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

Got A Question?

Expand Messages
  • tec_time
    If I wanted to sign something but, wanted to protect myself from liablity(s) what phrase and intials would I put on a contract that could leave me
    Message 1 of 3 , May 31, 2005
      If I wanted to sign something but, wanted to protect myself
      from "liablity(s)" what 'phrase' and 'intials' would I put on a
      contract that could leave me liable, otherwise?

      Thank All,
      Phillip "Grench" Gillon
    • Balsaman
      You will notice that there is no email address in the From -- Subject lines below for a direct personal return, infra. So I am posting to the group. Try
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 1, 2005
         

        You will notice that there is no email address in the   From -- Subject lines   below for a direct personal return, infra.

         

        So I am posting to the group.

         

         

        Try some of these

         

        U.C.C.  1-207

         

        http://www.worldnewsstand.net/

        http://www.worldnewsstand.net/freedom/ucc4.htm

        http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/links2educate.htm

        http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html

        http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/starticles/2001/feb/txt/arirs030201-t.htm

        http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/truth.htm

        http://www.worldnewsstand.net/best.htm

        http://www.supremelaw.org/

        http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

        http://www.lifersunion.com/understanding_the_court_system_maintext.htm#Printing

        http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/March1999/markferran.htm#EqualProtection

        http://www.givemeliberty.org/

        http://www.wealth4freedom.com/free.html

        http://www.worldnewsstand.net/

        http://www.gamblin.net/webbackups/www.iresist.com/ice/attemptingtosolve.htm

        http://www.gamblin.net/webbackups/www.iresist.com/ice/LibertyYourRight.htm#PART6

        http://www.stopbma.org/

        http://www.michiganmilitia.org/html/carl.html

        http://www.cato.org/

        http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/

        http://www.judicialaccountability.org/

        http://www.citizensjustice.com/index.php

        http://www.clr.org/index.html

        http://www.informed.org/

        http://www.lawreform.net/journal.htm

        http://cltg.org/ CITIZENS   FOR  LIMITED  TAXATION
        http://www.law.com/jsp/newswire_article.jsp?id=1050369429283

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse

        http://www.consumerlaw.org/

        http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htmThe Law by Frederick Bastiat

         

        Regards

        JR
         

        From: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of tec_time
        Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:12 PM
        To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [tips_and_tricks] Got A Question?

        If I wanted to sign something but, wanted to protect myself
        from "liablity(s)" what 'phrase' and 'intials' would I put on a
        contract that could leave me liable, otherwise?

        Thank All,
        Phillip "Grench" Gillon

         
         
        U.S. Violates International Law by Mistreating Its Own Citizens
        Bill exempts aliens from California law
        Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity
         
        http://www.state-citizen.org/misc/paren%20patriae.txt
        Parens Patriae....Government as Parent

          " When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary
        for one people to dissolve the political bands which have
        connected them with another................" These are
        the words that started a Revolution propelling several
        English colonies into the nation known as "The United
        States of America."  This new nation was designed to
        function under the law of Nature and Nature's God. The
        people believed they would never again hear the words of
        enslavement, ie; "under the sovereignty of the King." 
        Living under the sovereignty of the King made you the
        King's chattel. He owned you. You were his property. 
        You could own nothing, not even your children. The King
        ruled by divine right. The framers of this new nation
        claimed it was designed to be a government  "of the
        people, by the people, for the people. "Representatives
        of this government were to be elected  by the people,
        not born to power.  And so, in 1776 the  great experiment
        in freedom, known as "The United states of America"  began.

        People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable
        the colony to become a Sovereign Nation State. These
        States then created a new state, designed to exclusively
        serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this concept
        the nation of States united was born. Every
        sovereign Nation State joining the Union had a Constitution.
        The newly created state received one as well. It was written
        by the people of the several states  and was titled "The
        constitution for The united States of America." This new
        state was "delegated" 17 authorities by the several states.
        The people never intended that it should over step it's
        delegated authorities.
         
        Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink
        was dry on the contract written between the people and
        their new government, "The Constitution." There is some
        question as to exactly where and when the new nation
        faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary
        Act. Others say it was after the Civil War. Still
        others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or  perhaps in
        1933...History tells us the Supreme Court of the United
        States government claims it was when the Union itself
        was formed.

        In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.;
        New York v. Louisiana and others, (1) it states that:
              "all the rights of the States as independent
        nations were surrendered to the United States. The
        States are not nations, either as between themselves
        or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within
        their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of
        nationality. Their political status at home and abroad
        is that of States in the united States. They can neither
        make war nor peace without the consent of the national
        government. Neither can they, except with like consent,
        "enter into any agreement  or compact with another
        State." Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3." The relation of one
        of the united States to its citizens is not that of
        an independent sovereign State to its citizens. A
        sovereign State seeking redress of another sovereign
        State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal,
        which a State cannot do. The state, having been a
        sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of
        marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a
        belligerent way, resigned these powers into the control
        of the United States, to be held in trust."

