No office of person, No sui juris, No UCC

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Codee

Better yet, what made me the debtor when all I did was recieve a letter entitled "summons?" (By the way the word "summons" never appears in the body text nor the word "order."

Another treasonous commercial law presumption. Myself, I would respond pretty harshly to a letter in which someone addressed me as, "my pet bitch". Not the kind of presumption one wants to ignore or disregard - isn't it slander of character?

As to your research on the word security you have seen exactly what I was hoping you would. That by giving a security you are debtor to the creditor and in the creditors jurisdiction. Do not think that a debtor has many rights.

The bizarre thing about it is that they're evidently acting on the assumption that you're a "person" rather than a sovereign. Since they use the resources of a "person", and that human resource - the "person" himself - to hold as surety against the national debt... that would seem to make the "person", if anything, the creditor and the government the debtor. To suggest the opposite, one must infer that the meager "privileges" granted to persons by the federal government are worth more than the rights [supposedly] given away. This obviously cannot be true, as sovereigns hold a standing in law well above "persons"; the privileges of "persons", then, are inferior to the unalienable rights of sovereigns. So it's quite improper to consider the federal government the creditor and the "person" the debtor, and really rather insulting as well.

- Satori

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Satori

Another treasonous commercial law presumption. Myself, I would respond pretty harshly to a letter in which someone addressed me as, "my pet bitch". Not the kind of presumption one wants to ignore or disregard - isn't it slander of character?



The bizarre thing about it is that they're evidently acting on the assumption that you're a "person" rather than a sovereign. Since they use the resources of a "person", and that human resource - the "person" himself - to hold as surety against the national debt... that would seem to make the "person", if anything, the creditor and the government the debtor. To suggest the opposite, one must infer that the meager "privileges" granted to persons by the federal government are worth more than the rights [supposedly] given away. This obviously cannot be true, as sovereigns hold a standing in law well above "persons"; the privileges of "persons", then, are inferior to the unalienable rights of sovereigns. So it's quite improper to consider the federal government the creditor and the "person" the debtor, and really rather insulting as well.

- Satori

Well I think they are holding the persona in rem as collateral. I think it is not the debtor but the security to the debt. To whom is the debt owed??? To me. I am not a debtor, but if I am then one should not treat me as sovereign any way.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Codee

Well I think they are holding the persona in rem as collateral.

You appear to be correct, in that [according to legislation-drafted contract] a prospective trial juror who has been summoned for service (not, apparently, than many of them have, from what you've written) may be attached (a seizure of property) to secure satisfaction of judgement (a document such as an execution enforced by the judgement creditor and indicating that the judgement has been paid).

According to this contract, a citizen entering into this agreement becomes property, which may be seized to secure a document enforced by a judgement creditor and indicating that the judgement has been paid. This, of course, is human slavery and, if entered into unwillingly, involuntary servitude. It probably violates Geneva as well. Additionally, it violates the right of a citizen to be free from search and seizure... just because a contract was entered into between private Citizen and federally-owned corporation does not give the federal government, nor any of its subsidiary [municipal] corporations the wherewithal to violate their Constitutional constraints. Interesting.

I think it is not the debtor but the security to the debt. To whom is the debt owed??? To me. I am not a debtor, but if I am then one should not treat me as sovereign any way.

As for the debt, my understanding is that it is owed to the foreign bankers. "Persons" are [considered] property owned, along with their supposed property, by the federal government and used as collateral against the national debt, which cannot be paid in fiat promissory notes. The "courts" appear to be administrative agencies of the judgement creditors: the foreign banks who own the federal government. While the debt is owed to the overseas bankers by the federal government, they are beholden to the bankers, and while one is a "person"al subholding of that federal government, one is required to cede to their whim until the debt is paid. Which it cannot be; merely discharged. Consequently, the contract is void due to involuntary servitude and fraud.


Be well,

- Satori

[Codee]

Yes, and while the Gov. may owe $$$ to bankers It owes its existance to me, one of the people who created it.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Codee

Yes, and while the Gov. may owe $$$ to bankers It owes its existance to me, one of the people who created it.

Then are you not saying that because you are responsible for creating the government you are also responsible for its debt?

It is obvious that those of us that are not asleep, and vastly outnumbered by those that are, have been put into an absurd predicatment by the sleepers that out number us.

This is why we must stand on the fact that we owe no allegiance to them. They have all betrayed the very ideals this union was founded upon.

And the longer they operate with their eyes closed... the worse it gets. Watch for it. It's coming soon. Everything that they said could never happen in "America" is going to happen. And they won't understand why it is happening even though they are the cause of it.

