How to Sign Your Name Without Assuming Liability

“Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. ~ An act done by me against my will, is not my act.”

UPDATE: It has been recently brought to my attention that V.C. actually stands for VIS COMPULSIVA not VI COACTUS, and the source for this is Blacks Law 1st Edition.

It is not Vi Coactus... it is Vis Compulsiva.

What does a signature mean? I will tell you right now that when you sign something (no matter what “they” say), it means that you accept liability. And if you don’t read and agree to EVERYTHING you sign, you are making a big mistake.

I am constantly being asked… “How do I sign my name? … AND maintain my rights?”

We all know that before they let us go, they ALWAYS want us to sign something to keep us coming back. There are other points in the “legal” system where a “signature” is expected or required before the court can proceed as well.

I have heard that adding “Under Duress”, or “All Rights Reserved” to a signature when signing a document will maintain our inherent human rights; and while this could work as well, the proper and Latin way to sign under duress is to add a “V.C.” before your name.

Vi Coactus, abbreviated to V.C., is a latin term. The website wikipedia cites the definition of vi coactus as:

“constrained by force”. Used when forced to sign (“or else …”)

Perhaps the most famous use of vi coactus when signing a document was that of Cornelius de Witt. Alexandre Dumas captured the event as follows:

The Grand Pensionary bowed before the will of his fellow citizens; Cornelius de Witt, however, was more obstinate, and notwithstanding all the threats of death from the Orangist rabble, who besieged him in his house at Dort, he stoutly refused to sign the act by which the office of Stadtholder was restored. Moved by the tears and entreaties of his wife, he at last complied, only adding to hissignature the two letters V. C. (Vi Coactus), notifying thereby that he only yielded to force.

There is scant authoritative information regarding this term on the web. However, on the One Heaven Society of United Free States of Spirits website the following information is provided:

The Bar want you to sign as surety

At key points in a Court case, the Bar members want you to sign certain documents. Why? Because your signature is like your vocalized consent – it can be legally interpreted as your agreement to be surety for an obligation and to perform as well as to waive other rights.  

Do you have to sign? No you don’t. But in many cases, the Bar has designed a system so that if you don’t it is interpreted as dishonor so that they can invoke their power of attorney powers to declare you delinquent, incompetent and send you to prison anyway.  

This is why you may have heard of people who refused to sign the papers when entering prison and yet were treated worse than most serious criminals, with complete apparent ignorance of their rights- why? because the system is designed at certain points where you MUST sign. So how do you overcome an unjust and unfair system that forces a man or woman to sign under duress, against their will and yet interprets such signatures as valid under Canon Law? The answer is making sure yousignature follows a clear mark of duress.

Vi Coactus

Before you sign anything under duress, in order not to be unfairly determined as in dishonor and incompetent, you may lawfully initial in large letters the lettersV.C. where you will sign, then sign your name after- always after.

What V.C. stands for is Latin for Vi Coactus which means literally “under constraint”. This should normally be sufficient on any document which you are forced to sign to bear witness to the fact that it was done under duress.

Now, at the earliest opportunity before the court or official, you can make it known that upon review of your signature it can be proven to have been forced under threat and coercion and so cannot be used as legally binding agreement.

In some locations and in some prisons as this knowledge grows, it is possible that law enforcement officials may start to reject such signatures, adding more threat and force on a person to sign without using V.C. It is your choice remembering that if you allow such criminal intimidation and torture to prevail and do sign without protest then the system can simply lie and state you made such a sign of your “own free will”.

So if they tear up the paperwork and demand you do it again, stating that such asignature is unlawful then such claims are against the laws of the Roman Cult Canon Law- the actual law that underpins their own statutes and regulations. However, if after several attempts they still refuse, there is a second method equally valid- the use of ellipse.

The use of ellipses

When the threat of intimidation or outright rejection of lawful protest is too great, then a second and equally valid method of signing under protest is permitted, namely the use of three full stops placed first, followed by thesignature so that the three dots are not obscured by thesignature.

This is called an ellipsis eg “…” and indicates that legally there was a form of words you wanted to state but were unable due to some event, in this case because of threat and coercion.

Thus, at the earliest opportunity the ellipsis can be revealed and it can be stated that you intended to write V.C. but were prevented therefore nullifying any agreement.

It would be of interest to the author if there have been any more recent cases where V.C. has been used to sign a document. There appears to have been a case in Indonesia where Dutch interests signed V.C., however, the author does not have full access to the journal in question:

The Measures Taken by the Indonesian Government against …by I Login – 1958 – Related articles

Authority” or “o.p.” (under protest) or “v.c.” (vi coactus). And that, of course , was preciously what it was: compelled by force. …

Source: journals.cambridge.org/article_S0165070X00029879

Further definitions and their sources:

Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edition)

The ninth edition does not provide a definition for vi coactus.

Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (27th edition, 1955, pp.103)

coactus

a compulsion, compelling; coactu atque efflagitatu meo, cic.

The Oxford Latin Dictionary ABS-LIB (1968, pp. 339)

coactus1

1. Compressed, condensed; (of milk) curdled. b (neut. pl. as sb.) felt cloak.

2. Unnatural, artificial, forced, contrived.

3. (of instruments, actions, etc.) Unwilling, forced. b. required by law, compulsary.

coactus2

Compulsion, constraint.

Interestingly, Cassell’s Latin Dictionary and the Oxford Latin Dictionary provide the additional definitions:

Cassell’s Latin Dictionary:

coacto – To compel.

coactor – 1. a collector of rents, money at auctions, etc. 2. One who compels.

Oxford Latin Dictionary:

coacto – To compel.

coactor – 1. A collector (of money, taxes, etc.). 2. the troops bringing up the rear.

References

  1. List of Lation abbreviations (wikipedia.org)
  2. Dumas, Alexandre – Black Tulip, The (literature.org)
  3. Signing in protest and under duress (one-heaven.org)
  4. Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, pp.103 (exfacie.com)
  5. Oxford Latin Dictionary, pp.339 (exfacie.com)

Note: Correction to the reference from one-heaven.org was applied (removing the term ellipse for ellipsis). Thanks to Gerald for identifying this correction.

Article courtesy of Freedom From Government

Continue reading “How to Sign Your Name Without Assuming Liability”

HOW TO DO A PROPER REFUSAL FOR CAUSE

HOW TO DO A PROPER REFUSAL FOR CAUSE (DISPEL CONTRACTUAL ACCEPTANCE PRESUMPTION)

Refused for cause example

This is quite the complex process, simple though it is, simply because one needs to have irrefutable proof that any presentment has been properly refused within the timeframe permitted for Refusal for Cause (aka R4C) – generally within 72 hours.

The law behind the Refusal for Cause comes from our right to refuse to contract with whomever we do not wish to contract with. This principle is addressed in Truth in Lending Act as well as the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code) §2-207(c) and §3-501(b). These sections state as follows:
Ҥ 2-207. Additional Terms in Acceptance or Confirmation.

(1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.

(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless:
(a) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer;
(b) they materially alter it; or
(c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received [emphasis added].

(3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of this Act. Continue reading “HOW TO DO A PROPER REFUSAL FOR CAUSE”

Commendation To Hillsboro Police Chief For His Agents Remaining Honorable

Have a look at the correspondence I made to the Chief of police for the city of Hillsboro, Oregon today commending him for the honorable actions of his agents (must read!):

Dear Hillsboro Chief of Police,

This message is meant to be routed to the Hillsboro Chief of Police, and/or any senior officer with command over the person who identified himself to me yesterday as an “Officer Brenner” with a badge number of “OR”. Near Jackson St. in downtown Hillsboro around 9pm yesterday (July Twenty-First, Two Thousand and Thirteen), here is a link to a video of the incident – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUcjuV2Aca4

Not sure what “Officer Brenner” and another unidentified person were doing at this house, all I know is that my sister is 6 months pregnant and this “Officer Brenner” guy was harassing and trying to intimidate her, and “Officer Brenner” also denied knowledge of the law.

