Joinder:
n.
1. The act of joining.
2. Law.
1. A joining of causes of action or defense in a suit.
2. A joining of parties in a suit.
3. Formal acceptance of an issue offered.
http://www.answers.com/topic/joinder
The most destructive use of this concept is the the joining of a man to the straw man corporation created by a colorable fictional commercial government entity used in tender of that man. This is often done through applying an adhesion contract without proper notification of the man for which it is being applied to. Understand that the presumption is that one is bound unless they demonstrate otherwise. When a man walks into court (a purely commercial business operation as it is almost impossible to find a real common law court nowadays) the judge see that the man is wearing clothes and presumes that the man has used colorable money to get that clothing. Since colorable money is just one of a myriad of adhesion contracts with implied contractual terms and conditions. These contracts most notably requires that the man must have willingly agreed to subject subject himself to all statutory fictions of law and colorable municipal code. It is mistakenly and widely believed that this is lawful if the man is ignorant of the law and compliant. However when a man knows that the use of lawful money is no longer a reasonable means of procuring needful things and that he is thereby compelled then he must demonstrate this fact to the judge and state that the contract is not enforceable as he was not property notified of its existence, he did not have the reasonable means to discover its terms and conditions and his actions were compelled as reasonable alternatives have been, for all intents and purposes, removed from the sphere of human endeavor.
This is all well known, but the idea of applying joinder itself between a man and this vaporous apparition is flawed and unlawful. The straw man corporation exists only in the minds of men and has no way of expressing its own will without the representative man. How can it be reasonable to believe the straw man could actually willingly concede to its representation? It is a fraud to suggest that the straw man authorizes its representation by a man. Second, it is no exemption to claim that the unlawful nature of colorable law, when applied to the straw man, extends to the man simply by ignorance. When real consequences are applied to the man, in lieu of the straw man, we cannot know if this vaporous apparition actually committed the violation of statute that may be claimed against it. No man can witness the act of a straw man committing any colorable offense. To say that the man who commits a statutory, act deemed "illegal", transfers his action to the apparition cannot be proven in this universe. Since the actual perpetrator, the straw man, cannot be detected by man then the the ability of agents of fiction to detain the actual perpetrator (the straw man) is impossible but statute law can only apply to the straw man so it is the straw man that must be sanctioned or detained NOT THE REAL MAN!
To merely rely on the excuse that the man's ignorance makes this abominable practice lawful does not excuse its commission. The action of applying joinder in this way is a violation of natural law as it is a criminal fraud or technically witchcraft by its very nature.
Agents "enforcing" contractual color of law are only lawful permitted to arrest and detain a straw man and that entity cannot be joined to a man without the criminal commission of fraud. The arrest and detention of a real man as a substitute for the impossible detention of a corporate fiction is unlawful by its nature and is a abdominal act before the eyes of the one true living God.


