Rights, Remedy, Recource, and Common Law

Ok... I've held off on blogging about this sort of thing for a long time... but since its come up, I may as well.

Virtually all courts in the US are UCC courts. Meaning their juristiction is the Uniform Commercial Code. This is of the utmost importance when considering legal actions. Traffic Court.... Everything. These are all UCC courts.

This my friends is what's behind the curtain.

"The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.7)

"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." (UCC 1-103.6)

Now... those may be confusing... so let me type them out in english. 1-207 basicly says if you reserve your rights, you still have them. If you do not reserve your rights, you lose them. 103.6 states that the UCC does not overide Common Law, but works in harmony with it.

So... in effect... when you reserve your rights, you simply change the rules of the court procedings you are involved in. You can effectively negate the UCC, and cause the court to try you under Common Law regulations.

But what does this all mean?

It means specificly when you get a ticket for say... not wearing a seltbelt, when you sign the ticket after your name you write: without prejudice UCC 1-207

This states legally that you are not waiving your rights. You are claiming them.

When you get to court the Judge will no doubt ask you what you meant by writing that. That's when you say, "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement."

See.. if you don't sign your name that way then you have waived your rights. When you waive your rights, they can then try you under the UCC, where-in you are bound by every federal, state, and local law and regulation.

If you don't waive your rights though, you can point out that you never signed a contract or agreed to abide by any such regulations or laws, and therefore you are not bound specificly by them, but only by Common Law.

You can now assert 1-103.6 where in you force them to try you under common law. You simply ask the judge to produce a verified injured party. Because under common law there has to be a complaint. The judge may balk at this. Probably because he just wants to know if you really know what you're talking about. That's when you say:

"Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. I have a remedy, under the UCC, to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law. To be in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party."

At this point the judge is boxed in. You have demonstrated your remedy (you resevered your rights under 1-207, and your recourse 1-103, siting the very UCC that is his jurisdiction. You've shown in the UCC where it honours Common Law, and he must either produce a victim, or show how otherwise the seatbelt law doesn't conflict with Common Law. This would require you to have signed a contract agreeing to wear a seatbelt. Given that you never signed such a thing, he's toast.

Now... don't get cocky. He's a judge. He doesn't have to do anything. He can press on. If he does though... you say, "Let me see if I understand, Your Honor, has this court made a legal determination that sections 1-207 and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?"

He's likely to be either amused or pissed. He's liable to drop the case just to shut you up. Though he may very well simply say, "Yes." at which point you inform the court that you'll be appealing his decision to a higher court which will overturn his ruling, and he knows that.

So now you've seen behind the curtain to some extent... but this is just a tiny glimps. It goes much further and much deeper... but practically what does it mean? For me it means very very little. I know this stuff and have known it for sometime and I still don't sign my name without prejudice. Why not?

Because its not worth it. It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. They have the guns. They can kill you and your whole family and get away with it. So the income tax is BS... so what? You pay it because if you don't they just might kill you.

It always comes down to force, either real or implied. Knowledge like this can save you some money in traffic court... but when the stakes go up, you'll find the black robes don't care nearly as much about the letter of the law... or anything much at all really. And the Judges are the nice ones. It's the alphabet boys who'll kick down your door in the middle of the night... Ever heard of Diesel Treatment? Google it.

Knowledge is great... but greater still is wisdom.

Horde ammo... clean your guns... and lay low.