No office of person, No sui juris, No UCC

[Codee]

Could someone please change my status to “just waking up.” Because first I am 27, and second, I see things like this… (straight from my $19.95 law book)

Written by Cody James. His family is the “Roberts.”
There is no “office of person.” There is only the “ ’class’ of person.” The governing body of the state(s) do not have any statute creating the office of person. Governments are not a creature of the common law and do not have unwritten characteristics. 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.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government

"Limited government" is most commonly government where its functions and powers are prescribed, limited, and restricted by law, usually in a written constitution. This is the concept covered in detail by this entry.

These regulations are like the software on your computer. In this respect they just tell a machine how to run and what to do. You can have as powerful a computing machine as you want, but if there is no instructions to get it to do what you want, then it wont do it. This is why fictitious jurisdictions keep writing everything down for us to find and leave paper trails for us to find, they have to. God did take part in affairs of humanity on a whole and gave “as is above so will be below” the law which makes the bad guy tell you what he is doing before he does it,,, or else he is a really, really bad person. Haha. These procedures do not describe everything a jurisdiction could ever do (passing new procedure will take or add to the itinerary), but rather what/how it currently can do/is structured. A fictional jurisdiction under limited power may only do what is prescribed by procedure. (When was the last time a fictional jurisdiction charged you under common law? Answer: NEVER, they can’t.) Since English common law cannot be changed as it will always be interpreted as the laws of the land in England before “independent” America, there was no process for a claim against one with Magna Carta protections with no injured party in the claim. Sure a jurisdiction can codify and keep track of law and have codes that restates in precise words the exact definition of a common law crime and then prosecute under the new procedure, but only if the victim of the prosecution is under jurisdiction. They just prosecute under statute to keep the whole thing looking uniform. They prosecute under code jurisdiction for crimes such as murder, even though you are not liable to a code unless you are a legal “person.” Why would they do this? Just to keep it all looking like there is nothing else but procedure. As soon as everyone forgets about LAW the inferior jurisdictions win because all of their procedure is all that is left. So absent a statute creating the office of person I cannot see how it exists. If it did/does exist as a state office I think that office would be vacant as I have not taken an oath nor a filed a bond.
Back to the person thing. Every man is sovereign. However the sovereign lowers himself to the thing contracted with for the purposes and effects of the contract.

Originally Posted by The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed. 244.

It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transaction of that company of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted.

