Without Prejudice Works!

[Codee]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Thanks.

I will have to try it downtown and see if it will work.

Just say that the "W/O Prej." is part of your signiture.

"That does not say 'W/O prej.' lady, that is how I sign my name." There is nothing that says my signiture has to look like my name.

I have got three licenses with "W/O prej." but then replaced them with a standard after I looked into rights reservation and found that only "non-sovereigns" have to. I am not going to create that presumption anymore.

[theghost]

Originally Posted by Codee

Just say that the "W/O Prej." is part of your signiture.

"That does not say 'W/O prej.' lady, that is how I sign my name." There is nothing that says my signiture has to look like my name.

I have got three licenses with "W/O prej." but then replaced them with a standard after I looked into rights reservation and found that only "non-sovereigns" have to. I am not going to create that presumption anymore.

Codee, do you recall where you came across this information?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Codee

I have got three licenses with "W/O prej." but then replaced them with a standard after I looked into rights reservation and found that only "non-sovereigns" have to. I am not going to create that presumption anymore.

I am not clear on the above and curious how you came to that conclusion.

Are you saying that without prejudice is a non-sovereign declaration or that all rights reserved is a non-sovereign declaration?

[Big Al]

It sure sounds to me like you are calling yourself a corporation (fictitious person) when using the UCC. Why go there (their).

[Codee]

Any attempt at reserving your rights as a sovereign is not necessary. If I assume that you do not do things in vain then I must assume that you are not acting in your sovereign capacity.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe 455 U.S. 130 (1982)

Without regard to its source, sovereign power, even when unexercised, is an enduring presence that governs all contracts subject to the sovereign's jurisdiction, and will remain intact unless surrendered in unmistakable terms.

No claim is asserted in this litigation, nor could one be, that petitioners' leases contain the clear and unmistakable surrender of taxing power required for its extinction. We could find a waiver of the Tribe's taxing power only if we inferred it from silence in the leases. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its sovereign powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head, and we do not adopt this analysis(14).

In the following we see that although a sovereign decends to the level at which it associates it retains all sovereignty in situations out side of the contract's terms. This is because if the argued thing is not a contract term then there is no jurisdiction to impliment the governing laws that govern the contract.
Since the UCC 1-308 does not apply to accord and satisfaction (explicit contract terms) then it must protect "implications" that arise outside of the contract. (clear example is reserving your right to full payment when accepting a payment not of full value. One would reserve their right to collect on the rest and not take that payment as payment in full.) Since the sovereign does not need to reserve his sovereignty out side of contract terms then it makes no sense to reserve them and especially makes less then no sense to use the UCC (which only protects corporations and their remedies, not rights as you commonly think of them.) The UCC never protects a right except in cases of a needed remedy.
I will replace the players in this case to show my example clearly. What I intend to replace with the words in brackets and red, I will make blue.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe 455 U.S. 130 (1982) [My notes in red and brackets]
Petitioners [State} argue that their leaseholds [The State's Driver's License] entitle them to enter the reservation [My jurisdiction]and exempt them from further exercises of the Tribe's sovereign authority. [Aquire qualified immunity and the expulsion of my jurisdiction.] Similarly, the dissent [Party withthe wrong view] asserts that the Tribe [Me] has lost [waived] the power [sovereignty] to tax [to express sovereignty and use it over] petitioners' mining activities [State's administrative actions] because it [Me] has leased [Given in exchange] to them the use of the mineral lands and such rights of access to the reservation [My right to travel was given to the state with the means to "enjoy"/"punish for use" of the thing taken] as might be necessary to enjoy [punish me for the violation of] the leases [Driver's License.] Post, at 186-190. 11 However, this conclusion is not compelled by linking the taxing power to the power to exclude. Instead, it is based on additional assumptions and confusions about the consequences of the commercial arrangement between petitioners and the Tribe.

[ezrhythm]

If your being/acting fully sovreign, you wouldn't be having/using a license right?

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Big Al

So Codee does this take us right back to STRAWMAN?

I do not think so. I do not believe in the "straw man." as a "thing" like some do. I believe the all caps name is the name not of the man but of his class. Just like you can sue an officer in official or personal capacity the state can sue you in your personal codified capacity (If they can prove you belong to that jurisdiction.)

I think the all caps name is "you" just in a capacity that "you" never achieved. So that is where I take my stance on that for now, but I would be interested in any "misnomer" cases that have worked. I think it is a mis titling myself.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

If your being/acting fully sovreign, you wouldn't be having/using a license right?

Unless I wanted to. Right?

But yes you are right and that license is going to create the "PRESUMPTION" that you are under thier jurisdiction while enforcing a term of that contract.

Keep in mind that their are contracts everywhere.

It is a contract which divests oneself of sovereignty for the purpose of the contract. A contract is your express consent to mingle youself with state persons.

Here is an example of how a governing law is applied and how it definitly appears to be a hidden term, it is a function of the governing law that creates the term and so explicit disclosure is not applicable.

Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe 455 U.S. 130 (1982)
When a tribe grants a non-Indian the right to be on Indian land, the tribe agrees not to exercise its ultimate power to oust the non-Indian as long as the non-Indian complies with the initial conditions of entry.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Codee

I do not think so. I do not believe in the "straw man." as a "thing" like some do. I believe the all caps name is the name not of the man but of his class. Just like you can sue an officer in official or personal capacity the state can sue you in your personal codified capacity (If they can prove you belong to that jurisdiction.)

I think the all caps name is "you" just in a capacity that "you" never achieved. So that is where I take my stance on that for now, but I would be interested in any "misnomer" cases that have worked. I think it is a mis titling myself.

Codee

Have you ever thought that the State, acting on your behalf when you've signed one form or another, assigns you to that class?

Consider over at the UCC thread, the definition of person contained individual. In the review of the UCC and it's commercial nature, it seems that the individual "JOHN DOE" has been created in a commercial capacity. In that manner, individual fits into the same class as all the other legal ficta (corporation, partnership, trust...).

To further the example, if I open a store on my behalf and call it "Troll Feedstock" (an unincorporated commercial entity) then as an individual i would be in commerce, John Doe DBA Troll Feedstock.

I only bring this up due to thinking back to a post where you admonished the court to dust off the typewriter and type your name properly and they did, but also added the DBA with an ALL CAPS NAME.

It seems to me that they must acknowledge and distinguish the flesh and blood man or woman from the commercial entity if the flesh and blood does insist.

Thoughts?

[greatwolf75]

I'm sure that everyone on this website has heard this before but I would recommend going to www.pacinlaw.org and read a section in there that talks about the different kinds of contracts that almost all of us have/use on a daily basis. A drivers licence is a contract, and because of that I don't understand how they can say you can't sign those words on here. Florida will not allow you to sign without prejudice on the licence.