- From: Mark Ferran www.billstclair.com/ferran Subject: Sui Juris = NOT Insane!!!! No, NOT INSANE, REALLY I M NOT. I AM NOT INSANE!!! I said NOT Insane. NOTMessage 1 of 1 , Feb 1, 2005View SourceSubject: "Sui Juris" = NOT Insane!!!! No, NOT INSANE, REALLY I'M NOT. I AM NOT INSANE!!! I said NOT Insane. NOT NOT NOT Insane!!!!"Sui Juris" means "NOT INSANE" and "Not a Minor", etc. If you are "INSANE" then you are Not "Sui Juris." When an adult boasts for no apparent reason that he is "Sui Juris" he is basically asserting that he is "NOT INSANE", and doing so in a manner so as to raise immediate doubt as to the truth of that assertion.From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, under P for "Parties":"As a general rule all persons, whether natural or artificial, as corporations, may sue in equity; the exceptions are persons who are not sui juris, as a person not of full age, a feme covert, an idiot, or lunatic. "' http://www.jusbelli.com/Bouvier/bouvier1856_parti.htmlsui juris (SOO-eye joor-is, SOO-ee) adjective
Legally competent to manage one's affairs or assume responsibility.
[From Latin sui juris, from sui (of one's own) juris (right).]
The opposite of sui juris is alieni juris (Latin for "of another's right"),
one under control of another, either from being below legal age, or because
of mental incapacity, an insane person.Furiosus absentis loco est. The insane is compared to the absent. Dig. 50, 17, 24, 1. http://hammer.prohosting.com/~nealking/maxims.htmlWV Statute distinguishes those "Sui Juris" from those "insane" http://22.214.171.124/wvcode/37/WVC%2037%20%20-%20%201%20%20-%20%2013%20%20.htm
Sui juris[Latin: of one's own right]. A person who possesses full civil rights and is not under any legal incapacity such as being bankrupt, of minor age or mental incapacity. Most adults are sui juris.
One who has all the rights to which a freemen is entitled; one who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like.
To make a valid contract, a person must, in general, be sui juris. Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris."Part of being free is having "Sui Juris" status: a responsible adult with the ability to make friendly contracts in public. Insane people are declared Non Compos Mentis, thus Non-Sui Juris, prohibited from making friendly contracts in public, prohibited from managing one's own affairs." http://mu.clarityconnect.net/~ahimsa/lawful_arrest.htmlDid you see that part about: "Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris."Also in Bouvier's Law Dictioinary: "Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris." http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_s.htm(see also: http://www.biia.wa.gov/85C025.htm )If you go out of your way to Boast incessantly that you are "NOT INSANE" (i.e., "Sui Juris") you immediately raise doubt about that claim. Why boast it if you know you are already entitled to such a "presumption"? So, if you are entitled to a presumtion that you are "not insane" why would you go around asserting constantly "Sui Juris"??? I think only an insane or otherwise incompetent person would go around constantly boasting "I am Sui Juris"!!!"Sui Juris" (i.e., "NOT Insane") is a VERY LOW STANDARD OF COMPETENCY:"The donor is the person who gives. Any person who is sui juris can make a gift of his property. A minor, being incompetent to contract is incompetent to transfer, and a gift by the minor would therefore be void trustees cannot make a gift out of trust property unless authorized by the terms of the contract. ... The donor must not be insane but a mere weakness of the intellect would not be sufficient to invalidate the gift if the donor was able to apprehend the transaction." http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/transfer.htm"As to the persons who are capable of becoming agents, it may be observed, that but few persons are excluded from acting as agents, or from exercising authority delegated to them by others. It is not, therefore, requisite that a person be sui juris, or capable of acting in his own right, in order to be qualified to act for others. .. Persons who have clearly no understanding, as idiots and lunatics cannot be agents for others." http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a026.htmIncidentally, when you type "Sui Juris" and "Insane" together into Goggle, the first link that comes up is the to website of Pamela Gaston, who wrote a crazy book called "Sui Juris": Read about Gaston "Sui Juris" here:A Voice for Incoherence http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/voice.htmWho is "subject to the Jurisdiction of" the united States?Laws of a state are "enforced unilaterally" (meaning enforced against any person within the territory of the state whether he likes it or not, without any negotiation, without his personal consent). Laws are Laws, (not Contracts). A "Contract" on the other hand is a Bi-Lateral agreement between two parties. Statutes are not "contracts". The US Constitution is not a "Contract". The US Constitution is, and was ratified as "The Supreme Law of the Land."A LAW is a unilateral COMMAND by the Sovereign (e.g., the People duly represented) directed to the persons