UCC 1-308 When Signing Custody Papers

[sheisaceo]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Welcome to the Sui Juris forum tashy4!

the indorser is not liable under subsection (a) to pay the instrument. UCC 3-415

Last night I could not stop thinking about this. Why is it necessary to sign 'All Rights Reserved' on an answer to a petition, or a petition itself, it this could not be argued subject to jurisdiction in appellate court and I believe I have the answer but I also believe that some of you here are already aware of this.

Regardless, I am pressing on with my thought and that is that the ability to not give consent nor volunteer to contract follows the signature signed with 'All Rights Reserved'. In other words, even if the argument is lost at the trial court level, then putting the appellate court on notice that there is no consent to volunteer stops the creation of a contract. And this should be even at the appellate level.

So really then, a cause could be appeal all of the way to the Supreme Court with 'All Rights Reserved' and then the ability to contract is removed with the declaration of removing it....even at that court level.

Response?

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by tashy4

will writting "Without Prejudice" UCC 1-308 on any custody agreement elimiate the courts jurisdiction in this matter once it gets filed?

No. No. No. A thousand times No.

[James]

tashy4

I agree with ezrhuthm and Extramural in regards to jurisdiction. In my opinion having retained an attorney in the beginning gave the court-jurisdiction as he/she is an officer of the court. But, the language, “without prejudice,” above your signature would be inadmissible as evidence.

“It may however, be considered settled that letters or admissions containing the expression in substance that they are to be ‘without prejudice’ will not be admitted in evidence ... an arrangement stating the letter was without prejudice was held to be inadmissible as evidence ... not only will the letter bearing the words, ‘without prejudice’ but also the answer thereto, which was not so guarded, was inadmissible." Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323; Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55, Molyneaux v. Collier, 13 Ga. 406. When correspondence had commenced ‘without prejudice’ but afterwards those words were dropped, it was immaterial, 6 Ont. 719.”

Also, in my opinion, no need to write UCC 1-308 after “without prejudice” as it would be redundant.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by sheisaceo

Hi Ez!

Ok, what instrument then?

Since it's all commercial, the court is actually a bank. A private one at that and the black robe, court clerk and the lie-yers are bankers for a private corporation.
Anything they try and get you to sign including orders are instruments.

[sheisaceo]

Oops, I edited a previous post so reposting...


Per James....

Last night I could not stop thinking about this. Why is it necessary to sign 'All Rights Reserved' on an answer to a petition, or a petition itself, if this could not be argued subject to jurisdiction in appellate court? I believe I have the answer but I also believe that some of you here are already aware of this.

Regardless, I am pressing on with my thought and that is that the ability to not give consent nor volunteer to contract follows the signature signed with 'All Rights Reserved'. In other words, even if the argument is lost at the trial court level, then putting the appellate court on notice that there is no consent to volunteer stops the creation of a contract. And this should be even at the appellate level.

So really then, a cause could be appeal all of the way to the Supreme Court with 'All Rights Reserved' and then the ability to contract is removed with the declaration of removing it....even at that court level.

Response?

[tashy4]

“It may however, be considered settled that letters or admissions containing the expression in substance that they are to be ‘without prejudice’ will not be admitted in evidence ... an arrangement stating the letter was without prejudice was held to be inadmissible as evidence ... not only will the letter bearing the words, ‘without prejudice’ but also the answer thereto, which was not so guarded, was inadmissible." Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323; Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55, Molyneaux v. Collier, 13 Ga. 406. When correspondence had commenced ‘without prejudice’ but afterwards those words were dropped, it was immaterial, 6 Ont. 719.”

So to clarify, the court still maintains jurisdiction, but if the agreement is entered with her signature stating Without Prejudice, the document is inadmissable thus making the order invalid?

If so does that mean the the "agreed" upon plan is invalid and she can then file with the court a new parenting plan once she has the children?

The reason I ask is that the other party is preventing her from having time with the kids. Here is a quote. "Due to your erratic behavior in regards to how you are handling our divorce and custody battle, which decides our children's futures." As a party to the email sent and situation the only erratic behaviour was a last minute attempt to settle without going to trial and when the "offer" was lacking she choose to go to trial.

This is not the first occasion in which time has been denied and she fears it will not be the last.

Thank you all.

