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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] LAW is NOT a CONTRACT: "REDEMPTION" IS NOT RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY, IT IS CRIME

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Feb 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 16 , Feb 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 16 , Feb 11, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 16 , Feb 12, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 16 , Feb 12, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 16 , Feb 12, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment



                      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 10 of 16 , Feb 12, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 16 , Feb 13, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 16 , Feb 13, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 16 , Feb 13, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 16 , Feb 14, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 16 , Feb 14, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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.