RSS

“Without Prejudice”: Reserving your Rights under the UCC

09 Aug

For most of 20 years, I’ve watched pro se litigants, tax resistors and legal reformers “reserve their rights” by writing some variety of “without prejudice” under the UCC .  I don’t doubt that a few of those “reservations” may have worked, but no more than 1 or 2%.   I’d say that at least 98% (if not 99%; if not 100%) of those reservations of rights had no discernable effect on gov-co or the case at hand.

I recently received an email containing a report that not only claims that the UCC reservation-of-rights strategy now works, but that it works so well that it can achieve “diplomatic immunity”.  There’s a lot of good information in that report, but I’m very wary of the fundamental conclusion.

In fact, after I read and analyzed the report, I understood for the first time why “reservaton of rights” strategies are largely irrelevant.  More, based on this understanding, I then realized that the fundamental issue is not your rights, but rather your duties.  In essence, you can reserve your rights all day and it will have no effect on your duties.

The email and my analysis are a fairly long read.  But if you’ll make the effort, I think you’ll see some new and hopefully valuable insights.  Click here to download the PDF file:  090806 UCC Remedy

Advertisements
 
14 Comments

Posted by on August 9, 2009 in Rights, UCC

 

14 responses to ““Without Prejudice”: Reserving your Rights under the UCC

  1. Harry James

    August 9, 2009 at 11:04 PM

    Did you notice that UCC 1-207.7 only preserves “whatever Rights the person then possesses?”

    Would it not be the “status” or “standing” of the person that would determine “whatever rights he then possessed” – i.e. at the time of his reservation of those rights?

    To me, and I may be mistaken, the important thing a man must do is “belligerently claim his birthright as a sui juris freeman” and then be able to rebut or dispute any presumption to the contrary.

    After all the declaration of the inherent RIGHTS of mankind found in most state constitutions acknowledge that “all men are born free and independent.” Would not all such men be presumed to be sui juris upon reaching “full age” or the “age of majority?”

    “All persons are purported to KNOW the law and UNLESS YOU belligerently CLAIM YOUR RIGHTS YOU are CONSIDERED to have acquiesced and ignorance in no excuse.” U.S. Supreme Court

    Bouvier says that “Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris” and as such have ALL the rights to which a freeman is entitled.” See: definition of “sui juris” in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary

    On the other hand “all persons” who are born in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside. As such they have ONLY the rights of national citizenship, which are distinct from the “fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship.” See: Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 L.Ed 590 (1940)

    A man’s “status” or more particularly his “presumed” status appears to me to be the important issue when it come to “claiming” or “preserving” one’s rights. To wit:

    STATUS. Standing, state or condition. The legal relations of individual to rest of the community. The rights, DUTIES, capacities and in-capacities which DETERMINE a person to a given class. A legal personal relationship, NOT temporary in its nature NOR terminable at the mere will of the parties, with which third persons AND THE STATE are concerned. While the term implies relation it is not a mere relation. It also means ESTATE, because it SIGNIFIES the condition or circumstances in which one stands with regard to his property [think property tax]. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition

    Into what class of persons are you presently presumed to be a member? Are you “presumed” to be in the class of sui juris freemen as you are supposed to be if of “full age,” or, are you “presumed” to be in the class of subject citizens of the US federal government?

    The one class of persons has rights, duties, capacities and in-capacities which are distinct from those of the other class of persons.

    Remember, you can ONLY preserve whatever rights you possess at the time you make a valid reservation of those rights.

    The question is: How does a man born free and independent belligerently claim his birthright sui juris status and effectively dispute any presumption that he belong in any other inferior class of persons?

