UCC 1-207: How To Free Yourself From Legal Tyranny

Interesting. I wish someone would write a similar book about the Croatian judicial system. Oh wait, Croatia doesn't have a judicial system, or at least doesn't have one that works.

Carry on.
 
thats pretty interesting... it basically says that if any form of government or commercial enterprise wishes to fine you or penalize you they must produce an injured party. in the case of speeding tickets and such, there is no injured party unless there was an accident in which demonstrateable damages.
 
Usually when someone legally says UCC, they think Uniformed Commercial Code.

The UCC is a body of law that has been accepted, more or less completely, by all the states to regulate commerce within and among them. This notion of shared commercial rules is very effective and felixible (as compared to general contracts and property law) so that parties can maintain business.

That said there is no UCC 1-207.

From Cornell Law-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/

It should also be noted that the UCC only applies to commercial contracts, not property, services or a variety of other contractual relationships that parties may join.

That said, a very quick review of what this fellow says, indicates that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

As for contracts, it is generally a rule that you can't be held to contracts that you don't agree with. You can, for example, scratch out provisions of contracts and initial them, and then sign the contract noting that you did not consent to those provisions. I remember one of my old law professors telling a story about bringing his son to the hospital when he got hurt and then taking the time to read through and scratch out provisions he didn't like.

If you don't consent to a contract, you usually can't be held to it. There are exceptions of course. But a core rule of contracts is that there has to be a "meeting of the minds"- that both individuals have reason to believe that the other knows there is an agreement being made and an exchange of consideration.

Of course if you try to scratch out provisions in a contract and then get the other person to accept it. Good luck.
 
i think the author was trying to point out that one of the most difficult aspects of dealing with a licensed attorney, even a good one, may be knowing just whose side he is on (he is, after all, an officer of the court)!
and he was pissed with people who didnt have the inclination to take the initiative into their own hands.

it is writer's view that God did not intend for us to spend our lives in statutory slavery for the benefit of a handful of secret world manipulators, even if the 'masters' grant us some token pleasures and diversions. Human dignity requires much more than entertainment. The door is there and the key exists; we must find it and we must use it to return to freedom!
 
welsh said:
A whole lot.
Click to expand...
Cool, thanks for the info.

What about the traffic tickets and taxes and such? Drug possessions?

Is this only applicable to commercial contracts?
 
it applies to commercial contracts. like agreements you enter into when accepting a job.

that being said, there are provisions for "significant changes in status" like going from hourly to salaried positions would require the employer to have you re-sign previous agreements. plus i think it also applies if your salary/pay rate doubles from when you signed the original "contracts".

like i currently make 9.68 an hour. if i got pay increases that took me to 19.35 an hour that is under double my starting wages when i signed the contracts so they would still be binding. but the moment i made 19.36 an hour ( since that is double ) it is assumed legally that my new job status/responsibilities would require re-agreeing to the original contracts because my status/responsibilities would be far beyond and above what they were when i first started so i would have to agree to them again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top