[tashy4]

“It may however, be considered settled that letters or admissions containing the expression in substance that they are to be ‘without prejudice’ will not be admitted in evidence ... an arrangement stating the letter was without prejudice was held to be inadmissible as evidence ... not only will the letter bearing the words, ‘without prejudice’ but also the answer thereto, which was not so guarded, was inadmissible." Ferry v. Taylor, 33 Mo. 323; Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass 55, Molyneaux v. Collier, 13 Ga. 406. When correspondence had commenced ‘without prejudice’ but afterwards those words were dropped, it was immaterial, 6 Ont. 719.”

So to clarify, the court still maintains jurisdiction, but if the agreement is entered with her signature stating Without Prejudice, the document is inadmissable thus making the order invalid?

If so does that mean the the "agreed" upon plan is invalid and she can then file with the court a new parenting plan once she has the children?

The reason I ask is that the other party is preventing her from having time with the kids. Here is a quote. "Due to your erratic behavior in regards to how you are handling our divorce and custody battle, which decides our children's futures." As a party to the email sent and situation the only erratic behaviour was a last minute attempt to settle without going to trial and when the "offer" was lacking she choose to go to trial.

This is not the first occasion in which time has been denied and she fears it will not be the last.

Thank you all.

[sheisaceo]

Originally Posted by tashy4

So to clarify, the court still maintains jurisdiction, but if the agreement is entered with her signature stating Without Prejudice, the document is inadmissable thus making the order invalid?

If so does that mean the the "agreed" upon plan is invalid and she can then file with the court a new parenting plan once she has the children?

The reason I ask is that the other party is preventing her from having time with the kids. Here is a quote. "Due to your erratic behavior in regards to how you are handling our divorce and custody battle, which decides our children's futures." As a party to the email sent and situation the only erratic behaviour was a last minute attempt to settle without going to trial and when the "offer" was lacking she choose to go to trial.

This is not the first occasion in which time has been denied and she fears it will not be the last.

Thank you all.

The previous agreed upon plan is not invalid. It remains intact for the present. If she is brought before a judge, however, she can invalidate the contract by not volunteering to contract and this is something that requires study on her part about what this takes. Appearing without a lawyer, pro se, is part of it. Part of it is just pure guts because the legal system is already predisposed to everyone losing and with much intimidation.

She probably will be brought into court again, and more than once. At this point then, she should hope so. If she states to the judge that she does not consent, nor volunteer, to contract then everything with her signature with 'without prejudice' in tandem to that would be invalidated. Then if that is the case, she should hope that her ex brings her back into the courtroom so that all of that nonsense can be dismissed and the children returned to her. This may not be immediate since possession is 9/10's of the law but she could file her own suit then for temporary orders until a hearing for permanent orders.

If she signed 'without prejudice' and this is a divorce and this goes all the way back to inception then this could completely invalidate all divorce proceedings.

Please correct me if I am wrong suijuris...

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by tashy4

I apologize if this has been brought up before, I have done a search and have not found a clear answer. First off the details.

I know of someone who is currently in a custody battle the children have resided with the father at this point for 18 months at the time the divorce/custody paperwork it had only been 8 months. Due to the issues that they reside in different states. Now the issue is her lawyer has just resigned her post and the other sides lawyer is trying to force her to sign a settlement, which she does not agree with, while she does not have proper legal representation.

So my question is if they send her paperwork and the court states she will be in contempt, which is a threat being made by other lawyer, when she signs it and states "without prejudice" UCC 1-308 on it by her signature the agreement is not binding and she can fight it once she hires a new lawyer is that correct?

Another question if she signs as such and it gets submitted and implemented via the court since she would have the UCC on there would she in turn be able to file a new motion for custody in her state? Since the court would have technically considered the case closed and no longer have jurisdiction, or would she still have to do it in the state they currently reside?

Also regardless of where she files a new motions she would have to wait until she gets them for the summer, so basically the question is once again, since the "agreement/settlement" is non binding at that point she can in turn do this right?

Thank you for any assistance I am eternally grateful.

Let me give you my opinion as I haven't seen anything like what I think written here.

No 1. How can you be in contempt of court without the court issuing an order?
No 2. Does the court or the opposition lawyer have the ability to compel you to contract?
No 3. Is this letter from the lawyer, an abuse of the court? Attempted mail fraud? Is it also something that could have the lawyer struck off?

If she chooses to sign, then she should sign it as 'Under duress' or ' Undue influence applied', something to annul the agreement from the beginning.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

All jurisdiction starts w/ service of process- for a civil matter that means 'papers', so if you avoid this service no jurisdiction.

Also in re family court: the local authority has jurisdiction over children with a "significant contact" to that zone. So always be a stranger.

For example Protection From Abuse orders only start upon 'notice'. Abate for misnomer.