in the territory controlled by the Sovereign:John Austin explained:(1) "Law is the command of the sovereign, which is backed by threat of sanction for noncompliance;(2) X is a sovereign within a community if and only if (a) the bulk of the community is in the habit of obedience or submission to X, and (b) X is not in the habit of obedience to any person or group of persons in that community."The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) John Austin http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~brink/courses/168/Handout-1A.htmIn Leviathan, Hobbes wrote:"And first it is manifest, that Law in generall, is not Counsell, but Command; nor a Command of any man to any man; but only of him, whose Command is addressed to one formerly obliged to obey him. And as for Civill Law, it addeth only the name of the person Commanding, which is Persona Civitatis, the Person of the Commonwealth. Which considered, I define Civill Law in this manner. CIVILL LAW, Is to every Subject, those Rules, which the Common-wealth hath Commanded him, by Word, Writing, or other sufficient Sign of the Will, to make use of, for the Distinction of Right, and Wrong; that is to say, of what is contrary, and what is not contrary to the Rule.(33)" Leviathan, Hobbes http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/hobbes.htm http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Law.htmSir William Blackstone simplified this Olde English for the benefit of American colonists as follows:"Law is properly defined to be ``a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong''. Let us endeavour to explain it's several properties, as they arise out of this definition.
"And, first, it is a rule: not a transient sudden order from a superior, to or concerning a particular person; but something permanent, uniform, and universal. Therefore a particular act of the legislature to confiscate the goods of Titius, or to attaint him of high treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law: for the operation of this act is spent upon Titius only, and has no relation to the community in general; it is rather a sentence than a law. But an act to declare that the crime of which Titius is accused shall be deemed high treason; this has permanency, uniformity, and universality, and therefore is properly a rule. It is also called a rule, to distinguish it from advice or counsel, which we are at liberty to follow or not, as we see proper, and to judge upon the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the thing advised: whereas our obedience to the law depends not upon our approbation, but upon the maker's will. Counsel is only matter of persuasion, law is matter of injunction; counsel acts only upon the willing, law upon the unwilling also.
"It is also called a rule, to distinguish it from a compact or agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a command directed to us. The language of a compact is, ``1 will, or will not, do this''; that of a law is, ``thou shalt, or shalt not, do it''. It is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it, equal in point of conscience to that of a law; but then the original of the obligation is different. In compacts, we ourselves determine and promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws, we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising any thing at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be ``a rule''.This above Definition of "Law" by Blackstone is the Meaning of the word "Law" as adopted by Americans and was used in the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution:As Daniel Webster argued in the Dartmouth College case: "Are then these acts of the legislature, which affect only particular persons and their particular privileges, laws of the land? Let this question be answered by the text of Blackstone: 'And first, it (i.e. law) is a rule: not a transient sudden order from a superior, to, or concerning, a particular person; but something permanent, uniform, and universal. Therefore, a particular act of the legislature to confiscate the goods of Titius, or to attaint him of high treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law: for the operation of this act is spent upon Titius only, and has no relation to the community in general; it is rather a sentence than a law.' Lord Coke is equally decisive and emphatic. Citing and commenting on the celebrated29th chap. of Magna Charta, he says, 'no man shall be disseized, &c. unless it be by the lawful judgment, that is, verdict of equals, or by the law of the land, that is, (to speak it once for all,) by the due course and process of law.'" (Emphasis as in source.)Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 580-581.Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/336us56.htmlSee Generally: "LAW, A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA FOR PEACE" at www.billstclair.com/ferran and compare with the following:Rule of Law versus Unlimited Rule
by James Bovard, February 2003Early Americans venerated the law and saw it as the key to safeguarding their freedom. Thomas Paine wrote in 1776 that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.
