UCC 1-207, Code & Cites

SKYGZR,



My question(s) was more rhetorical than substantive, but if anyone has an answer I would be highly intrigued - because I do not believe an answer of there 'being a drawback' or 'gaining a benefit' exists - in fact, using the UCC to reserve your rights may work in the opposite direction! I have never found or heard of any drawback by using 'All Rights Reserved' or found or heard of any benefit by using the UCC to reserve one's rights. My point being that, if 'All Rights Reserved' suffices to reserve your contractual and/or commercial rights (and maybe a few others), why are we even talking about UCC 1-207, 1-308 at all? It is pointless, confusing for beginners (and even some experienced folks), and a BIG sidetrack off the right path. So please, everyone, stop trying to figure out UCC 1-207, 1-308 because it is likely a waste of your time, and it is being abused and misunderstood all over the place. Mr. Freeman has confused enough people over the past 10+ years with that article (no disrespect to Mr. Freeman). Go back to studying <u>basic</u> contract principles and <u>basic</u> commercial law. It is the underlying principles that holds all this stuff together. Trying to learn the UCC first thing outta the gates is like swinging at a major league curveball, and all that player has done is play highschool baseball.



"Rome wasn't built in a day" or whatever that quote is...



-squirrels

[Ice]

squirrels,



Yep 'er, 10-4!!



All Rights Reserved is more direct and demonstrates that you are not waiving any of your Constitutionally protected God given natural Rights.



Those 3 words are the bomb.



Ice

[suijuris]

I never use 1-207 any longer, as I do not feel it is appropriate or needed to invoke commercial code to reserve all my God given rights. 'All Rights Reserved' works just fine for me and is all I use nowdays.



Unless I am being forced under the color of law to sign a thing, then I include "Under Duress, Fear, and Threat of Force" as well.



It has also been stated that using 1-207 makes you a party... what is a party anyhow? How do you know you are not giving up a right to NOT be a party by using 1-207?



Just thoughts...

[Ice]

Isn't the UCC a part of the "conspiracy" to steal the wealth of the nation and enslave the people?



Wouldn't being a part of that make one a part of the conspiracy and in league with the conspirators?



Just a thought.

[KaosTheory]

Squirrels,



Just a quick question.....what has Howard Freeman done to confuse people about UCC 1-207?



KT

KaosTheory,



The excerpt submitted by TheBlackTruth above is by Howard Freeman (you probably knew that). What is confusing is the fact that it is unnecessary and inaccurate. Using UCC-1-207 only makes matters more complicated. Why does someone need commercial law to reserve their common law rights when you can just reserve your common law rights directly? By doing this you will be challenging the jurisdiction of the commercial court right off the bat instead of entering it and reserving your common law rights within its jurisdiction.



Regarding its inaccuracy, the UCC itself is not law. It has not been enacted by the federal legislature (if someone differs, please present the evidence). The UCC is only a private promulgation of 'suggested' commercial law by the ALI (Americal Law Institute) and NCCUSL (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) to be enacted by each individual state legislature, which all 50 have done. So, if Dorthy goes into a court and says, "I reserve my rights under the UCC", guess what - she doesn't have any! But if Dorthy does it by saying, "under the Kansas Commercial Code section 1-207" (or whatever it is there) then you may have something to your overcomplicated argument. But why even bother with all that when you can just reserve your rights with 'All Rights Reserved' for ANY jurisdiction you may be in.



-squirrels

[KaosTheory]

Hmmm excellent answer. Thank you very much.



I guess the answer to your last question would be....simply because of ignorance. If one knows that all they have to do is add "All Rights Reserved" to their signature then I am sure that they would.



I can't help but respect Howard Freeman though. He did the best he could with what he had to work with and it did work for him.



KT

Yeah, I respect Howard Freeman as well (even though I kinda bashed him a bit!). If I did not respect him, then I would not have stated "(no disrespect to Mr. Freeman)" in my earlier post. I believe he has done a lot of good for many people as well.



-squirrels

I am so glad that you posted the information on accord and satisfaction. I think your thread should focus on UCC 3-311 and that concept as that is the doctrine that your thread most benefited me on. "Accord and Satisfaction" is very powerful and it is an Affirmative defense in FRCP 8.

When I attended a workshop with Jason a month ago, that is what he spoke on. With the VOD packages of previous it had an instrument, the PAT, with instructions, [BOE], and the New Contract, Offer of Performance and Private Administrative Remedy. These established the tender and dispute; however, it did not establish hard evidence that the Creditor negotiated the instrument. Jason, however, presented a means to do that by providing instead a check [His example was in the amount of $25.00, but I think you can use any reasonable amount. Maybe Jason can elaborate if there is reasoning behind the amount] that they negotiate and you can prove they did with the cancelled check. The other thing is that the rest of the new contract was laid out somewhat differently and he added more stuff to it. (i.e. arbitration clause, SPOA, Declaration of Closed Account, and Third Party designation).

This is an interesting concept, and I was excited to learn these things as it allows me to further aid myself in my court battles. And now with the cases cited and examples, I can further arm myself. The only challenge is to prove up the negotiation part, because I used the old VOD pkg. Maybe I can try to bring in 3-603 or 3-310(b)(2). We'll see. But maybe this might give some insight to others.

[charlesa6]

I use ucc 1-207 in all my signatures and even the loan and checks.I dont have any problem with it. When i appear in the court the judge as me the meaning of it and i explain it to the judge.Anytime you use it for court cases you will be ask for details. As long as you can explain it. You can get away with it. One judge cross it out after i explain it to him, and i told him that is the way i sign, and he let it slide before we proceeding with the case on traffic ticket. Luckily the case was dissimissed. One judge ask me if i have a copy of ucc 1-207,handout to give him and the prosecutor,and i said i don't have one with me. I think he was so surprise that i can quotes all that without looking the book or writing it somewhere to read it to the court. If you do your research and memorize all the stuff you will be amaze what you can do as pro se in court system. In fact you will get more respect from the judge and the rest of the court teams that ready to eat you up raw with the law and codes,but your effort of knowlege of the law will prevail.The key factor, you have to be more relax and cum and ready to deal with the situation with the best of your knowlege of studies of the law,but don't aguing with the judge or you will be toast ,even if you are right.