     
    • adask

      August 12, 2009 at 2:06 PM

      The answer is fairly simple: Don’t agree to take on any more duties than you must. Be wary of any “presumed” duties created by alleged “citizenship” or implied trust relationships, unilateral contracts, etc. EVERY time you sign your name, you are taking on some additional duties, waiving some of your rights relative to that duty, and granting a RIGHT to enforce your agreed duty to the other party. You must learn to control your signature. Don’t sign anything you don’t understand. Ask plenty of questions about any implied or undeclared duties that might be attached to any agreement you sign. Qualify virtually all of your signatures with the “at arm’s length” disclaimer to at least defend against assuming any fiduciary duties. This is no game. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If you want all of your rights, don’t assume any duties. If you assume any duties, don’t expect your rights to later exempt you from those duties.
      The real problem is learning to sense and recognize those “duties” that presumed or implied. If I had to guess, I’d guess that at least half of whatever takes place in our courts (and perhaps far, far more) is based on some implied or presumed duty that is attributed to the defendant. If the defendant can properly identify those implied or presumed duties, show that they are private in nature, and that he never voluntarily and knowingly consented to perform those duties, the defendant should be able to cause the case or charges to be dismissed.
      If you have no duty, your adversary has no right to enforce that duty against you.
      THE fundamental trick is not to “reserve your rights” but to “restrict your duties”.
      The first step to identifying your “duties” is to recognize that every time you sign your name without a disclaimer, you are assuming some duty and thereby waiving some of your rights (at least relative to the particular transaction). Next, recognize that duties that attach to contracts are relatively easy to deal with since there must be full disclosure in the contract document. Read the document closely before you sign. If you don’t agree to all of the terms and resultant duties, modify the document or refuse to sign. Contracts are relatively easy. Generally speaking, I’m willing to contract with the gov-co all day, every day.
      It’s the trust relationships that are subtle, hard to spot and extremely dangerous–primarily because trust agreements need not provide “full disclosure”. TRUST relationships result in “duties” that are unstated but implied or presumed. That’s where you can be absolutely destroyed by the government of “this state”. I cannot prove but I am convinced that we are routinely fined, regulated and even imprisoned based on “duties” that are merely implied or presumed.
      That’s why I remain convinced that using the “at arm’s length” disclaimer over ALL of my signatures is so vital. By writing “at arm’s length” over my signature, I absolutely deny that I have consented to enter into a fiduciary/trust relationship by virtue of that signature. Based on that denial, I believe it will be legally impossible for the “authorities” to presume or imply that I have voluntarily assumed any fiduciary duties by virtue of that signature. This disclaimer does not guarantee that I will live happily ever after. But it does provide me with a basis for avoiding implied and presumed “duties”.
      I believe that insofar as I can avoid unstated duties that are merely implied or presumed, I am on my way to achieving the status of a “free” man.

      Al

       
  2. Paul J. Sholtz

    August 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM

    Excellent points, Al..

    Rights and duties are two faces of the same coin.

    It reminds me of what Blackstone wrote in his commentaries:

    ===
    Now the rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the municipal law are of two sorts; first, such as are due from every citizen, which are usually called civil duties; and secondly, such as belong to him, which is the more popular acception of rights or jura. Both may indeed be comprised in this latter division; for as all social duties are of a relative nature, at the same time that they are due from one man, or set of men, they must also be due to another. But I apprehend it will be more clear and easy, to consider many of them as duties required from, rather than as rights belonging to, particular persons. Thus, for instance, allegiance is usually, and therefore most easily, considered as the duty of the people, and protection as the duty of the magistrate; and yet they are, reciprocally, the rights as well as duties of each other. Allegiance is the right of the magistrate, and protection the right of the people.
    ====

    Blackstone’s Commentaries, Book I, Chap 1, Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals

     
  3. indio007

    November 26, 2009 at 12:31 AM

    Sovereignty comes from allegiance an is commonly presumed by “birth” instead of free election.

    See
    Calvin’s Case aka Case of the Post Nati

    Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign……
    ……
    Sometimes ligeance is called faith Fides, ad fidem Regis, …

    …..A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.

     
  4. Pingback: Anonymous
  5. Leah

    November 30, 2010 at 1:56 PM

    Where can I get Blackstone’s books?

     
    • adask

      November 30, 2010 at 3:28 PM

      I’ve never checked, but it’s possible that free, digital copies of some of Blackstone’s books may be published on the internet by Google Books. Other than that, do an internet search for sources for hard copies.

       
  6. layed

    June 4, 2011 at 4:35 PM

    I was told that if you use the UCC you are calling yourself a person, which put you under there jurisdiction. I have used the UCC on my car registration, I got a citation and they called me into a seperate room. I challenged the ticket and it was dismissed. If you are considered a person using the UCC, you are also a person with a drivers license.

     
  7. Harry

    June 5, 2011 at 10:59 AM

    In the words of Alexander Hamilton the FREEHOLDERS were not “contending that our RABBLE, or unqualified PERSONS, shall have the right of voting, or NOT BE TAXED, but that the FREEHOLDERS and ELECTORS, whose right ACCRUES to them from the common law, or from charter, shall not be deprived of that RIGHT.”

    It appears to me that the RABBLE were taxed and could not vote while the FREEHOLDERS were not taxed and could vote.

    The absolute, rather than conditional, ownership of land appears to be important.

    Do you know the difference between “land(s), tenements and hereditaments and “land, houses and chattels?

    A “freeman” is defined as someone who had a free hold title IN land.

    Did you know that “land” is simply empty vacant space, and nothing else and it is granted to the entire chain of title when it is granted to the individual named on the original land patent; thus it cannot be bought or sold or traded as a THING OF VALUE. . Land is not the fixed contents of that space. Land is simply an area of three dimensional space.” See: Land Law for definitions by Peter Butt.

    Homo liber. A free man; a freeman lawfully competent to act as juror. An allodial proprietor, as distinguished from a vassal or feudatory.

    Today, citizenship in the United States has become “a political OBLIGATION depending, NOT ON THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND, but on the ENJOYMENT of the protection of government, and it “binds the citizen to the observance of all laws of his sovereign.” See: definition of natural allegiance in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition.

    “Allegiance” is a comparatively modern CORRUPTION of ligeance or liege fealty – i.e. absolute and unqualified fealty. Black’s 4th

    CORRUPTION. Illegality; a vicious and fraudulent intention to evade the prohibitions of law; something against or forbidden by law; moral turpitude or exactly opposite of honesty involving intentional disregard of law from improper motives. Black’s 4th

    What has happened to cause a man born free and independent – i.e. a freeman – to become a citizen/subject of his sovereign?

    Does the lack of having a freehold title IN land have anything to do with this subjection to a sovereign?

    Ownership of land today is said to be by the virtue of government not by virtue and endowment of one’s Creator. How has this change taken place?

    It appears to me that today the so called owners of land have only a legal title which does not include the right to the profit, benefit or advantage resulting from the ownership of an estate.

    Remember “status” also means “estate.” What are the conditions or circumstances in which you stand with regard to your property? What did you do to assume the status of “taxpayer” with regard to your property? What have you done to be obligated to pay tribute to the tax collector upon a request for prompt payment?

    Payment of the real property tax is always “requested” on the Tax Notice.

    REQUEST. A notice of a desire on the part of the person making it [i.e. the tax collector], that the other party [taxpayer] shall do something in relation to a contract [i.e. make prompt payment of the taxes assessed against the property]

    It is the rights, duties, capacities and in-capacities which DETERMINE a person to a given class. It is not being in a given class that DETERMINES that persons rights, duties, capacities and in-capacities.

    Your obligation or duty to make prompt payment of the ad valorem real property tax upon a request for payment is what places you is a given class of persons affectionately known as “taxpayers.”

    Exactly how did you become obligated? How did you become subject to this duty to make payment of the taxes assessed against your property upon a request that you pay them?

    Remember, taxes are not penalties nor are they a debt. They are contributions. The real property tax is called tribute.

    Tribute is a sum of money paid by an inferior subject to a superior potentate or sovereign, to secure the protection of the latter.

    “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule, but the slothful shall be UNDER TRIBUTE. Proverbs 12:24

    “Render unto Caesar the things [i.e. tribute] which be Caesar’s and unto God the things which be God’s.”

    If we were to “give up” the protection that government supposedly provide then would we no longer be obligated to pay tribute to government to secure the protection of government that we have given up? I would think so.

    Would we then be without any protection in the society in which we live, move and have our being? Would we be without any civil rights whatsoever?

    Civil rights. “Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen OF [not IN] the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and ARE NOT CONNECTED WITH THE ORGANIZATION OR ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT. They include the RIGHTS OF PROPERTY, marriage, PROTECTION BY THE LAWS, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc. OR [civil rights] AS OTHERWISE DEFINED are rights appertaining to a PERSON in virtue of his citizenship IN a state [not OF a state] or community. [These are] rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a CIVIL action. [CIVIL RIGHTS] is also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the 13th and 14th amendments to the constitution, and by various acts of congress made in pursuance thereof. Black’s 4th

    Assumpsit is an express or implied agreement to perform an oral contract. An express assumpsit is where one UNDERTAKES [becomes surety for] verbally or in writing, not under seal, or on record, to perform an act, or to pay a sum of money to another.

    An implied assumpsit is where one has not made any formal promise to do an act or to pay a sum of money to another, but who is PRESUMED from hisCONDUCT to have ASSUMED an obligation to do the JUST and FAIR thing [i.e. pay his fair share of the taxes assessed against the property being protected by government]. Common or indebitatus assumpsit is brought for the most part on an implied promise. Special assumpsit is founded on an express promise or UNDERTAKING.

    Look up the term “undertake” and “undertaking” in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition See what you are doing when you “undertake” to do something.

