Search This Blog

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Remedy and Recourse.

Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under the law. The Recourse provides that if you have been damaged under the law, you can recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse.

"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 1-207.9)

Whenever you sign any legal paper (traffic ticket or contract) that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: "Without Prejudice (UCC 1-103.6)." This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-103.6, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.

When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-306" in connection with your signature, you are saying, "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.

"What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money or alternative, so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes; you have to accept the benefit. The government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don't have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-103.6, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obliged to obey every statute, ordinance, and regulation of the government, at all levels of government; federal, state and local.

Recourse

The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
"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)
Use in court. The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely. Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-207, you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.
If the charge is a traffic ticket, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seat belt, you may ask the court: "Who was injured as a result of your failure to 'buckle up'?" However, if the judge won't listen, then read to him the last sentence of 103.6, which states: (2) 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)
Anderson Uniform Commercial Code Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Co. The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law section. Tell the judge, "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."
If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question: "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?"
Now the judge is in a jam! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, "yes", then you say: "I put this court on notice that I am appealing your legal determination." Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal, and dismiss your case. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him in. The judge has no other choice but to dismiss your case.





No comments: