Contracts in Infancy

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Contracts in Infancy

iamsomedude
Administrator

Suggested Reading: Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves


Ratification of Contract:

An infant is not liable on his contracts; but if, after coming of age, he ratify the contract by an actual or express declaration, he will be bound to perform it, as if it had been made after he attained full age. The ratification must be voluntary, deliberate, and intelligent, and the party must know that without it, he would not be bound. 11 S. & R. 305, 311; 3 Penn. St. R. 428. See 12 Conn. 551, 556; 10 Mass. 137,140; 14 Mass. 457; 4 Wend. 403, 405. But a confirmation or ratification of a contract, may be implied from acts of the infant after he becomes of age; as by enjoying or claiming a benefit under a contract be might have wholly rescinded; 1 Pick. 221, 22 3; and an infant partner will be liable for the contracts of the firm, or at least such as were known to him, if he, after becoming of age, confirm the contract of partnership by transacting business of the firm, receiving profits, and the like. 2 Hill. So. Car. Rep. 479; 1 B. Moore, 289.


From Corpus Juris Secundum: Infants § 169 : While an infant may acquire or alienate property, such acquisition or alienation is voidable


31 U.S. Code § 3713 - Priority of Government claims : (b) A representative of a person or an estate (except a trustee acting under title 11) paying any part of a debt of the person or estate before paying a claim of the Government is liable to the extent of the payment for unpaid claims of the Government.





~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

iamsomedude
Administrator
This post was updated on .
 
 
recommended reading: Territorial Territory

BC creates the INFANT Decedent Life Estate held in CESTUI QUE TRUST (Livery in Seisin; Trust: "shall include only a trust where the interest or interests of the beneficiary or beneficiaries are evidenced by a security" (15 USC 77b(2)) ... one is the foreign beneficiary of the CESTUI QUE TRUST so created (NAME)

Remember: the INFANT has yet to receive the SSN thus is a DECEDENT; The CESTUI QUE TRUST holding the Infant Estate receives the SSN. The must be a decedent in order to establish a maritime contract (ie: SSN) for Earth belongs in usufruct to the living, the dead neither have claim nor right thus must be INSURED to ENSURE usufruct of the living which then gives the dead life for a security (INSURANCE) must be offered to indemnify that of which is the subject of the usufruct and the dead are ALWAYS usufructuary of the living.

SSN = creates the bond for Franchise for the Federal Reserve uses the Decedent's equity (BC estate) as underwriting (grant of usufruct of the Life Estate held in CESTUI QUE TRUST)

Man + Personal Mail Address + SSN + BC= DL/ID = resident = registered agent of the franchise = agency of the United States = natural person: one abandons being Foreign Beneficiary in exchange for LICENSE (grant of usufruct) of which one now services any CLAIM arising from the operation of such as surety: one is now RECOGNIZED (bonded for performance) thru that NAME as registered agent of the agency.

The natural person is a LEGAL person which is allowed to sue and be sued in Federal Jurisdiction (Satan's Kingdom) ... now subject to Statutes, Codes, Rules and Regulations governing Satan's Kingdom: Binds the Individual: Man now a natural person which PERFECTS the rejection of Christ for God is NO respecter of person, to the AGENCY (FRANCHISE) in service to expand Satan's Kingdom.

ALL of this is ratified under 31 USC 3713(b), HOWEVER, because ALL of THIS is founded upon the BC, then EVERY contract therefrom was done in INFANCY and since "The ratification must be voluntary, deliberate, and intelligent, and the party must know that without it, he would not be bound." one may do a CLAIM-IN-RECOUPMENT (ie: Preemption Claim; ref: UCC 3-305) and VOID any infant contract.

And ALL of THIS is the basis for the OPERATION of the CR(tm) and Turnabout. I may explain it on the Talkshoe, but the operation is VERY straight forward: I am here for there is a mistake as I am the Foreign Beneficiary coming in to protect the Trust and stand on my affidavit.

When one CEASES being the INDIVIDUAL; like cease receiving personal mail at an address, hence the PO BOX for the Inter-vivos Living Trust, one can then assume the correct STATUS or ROLE as the Foreign Beneficiary coming into any matter to protect the Trust. (ref: Law of Nations, Book 2, Articles 104-105, 108-109)

Now, all one need do is Turnabout and unbind with what one is currently bound so one may becomes boundless.


To "get out", one must first identify what exactly is binding one so one can undo what has been bound and this is why people FAIL: Arguments of "I ain't this or that" is BULLSHIT: useless, retarded drivel and babble, when the presumption exists because one acted as such. This also another reason as to WHY the Name Change being promoted by the Moors, Legal Deception, and Others is such bullshit and is to be avoided; hell, you all should have known: Legal Deception, it's right there in the title. Just like Tim Turner and Co's The Restore America Project or TRAP of which many fell into: When the restoration of all things is completed and the first seal is broken, all those name changers are going to be considered as CHOOSING to wear the Mark of Cain: The Name Change KILLS the inheritor, just like Cain murdered Abel.


