EVERY document bearing your wet ink signature/autograph is a contract instrument.

If you are “acting” in joinder to a dead legal person, it is a “legal” Admiralty Maritime contract, with a “signature”, made in your “public capacity”.

If you are “doing” as a living man or woman, it is a “lawful” Common Law contract, with your “autograph”, made in your “private capacity”.

Any contract signed by one party and autographed by the other is void, because a legal fiction cannot mix with a lawful fact. The parties to a contract must be of the same kind.

Maxim of Law:
Disparata non debent jungi.
Unequal things ought not to be joined.

NO written contract is enforceable if it is made without any element of a lawful contract:

1. Parties competent, of the age of consent, contract between legal or lawful entities.
2. Free and genuine consent, not obtained by fraud, deceit, coercion, or mistake.
3. Full disclosure, providing all material information that may influence a decision.
4. Sufficient consideration, something of value exchanged between the parties.
5. Certainty of terms and conditions, fixed and unable to be changed without agreement.
6. Meeting of the minds, when the parties recognise and understand their obligations.
7. Signatures or autographs, in wet ink, as recorded evidence of reciprocal consent.

Maxim of Law:
Non videntur qui errant consentire.
He who errs is not considered as consenting.

Contract Case Law:
“Failure to reveal the material facts of a license or any agreement is immediate grounds for estoppel.” Lo Bue v. Porazzo, 48 Cal.App.2d 82, 119, p.2d 346, 348.

“Waivers of fundamental Rights must be knowing, intentional, and voluntary acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” U.S. v. Brady, 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); U.S.v. O’Dell, 160 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1947)”.

Unconscionable “contract” – “One which no sensible man not under delusion, or duress, or in distress would make, and such as no honest and fair man would accept.” Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Noll, 115 Ind. App. 289, 58 N.E.2d 947, 949, 950.

“Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorized.” Alexander v. Bosworth (1915), 26 C.A. 589, 599, 147 P.607.

The fraudulently “presumed” quasi-contractus that binds the Declarant with the CITY/STATE agency, is void for fraud ab initio, since the de facto CITY/STATE cannot produce the material fact (consideration inducement) or the jurisdictional clause (who is subject to said statute). (SEE: Master / Servant [Employee] Relationship — C.J.S.) — “Personal, Private, Liberty”-

Since the “consideration” is the “life blood” of any agreement or quasi-agreement, (contractus) “…the absence of such from the record is a major manifestation of want of jurisdiction, since without evidence of consideration there can be no presumption of even a quasi-contractus. Such is the importance of a “consideration.” Reading R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 7 W & S (Pa.) 317

Case Law excerpts from – ‘NO law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile’

Maxim of Law:
Nihil tam naturale est quam eo genere quidque dissolvere quo colligatum est; ideo verborum obligatio verbis tollitur; nudi consensus obligatio contrario consensu dissolvitur. Nothing is so natural as to dissolve anything in the way in which it was bound together; therefore the obligation of words is taken away by words; the obligation of mere consent is dissolved by the contrary consent.

Your choice which way you want to handle it. Just DO NOT be the summoned name.No matter what they say and do, DO NOT participate as their PERSON Summoned.Stay neutral. Throw the PERSON under the bus.
Return their summons / paperwork (keep original) and write in wet ink the following…

Do not accept the benefits on offer.
Do not consent to appear for another entity summoned.
We invoke our inalienable rights, no plea for reasons of non assumpsit.

Return proof of deliver to sender (court) within 72 hours of receipt.

If you decide to turn up, stick with the scripts attached.

Okay, here’s the information with the addition of the meaning of servitude:

The terms “inalienable” and “unalienable” are often used interchangeably, but there is a subtle difference between them.

**Inalienable** is the preferred term used in modern American English, while **unalienable** is more commonly used in British English. Both words are derived from the Latin “inalienabilis,” which means “not to be alienated” or “not capable of being transferred or given away.”

**Inalienable** refers to rights or privileges that cannot be taken away or removed from a person, regardless of circumstances. These rights are inherent and inalienable because they are fundamental to human dignity and existence.

**Examples of inalienable rights:**

*   Freedom of speech
*   Right to life
*   Right to liberty
*   Right to privacy
*   Right to pursue happiness

**Unalienable**, on the other hand, emphasizes that these rights are not only inherent but also cannot be transferred or given away. This term suggests that the rights are inalienable because they are so fundamental to the individual’s existence that they cannot be surrendered or transferred to another entity.

**Examples of unalienable rights:**

*   The right to own property (e.g., a person cannot sell their right to life)
*   The right to freedom of assembly (e.g., a group cannot transfer their right to freedom of assembly to another entity)
*   The right to consent to marriage (e.g., a person cannot transfer their right to consent to marriage to another party)

**Servitude** is a state of being a servant or subject to someone or something, usually involving forced labor or severe restrictions on personal freedom. It represents the opposite of inalienable rights. It is often associated with slavery, indentured servitude, or other forms of involuntary labor, where an individual’s labor or services are owned by another person or entity, thereby denying the individual their inalienable rights such as liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Servitude is a violation of human rights.

In practice, the distinction between inalienable and unalienable is often blurred, and both terms are used interchangeably. However, when invoking these terms, it’s worth noting that inalienable implies a stronger sense of inherent rights, while unalienable emphasizes the idea that these rights cannot be transferred or given away.
In Common law, all individuals have “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is important to note that the denial of these rights, through servitude or other means, is a fundamental injustice.