Ucc-1=crap

[ndusa]

Here's a great article on the crap ucc-1 stupid theory. Of course I'm sure we'll hear from some of the mentally retarded here, cool. Please provide CASE LAW before opening your pie hole:

" Back in the early nineties, an Oregon patriot promoted the theory that "commercial law" was the foundation for all law around the world. Based upon this contention regarding commercial law, he developed the idea that an "affidavit of truth" submitted "in commerce" could create a lien which simply had to be paid. This fellow claimed that his findings were well known everywhere and that this lien process had been used for thousands of years. I obtained his memo regarding this argument and went to the law library. His contention that this "principle" manifested itself in the law was wrong; I could find nothing which supported this argument. This theory was a complete fabrication. NDUSA NOTE: "Affidavit of truth", should spell out "I'm an idiot, don't understand basic concepts of law"

Did others act upon this man's ideas anyway? Leroy Schweitzer of the Montana Freemen took this patriot's ideas to heart and claimed that he created liens against public officials. Based upon these liens, Leroy started issuing sight drafts drawn upon some "post office" account and started passing them out to many gullible people who believed that such drafts were required to be paid by the feds. Not only did Leroy get into deep trouble, so did many who got drafts from him. There have been lots of people who have been prosecuted, convicted and jailed for using drafts allegedly justified by this crazy theory.

One of the most recent prosecutions of someone for using one of Leroy's drafts is Pete Stern, a patriot from North Carolina. Several years ago, Pete issued some of these drafts to the IRS. Pete has been one of the most vocal advocates of the UCC argument, "we are Brits," nom de guerre, etc. While I like Pete, still he has followed crazy arguments. Pete's federal criminal case was filed in the Western District of North Carolina and he was convicted.

As best I can tell, the popular "UCC" argument has its origins in Howard Freeman's flaky theories, the Oregon patriot's work and the "improvements" made by Leroy. The UCC argument is one of the most legally baseless ideas I have ever encountered, yet organizations like "Wrong Way Law" and people like Jack Smith continue to promote it. Here are some published cases which have correctly rejected this lunacy:

1. Jones v. City of Little Rock, 314 Ark. 383, 862 S.W.2d 273, 274 (1993)(In reference to traffic tickets, the court stated, "The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to any of these offenses")
2. United States v. Stoecklin, 848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994)
3. Barcroft v. State, 881 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tex.App. 1994)("First, the UCC is not applicable to criminal proceedings; it applies to commercial transactions") 4. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)(also raised flag and common law court issues)
5. United States v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (D.Idaho 1996)("The complaint filed by the plaintiff is not a negotiable instrument and the Uniform Commercial Code is inapplicable")
6. Watts v. IRS, 925 F.Supp. 271, 276 (D.N.J. 1996)("The IRS's Notice of Intent to Levy is not a negotiable instrument")
7. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(returning lawsuit complaint marked "Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor UCC 3-501" and refusing other court pleadings "for fraud" based upon UCC argument got nowhere; also raised nom de guerre and flag issues)
8. City of Kansas City v. Hayward, 954 SW2d 399 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).

A substantial part of the UCC argument was "developed" by Howard Freeman. Freeman contended that some super secret treaty back in 1930 put this and other countries around the world in "bankruptcy" with the "international bankers" being the "creditor/rulers." Once these banker/rulers were ensconced in power, they needed some way to "toss out the old law" based upon the common law, and erect commercial law as the law which regulated and controlled everything. Roosevelt and his fellow conspirators then set to work and developed a plan to achieve the destruction of the "common law" and the ******** of commercial law. This was accomplished by the decision in the Erie Railroad case in 1938. According to this theory, Erie RR banished the common law, leaving in its place only commercial law via the UCC. Freeman also alleged that lawyers were informed of this "takeover" by the "international bankers" and that they were required to take a secret oath to not tell the American people about the takeover. Of course, as the direct result of this change in the law from common law to commercial law, no court could ever cite a case decided prior to 1938.

But there are the tremendous flaws in this argument. I do not challenge the fact that big international bankers are economically powerful and that such power enables them to secure favorable legislation. However I do disagree with the "secret treaty" contention. Back in the 1930s and indeed all the way up to about 1946, all treaties adopted by the United States were published in the U.S. Statutes at Large. As a student of treaties, I looked for this secret treaty and could not find it and I had access to complete sets of all books containing treaties, especially those in the Library of Congress in DC. The major premise of this argument is this contention regarding the secret treaty, which even the proponents of the argument cannot produce. Their argument, "I cannot produce this secret treaty, but believe me anyway," simply is unacceptable to me as I want proof.