When a single sovereign, the source of the law, expresses the law, it is properly done by affidavit. If I wanted “performance” out of a man who was as low as a person I would write an “affidavit” not a contract of what I would do and exchange it for an affidavit of what was to be performed in return. Now we have both placed ourselves under the common law of perjury and not under the law of “each other’s lowest”/lowest common denominator. Affidavits can be written by non “sui juris” men (even though I don’t yet believe in “sui juris.”) There is not a procedure which says this is so, it is the way that sovereigns act which dictates so. If you “contract” with the D.M.V. you have not filled an office, no, no, no, you have descended down to a person. A person is not anywhere defined as an office. However the D.M.V. is a department and IT has officers which are persons and itself is a person and when you contract with it you must be lowered in “standing” to the lowest common denominator. No reservation of rights is allowed as a signing after the negotiated contract, but is allowed as a stipulation to the contract. What is the D.M.V. a district (jurisdiction) of? The big jurisdiction of the STATE OF... Now you are a person with every contract you make with another person. One of the provisions of the vehicle code you agree to follow is that you the contracted, is a person. This is the same “person” defined in other codes and all the codes are to be read as blending together as one. So now you are a person in all codes if you are a person in just one sense (I think this reasoning is the foundation to the logic behind the fear of sovereigns to contract in anyway with the government. It is not however a hidden provision of the contract that binds you. It is nature of the second party’s status coupled with notions of fairness, which casts you down as a person. This is why “no fair disclosure arguments do not work, it is not a hidden term of contract, it is the standing of the other party) Again, you are not in the office of person, but you ARE OF A PERSONAL STATUS. This policy carries into voting too. If you vote for a certain government and so do I, or I at least take part in the collective system, even if I lose, then we expect to be given equal recognition UNDER its procedures and an equal voice in controlling the government. If you vote and change the government and retain sovereignty then as the source of the law you could take every ones head because the system you created serves no one but the source of it and that happens to be you because no one else is at the same level. It is kind of similar to taking a handicap in golf. Well that is not the way things work. The only two parts of the constitution even worth studying anymore seems to be the “Interstate Commerce Clause” and the “No state shall pass any law inhibiting the obligation of contracts” clause. The lines which read that attorneys and judges aren’t persons because they hold another office, in the “office of person” article post here is not true. The attorneys and judges ARE persons because they are officers of the Jurisdiction and by way of contract has divested himself/herself to the status/standing of person. They are persons because they are officers.
If I am a person with a driver’s license and I am a PERSON, and you know this and contract with me, GUESS what??? You are a statutory person again because that was my status/standing. And since I put myself at the mercy of the procedure it would be unfair if you did not also do the same. A good thing to do might be for me to file an affidavit with the DMV on my license account which states that any future licenses I obtain will not be contracts but a unilateral gift from me to the state to assure the little monster that I am capable to drive/travel safely but there is no residency nor consent to be governed agreed to. Let that stand through default, get it filed with my recorder’s office, and then get myself a new license with anew signature (this one with a date…dated after my default.) OOH! OOH! OOH! I almost forgot, if anyone wants to be on the fast rack to becoming a lowly person just write 1-207, or 1-308, or what ever UCC crap that talks about “persons” in it, right on anything you sign. Whew! This will save you tons of time arguing in court to get a magistrate to determine it for you.
They now charge you in a personal capacity and to make the most obvious/strongest presumption of all is to name/title the person in the charge. CODY JAMES ROBERTS. This is the thing they are charging and you have contracted to be it. You are not an independent Christian sovereign in this respect at all. Why should they call you by your Christian name which affords you protections when the other party gets no such favor…Or another way to put it, GOD IS NOT AN INTERESTED PARTY TO YOUR CONTRACT AND HE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THEM, AND DO NOT USE HIS MIGHTY LAWS FOR YOUR PUNY REPERCUTIONS FRM CONTRACTS YOU ENTERED INTO. Don’t use his name for you in these settings, your Christian name in a complaint is reserved for two sovereigns at odds with each other for a state could never have standing to sue a sovereign. All a sovereign would have to do against the state would be anything like:
1) I have sovereign immunity, abate your complaint immediately.
2) I am the source of the law, I choose to not create you anymore, look for sustenance from elsewhere than Me.
3) Or however creative the mighty sovereign might be in telling a public servant “to perform.”

[Codee]

Now I want to talk about “sui juris” and how it creates one hell of paradox or it leads to one of two simple conclusions (the author believes in the paradox.)(I also hope this paragraph does not get me banned from here.) One of the microelements of the definitions of “sui juris” is “one with the power to contract.” If that is not a part of the historical definition you use, and you have a credible, cited source then this paragraph may seem erroneous and in error to you, rightfully so. The other part of the definition is thus “Not under the power of another.) If it is part of the definition however then I ask this of yet another class, those who believe that entering into a driver’s license makes you not a sui juris person, how can I sign a promise to appear? How can I obtain a credit card? How can I sign a recognizance? How can I sign a plea bargain? Are any of these things contracts? I believe so. How can the state take my signature on these items AFTER I obtain a driver’s license if the act of me getting a license BARS me from being able to enter a contract? Hmmm… I believe that sui juris either:

1) Has no place in American law where English is the official language (except maybe old Louisiana, I don’t know about that state.)

Or…

2) Is a status/title/title of nobility/fiction, not lost or devised of when contracting for things like driver’s licenses. (Which the author obviously believes is not true do to the logic in the first two paragraphs of this essay and the other part of the sui juris definition “One not under the control of another.” The best solution to my mind is this is a piece from Rome which does not fit well in the American sovereigns puzzle.)

In a Christian aspect no man is sovereign nor sui juris because he/ she is under The Lord. And we know that God is the source of the law because it was God who gave the law to Moses. So no Christian is sovereign nor sui juris, not under the authority of another. (Only pagan Romans claimed to be sui juris, even if they “claimed” to be Christians.)

The UCC and why it only protects CORPORATIONS and legal fictions. Some people think that UCC provisions such as 1-308 somehow protect them from the jurisdiction of the code. This contention could not be more in error. Lets take a look at two classic UCC cites.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-308

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

So it should be clear that this section only provides protections to “parties.” Lets now look up “party” so we know what it is, since I doubt this section is protecting fraternity keggers. I think it should be easy to see that “a party is a person subject to the commercial code.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 26

(26) "Party", as distinguished from "third party", means a person that has engaged in a transaction or made an agreement subject to [the Uniform Commercial Code].

And lets go ahead and see what the code says about “persons.” Remember, I am claiming “this code only protects corporations and legal fictions.”

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 27

(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

So now we have put some light on UCC 1-308 and exposed it. Lets take a look now at one word in UCC 1-308, the word “right.” Lets see if we want to use any section of this code based around it preserving or giving rights.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 34

(34) "Right" includes remedy.

Hmmm… Rights only mean remedy huh??? Ok lets take a look at remedy and what it means. WARNING- there is a double circular definition in here, but that was the lawyers fault. (derivation of remedy used in its own definition and “right” used in its own definition.

Originally Posted by UCC 1-201 sec 32 & 2

[(32) "Remedy" means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal.

(2) "Aggrieved party" means a party entitled to pursue a remedy.

So we see that UCC rights are only those things to which a “party” is entitled to. Now just go back up a few paragraphs of this document and follow where party leads.

Latin vs. English
Romans law used Latin. Attorneys today use Latin as a warning that you coming under democratic civil law. They could just use translated equivalents but that would not produce the desired effect of alienating you from your jurisdiction and the way you conduct your affairs. No one speaks Latin and it is the “dead language” in law. It is foreign to everyone. Can a court make me use Latin to describe my self. I have not seen a statute authorizing any branch of government the authority to make me use a Latin term in court. I have however found a remedy for anyone making that assertion. This remedy is only for persons, but an exact remedy exists, unwritten, and uncodified, for the sovereign man. DO NOT USE WRITTEN STATUTE FOR AUTHORITY TO ACT, INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTION. I could be a person under the Constitution and not under the Codes however because the Constitution does not read as blended to gether with the codes, as the codes do with themselves. This does illustrate however that I can use just plain English and it is their policy to accept it.

Originally Posted by West's Ann.Cal.Constitution (2001), article 3, section 6

(b) English as the Official Language of California.
English is the official language of the State of California.
(c) Enforcement.
The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the State of California is preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the State of California.
(d) Personal right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts.
Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of California shall have standing to sue the State of California to enforce this section, and the Courts of record of the State of California shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable and appropriate limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this section.

But I also claim that a fictional jurisdiction needs a specific statute to authorize any use of Latin. Is that true?

Originally Posted by West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2001), § 8

Writing includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement, or record is required or authorized by this code, it shall be made in writing in the English language unless it is expressly provided otherwise.

And specifically applying to courts…

Originally Posted by West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. (2001), § 185

(a) Every written proceeding in a court of justice in this state shall be in the English language, and judicial proceedings shall be conducted, preserved, and published in no other.

Wow. Is there really only Latin ‘titles” of appearing (I don’t think so and have never seen a statute stating so.) If so… Then they cannot make me take a title, or they cannot make me appear. How badly do you want be “rem” or “in propria persona” or “sui juris” or “Pro se” or “rem natura” or whatever?

And in closing I will state that although I am not a Mormon they do make a really good point concerning the first estate (See George Mercier’s writings for clarification if needed.) Under the “As is above so will be below” did God really put use here and then later create unilateral contract law? Or did we, Me and The Lord, both agree for me to be placed under god’s law before my birth and his commandments were just an Earthly reminder as the communication between God and his children became more scarce? When God dealt with humanity in the beginning it wasn’t pretty all the time. Then later as contract and law set upon the Earth did not God devise himself of his supreme existence and give us the man Jesus. Even God I think follows the rule of engaging on a level playing field.

[Satori]

Whuff! That was a very insightful and worthy expose you've written, Codee! I feel remiss for not having corrected "office of person" when I encountered it. I refrain from using the UCC for exactly the reason you state.

As usually happens, I'll focus specifically on the part of your article with which I don't completely agree (or, perhaps, understand).

Originally Posted by Codee

Back to the person thing. Every man is sovereign. However the sovereign lowers himself to the thing contracted with for the purposes and effects of the contract.

Why, and how?