.... now you know and knowing is half the battle; stop making these same mistakes and fix the problem:

YOU



The LORD makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts. ~ 1 Samuel 2:7

Your wealth and your treasures I will give as plunder, without charge, because of all your sins throughout your country. - Jeremiah 15:13

For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. - Isaiah 52:3

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors - 1 Peter 1:18
 
The trees will yield their fruit and the ground will yield its crops; the people will be secure in their land. They will know that I am the LORD, when I break the bars of their yoke and rescue them from the hands of those who enslaved them. - Ezekiel 34:27

Be thou faithful unto death and I will give you a crown of life. ~ Revelation 2:10


 



~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

william-michael
Recent Audio posted on Talkshoe "Surfing with the Alien" done September 24, 2017, 9 pm EST.


http://recordings.talkshoe.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/TC-82668/TS-1209674.mp3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

alentejo angel
Much gratitude for that link william-michael - I had missed downloading it from Talkshoe.
[I've come to a personal conclusion that Boris' high-voltage energy is responsible for screwing up the audio sometimes. ]
🍀💕
A crença e a descrença têm dividida a humanidade em tantas seitas, cegando os seus olhos à visão da unicidade de toda a vida.

Belief and disbelief have divided mankind into so many sects, blinding its eyes to the vision of the oneness of all life.

Hazrat Inayat Khan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

william-michael
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
Treatise on Suits in Chancery 1907: 2nd edition by Henry R Gibson.  Go to page 54.

"§ 35. When Parties are Disabled to Act the Chancery Court will Act for Them
.

21a-Persons of unsound mind are disabled to act for themselves by nature; infants are disabled both by nature and by law, and married women are disabled by law alone. As a rule, none of these three classes can of themselves enter into any important contract, especially contracts relative to lands. But it is often of great importance to their welfare, to convert their property into another form, or to expend it for their urgent necessities; and the law would be greatly defective in this important matter if it furnished no remedy for such emergencies. The Chancery Court gives this remedy, and has full jurisdiction to do everything necessary for the welfare of persons under disability; it may sell, lease or exchange, their lands; convert personality into realty, or realty into personality; order the expenditure of any part of the principal of their estates for their education, or maintenance; and, in general, do any any act indispensable to their welfare, the Court at all times having in view the best interests of the parties; and acting as would a preferred and considerate parent.22
       
         21a  While this is not a maxim, it is nevertheless a fundamental principle of Equity.
         
         22  Ridley v. Halladay, 22 Pick., 607. It is the peculiar province of Courts of Equity to give all needed and appropriate relief in case of infants whose rights have been sacrificed. Cody v. Roane Iron Co., 21 Pick., 515. The Chancery Court acts as guardian for all persons under disability; and, on proper application, will protect them from cupidity of faithless guardians and relatives, and the rapacity of unscrupulous strangers. But while accorded full protection they are not entitled to have technicalities strained in their behalf, especially against a stranger guilty of no unconscientious conduct." (Emphasis supplied.)"

Check this out going back to §24 Maxims of Jurisdiction in this same book.  Go back now to page 44.

Maxims of Jurisdiction


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

franc
In reply to this post by iamsomedude
natural person = A human being, naturally born, versus a legally generated juridical person.

why is the above or something similar the only definition offered by online legal dictionaries? from what I gather from this post, a natural person is a man that has been issued a BC/COLB + SSN and uses a mailing address. Why is this omitted from available definitions?

To cease receiving personal mail at an address and instead have the Inter-vivos Living Trust receive mail at a PO BOX, does one fill out a change of address form so that mail addressed to the NAME is forwarded to the trust's PO BOX? OR does one fill out a change of address form and omit a forwarding address so that mail to the NAME is practically abandoned?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

iamsomedude
Administrator


We are in agreement that one's actions in the past CONFIRMED one acted AS IF one were the natural person; created the presumption of such, correct? or we all here in Shawshank where everyone is innocent?

What steps would one take to UNDO this presumption with respect to the post office AND that NAME Franchise if acting AS IF one were the natural person created the presumption one is the registered agent of that NAME Franchise?

Now, go do them.
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

franc
Yes, due to ignorance and programming one's actions (getting mail in the NAME at an address and getting a SSN) in the past caused one to act as a natural person. To undo this, one would fill out a change of address form for mail to the NAME to forward to the inter vivos trust's po box. I gather that there is a proper purpose for the SSN, so I would not rescind that, but would learn of its proper purpose and use.

Other steps to take are rescinding the latest voter registration and driver's license, close bank accounts held in the NAME (and open in the trust name), stop paying bills charged to the name, transfer property from the NAME to the trust. However, some of these steps may have ramifications that I do not yet know how to handle, such as:

1. No driver's license = no car insurance (insurers only insure licensed drivers). I supposed that I would be ok with no insurance, but what if I cause an accident? Would the CR process be used to accept for value the claim for injury/property damage? If so, how would the injured party be made whole?

