No office of person, No sui juris, No UCC

[Codee]

May I please remind posters to use personal messages for personal comments. Thank You.

Let me first thank you Ice. I have not had the opportunity to study law as long as you and I appreciate you taking the time to banter this with me. I do not know about you but I have learned a lot from this conversation. I am sorry to hear you have not been well, my prayers are with you, my friend. I also think it funny that as far off as I may seem to you Ice, I see us as having virtually a similar MO. On other threads especially when talking about the use of Latin terms I have a real purist idealism of sovereignty. I just feel that contracts are traditionally considered “voluntary” submissions to a jurisdiction. And in the limited terms of the contract the sovereign can rightfully be brought under that jurisdiction by that same sovereigns own voluntary silent decree. That said…

[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.

Originally Posted by Ice

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).

It is great that we are focusing now on duty and obligation. I will show that under common law they are the same, and that one acquires obligations by contract.
I agree with the substance of your response (but do not submit Ice, that is a tactic admission of jurisdiction.) However if should be stressed that a sovereign can be a person if that person maintains his RANK as sovereign. Rank is a military term as far as I have found HOWEVER this military term does not diminish the rank of sovereign because the sovereign is the source of both civilian and military law. The person who maintains his rank as that of a sovereign has no duties/obligations imposed upon him. This person is also entitled to no granted rights from the government (which a lot a sovereigns get, that their rights are not granted by society but by something grander.) However as soon as a person has an obligation then in that sense the person cannot be sovereign. That person exhibits clipped sovereignty where he maintains sovereignty in extra-obligatory terms until his duty is discharged and regains full sovereignty. It is the ability to bring a sovereign under its jurisdiction that gives a contract any real world worth. It is the want to recover his sovereignty that gives the other party to the contract security. If a contract one enters into cannot bind that individual to its terms nor to the laws governing that contract, then one should not enter into contracts because they are unfair and immoral and is deceiving the other party or is dealing with an idiot (legal term.) The term imposed can be applied to the sovereign in form of “self-imposed.”

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

True that no one ELSE can impose a duty on a sovereign. The sovereign can however “waive” his rights and this “waiver” is not a term of the contract but a governing condition to entering the contract. That is why your “application” to license is a “waiver”. Now that the sovereign has waived his sovereignty and agrees to a certain uniform set of governing law for the contract he can enter into the contract by signing the license and receiving the benefits. The imposition of the jurisdiction was the sovereigns will at the time he voluntarily “entered (the jurisdiction of) the contract.
What I meant by same place was under the same umbrella of jurisdiction. I used the term meet/contract and not contract/agreement. When people meet they can do it on the paper. The two parties can in different locations, such as states, with different laws but the contract is always under ONE set of laws and it is here ( on the paper of the contract under the single jurisdictional umbrella) that the meeting (of the minds) takes place. It is this meeting of the minds where a contract takes place. I hope this the term meeting of the minds is familiar on this forum. I have not talked about it specifically much. I want to look again at the definition of contract with a quick analysis and I do believe that this definition is representative of “normal use.”
I will ask you to think about this Ice before I delve into some definitions. I did say earlier that maybe contracts are not the appropriate avenue to interacting with a public servant/ lower class person. Could this idea have merit?
I will also state that these definitions are to point out that there are PRESUMPTIONS out there and there dictionary definitions create presumptions and if one does not defeat these presumptions TIMELY (not ex post facto, or after the fact) then they will stand.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
CONTRACT. …it is an agreement between two or more persons, concerning something to be, done, whereby both parties are bound to each other, *or one is bound to the other. 1 Pow. Contr. 6; Civ. Code of Lo. art. 1754; Code Civ. 1101; Poth. Oblig. pt. i. c. 1, S. 1, 1; Blackstone, (2 Comm. 442,)

Here the word party refers to a person. The RANK of this person is that of a “contractor.” He will not be afforded any of the rights that he would otherwise posses as a sovereign absent a contract, IF THOSE RIGHTS BE IN CONFLICT WITH A “VALID TERM” OR “VALID GOVERNING LAW.”Now I want to analyze governing laws with the term “bound” or “bind.”