I'm probably missing the obvious here, so I'll explain where I'm lost on this point. If two private Citizens of unequal standing in law (not "status", as the word's current judicially-constructed usage comes from "state of us", and U.S. Titles and Codes describes "state" as referring to a federal posession, such as Puerto Rico and Guam. "Character", "nature", and, sometimes, "standing in law" are used instead. The distinction is a ritualistic one involving with words of art, but at least be aware of it.) contract, with one perhaps acting as an agent for a corporation, for example... why would the private Citizen who is not have their standing in law lowered to that of one? You seem to refer to a matter of fairness as the basis, but I don't follow. Doesn't the Constitution secure (not grant, obviously) unalienable rights? If these rights are God-given and impossible to give away even by choice, what possible set of circumstances could legitimately allow one's standing in law to be lowered to meet that of another, even just in a single matter? I get that sovereignty rests with the People, plural, rather than a single sovereign, and we can't have a single sovereign Citizen ordering, say, a bank teller around against the interests of society due to his higher standing in law, but then again nobody is compelled to contract in the first place. If a master chooses, for whatever eccentric reason, to contract with his servants, whether public or private, he can't very well rationally be considered to be lowered to the standing of his own servant with regards to the matter. So I don't get why there would be any lowering of standing in law... or even how there could be, as these God-given rights are something we're supposed to be unable to part with even by our own choices. Can you explain it to me? (I'm also stuck on how any private Citizen, say, the bank teller from my previous example, could have his own standing in law altered by reason of his being an agent for the bank, even merely on a professional basis. If something is unalienable it would seem to preclude that as well.)

Most of your other points have been rolling around in the back of my head for a bit now, particularly about legislation as fair notice, and the consequent propriety involved in regarding the statutes at large (what an appropriate phrase) as Exhibit A in a matter of treason and embezzlement on the part of our public servants.


- Satori

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Codee

Hmmm… I believe that sui juris either:

1) Has no place in American law where English is the official language (except maybe old Louisiana, I don’t know about that state.)

Or…

2) Is a status/title/title of nobility/fiction, not lost or devised of when contracting for things like driver’s licenses. (Which the author obviously believes is not true do to the logic in the first two paragraphs of this essay and the other part of the sui juris definition “One not under the control of another.” The best solution to my mind is this is a piece from Rome which does not fit well in the American sovereigns puzzle.)

In your first example, would there be enough evidence in the statutes to establish a commercial presumption that use of Latin phrases in a fictional court, particularly when refering to one's own purported standing in law, intentionally establishes the Citizen's standing in law as fictitious? It would seem to be like referring to my standing by using reserved terms from COBOL or C++, or a made-up word used in a series of fantasy novels. "Your Honor, I reserve all of my rights, and am here as Octarine."

Far-fetched, perhaps, but this kind of constructionism is the way attorneys think. It's a real wonder that some of them can pass a drunk driving test due to the "walk a straight line" requirement.


- Satori

[Codee]

I appologize if it was rammbling on and hard to follow. I wrote it while watching Television last night after I had my evening ale.

Originally Posted by Satori

Why, and how?

I'm probably missing the obvious here, so I'll explain where I'm lost on this point. If two private Citizens of unequal standing in law...contract, with one perhaps acting as an agent for a corporation, for example... why would the private Citizen who is not have their standing in law lowered to that of one? You seem to refer to a matter of fairness as the basis, but I don't follow.

The coporation and agent are on the same level "lowly persons" so there really is no difference in them in the situation discussed here. That being said I will also clarify that private corporate rules that one accepts as an EMPLOYEE are not proceedure adopted by the representatives of the people and you do not devise yourself to that level. Just the public procedures of the jurisdiction you are dealing with.
Lets say you are a CORPORATION who is selling bolts of imported fabric. I am a sovereign man.
Now let's say I order a $100,000 order of cloth from you and you send it over to me. Upon receipt of the cloth I send you a letter "Dear LLC I received your goods. Being that I am a sovereign and can create law and you cannot I have decided you are entitled not to be paid in anyway. You cannot sue me in court or I will claim sovereign immunity and I will be upset with you and injure you some more. I am sorry you contracted with someone with different rules than you and that hurt you. Better luck next time!" And that would be that.

Originally Posted by Satori

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

This is in error I believe. I have been given the right to life by god. I can CHOOSE to give it away by putting a gun in my mouth and pulling the trigger. This truth is self-evident to me. I think I can also choose to give up my liberty or anything else. By allowing you to give up some rights and contract is fullfilling your right to happiness and liberty.