And you and I, the voices that cry in the wilderness, will become a burden to them because we remind them where the fault lies. They'll be coming for us because they cannot bear their own shame which we consistently shine the light upon.

Ice

[Codee]

No,

They owe me their existence because it existts to serve my needs. There is no way that gov. could owe a bank before me. I did not create the gov. I created the state.

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Codee

No,

They owe me their existence because it existts to serve my needs. There is no way that gov. could owe a bank before me. I did not create the gov. I created the state.

The national debt, then, would seem to be to the bankers. Its existence, it owes to us. Like a wind-up toy gone amuck, the actions of a group of malfeasant government officials is, treasonously, not representative of its People. The debt, it owes to the bankers, its existence to us, and quite another debt entirely for its encroachments against the People. Fiscally unsound, this United State of Enron.


Be well,

- Satori

[Codee]

Before anyone can make a "valid" claim of debt against the US they had better be willing to answer a VOD. That set aside I do not want any money from my government, I just want it to go away when I want it to. Notice how congress is an instumentality of the sovereign and how congress is to serve the people, not some banks.

I also found this quote to be very helpfull.

PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) PERRY v. UNITED STATES
The argument in favor of the Joint Resolution, as applied to government bonds, is in substance that the government cannot by contract restrict the exercise of a sovereign power. But the right to make binding obligations is a competence attaching to sovereignty. 3 In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 , 6 S.Ct. 1064. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.

PERRY v. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) PERRY v. UNITED STATES
FN#4 Oppenheim, International Law (4th Ed.) vol. 1, 493, 494. This is recognized in the field of international engagements. Although there may be no judicial procedure by which such contracts may be enforced in the absence of the consent of the sovereign to be sued, the engagement validly made by a sovereign state is not without legal force, as readily appears if the jurisdiction to entertain a controversy with respect to the performance of the engagement is conferred upon an international tribunal. Hall, International Law (8th Ed.) 107; Oppenheim, loc. cit.; Hyde, International Law, vol. 2, 489.

[Codee]

Here is another word on divestment...

The binding quality of the obligations of the government was considered in the Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700, 718 , 719 S.. The question before the Court in those cases was whether certain action was warranted by a reservation to the Congress of the right to amend the charter of a railroad company. While the particular action was sustained under this right of amendment, the Court took occasion to state emphatically the obligatory character of the contracts of the United States. The Court said: 'The United States are as much bound by their contracts as are individuals. If they repudiate their obligations, it is as much repudiation, with all the wrong and reproach that term implies, as it would be if the repudiator had been a State or a municipality or a citizen.'

[Codee]

I feel that there were sovereign men and women before the adoption of the constitution and that there were no citizens yet because there was no country. Citizenship did not come around until after the adoption of a constitution and may be a creature exclusive to it's jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by famgaurdian.org

In international law a state is considered sovereign when it is organized for political purposes and permanently occupies a fixed territory. It must have an organized government capable of enforcing law and be free from all external control. A wandering tribe of savages, or nomads, or people united merely for commercial purposes or under control of another state cannot be considered as a sovereign state. Until a state becomes sovereign in the sense above described. It is not subject to international law. The states of the American Union are each, in a certain sense, sovereign in their domestic concerns, but not in international law, and Norway is an instance of a community not sovereign in International law because bound in a union with Sweden. The fact of sovereignty is usually established by general recognition of other states, and, until such recognition is universal, no community can be considered as sovereign; Snow, Int. Law 19. See International Law.

Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory. Underhill v. Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250, 18 Sup. Ct. 83, 42 L. Ed. 456.

“The transactions of independent states between each other are governed by other laws than those which municipal courts administer; such courts have neither the means of deciding what is right, nor the power of enforcing any decision which they may make.” 13 Moore, P. C. 75. And the same is the case with their dealings with the subjects of other states; Pollock, Torts 105.

Public agents, military or civil, or foreign governments, whether such governments be de jure or de facto, cannot be held responsible in any courts of the United States for things done in their own states in the exercise of the sovereignty thereof, in pursuance of the directions of their governments; Underhill v. Hernandez, 65 Fed. 577, 13 C. C. A 51, 38 L. B. A. 405. The government of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another country done within Its own territory; Underhill v Hernandez, 168 U. S. 250, 18 Sup. Ct 83, 42 L. Ed. 456.

Sovereignty means that the decree of the sovereign makes law; and foreign courts can not condemn the influences persuading the sovereign to make the decree; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. 5. 347, 29 Sup. Ct. 511, 53 L Ed. 826, 16 Ann. Cas 1047.

The idea of sovereignty was not associated in the Teutonic mind with dominion over a particular portion of the earth’s surface; it was distinctly personal or tribal; and so was their conception of law. Taylor, Science of Jurispr. 133.