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
BIND. 3. The words to bind or binding, are also used to signify that a thing is subject to an obligation, engagement or liability; as, the judgment binds such an estate. Vide Lien.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
OBLIGATION. In its general and most extensive sense, obligation is synonymous with duty.

Still Think contracting creates no duty?

OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. By this expression, which is used in the constitution of the United States, is meant a legal and not merely a moral duty.

This part of definition explains that to enter a contract is to create a “duty” on to oneself. No one else did it, the sovereign did it to himself.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
OBLIGATION. …In a more technical meaning, it is a tie which binds us to pay or to do something agreeably to the laws and customs of the country in which the obligation is made…

This part of the definition shows that the contract was made under one set of laws. And that the presumption is the country in which it is made. The STATE OF WHATEVER is resident in DC. So if you walk in to their or one of their department’s office that is presumed to be in the DC territory of ZIP CODE 12345. I realy want to show with this though that the laws must be uniform, just one set.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
OBLIGATION. …It is also defined to be a deed whereby a man binds himself under a penalty to do a thing.

This one is self evident.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
OBLIGATION. 3. Imperfect obligations are those which are not binding on us as between man and man, and for the non-performance of which we are accountable to God only; such as charity or gratitude. In this sense an obligation is a mere duty. Poth. Ob. art. Prel. n. 1.

I believe this part of the definition supports my statement that contracts between different classes are on obligatory and therefore are “imperfect” contracts. “Imperfect” means it means a non-standard non-obligatory non-perfected contract. It also shows that even god is presumed to have contractual powers to duties over his subjects and by covenant and contract they are bound. But this is highly religious and inappropriate to expand further into at this thread. So we see that these contracts are not enforceable between men. They are contracts between different standings (God and Man) and they are not enforceable on Earth. It being presumed that the sovereigns contracting capacity did not intend to enter into a void contract (which presumes incompetence after a while) and so the presumption is that he entered it under some set of laws that allows for the contract to be valid.

[Codee]

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
OBLIGATION. 4. A perfect obligation is one which gives a right to another to require us to give him something or not to do something. These obligations are either natural or moral, or they are civil.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
CONTRACT. …a contract is an act which contains a perfect obligation.

A contract does not contain solely an imperfect obligation.

Originally Posted by Ice

Remember what you [Codee] said earlier... the part about "morals" and "conscience"??

I will remember. This is what I am talking about. There is a presumption that when you deal with a civil being under their flag that you are under their civil law. You must make it a term of the contract if the governing laws of the other party, not the contract’s governing laws, allow it. You cannot contract with a statutorily created creature in common law. Impossible. The contract would be void for want of standing to contract on the other party. It being presumed that the sovereigns contracting capacity did not intend to enter into a void contract (which presumes incompetence after a while) and so the presumption is that he entered it under some set of laws that allows for the contract to be valid.

I feel Ice that you assume that the other sovereigns on society are contracting with you under the presumption that the contract is a “moral” contract. This is not the case. They are assuming, in multiple numbers over people like me and you, that the contracts are obligatory contracts. The common law and common definitions are what tell us that declining in status to the place of “under” the umbrella of jurisdiction or “understanding” should occur because of fairness and morals as applied to an obligatory contract. This does not make an obligatory contract a “moral contract” the term is valid. That is just how one enters into a contract in good faith/ morally. The following is presumed to be between man and god and is not the presumption of the contract between man and man. The following exemplifies what I have been saying all along about the “PRESUMED” third party of the state for enforcement in common law court or statutory tribunals, because the second party is only appropriate to ones higher self whether this be Jesus or what ever faith one believes in/ puts faith in/ presumes the world from.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
OBLIGATION. 5. A natural or moral obligation is one which cannot be enforced by action, but which is binding on the party who makes it, in conscience and according to natural justice. As for instance, when the action is barred by the act of limitation, a natural obligation is extinguished. 5 Binn. 573. Although natural obligations cannot be enforced by action, they have the following effect: 1. No suit will lie to recover back what has been paid, or given in compliance with a natural obligation. 1 T. R. 285; 1 Dall. 184, 2. A natural obligation is a sufficient consideration for a new contract.