Originally Posted by Satori

I get that sovereignty rests with the People, plural, rather than a single sovereign, and we can't have a single sovereign Citizen ordering, say, a bank teller around against the interests of society due to his higher standing in law, but then again nobody is compelled to contract in the first place. If a master chooses, for whatever eccentric reason, to contract with his servants, whether public or private, he can't very well rationally be considered to be lowered to the standing of his own servant with regards to the matter.

Then what recourse does the servant have if the master can rule over one party withpowers not a part of the contract? If there is no recourse possible then what good is the contract? If a contract cannot be enforced by one party against another then why make it at all? FURTHER I do beleive that sovereignty rest in each individual and not JUST in the state. Please see my thread on how governments and states are different. States are the collective mind of the sovereigns. Also see Chisholm v Georgia.

Originally Posted by Satori

So I don't get why there would be any lowering of standing in law... or even how there could be, as these God-given rights are something we're supposed to be unable to part with even by our own choices. Can you explain it to me?

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

Originally Posted by Satori

(I'm also stuck on how any private Citizen, say, the bank teller from my previous example, could have his own standing in law altered by reason of his being an agent for the bank, even merely on a professional basis. If something is unalienable it would seem to preclude that as well.)

Because every contract he signs is on behalf of the bank which is ruled by iron clad procedure from Congress. That is why on every account one opens they make you agree to abide by the rules of the bank. They do not need to tell you this as I am sure they have flown a flag (on the document) which already noticed you that it was a creature under such and such laws and that those laws would be governing the contract. Lets see if I can expand this ambiguous idea.
Are you familiar with the law of flags and contracting on ships flying a flag. This is international law on how sovereigns interact and the same law must apply to both parties. If we signed a contract and I get to enforce it with California law and you with New york law, then the contract is void because the rules governing it do not exist in any one place and can be different at the same time. When contries default on contract that starts a war. One country can only be held to a contract with another under threat of force.
When we contract we have to know what laws are applying to the contract because as men we do not have the power to just kill one another over an equitable dispute. We have to agree to be under the SAME law and I cannot give you the law that is above you, so I must come down to your level (level playing field) to place us under THE SAME laws.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Satori

Most of your other points have been rolling around in the back of my head for a bit now, particularly about legislation as fair notice, and the consequent propriety involved in regarding the statutes at large (what an appropriate phrase) as Exhibit A in a matter of treason and embezzlement on the part of our public servants.


- Satori

Thank you for making me be more specific Satori, and please try to shoot this thing down in flames, it will help me and everyone else reading learn more, and my own writings are never perfect and sometimes grossly wrong.

[rentiap]

Codee;
Would that be Chisholm v Georgia??

[Codee]

Originally Posted by rentiap

Codee;
Would that be Chisholm v Georgia??

Yes, sorry

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Codee

I appologize if it was rammbling on and hard to follow. I wrote it while watching Television last night after I had my evening ale.

I found it to be well-crafted in the sense that the concepts were presented coherently, and comprehensive enough to get a few of the major points that needed getting to. Your explanation, by the way, accounts for why "person" is always some kind of corporate entity. Heck, they could've made it an agent of a corporate entity, as the UNITED STATES is one itself... Oh. Back to your argument about leaving trails of breadcrumbs in the statutes to demonstrate their lawless presumptions. It's less about what the statutes say, and more about them being Exhibit A in a case for treason. It's all extortion under color of authority, and the statutory words of art are, I think, just a means of keeping them all in lockstep with each other. It's a co-ordinated effort, and I think the statutory drift we're seeing is no more and no less than the drumbeat to which they march. On a practical level for the citizenry, it doesn't really matter what justifications and excuses they use in the course of their extortion under color of law and authority, since they're invalid anyway. It only matters to them. If you're familiar with the arguments for and against the 13th Amendment barring titles of nobility having been lawfully ratified, you're probably aware that one excuse is made by their side, and when we disprove it they get into finer and finer points until they're just hairsplitting. It didn't make sense to me at the time why, but as a means of keeping the party line for their side together, it makes sense to always have some cover story, however weak. Better than no alibi at all, or so they seem to think. I wonder if that's where we can get 'em; they opt for plausible denial as a modus operandi even when the arguments left to them are so weak that they're implausible.