“Officer Brenner” was with another apparent officer whom remained unidentified. This other officer was the one to act with honor and commence a retreat with his partner, and I wanted to write this message and offer a commendation to the unidentified officer for acting with honor (although he never did produce adequate identification).

I wish to cause no controversy, yet I would like to ask you and your officers to examine the importance of properly identifying themselves ESPECIALLY if acting under COLOR of LAW. With the notice on the door of the house in which this incident occurred, failure to read and/or heed the directives of the notice could possibly result in the use of “reasonable force” to remove them as at that point they were criminally trespassing.

The notice on the door included quotes of USC TITLE 18, PARAGRAPH 13, SECTIONS 241 and 242.

18 USC § 241 – Conspiracy against rights ”If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

I would recommend advising your officers of the ramifications of these CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS and DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW violations, remedy will be sought in the form of civil lawsuits in both PUBLIC and PRIVATE capacities of each offending individual.

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to advise you that you or your officers may see myself or others traveling in my car with tags that read “PRIVATE PROPERTY”, “NOT FOR HIRE”, “FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY”. This is formal notice that you may not violate UNITED STATES CODE when I am traveling in my car either, ESPECIALLY if I am displaying private tags. Or countless Supreme Court decisions on the right to travel. For more information, refer to – http://freedomfromgovernment.org/driver-licensing-vs-right-to-travel/ If you disagree with this assertion of my duty to be honorable, to honor all my contractual obligations made without fraud, and to be honorable means that I must do the right and moral thing, without causing harm or using unnecessary force when required regardless of what I am told; I will offer that it is your duty to honor my wish as a peaceful inhabitant of this land.

If you dispute anything in this message or do not provide witnesses with first-hand knowledge and/or evidence that any code, statute, policy, or constitution is applicable to my body without my first having sworn a binding oath, you need to provide this feedback, testimony, or evidence within TEN (10) days of receipt of this message or acquiesce to this notice.

In the matter of SURETY for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a MISTAKE as the SOLE BENEFICIARY has been INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED as a party in this matter. If I, AND/ OR PERSONS AND/OR FRIENDS OF THE COURT AND/OR SUCH OTHER PARTIES ACTING IN MY INTERESTS, have led the COURT or anyone acting as a HILLSBORO POLICE officer/agent in their private capacity or the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE to believe by responding to “You” and or “TRENT’, and or “JAMES T GOODBAUDY” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THIS OFFICER HAS ADDRESSED ME AS, that I am the PARTY WITH SURETY in this matter, then that would be a MISTAKE and please forgive me. As I have no knowledge of who “You” and/or “TRENT” and/or “JAMES T GOODBAUDY” and/or SUCH OTHER IDENTIFICATION THESE OFFICERS OR AGENTS HAVE ADDRESSED ME AS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK; by WHAT AUTHORITY is the COURT/DEPARTMENT ADDRESSING me as such?

As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT/DEPARTMENT, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I, as the SOLE BENEFICIARY of the TRUST have any SURETY in this matter? As the GOVERNMENT is the SOLE SIGNATORY PARTY on the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE), with SOLE AND FULL SURETY as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME, WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am a TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME.

WHAT EVIDENCE does the POLICE DEPARTMENT / COURT have that I am a TRUSTEE and have ANY SURETY with respect to the LEGAL NAME? WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the United States of America corporation? WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal? WHAT EVIDENCE does the COURT have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to contract? Notice: Failure by CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF HILLSBORO in their private capacity to respond within ten days from receipt of this correspondence shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims.

Sincerely,
A Private Man