From: legal_reality
Subj: Regarding the UCC
Subj: Regarding the UCC
18 February A.D. 2014
We have always had two levels of marketplaces: State (now STATE) and national. The UCC guts the definition of "dollar" in the State-turned-STATE marketplaces. The UCC is STATE "law." It's the State-turned-STATE counterpart to the gutting of "dollar" in the U.S. Code, which language shenanigans gutted the definition of "dollar" for purposes of the national marketplace.
Where "dollar" (the "unit of account") is gutted, it's legally impossible to maintain a Common Law based system. And, this is the long and the short of the reason/purpose of the UCC. It's the State-law parallel to what was also necessary at the national level to usher in The Fourth Reich and its "funny money"-based "choice of law."
Some on the List are aware of a note from a source that "modified" a Legal Reality note sent out recently, which Legal Reality note exposed and challenged a Court-bashing position that looked to McCulloch v. Maryland. The "modifications" to the Legal Reality note didn't really alter the original that much, although there was no indication of what was modified, so that the nth-level of forwarding later, the recipient really doesn't know what the original said or how it originally appeared or how to contact the original author to get a copy of the original.
What that "modified" note did do was so promote the UCC as to leave the reader trying to hold two directly opposing positions as true simultaneously. That's how the communist (Hegelian) dialectic operates to leave minds in a condition of logical mush and incompetence.
For these reasons, a new concept is added at the foot of these notes, starting with this one. The alternative is to circulate .pdf files as attachments, and since those are "heavy" on memory usage, that option is being delayed as long as possible.
To address those UCC-oriented concepts, they miss the boat completely regarding our present reality, and therefore a moment is taken while the topic is in mind in order to address briefly that angle of our present legal situation.
A great deal is talked about regarding the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). To hit the highlights, there's one and only one reason for the UCC -- to change the "choice of law" in the States from the Common Law to the maritime law necessary for The Fourth Reich and its STATEs. There's a great deal more than that singular change found in the body of each STATE's rendition of the UCC, but changing that "choice of law" is by far the main purpose of anything about the UCC. All else in/with the UCC has provided a wonderful cover story.
Under the Common Law, the "unit of account" is a "dollar," which is defined as a weight measured by grains of fine silver.
Under our present maritime system reality, the "unit of account" is completely undefined.
To unhinge this entire system from the Common Law, two marketplaces had to be corrupted, not just one: (1) the national marketplace, which is subject to the "Laws of the United States," and (2) the State marketplaces, which were subject to the "Laws of the (respective) States."
To usher in The Fourth Reich, it was not enough to dismantle the "choice of law" in the national marketplace, which was done by rendering "dollar" a very circular, thus undefined, concept, which we find in Title 31 ("dollar" means 100 cents; one cent is 1/100th of a "dollar"). There could not be a Fourth Reich (in North America, and in any other location in which "funny money" circulates freely) without also corrupting the State marketplaces. In order to accomplish that secondary step, along came the UCC.
The UCC defines "money" but not any "unit of account," e.g., "dollar." By including the "funny money" ("federal reserve notes") in the definition of "money," the States became STATEs, i.e., commercial entities in the "place" called "this state," which is geographically pictured as "United States" without any State boundary lines.
(In "this state," each STATE is but a "county" within "this state.")
Thus, to picture the UCC as anything more than that is to miss the (entire) point of the UCC. The concept of "dollar" was removed from the national marketplace via the shenanigans with Title 31, and from each State marketplace via the UCC.
In this way, both (all) marketplaces were functioning in the very same "choice of law," a choice of law that ushered in The Fourth Reich.
Since the legal mechanism isn't yet part of the general, common understanding in the marketplace (the understanding of which mechanism is simplified as "federal" means "federal" and which isn't really in mind shy of a rather lengthy study of the foundational principles on which this present commercial ("federal") system depends), it's still "foreign" to common discussions (about the UCC, in particular, and about the system, generally) as to why the UCC is 99.9% irrelevant. While the UCC deals in the world of "contract law," it has very, very, very little to do with the world of "trust law," except that it has allowed the use of "funny money" instead of honest weights and measures for all commercial purposes. Thus, a trust may be recognized in "this state" where the "choice of law" is that provided by the use of "funny money."
There are a great many minds enamored with the UCC, and there is a great deal of legit legal work relevant to the UCC that goes on every day. This author's litigation career right out of law school was very heavy in applying the UCC. There's a place for it, to be sure. However, as for the matters that vex us, there is no real value in the study of the UCC beyond coming to terms with the effectiveness in changing the "choice of law" by obliterating the notion of "unit of account" and substituting, instead, a definition of "money."
