HB,



I have downloaded it and will send it to you right after this reply.



This case looks to be a good example of someone as a pro se plaintiff who is unprepared to handle the legal system, procedures, and present their claims properly - the judge dismissed this case in his sleep.



But it does bring to light an issue that I have read here before which has been wrongly interpreted for quite some time now by many, basically b/c they are not exercising their critical reading skills. It pertains to "discharge of an obligation to pay on a contract pursuant to UCC 3-603(b)." That section has been misunderstood in that people think that tendering a good faith negotiable instrument in satisfaction of their "obligation" to pay will discharge their "obligation" when it is not accepted by the alleged creditor - this is wrong!!! The UCC code section explicitly says exactly what is says - only an indorser or accomdation party [that is, a guarantor or surety] of the obligation is discharged from payment, not the debtor himself. However, this code section IS correct if one is able to establish that they are the surety/guarantor of their STARWMAN. But proving this in todays legal courtroom setting is beyond me at this time.



There is also ample authority to support the judges interpretation of the equal protection clause in this case as not being applicable in this matter. I have seen the equal protection clause, IMHO, misunderstood in this forum several times, and it is not so general a clause as to say that the law is applied equally everywhere to all persons in the U.S. or States thereof - one will go down in flames if this is their perception.



-squirrels