Chief Justice Marshall's exposition in Cohens v Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L Ed 257, (1821), wrote what might be construed as evidence of this policy of using statutes and case law as a means of publishing the latest party line (possibly why they're not much concerned with a stare decesis, despite all the visible fawning over case precedant); he wrote that a court "must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them." (Emphasis mine.) Consider what happens in their courts; attorneys research case precedant and bring it to a magistrate. Litigants argue based on case cite. They base their cases on the words of another magistrate. If the current magistrate or attorneys are unaware of a case cite (unusual) they have it presented to them or look it up. The attorneys and the lawyers keep up with this output in the course of their daily work. It synchronizes them, and their words of art and the weak excuses get more diluted and arbitrary, until they've visibly outmoded the law altogether (and society completes the crumbling of which it's in the process).

Lets say you are a CORPORATION who is selling bolts of imported fabric. I am a sovereign man.
Now let's say I order a $100,000 order of cloth from you and you send it over to me. Upon receipt of the cloth I send you a letter "Dear LLC I received your goods. Being that I am a sovereign and can create law and you cannot I have decided you are entitled not to be paid in anyway. You cannot sue me in court or I will claim sovereign immunity and I will be upset with you and injure you some more. I am sorry you contracted with someone with different rules than you and that hurt you. Better luck next time!" And that would be that.

Great example. Why wouldn't the owner or someone else who has a financial interest in the corporation not have a private claim against you, the same as if you'd taken any of his other personal property? Why are we looking for reasons to sully our nature in law?

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

Here we get into speculative metaphysics, but I think you were given the right to existence by the Creator. I think that existence is not contingent upon your mortal frailties. Ultimately, it might be a moot point anyway, as many do choose to destroy their own existences (souls) through the choices they make. You seem to have a point, but the case instance is less than tangible. Let's try the other one.

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

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

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

It just seems like such a set-up, particularly with the state of the Union.

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

If he be truly a master, a contract would be unneccessary. Masters and servants, generally, though, are beneath the dignity of those in American common law. If they be equal private Citizens, one rendering a service to another, then we have simple hire between two equals and the problem of unequal standing is aleviated.

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

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

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

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

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

And it's just that the same laws, within the Union, are the laws of the state we share, and if we're in different states, the federal policies. They exist to moderate interstate commerce as a public service to the people for whom their offices exist. The tendancy for them lately to call every private activity commerce doesn't suddenly put it in their venue, it's just another paltry excuse for extortion under color of law and authority. So as Citizens of States of the Union, we retain an equal standing in law and have the same laws. Mind you, the subtlety of the federal government moderating interstate commerce (that involving financial gain instead of simple hire or contract law) rather than interpersonal relations seems to indicate that that anything else was moderated simply by the common law.


Be well,

- Satori

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Codee

When we contract we have to know what laws are applying to the contract because as men we do not have the power to just kill one another over an equitable dispute.

Yes, we do. As men we have the POWER to kill for any reason at all. It doesn't mean we are right to do so.

Also, people do not have to be of level status in order to contract. I contract with people of greater and lesser status than I on a consistent basis. And you are in no different circumstance than I.

When you sit at a table in a restaraunt and are waited upon... what is the "class", "status" or "standing" of each of these people: You, the Waitress/Waiter, the Owner of the Restaraunt.

Who did you contract with? How?

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

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

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

Those applications are "waivers".

Ice

P.S.

(straight from my $19.95 law book)

Priceless!!

By the way... one heck of a good conversation.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Codee

I apologize if it was rambling on and hard to follow. I wrote it while watching Television last night after I had my evening ale.

Originally Posted by Satori

I found it to be well-crafted in the sense that the concepts were presented coherently, and comprehensive enough to get a few of the major points that needed getting to. Your explanation, by the way, accounts for why "person" is always some kind of corporate entity. Heck, they could've made it an agent of a corporate entity, as the UNITED STATES is one itself... Oh. Back to your argument about leaving trails of breadcrumbs in the statutes to demonstrate their lawless presumptions. It's less about what the statutes say, and more about them being Exhibit A in a case for treason. It's all extortion under color of authority, and the statutory words of art are, I think, just a means of keeping them all in lockstep with each other. It's a co-ordinated effort, and I think the statutory drift we're seeing is no more and no less than the drumbeat to which they march. On a practical level for the citizenry, it doesn't really matter what justifications and excuses they use in the course of their extortion under color of law and authority, since they're invalid anyway. It only matters to them. If you're familiar with the arguments for and against the 13th Amendment barring titles of nobility having been lawfully ratified, you're probably aware that one excuse is made by their side, and when we disprove it they get into finer and finer points until they're just hairsplitting. It didn't make sense to me at the time why, but as a means of keeping the party line for their side together, it makes sense to always have some cover story, however weak. Better than no alibi at all, or so they seem to think. I wonder if that's where we can get 'em; they opt for plausible denial as a modus operandi even when the arguments left to them are so weak that they're implausible.