"Dollar" and "money" are related, but one is a "unit of account," and the other is what passes as a "medium of exchange." Where there's no "unit of account," there is no Common Law system. Period.
In fact, to understand the foundational "choice of law" concept is to learn that one of the matters over which one should strive to take full control is "choice of law," and one who intends to get loose from the voluntary bondage of "this state" will run like mad away from the notion of bringing in the UCC at every turn. In other words, to use the UCC and to advocate the use of the UCC is to stick oneself to this present "funny money" system in such a way as to render oneself mummified in that form of flypaper.
The UCC accomplishes for the State-turned-STATE marketplaces what the shenanigans with Title 31 did to/with the national marketplace. Those "statutes" completely gutted the definition of "dollar." In no marketplace associated with "United States" is there a definition of the stated "unit of account." In other words, in no marketplace associated with "United States" is "dollar" anywhere defined (competently). Where there is no "unit of account," it's impossible to have a Common Law system, and that result is exactly what is at the heart of the UCC. The UCC guts the definition of "dollar" in the States-turned-STATEs, which makes it possible, then, for "funny money" to circulate in those marketplaces, as well. The thing, then, to understand about the UCC is this: it's the UCC that turns a State into a STATE.
This is "all" that the UCC does. There's quite a bit to the UCC, and for one's commercial activity in "this state," one does well to have a working knowledge of the UCC (relevant to the STATE in which one does business). But, for the matters that vex us, the UCC is 99.9% irrelevant. It is definitely and ubiquitously relevant in the gutting of the definition of "dollar" in the State-turned-STATE marketplaces. But, that's "all" that the UCC does. It allows everyone participating in the State-turned-STATE marketplaces to use "funny money" as the optional "choice of law" to the original honest weights and measures and Common Law system of commerce.
We have always had two levels of marketplaces: State (now STATE) and national. The UCC guts the definition of "dollar" in the State marketplaces, which turns them into STATE marketplaces. The UCC is STATE "law." It's the State-turned-STATE counterpart to the gutting of "dollar" in the U.S. Code, which language shenanigans gutted the definition of "dollar" for purposes of the national marketplace.
The last thing that those trying to get loose from the "gotcha agreements" by which one finds oneself in a condition of "voluntary bondage" in "this state" wants to do is bring in the UCC. To get lost in those rabbit trails is to be lost, generally. The UCC is what "justifies" the use of "funny money" in the STATEs, and where the UCC is argued by the "target" (the "defendant" where the "plaintiff" is some version or other of "government"), it's difficult to avoid the judicial conclusion of "commercial nexus." It's that very "commercial nexus" concept that those who are loose from "voluntary bondage" don't have.
At the end of the day, to get lost in the UCC is still to confess seeing this system as operating "by law" rather than "federally," as in "by agreement." This is the most common problem among the "constitution-ists." The "constitution-ists" still see a system that operated "by law," and, outside the penal code provisions, that's just not how this present "federal" system functions. It's a wicked paradigm shift, to be sure, but the reality isn't altered by "coulda shoulda woulda." The "mistake of law" made by still thinking that there is a "constitution" is not a "mistake of law" that provides any defense. We just have to know better, and it's not an enjoyable lesson; just a necessary one (for those who genuinely intend to understand, and then apply, the solutions we have, which solutions are not found in or of or about the UCC).
This present system depends upon our shishkabobbing ourselves, one person at a time, one "gotcha agreement" at a time, and those who get trapped in the UCC find themselves fully self-shishkabobbed and inside a maze out of which they have no path.
A far better concept to start with is this: "federal" means "federal."
May The Lord cure sight for those who earnestly ask Him for such cure, and may those with that level of sight have the courage to apply what they learn from what they then see.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
This is a fully copyrighted original work by Legal Reality under International Common Law copyright law. No interest is asserted in "governmental" works cited, whether in or from "this state" or in or from any other commonwealth. Permission is granted for electronic forwarding or copying, but only where what is forwarded or copied remains wholly in its original format (including font, font size, color, and content as formatted), warts and all. No permission is granted for any modification in any way of this copyrighted original production. This copyrighted original work, when forwarded or copied, must contain the whole of this International Common Law copyright statement.
We have always had two levels of marketplaces: State (now STATE) and national. The UCC guts the definition of "dollar" in the State-turned-STATE marketplaces. The UCC is STATE "law." It's the State-turned-STATE counterpart to the gutting of "dollar" in the U.S. Code, which language shenanigans gutted the definition of "dollar" for purposes of the national marketplace.
