Hi Rita! Thank you for taking the time to read and consider what I have offered!
As far as "Their" intent, I may be able to answer more appropriately if you clarify what you mean. Their intent, as far as I can tell, is to contract. The agreement/contract/terms are typically drawn up by "Them" to achieve "Their" goals. Then, if you "go along" with what is presented to you, you have agreed by your performance. If you are sniffing out the notion that "Their" intent may be nefarious, it matters not, you have been presented with an offer (a contract/agreement) and then, you either DI
S-agreed, agreed (with your conscious intent), or did nothing (which forms the tacit agreement, silence is not a NO).
Please feel free to correct any assumptions or wrong directions I may have traveled down.
Hi Paul! Appreciate your taking the trouble to reply. Yes, I was meaning in the context of nefarious intent. Am not a prof law boffin but seem to recall coming aross a case where the "intent" of the contract was unlawful, therefore deemed N&V (in UK). Long time ago so don't remember details, just remember fact that judge brought intent into the proceedings. (In one of my jobs i typed a lot of legal stuff).
Guess am thinking as free wo/men contracts intending to do harm ( eg: enslave/entrap) should be deemed unlawful. But are we freemen if we have birth cert. Etc? As you say in your essay above they will have access to the correct legal formats to preclude this being an issue (my words not yours, just my take). Think most everyone has signed these contracts in ignorance of their design - our fault in law. Sigh
Is it poss for ppl to get out of these contracts? If so, does it have to be done as individuals or can it be a collective action?
Thank you Rita, your response above, I believe, answers your question. You state "the "intent" of the contract was unlawful...". What is unlawful about giving the majority of your productive energy to a tricky bully, keyword being GIVING, by voluntary contract? I speak to some of this in my post "The Art of BE - ing", points on volunteering and birth cert', and my next post will cover more on birth cert and identifying who or what is free and what is captured by contract. It can get complicated, very quickly, in the courtroom. In order to determine what is "deemed" lawful and unlawful, it first must be determined what jurisdiction the issue and the court is residing in. Then the type and specie of law can be administered. What is right and wrong, known in One's heart, has nothing to do with corporate, privately owned, courts, and which policy is being enforced. The "Policy Enforcers" (POLICE) bring you in, the Judge, the arbiter of the policy which you contravened, hands down his ruling and punishment, having nothing to do with law, at least natural or God's law. And nothing to do with a "Constitution" or anything that is "by and for the people".
As to getting out of "these contracts". You ask a very specific and important question here, individual or collective action? This will be the topic of an upcoming post. One can re-contract or rescind or revoke signature, etc. That is if you have cause. One cannot just decide one day that , "I've changed my mind, this isn't working for me anymore, so I want out of an agreement". If you have cause, say perhaps that One was not informed , did not receive full disclosure, as to what the contract was or entailed and what all the attachments would affect and exactly what obligations would flow out of said contract. With cause, One can achieve this goal, something being unfair is not enough to extinguish.
To, the Birth Certificate. It is not yours. You didn't create it and neither did your parents. Please refer to my post, "The Art of BE-ing"
I believe there are several aspects of assumption within your question. The most significant one being, that "a court" has anything to do with a constitution or the Magna Carta. You are correct in your assumption that in a court of the people, One's peers would be, as outlined within these documents, the administers of judgment and penalty. However. Every Court in my part of the world is a privately owned Corporation, run by Corporate policy, statute code,...
The comment about films etc. from my post, has more to do with the preparation of the consciousness to accept the forthcoming offer without objection or DIS-agreement. Acquiessence is agreement. I will be making a future post in more detail on this.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and comment!
Hi Rita! Thank you for taking the time to read and consider what I have offered!
As far as "Their" intent, I may be able to answer more appropriately if you clarify what you mean. Their intent, as far as I can tell, is to contract. The agreement/contract/terms are typically drawn up by "Them" to achieve "Their" goals. Then, if you "go along" with what is presented to you, you have agreed by your performance. If you are sniffing out the notion that "Their" intent may be nefarious, it matters not, you have been presented with an offer (a contract/agreement) and then, you either DI
S-agreed, agreed (with your conscious intent), or did nothing (which forms the tacit agreement, silence is not a NO).
Please feel free to correct any assumptions or wrong directions I may have traveled down.
Cheers,
Arlen
Hi Paul! Appreciate your taking the trouble to reply. Yes, I was meaning in the context of nefarious intent. Am not a prof law boffin but seem to recall coming aross a case where the "intent" of the contract was unlawful, therefore deemed N&V (in UK). Long time ago so don't remember details, just remember fact that judge brought intent into the proceedings. (In one of my jobs i typed a lot of legal stuff).
Guess am thinking as free wo/men contracts intending to do harm ( eg: enslave/entrap) should be deemed unlawful. But are we freemen if we have birth cert. Etc? As you say in your essay above they will have access to the correct legal formats to preclude this being an issue (my words not yours, just my take). Think most everyone has signed these contracts in ignorance of their design - our fault in law. Sigh
Is it poss for ppl to get out of these contracts? If so, does it have to be done as individuals or can it be a collective action?
Kind Regards
Rita
Thank you Rita, your response above, I believe, answers your question. You state "the "intent" of the contract was unlawful...". What is unlawful about giving the majority of your productive energy to a tricky bully, keyword being GIVING, by voluntary contract? I speak to some of this in my post "The Art of BE - ing", points on volunteering and birth cert', and my next post will cover more on birth cert and identifying who or what is free and what is captured by contract. It can get complicated, very quickly, in the courtroom. In order to determine what is "deemed" lawful and unlawful, it first must be determined what jurisdiction the issue and the court is residing in. Then the type and specie of law can be administered. What is right and wrong, known in One's heart, has nothing to do with corporate, privately owned, courts, and which policy is being enforced. The "Policy Enforcers" (POLICE) bring you in, the Judge, the arbiter of the policy which you contravened, hands down his ruling and punishment, having nothing to do with law, at least natural or God's law. And nothing to do with a "Constitution" or anything that is "by and for the people".
As to getting out of "these contracts". You ask a very specific and important question here, individual or collective action? This will be the topic of an upcoming post. One can re-contract or rescind or revoke signature, etc. That is if you have cause. One cannot just decide one day that , "I've changed my mind, this isn't working for me anymore, so I want out of an agreement". If you have cause, say perhaps that One was not informed , did not receive full disclosure, as to what the contract was or entailed and what all the attachments would affect and exactly what obligations would flow out of said contract. With cause, One can achieve this goal, something being unfair is not enough to extinguish.
To, the Birth Certificate. It is not yours. You didn't create it and neither did your parents. Please refer to my post, "The Art of BE-ing"
Cheers,
Arlen
Thank you Arlen. Lots of food for thought in what you say.
I have a question:- In the context of "contracts" how important/relevant is the aspect of (their) intent?
Rita
To my understanding ...
To be enforced, a contract must be established to the satisfaction of the court.
A court (criminal or civil) is unconstitutional under Magna Carta 1215 unless constituted with a jury of ones peers.
Would such a jury convict on the basis that anyone had watched a film presented merely as entertainment?
I believe there are several aspects of assumption within your question. The most significant one being, that "a court" has anything to do with a constitution or the Magna Carta. You are correct in your assumption that in a court of the people, One's peers would be, as outlined within these documents, the administers of judgment and penalty. However. Every Court in my part of the world is a privately owned Corporation, run by Corporate policy, statute code,...
The comment about films etc. from my post, has more to do with the preparation of the consciousness to accept the forthcoming offer without objection or DIS-agreement. Acquiessence is agreement. I will be making a future post in more detail on this.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and comment!
Cheers,
Arlen