The advocates of this argument also contend that the Erie RR case was the one which banished the common law and erected commercial law in its place. The problem with this contention is that Erie RR does not stand for this proposition. This was a personal injury case; Thompkins was injured while walking along some railroad tracks as a train passed. Something sticking out of the train hit Thompkins and injured him, hence his suit for damages. Please read this case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), which stands for the proposition that federal courts must follow the common law of the state where the injury occurred. How this case is alleged to declare the exact opposite escapes me, but in any event, Erie RR does not support the contention of the UCC advocates.

To prove that Erie RR changed the law, it is alleged that no court can cite a case decided prior to 1938. This is perhaps the simplest contention to disprove, achieved just by reading cases (which apparently the UCC activists do not do). All my life I have read cases which cited very old cases and I have never seen such a sharp demarcation where the courts did cite pre-1938 cases before 1938 and then ceased afterwards. Here are just a few post-1938 cases which cite pre-1938 cases, the constitution, the Federalist Papers and lots of other old authority:

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

Printz and Mack v. United States, 521 U. S. 898 (1997)

When you scan these cases, please note the parentheses like "(1997)" above for Richard Mack's case. This denotes the year any particular case was decided. You can easily see that these recent cases do in fact cites cases decided as far back as 1798. The contention that pre-1938 cases are not cited is nothing but lunacy, believed by folks like Dave DeReimer, a "redemption process" advocate.

This argument also contends that the States of this nation were placed in "bankruptcy" via the "secret treaty." If this were true, why did the Supreme Court decide in 1936 that states and their subdivisions could not bankrupt? See Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936).

Finally, I must inform you that neither I nor any other lawyer I know has ever taken the "secret oath" as alleged by this argument. When I was sworn in as an Alabama lawyer in September, 1975, it was on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court down in Montgomery in front of God, my parents and everybody else. I swore to uphold and protect the United States and Alabama Constitutions. Nothing in that oath could remotely be the alleged "secret oath." I have also been admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits; I did not take the "secret oath" when I was admitted to practice before these courts, nor when I was admitted to practice before several U.S. district courts. I have not taken any other oath and I know that the only oath most other lawyers have taken is the same. But, I do not doubt that some lawyers are members of other secret societies who may have taken oaths of which I am unaware.

My advice is that if you hear anyone making some argument about the UCC, run away as fast as you can. The argument is crazy."

Not only crazy, and stupid, but show's how low on intelligence people really can be.

[ndusa]

Well, that sure smells like THEORY to me, one big stupid, lost, rediculouse, childish theory. And looky there, its was started by some brain dead, dead beat trying to get out of responsability!

And no case law? File all the sh*t you want, thats what it amounts to, and all it ever will be, sh*t.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by ndusa

Here's a great article on the crap ucc-1 stupid theory.

Of course I'm sure we'll hear from some of the mentally retarded here, cool.

Please provide CASE LAW before opening your pie hole:



" Back in the early nineties, an Oregon patriot promoted the theory that "commercial law" was the foundation for all law around the world. Based upon this contention regarding commercial law, he developed the idea that an "affidavit of truth" submitted "in commerce" could create a lien which simply had to be paid. This fellow claimed that his findings were well known everywhere and that this lien process had been used for thousands of years. I obtained his memo regarding this argument and went to the law library. His contention that this "principle" manifested itself in the law was wrong; I could find nothing which supported this argument. This theory was a complete fabrication. NDUSA NOTE: "Affidavit of truth", should spell out "I'm an idiot, don't understand basic concepts of law"

Did others act upon this man's ideas anyway? Leroy Schweitzer of the Montana Freemen took this patriot's ideas to heart and claimed that he created liens against public officials. Based upon these liens, Leroy started issuing sight drafts drawn upon some "post office" account and started passing them out to many gullible people who believed that such drafts were required to be paid by the feds. Not only did Leroy get into deep trouble, so did many who got drafts from him. There have been lots of people who have been prosecuted, convicted and jailed for using drafts allegedly justified by this crazy theory.

One of the most recent prosecutions of someone for using one of Leroy's drafts is Pete Stern, a patriot from North Carolina. Several years ago, Pete issued some of these drafts to the IRS. Pete has been one of the most vocal advocates of the UCC argument, "we are Brits," nom de guerre, etc. While I like Pete, still he has followed crazy arguments. Pete's federal criminal case was filed in the Western District of North Carolina and he was convicted.

