Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

LAW is NOT a CONTRACT: "REDEMPTION" IS NOT RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY, IT IS CRIME

Expand Messages
  • Mark Ferran
    From: Mark Ferran www.billstclair.com/ferran Subject: LAW is NOT a CONTRACT: REDEMPTION IS NOT RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY, IT IS CRIME Laws of a state are
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 1, 2005
      Subject: LAW is NOT a CONTRACT: "REDEMPTION" IS NOT RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY, IT IS CRIME

      Laws of a state are "RULES" 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 all 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.htm
      In 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.htm
      Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries 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''.

       
      The Revolutionary American theory that the People are the Sovereign and that their "Consent" is the source of Law, was restated in CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793):
       
      "Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people [i.e., agents of the citizens of the United States], and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens." CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)  http://laws.findlaw.com/us/2/419.html
       
      "[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African  slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.   ...  Of this plan the author of [Blackstone's] Commentaries was, if not the introducer, at least the great supporter. He has been followed in it by writers later and less known; and his doctrines have, both on the other and this side of the Atlantic,been implicitly and generally received by those, who neither examined their principles nor their consequences, The principle is, that all human law must be prescribed by a superior. This principle I mean not now to examine. Suffice it, at present to say, that another principle, very different in its nature and operations, forms, in my judgment, the basis of sound and genuine jurisprudence; laws derived from the pure source of equality and justice must be founded on the CONSENT of those, whose obedience they require.. "  CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793)  http://laws.findlaw.com/us/2/419.html
      The above Definition of "Law" articulated by Blackstone in his famous Commentaries is the Meaning of the word "Law" as adopted by Americans and as used in the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment and elsewhere in the US 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.html
       
      See 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 2003
      Early 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 government’s 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.”

      Oliver Wendel Holmes explained:
      "[A]ll law emanates from the sovereign, even when the first human beings to enunciate it are the judges, or you may think that law is the voice of the Zeitgeist, or what you like. It is all one to my present purpose. Even if every decision required the sanction of an emperor with despotic power and a whimsical turn of mind, we should be interested none the less, still with a view to prediction, in discovering some order, some rational explanation, and some principle of growth for the rules which he laid down. In every system there are such explanations and principles to be found."  http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm
      Contracts are Bi-Lateral (voluntary mutual agreements between man and man).  Laws are Unilateral Commands ("Obey or Suffer").
       
      Some Laws, such as the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, are En-Forced AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, on behalf of the People:  See "The Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment" at www.billstclair.com/ferran 
      "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances."
      Ex Parte Milligan, 71 US 2 (1866). LINK: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html

      "The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, later incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, was intended to give Americans at least the protection against governmental power that they had enjoyed as Englishmen against the power of the Crown."  Ingraham v. Write, 430 U.S. 651, 672-3 (1976).  http://billstclair.com/ferran/markferran1.html

      In particular, the Fourteenth Amendment clothes a citizen:
      "with the right, when his privileges and immunities are invaded by partial and discriminating legislation, to appeal from his State to his Nation, and gives him the assurance that, for his protection, he can invoke the whole power of the government.http://billstclair.com/ferran/fourteenth.html
      Yet, some of the most ruthless PAYtriots-for-Profit, such as the infamous Anti-"American"  "L.B.Bork" of PAC-in-Law actually go so far as to teach stupid people to disavow their country ("America") and to promote DISrespect for their Constitutional rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.  See:  Our Struggle to Keep Aztlan  at http://billstclair.com/ferran  
       
      As a result of their Redemption cult programming, some "Redemption" victims expressly disavow their explicit Constitutionally secured Rights, in vile words like these actual words written:  "Who cares about the constitution and any of the amendments?  We are not parties to the original CONTRACT called the constitution, nor the amendments.  These do not affect us in any way."
       
      The US Constitution is not a "Contract".  The US Constitution is, and was ratified by the People as "The Supreme Law of the Land." 
       
      The "Redemption" freaks are therefore making it more difficult for ordinary law-abiding citizens to compel their rulers to RESPECT their rights under the Constitution.  Redemptionists are therefore Traitors against the People, and are aiding and abetting the disintegration of the Rule of Law that protects the People from tyrannical government.
       
      All 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 renegotiation etc.).  I do not mean to say that all laws must always be followed to the letter under all circumstances:  See for example when it is lawfull to "speed":  A Need For Speed == Justification  at  http://billstclair.com/ferran
      "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.html
       
      The false notion that Laws are mere Contracts or "commercial" instruments is the basis of the Self-Destructive Myth called "Redemption" (The misrepresentation of Law as mere "commercial" Contract).  See  http://www.trumpetamerica.org/Resource02.txt  and 
      See:  The "Redemption" Argument  http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UCC.htm
       