2. Stop paying bills = utilities shut off, no shelter/food/clothing/transportation/etc. Please not here that if I where to stop paying bills, my intent would be to cease making the mistake of being surety for a person and NOT because I wish to get a free ride or selfish gain.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

liberated
the juridical person was created by the State and therefore liable for its debts and obligations, ie utility bills. if you stop paying the utilities they will get shut off. As the bc is indemnification might it be time to communicate with the State to have its persons obligations paid?  if you transfer property that is in name to trust does not cause any liabilities to cease. the trust becomes liable so if you are trustee you're still surety, what then really changed? nothing much, just different juridical person with a trustee liable. where is the "money" coming from to pay the  utility bills or other obligations that are of the trust?  how trust is established is of knowing how and what is the res and how are matters settled and with what and by whom.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

franc
Hello Liberated. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. I am aware that the juridical person was created by the state and therefore it is liable for its debts and obligations. I did communicate with the State to have its person's obligations paid. I have communicated separately with the registrar of vital statistics and the governor of the birth state. I have sent each of them every bill charged to the NAME and  notice explaining my mistakes for several months in a row. The registrar responded stating that the issues that I raised are outside the scope of his responsibility. I asked him who then is the responsible party and he did not respond. The governor fell silent and did not respond or act on anything, apparently. I am now sending the AFV'd bills to the IRS and have been doing so since June with no apparent effect. Is anyone here doing this successfully?

The purpose of transfer property from the name to the trust is not to cause any liabilities to cease. Rather, it is done so that property is not in the name.

The "money" to pay the utility bills or other obligations of the trust comes from me for the time being, out of necessity and lack of alternatives (i.e. ability to discharge debt rather than contribute to it with the use of debt instruments). Please expand on your comment about establishing a trust is knowing how and what is the res and how are matters settled and with what and by whom. Can you give examples?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Contracts in Infancy

liberated
This post was updated on .
I am not totally up to speed as far as setting up the inter vivos trust that is mentioned on the forum nor specifically what the res is, who would be the trustee and the beneficiary. While I have my thoughts on the specifics i am not sure it is the correct path so further study and seeking is in order for me. That said since we have a beneficial interest in the NAME/BC TRUST, or if it is in fact true, then we have the right to grant it away, thus could be the res for another trust. Exactly what the "value" is, is unclear however the liability of that trust still remains with the State. Therefore, the new trust merely has the trustee do the various set offs or acquisitions in what ever manner that they do it. I'm inclined in thinking a public officer is appointed as trustee however language in the trust has to be clear that the beneficiary has some input, which I think is permissible. I recall years ago, I had a contract to build an equestrian building for a woman. The property was in a trust, her father was the grantor who was deceased, she the beneficiary and Sun Trust Bank was the Trustee. While she negotiated the deal the bank was the one that signed and paid the bills. She provided all the details she wanted and approved all the plans ALONG with the trustee.She was not a trustee and the bank made that clear. It appeared whatever she wanted the Trustee/Bank went along with. I concluded that there must have been language in the trust that either stated "give the beneficiary whatever she wants" or the grantee made some provisions that gave the beneficiary leeway somehow because normally trustee's don't have to listen to beneficiaries, they are only obligated to provide an accounting to a beneficiary and to follow the terms of the trust. The trustee in this case paid for everything, purchase of the house, construction of the equine building and other improvements and all other expenses related to the property and welfare of the beneficiary.

as far as the State "paying"

I attempted to have purchased a town house through the name and the contract was contingent upon trustee completing transaction. I sent agreement to the finance director for Cleveland and after a little over a week she stated she was unable to do anything outside of Ohio. I of course asked, so of it were in Ohio you could handle this. She replied, what you sent me I cannot do anything with outside of Ohio. When I asked who would handle such a thing she responded possibly the State treasurer. During that week however I was visited by Marion County Sheriff Deputy as a courtesy to Cleveland Police Dept. Rec;d a call from some woman sergeant accusing me of committing fraud. I asked how so? She replied, who do you think you are trying to have Cleveland buy you a home? I replied, how did you arrive at the presumption and why, may I ask are you interfering in a private matter that has nothing to do with you? She ended the call with a warning. Once the Finance director said she could not do anything she asked if I wanted all the paperwork back so I could forward it, which i agreed and she sent it overnight fedx. The following day or two the developer said he did not want to wait any longer in keeping the unit off the market so that came to an end. IN prior instances, I did receive communication from Vital Statistics in Ohio that they created the Name and that they owned it thus the reason I could not obtain all the originals I requested be sent to me and that they were kept in a vault at the Capitol. I sent 5 bills to the Governor and never received another bill nor was any collection action taken or anything put on the credit report.  If they don't handle the obligation, based on the things we read about the Lieber Code and Hague one would think they are violating the law as well as public policy and perhaps notice should be sent to the State AG, US AG and Provost Marshal and perhaps the Chief Civil Affairs Officer, who I have been unable to ascertain who that is currently.  After all if the BC is indemnification then wtf