As best I can tell, the popular "UCC" argument has its origins in Howard Freeman's flaky theories, the Oregon patriot's work and the "improvements" made by Leroy. The UCC argument is one of the most legally baseless ideas I have ever encountered, yet organizations like "Wrong Way Law" and people like Jack Smith continue to promote it. Here are some published cases which have correctly rejected this lunacy:

1. Jones v. City of Little Rock, 314 Ark. 383, 862 S.W.2d 273, 274 (1993)(In reference to traffic tickets, the court stated, "The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to any of these offenses")
2. United States v. Stoecklin, 848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994)
3. Barcroft v. State, 881 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tex.App. 1994)("First, the UCC is not applicable to criminal proceedings; it applies to commercial transactions") 4. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)(also raised flag and common law court issues)
5. United States v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (D.Idaho 1996)("The complaint filed by the plaintiff is not a negotiable instrument and the Uniform Commercial Code is inapplicable")
6. Watts v. IRS, 925 F.Supp. 271, 276 (D.N.J. 1996)("The IRS's Notice of Intent to Levy is not a negotiable instrument")
7. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(returning lawsuit complaint marked "Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor UCC 3-501" and refusing other court pleadings "for fraud" based upon UCC argument got nowhere; also raised nom de guerre and flag issues)
8. City of Kansas City v. Hayward, 954 SW2d 399 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).

A substantial part of the UCC argument was "developed" by Howard Freeman. Freeman contended that some super secret treaty back in 1930 put this and other countries around the world in "bankruptcy" with the "international bankers" being the "creditor/rulers." Once these banker/rulers were ensconced in power, they needed some way to "toss out the old law" based upon the common law, and erect commercial law as the law which regulated and controlled everything. Roosevelt and his fellow conspirators then set to work and developed a plan to achieve the destruction of the "common law" and the ******** of commercial law. This was accomplished by the decision in the Erie Railroad case in 1938. According to this theory, Erie RR banished the common law, leaving in its place only commercial law via the UCC. Freeman also alleged that lawyers were informed of this "takeover" by the "international bankers" and that they were required to take a secret oath to not tell the American people about the takeover. Of course, as the direct result of this change in the law from common law to commercial law, no court could ever cite a case decided prior to 1938.

But there are the tremendous flaws in this argument. I do not challenge the fact that big international bankers are economically powerful and that such power enables them to secure favorable legislation. However I do disagree with the "secret treaty" contention. Back in the 1930s and indeed all the way up to about 1946, all treaties adopted by the United States were published in the U.S. Statutes at Large. As a student of treaties, I looked for this secret treaty and could not find it and I had access to complete sets of all books containing treaties, especially those in the Library of Congress in DC. The major premise of this argument is this contention regarding the secret treaty, which even the proponents of the argument cannot produce. Their argument, "I cannot produce this secret treaty, but believe me anyway," simply is unacceptable to me as I want proof.

The advocates of this argument also contend that the Erie RR case was the one which banished the common law and erected commercial law in its place. The problem with this contention is that Erie RR does not stand for this proposition. This was a personal injury case; Thompkins was injured while walking along some railroad tracks as a train passed. Something sticking out of the train hit Thompkins and injured him, hence his suit for damages. Please read this case of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), which stands for the proposition that federal courts must follow the common law of the state where the injury occurred. How this case is alleged to declare the exact opposite escapes me, but in any event, Erie RR does not support the contention of the UCC advocates.

To prove that Erie RR changed the law, it is alleged that no court can cite a case decided prior to 1938. This is perhaps the simplest contention to disprove, achieved just by reading cases (which apparently the UCC activists do not do). All my life I have read cases which cited very old cases and I have never seen such a sharp demarcation where the courts did cite pre-1938 cases before 1938 and then ceased afterwards. Here are just a few post-1938 cases which cite pre-1938 cases, the constitution, the Federalist Papers and lots of other old authority:

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

Printz and Mack v. United States, 521 U. S. 898 (1997)

When you scan these cases, please note the parentheses like "(1997)" above for Richard Mack's case. This denotes the year any particular case was decided. You can easily see that these recent cases do in fact cites cases decided as far back as 1798. The contention that pre-1938 cases are not cited is nothing but lunacy, believed by folks like Dave DeReimer, a "redemption process" advocate.

This argument also contends that the States of this nation were placed in "bankruptcy" via the "secret treaty." If this were true, why did the Supreme Court decide in 1936 that states and their subdivisions could not bankrupt? See Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936).