      When a PAYtriot-for-Profit finds a person ignorant and foolish enough to mistake the nature of a Law and call it a mere "commercial" "contract" he has found a victim that can be preyed upon mercilessly and almost indefinitely.  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.  The Victim goes off like a Moth Attracted to the light (the false promise of getting something for nothing), only to get ZAPPED (by the En-Forcement of LAW) before he reaches it.  In some cases, the victims are so stupid that when they see the Moth ahead of them get ZAPPED, they think that if they only try to find a new way to get to the light, they won't get zapped themselves.  Here is a testimonial from one stupid Moth on his way to getting ZAPPED despite knowing that other Moths pursuing the same Light have been ZAPPED ahead of him:
      ive been following the patriot,redemption stuff since 1999. At first i wasnt shocked by the outrageous money people were asking for different redemption schemes because it was all new to me and others and we felt, hey, we finally got "THE" silver bullet and its gonna cost a lot but it is worth it. then i like others woke up and realized that we havent gotten to the end of the road like we thought. ... If you look at the track record, the people who are charging the large amounts arent producing like they said. ... Seems every few months they come along with some new was to improve their redemption paperwork. New people are at first taken in by this stuff and soon find out they are better off thinking for themselves. Well, one day we will get this all right, BUT WE BETTER DO IT AS A TEAM, only then will the government realize they are up against a organized force."
      These silly lawless traitorous greedy fools (who used to be somewhat respectable citizens) think they are "organized" because they mainly associate with each other and do not seek credible counsel in the real world.  But they are not as "organized" as are the PEOPLE of the STATES who enacted LAWS and who established Governments to En-FORCE those Laws. All that the "Redemption" wackos really accomplish is to make a laughing stock out of white patriotic Christian Americans!  The more the "Redemption" wackos promote their nonsensical schemes, while dwelling in their own made-up world where "everything is commerce", the more they will give up on their claims to actual legal rights secured under the constitution and laws.  www.billstclair.com/ferran   And, when they step out of that little fairy tale world into the real world and try to impose their gibberish on the People of the united States, the Laws of the People are En-Forced against them and they suffer, because they are totally defenseless and can only irritate the judges and prosecutors whom they confront with their nonsense. 
       
      The Leftist ADL loves the "redemption" criminals, because it supports their arguments that white Christian Americans are unfit to keep and carry guns and unfit to govern the united States:
      "Scam artists and right-wing extremists are hawking a pseudo-legal strategy that promises both financial gain and the opportunity to take revenge against what is seen as a sham government. Called "redemption," the technique has earned its promoters untold profits, buried courts and other agencies under tons of worthless paper, and led to scores of arrests and convictions throughout the United States.   ...  What redemption promoters sell — through hundreds of pricey books, tapes, CD-ROMs, Web sites and interminably dull seminars saturated with quasi-legalistic mumbo-jumbo — is a cockamamie version of U.S. history in which the federal government has enslaved its citizens by using them as collateral against foreign debt.  ... Redemption is a charade. It is time-consuming, nonsensical, and virtually impossible to understand. That it doesn't work goes without saying — many people now in prison are mute testimony to the scam's many perils.  And it costs a small fortune to master. For while redemptionists say they'll make you rich, they almost always want to be paid first, in dollars printed by the government they hate. "  http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=t
      Here is a typical "Redemption" sales-pitch made by the PAYtriot criminals that appeals to stupid and gullible and often desperate people (promising something for nothing) if only they will disavow all their actual legal rights and "Join" a "redemption" cult:
      "Learn Commercial Redemption.....Pay all your debts for Dollar.....for more details ....Join Stephen Gottfried". 
      Sometimes, even the PAYtriot criminals who invent and promote these lawless and useless schemes get what is coming to them:
      Redemption Scheme Leader Arrested in Minnesota

      White supremacist and anti-government extremist Roger Elvick was arrested in Minnesota on September 3, 2003, after being indicted in Ohio on multiple charges related to a bogus check scheme called "redemption."

      Redemption, created by Elvick in the late 1990s, is an elaborate scheme promulgated by anti-government extremist groups around the country. Promoters of the scheme hold seminars at which they claim that the United States went bankrupt in 1933 when it went off the gold standard, and to pay the country's debt to "international bankers," the U.S. collateralized American citizens themselves, registering their birth certificates as securities.  ... 

      Redemption spread across the country after 1999, becoming one of the most popular anti-government extremist tactics. Redemption practitioners have been convicted on a variety of charges in Oregon, Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and other states.

      Elvick is charged with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The indictment claims that Elvick and others (many of whom have since been convicted on a variety of charges) engaged in a criminal enterprise involving Redemption groups holding seminars to teach people Redemption and how to use bogus sight drafts.

      Elvick is also charged with two counts of extortion, five counts of intimidation, two counts of conspiracy to commit intimidation, five counts of retaliation, four counts of complicity in the commission of forgery, and one count of conspiracy to commit engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.

      Elvick and three others were arrested and convicted in 1990 on a 19-count indictment. According to federal prosecutors, "Elvick started the operation and communicated his ideas, which were picked up by the others." Elvick was subsequently convicted in another trial on charges of filing false IRS 1099 forms in order to harass public officials.

      As a result of these convictions, Elvick spent most of the 1990s in jail. According to Redemptionists, he used his time in prison to hone his theories, and indeed, the Redemption scheme, also involving ... a variation on Elvick's original scheme.

       http://www.adl.org/learn/news/Roger_Elvick_arrested.asp

      "Twelve Western Michigan residents were convicted today in federal court on 67 counts of fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion. The anti-government extremists, members of the "sovereign citizen" movement, had attempted to use bogus Internal Revenue Service filings to trigger IRS inquiries against 18 judges.  ... "We applaud the convictions in this important case," said Jennifer Doeren, Assistant Director of the Anti-Defamation League's Detroit office. "ADL has long been concerned about efforts by anti-government extremists to harass and intimidate law enforcement officers and public officials in Michigan and elsewhere."...  The defendants were practitioners of an anti-government scheme known as "redemption" or "accept for value," which has become increasingly popular among anti-government extremists since 1999. Adherents of the "redemption" tactic make uniform commercial code filings that they claim allows them ... to pay off their debts and liabilities. Creditors, public officials, or law enforcement officers who disagree are subjected to harassing IRS Form 8300 filings, among other attempts at intimidation. Redemptionists have been convicted on a variety of charges in Ohio, Oregon, Idaho, and several other states." 

      http://www.adl.org/learn/news/gov_plotter.asp

      Redemption cult members are basically all worshiping "Money", and put the pursuit of Easy Money ahead of G-- and ahead of learning, advocating and defending their actual legal rights of themselves and the rights of their fellow citizens.  Most Redemptionists are entirely uninterested in Demanding the Government to Respect their actual Rights secured by the US Constitution, leaving rulers free to withhold, violate, deny and disavow those rights. See www.billstclair.com/ferran 
       
      Thus, Peddlers of "Redemption" are subverting the People's Resistance to Tyranny, one victim at a time. 
       
      And see also:  Old Wine, New Bottles:  Paper Terrorism, Paper Scams and Paper “Redemption”    http://www.militia-watchdog.org/redemption.asp
       
      Here are some published cases which have correctly rejected this lunacy: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/UCC.htm
       
      Oliver Wendell Holmes explained that the study of "Law" is a way to try to predict what a Judge (and the Sheriff taking his orders) is going to do in particular circumstances:
      "But, as I shall try to show, a legal duty so called is nothing but a prediction that if a man does or omits certain things he will be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court; and so of a legal right.   ...  The duty to keep a contract at common law means a prediction that you must pay damages if you do not keep it — and nothing else. If you commit a tort, you are liable to pay a compensatory sum."  http://www.constitution.org/lrev/owh/path_law.htm
      And:
      "When we study law we are not studying a mystery but a well-known profession. We are studying what we shall want in order to appear before judges, or to advise people in such a way as to keep them out of court. The reason why it is a profession, why people will pay lawyers to argue for them or to advise them, is that in societies like ours the command of the public force is intrusted to the judges in certain cases, and the whole power of the state will be put forth, if necessary, to carry out their judgments and decrees. People want to know under what circumstances and how far they will run the risk of coming against what is so much stronger than themselves, and hence it becomes a business to find out when this danger is to be feared. The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts."
       
      See also:  Law, a Revolutionary Idea for Peace at  http://billstclair.com/ferran
       
      What Mr. Steel refers to as "Fantasy Law" are the various childish ideas that are basically made-up by dishonest or delusional people and which have absolutely zero "predictive value" because they are NOT "The Law" that Judges (Lawyers) study and that will be en-forced by the "whole power of the state."   Most often, the "Fantasy Law" ideas of con-men SHOULD NOT BE "THE LAW" because the en-forcement of such nonsensical ideas such would lead to chaos, weakness, and invasion.  Mankind has had thousands of years of experience to help it to decide what SHOULD BE "THE LAW" OF THE LAND.
       
      If a person expects to predict what a Judge, or a Sheriff, is going to do by simply declaring self-suficiency (e.g., "I rely upon LOGIC. Think for yourself.") that person is going to have ZERO effectiveness in Court.  People have to study what Judges declare that the Law is, because that is theoretically the best way to predict what will happen.  This has been true since the role of Judges to explain and declare the Law was defined in the Bible's Old Testament.
       
      Also, ignorance or reckless disregard of the principle that Law is a Rule En-Forced is why you see so many silly fools going around declaring themselves "Sovereigns" as if they had the individual power to enact laws and to 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.html
       
       
      Qui 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 -----
      Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 1:57 PM
      Subject: Re: [ed44] The Law School version of Erie Doctrine
       
      WOW!!!!! Whadyamean 'bout Erie? Ya mean that for years those who asserted that Erie banished the common law wuz wrong? See:

      http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/UCC.htm

      Attorney Douglas Palaschak wrote:

      >Milo posted a law school summary on my website.
      >It is available from West.
      >All the messages are near message #5476
      >Message 5476 at http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude
      >From:  Milo <shining@...>
      >Date:  Mon Jan 24, 2005  1:21 am
      >Subject:  The Erie Doctrine
      >
      >
      >
      >The Erie Doctrine
      >http://www.west.net/~smith/erie.htm
      >Nature of the Problem
      >Once you have determined which court or courts have the proper
      >jurisdiction to decide a case, the next question one is faced with is
      >what law should the court apply?  State courts apply state law.  In
      >federal question cases both federal and state courts apply federal
      >law.  But in diversity cases) a case that could have been brought in a
      >state court but is being brought in federal court due solely to the
      >citizenship of the parties, what law will a federal court apply?
      >Federal or state?  Prior to 1938,  Swift v. Tyson , 41 U.S. (16 Pet.)
      >1, 10 L.Ed. 865 (1842) held that federal courts were free to apply the
      >law so as to reach a result they thought was justice regardless of
      >state common law.   However that changed with the decision in Erie
      >R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).
      >In Erie, the plaintiff was walking alongside railroad tracks when his
      >right arm was severed by an object protruding from defendant's train.
      > The accident  occurred in Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff (now presumably
      >known as "lefty") filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York where
      >it was felt the laws were more favorable to plaintiffs.  The issue was
      >what level of duty is owed to a trespasser.  If Pennsylvania law
      >applied then only "wanton negligence" created liability.  If "federal
      >common law" applied the plaintiff could recover if the railroad was
      >guilty of "ordinary" negligence.  The issue that confronted the
      >Supreme Court was the meaning of the phrase "the laws of the several
      >states."    If it meant case law (judicial decisions) as well as
      >statutes, then Pennsylvania law would apply and plaintiff would lose.
      > If not, then "federal common law" will apply and plaintiff could
      >presumably recover.
      >Erie held that federal courts in diversity actions apply the
      >substantive law of the state in which they sit.  "Law" includes common
      >law as well as statutory law.  In diversity actions federal courts
      >must treat the decisions of the state courts in the jurisdiction in
      >which they sit as a source of law.  I.e., a federal court in a
      >diversity case must apply the same law that the state court would
      >apply.  There is no longer a "federal common law," a federal court
      >must apply the common law of the state.  The rule of Erie serves the
      >purposes of discouraging forum shopping and avoiding the unfair
      >administration of laws (i.e., avoiding the potential for state and
      >federal courts sitting in the same state reaching different outcomes
      >based on the same facts.)
      >Evolution of the Erie Doctrine
      >The Erie doctrine has evolved over the years.  Here are the turning
      >points in its evolution.
      >Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079
      >(1945) marks the emergence of the "outcome determinative test," which
      >was an attempt to prevent federal courts from reaching a result at
      >variance with the result that would obtain in a state court in a
      >comparable case.  (Friedenthal § 4.3)  A state law which is normally
      >regarded as "procedural" should be applied by a federal court in a
      >diversity case if it would, or could, vitally affect the outcome of
      >the case.  Guaranty Trust redefined the Erie doctrine.  The intent of
      >Erie was to insure that where a federal court is exercising
      >jurisdiction solely because of diversity, the outcome of the
      >litigation in federal court should be substantially the same as it
      >would be if tried in State court.  (Wright, § 55)  In Guaranty Trust
      >the issue was whether a federal court in a diversity case must apply
      >the state statute of limitations, which would have barred the suit in
      >state court.  Goal is to avoid reaching a different result in federal
      >court than would otherwise be had in state court.  If applying federal
      >law would mean a different outcome, state law controls therefore state
      >statute of limitations applies.
      >In Byrd v. Blue Ridge , 356 U.S. 525, 78 S.Ct 893, 2 L.Ed. 2d 953
      >(1958) the question was whether the issue of employee or independent
      >contractor is to be decided by the judge or the jury.  The court held
      >that the mere possibility that a federal practice may alter the
      >outcome of a diversity case is not conclusive in deciding whether to
      >apply federal or state law.  Court must weigh (determine whether
      >either one is of some importance) the policies behind the federal and
      >state rules then determine whether there is a substantial possibility
      >that different results would be obtained because federal practice is
      >used.  (Friedenthal § 4.3)  In Byrd the state practice was found to
      >reflect a weak state policy, not bound up with the underlying statute,
      >of preferring a judge's determination of the employment issue.  When
      >balanced against the strong federal policy embodied in the 7th
      >Amendment guarantee of a jury trial, and the fact that there was no
      >substantial possibility that different results would be obtained by
      >utilizing a jury, the federal practice was preferred.  (Friedenthal § 4.3)
      >In Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed. 2d 8 (1965),
      >the issue was whether federal rules on service of process should yield
      >to state rules. Hanna announces a two-part test.  First, the court
      >inquires whether a federal rule actually governs the practice under
      >consideration.  If the answer is yes, then the court must determine
      >whether a conflict between the federal rule and state law exists, or
      >whether the federal rule is "narrower" in its coverage (i.e., does not
      >cover the issue in question) than the state statute.  If there is a
      >direct conflict between state practice and a federal rule, then the
      >court must determine whether the federal rule is a valid exercise of
      >the rule making power granted to the Supreme Court by Congress.
      >(Friedenthal § 4.4) (No federal rule of civil procedure has ever been
      >found to be an invalid exercise of the rule making power.)
      >
      >Hanna Two-Part Test Simplified
      >(1) If there is a valid Federal Rule on the subject, the rule is to be
      >applied.
      >(2) In the absence of a federal rule on the point the court is to
      >consider the problem in light of the twin aims of the Erie rule,  (a)
      >discourage forum shopping and (b) avoid inequitable administration of
      >laws.  (Different results between state and federal courts.)  (Wright
      >§ 59)
    • jm367@bellsouth.net
      Suppose the sovereign of your premise, enacts a law commanding Joe s to give his farm to Harry. Suppose the sovereign of your premise enacts a law
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 2, 2005
        Suppose the "sovereign" of your premise, enacts a law commanding Joe's to give his farm to Harry.
        Suppose the "sovereign" of your premise enacts a law prohibiting farmers from saving seed.
        Suppose the "sovereign" of your premise enacts a law prohibiting the use of the highways on any day but Sunday to any but those vehicles owned by or leased from this State.
         
         
      • nickster97@yahoo.com
        Mark, You need a lesson as to how laws are created. a maxim of law is Contract is law, law is contract A second maxim of law is Jurisdiction is created from
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 5, 2005
          Mark,

          You need a lesson as to how laws are created.

          a maxim of law is "Contract is law, law is contract"

          A second maxim of law is "Jurisdiction is created from the terms of
          the contract."

          The constitution was a contract in every sense of the word as it was
          accepted by "we the people". The Constitution became a Public Trust
          Guaranteed by the Government for the beneficiaries called "we the
          people".

          What you know about contracts is limited to Bilateral contracts? Well,
          what about unilateral contracts such as marriage license applications,
          Drivers license applications, and social security applications? Those
          are all examples of unilateral contracts under roman civil law brought
          in under Erie RR V. Thompkins. It is all offer and acceptance.

          The application is the contract Offer, and reciept of the license is
          the acceptance. The laws, or the rules of the road for instance in
          drivers licenses, is the jurisdiction of the laws.

          As far as living and accepting the laws of the state, you have the
          right to reject the contract through political will. You can change
          your political will by moving out of the "Jurisdiction". Otherwise,
          you assent to the laws of the jurisdiction.

          One can move from one state to another state or..one can move out of
          the country, they cannot hold you against your political will.

          Statutory law is contractual in nature. In fact, there is software out
          there that keeps tabs on the cost of the Statute being offended for
          court. The software also keeps track of bonds created when someone is
          arrested and subsequently tried. These bonds are then sold on the
          market as securities on the Chicago board of options exchange for
          income. Because of this, prisons are now called credit facilities.
          Prisons are moneymakers here in America because of the money going
          through the system.

          I would urge you Mark to understand the contractual nature of
          Government and the laws.




          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Ferran" <mferran@n...>
          wrote:
          > From: Mark Ferran www.billstclair.com/ferran
          > Subject: LAW is NOT a CONTRACT: "REDEMPTION" IS NOT RESISTANCE TO
          TYRANNY, IT IS CRIME
          >
          >
          > Laws of a state are "RULES" 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."
          >
        • gary
          Questions below. Gary ... From: nickster97@yahoo.com To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 1:18 AM Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re:
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
            Questions below.
             
            Gary
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 1:18 AM
            Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: LAW is NOT a CONTRACT: "REDEMPTION" IS NOT RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY, IT IS CRIM



            Statutory law is contractual in nature. In fact, there is software out
            there that keeps tabs on the cost of the Statute being offended for
            court.
            *** Do you have the name of this software and the name of the company that sells it?
             
            The software also keeps track of bonds created when someone is
            arrested and subsequently tried. These bonds are then sold on the
            market as securities on the Chicago board of options exchange for
            income.
            *** How are these securities listed?  What would I look for on the Chicago Board of Options Exchange?  Why would a bond be sold on the options exchange?
             
             Because of this, prisons are now called credit facilities.
             
            *** Where can I find prisons referred to as "credit facilities"?
            Prisons are moneymakers here in America because of the money going
            through the system.

          • jm367@bellsouth.net
            A maxim of law is that a privilege is a private law. So, when an application is made for a privilege (offer) and accepted (issue of the privilege), a private
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
              A maxim of law is that a privilege is a private law.  So, when an application is made for a privilege (offer) and accepted (issue of the privilege), a private law exists between grantor and grantee which looks like a contract based on roman law stipulations.  A privilege is a pseudo-contract.
               
              However, there is also statute law which is simply a command to all within the jurisdiction of the lawgiver.  Such as, thou shalt not murder.
            • brokenwrench
              see attachments gary wrote: Questions below. Gary ... From: nickster97@yahoo.com To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
                see attachments

                gary <gary2666@...> wrote:
                Questions below.
                 
                Gary
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 1:18 AM
                Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Re: LAW is NOT a CONTRACT: "REDEMPTION" IS NOT RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY, IT IS CRIM



                Statutory law is contractual in nature. In fact, there is software out
                there that keeps tabs on the cost of the Statute being offended for
                court.
                *** Do you have the name of this software and the name of the company that sells it?
                 
                The software also keeps track of bonds created when someone is
                arrested and subsequently tried. These bonds are then sold on the
                market as securities on the Chicago board of options exchange for
                income.
                *** How are these securities listed?  What would I look for on the Chicago Board of Options Exchange?  Why would a bond be sold on the options exchange?
                 
                 Because of this, prisons are now called credit facilities.
                 
                *** Where can I find prisons referred to as "credit facilities"?
                Prisons are moneymakers here in America because of the money going
                through the system.

              • Tiberius Pontificus
                Nickster97, You wrote The constitution was a contract in every sense of the word as it was accepted by we the people . Oh really? What definition of
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 11, 2005
                  Nickster97,
                   
                  You wrote
                   
                  "The constitution was a contract in every sense of the word as it was accepted by "we the people"."
                   
                  Oh really?  What definition of "contract " are you using?  Are you claiming that something written over 200 years ago that was signed by a relative handful of people who claimed to be "representing" the "people" is today binding upon us?  Any definition of a contract that I've ever studied includes the following elements: all parties must communicate over the terms of the contract; all parties must agree to the contract;  all parties must willingly sign or accept the contract; the terms of the contract must be fully known and disclosed to all parties; and furthermore, if one of the parties violates the terms of the contract, the damaged party has recourse against the other party.  How does the "constitution" meet these requirements of a contract?  The constitution is a one-sided contract that is enforced with guns by the government-and the "founding fathers" knew that fully.  The only purpose of the "constitution," the "courts," "elections," administrative agencies, etc. is to make the pillaging by the government look acceptable. 

                   


                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

                • brokenwrench
                  remember the population of these united Sates of America entered the civil war as soveriegn Citizens and cam out various classes of slaves of different colors
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 12, 2005
                    remember the population of these united Sates of America entered the civil war as soveriegn  Citizens and cam out various classes of slaves of different colors owned by the de facto federal government under marshal rule funded and controled by the bankers


                    Tiberius Pontificus <dudeman1862@...> wrote:
                    Nickster97,
                     
                    You wrote
                     
                    "The constitution was a contract in every sense of the word as it was accepted by "we the people"."
                     
                    Oh really?  What definition of "contract " are you using?  Are you claiming that something written over 200 years ago that was signed by a relative handful of people who claimed to be "representing" the "people" is today binding upon us?  Any definition of a contract that I've ever studied includes the following elements: all parties must communicate over the terms of the contract; all parties must agree to the contract;  all parties must willingly sign or accept the contract; the terms of the contract must be fully known and disclosed to all parties; and furthermore, if one of the parties violates the terms of the contract, the damaged party has recourse against the other party.  How does the "constitution" meet these requirements of a contract?  The constitution is a one-sided contract that is enforced with guns by the government-and the "founding fathers" knew that fully.  The only purpose of the "constitution," the "courts," "elections," administrative agencies, etc. is to make the pillaging by the government look acceptable. 

                     


                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

                  • Don Schwarz
                    It is an adhesion contract to our PUBLIC SERVANTS ONLY. We the People created the contract, and the public servants obey it.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 12, 2005
                      It is an adhesion contract to our PUBLIC SERVANTS ONLY.

                      We the People created the contract, and the public servants obey it.






                      At 06:19 PM 2/11/05 -0800, you wrote:
                      >Nickster97,
                      >
                      >You wrote
                      >
                      >"The constitution was a contract in every sense of the word as it was
                      >accepted by "we the people"."
                      >
                    • Don Schwarz
                      Sovereigns, cannot surrender their sovereignty in a constitutional republic, for then it ceases to exist. Therefore, they can only expand their sovereignty.
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 12, 2005



                        Sovereigns, cannot surrender their sovereignty in a constitutional
                        republic, for then it ceases to exist.

                        Therefore, they can only expand their sovereignty.





                        At 12:11 AM 2/12/05 -0800, you wrote:
                        remember the population of these united Sates of America entered the civil war as soveriegn  Citizens and cam out various classes of slaves of different colors owned by the de facto federal government under marshal rule funded and controled by the bankers


                        Tiberius Pontificus <dudeman1862@...> wrote:
                        Nickster97,
                         
                        You wrote
                         
                        "The constitution was a contract in every sense of the word as it was accepted by "we the people"."
                         
                        Oh really?  What definition of "contract " are you using?  Are you claiming that something written over 200 years ago that was signed by a relative handful of people who claimed to be "representing" the "people" is today binding upon us?  Any definition of a contract that I've ever studied includes the following elements: all parties must communicate over the terms of the contract; all parties must agree to the contract;  all parties must willingly sign or accept the contract; the terms of the contract must be fully known and disclosed to all parties; and furthermore, if one of the parties violates the terms of the contract, the damaged party has recourse against the other party.  How does the "constitution" meet these requirements of a contract?  The constitution is a one-sided contract that is enforced with guns by the government-and the "founding fathers" knew that fully.  The only purpose of the "constitution," the "courts," "elections," administrative agencies, etc. is to make the pillaging by the government look acceptable. 