Where "dollar" (the "unit of account") is gutted, it's legally impossible to maintain a Common Law based system. And, this is the long and the short of the reason/purpose of the UCC. It's the State-law parallel to what was also necessary at the national level to usher in The Fourth Reich and its "funny money"-based "choice of law."
Some on the List are aware of a note from a source that "modified" a Legal Reality note sent out recently, which Legal Reality note exposed and challenged a Court-bashing position that looked to McCulloch v. Maryland. The "modifications" to the Legal Reality note didn't really alter the original that much, although there was no indication of what was modified, so that the nth-level of forwarding later, the recipient really doesn't know what the original said or how it originally appeared or how to contact the original author to get a copy of the original.
What that "modified" note did do was so promote the UCC as to leave the reader trying to hold two directly opposing positions as true simultaneously. That's how the communist (Hegelian) dialectic operates to leave minds in a condition of logical mush and incompetence.
For these reasons, a new concept is added at the foot of these notes, starting with this one. The alternative is to circulate .pdf files as attachments, and since those are "heavy" on memory usage, that option is being delayed as long as possible.
To address those UCC-oriented concepts, they miss the boat completely regarding our present reality, and therefore a moment is taken while the topic is in mind in order to address briefly that angle of our present legal situation.
A great deal is talked about regarding the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). To hit the highlights, there's one and only one reason for the UCC -- to change the "choice of law" in the States from the Common Law to the maritime law necessary for The Fourth Reich and its STATEs. There's a great deal more than that singular change found in the body of each STATE's rendition of the UCC, but changing that "choice of law" is by far the main purpose of anything about the UCC. All else in/with the UCC has provided a wonderful cover story.
Under the Common Law, the "unit of account" is a "dollar," which is defined as a weight measured by grains of fine silver.
Under our present maritime system reality, the "unit of account" is completely undefined.
To unhinge this entire system from the Common Law, two marketplaces had to be corrupted, not just one: (1) the national marketplace, which is subject to the "Laws of the United States," and (2) the State marketplaces, which were subject to the "Laws of the (respective) States."
To usher in The Fourth Reich, it was not enough to dismantle the "choice of law" in the national marketplace, which was done by rendering "dollar" a very circular, thus undefined, concept, which we find in Title 31 ("dollar" means 100 cents; one cent is 1/100th of a "dollar"). There could not be a Fourth Reich (in North America, and in any other location in which "funny money" circulates freely) without also corrupting the State marketplaces. In order to accomplish that secondary step, along came the UCC.
The UCC defines "money" but not any "unit of account," e.g., "dollar." By including the "funny money" ("federal reserve notes") in the definition of "money," the States became STATEs, i.e., commercial entities in the "place" called "this state," which is geographically pictured as "United States" without any State boundary lines.
(In "this state," each STATE is but a "county" within "this state.")
Thus, to picture the UCC as anything more than that is to miss the (entire) point of the UCC. The concept of "dollar" was removed from the national marketplace via the shenanigans with Title 31, and from each State marketplace via the UCC.
In this way, both (all) marketplaces were functioning in the very same "choice of law," a choice of law that ushered in The Fourth Reich.
Since the legal mechanism isn't yet part of the general, common understanding in the marketplace (the understanding of which mechanism is simplified as "federal" means "federal" and which isn't really in mind shy of a rather lengthy study of the foundational principles on which this present commercial ("federal") system depends), it's still "foreign" to common discussions (about the UCC, in particular, and about the system, generally) as to why the UCC is 99.9% irrelevant. While the UCC deals in the world of "contract law," it has very, very, very little to do with the world of "trust law," except that it has allowed the use of "funny money" instead of honest weights and measures for all commercial purposes. Thus, a trust may be recognized in "this state" where the "choice of law" is that provided by the use of "funny money."
There are a great many minds enamored with the UCC, and there is a great deal of legit legal work relevant to the UCC that goes on every day. This author's litigation career right out of law school was very heavy in applying the UCC. There's a place for it, to be sure. However, as for the matters that vex us, there is no real value in the study of the UCC beyond coming to terms with the effectiveness in changing the "choice of law" by obliterating the notion of "unit of account" and substituting, instead, a definition of "money."
"Dollar" and "money" are related, but one is a "unit of account," and the other is what passes as a "medium of exchange." Where there's no "unit of account," there is no Common Law system. Period.
In fact, to understand the foundational "choice of law" concept is to learn that one of the matters over which one should strive to take full control is "choice of law," and one who intends to get loose from the voluntary bondage of "this state" will run like mad away from the notion of bringing in the UCC at every turn. In other words, to use the UCC and to advocate the use of the UCC is to stick oneself to this present "funny money" system in such a way as to render oneself mummified in that form of flypaper.