    There is a rule that every one is presumed to assent to what is useful to him. It is a rule that he who desires the antecedent, must abide by the consequent. It is also presumed that no one desires to enrich himself at the expense of others so upon REQUEST for prompt payment of taxes one must pay their fair share or an action in assumpsit will be filed.

    Assumpsit lies to recover damages for the breach of all parol or simple contracts, whether written or not written express or implied;for the payment of money, or for the performance or omission of any other act.

    The declaration must invariably disclose the consideration of the contract, the contract itself, and the breach of it; The gist of this action is the PROMISE, and it must be averred.

    What is the tax collector looking at that allows him to assume we have promised to make prompt payment of the taxes assessed against the property that we occupy? What have we done to place our property under the protection of government? Recording our deed? Registering our deed or address with the chief assessor to be taxed?

    “Constructive trust.” A trust raised by construction of law, as distinguished from an express trust. Whenever the CIRCUMSTANCES of a transaction are such that the PERSON who takes the LEGAL estate in property CANNOT also enjoy the beneficial interest [equitable estate] without necessarily violating some ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY, the COURT WILL IMMEDIATELY RAISE A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, AND fasten it upon the conscience OF THE legal owner, so as to CONVERT him into a TRUSTEE for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment..

    What established principle of equity is in view here? Could it be unjust enrichment at the expense of others?

    A direct conversion takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of another to his own beneficial use and enjoyment.

    It appears a lawful title or right has been converted into
    a legal title or right.

    Can some thing that has been converted be re-converted? Can the legal and equitable title be rejoined in one individual man so that he may have an absolute title in land?

    RECONVERSION. re-establishment, regeneration, restoration, return, reversal, reversion.

    “Participation in a system of charitable uses under the Law of Charitable Uses and the Status of Wills, among other, is VOLUNTARY. Once participation is DISCONTINUED for various reasons such as “breach of trust,’ and ‘lack of confidence,’ the non participant, so SEPARATED FROM USE, may assert rights to be RESTORED TO HIS PRIOR, ORIGINAL STATUS AND CONDITION.

    Are we unknowingly participating in a system of charitable uses? A legal owner is a trustee. The equitable owner is the real or beneficial owner. Are we allodial proprietors or tenants? Check out your deed.

    How often do we see this issue of one’ status or standing or estate or CONDITION or CIRCUMSTANCES as being the basis of one’s obligations and duty to contribute or pay tribute to government? A lot!

    Oh to only have our rights restored to our prior, original status and condition. We must SEPARATE from the use and ASSERT our rights be restored to our prior, original status and condition. Can it be done? How may we do it?

    Oh what tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.

    YES, the answer appears to be simple – give up government protection of your property and depend upon “protection by the laws” of your property. This protection is a civil right of all inhabitants that is without or outside the administration and organization of the government and society.

    Are you a citizen OF the state or a citizen IN [within] the state or are you only an inhabitant? Is there a difference in being “of” the state and being “in” the state?

    What is private property?

    PRIVATE PROPERTY. n. It is a system to allocate the ownership of pieces of LAND [not real estate] to particular PEOPLE [not persons], who exercise FULL control ON it [i.e. the land] WITHOUT [i.e. outside] the society or the government having any ownership or legal right, UNLIKE common property. See: http://www.legal-explanations.com and search “private property” to find this definition.

    How do we KNOW what we KNOW is true?

    I mean how do we KNOW what we KNOW, or think we KNOW, about land ownership and the taxation thereof is true? Hearsay? Have we actually read the laws and defined the terms for ourselves?

     
  8. Jay

    August 6, 2013 at 3:25 PM

    Spoken like a true Government employee! If reserving your rights was irrelevant than why so many of your colleagues try to take away our rights? Why will the DMV DENY you from doing so. Why will a car dealership say the reservation is null & void? You sir are a list & needs to be more supportive considering the bankers & mortgage companies are securiterizing on all contracts & twinning the stream

     
  9. ps

    September 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM

    YOU have to use the ucc to protect your ens legis.. for example if the MAN gets a ticket. A wise MAn knows that since the “abrogation of the gold standard” there is no lawful money circulating, and that since the federal reserve act of 1933 slightly before the 13th amendment that fraud was devised and pushed to cover the debt of a corporation called America. in light of this legislation that will put the people living on the land as collateral to pay the debts it incurred as a corporation, FDR realized it simply was treason and devised a route of recourse for it fictionally created entities’ that would be submitted in ignorance VOLUNTARILY via ss applications and certs of birth in gov facilities. HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION- 192. the ucc is the supreme law amongs all nations who privately agreed that modern slavery would be handled with fiat currency and the semblance of law via legal constitutions. The ens legis is established behind MAN’s energy.