        In United  States v. Chamberlin,  (2)  the Supreme Court
        of the United States Decided,  to wit:

        It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound
        by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by
        special and particular words. The most general words
        that can be devised (for example, any person or persons,
        bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least,
        if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his
        rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of
        any particular act, though not named. THE RULE THUS
        SETTLED RESPECTING THE BRITISH CROWN IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE
        TO THIS GOVERNMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN APPLIED FREQUENTLY
        IN THE DIFFERENT STATES, AND PRACTICALLY IN THE FEDERAL
        COURTS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SETTLED THAT SO MUCH OF
        THE ROYAL PREROGATIVES AS BELONGED TO THE KING IN HIS
        CAPACITY OF PARENS PATRIAE, OR UNIVERSAL TRUSTEE, ENTERS
        AS MUCH  INTO OUR POLITICAL STATE AS IT DOES INTO THE
        PRINCIPLES OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.

        Under most religious law, the children belong to the
        parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the
        parents to care for and educate their children in their
        existing social values and morals.

        In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3)
        was passed creating birth "registration" or what we now
        know as the "birth certificate."  It was known as the
        "Maternity Act" and was sold to the american people
        as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality,
        protect the health of mothers and infants, and for
        other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for
        the establishment of a federal bureau designed to
        cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its
        operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the
        first attempt of "government by  appointment," or
        cooperation of state governments to aid the federal
        government in usurping the legislative process of the
        several states as exists today through  the federal
        grant in aid  to the states programs.
         
        Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of
        children were entered into family bibles, as were the
        records of marriages and deaths. These records were
        readily accepted by both the family and the law as
        "official" records.  Since 1921 the american people
        have been registering  the births and names of their
        children with the government of the state  in which
        they are born, even though there is no federal law
        requiring it.  The state claims an interest in every
        child within it's jurisdiction, telling the parents
        that  registering  their child's birth through the birth
        certificate serves as proof that he/she was born in the
        united States, thereby making him/her a united states
        citizen. 

        In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials
        charged with the administration of the act.
        (Commonwealth of Massachusetts  v. Mellon, Secretary
        of the Treasury et.al..). (4) The plaintiff, Mrs
        Frothingham, averred that the act was unconstitutional,
        and that it's purpose was to induce the States to yield
        sovereign rights reserved by them and not granted the
        federal government, under the Constitution,and that the
        burden of the appropriations falls unequally upon the
        several States.  The complaint  stated the  naked
        contention  that Congress has usurped reserved powers
        of the States by the mere enactment of the  statute,
        though nothing has been, or is to be, done under it
        without their consent Mr. Alexander Lincoln, Assistant
        Attorney General, argued for the Commonwealth of
        Massachusetts.
          To wit:
        The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in
        agencies of the Federal Government powers which are
        almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity
        and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal
        funds for the purposes of the act.

        Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates
        on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be
        imposed under the act. THE FORCED REGISTRATION OF
        PREGNANCY, GOVERNMENTAL PRENATAL EXAMINATION OF EXPECTANT
        MOTHERS, RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF A WOMAN TO SECURE
        THE SERVICES OF A MIDWIFE OR PHYSICIAN OF HER OWN SELECTION,
        are measures to which the people of those States which
        accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing
        which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal
        appropriations. INSURANCE OF MOTHERS MAY BE MADE COMPULSORY.
        THE TEACHING OF BIRTH CONTROL AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF
        PERSONS ABOUT TO MARRY MAY BE REQUIRED.

        The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the
        state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence
        it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of
        the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its
        agents to go into the several States and to do those
        acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As
        to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters
        are the Bureau and the Board. THE FACT THAT IT WAS
        CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN EXPLICIT TERMS TO PRESERVE
        FROM INVASION BY FEDERAL OFFICIALS THE RIGHT OF THE
        PARENT TO THE CUSTODY AND ARE OF HIS CHILD AND THE
        SANCTITY OF HIS HOME SHOWS HOW FAR REACHING ARE THE
        POWERS WHICH WERE INTENDED TO BE GRANTED BY THE ACT.

        It was further stated in the complaint that "The
        act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted
        to Congress and usurps the local police power. (5)
        In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that
        there are limits to the power of Congress to pass
        legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers
        expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the
        reserved  powers of the States, and that laws showing
        on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly
        within the  police power of the States will be held to
        be unconstitutional  although they purport to be passed
        in the exercise of some  constitutional power. (6)   
        It went on to state:
             "The act is not made valid by the circumstance that
        federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those
        States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and
        state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to  the
        States by the Constitution. (7)  The act is invalid because
        it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield
        a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to
        give up its share of appropriations under the act. "

             " A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon
        a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional
        right, is null and  void. " (8) "The act is invalid
        because it sets up a system of government by cooperation
        between the Federal Government and certain of the States,
        not provided by the Constitution."

        "Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot
        delegate to the States the power to make laws for the
        United  States." (9)  In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly
        declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the
        then 48 States pledged  the "full faith and credit" of
        their states, including the  citizenry, as collateral
        for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system.
        "Full faith and credit" clause  of Const. U.S. article
        4. sec. 1, requires that foreign judgement be given such
        faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of
        it's origin.  That foreign statutes are  to have force
        and effect to which they are entitled in home state.
        And that a judgement or record shall  have the same
        faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force
        in other states as it has by law or usage in the
        state from whence taken. Black's Law Dictionary,
        4th Ed. cites omitted.

        Today the federal government "mandates, orders and
        compels" the states to enforce federal jurisdiction
        upon it's citizens/subjects. This author believes the
        federal government draws it's de facto jurisdiction
        for these actions from the "Doctrine of Parens Patriae."
        Patens patriae means literally, "parent of the country."
        It refers traditionally to the role of state as sovereign
        and guardian of persons under legal disability.
        Parens patriae originates from the English common law
        where the King  had a royal prerogative to act as
        guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants.

        With the birth registration established, the federal
        government, under the doctrine of parens patriae, had
        the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American
        people and put them into debt into perpetuity.
        Under this doctrine, if one is born with a disability,
        the state, (the sovereign) has the responsibility to
        take care of you. This author believes that the disability
        you are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I
        believe that when you are born, you are born free,
        a "citizen of the soil," an American National. Parents,
        without full disclosure under law, make application
        for a "birth certificate," thereby making the child a
        citizen of the corporate government known as the United
        States. The government  then turns the new citizen
        into a corporation under the laws of  the state.  The
        birth information is collected by the state and is then
        turned over to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The
        corporation is then placed into a  "trust",  known as
        a "Cestui Que Trust". A cestui que trust is  defined as:
        He who  has a right to a beneficial interest in and out
        of an estate  the legal title to which is vested in
        another; The beneficiary  of another. Cestui que use
        is : He  for whose use and benefit lands or tenements
        are held by another. The cestui que use has  the right
        to receive the profits and benefits of the estate, but
        the legal title and possession, as well the duty of
        defending the same, reside in the other.
         
        The government becomes the Trustee, while the child
        becomes  the beneficiary of  his own trust. Legal title
        to everything the child will ever own is now vested in
        the federal government.  The government then places the
        Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the
        "guardians." The child may reside in the hands of the
        guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims
        that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The
        state then goes into the home and removes the "trust"
        from the guardians.  At majority, the parents lose their
        guardianship.

        The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The
        child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can
        contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many
        years.  The child itself is the asset of the trust
        established by the birth certificate. "Title" to your
        child is now owned by the state. The state now directs
        the trust corpus and provides "benefits" for the
        beneficiary -- the corpus and beneficiary being one
        and the same -- the citizen -- first as child, then as adult.

        The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to
        the birth of another through the process know as
        "Novation." Novation  is defined as "the substitution of
        a new  contract between  same or different parties; The
        substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing
        one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one
        creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished.
        This author believes the debt of an individual is
        extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then
        transferred to a new individual when he/she is born
        through the registering of the birth, thereby creating
        a new corpus that will again reside  in the hands of the
        trust.

        Each one of us, including our children, are considered
        assets  of the bankrupt United States which acts as the
        "Debtor in  Possession.". We are now designated by this
        government as  "HUMAN RESOURCES," with new such resources
        being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a
        receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy. The
        bankruptcy debts are serviced, not paid or discharged.
        The Human Resources service the debt, which continues
        to grow with time.

        The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-
        delegates federal parens patriae authority to the state
        attorney generals.  The attorney generals' can now enforce
        all legislation involving your personal life , the lives
        of your children, and your material assets.

        In today's society the government, through the doctrine
        of parens  patriae, has already instituted it's control
        of our  children through the legislative process. Medical
        treatments are enforced through the court with threats
        of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged. 
        Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in
        the loss of your child under the guise of "child 
        neglect" (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If
        you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment
        or indignities, you are also at risk of having your
        child taken from you under the guise of child abuse
        (damaging the trust corpus).