Finally, I must inform you that neither I nor any other lawyer I know has ever taken the "secret oath" as alleged by this argument. When I was sworn in as an Alabama lawyer in September, 1975, it was on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court down in Montgomery in front of God, my parents and everybody else. I swore to uphold and protect the United States and Alabama Constitutions. Nothing in that oath could remotely be the alleged "secret oath." I have also been admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits; I did not take the "secret oath" when I was admitted to practice before these courts, nor when I was admitted to practice before several U.S. district courts. I have not taken any other oath and I know that the only oath most other lawyers have taken is the same. But, I do not doubt that some lawyers are members of other secret societies who may have taken oaths of which I am unaware.

My advice is that if you hear anyone making some argument about the UCC, run away as fast as you can. The argument is crazy."

Not only crazy, and stupid, but show's how low on intelligence people really can be.

Back to square one are we?

Come full circle have we?

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/73413-post31.html

[mrg]

As per:

Bankruptcy.

What is the definition of the term "national debt?"

How much is the "national debt?"

How is the unit of measurment for "the national debt" defined?

How is the "national debt" acquired?

Is it "borrowed" via "loans?"

How are the "loans" "secured."

Are there "promissory notes?"

"Bonds?"

Are the "evidences of debt" "negotiable instruments," or securities?

Why is the "nation" "borrowing?"

What is the nation "borrowing?"

Is "credit" involved, or is the "debt" incurred by the acceptance on credit of tangible "goods" and "services,"or issues of substance of physical value?

Where is what the nation is "borrowing?"

How is the "nation" "repaying" the "national debt?"

Does the "nation" make "loans?"

What is bankruptcy?

What is insolvency?

To whom is the "national debt" "owed?"

Are there "creditors?"

Do the "creditors" have a "collection agency?"

[mrg]

Can/will somebody, anybody, give me some straight answers to each of those questions, in the order asked, applying basic principles of logic outlined by George Boole?

No BS, just straight answers.

[ndusa]

Again, not case law, just stupidity at its finest!

Provide case law or shut the hell up.

I will never answer your stupid questions mrg, so stop trying to play the "smart guy", you are no where close to the level of "smart". As a matter of fact, you would have to be bumped up 3 levels to hit stupid. In other words, if your brains were dynomite, you couldn't blow your nose.

I posted-PROVIDE CASE LAW! Can't you read? Is it that hard to understand?

So take this post, go cry to who ever tickles your fancy, and try to get me banned, good luck "smart guy".

[David Merrill]

I am no advocate of the UCC at all but NdUSA makes me wish I was just because of his egging people on with the opening post.

[ndusa]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I am no advocate of the UCC at all but NdUSA makes me wish I was just because of his egging people on with the opening post.

I would be more than happy to send you the 2006 version of the UCC. It wasn't written by some nut job, so you still won't get the jist of what some people are saying. Matter of fact, if you read it, you'll see where the truth ends, and stupidity begins.

[RICKO]

I wouldn't mind a copy of that.

[aksis]

ndusa, you appear to be under the misconception that there is some sort of group based upon the "freemen", that members of this forum are also members of this group, and that the ways that these failed movements did things is what we must all be doing them, or talking about doing them.

This is simply not true.

Yet there are some members of this forum who have studied these failed group's methods and some discussion regarding them.

I hope you do know that there is alot of UCC process that is effective and does work. You need to be more accurate, unless your intention is to discredit successful methods (and regarding successful process, you should know there is not going to be any cases to cite because they are either dismissed or never happen.)

Your post also has alot of hearsay in it. You like to speak for other people alot... I wish you would shut your "PIE HOLE".

Originally Posted by ndusa

Here's a great article (by who?) on the crap ucc-1 stupid theory. Of course I'm sure we'll hear from some of the mentally retarded here, cool. Please provide CASE LAW before opening your pie hole:

[I prefer to stand on obvious common principles. For example, if you make a lawful agreement/contract you are obligated to honor it.

The opinions of courts, while respected when respectable are not absolute, nor do I require people to think for me. In fact, these foreign court judgments you posted are about as authoritative to me as the judgments and opinions of a Chinese court is to you. Without dishonor.

Further, I have come across and can speculate on countless ways to use the UCC. From my prespective, to use a computer programing medaphor to delinate, its is alot like a "dynamic link library" or "object library" that any computer program can use by referance to make a program smaller.

One does not have to use the UCC to create an enforcable contract, yet to use it only requires some knowledge of the UCC, and for one to make referance to it in their instrument.