And it is mentioned again here

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
CONCIDERATION. 6. A mere moral obligation to pay a debt or perform a duty, is a sufficient consideration for an express promise. [Citation omitted] But it is to be observed, that in such cases there must have been a good or valuable consideration; for example, every one is under a moral obligation to relieve a person in distress, a promise to do so, however, is not binding in law.

Again, moral contracts are not what people think they are entering into and if this is what you are presuming I would state that presumption is deceitful and not an enforceable view as it goes against what most people assume. The following is the presumed type of contract.

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
OBLIGATION. 6. A civil obligation is one which has a binding operation in law, vinculum juris, and which gives to the obligee the right of enforcing it in a court of justice; in other words, it is an engagement binding on the obligor.

The following definition supports what I have said about implied contracts arising when one injures another in defiance of the common law. When reading the following ask your self, “Whose sovereign law applies?” The seller’s or the buyer’s,,, OR COMMON (TO THE PARTIES) LAW? Would this be the same if the entities were statutory entities?

[Bouvier's Law Dictionary]
OBLIGATION.9. An implied obligation is one which arises by operation of law; as, for example, if I send you daily a loaf of bread, without any express authority, and you make use of it in your family, the law raises an obligation on your part to pay me the value of the bread.

Ok back to addressing Ice.

Originally Posted by Ice

A Sovereign will defend his Sovereignty... to his death. All I can say is this: anyone that wants some of this... come get it.

So Ice… you have never paid a parking ticket ever? You have never given one cent to the government. You enjoy a relatively free life style and travel in cars and have never paid a gasoline tax? You have never paid sales tax? Not even to your internet provider? You would of course fight to the death before you did any of these things correct?

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

Yep that is what I am saying. You need to assume a rank, class, standing, that is under that one umbrella of jurisdiction. If you contract with someone then you cannot be more sovereign then they when there is a dispute of the terms. Both must be “UNDER” some uniform law. Outside of the contract the sovereign retains all sovereignty WITHOUT THE NEED FOR EXPICIT RESEVATION. And yes, I believe you have “clipped sovereignty,” clipped by morals and common law. If your decisions are not clipped by these then yes, someone will someday answer your call to “come get it.” They will wield the state as a useful contrivance and they will smash you with it and win whereby you will either submit voluntarily or go to prison involuntarily or die an enemy of the people and their common law in which society will be glad, as that was their will.

Originally Posted by Ice

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?

I asked someone on this forum once what prevented a live person from being sued by a court. I believe it was Jerry Pitts. They answered a maxim that things not the same should not be mixed. I think there was also a reference to the bible saying that the living and the dead should not be mixed. I think they found it on another forum. Oh well, I just thought that concept would help elaborate here. Same thing, different things should not be joined.
I thought this was the big theory going around here. That the court needed some “nexus” in order to bring you under there jurisdiction because a man was living and the court was not. Same thing except all I’m saying is the name the resultant of the contract entered into and it is the entering of the contract that needs to be avoided because the name is being used to notice you that the state is suing you in a “contracted person” capacity “under” the jurisdiction of the codes/statutes. It is the contract or the receiving of benefits that creates the jurisdiction and ultimately the recourse for those already under jurisdiction is to paint the enemy into a corner and force them to reveal this or dismiss. Make them prove what makes you XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX instead of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx.

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

Yes no one can “impose” a contract. You enter into contracts but binding obligations may be imposed by way of one harming another. True though that no one could make you injure another and therefore create an obligation. Further the contract is not going to be enforced in the sovereign’s jurisdiction. It will be enforced in some common jurisdiction presumed by the contract. The whole a sovereign is a sovereign without in between is historically wrong as I can look up the definition of clipped sovereignty.

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

The waiver is either:
1) Part of the quid pro quo terms (expressed or implied) of the contract which I do not believe. (This is the hidden term of the contract theory which never wins.)
2) A PRE-condition to the contract as a normal course of common law contracting. (which I do believe.) Pre-condition meaning it must occur so that the contract can be entered into. It must have already been done at the meeting of the minds phase. As soon as you intended to accept the benefit.

[Codee]

And a word on fairness of playing field.

CAl. Civil Code. recognizes...

