From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: Bill Conklin's letter to A.J.
Article-I.D.: oregon.5APR199315510067
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 46
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Apr5.040414.14939@colorado.edu>,
 ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes...
>	Again, the main point.

>	No human being not yet born can be bound to any contract.

Wrong.  It's possible to inherit a debt.

>	Further, no third party can be bound to any contract that
>they are not a party to.

See above.

>	The Constitution *for* the United States is just such a contract.
>No third party can be bound to it. Further, no human who is not specifically
>mentioned in Article 6 and has not taken an oath or made an affirmation
>to uphold said Const can be bound to uphold or obey it.

The Constitution is not a contract.  It is a statute.  Please, 
Mr. Teel, or anyone, show me one case where the U.S. 
Constitution, or any state constitution, is considered a 
contract.

>	The Const is designed to limit the powers of government, not to
>bind THE PEOPLE.

It is also designed to delineate the powers of the U.S. 
government.

>	This argument will be presented in great detail in the next post.

I can't wait.

						Daniel Reitman

HOW NOT TO WRITE A DEED

One case involved the construction of a conveyance to grantees "jointly, as 
tenants in common, with equal rights and interest in said land, and to the 
survivor thereof, in fee simple. . . . To Have and to Hold the same unto the 
said parties hereto, equally, jointly, as tenants in common, with equal rights 
and interest for the period or term of their lives, and to the survivor thereof 
at the death of the other."

The court held that the survivorship provision indicated an intent to create a 
joint tenancy.  Germain v. Delaine, 294 Ala. 443, 318 So.2d 681 (1975).
