UCC believe it or not

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

Here we go again. You pull this crap all the time.
Is a court the ONLY way to settle a controversy?
AND, how do you know that there are no cases that say yes to those 2 claims?



Rubbish. In Australia, the current stance is that we are independant of the UK. However, the courts have the UK coat of arms on the wall behind the judicial officer. Ask em why and see what happens.

Also, the reason that you are supposed to stand and bow towards the judicial officer is because in the old days of English law, the judicial officer carried the bible into the court above his head.
So you tell me about talismans.

I was talking about America, and the nutjob theory that if you're in a courtroom where the American flag has a gold fringe, that means it's an admiralty or military court.

And in America, we only stand when the judge enters the room. As soon as the judge sits in his or her seat, he or she says "Be seated." And we don't have to bow to the judge. We are never asked to bow to the judge.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how the courts are run or what their flags look like in Australia. That's not my row to hoe, as they say.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I was talking about America, and the nutjob theory that if you're in a courtroom where the American flag has a gold fringe, that means it's an admiralty or military court.

And in America, we only stand when the judge enters the room. As soon as the judge sits in his or her seat, he or she says "Be seated." And we don't have to bow to the judge. We are never asked to bow to the judge.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass how the courts are run or what their flags look like in Australia. That's not my row to hoe, as they say.

Again, is a court the ONLY way to settle a controversy?
Yes or no?

[Shoonra]

These two arguments have been raised in court, so, yes, let's see if a court had ever found them valid.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

These two arguments have been raised in court, so, yes, let's see if a court had ever found them valid.

No, first let us see if there is a valid court before we consider their conclusions.

Two points of view that need adjudicated so that the argument might finally be placed at rest:

Tastes Great!

Less Filling!

[Lawdog]

ezrhythm:

You're right, I can't produce a contract under seal. Not from any kind of court, admiralty or otherwise.

Because contracts are not required to be sealed.

Sure, sometimes a document has the word "Seal" next to or below where the person signed his or her name. But your signature is your seal. Signing is sealing. No need to add a gold colored sticker.

You can put an actual seal on a contract if you want. In my state that just makes it a higher grade of contract.

Ga. Code. 13-1-4 "Specialty contract."
A specialty is a contract under seal and is considered by the law as entered into with more solemnity, and consequently of higher dignity, than ordinary, simple contracts.

A simple contract may be in writing or may be oral. Another section of the Georgia Code says that.

Simple contracts are enforceable, same as specialty ones.

I've closed deals where there was a contract to lend more than half a million dollars. The person borrowing the money only had to sign it. No golden sticker needed.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by robhalford88

...jam your courts, lawyers and statutes up your clacker.

Obviously s/he has already done so...with relish and delight.

[mrg]

The person borrowing the money only had to sign

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

ezrhythm:

You're right, I can't produce a contract under seal. Not from any kind of court, admiralty or otherwise.

Because contracts are not required to be sealed.

Sure, sometimes a document has the word "Seal" next to or below where the person signed his or her name. But your signature is your seal. Signing is sealing. No need to add a gold colored sticker.

You can put an actual seal on a contract if you want. In my state that just makes it a higher grade of contract.



A simple contract may be in writing or may be oral. Another section of the Georgia Code says that.

Simple contracts are enforceable, same as specialty ones.

I've closed deals where there was a contract to lend more than half a million dollars. The person borrowing the money only had to sign it. No golden sticker needed.

So you can't or won't answer my question then?
Is a court the only way to settle a controversy?
Yes or no. Court can be taken to include tribunals and the rest.

[Lawdog]

Of course not. There are many ways other than court to settle a dispute.

Flip a coin.

Fistfight.

Pick a card.

Dueling pistols at dawn.

Some methods are smarter and safer than others, though.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You're right, I can't produce a contract under seal. Not from any kind of court, admiralty or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Rule 5.902 Iowa Rules of Court

Rule 5.902 Self–authentication . Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
(1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any state[, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.
June 2002
(2) Domestic public documents not under seal. A document purporting to bear the signature in the official capacity of an officer or employee of any entity included in rule 5.902 (1), having no seal, if a public officer having a seal and having official duties in the district or political subdivision of the officer or employee certifies under seal that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.

Isn't that odd. Court rules require a public document to be sealed in one manner or another to be self-authenticated. Yet the court itself seems reluctant to give you its' conclusion under seal which means that its' own orders are not self-authenticated and therefore not valid. It takes more than a signature.

Smoke and mirrors, folks. Don't pay any attention to that little lawdog wagging its' tail while it is peeing on your leg.