Next time, be more specific about what you are calling theory, and which one.]

"Back in the early nineties, an Oregon patriot promoted the theory that "commercial law" was the foundation for all law around the world. Based upon this contention regarding commercial law, he developed the idea that an "affidavit of truth" submitted "in commerce" could create a lien which simply had to be paid. This fellow claimed that his findings were well known everywhere and that this lien process had been used for thousands of years. I obtained his memo (do post this please!) regarding this argument and went to the law library. His contention that this "principle" manifested itself in the law was wrong; I could find nothing which supported this argument. This theory was a complete fabrication. NDUSA NOTE: "Affidavit of truth", should spell out "I'm an idiot, don't understand basic concepts of law"

[In the post New Deal environment that was created by FDR (a contractual/commercial event), those making use of the New Deal are obligated to preform under and according to the terms of the contract. I speculate that many people have entered into the New Deal and many of them are not even U.S. citizens. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, yet, SS#'s have been being issued to non-US persons for over a decade now, prehaps even longer.

I agree, that the idea that a Truth Affidavit creates a lein is silly and false. It is simply an affirmed/sworn statement of facts that one has first hand knowledge of, signed under the penalty of purjury and noted.

Yet, an Affidavit unrebutted within 30 days stands as fact in the case.

So, if someone files an affidavit into a case that says you owe them $100.00, you need to rebutte it timely, and put the onus on the claimant to prove their claim. Silence is fatal. Default in 30 days or make a rebuttal.


In the even of default, send bill and begin collection process. Can you file a lein aginst someone who owes you money?

Do you really need a judge to explain to you how an affidavit works?]

Did others act upon this man's ideas anyway? Leroy Schweitzer of the Montana Freemen took this patriot's ideas to heart and claimed that he created liens against public officials. (can you present the process he used?) Based upon these liens, Leroy started issuing sight drafts drawn upon some "post office" account and started passing them out to many gullible people who believed that such drafts were required to be paid by the feds. (can you present a copy of the drafts?) Not only did Leroy get into deep trouble, so did many who got drafts from him. There have been lots of people who have been prosecuted, convicted and jailed for using drafts allegedly justified by this crazy theory.

[And there have been people that have had success with different processes.]

1. Jones v. City of Little Rock, 314 Ark. 383, 862 S.W.2d 273, 274 (1993)(In reference to traffic tickets, the court stated, "The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to any of these offenses")

There are 2 methods that have been proven to be successful, "Refused for Cause" and "Accepted for Value", I only see that the UCC would serve to make clear the distinction between the person[a] and the human (with the traffic ticket being issued to the person). There are other more effective methods to make this distinction.. David Merril have a very simple clear way to make this distinction between himself, and the person "DAVID MERRIL VAN PELT".

2. United States v. Stoecklin, 848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994)
3. Barcroft v. State, 881 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tex.App. 1994)("First, the UCC is not applicable to criminal proceedings; it applies to commercial transactions")

What isn't a commercial transaction under the New Deal? Even sex is considered a commercial transaction, and children are called "issue" in legal documents.

4. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)(also raised flag and common law court issues)
5. United States v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (D.Idaho 1996)("The complaint filed by the plaintiff is not a negotiable instrument and the Uniform Commercial Code is inapplicable")

Why didn't Andra refuse to recognize the UNITED STATES as having any authority to make a complaint, granted it could prossecute a complaint on behalf of one of the people.. thats what our servents are for.

Motion to dismiss for failuer to state a claim for which relief can be granted. I also like the stories about Roberts dismissing the prosecutor after he reminds the people in the court, that there are only him and his servents present in the court room.

6. Watts v. IRS, 925 F.Supp. 271, 276 (D.N.J. 1996)("The IRS's Notice of Intent to Levy is not a negotiable instrument")

Thats right, it's not even a legal instrument. See, even the IRS is frivilous and a bank or employeer who gave your money away based on such a notice would be in deep ****.

NOTICE: "Just to let you know, we are getting ready to get ready.... maybe. So you need to be ready!"

7. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(returning lawsuit complaint marked "Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor UCC 3-501" and refusing other court pleadings "for fraud" based upon UCC argument got nowhere; also raised nom de guerre and flag issues)

3-501? <--Looks like the flaw in it. Wouldn't you agree? I wonder what the rest of the transcript looked like. There are alot of people who arn't clear on he law.

8. City of Kansas City v. Hayward, 954 SW2d 399 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).