You. And it used to be that "families" looked out for each other. Now you know why it was so important for the gov. to interfere with and initiate the breaking up of "family".]

Your theories on personal Sovereignty are right on. The power is within me to do as I may until I can't (Act of War) or I voluntarily decide not to do something. I guess in this sense of the word one's sovereignty is clipped only by one's conscience, morals, and personal deliberations. [Ahh... now your eyes open!] Even slaves have this personal sovereignty. A slave can choose as he will how much of societies laws he will adhere to and what wrath he will endure. If you use your own law for interactions then society will declare war on you and fines or prison time will abound. [No... the slave has only one decision to make... remain a slave or be sovereign. He becomes Sovereign by declaring that he picks up that mantle and then fights to retain it, to hold it, to BE it.]

While submersed in a collective state the individuals communicate with words. These words are defined with definitions so that people can reasonably communicate with one another.

And on the note of definitions I must use defined words to communicate. These definitions are the ones people have been using, that is why they’re in the dictionary. If one is going to be in society one must be able to communicate. [But the words you are defining have no place in my jurisdiction... or the jurisdiction of any other Sovereign. If the "gov" wants to communicate to me then it will be according to "normal" usage of words and not with trickery or deceit.]

As far as codes go I do not think that society of free men in this country intend for men or sovereign persons to be subject to codes. The American society will place man under common law for his actions and under contract law for his agreements. [ Even "contract law" will fall under "common law"... are not agreements and contracts a pretty "common" thing? Remember what you said earlier... the part about "morals" and "conscience"?? The People can decide what is just and fair without having to wade through tons of codes, rules or regulations (that don't always prove to be from the minds of "moral" men with a "conscience" and if were not in place would allow the People to make a "just" decision) ]

I do think however that what I am talking about is a man in a society and how his sovereignty stands amongst his fellow men.

Men created a sovereign state so that the largest most domineering sovereigns do not get to enforce the “might makes right” doctrines. [ Absolutely, I believe this was the intent. ] This state is created by the will and minds of the free people. The state is sovereign in that it is collective to offer protection to the people from war, to induce war to better the standing of the men, and also it is to provide foundational law to sovereigns who interact. [ The state is not Sovereign... for it must abide by the will of the People. The state is only "delegated" certain "responsibilities"... it is not and never can be Sovereign because of the FACT that it is under the direct control of the Sovereigns that created and maintain it. ] While I am in society and surrounded by fellow men we will have cause to interact. Where is the authority of this state? It is in the men who create it. Those men want the state, create the state, and power the state. The state is not to exist for the sole protection of one. It does not exist so as to aid one person in acquiring a fortune. THE STATE CAN BE USED AS WEAPON AGAINST AN AFRONT ON SOCIETY. [ This is what the People are responsible for... to maintain, to keep a watchful eye, to make sure that Tyranny does not take a foot hold and that the state remains in its place. The state can never "rule" its rulers. ] If some rogue sovereign comes to the land of the state (territorial jurisdiction) and thinks he will contract there but not adhere to the laws created by the sovereigns which govern contracts, that is an affront to that society and society now wants to protect the contracted person who is not “at large.” The state will come down on the sovereign and charge him with violation of law and lock his sovereign butt up. However if the sovereign never takes from society nor contracts with or within that society, then the society never has standing to enforce against you according t that societies own rules. [ Who claims that men cannot hear a cause between other men? Not I. But is it not up to the men that form the jury to decide a man's fate when he is found guilty of injury? And, do you not think that "just" men would order "just" return and compensation to the injured party? Again, remember your earlier words: "morals", "conscience" ]

