Anyone have Lexis?

I need a case:



Davis v. Dillard Nat'l Bank F Supp 2d --- (2003) Lexis 9420



This is how it was cited in the annotated statutes. I cannot find it on Findlaw/



Thanks



HB

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

[Jerseee]

Squirrels,



You should try to check in more often--I miss your posts.



Anyways, as far as UCC 3-603(b) is concerned, I do believe it is contingent upon proof of verification--which they can never do. It doesn't stand alone. Now the wording by itself maybe exactly as you stated but I do know that there should be a clause or statement to the fact of verification. And in my humble opinion--even that clause or statement makes the good faith payment null as it is a condition--when the instrument should be unconditional since this is a vital element of what makes it negotiable.



Either way its still just a promise--but it depends on verification nonetheless. This is key to me. If they can verify the debt then I still have remedy through public policy.



what say you

Squirrels, Thanks!



The sword you speak of has two sides. If I am not surety/accomodation party for HB, then I don't know that anyone else will be jumping in to fill that role.

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>While we're on the topic, Can someone also look up

<u>United States v. Ramirez-Sandoval, 872 F.2d 1392,

1399</u>



I have a suspicion that its a great case for establishing that the 4th amendment forbids stopping a vehicle for any "code violation"



Other supporting cases i'm looking for are:

<u>

U.s. v. thomas 863 fed 2nd 622

us vs. cortez 449 US 411

delaware v. prouse 440 us 648

us vs. mendenhall 446 us 544</u>

The fact that i can't readily access them on FindLaw for free suggests to me these may be great cases haha



-BT

[/color]

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]BT, I have acces to it, I'll try digging it up in the midst of everything else.

Hey squirrell, How do I get to the main directory for the annotated statutes in Lexis or West's. It seems like you can only use the search engine & get it piecemeal.

Jerseee,



I would love to check in more often, but life has me by the, er, horns or something. Generally, I do not like to post if I will not have the time to actually check back in and keep the discussion flowing. And my Citibank travails are pushing me to the wall. They tried to screw me with a last second response to my motion, so I had to have an ex parte hearing to have the original hearing date extended to allow me to reply to their B.S. paperwork. I hope to knock these guys out on procedural issues b/c their declarations and response to my motion to strike put themselves in a worse off position than before - lucky me! But since I am going for a knockdown in the first round here, I need to make sure I make full contact with my uppercut while these guys are still prancing around to the intro music. I will keep everyone here updated - my motion to strike will be heard the second week of next month - it is much more complicated now than just not signing a complaint.



Anyway, 3-603 says nothing about verification, but it is governed by any other applicable laws to a simple contract, which in whatever factual situation, should be contingent upon verification. So, yep, it does not stand alone. But if one uses it as a sole remedy, they will be standing alone (it looks like that is what that guy in that particular case did). But 3-603(c) allows the obligor/debtor to be free from any interest, and in this respect every CCC is guilty and liable under the FCBA for their continued interest accrued on that account after the good faith payment is tendered - another violation to add to our arsenals.



weishaupt1776,

Click on the directory and go to whatever jurisdiction you are interested in, click on statutes, and you should be presented with an option to click on annotated or unannotated for your searches.



-squirrels

Squirrels,



I never got your email. Did you get either of mine?



HB

HB,



No, I never got one from you. I will PM you again with mine.



-squirrels

[weishaupt1776]

<FONT COLOR=BLACK>[b]Hey squirrels, I only have access to the camous version which does not go to the ToC. I even called the reference atty & she couldn't figure it out. I did find a way to flanagel it, though. Latro, Bro



BT, the website's not lettin' me save the webpages to the floppy & the right click is disabled due to it being a school computer & when I drag the link into the floppy, it saves it only as a shortcut! I may have to go primitive with the hard copies.O.K. - Lexis is being compliant



YO-BOWMAN -whatchu need in the U.S.C.A?