3545. Private transactions are fair and regular.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward262.htm

What is good and equal, is the law of laws.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx001.htm]
Agreement makes law.
- [Agreement : Legal Maxims]

All men are equal before the natural law.
[Lat., Quod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales sunt.]
- [Equality]

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx001.htm]

An equal has no power over an equal.
[Lat., Par in parem imperium non habet.]
- [Equality]

So in order to have power to enforce a contract one mujst not be equal to the enforcer. So one must be brought "under" the same enforcement laws.

And to show an example of what Ice and I had agreed on earlier concerning might makes right government.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx001.htm]

Laws are made to prevent the stronger from having the power to do everything.

- [Legal Maxims]

Here is one that supports divesing ones self in a contract relationship.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx001.htm]

The company of wicked men makes me also wicked.
- [Legal Maxims]

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx001.htm]

True identity is collected from a multitude of signs.
- Bacon's Maxims [Legal Maxims]

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx001.htm]
From a great number of signs or marks, true identity is gathered or made up.
- Bacon's Maxims (103, reg. 25) [Legal Maxims]

This next maxim helps to show that hidden terms does apply to invalidate a contract HOWEVER ingnorance of the governing laws do not. Terms of contract = fact Governing law = law

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx006.htm]

Ignorance of the fact excuses; ignorance of the law excuses not.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 253) [Legal Maxims]

Ignorance of those things which one is bound to know excuses not.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 267) [Legal Maxims]

These next two maxims seems to sugest that when one contracts he also gives the ability to have it enforced.

http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...lmaximx008.htm

Whoever grants anything to another is supposed to grant that also without which the thing itself would be of no effect.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 479) [Legal Maxims]

When anything is granted, that also is granted without which the thing granted cannot exist.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 483) [Legal Maxims]

Following we see that intention is stronger than words. No reservation of rights is going to retain sovereignty when your intention is to enter into an enforcable contract.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx009.htm]

In agreements, the intention of the contracting parties, rather than the words used, should be regarded.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 551) [Legal Maxims]

This I found and will include it about showing up to argue the name is not sufficient. What needs to be argued is that the name names a title of persona not decended to.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx010.htm]

The presence of the body cures error in the name; the truth of the name cures an error of description.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 637, 639, 640) [Legal Maxims]

More on devisement

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx010.htm]

General words must be narrowed either to the nature of the subject-matter or to the aptitude of the person.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 646), also Bacon's Maxims (reg. 10)
[Legal Maxims]

Here is some more about non-full disclosure of hidden terms and the true effect of the governing laws.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx010.htm]

He who considers merely the letter of an instrument goes but skin deep into its meaning.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 685) [Legal Maxims]

Read the following and keep in mind that the King is named in written contracts. Think of writings as similar to statute. The naming of the King brings him under the law of the contract. Remember also that contracts are law.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx011.htm]

The king is not bound by any statute, unless expressly named.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 72) [Legal Maxims]

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx001.htm]

Agreement makes law.
- [Agreement : Legal Maxims]

Why are statutes presumed to be the force of governing law when not avered to? This might explain. Think about how the "judge" sits as a magistrate and has no judicial function. The codes have eliminated judgment thus perfecting the governing law. The contract should be clear and the law should not be left to a judge if possible.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx011.htm]

That system of law is best which confides as little as possible to the discretion of the judge; that judge the best who relies as little as possible on his own opinion.
- Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 84) [Legal Maxims]

Read the following and keep in mind that a contract is law. Now ask can one be above the governing law of the contract when the contract is law between the parties? Both people must be brought "under" the same law. How can a sovereign be any more sovereign then a corporation if he and the corporation are beneath the law.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx013.htm]

No one is above the law.
- Lofft (142) [Legal Maxims]

And a state of multiple sovereigns should be able to be used to enforce the LAWS. Laws deal with interactions between two. It is not right for one to decide law where the decision effects a second.

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx014.htm]
No one can declare law for himself.
- Trayner's Latin Maxims & Phrases (366) [Legal Maxims]

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx015.htm]
One ought to be subject to the law of the place where he offends.
- Wingate's Maxims (113) [Legal Maxims]

[http://www.halexandria.org/dward262.htm]
In commerce, truth is sovereign.

