Without Prejudice Works!

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
In even briefer language:

You dont need to quote the freakin code. Even the UCC being quoted doesnt suggest quoting the UCC.

"Without Prejudice"
"All Rights Reserved"
"Not a waiver."

Or some other indicia of reservation.

Yep!! Definitely!!

[IAM]

Originally Posted by hooded50

Also, it should be noted that UCC 1-308(a) states in pertinent part that "A party that with explicit reservation of rights..."

This statute applies to a "party" who reserves his rights. Skip on up to UCC 1-201(b)(26), and you'll see the word "party" defined as: "....a person that has engaged..."

Then, in the next section, UCC 1-201(b)(27), the term "person" is defined as "......any...legal or commercial entity..."

If you are relying on UCC 1-308(a), you are declaring yourself to be a "party/person", which is a "legal" or "commercial" entity. "Legal" and/or "commercial" entities are entities that are created by the State, and the State has full and plenary control over the entities it creates.

Hence, for a "sovereign" man or woman to claim UCC 1-308 (or any other UCC statute) as a defense, means that said "sovereign" man or woman is giving up their sovereignty in exchange for the State appointed office of "person".

You guys be careful how you use this stuff. People who are using UCC stuff are getting absolutely nowhere in the Courts (I know from first hand experience). There is nothing wrong with reserving all of your rights at all times, but you must do so as a "sovereign" outside the jurisdiction of the Courts.

People are going into Court and attempting to reserve rights under the UCC, claiming that they are sovereigns, and the judges are imposing fines and prison with a great big smile on their faces.

This is because the judges understand that those living, breathing, sovereign human beings who are reserving rights under "legal" statutes such as the UCC, have no clue that they are actually giving up their sovereignty and coming under the jurisdiction of the Courts by doing so.

I don't know how much it matters if you are a person/party, legal/ commericial entity if you use 1-103 because fraud is fraud - it doesn't matter what kind of entity you are, you have the same rights when it comes to fraud.




§ 1-103. Supplementary General Principles of Law Applicable.

Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Act, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, Bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions.

[hooded50]

Originally Posted by IAM

I don't know how much it matters if you are a person/party, legal/ commericial entity if you use 1-103 because fraud is fraud - it doesn't matter what kind of entity you are, you have the same rights when it comes to fraud.




§ 1-103. Supplementary General Principles of Law Applicable.

Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this Act, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, Bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions.

It matters a great deal. You cannot claim that you are a state created "person" (legal/commercial entity), and then claim not to be under the jurisdiction of the states' courts. A creator has complete control over that which he creates.

If you proceed under a state "statute" which says that "any person who", "no person shall", etc., then you are declaring yourself to be a state created entity called a "person", and the state has complete control over you.

I like to think about it like this. Let's say I give you a coat. You put on your new coat and wear it with pride. Later, I come back and say I want my coat back, and I start to take the coat away with you still in it. This is what the state is doing with the office of "person". They get you to take the office of "person" (the coat). You wear the coat (title of "person") with pride. Then the state comes along and says we want you to stand in for the crime/misdemeanor that this "person" (the coat) has committed, and the state commences to take their "person" (coat) into custody with YOU, the SOVEREIGN still inside.

All UCC statutes apply to a "person". If you are admitting to being under the statute, then you are admitting to being a "person". Once you make that admission, the state can do with you as it likes, because, legally, you are the state's property/creation. You have no rights.

You are correct when you say that 'fraud is fraud'. However, when you admit to being the state's property/creation, then there is no fraud because you have admitted that the state is your "master".

[charlesa6]

IAM, welcome to the suijuris forum.

[IAM]

Hooded50 wrote:

You are correct when you say that 'fraud is fraud'. However, when you admit to being the state's property/creation, then there is no fraud because you have admitted that the state is your "master".

What you're saying then is that the state's property/creation cannot claim fraud, because you are its slave. Well, that's a new one on me.

[hooded50]

It shouldn't be such a wild concept. If a state creates a thing, then the state has plenary control over that thing which it has created.

It's kind of like saying that, even though you brought forth your minor children, you have no say over what they do, and they can claim fraud if you try to stop them from doing what they want.

If you claim yourself to be a fictitious legal entity called a "person", you are, in effect, telling the state that it has complete control over you.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by hooded50

It shouldn't be such a wild concept. If a state creates a thing, then the state has plenary control over that thing which it has created.

Really? Do show in law where that is said.

I do not remember seeing that in the delegated powers that the people gave to the state. Hmmm,,, I do not even remember seeing where it says that the "state" "creates" corporations. Can you even provide that citation?

Another Hooded spectacular speculation.

Even worse then your other posts. A wild concept in deed.

[Dillon Hunt]

I believe private international law.

[James]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooded50
It shouldn't be such a wild concept. If a state creates a thing, then the state has plenary control over that thing which it has created.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Codee
Really? Do show in law where that is said.


“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 74 (1906)


So simple even a caveman could find it?

[hooded50]

Originally Posted by Codee

Really? Do show in law where that is said.

I do not remember seeing that in the delegated powers that the people gave to the state. Hmmm,,, I do not even remember seeing where it says that the "state" "creates" corporations. Can you even provide that citation?

Another Hooded spectacular speculation.

Even worse then your other posts. A wild concept in deed.

So wild, indeed, that the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with me to the letter:

HALE V. HINKEL, 201 US 74:

“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State…It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.”

CORRY V. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 196 U.S. 466

“…as such corporations were created by the state, and were subject to its regulating authority, it was within its power to impose, as a condition to the right to acquire stock in such corporations, the duty of paying the taxes assessed on the [196 U.S. 466, 474] stock…”

Codee, come on man. I've forgotten more about the law than you'll ever learn. If you're not here for a constructive purpose, then why not go join your daddy, Jay, at the Quatlooser website. . .