Now if you want to be personally sovereign without a state that is fine. If you hurt someone and that someone claims such, there is a problem for you. The state men is much larger then the state of a man. If you acted contrary to the rules of society or humanity while amongst the society then that society will punish you. Your only recourse is to use that society’s rules when engaging in societal doings. The power of thousands and millions of sovereigns will dominate that of the individual sovereign. If the sovereign individual does not like the laws of humanity and society he may eject himself from such standing and cease to be a person. Ultimately when in society will leave you alone unless you contract with it. This is international law of the states and the states collectively enforce international law or the law of humanity (not statute.) Society even will take an interest in protecting a foreigner’s interest in a contract because it strengthens the moral fabric of society and allows for better production when contracts are enforced. However society will not enforce the contract of an enemy to the state because the state does not protect an enemy of the people.
[ If you were in a foreign land.. would you not want the same treatment? Would you not want to be treated justly? Again... remember those earlier words. ]

Now not every interaction is a contract with society. You must receive a societal benefit. Says who? Society, the thing that is going to kick your ass. How did society say so, through custom. That is why custom or common law is such great thing. [ No one can force a benefit upon a man... ever. ]

I will just say that a contract is not intrapersonal. A contract is interpersonal and you cannot have your own individual sovereignty when contracting to do things with another.

The fact that you have a contract does not negate your Sovereignty. It is nothing more than an agreement with another to fulfill certain obligations with one another.

That a man can sign application for a DL or SS# and the very fact that the obligation(?) and benefit(?) that are therein can be changed at will by only ONE party... does not make that a contract. It makes it a "waiver" of rights. The man has given up his rights and any future rights that may be called for according to the changes that the ONE party makes... with or without his consent.

We do not need such large over burdensome and over bearing governments... not at the state or federal level. We are men. We know what is just and fair and how to treat others justly and fairly. We are Sovereign and can respect the Sovereignty of others. We do not need government to spell out rules and regulations that just make it more complicated to do so... we don't need a "government" to "tell" us how to be Sovereign. The government is our tool. It has 3 major duties. Do you know what they are?

Ice

[Ice]

There was a double posting... the forum is acting strange lately. I'm sure they'll get the technical stuff working right.

But since I'm here, let me add:

There will soon come a time when these huge governments will no longer be an interference in the lives of men. Men will be put into a situation of living as I have pointed out... or living as beasts. It will be up to each of us to decide.

But mark my words... all that gobble dee gook has done nothing but bring man to the brink of extinction. Those huge governments that so many people rely on will be the cause of their destruction.

The less gobble dee gook there is... the more chance we have of, not only surviving, but of living in peace and marching forward into an amazing future.

The mind of man ... when free ... can create wonderful things.

Ice

[Codee]

[quote]
[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary]
Person…A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. [quote]

Does this mean that society owes you NO rights if you are not a person? Absolutely that is what it means. The constitution nor statute does not create any obligation for the state to protect you if you are never a person. If you want something from the government for specific performance you must approach it as a person of its part. It has no interest in serving one man alone because it was not created/owned by one man alone. So if you are a person then you become recognized by the state as an equal corporation and has power to defend your corporate/public side. This is why I never rely on code or the constitution to tell me what I can or cannot do in any proceeding. All my divestment arguments are not found in these instruments of control. The argument exists under common law or the common practice of men amongst themselves. However it is also the common law which says we must bear the most specific governing laws (Even if the laws just govern one parties acts then they govern the contract especially when the specific code ALLOWS the second party to contract in the first place.) Take this example. Lets say you contract with the D.M.V. for a drivers license. Then you want to enforce any violation by the state, under strict common law. The D.M.V. gets to claim that they were incompetent to contract under the common law and that for the purposes of the suit they should be considered a non-existent person. The D.M.V. exists only by virtue of statute and can only be recognized in such a statutory court which recognizes it. So how is the D.M.V. going to be able to enforce the contract on you if you only can be prosecuted under common law. It can’t. It is an administration and can only have jurisdiction where it is prescribed by statute. There is no statute giving D.M.V. the authority to prosecute you under common law, only the authority for statutory administrative courts. So the D.M.V. only has one avenue of recourse and that is to prosecute under statute. You are assumed to have known this and since a recourse is always contemplated in a contract then you must have agreed to be placed under a familiar (one that recognizes you) jurisdiction in the event that the contract needs enforcement by the inferior party.