Not the King, And not you. It is truth that will be sovereign.

I will get to the following when time permits. For now just read it and understand this goes back to oaths and bonds, and vacant offices, and voidable and void judgments.

http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...lmaximx014.htm

A judicial act by a judge without jurisdiction is void; but a ministerial act, from whomsoever proceeding, may be ratified.
- Lofft's Maxims (458) [Legal Maxims]

And here is a maxim showing the folly of using Latin titles such as "in Pro Per"

[http://www.giga-usa.com/gigaweb1/quo...maximx016.htm]

An addition to a name proves or shows minority or inferiority.
- Wingate's Maxims (max. 60) [Legal Maxims]

[Codee]

Originally Posted by http://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html

"Petitioner's shield of the "Common Law" as an "Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic," provides him with the same degreee of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Calvary - ZERO." 599 F.Supp. 126, George E. McKinney, Sr. v. Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Civ. A. No. 84-470-A., United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana, November 19, 1984.

It is time to stop contracting under common law.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Codee

Let me first thank you Ice. I have not had the opportunity to study law as long as you and I appreciate you taking the time to banter this with me. I do not know about you but I have learned a lot from this conversation. I am sorry to hear you have not been well, my prayers are with you, my friend. I also think it funny that as far off as I may seem to you Ice, I see us as having virtually a similar MO. On other threads especially when talking about the use of Latin terms I have a real purist idealism of sovereignty. I just feel that contracts are traditionally considered “voluntary” submissions to a jurisdiction. And in the limited terms of the contract the sovereign can rightfully be brought under that jurisdiction by that same sovereigns own voluntary silent decree. That said…

Right here is enough to comment on for now.

First, Can a Sovereign be forced to Contract? No?
Then he cannot be forced (have imposed upon him) any duty or obligation. Yes?
If a Sovereign chooses to contract does he not do so for "benefit" to himself, even though he may also be "obligated" to a "performance" of some kind? Yes?
Does this, in any way, NEGATE HIS SOVEREIGNTY?

Simple answer is NO.

But here is the nitty gritty of it all:

Does a Sovereign have any duty or obligation to society at large?

Actually, none whatsoever.

Any Sovereign may, at his leisure and of his own free will, start shooting up those around him. Of course, he will be put down in the process by other Sovereigns or the "police" protection of the sleepers (which is more than likely what will happen... due the current situation in regards "gun control").

The True and Wise Sovereign recognizes only one thing: All men, being created equal, being Sovereign, have the same rights and to not impose (trespass) on anothers rights secures his own.

But allow me to quote:

Among rights, liberty is ranked as fundamental. Freedom from physical restraint is at the core of our understanding of liberty. It is not society, nor any social right that allows or forbids the actions of men - it is the unalienable individual right of others, a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society – but from unalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society – but is implicit in the definition of the individual right. The right to the pursuit of happiness means a man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another nor of any number of other men. It means that the society cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence or prescribe his choice of happiness. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent – his right has been violated. A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his liberty, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him.

All of the book learning ( specially that $19.95 deal ) we could fill our heads with will not alter these simple facts. But we must always be aware that not all Sovereigns are of the same mind... and not all Sovereigns will respect the rights of other Sovereigns.

Those books and definitions that "society" wishes to run their life by are okay for them. But they cannot be forced upon the Sovereign that refuses such.

Here is a simple fact: Since the Sovereign has all rights, then if he decides that he DOES NOT have a change in status, class, or standing when he contracts with another... then guess what? He does have all rights to declare this... no?... yes?

See? You cannot force upon me to accept any status, class or standing BY ANY MEANS (even contract) if I refuse to allow it. Your rules? Your law? Those things matter not to me. They don't apply.

I retain my Sovereignty, even when in contract, because it is my Sovereign right to do so.

If I declare that I waive any right... that is also my Sovereign right.

It really is that simple. Nothing changes by the contract unless the contract absolutely states such terms that define a waiver of a right.

An exchange of obligations and performance is not a declaration of waiving of Sovereignty in any fashion.