    Hypothetical that your founding fathers (men who traveled on other peoples money and made a promise to pay) found them self in. We owe money and have no assets to put up for this money, what will we do? One says we will create a currency that our people can use amongst them selves and whatever product we hire them to create will cover our debts.. Essentially we will say although we have no money, we do have this many people who will work. And as they work we will pay them and tax them to pay you, with this fiat currency.

    any ways getting back to the topic.. using the ucc is key in operating HJR-192 and tho you are not a party to the “voluntary contract” established involuntarily as your parents signed that birth cert and got you a social. That contract is established in trust and thru equity, under contract laws, so though you may not be the ENTITY the entity still has responsibilities to take care of. Primarily which is to see to the insolvency or bankruptcy of the corporation by paying its debts. SO you are not the entity and you reserve your rights if things work well, essential you have been pardoned through HJR-192 via UCC. If things don’t work right its because A, the knowledge that court possesses is inferior, probably done on purpose by gov, because of plausible deniability clauses, B you don’t have the capacity to represent or didn’t properly reserve the right to not be treated as the trustee of the TRUST BEING ASSESED. if your interested and this is not ringing up because im skipping around too much email me.. pstackz904@gmail.com subject STRAWMAN..

     
  10. Truman

    September 28, 2013 at 10:37 AM

    hi Al, what do you think about this http://www.abodia.com/ucc/articles/index.htm UCC Financing Statement Process?

    and have you any expertise with this?:
    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/forms/sav1455.pdf
    “One or more fiduciaries (individual or corporate) must use this form to establish entitlement and request distribution of United States Treasury Securities and/or related payments to the person lawfully entitled due to termination of a trust, distribution of an estate,attainment of majority, restoration to competency, or other reason.”

    I ran across these links from here:
    http://www.suijurisforum.com/pros-cons-of-trademarking-my-name-t83.html

    they get into subjects that I keep stumbling onto in many places about private vs public trusts but I do not yet have enough knowledge to comprehend exactly what is being said. (Im working on it) so I ask you here. my apologies if I mis-post, Ive searched your blog for UCC related topics and this was the only one I found and from reading many of your post in other topics you seem to have a fairly good grasp of trust constructions so I am curious if you are familiar with the sav1455.pdf available from treasurydirect.gov also

    thanks

     
    • Adask

      September 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM

      I’ve never really studied the UCC–mostly because don’t feel comfortable with the UCC. I don’t doubt that it can be useful, but I suspect (perhaps unreasonably) that using the UCC may constitute an admission that you are some sort of “U.S. person” or otherwise consenting to a national or even international government.

      As for your “Treasury Direct” form for dismantling a trust, it’s not something I’ve studied, but it sounds like a subject I should learn about. I’m always wary of consenting to use any governmental “form,” but I also know that the law of anything is distilled to its essence in governmental forms. You can learn a lot by studying government forms. Every form can represent dozens, even hundreds of pages of underlying law.

      As for “trademarking-my-name,” I am wary. I know that you can’t copyright your name. You can’t copyright the title of a poem, movie, book or newspaper article. You can copyright the content of you creation, but not the title. The same principle must apply to people’s names. What happens when the first man named “William Smith” copyrights his name? Do all the others named “William Smith” have to take a new name or maybe a number?

      Trademarking your name may be a little more possible than copyrighting. But I’m still skeptical. Again, what happens when the first “William Smith” trademarks his name? What happens to everyone else named “William Smith”? Do they have to take new names or numbers? Must they abandon the use of their checking accounts? Must their wives now identify as “Mrs. William 1234567”?

      No one knows everything about the law. I certainly don’t. I know a little bit about a few things that might be useful. I know nothing about a lot of things that might even be necessary.

      My principle strength is not my knowledge, but my ability to read. Knowledge is important, but if you can’t read, you’re screwed. If gov-co wants to come after me, I’m sure that they can dredge up some peculiar law(s) to do so. I may know nothing about those particular laws when I’m charged. But I will read the charges and underlying law and thereby come to comprehend the charges against me–and perhaps devise a defense strategy that the gov-co hasn’t seen before.

      In the end, I don’t study law to “learn” the law, I study law as a means to learn how to read, analyze and discern. From that perspective, by reading and studying any law (UCC, Trademark, etc.) I am strengthened–even if I don’t particularly believe in the essential premises of that branch of the “law”.

      Anyway, the UCC (so far) is not for me. The trademark arguments strikes me as improbable and absolutely impractical.

       

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s