        Some states have legislation either pending or passed
        to give social workers arrest authority. School nurses
        may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper
        authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are
        tolerated by the courts, all in the name of  safety
        for the child.

        The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on
        March 15, that limits on the ability of divorced parents
        to relocate  when minor children are involved were clarified
        by the Florida Supreme Court. The high court three years
        ago approved a policy favoring relocation requests of
        custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good
        faith for the well being of parents and children. Also,
        the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made
        "from a vindictive  desire to interfere with the visitation
        rights of the other  parent."  The right of locomotion 
        is held as an element of  personal liberty.  Restraint
        upon the right of locomotion was a well-known feature of
        slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite
        of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to
        become the master of his natural power of motion.  The
        control by government courts (supra) of an individuals'
        freedom of  locomotion  could be construed as a  sign of
        ownership of the individual,  or  slavery .

        It's been reported that in California, early in the year,
        an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made
        the  statement " the children belong to the STATE. " 
        Parens  Patriae legislation covers every area of your
        personal life. Federal parens patriae legislation can
        be found in Title 15 of the United States Code:
                TITLE 15  Sec. 15h. Applicability of parens
        patriae actions STATUTE-Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f,
        and 15g of this title  shall apply in any State,
        unless such State provides by law for its non
        applicability in such State.

        The primary responsibility of a State is to protect
        it's citizens from the tyranny of the federal government.
        The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek
        redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the
        Federal Constitution for any state legislation that
        brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right.
        A state may  sue the Federal government for protection
        for it's citizens if federal legislation violates the
        Constitutions  of the several states and brings harm to
        it's citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize
        congress to create a code of municipal law for the
        regulation of private rights. Positive rights and
        privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth
        amendment, but they are secured by way  of prohibition
        against state laws and state proceedings  affecting
        those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended
        to provide against state laws, or state action of some
        kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by
        the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover
        the whole domain of rights appertaining  to life, liberty
        and property, defining them and providing  for their
        vindication. That would be to establish a code  of
        municipal law regulative of all private rights between
        man and man in society. It would be to make congress
        take  the place of  the state legislatures and to supersede
        them.

        However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that:
        A State may not, as parens patriae, institute judicial
        proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less
        citizens of the United States), from the operation of
        a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to them,
        it is unconstitutional.

        The parens patriae power has been recognized and exercised
        from time immemorial as being  under the rule of a tyrant.

        Note:  The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but
        parts of it have been found in other legislative acts.
        What this act attempted to do was set up government by
        appointment, run by  bureaucrats with re-delegated authority
        outside of   Constitutional authority, with the ability
        to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional and represents
        taxation without representation. This type of government
        is in place today and  is known as "Regionalism."  The
        federal government couldn't  fool the people in 1921 into
        surrendering their sovereignty,  but in 1933……….
        Footnotes:
        1.  New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New
                    York v. Louisiana and others, 108 U.S.76,
                    27 L. Ed. 656, 2 S. Ct. 176, March 5, 1883.
        2.  United  States v. Chamberlin  219 U.S. 250,
                    55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S.Ct. 155, January 3, 1911
        3.  Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, Oublic Law 97,
                    67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.
        4.  Commonwealth of Massachusetts  v. Mellon,
                    Secretary of the Treasury, et al.;
                    Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury
                    et.al.. 262 U.S. 447, 67 L.Ed. 1078, 43 S.  ct.597.
        5.  McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405;
                    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549-551.
                6.  Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251; Child Labor Tax
                    Case, 259 U.S.20; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44.
        7.  Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822;
                    4 Elliot's Debates, p.525; Pollard's Lessee 
                    v.Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v. Chicago, 107
                    U.S. 678; Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559;
                    Cincinnati v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 223
                    U.S. 390.
        8.  Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co.,
                    232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257
                    U.S. 529.
                9.  In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545; Knickerbocker Ice Co.
                    v.  Stewart, 253 U.S. 149; Opinion of  the Justices,
                    239 Mass. 606.

        Copyright  (c) 1996  Joyce Rosenwald
        For information on how to purchase the research documents
        used in this article contact the author...joyce@...
        For more interesting articles visit my website at:
        http://www.bogue.com  click on 'Grassroots'


         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
      • caligiu5@aol.com
        Nice Post JR However for new information UCC 1-207 has been changed as it has disappeared and reappeared as UCC 1-308 Magic huh, I wonder how that
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 1, 2005
          Nice Post JR
          However for new  information   UCC 1-207   has been changed as it has disappeared and reappeared as UCC 1-308  Magic huh, I wonder how that happened? 
          FreedomStalker
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.