Do you see my point now? All that which comes from the books of society do not negate that which is inherent and natural to all men. Only force can effect your Sovereignty. And here is the only fault I find with the above quote: Force can be as simple as a deception with the intent to gain a waiver of a right or rights. Force is not limited to "physical" only. It can be a form of "mind control"... brainwashing, if you will. For even though a man be brainwashed into believing such things as the deceptor would have him believe... he sees contradictions and yet, does not question them by fear instilled in him as part of the "mind control". ( you better file your 1040... you'll go to jail if you don't pay your taxes!! )

All for now. Going to rest.

Ice

[Big Al]

ICE: Thank you for that last post you have really helped me to clarify some points in my own mind about freedom.

[Codee]

I believe we have now come full circle.

1) There is personal sovereignty that is clipped only by personal decision and external force. This sovereignty is thus unlimmitted except by nature until it be so limmitted.

2) there is sovereignty in relationships with other men. This sovereignty is clipped by the necessity to coexist with fellow men. One cannot go around and enforce corporal punishment out at a whim and live in any knid of happy society.

3) Sovereignty is jepordized by the placement of silver bracelets on thy wrists and his own enforcement section of himself is muted by retraints. It is as this point in ones life that the personal internal views of sovereignty will cease to serve the man in any meaningful way and he must now take a view with repect to his situation and that other sovereigns are attempting to take him down. He must now analyse his situation and look for where remedy lies. If the sovereign cannot find remedy he will parish. Our society still recognizes individual sovereignty as long as certain conditions are met. It is these conditions and in a similar set of circumstanceas that my analysis is prudent. When not in thiese type of situations your view on personal power and sovereignty are right on.

4) In closing I will mention that it is not practicle to fight for sovereignty at every instance that it is threatend no matter how little. An example would be after you pump your gas and the attendendent wants you to pay the sales tax. You do not kill someone over 21 cents unless you truly do not value Life or Freedom because the two of you will lose both if you kill others over such small squables. It is times like these that education of others will make your world a better place rather then executive punishment for anyone that may ignorantly tresspass on your rights.

Thank you for you contributions. Take cae of your self and we will do this again sometime. You have proved a valuable friend Ice.

Cody James. from Roberts

[Ice]

Here we go:

#3. There is remedy. It would take a while for me to explain this remedy. It has been brought up in this forum but has not been given the attention it deserves. Look for my PM.

#4. Why would anyone "squabble" over what all Sovereigns have agreed to be a "lawful" tax in order to provide "meaningful" service to all Sovereigns? Remember that excise tax is a lawful tax under those laws set by the Sovereigns (rules that limit the government and protect / guarantee our Sovereignty).

Thank you for allowing me to express my point of view in my own special way (without the use of codes, rules and regulations).

Ice

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Ice

#4. Why would anyone "squabble" over what all Sovereigns have agreed to be a "lawful" tax in order to provide "meaningful" service to all Sovereigns? Remember that excise tax is a lawful tax under those laws set by the Sovereigns (rules that limit the government and protect / guarantee our Sovereignty).

Thank you for allowing me to express my point of view in my own special way (without the use of codes, rules and regulations).

Ice

That is what I am saying too Ice. Actual laws, common to all sovereigns should be obeyed by even the individual sovereign. I think I agree with you.

I will look into your remedy and will offer my due dilligence to it. I will try to research it well before I bombard you with any questions. Thank you again and please feel free to express your self any time. Most people break down and start to call me names way before a discusion goes half as far down the road mine and your went.

Thank you.

PS. I will post alittle more on this stuff later. I do want to investigate the ramifications of that remedy though too. Good Luck.

[FreeFromContract]

Enjoyed the read on this thread guys. Ample meaningful information to give thought to.

Ice, one must always consider if they value their liberty before they decide they have no obligation to society. If one violates another member of society in a serious enough manner then one should expect to shoulder the burden placed upon them and lose a measure of liberty (see my tag line).

Concerning contracts. The primary foundation of any contract (besides proof of the agreement) is the meeting of the minds. Central to that is understanding the terms. If you don't understand the terms then don't sign on the dotted line...novate at will and re-present. Any item brought up by either party which is not explicitly in an agreement negates there ever was a meeting of the minds and voids the agreement (of course, the party who argues best in the proper venue that there was or was not a meeting of the minds in the area of controversy will almost certainly win).