I'll try to enlighten this forum with info when time permits...
**begin copy/paste**
Be very VERY careful citing and quoting the "UCC".
The federal UCC is federal MUNICIPAL law, enacted
expressly for the District of Columbia:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ucc/77stat630.gif
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ucc/77stat631.gif
.gif = Graphics Interchange Format
(use a graphics viewer like ACDSee)
As such, this federal UCC is merely a federal statute,
which cannot and does not supersede the U.S. Constitution.
For a simple explanation of federal MUNICIPAL law, see:
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/cogent.htm
If you invoke federal municipal law, a judge may assume
that you are subject to federal municipal law.
To keep your status clear, cite to your State's
UCC instead, e.g. "UCC 1-207" becomes "UCCA 1207"
in California (read "UCC for California").
Better yet, use the LANGUAGE instead of citing
to sections, because the section numbers change
(as I am told they did just recently).
"All Rights Reserved" appears in film credits
and book title pages: it is sufficient!
Finally, the term "commerce" is a loaded term:
"commerce" in the Commerce Clause refers ONLY
to business between and among the 50 State
governments; it does not refer to business
between and among the Inhabitants of the 50 States.
If the Framers had wanted Congress to have authority
to regulate private business between and among the
Inhabitants of the 50 States, they would and they
should have done so, but they did not! See U.S. v. Lopez
for a recent high Court discussion of over-reaching
constructions of the Commerce Clause:
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/lopez/index.htm
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Since the naturalization of a US Citizen is an agreement
(of allegiance), would this make it an agreement under the UCC,
with the United States that is located in the District of
Columbia? Maybe a treaty, or covenant or some other kind of
instrument that binds the parties?
I would say YES, because the high Court
has ruled that federal citizenship is a
"franchise" domiciled in D.C. Murphy v. Ramsey:
"subject to the legislative DISCRETION of Congress"
like any other commercial FRANCHISE!
The population of federal citizens who "reside"
inside the 50 States are legally considered
a legislative democracy that is subject to
federal municipal laws. When inside California,
they are legally RESIDENT in the State of
California, not California State.
They are necessarily involved in "interstate commerce"
because their citizenship is domiciled in D.C. and
they have travelled to another situs within the USA
e.g. by leaving D.C. and crossing into a State of
the Union or into another situs within the federal zone.
The State of California is the State government proper,
e.g. like being on the State government payroll.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Murphy v. Ramsey is interesting. Any reference to full
context of this ruling?
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilbert...aff.htm#murphy
Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/114/15.html
The counsel for the appellants in argument seem to question the constitutional power of congress to pass the act of March 22, 1882, so far as it abridges the rights of electors in the territory under previous laws. But that question is, we think, no longer open to discussion. It has passed beyond the stage of controversy into final judgment. The people of the United States, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. In the exercise of this sovereign dominion they are represented by the government of the United States, to whom all the powers of government over that subject have been delegated, subject only to such restrictions as are expressed in the constitution, or are necessarily implied in its terms, or in the purposes and objects of the power itself; for it may well be admitted in respect to this, as to every power of society over its members, that it is not absolute and unlimited. But in ordaining government for the
territories, and the people who inhabit them, all the discretion which belongs to legislative power is vested in congress; and that extends, beyond all controversy, to determining by law, from time to time, the form of the local government in a particular territory, and the qualification of those who shall administer it. It rests with congress to say whether, in a given case, any of the people resident in the territory shall participate in the election of its officers or the making of its laws; and it may, therefore, take from them any right of suffrage it may previously have conferred, or at any time modify or abridge it, as it may deem expedient. The right of local self-government, as known to our system as a constitutional franchise, belongs, under the constitution, to the states and to the people thereof, by whom that constitution was ordained, and to whom, by its terms, all power, not conferred by it upon the government of the United States, was expressly reserved. The personal
and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of gov- [114 U.S. 15, 45] ernment, state and national; their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States. This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 . See, also, American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511; U. S. v. Gratio , 14 Pet. 526; Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393. If we concede that this discretion in congress is limited by the obvious purposes for which it was conferred, and that those purposes are satisfied by measures which prepare the people of the territories to become states in the Union, still the conclusion cannot be avoided that the act of congress here in question is
clearly within that justification. For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.
[bold and underline emphasis added]
[end excerpt]
Paul Andrew Mitchell <supreme-@yahoo.com>; wrote:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilbert...aff.htm#murphy
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Tell me why The UCC section on accord and satisfaction does not
apply when the UCC section on reserving of rights does.
Answer: Because it says so:
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ucc/ucc1.htm#207
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
**end copy/paste**