The UCC accomplishes for the State-turned-STATE marketplaces what the shenanigans with Title 31 did to/with the national marketplace. Those "statutes" completely gutted the definition of "dollar." In no marketplace associated with "United States" is there a definition of the stated "unit of account." In other words, in no marketplace associated with "United States" is "dollar" anywhere defined (competently). Where there is no "unit of account," it's impossible to have a Common Law system, and that result is exactly what is at the heart of the UCC. The UCC guts the definition of "dollar" in the States-turned-STATEs, which makes it possible, then, for "funny money" to circulate in those marketplaces, as well. The thing, then, to understand about the UCC is this: it's the UCC that turns a State into a STATE.
This is "all" that the UCC does. There's quite a bit to the UCC, and for one's commercial activity in "this state," one does well to have a working knowledge of the UCC (relevant to the STATE in which one does business). But, for the matters that vex us, the UCC is 99.9% irrelevant. It is definitely and ubiquitously relevant in the gutting of the definition of "dollar" in the State-turned-STATE marketplaces. But, that's "all" that the UCC does. It allows everyone participating in the State-turned-STATE marketplaces to use "funny money" as the optional "choice of law" to the original honest weights and measures and Common Law system of commerce.
We have always had two levels of marketplaces: State (now STATE) and national. The UCC guts the definition of "dollar" in the State marketplaces, which turns them into STATE marketplaces. The UCC is STATE "law." It's the State-turned-STATE counterpart to the gutting of "dollar" in the U.S. Code, which language shenanigans gutted the definition of "dollar" for purposes of the national marketplace.
The last thing that those trying to get loose from the "gotcha agreements" by which one finds oneself in a condition of "voluntary bondage" in "this state" wants to do is bring in the UCC. To get lost in those rabbit trails is to be lost, generally. The UCC is what "justifies" the use of "funny money" in the STATEs, and where the UCC is argued by the "target" (the "defendant" where the "plaintiff" is some version or other of "government"), it's difficult to avoid the judicial conclusion of "commercial nexus." It's that very "commercial nexus" concept that those who are loose from "voluntary bondage" don't have.
At the end of the day, to get lost in the UCC is still to confess seeing this system as operating "by law" rather than "federally," as in "by agreement." This is the most common problem among the "constitution-ists." The "constitution-ists" still see a system that operated "by law," and, outside the penal code provisions, that's just not how this present "federal" system functions. It's a wicked paradigm shift, to be sure, but the reality isn't altered by "coulda shoulda woulda." The "mistake of law" made by still thinking that there is a "constitution" is not a "mistake of law" that provides any defense. We just have to know better, and it's not an enjoyable lesson; just a necessary one (for those who genuinely intend to understand, and then apply, the solutions we have, which solutions are not found in or of or about the UCC).
This present system depends upon our shishkabobbing ourselves, one person at a time, one "gotcha agreement" at a time, and those who get trapped in the UCC find themselves fully self-shishkabobbed and inside a maze out of which they have no path.
A far better concept to start with is this: "federal" means "federal."
May The Lord cure sight for those who earnestly ask Him for such cure, and may those with that level of sight have the courage to apply what they learn from what they then see.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
Subscribe / unsubscribe : legal_reality@earthlink.net
This is a fully copyrighted original work by Legal Reality under International Common Law copyright law. No interest is asserted in "governmental" works cited, whether in or from "this state" or in or from any other commonwealth. Permission is granted for electronic forwarding or copying, but only where what is forwarded or copied remains wholly in its original format (including font, font size, color, and content as formatted), warts and all. No permission is granted for any modification in any way of this copyrighted original production. This copyrighted original work, when forwarded or copied, must contain the whole of this International Common Law copyright statement.
1 comment:
Last week, I had an appointment with a municipal judge on account of a coupe traffic citations. The cop said they would, together, cost me about $800. When my turn came, I stood outside his box, and when he asked me to come aroun to the podium with the microphone, I declined. I mentioned noticing he had a gold fringe around his flags, which he'd tried hard to conceal. He said, "Yes, I guess I do," and proceeded to ask me if I had taken care of my license suspension, and I said, "No, I haven't." He asked if I intended to take care of it, and I said, "No." He proceeded to dismiss the case. I suspect he was afraid to et me speak any more, as he still had others in the court waiting to be judged. By not "boarding his ship" by stepping up to his podium, I kept my feet on the "solid ground" as a "man on the land." He had no lawful choice but to judge me according to Common Law.
Post a Comment