                         


                      • Tiberius Pontificus
                        Don, You wrote It is an adhesion contract to our PUBLIC SERVANTS ONLY. We the People created the contract, and the public servants obey it. I question that.
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 12, 2005
                          Don,
                          You wrote
                           




                          "It is an adhesion contract to our PUBLIC SERVANTS ONLY.

                          We the People created the contract, and the public servants obey it."

                          I question that.  An example of a contract of adhesion is an insurance policy.  The insurance company writes it, the person being insured reads it (in reality though, he rarely does; usually he relies on the agent's expertise in reading & interpreting the contract), and then chooses to enter the contract by paying insurance premiums and complying with the policy terms in the event of loss, etc., or not entering into it all.  The insured can back out of that contract, if he so chooses, by stopping the payment of premiums.
                            The insurance company has certain obligations that it must perform in return for the payment of premiums.  If the potential insured decides not to enter into the contract, the insurance company parts ways with him, and neither has any obligation to the other.
                           
                          The constitution (either of the U.S. or of any other country) has none of these qualities.  If a person chooses not to enter into that "contract" by not paying taxes, then the government will eventually put that person in jail or kill him.  Furthermore, just because a person, or the vast majority of people, pay taxes, does not mean that the government can be held accountable for anything.  There are a vast number of court decisions (at all levels), going back over a hundered years, that state plainly that the government has no duty or obligation to protect, defend or provide any services to "citizens."  For an illustration of this, what do you think would happen if a person attempted to sue the local police dept. if his car was stolen?  Or attempt to sue the federal government because it failed to protect the people who were killed on 9/11/2001?  "Government," or the "United States," or "the city of xxxx," are merely dba names for a group of men & women who want to take other peoples' property by using violence or the threat thereof.
                           
                          Lastly, the constitution was not created by "we the people;" when the "founders" drafted it, did they invite every adult's input?  And how can something written over 200 years ago bind anyone today? 
                           
                          There are some who claim that there's some sort of "secret contract" present that obligates us to pay taxes, worship at the government's feet, etc.  The problem with that is that,if it is secret, then it does not fit the definition of a contract.  An excellent book to read in this regard is Marc Stevens' "Adventures in Legal Land."

                           






                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                          http://mail.yahoo.com

                        • nickster97@yahoo.com
                          What is missing today in the patriot movement is the understanding of how trusts are formed and implief contracts. Assent to a contract has just as much
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 13, 2005
                            What is missing today in the patriot movement is the understanding of
                            how trusts are formed and implief contracts. Assent to a contract has
                            just as much binding weight in law as a signed agreement and meeting
                            of the minds.

                            When the Constitution was adopted, agreed by our representatives, it
                            became the law of the land. By the agreement, with the people as
                            beneficiary, the government as trustee, the constitution became a
                            public trust.

                            One can acept or reject the constitution by political will. One would
                            express this by expatriating. Other than that, you assent to the terms
                            of the contract by staying within the jurisdiction of the laws of the
                            land.

                            Contract is law and the terms of the contract create jurisdiction.

                            Think of marriage licenses. Did you authorize the state to step into
                            your affairs if there are questions with the children? But they do
                            have that right. Understand the underlying trust relationship. The
                            state, holding legal title as trustee, owns title to property, namely
                            the children. You and the wife hold beneficial interest. You get to
                            enjoy the children.

                            Learn and understand entity structuring and contracts and you will
                            understand law much better.

                            Nick


                            --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Tiberius Pontificus
                            <dudeman1862@y...> wrote:
                            > Nickster97,
                            >
                            > You wrote
                            >
                            > "The constitution was a contract in every sense of the word as it
                            was accepted by "we the people"."
                            >
                            > Oh really? What definition of "contract " are you using? Are you
                            claiming that something written over 200 years ago that was signed by
                            a relative handful of people who claimed to be "representing" the
                            "people" is today binding upon us?
                          • nickster97@yahoo.com
                            Yes, but what really happened is we lost our law with the impounding of our gold. We were all sovereigns until we gave that away under Social Security. All
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 13, 2005
                              Yes, but what really happened is we lost our law with the impounding
                              of our gold. We were all sovereigns until we gave that away under
                              Social Security. All those in Social Security are deemed part of the
                              SS trust with the fiduciary responsibility to file and pay the taxes
                              due for their part of the trust.

                              Free Republic? Hardly. Socialism? you bet.


                              --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, brokenwrench
                              <brokenwrench@s...> wrote:
                              > remember the population of these united Sates of America entered the
                              civil war as soveriegn Citizens and cam out various classes of slaves
                              of different colors owned by the de facto federal government under
                              marshal rule funded and controled by the bankers
                            • brokenwrench
                              not totally true gold is maritime money of the sea, silver is the lawful money of the land the constitution declares silver or its equivalent in gold at 15/1
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 13, 2005
                                not totally true gold is maritime  money of the sea, silver is the lawful money of the land the constitution declares silver or its equivalent  in gold at 15/1 silver to gold exchange ratio
                                 1964 is when the more serious theft occured when silver was removed from the currency soon after that bankcard credit cards started showing up
                                 
                                bw

                                nickster97@... wrote:


                                Yes, but what really happened is we lost our law with the impounding
                                of our gold. We were all sovereigns until we gave that away under
                                Social Security. All those in Social Security are deemed part of the
                                SS trust with the fiduciary responsibility to file and pay the taxes
                                due for their part of the trust.

