On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:52:17 -0800 (PST), Alan Olsen wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

...

Why is the Constitution not the root precedent?

Because that system gott r00ted long ago.

We live in a country that is governed by how prosecutors feel about the case, not what the law says.

That's exaclty how Admiralty (military) law works. It is in the contract that you signed by becoming a U.S. citizen that they can do whatever "laws" they want... In Admiralty (U.C.C. and civil) court, the jury has only an advisory role to the judge, when there is one. In essence, what counts most is not justice for the subject, but the integrity of the "boat". The captain is the only authority on the boat.

The game is rigged by the people running it.

No. It is CONTRACT law, aka Admiralty Law, aka Roman Law, aka U.C.C.

We don't have a fair legal system any more.

You have, under Anglo-Saxon Common Law (ASCL). But you MUST claim it otherwise, UCC applies. In ASCL, you MUST void the claims against you. UCC claims it has jurisdiction over you. You must void their claim. Putting "without prejudice" and "all rights reserved" are sufficient to reserve your rights. But you must know what the "without prejudice" expression means. The text "The UCC Connection: Free Yourself from Legal Tyranny" by the late Howard Freeman states: ------------------------- Remedy 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) It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS," the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then, we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN'T APPLY TO ME -- I'M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged -- not under some other jurisdiction. So, in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under the UCC 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) You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says: The Sufficiency of the Reservation -- Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4) Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes -- in any way, shape or manner -- under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-207.2 This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights. It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone .... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means. --------------------------------------- This text was recently posted on the Cypherpunks. If you want a repost, ask me. ________________________________________________________________________ Protect your privacy! - Get Freedom 2.0 at http://www.freedom.net