Without Prejudice Works!

Darklaw01 · #1 08-03-2006, 09:52 PM

I just want to share how my son and I both were spared the hassle of recieving speeding tickets. My son was returning home from work doing 85mph and accelerating according to the State Police officer that pulled him over. After returning my sons drivers license and other information released him ticketless after only requesting my to use his seatbelt.
In my case I was returning home along the on the expressway when the State Police pulled me over. He told me he paced me at 90mph but clocked me at 88mph. After taking my info to his car he returned after only a few minutes, asked me to be careful and allowed me to proceed on home without giving me a ticket.
Finally my brother also had a situation where he was driving a car, our sister had been keeping in storage and given it to him, with improper tags, no insurance and a cracked windshield. The city police officer who pulled him over after taking my brothers information (drivers license was all he had) detained him for 50 minutes. We assume it was in an attempt to tow his car which he was informed he couldnt do. Anyway he did give him a ticket for each so called violation. My brother delayed the court date for 30 days so he could go before a judge.
When he got to court they had him go into a room where the Prosecuting Attorney was waiting. The PA told my brother that he was not there to help or represent him in any way. His job was to settle these ticket for the court. My brother said to the PA "Thats what I don't understand, I don't understand why I got these tickets in the first place." The PA asked him "What so you mean you don't understand why you got these ticlets?" He asked the PA "Don't this court opperate under the UCC?" The PA answered "Yes." My brother told the PA,"Then I should have never gotten these tickets in the first place. When that officer saw my license was signed "Without Prejudice" he should have knew I had sufficently reserved my rights in accordance with UCC 1-207. At this point the PA told him "In all my years as PA he had never had anyone come to him that knew about the UCC. But to make a long story short my brother had all the charges dismissed. And for the past three months he has still been driving that same car with the same tag, no insurance and cracked windshield. He's been pulled over twice since but when he shows the officer the paper of his previously dismissed charges they allow him to go on unticketed.

charlesa6 · #2 08-03-2006, 10:41 PM

Thanks for sharing. Yeah, UCC it's a powerful tools, if you know how to use it period.
It's Work for me all the time.

snowy1 · #3 08-03-2006, 11:08 PM

I read on another site about signing your drivers license w/out prejudice UCC 1-207 . I was going to comment about it for anyone who drives a truck etc. I'm glad you brought this success up .

weishaupt1776 · #4 08-03-2006, 11:14 PM

207 is now 308

anyway, citing the UCC is not a smart idea in travel situations because it strengthens the presumption that you are in commerece/for hire.

A simple without prejudice is sufficient

no need for the UCC voodoo

#5 08-05-2006, 08:03 PM

The problem being that everything these days is commercial. Without prejudice on anything with a $$$ credit of account cannot be used as evidence in court. I heard that it was OK to refer to commercial public policy such as the UCC but as private people we cannot 'quote' from it. I prefer to use without prejudice on its own. I asked a lawyer in the international arena what it meant and he said that it is a 'refusal to accept the liabilities'. I have a friend who is in in court and everything that had without prejudice on it was not admitted as evidence, but everything without it on, was used as evidence.

"It must be permitted of men to buy his peace prejudice without to them." "It has been held that one may buy his peace by compromising a claim which he knows is without right." Daily v. King, 70 Mich. 568, 44 N.W. 959, "but the compromise of an illegal claim will not sustain a promise." Read v. Hitchings, 71 ME 590.

"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.

Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 [or just without prejudice] above your signature, on an instrument will represent the following:

Not a promise to appear and vitiates perjury. ?Enforces the Right to contract and the right to compromise an unconscionable contract. ?Reserves all applicable Bill of Rights and Article III judicial Power. ?"Criminal intent" must be brought forward to proceed. ?Separation of Powers. ?All Constitutional terms dealing with contracts, judicial and taxes. ?Reserves "personam" jurisdictional issues. ?Estoppel of subject matter only jurisdiction, and summary Admiralty. ?Non-assumpsit. ?Habeas Corpus. ?Activating clause for police power at "probable cause." ?Disrupts Penumbra Doctrine. ?(13) Confession and avoidance.

http://autarchic.tripod.com/dixon/chapter6.html

greatwolf75 · #6 08-05-2006, 08:11 PM

I don't fool around with it because I have heard of too many people going to jail because of it. Anyone have any info on that or have I heard wrong?

charlesa6 · #7 08-05-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by free_martha

The problem being that everything these days is commercial. Without prejudice on anything with a $$$ credit of account cannot be used as evidence in court. I heard that it was OK to refer to commercial public policy such as the UCC but as private people we cannot 'quote' from it. I prefer to use without prejudice on its own. I asked a lawyer in the international arena what it meant and he said that it is a 'refusal to accept the liabilities'. I have a friend who is in in court and everything that had without prejudice on it was not admitted as evidence, but everything without it on, was used as evidence.

"It must be permitted of men to buy his peace prejudice without to them." "It has been held that one may buy his peace by compromising a claim which he knows is without right." Daily v. King, 70 Mich. 568, 44 N.W. 959, "but the compromise of an illegal claim will not sustain a promise." Read v. Hitchings, 71 ME 590.

"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.

Without Prejudice UCC 1-207 [or just without prejudice] above your signature, on an instrument will represent the following:

Not a promise to appear and vitiates perjury. ?Enforces the Right to contract and the right to compromise an unconscionable contract. ?Reserves all applicable Bill of Rights and Article III judicial Power. ?"Criminal intent" must be brought forward to proceed. ?Separation of Powers. ?All Constitutional terms dealing with contracts, judicial and taxes. ?Reserves "personam" jurisdictional issues. ?Estoppel of subject matter only jurisdiction, and summary Admiralty. ?Non-assumpsit. ?Habeas Corpus. ?Activating clause for police power at "probable cause." ?Disrupts Penumbra Doctrine. ?(13) Confession and avoidance.

http://autarchic.tripod.com/dixon/chapter6.html

You are absolutely right on the money, Freemartha. Without prejudice, is very important when you sign your autograph, you can't leave it out, they work together amicably.

#8 08-05-2006, 09:22 PM

Thanks charlesa6. It says in the Miranda warning that 'anything and everything' can be used as evidence against you - verbal or written.

It only makes sense to protect your autograph and to remain silent. My public servants have tried to say that it isn't my autograph but then I show their DL with without prejudice on it, it is known that it is my habit and my custom to autograph public documents 'without prejudice' under the authority of common law. The alphabet agencies and banks certainly don't like it. When queried about it, I say, it is a legal determination and I would advise you to ask a lawyer, as I have done.

charlesa6 · #9 08-05-2006, 09:34 PM

Yeah, I like your style.

#10 08-05-2006, 10:58 PM

http://www.landrights.com/UCC_USAGE_INFO.htm

If you are confronted with explaining what the "UCC 1-207" does here is your answer.

When you are going to sign a contract (drivers license, lease, buying a automobile, snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, devoice decree, or any other document).

BEFORE you sign!!! You have the right to draw a fine line through anything that is not to your liking. It can be a number, a letter, a word or a group of words. At this time you can add any thing you want in the contract.

Any changes you have made sign your name close to it and date it. A contract is to have all of the contract in full disclosure at the time of signing. If not the UCC 1-207 will stop you from giving up your rights on the contract you are about to sign and void out any part of the contract that you have not had the opportunity to view.

Now how the UCC 1-207 works.

After you put UCC 1-207 where your signature is going to be. " your signature" is the last you thing you put on the document. When you pick up your pen from the signed contract it is consummated, you have given up your right to change the contract.