                                Free Republic? Hardly. Socialism? you bet.


                                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, brokenwrench
                                <brokenwrench@s...> wrote:
                                > remember the population of these united Sates of America entered the
                                civil war as soveriegn  Citizens and cam out various classes of slaves
                                of different colors owned by the de facto federal government under
                                marshal rule funded and controled by the bankers








                              • Tiberius Pontificus
                                Nickster 97, I won t analyze all of your statements regarding contracts. So I ll just point out one essential contractual element that s missing from any
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 14, 2005
                                  Nickster 97,
                                  I won't analyze all of your statements regarding contracts.  So I'll just point out one essential contractual element that's missing from any constitution: a duty to perform on the government's part.  Argue as one might, one can not show in any legal citation, law book, etc. that the government is obligated to perform or provide anything in exchange for "citizens'" allegiance or payment of taxes.  Mention to any first year law student the fact that any government is not obligated to provide any services or has any duties to protect and you'll get a yawn because that truth is so well known. 
                                   
                                  One does not agree to be ruled by the government by living within a government's "jurisdiction" either.  That claim is based on the belief that the government owns everything.  As a matter of fact, in 1933, the Senate passed a resolution stating exactly that: that there was no ownership of property, except by the state.
                                   
                                  Regarding jurisdiction, if anyone on this list gets "charged" with a crime (e.g., driving without a license, "tax evasion," etc.), ask the judge these questions: "am I presumed innocent of the charge(s) against me?"  Of course the "judge" will answer "yes."  Then ask the judge, "am I presumed innocent of every element of the charge against me?"  The judge will not answer that question-ever.  A legal consultant acquaintance has asked dozens of judges in all areas that question many times and never had a responsive answer.  In fact, many times the judge becomes very upset and moves to a near violent state.  The reason is simple: jurisdiction is an essential element of any crime and the judge cannot prove-factually-that he has jurisdiction over you.  Jurisdiction includes his power to hold you against your will.  That's why he won't answer that question, because an honest answer (which a judge or lawyer never gives) will allow you to walk out of the courtroom.
                                   
                                  Regarding marriage licenses, it may well be true that by getting a marriage license a married couple invites the state to step into its affairs but it's by no means true that a couple must get a marriage license.  From the state or any other entity.  You say that the state "owns" the "title" to the children?  Please explain to us how that's any different than slavery.

                                  nickster97@... wrote:


                                  What is missing today in the patriot movement is the understanding of
                                  how trusts are formed and implief contracts.

                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                                • nickster97@yahoo.com
                                  Well Tiberius, When all else fails, go back to the begining. Contract is law and the terms of the contract create the lawform or jurisdiction. so, when you say
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 14, 2005
                                    Well Tiberius,

                                    When all else fails, go back to the begining. Contract is law and the
                                    terms of the contract create the lawform or jurisdiction.

                                    so, when you say that what is missing is the duty to perform on the
                                    Government's part, is because it has never been written in has it?
                                    There are some parts that have been written in such as the Privacy act
                                    for FOIAs, whereby the Government must act in certain ways, but if
                                    it's not written, dont think for a moment that the Government must do
                                    anything.

                                    As for marriages, I never said that a couple must marry. In California
                                    here, common law marriages are not recognized. What other ways are
                                    there? Well, as in the Jewish religion, a couple could be married by
                                    way of a Rabbi and a Catubah, or marriage contract. Now it wont be
                                    easy for everyone to recognize the marriage, as it is not "Legally"
                                    binding in our commerce, but no state can interfere with the
                                    obligations of a contract can they?

                                    But even then, you should analyze the statements I made about
                                    contracts for there is hardly anything that we do in our society that
                                    is not a contract.

                                    When you go out and buy a dinner, when you buy anything, when you get
                                    housing, when you make pacts with your freinds. There are very few
                                    times that we don't contract. And yet, no one understands that dealing
                                    with the Government on any level is a form of contract. This includes
                                    Social Security or welfare.


                                    --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, Tiberius Pontificus
                                    <dudeman1862@y...> wrote:
                                    > Nickster 97,
                                    > I won't analyze all of your statements regarding contracts. So I'll
                                    just point out one essential contractual element that's missing from
                                    any constitution: a duty to perform on the government's part.
                                    > Regarding marriage licenses, it may well be true that by getting a
                                    marriage license a married couple invites the state to step into its
                                    affairs but it's by no means true that a couple must get a marriage
                                    license. From the state or any other entity. You say that the state
                                    "owns" the "title" to the children? Please explain to us how that's
                                    any different than slavery.
                                    >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.