UCC 1-207, Code & Cites

[dadmoonbunny]

Squirrel et al:

I understand the usage of "All Rights Reserved". with our signatures. My thinking on using the UCC code along with it is as follows:

To not only indicate that you reserve ALL your rights, but also to show that you DO study to "show thyself approved".

My thoughts as far as directing folks to NOT use the UCC brings up a question that may start another thread.

Is it not true that the best way to defeat your enemies is to study the way they do things and then, using their own words/laws, force them to concede and withdraw from the field?

Some wise warrior ( I think Sun Tzu) alledgedly once said, that the army that withdraws from the battle first has conceded the victory.

WE ARE IN A WAR HERE for our very GOD given freedoms.

Thus, I find instruction helpful and advisable. I thus yield the "floor" to you which are far more learned than I am. I just had to say my part. I do not do this to argue, nor to contest your wisdom or to show disrespect. I it appears so, I ask forgiveness.

[mr.yet]

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

link/http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm#s1-308

[Grench]

I placed "PROMISSORY NOTE" across a dollar with a contract stating to the effect,

".... this contract is in agreement with the party [US Goverment] and is governed by the guideline's of the law. this contract is worth 40K in the provison's of a lawful demand of payment. forthermore, this contract and private dollar is under the coures of law and will be settled by the party that issued such a demand...."

Does anyone believe that, the goverment will settle for a private settlement of a 1.00$ under the UCC 1-3 of law? You know, they can create money out of, right?

Any comments would be truly helpful.


Regards.

[Shoonra]

It is possible that by defacing an FRN you simply made it worthless, with you as the loser.

By statute, FRNs are legal tender, they are not promissory notes and they lack some of the requisites of promissory notes.

I don't see where you got the 40K number, but I would think that any marking on official currency that makes it appear to be worth more than its intended and official value would definitely be unhelpful in a number of ways, including the possibility of criminal prosecution under the counterfeiting laws.

In any case, I cannot imagine how you can, by writing on a dollar bill, compel the govt or anyone else to treat it as having a higher value.

About five years ago there was an effort by a gay pressure group to get more visibility by rubberstamping on whatever dollar bills they handled a line saying "This is a GAY dollar" or something similat to show that gays buy stuff and participate in the marketplace. Most people handled these bills like any others, but some refused to accept them - it may have been hostility to gays, fear of AIDS contagion, or worry that the rubberstamp somehow affected the validity of the bills. And probably many of the people who accepted the marked bills made an effort not to hang onto them any longer than absolutely necessary. Don't be surprised if your marking of FRNs has similar ragged results.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It is possible that by defacing an FRN you simply made it worthless, with you as the loser.

By statute, FRNs are legal tender, they are not promissory notes and they lack some of the requisites of promissory notes.

I don't see where you got the 40K number, but I would think that any marking on official currency that makes it appear to be worth more than its intended and official value would definitely be unhelpful in a number of ways, including the possibility of criminal prosecution under the counterfeiting laws.

In any case, I cannot imagine how you can, by writing on a dollar bill, compel the govt or anyone else to treat it as having a higher value.

About five years ago there was an effort by a gay pressure group to get more visibility by rubberstamping on whatever dollar bills they handled a line saying "This is a GAY dollar" or something similat to show that gays buy stuff and participate in the marketplace. Most people handled these bills like any others, but some refused to accept them - it may have been hostility to gays, fear of AIDS contagion, or worry that the rubberstamp somehow affected the validity of the bills. And probably many of the people who accepted the marked bills made an effort not to hang onto them any longer than absolutely necessary. Don't be surprised if your marking of FRNs has similar ragged results.

They refused money with stamped text but we all handle daily money that has been contaminated with drugs and bacteria?

wash your hands!

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by idknow

They refused money with stamped text but we all handle daily money that has been contaminated with drugs and bacteria?

wash your hands!

Yep!! No doubt! Money is money, I don't care how you deface it as long as the amount and the rest of the cosmetics still there I for one I will take it. If I use it, and they refused it I will call the authority to sort it out.

[mikewb]

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

Excerpt:



Without Prejudice UCC 1.207

When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your signature, you are saying, "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."



What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-207.7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.



If you understand this, you will be able to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103, the argument and recourse. If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson, 3rd edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts and, most importantly, it is written in plain English.



Recourse

The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:



"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." (UCC 1-103.6)

This is the argument we use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.



If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court: "Who was injured as a result of your failure to 'buckle up'?" However, if the judge won't listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him the last sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document. Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law section. Tell the judge, "Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."



If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: "Let me see if I understand, Your Honor, has this court made a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?"



Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes", then you say: "I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination." Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him in.

Im a big fan of Howard Freeman too. Thanks for quoting Mr. Freeman for us all.

[Codee]

Lets see if I can simply state what I have written on other threads.

THE UCC ONLY EVER IN ANY SITUATION PROVIDES REMEDIES FOR CORPORATE PERSONS.

Look up the definition of "right" in the code. It does not mean any human liberty or anything like that. Just contract remedy. Are you a person? This whole code is trouble for the free person. Anything that comes under the UCC is suspect.

[Big Al]

Originally Posted by Codee

Lets see if I can simply state what I have written on other threads.

THE UCC ONLY EVER IN ANY SITUATION PROVIDES REMEDIES FOR CORPORATE PERSONS.

Look up the definition of "right" in the code. It does not mean any human liberty or anything like that. Just contract remedy. Are you a person? This whole code is trouble for the free person. Anything that comes under the UCC is suspect.

You got that right. It's sort of the same thing with the redemption deal, why if you claim to be a follower of God's Law would you want to place yourself under the laws of Babylon? "Come Ye out there of"

[David Merrill]

I properly named the IMFIRS instead of the IRS on a Comptroller Warrant, signed correctly in my true name and because of that philosophy about law neglected the instructions to endorse under the UCC citation. I simply wrote "Without Recourse". The day after the Registered Mailing arrived in Ogden, Utah the Feds (IMF) picked up Leroy Michael SCHWEITZER and Daniel S PETERSEN at the post office. That was the beginning of the Montana Freemen Standoff.

I had imported law that demanded just balances - that required a gold standard instead of SDRs to honor the instrument.


Regards,

David Merrill.