Chief Justice Marshall's exposition in Cohens v Virginia, 6 Wheat 264, 5 L Ed 257, (1821), wrote what might be construed as evidence of this policy of using statutes and case law as a means of publishing the latest party line (possibly why they're not much concerned with a stare decesis, despite all the visible fawning over case precedant); he wrote that a court "must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by, because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them." (Emphasis mine.) Consider what happens in their courts; attorneys research case precedant and bring it to a magistrate. Litigants argue based on case cite. They base their cases on the words of another magistrate. If the current magistrate or attorneys are unaware of a case cite (unusual) they have it presented to them or look it up. The attorneys and the lawyers keep up with this output in the course of their daily work. It synchronizes them, and their words of art and the weak excuses get more diluted and arbitrary, until they've visibly outmoded the law altogether (and society completes the crumbling of which it's in the process).

Originally Posted by Codee

Lets say you are a CORPORATION who is selling bolts of imported fabric. I am a sovereign man.
Now let's say I order a $100,000 order of cloth from you and you send it over to me. Upon receipt of the cloth I send you a letter "Dear LLC I received your goods. Being that I am a sovereign and can create law and you cannot I have decided you are entitled not to be paid in anyway. You cannot sue me in court or I will claim sovereign immunity and I will be upset with you and injure you some more. I am sorry you contracted with someone with different rules than you and that hurt you. Better luck next time!" And that would be that.

Originally Posted by Satori

Great example. Why wouldn't the owner or someone else who has a financial interest in the corporation not have a private claim against you, the same as if you'd taken any of his other personal property? Why are we looking for reasons to sully our nature in law?

Because I did not injure a private interested party in the above scenario, only a public person. Nor did I take any “other” property and specifically I did not “take” anything. Lets call the company US FABRIC. Ok now, US FABRIC “sent” and “delivered” some “goods.” I accepted and received the goods. Now the only person hurt was the company. Let’s say you are a shareholder of US FABRIC (I think this is the type of situation you were asking about.) and now you are upset because $100,000 is no longer with the company. You now have a claim against the company and it’s president/CEO or whoever is responsible. I did not injure the shareholder however. I injured the company. Since the company cannot bring an action at law against the sovereign his only recourse in the future is to not deal with a sovereign. So on this respect it is good to be able to lower yourself in “special” circumstances so that you can engage in commerce and buy food and cloths and fuel. See when there are two different playing fields I used my rules but the company cannot. I cannot elevate the company to my standing because I simply posses rights that society will not allow a corporation to posses. I can however fall to the level of the corporation and deal with it on those terms. I will also point out however that in my example I may devise myself to the level of person by contracting it through a crime upon it. Inflicting a crime on someone maybe contracting in a sense and you have created a situation where someone is deprived and is needing satisfaction.
The divestment occurs all over. God comes to Earth to deal with man AS Jesus, a man.
Imagine trying to talk to a never before exposed little kid about the stuff on this forum. Obviously your knowledge is “superior” to his on the subject and if you try to talk to the kid like he was me and have a conversation of this caliber the child would probably not be able to benefit at all. When teaching or interacting in general it always requires the one in the superior position to bring oneself down to the lower position. In rare circumstances one in a superior position can raise another from an inferior but not usually. The only real way to really raise someone to a superior position in any meaningful or spiritual sense is teaching, learning, and training, NOT contracting. (Have you ever noticed how many adults will start to talk to a baby in a baby voice when they see the baby. They try to lower themselves automatically because it seems a natural thing to do for interaction to be smooth.)
I just cannot stress this point hard enough so I will post it again. There are not many cases talking about sovereignty capacity and contracting with non-sovereigns.

Originally Posted by The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907-908, 6 L.Ed. 244. (my emphasis in blue)

Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted.