Common Law vs. UCC or WTF happened to the “Tree of Liberty”?

Common Law vs. UCC or WTF happened to the “Tree of Liberty”?

Disclaimer: I am a writer not an attorney/lawyer. This is not to be construed as legal advice.

Reuben Clark, a former US Under-Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico, succinctly stated the applications and principles of these two systems of law when he wrote: "Briefly, and stated in general terms, the basic concept of these two systems was as opposite as the poles. In the Civil Law, the source of all law is the personal ruler, whether, king, or emperor; he is sovereign. In the Common Law, certainly as developed in America, the source of all law is the people. They, as a whole, are sovereign. During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the Civil Law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms: the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the instrument through which men of equal genius, but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions. The Constitution of the United States embodies the loftiest concepts yet framed of this exalted concept."

"Thus, our heritage of freedom is a direct and proximate result of the Common Law, deriving its authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity. The Common Law is the legal embodiment of practical common sense, and, its guiding star has always been the rule of right and wrong -the Golden Rule.

The Common Law, as embodied in the US Constitution, for the protection and security of persons and property, is Substantive Common Law - [substantive right: a right {as of life, liberty, property, or reputation} held to exist for its own sake and to constitute part of the normal legal order of society] - the intention of the Founding Fathers being the assurance of access to this law by the people.”

What is The Uniform Commercial Code?

The government set up a "colorable" law system to fit the "colorable" currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of Redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes became unredeemable, there needed to be a system of law which was completely "colorable" from beginning to end. This system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code .This is "colorable" law, and it is used in all our countries courts. As of 1964 (the year that those of us who collect coins know is also the year the US stopped minting silver) the Uniform Commercial Code was adopted by all states, making it the supreme law of the land. Take a look in the first part of every Federal and State code books and you will find that the Uniform Commercial Code has become consistent throughout.

Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a "snowball's chance” in this system is to understand the rules of the game, and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law. The attorney lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by suggesting that the subject is just too difficult for the average Joe to understand, and more specifically by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp. Are lawyers really the Mentats they would have us believe? Or are they mindless automatons learned in procedure by wrote, and not in law.

Here is what some of the law says. Although part of this code UCC 1-103.6 defines how contract law must be in compliance with the rules of the common law providing there is made a knowing reservation of common law rights. UCC code further states: "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." (UCC 1-207.7)

Also we find that "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)

So in a UCC court, we must claim our Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).

UCC 1-207 goes on to say:"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)

So, one has to make a claim known early. Furthermore, it continues:

"The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207))

Whenever one signs any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, one may write under one’s signature: "Without Prejudice ( UCC 1-308 (old 1-207))." This reserves one’s rights. However, for this to work, one must know what this means! If you understand this, you will be asked to explain it to the judge when he asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court.

If one wants to understand this fully, one must go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson [Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company] edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and one may find it difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts, and most importantly, it is written in plain English.

For now understand, that when one uses "without prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)" in connection with one’s signature, one is 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.”

UCC 1-308 (old 1-207). Performance or acceptance under Reservation of Rights.

A party who, 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.

Like this: “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)” Then your First, Middle and Last name underneath.

Your signature is among your most valuable assets. It is not a good idea to sign any contract without reserving your rights. If you must carry a driver's license you should get a new one with a reservation of rights above your autograph on the license itself. As a matter of fact it is wisest to reserve your rights in any agreement, just in case there is some small print that suggests waiver of your inalienable rights.

I’ll be honest, I believe this will give you what I said it would, a “snowballs chance…” This is in comparison to the average person who doesn’t have a “snowballs chance…” Unfortunately the courts have degraded into for profit businesses, and may not always be willing to follow their own rules.

One must ask one’s self, why must I dance a jig before being granted my “inalienable rights”?

Could the answer be that America is a bankrupt nation owned completely by its creditors? Could it be that the creditors own the Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Do they own all the state governments? Could it be that our Courts are unbeknownst to us operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction. If this were so one’s defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from one’s defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If it were Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they admitted on the record that we the people are operating under Admiralty Jurisdiction, one could demand that the international maritime contract, to which one was supposedly a party, and which one had supposedly breached, be placed into evidence. No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.

So one would say, I imagine, “Well, I didn't know I was involved with an international maritime contract, so in good faith, I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then, pursuant to section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor will have no difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so that I may examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the contract.” What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.

If this were the case why wouldn’t we have been informed ?

The answer, maybe it is not expedient at this time to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. Perhaps the reason they don't want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. When we understand these things, if we realize that there are certain secrets they don't want to admit, perhaps we can use this to our benefit.

I’ll leave you with this:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

-Thomas Jefferson

WTF happened to the “Tree of Liberty”?

It wasn’t fertilized…


Comments 5 comments

someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 6 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

I know about this,as I'm sure others do.You are right,they are afraid to admit it,unless they can have total control over everyone.This,is where,gun control comes in.There are plausable reasons for doing this under the guise of protecting the people from terrorists,or just plan crazy people.While I know the dangers of selling a gun to anyone,it is especially dangerous if,they are not trained how to use them either for personal protection or hunting.

I remember seeing stories from other countries like austraiia,where the government destroyed all the rifles and shotguns,they could.

I doubt they could do it in the united states.There are too many people who know the danger of being disarmed.Look what happened in Africa.One group were disarmed,and,they were slaughtered.They happened to be christians too.

Now ,I hear they want to get rid of,free televison.I wonder why? It,could be they want everyone to pay for cable or other pay perplay venues.

It would increase jobs as well.But,then the free stations have been complaining that the cable companies are not paying them for their free channels


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 6 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

It's all the result of fraud anyway.They will not get away with it,if enough people seen it for what it is.


StinkyFree 6 years ago

Unfortunately "they" will get away with it. Most people are so ignorant of even the basics of common law and how the laws and governments work against their freedoms that something as sinister as the UCC setting aside common law, except by explicit reservation, is beyond them.

I've been really digging into how the real power people have corrupted laws that were designed to keep people free for well over a year and have just now stumbled upon this nefarious trap. How could the average person be expected to discover this on their own? Or, how can those who write and speak out against such evil even be heard over the noise of pop news, pop media, and a languishing complacency towards real dangers in our government and society?


Mark 4 years ago

People reading this article, just be aware it contains a lot of legal imprecisions. Most of it doesn't even make sense logically, let alone legally.


IAM 15 months ago

Mark is gov dis-info agent

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working