Another Mind Tickler

[Jerry Pitts]

Here is another one for all of you folk to ponder on. Definitely a good read. Determine for yourselves whether or not you can utilize this information. First I present a short excerpt from the writing, followed up by an attachment of the entire document.

Jerry Carlos

"The Uniform Commercial Code says in Volume 1, Section 103.6: "The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." It also says: "The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action."

Most court proceedings today are under a colorable Admiralty jurisdiction also known as Statutory jurisdiction. In Admiralty jurisdiction, "The technical niceties of the common law are not regarded...", 1 R.C.L. 31, p. 422. "A jury does not figure, ordinarily, in the trial of an admiralty suit...the verdict of the jury merely advisory, and may be disregarded by the court." 1 R.C.L. 40, p. 432. "[The] rules of practice may be altered whenever found to be inconvenient or likely to embarrass the business of the court." 1 R.C.L. 32, p. 423. "A court of admiralty ... acts upon equitable principles." 1 R.C.L. 17, p. 416. Have you ever heard a court case where the judge overrules the decision of the jury? This can only happen in a trial in admiralty jurisdiction. The jury is only the conscience of the court. The judge is not an impartial referee who understands Public Law but a commissioner that supports Public Policy which is private law. And your attorney may not be working for you. In CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (complete restatement of the entire American law) Volume 7, section 4 states: "an attorney occupies a dual position which imposes dual obligations. His first duty is to the courts and the public not to the client and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter....Clients are also called 'wards of the court'." The fifth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary states that a Ward of court is: "person of unsound mind"."

[gldskr]

Of course it should go without saying that those who use the UCC are corporate entities, or deranged patriots who think the UCC somehow applies to them.

gldskr

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by gldskr

Of course it should go without saying that those who use the UCC are corporate entities, or deranged patriots who think the UCC somehow applies to them.

gldskr

Did you read the entire article? If you did, then you would realize that the UCC is only a small and relatively insignificant portion of the information contained in the article. But while you have brought up the subject and have made a negative claim by stating (in part) "deranged patriots who think the UCC somehow applies to them.", I would ask you; Who precisely and with particularity does the UCC apply to?

Jerry Carlos

[gldskr]

Jerry

No, I did not read the article.

There seems to be a mythology surrounding certain aspects of the UCC where it is equivilant to the common law, in this respect I have to ask, "which common law".

Common law exists in many forms depending on which jurisdiction you are speaking. Since the UCC exists in a statutory jurisdiction, that is foreign to me as a flesh and blood man. I have no use for such laws.

The UCC was written for entities and it has its own common law. That it may coincide with de jure law is merely coincidental. My right to contract is enumerated within the Constitution, which is the law itself. Why would I subjugate such a contract to the whims of a mere code?

gldskr

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by gldskr

Jerry

No, I did not read the article.

There seems to be a mythology surrounding certain aspects of the UCC where it is equivilant to the common law, in this respect I have to ask, "which common law".

Common law exists in many forms depending on which jurisdiction you are speaking. Since the UCC exists in a statutory jurisdiction, that is foreign to me as a flesh and blood man. I have no use for such laws.

The UCC was written for entities and it has its own common law. That it may coincide with de jure law is merely coincidental. My right to contract is enumerated within the Constitution, which is the law itself. Why would I subjugate such a contract to the whims of a mere code?

gldskr

Thank you for that clarification. It would appear that you are correct in your statement that "Common law exists in many forms depending on which jurisdiction you are speaking", which of course would include the us government along with its' courts system and their use of the UCC.

Though some may have made utilization of the UCC, does not however, necessarily impart upon them the title of 'deranged'. I personally made use of the principals of the UCC in a traffic situation, went to their court system on the issue, and even entered a guilty plea, and the case was dismissed. By simply signing the ticket and under my autograph, placing the comment 'under duress'. That comment was based upon the answer I received from the issuing officer when I inquired as to what would happen if I did not sign the ticket. His comment was "then you will go to jail." The citation was for driving a commercial vehicle without proper classification on the license. Here in Florida, it is punishable by a fine of 1000.00 frns' and/or 1 year in jail or both. To this day, that citation or reference to it does not appear on my driving record.

Due to the fact that I entered a plea of guilty, you would think that I would have been punished. Who really got punished for the crime then? In fact what crime? Though 'threats, coercion and intimidation' are crimes even under their secular/maritime/commercial law system.

Jerry Carlos

[Lawdog]

And if you really believe that signing a ticket "under duress" will magically get you out of it, I have a lovely bridge in Brooklyn to sell you....

[indago]

Lawdog wrote:

And if you really believe that signing a ticket "under duress" will magically get you out of it, I have a lovely bridge in Brooklyn to sell you....

So you're the one who got stuck with that bridge!

[mrg]

Originally Posted by indago

Lawdog wrote:
So you're the one who got stuck with that bridge!

Ain't that the truth.