Presentments- Summons

[gregtu]

Please learn this stuff!!!



3-501. PRESENTMENT.



* (a) "Presentment" means a demand made by or on behalf of a person entitled to enforce an instrument (i) to pay the instrument made to the drawee or a party obliged to pay the instrument or, in the case of a note or accepted draft payable at a bank, to the bank, or (ii) to accept a draft made to the drawee.

* (b) The following rules are subject to Article 4, agreement of the parties, and clearing-house rules and the like:

o (1) Presentment may be made at the place of payment of the instrument and must be made at the place of payment if the instrument is payable at a bank in the United States; may be made by any commercially reasonable means, including an oral, written, or electronic communication; is effective when the demand for payment or acceptance is received by the person to whom presentment is made; and is effective if made to any one of two or more makers, acceptors, drawees, or other payors.

o (2) Upon demand of the person to whom presentment is made, the person making presentment must (i) exhibit the instrument, (ii) give reasonable identification and, if presentment is made on behalf of another person, reasonable evidence of authority to do so, and (iii) sign a receipt on the instrument for any payment made or surrender the instrument if full payment is made.

o (3) Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule.

o (4) The party to whom presentment is made may treat presentment as occurring on the next business day after the day of presentment if the party to whom presentment is made has established a cut-off hour not earlier than 2 p.m. for the receipt and processing of instruments presented for payment or acceptance and presentment is made after the cut-off hour.

[gregtu]

Please read number 3!!!!!!!!!

[Jerseee]

gregtu,



This code should be part of your CPN already.

[rushpat]

Here's a thread we started on that part:



Refusal for Cause without Dishonor UCC3-501



Also, Don Ray mentions this in his first guest appearance on the Liberty Forum radio show. This is archived for your listening pleasure:



Don Ray



I think he mentioned it in his 3-14-04 show, about 30 minutes into the 1st part. He's talking about the IRS and summons to court, etc.

[Ice]

That code will not provide any relief from a Summons to Court. When a Summons/Complaint is received it must be "Answered". Judicial procedure is required when Juidcial process has begun.

[gregtu]

Ice, you're correct it must be answered.

[goldphoenix]

Originally Posted by Ice

That code will not provide any relief from a Summons to Court. When a Summons/Complaint is received it must be "Answered". Judicial procedure is required when Juidcial process has begun.

Hi Ice,



Isn't UCC 3-501 answering the prosecutor, who is summoning you to court, by refusing the presentment for the reasons stated within the refusal for cause? Do not the administrative judges have to follow the Uniform Commercial Code? Please explain so I may understand. Thank you!



Peace,



goldphoenix

[goldphoenix]

While we're on this topic of presentments I have a question for all of you. According to UCC 3-501, at least the way I'm reading it, when one is served with a presentment, one must be given the opportunity to look it over if it is an order, to determine whether it is lawful or not. Also, the person providing one with the presentment must identify her/himself if asked.



If this is the case, my question would be, when one is taken into custody, would one not have the right to view the arrest order, and would the arresting officer not be required to identify themselves to the detainee?



Please let me know what you all think.



Peace,



Goldphoenix

[Ice]

You are mixing two different processes. What do you think is the difference between "Administrative" and "Judicial"?? Each one has its own procedures. If you think you are dealing with an "Administrative" court... then by all means ... go ahead... do what you think is right.



But remember this: The court can change its face in an instant. Are you sure it's going to be an Administrative court when you refuse that document? hmmm.... maybe you better go there and find out just what kind of court you're dealing with.

[goldphoenix]

Originally Posted by Ice

You are mixing two different processes. What do you think is the difference between "Administrative" and "Judicial"?? Each one has its own procedures. If you think you are dealing with an "Administrative" court... then by all means ... go ahead... do what you think is right.



But remember this: The court can change its face in an instant. Are you sure it's going to be an Administrative court when you refuse that document? hmmm.... maybe you better go there and find out just what kind of court you're dealing with.

Okay. Thank you for pointing that out, Ice. I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that all judges/magistrates today are working on an administrative level (except for Article III judges).



I was jailed for "contempt" which was a dishonoring of their presentment. The fact that I didn't receive their presentment apparently doesn't matter. They "claim" it was served. Isn't that administrative? How does one determine what level the playing field is on? It is "District Court" which I am also perhaps mistakenly assuming is Federal Amiralty/Maritime court, since the "judge" said the nature of the law there was "statuatory". Not to mention it's a federal long arm procedure, i.e., UIFSA, that they are using to cross State lines to enforce their "draft."



What do you think?



Peace,



goldphoenix