In 1780, the Massachusetts Bill of Rights stated as its goal the establishment of a government of laws and not of men. John Phillip Reid, in his unrecognized classic 1986 study, noted, It is sometimes assumed by legal scholars that law was command during the era of the American Revolution, but that is an error. To a remarkable extent law even in the eighteenth century was still thought of as it had been in medieval times, as the sovereign and not as the command emanating from the sovereign.
Americans of the Revolutionary era glorified the law because it was seen as a means to restrain government and to secure the rights of the citizens. Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek defined the rule of law in 1944: Government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers. Hayek later observed, Because the rule of law means that government must never coerce an individual except in the enforcement of a known rule, it constitutes a limitation on the powers of all government. The rule of law aims to minimize discretionary power.
The rule of law is a recognition of the governments obligation to the citizenry. Political theorist Joseph Towers wrote in 1774, In arbitrary governments, all are equally slaves. . .. A vague and indefinite obedience, to the fluctuating and arbitrary will of any superior, is the most abject and complete slavery. Arbitrary power means personal subjugation to the bureaucratic and political rulers who can exercise their personal will over the subjects.
Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of the term law is an invitation to the abuse of power. The English jurist Sir William Blackstone declared in 1765 that law is not a transient order from a superior to or concerning a particular person or thing, but something permanent, uniform, and universal. The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1907, Law is a statement of the circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon men through the courts."The subject has liberty to disobey the sovereign's command if it contravene the law that the right of self-preservation cannot be abrogated, unless it be to endanger himself for the preservation of the commonwealth, as with soldiers. The subjects' obligation of obedience lasts so long as the sovereign's power of defending them, that being the purpose of his being made sovereign."HOBBES - FROM LEVIATHAN http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/enlightenm_bgd.htmlContracts are Bi-Lateral (voluntary mutual agreements between man and man). Laws are Unilateral Commands ("Obey or Suffer").Laws are "LAWS" (not "contracts") because they are _"Rules" that are *En-Forced*_ _*unilaterally*_ (by the physical force of police during emergencies, and by the judicial process of summonses and traffic tickets after the emergency has passed).Many of the PAYtriot Myths are sold to fools by mischaracterizing "Laws" (e.g., Traffic control Statutes) as matters of mere "commercial" "contract" (subject to renogotiation). This does not mean that traffic contorl laws must always be followed to the letter: See for example: A Need For Speed = Justification at http://billstclair.com/ferranThe false notion that Laws are mere Contracts is the basis of the Self-Destructive myth known as "UCC Redemption" (The misrepresentation of Law as mere contract). See http://www.trumpetamerica.org/Resource02.txt and When PAYtriots-for-Profit find a person ignorant and foolish enough to mistake a Law and call it a mere "contract" they have a victim. The Victim will often be parted with his money, given a ream of USELESS wishful thinking by the PAYtriot, and will only later be confronted with the reality of en-forcment of the Law (including prison confinement) as Law.Also, ignorance or reckless disregard of the above principles is why you see so many silly fools going around declaring themselves "Sovereigns" as if they had the individual power to enact laws and establish "Common Law Courts" and to subject others and even the officers of the established Government to their own personal jurisdiction. The People (citizens of the United States), not individuals, are Sovereign in this Country and in each of the united States. CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/2/419.htmlQui molitur insidias in patriam, id facit quod insanusnauta perforans navem in qua vehitur. He who betrays his country, is like the insane sailor who bores a hole in the ship which carries him. 3 Co. Inst. 36. See: Our Struggle to Keep Aztlan at http://billstclair.com/ferran/----- Original Message -----From: Jerry Carlos PittsSent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:25 AMSubject: Re: "Sui Juris" = NOT Insane!!!!
For supposedly knowing a lot about the law, I have to question the
level of your reading comprehension and ability to utilize readilly
Taken from Bouvier's law dictionary:
"SUI JURIS. One who has all the rights to which a freemen is
entitled; one who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a
minor, and the like.
2. To make a valid contract, a person must, in general, be sui juris.
Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris. Story on Ag. p.
Learn to read Mark.