[quote=Ice]
[Is not the law of nature unwritten? And to get religious... is not the law "written upon their hearts"??] [quote]
Sure. It is this unwritten law of nature which says things must be at the same place and time in order to meet/contract.

[quote]
[I dare someone to even attempt to try and kick my Sovereign ass! They'll find out what "self defense" is all about!... and it won't be pretty. The only one that you can really depend on to protect you is You. And it used to be that "families" looked out for each other. Now you know why it was so important for the gov. to interfere with and initiate the breaking up of "family".] [quote]

Well Ice if you think a tough disposition is going to stop a roving band of five-hundred/thousand desperate armed people I feel you are wrong. There plenty of decent people in Darfur who are victimized by warlords because they failed to consciously create a strong effective state. And now there are victims in America because the Sate of corporate persons is more ****y and acting stronger then the state of freemen. It might be that families looked out for each other, in the past. Now a wicked teenager can terrorize a few blocks all by himself. The people are cowards now because they created too strong of a state on which they have grown lazy. This state will always be stronger then the state of the lone man. What we have here in America was a common law that said this new state will have a limited government to carry out its means. This law recognizes the sovereignty of the individual. We are lucky because without the recognition of the state of men, people would kill one another, even there peers, to defend the STATE of the King (one man.) We are grateful to live where one is sovereign under common law, but this same common law demands that we contract on a level playing field.

Ice, Why is non-full disclosure fraud? Is it because common law of contracts says so? Or is it because the common law of fair play says so? Who said there was a rule of fairness? The constitution. I don’t give much faith to its terms but it is a reflection of a part of the common sentient at the time. Self evident, no laws… “All men are created equal.” And what about all the states being admitted on an equal footing. And what about a fair and impartial jury. So there it is important to recognize that things start off fair. I maintain that it is important to maintain fairness.

Originally Posted by Ice (Blue), Codee (Red)

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? He does, and that is personal sovereignty and a personal state. This type of sovereignty does not have much weight when being prosecuted by the much bigger state of freemen.
And, if he does them... is that not the act of a Sovereign? Yes, he is personally sovereign. He has no control over the state of freemen however and when the two meet, well history got that part right.
If he does them not, is that not the act of someone that has given up his Sovereignty? No if he does not act he still has the ABILITY to act.

[quote=Ice (Blue), Codee (Red)]
A slave can choose as he will how much of societies laws he will adhere to and what wrath he will endure. If you use your own law for interactions then society will declare war on you and fines or prison time will abound.


[No... the slave has only one decision to make... remain a slave or be sovereign. He becomes Sovereign by declaring that he picks up that mantle and then fights to retain it, to hold it, to BE it.] [quote]

Well what I am saying is the slave can choose how much sovereignty to exhibit and much submission to exhibit. If he decides to be free and fight if need be that is his choice. If he remain and not fight then that is his choice. He does not give up any personal sovereignty however because the next day he could decide to make the same decision again only this time choose the opposite. If he can choose he is sovereign in that capacity. If he cannot choose then he is not sovereign in that capacity. One can lock you up in a straight jacket, stick an IV in you and keep you alive and deprive you of “Sovereign right”/”ability to choose” to end your life, however you may still posses the ability to choose your god of faith, so you would still be sovereign in that aspect. However, if you want to contract to get a benefit from the government then you must relinquish sovereignty for that instance and if you don’t do it voluntarily then the corporate state will do it forcibly and the common law state of freemen will support it because it is a good principal that things should contract on an equal footing.

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

I cannot see why you believe this. I think if you rethink and read other threads I have posted on you will see that I do not agree with all of the stuff on this forum HOWEVER I do think for myself. Yes, I think that “Sovereignty being something that MUST be waived in order to contract with people or things of lesser class, standing or status.” However I center and try to the end to show that it is a common principal of fairness the whole thing centers around. Rest assured that I “the system” has not formed the ideas expressed hear. I was raised by a family of attorney’s and judges so I have feared such my whole life, but by effectively questioning authority since my first speech I feel I was saved from the doomed brainwashed state. By their (My family) own testimony I am a polar opposite from the state of authority. I do not think you are going to find any of my ideas promulgated by the state to the extent that they are clear to the average person. Sure the state recognizes the fact on some level that I am sovereign, but they do not promulgate it. If you do please tell me so I can immediately question my doings to whole new level. I do however choose to use the recognition of the system where I use citations because it is a useful contrivance when “proving” things to people new to studying law and aren’t convinced about the sovereignty of man on any level.

[quote=ICE]

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ICE

But the words you are defining have no place in my jurisdiction... or the jurisdiction of any other Sovereign. If the "gov" wants to communicate to me then it will be according to "normal" usage of words and not with trickery or deceit.

Many of these definitions I use are over 100 yrs old and published. I hardly consider using these terms “trickery” or “deceit” whether by me or the government. The government may use words and defintions to deceive but their use is not prima facie (I forget the exact translation) malice.
What does “normal usage” mean? Why is the way I used the word not “common usage”, if it is common to me? If you cannot define “common usage” somehow then; What is “trickery or deceit” mean? What does jurisdiction mean then? Why even use the word contract at all? Why not just call a “contract”, “ASLkLAKLKsda” instead? Who’s words do we use when we contract?
Also I will point out that the legal definitions of the words are their “ordinary usage” when deciding issues of controversy within a certain jurisdiction.
Thirdly, what makes this contract is in “your” jurisdiction? Is it just because you say so? What if everyone else says (who is an interested party because it is their state that is going to have to enforce it.) no it is in our jurisdiction, and you are in the middle of contracting with their government and using their streets and stuff like utility easements “defined” by law? The presumption is strong that the contract is in a foreign jurisdiction and if you want that to not be the case then you had better make it a term of the contract. Is it not unfair disclosure on your part that you are bringing the contract under your private jurisdiction without telling the state that? Well its not a disclosure issue as I stated before, I just mention it to show you that the road would be both ways if it existed that way. Flags and presumptions abound. The state is going to come after you and you had better be able to convince the state that there is no jurisdiction (This can be done because it is still the will of the people to not have a totalitarian government.) I will also point out that the other party will presume to be able to sue in a court of law and that the contract is in a public jurisdiction. To contract means to agree with ANOTHER, this means you must present yourself past yourself and present yourself to the world. This presentment is a persona. Please refer to the common usage definition of person, any one of them. How one presents himself, a fictional projection of the true self.

Originally Posted by Ice

[ Even "contract law" will fall under "common law"... are not agreements and contracts a pretty "common" thing?]

Yes they are. And they are commonly an item that is the center of disputes which must be decided according to law. And also what is common is the usage of the defintions of the terms I provided concerning contracts. There are more lawyers doing “legal” things then sovereign patriots so don’t take the common usage too far when talking about legal things like contracts. The following questions need to be answered.
Now is not a contract a creature of law or something formed while contemplating the law? Is a contract enforceable by law? My question

Originally Posted by Ice

Remember what you said earlier... the part about "morals" and "conscience"?? The People can decide what is just and fair without having to wade through tons of codes, rules or regulations (that don't always prove to be from the minds of "moral" men with a "conscience" and if were not in place would allow the People to make a "just" decision) ]

Of course people don’t need codes to make moral decisions. The codes simply are the software by which the state governs its creatures. The codes have nothing to do with morals and decision making concerning a “conscience.”
So true, the “people” can make decisions with out wading through codes and regulations. They are not even the genuine target of those codes and regulations. The state however cannot act on its own and cannot reach its own conclusions via organic thought. The state must rely on officers (creature of law), statutes (creature of law. Law allows for statutes to govern governments.) and contracts (creature of law.) It also must be able to enforce its contracts with some statutory procedure because that is all it has to enforce its contract. Just like enforcing the bond of the public official and his oath, one would easily prove that the official is not sovereign but a servant to the contract he entered (the oath) whereby the terms of his servitude is to abide yet by another contract (the constitution.) If no sovereignty is waived by contracting with the government (A lesser person) then does an oath to be a public servant mean anything? This was what was on my mind earlier this thread when I posted the following, but on re-inspection I see that I forgot to mention specifically that the codes were not meant for non-enfranchised man. So I thank you for making me reread and clairfy my earlier statement being:

Originally Posted by Codee

]
Here in America the government is only AUTHORIZED to do specific things that the people have delegated to it. Within this authority a jurisdiction may pass procedure. Procedure may come in the form of “statute”, “code,” “Rule,” or “Regulation.” In the beginning the constitution chains down the government it is establishing. The codes and procedures are the opposite in that they exist to give the government mobility to act. This is another reason that Constitutional law and Statutory procedure do not get along.

So lets move on now…

Originally Posted by Ice (Blue), Codee (Red)

Men created a sovereign state so that the largest most domineering sovereigns do not get to enforce the “might makes right” doctrines. [ Absolutely, I believe this was the intent. ]

Whew! That is good. Maybe we should have started here next time then.

Originally Posted by Ice

[ The state is not Sovereign... for it must abide by the will of the People. The state is only "delegated" certain "responsibilities"... it is not and never can be Sovereign because of the FACT that it is under the direct control of the Sovereigns that created and maintain it. ]

Here I disagree for now. The state is not sovereign but is powered by sovereignty. I can only offer you my personal feelings and more definitions and such. My feeling is that the state IS the will of the people. That it is properly “The state (of mind) of freemen” The state also “acts” as a tool in the hand of the sovereign in order that he may enact justice regardless of his personal ability to defend himself, which may not be as good as your ability to do so may be Ice. I have found this cite however to exemplify the view.

Chisholm v. Georgia
... A state, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ...

But no the state is not sovereign.

Chisholm v. Georgia
As to the purposes of the union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign state.

And here is what the state is.

Chisholm v. Georgia
By a state I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this [456] feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men.

Originally Posted by Ice

[ Who claims that men cannot hear a cause between other men? Not I. But is it not up to the men that form the jury to decide a man's fate when he is found guilty of injury? And, do you not think that "just" men would order "just" return and compensation to the injured party? Again, remember your earlier words: "morals", "conscience" ]

[Codee]

It is up to a jury according to some statutes. Why would you state this after trying to distance yourself from preformed state definitions and codes. I do not think that a statute has any reliance on morals or conscience. The statute is a creature of the state (look up “monster”.)
Just men deciding? Who are these men and what brought me under their jurisdiction? Why is my contract ruled over by their law or procedure? Why did someone feel that the tribunal was the appropriate place to settle the dispute?
And remember you words earlier Ice:

Originally Posted by Ice

[Whoever taught you that "life" was "fair"??? Or even "had" to be?]

I also remember/know that some things do not need to be taught to me. A conscience was not taught to me, it was born in me as part of my spirit and mind. Life is fair generally and where it is not humans strive to try to make it so. Every one lives until they die.

Originally Posted by Ice

[ If you were in a foreign land.. would you not want the same treatment? Would you not want to be treated justly? Again... remember those earlier words. ]

I still equate fair to just. Remember you were the questioning the law of fairness Ice. Not me. I would not want to give up my state sovereignty weapon so I would not go to a place like China. I would want to be treated in a similar manner to California but would not expect it. I am in another land where the state of men is still greater then the state of man. Also in China the state of men is not made of the will of freemen but subjects turned into artificial equals. Everyone is a part of the fiction always there and to not be is to die.

Originally Posted by Ice (Blue), original Codee text (Red), Codee’s corrections in Green and brackets

Now not every interaction is a contract with society. You must receive a societal benefit [for the interaction to be considered a contract]. Says who? Society, the thing that is going to kick your ass. How did society say so, through custom. That is why custom or common law is such great thing. [ No one can force a benefit upon a man... ever. ]

I completely misstated myself. Thank you for correcting me.

Originally Posted by Ice

The fact that you have a contract does not negate your Sovereignty. It is nothing more than an agreement with another to fulfill certain obligations with one another.

Correct. The fact that you contracted with a statutory person without rebuttals “in the terms” is what brought the sovereign under the jurisdiction of the same laws as that statutory person. Parol evidence could do it but one might need both parties consent since it would be one’s word against another. They were unified. They were in the same place at the same time. It is those laws that are the default presumed laws. Also the state itself is silent party to the contract because it is presumed you will use it as the enforcement of the contract. These presumptions should be refutable by making more specific overriding terms within the contract. The law though must be able to apply to all parties in their contracting capacity, or their capacity that they choose to contract in.

Originally Posted by Ice

The fact that you have a contract does not negate your Sovereignty. It is nothing more than an agreement with another to fulfill certain obligations with one another.

Correct, it is not the fact that you have a contract. It is the fact that the contract was presumed to be made under a certain one set of laws. This presumption when contracting with a state agent is that the governing laws will be statutory procedure, which is now some form of the UCC. The UCC sucks, so I a saying these presumptions need to be addressed as “terms” in the contracts, but be careful because corporate governments agents are only allow to contract under statutory law.

[Ice]

[quote=Codee][quote]
[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary]
Person…A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. [quote]

I submit that I have no duty to anyone other than myself. Proof of claim is required that I have any duty imposed upon me (check the definition of imposed and you will find that this Person that you speak of cannot be Sovereign if he allows anyone to "impose" upon him).

[quote=Ice]
[Is not the law of nature unwritten? And to get religious... is not the law "written upon their hearts"??] [quote]
Sure. It is this unwritten law of nature which says things must be at the same place and time in order to meet/contract. The very fact that no one can impose a duty upon a Sovereign contradicts this viewpoint. Nature does not require same place and time for contract. (Contract can be done through messengers) But more importantly, nature does not require status, standing or class to be the same in order for a contract / agreement to be made.

[quote]
[I dare someone to even attempt to try and kick my Sovereign ass! They'll find out what "self defense" is all about!... and it won't be pretty. The only one that you can really depend on to protect you is You. And it used to be that "families" looked out for each other. Now you know why it was so important for the gov. to interfere with and initiate the breaking up of "family".] [quote]

Well Ice if you think a tough disposition is going to stop a roving band of five-hundred/thousand desperate armed people I feel you are wrong. There plenty of decent people in Darfur who are victimized by warlords because they failed to consciously create a strong effective state. And now there are victims in America because the Sate of corporate persons is more ****y and acting stronger then the state of freemen. It might be that families looked out for each other, in the past. Now a wicked teenager can terrorize a few blocks all by himself. The people are cowards now because they created too strong of a state on which they have grown lazy. This state will always be stronger then the state of the lone man. What we have here in America was a common law that said this new state will have a limited government to carry out its means. This law recognizes the sovereignty of the individual. We are lucky because without the recognition of the state of men, people would kill one another, even there peers, to defend the STATE of the King (one man.) We are grateful to live where one is sovereign under common law, but this same common law demands that we contract on a level playing field. A Sovereign will defend his Sovereignty... to his death. All I can say is this: anyone that wants some of this... come get it.
We do not need to change our status, class, standing in order to contract. If that is "required" of us in order to contract then we are not and cannot be Sovereign.

