Common Law and UCC 1-308

[somamagus]

Common Law and UCC 1-308

Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution defines the kinds of judicial power the courts have:

1.common law
2.equity
3.admiralty
4.maritime
At the common law - a crime exists only when there is a victim with actual damages like a broken arm.

In equity - otherwise known as civil law a private contract is or agreement is involved. For an action to be brought there must be a breach of contract and damages.

Maritime - or commercial contract law originates in the rules of trade upon the high seas between international merchants and is enforced by military organizations.

Admiralty - is armed enforcement of the laws of commerce(the law merchant)

Where did you see this?

I looked up Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution, Googled it and I got this:

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Again, where did you find the above?

Article III, Section 2

Soma

[RobBas]

Hi Everyone

Hey guys, I am just starting out studying about the UCC and the strawman. I want to know if anyone give me advice on how to start and what to study. My mother is also having legal troubles and I want to help her, but I don't really know what to do. If anyone can help please respond. Thanks!

[Kokomoj0]

just some stuff:


Placing fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and the arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the president as Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy.” 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen 438.

in-Chief means Sovereign!

“Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does not result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a ship owner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster and that he submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all” – Ruhstrat v People, 57 N.E., 41, 45, 185 ILL, 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

“This power is as extensive upon the land as upon the water. The constitution makes no distinction in that respect, and if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matter of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between the different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on. It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on the land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be the foundation of jurisdiction on its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on the water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on th eland.” – Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

‘Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.” Jackson v Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315 (U.S. 1852)

This began the most dangerous precedent of all Insular cases. This where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the States, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from Harvard law review of AMERICANS INS. CO. V. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

These courts then are not Constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the constitution, but is conferred by congress in the execution of those general powers which that body posses over th eterritories of the United States.” -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possession, page 481.

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution….” “In exercising the power, Conress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States, ….And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of the executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possession, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of the executive and legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable,” – Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” – Downs vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” – Waring et al, v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L, ed. 1847.


No reference: claimed; 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on the land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., Session 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-1845), no opposition was reported.

[Peter M]

Corpus delicti (plural: corpora delicti) (Latin: "body of crime") is a term from Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime. For example, a person cannot be tried for larceny unless it can be proven that property has been stolen. Likewise, in order for a person to be tried for arson it must be proven that a criminal act resulted in the burning of a property. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines "corpus delicti" as: "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."

What is a crime… Injury loss or harm
Violate someones rights or cause Damage
In every prosecution for crime it is nessecary to establish Corpus delicti

As fare as i'm aware, this mean that that the court has to produce the injured party as far as parking tickets go, as they cant produce an injured party so the case should be thrown out?
Thanks, still learning :-)

[ddugard]

Starting line

I have spent about 2 hrs on this site reading every statement. OK so where to Start on becoming a Freeman? Also my only source of income is Social Security disability. Should I do this? I do want this for my wife and children. Someone Please HELP.

Thanks

Dale

[Randomeyes]

Tons of misinformation

This entire thread is full of misinformation. It's clear that none of you understand what the UCC is, and, more importantly, what it isn't.

I'm sure that this post will be summarily deleted along with my account, but I felt it my obligation to try to let someone reading it know that what you're selling here is a bunch of worthless, pseudo-legal nonsense.

If it were just a bunch of guys talking about fringe theories, that would be fine...Unfortunately, real people are hurt by these theories. Gullible people believe this stuff and try to use it in court and end up in jail, owing a lot of money, or both.

If anyone here is interested in understanding the UCC, I'm more than willing to help. The truth, however, is nowhere near as interesting as the outlandish fiction that has been propounded in this thread.

[Aaron]

Ucc

If anyone here is interested in understanding the UCC, I'm more than willing to help. The truth, however, is nowhere near as interesting as the outlandish fiction that has been propounded in this thread.

Then post something that will help everyone understand what you believe to be the truth.

[Randomeyes]

Applicability of UCC

First, it's important to remember that the UCC isn't law. It wasn't written by legislators. It was written by the American Legal Institute. It is simply a model set of laws that states can choose to adopt, modify, or reject. Every state has adopted at least part of the UCC, but significant changes have been made from state to state.

Most importantly, however, is the scope of the UCC. It is simply a set of proposed laws about commercial transactions. It has nothing to do with a person's civil rights or status before a court. It also has nothing to do with birth certificates or criminal prosecutions.

It is about business transactions only

This thread's title says it is about § 1-308 of the UCC, so I'll start there. That particular provision is about contracts. The section says:

§ 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.

The general structure of contract law is offer and acceptance. One party makes an offer and another party accepts it or rejects is. A counter-offer is a rejection and an offer which the original party is free to accept or reject. Generally, offers are accepted by simply manifesting assent (Saying, "I agree"). Some offers, however, can be accepted by performance. "Performance" in contract law simply means doing whatever the contract requires one to do.

§ 1-308 is designed to address situations where a party wants to accept the contract and perform on it, but doesn't want to give up certain rights as a result. This can occur when a particular term in the contract is not to the party's liking, etc. In such cases, the accepting party can perform on the contract after explicitly reserving rights and thereby not be bound by the offending term. Let me give an example.

I give you $100 today. Tomorrow, I ask for it back. You tell me, "that was a gift." I say, "no, it wasn't. If you don't give me back the $100, I'll charge you interest of $10 a day until you do." A week passes, and I tell you, "You now owe me $170 including interest, but I want the $100 now."

Now you're in a situation where you're under no legal obligation to give me a dime, but you'd like to end the situation now so you're willing to give me $100 back, but you'll be damned if you'll ever pay me interest on it. In such a situation, you can write me a check for $100 reserving your rights so that I can't come back later and say that you writing the check was an admission that you owed me the money, and therefore the interest.

That's all § 1-308 is.

It's not sexy. It's not exciting. It's not some way to exempt yourself from law.

[aljhoa]

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

FBI — Federal Statutes

Al

[Randomeyes]

You bring up a federal criminal statute as if it's relevant to the UCC. It isn't. The UCC has no criminal application whatsoever.

I'm starting to think that the ideas in this thread are just another derivation of the "sovereign citizen" nonsense that has universally been rejected in every court.

If you're interested in discussing theoretical meanings to laws that you don't understand, then this thread is a good place to start. If, however, you want to really understand how courts and the law operates, this thread is of no use whatsoever.

I sincerely hope that none of the 66,000+ views of this thread resulted in someone actually trying to use any of this nonsense in court. People suffer real harm when they believe this stuff and make decisions because of it. Wesley Snipes served over 2 years in federal prison because of it, and many other less known people have suffered as much or worse.

[aljhoa]

People suffer real harm when they believe this stuff and make decisions because of it. Wesley Snipes served over 2 years in federal prison because of it, and many other less known people have suffered as much or worse.

Wesley Snipes was facing 16 years in prison and $50,000,000 in fineswhen the IRS unfairly prosecuted him for tax evasion and tax fraud in what the New York Times called, “the most significant tax trial in two decades.” Hired only three weeks before Snipes tax evasion trial began, Wesley Snipes attorney Robert Barnes, engineered a “stunning” legal defense leading to Wesley Snipes full acquittal on all tax evasion and tax fraud charges.

Wesley Snipes is an innocent man.
A jury of twelve men and women said so.

- They said so unanimously when the government charged Wesley Snipes with criminal tax conspiracy,
acquitting him of all conspiracy charges.
- They said so unanimously when the government charged Wesley Snipes with criminal fraud, acquitting him of all fraud charges.
- Nine of the twelve agreed Wesley Snipes was innocent of any misdemeanor failure to file charge.
- Three jurors, who later admitted lying to get on the jury, led to three misdemeanor convictions.

Wesley Snipes v. the IRS
Kenneth Starr had been defrauding his clients for decades, including Al Pacino, Natalie Portman, Sylvester Stallone, Uma Thurman, Joan Stanton Ten years later, the government would call and vouch for Ken Starr at a jury trial, calling him a “competent tax professional” who was truly “trustworthy” while the government accused Wesley Snipes of criminal tax fraud. Two years after the trial, the truth came out – Kenneth Starr had been defrauding his clients for decades, includingAl Pacino, Natalie Portman, Sylvester Stallone, Uma Thurman, Joan Stanton, in an investigation, which netted corruption indictments against a leading New York City political figure, Andrew Stein. The government that previously vouched for Starr in Snipes’ trial refused to take any corrective action concerning Snipes after discovering Wesley Snipes had always been telling the truth about Starr.
Tax Evasion | Wesley Snipes | Barnes Law LLP

Al

[Randomeyes]

Copy/paste all you want, but the fact is that such arguments have always lost in court. This is why spreading misinformation like this is so harmful

[aljhoa]

Copy/paste all you want, but the fact is that such arguments have always lost in court. This is why spreading misinformation like this is so harmful

The fact is that Wesley is
Bad Example [Lyrics On Screen] - YouTube
Wesley Snipes was fully acquitted on all tax evasion and tax fraud charges.

Al

[Randomeyes]

He was convicted of three counts of willfully failing to file a tax return un 23 U.S.C. § 7203. He went to prison for it. On top of that, he has to pay all of the taxes he failed to pay.

That's what happens to people who believe the lies spread by "sovereign citizen" advocates. People who do believe such nonsense and use it in court always lose.

Once Again, Sovereign Citizens Making Life Difficult for Sane People | Law Blog
“Sovereign Citizens” leader heads to jail on tax fraud - Salon.com
Sovereign citizen members jailed for selling vacant homes | 11alive.com

To those of us who actually study and work with the law, the "sovereign citizen" stuff initially looks like comedic gibberish until we start to see the very real harm that comes upon good people who get caught up in believing the stuff. People lose everything they have because some guy on the internet, using pseudo-legalese, convinced them that there was some secret underground system of laws they could use to exempt themselves from some obligation or another. Usually, the victims are already in a desperate situation such as facing foreclosure, etc., so they are easy prey to these snake-oil salesmen.

The remedy for false speech is more speech. I'm just trying to do my part to provide some truth for anyone who might come here looking for a magic solution to his/her problem.

[aljhoa]

The Direction Is Clear
At least two troubling aspects of the Court's treatment of the sovereign rights and powers of Indian tribes emerge from a look at the development of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty. First, the Court has moved away from the concept of intrinsic tribal sovereignty that predated the coming of the European conquerors, and has adopted the view that tribal sovereignty, and the concomitant freedom of the tribes from encroachments by the states, exists solely because Congress has chosen to confer some protections on the tribes.

Second, whatever the doctrinal underpinnings of tribal sovereignty may be, it is clear that the sovereignty of American Indian tribes has been progressively and systematically diminished by the actions of the federal government, including the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's changing stance on tribal sovereignty

Al