UCC Applies To All Legal Matters In Every Court

[ezrhythm]

Federal Code of Regulations, Title 27, Se. 72.11

Great little vid;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0XTF-mbjg

[Lawdog]

More rubbish.

Among the reported cases holding that the UCC did NOT apply to the criminal or traffic offenses at issue:

Barcroft v. State (Tex.App 1994) 881 S.W.2d 838; (" We find this point without merit. First, the UCC is not applicable to criminal proceedings; it applies to commercial transactions.")

Jones v. State (1993) 314 Ark. 383, 862 S.W.2d 273, cert.den 512 US 1237; ("Mr. Jones also argues the Trial Court failed by not referring to the Uniform Commercial Code in resolving the charges. The laws governing the offenses of which he was charged are as follows: carrying a weapon, Ark. Code Ann. 5-73-120 (Supp. 1991); driving without a driver's license, Ark. Code Ann. 27-16-602 (1987); operating a vehicle without a license plate, Ark. Code Ann. 27-14-304 (1987); failure to obtain a vehicle inspection sticker, Ark. Code Ann. 27-32-109 (1987); and failure to provide proof of insurance, Ark. Code Ann. 27-22-104 (Supp. 1991). The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to any of these offenses.")

City of Kansas City v. Hayward (Mo.App 1997) 954 S.W.2d 399; ("For example, in point 4, Ms. Hayward recites the "Law of the Flag" and concludes that the trial court is a foreign power. As such, she reasons, she must be presented with a notice of the "Will of Intent" under the Uniform Commercial Code. She accuses the trial court, among other things, of a conspiracy to commit treason. There is no way to review this argument. There is no way to understand this argument. More importantly, there is no way that this argument relates to the proceedings in the trial court which are ostensibly the subject of this appeal.")

[netwrkranger]

What about civil proceedings, Lawdog?

Does the UCC apply to civil proceedings?

Your case cites only point to criminal proceedings and trial courts.

[indio007]

It matters to the Supreme Court. Thank Lawdog for the quote he posted this case in another thread :P


Justice BRENNAN lists the "benefits" Mr. Burnham derived from the State of California -- the fact that, during the few days he was there,

"his health and safety [were] guaranteed by the State's police, fire, and emergency medical services; he [was] free to travel on the State's roads and waterways; he likely enjoy[ed] the fruits of the State's economy."
Three days' worth of these benefits strike us as powerfully inadequate to establish, as an abstract matter, that it is "fair" for California to decree the ownership of all Mr. Burnham's worldly goods acquired during the ten years of his marriage, and the custody over his children. We daresay a contractual exchange swapping those benefits for that power would not survive the "unconscionability" provision of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Why would the Supreme Court suggest the UCC is applicable to a divorce decree?

makes you go hmm....

[netwrkranger]

A marriage license is a general partnership. It is a BUSINESS or so sayeth George Gordon.

I've been meaning to go the law library and make a field trip down to the court house .....

[ezrhythm]

YES! RUBBISH is EXACTLY what to expect from legal swindlers! The black robe is a sign that your in a CORPORATION BANK.


LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS ARE NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW
http://web.archive.org/web/200605152..._license.shtml

[Lawdog]

What civil cases does the UCC apply to?

Only what it was meant to apply to. Checks, notes, secured transactions, things of that nature.

It has no application to many types of civil cases....family law, for example. And tort cases like personal injury or defamation.

Thinking the UCC applies to everything under the sun is a sure sign you've drunk the Kool-aid.

[ezrhythm]

Someone has just indicated that they haven't read all of the UCC.

Do you think he says all he knows or does he know all that he is saying.