I don’t give much faith to its terms but it is a reflection of a part of the common sentient at the time. Self evident, no laws… “All men are created equal.” And what about all the states being admitted on an equal footing. And what about a fair and impartial jury. So there it is important to recognize that things start off fair. I maintain that it is important to maintain fairness. If all men are created equal... then all are Sovereign. But you claim that a man must stoop down, change his class, standing, status in order to contract. How can that be possible if all men are created equal?

[quote=Ice (Blue), Codee (Red)]
A slave can choose as he will how much of societies laws he will adhere to and what wrath he will endure. If you use your own law for interactions then society will declare war on you and fines or prison time will abound.

[No... the slave has only one decision to make... remain a slave or be sovereign. He becomes Sovereign by declaring that he picks up that mantle and then fights to retain it, to hold it, to BE it.] [quote]

Well what I am saying is the slave can choose how much sovereignty to exhibit and much submission to exhibit. If he decides to be free and fight if need be that is his choice. If he remain and not fight then that is his choice. He does not give up any personal sovereignty however because the next day he could decide to make the same decision again only this time choose the opposite. If he can choose he is sovereign in that capacity. If he cannot choose then he is not sovereign in that capacity. One can lock you up in a straight jacket, stick an IV in you and keep you alive and deprive you of “Sovereign right”/”ability to choose” to end your life, however you may still posses the ability to choose your god of faith, so you would still be sovereign in that aspect. However, if you want to contract to get a benefit from the government then you must relinquish sovereignty for that instance and if you don’t do it voluntarily then the corporate state will do it forcibly and the common law state of freemen will support it because it is a good principal that things should contract on an equal footing.

A Sovereign is either a Sovereign or he is not. A Sovereign has the ability to "waive" any rights that he has. But no one can induce him to do so against his will. No one can impose upon him to do so. No one can perpetrate a fraud upon him in order to secure that waiver. Those actions will not stand in the Sovereigns jurisdiction.

Sovereigns do not "contract" with the government in order to receive a benefit. Sovereigns "waive" their rights. It is the only way that the Sovereign can be controlled ... by waiver of his Sovereignty and becoming a slave to that government that he once was master of.

I cannot see why you believe this. I think if you rethink and read other threads I have posted on you will see that I do not agree with all of the stuff on this forum HOWEVER I do think for myself. Yes, I think that “Sovereignty being something that MUST be waived in order to contract with people or things of lesser class, standing or status.” However I center and try to the end to show that it is a common principal of fairness the whole thing centers around. Rest assured that I “the system” has not formed the ideas expressed hear. I was raised by a family of attorney’s and judges so I have feared such my whole life, but by effectively questioning authority since my first speech I feel I was saved from the doomed brainwashed state. By their (My family) own testimony I am a polar opposite from the state of authority. I do not think you are going to find any of my ideas promulgated by the state to the extent that they are clear to the average person. Sure the state recognizes the fact on some level that I am sovereign, but they do not promulgate it. If you do please tell me so I can immediately question my doings to whole new level. I do however choose to use the recognition of the system where I use citations because it is a useful contrivance when “proving” things to people new to studying law and aren’t convinced about the sovereignty of man on any level.



I must apologize to you. Physically, I have not been well as of late. I am not able to give my best to this conversation.

But this I can say: I retain my Sovereignty and nothing can change my status without my full declaration that I freely give it up.

That fact is why we must stand on a certain position and stay on it. Force the hand. Expose the truth of it.

I'll post more another time. (I had to edit some of this out because it was too long for posting.)

Eloquent response Ice... Nicely stated.

Jerry

[RickA]

I'm just reading and noting.

Hope all is well Ice(Health)?

[Ice]

Originally Posted by RickA

I'm just reading and noting.

Hope all is well Ice(Health)?

Thank you for asking Rick. I'm okay. No virus or anything like that, actual physical problem. I'm dealing with it. It wears me out but I get things done... slowly, but they got done.

Jerry,

Thank you for your kind words.

Ice