- Joined
- Apr 9, 2022
- Messages
- 987
- Reaction score
- 3,149
- Awards
- 15
"Your Honor, this Complaint seeks declaratory and equitable relief on the ground that the Edenic Covenant was structurally defective ab initio – lacking informed assent, lawful consideration, proportionate and intelligible penalties, and enforceable scope – and was therefore incapable of valid or equitable enforcement against the original parties or innocent successors."
[...]
B. Material Misrepresentation of Offeror’s Sovereign Authority – Inherent Sovereignty does not Require Contractual Architecture.
The offeror represented himself as possessing sole authority to enact and enforce the Covenant on behalf of all Elohim and further held himself out as exercising exclusive authority to speak for and bind the assent of the universe in its entirety. Only following formation of the agreement were the Plaintiffs informed, through a third party, that the offeror’s asserted authority was contested – a material fact not disclosed at the time of formation.
Furthermore, the offeror expressly framed the Covenant as an agreement rather than a mere directive from a superior to a servant by attaching a defined penalty to noncompliance, instead of simply instructing that the prohibited action not be undertaken. By conditioning obedience upon the threat of punitive consequence, the offeror transformed what might otherwise have been an opportunity for divine instruction into reliance upon a non-sovereign juridical undertaking, thereby invoking the essential characteristics of a binding contract with a stipulated penalty.
In so doing, the offeror elected to operate within the constraints of a juridical framework rather than demonstrate sovereign providence – employing the legal technology of a created entity rather than excercising inherent divine authority – for a truly sovereign directive requires no penalty to secure its authority, whereas the imposition of sanction evidences reliance upon contractual obligation and renders the relationship juridical rather than sovereign in character. Indeed, within an authentically sovereign order, the knowledge of having fallen into disfavor with the sovereign would itself constitute the paramount inducement toward obedience, carrying a moral and relational gravity surpassing any threatened temporal consequence. The resort to the warning “you shall surely die” therefore reflects dependence upon punitive deterrence rather than upon the inherent authority traditionally attendant to sovereign command.
