Have been looking at the issue of UCC 1-308 as a potential addition to the 'drivers licence' and other contracts with other government agencies. To that end I found this quirky conversation between a "sovern" punter and a lawyer on one of these paid 'ask a lawyer' business' that you occasionally find on line -or at least I do.
"I attempted to obtain a new drivers license to day in the state.
CUSTOMER: I attempted to obtain a new drivers license
to day in the state of hawaii. I informed them that my reason for the
new license was address and signature changes. They had no problems
with the address change however when I signed my name "Daniel Yarnell
Without Prejudice UCC 1-308" They stated they would not allow it as my
signature is only my name as it appears on my "license." What is the
Legal definition of a Signature according to Hawaii Law?
LAWYER: hi well, if you do not have a legal court order showing
your name changed to "Daniel Yarnell Without Prejudice UCC 1-308" from
the previous driver's license then the
DMV is correct. that is not your legal name and they need your legal signature to reflect your legal name. if you want to sign a
legal document with the name of "Daniel Yarnell Without Prejudice UCC 1-308" then you need to seek a
Name Change. or, if this is your legal name then present your birth certificate reflecting the same.
CUSTOMER: Why would it not be allowed as part of my signature seeing as it is
similar to signing a paper "under Duress" which i have had to do for
several military documents?
LAWYER: hi because a legal signature is required, and as such,
that would be the name on your legal brith certificate. can only tell
you why they will not accept the signature and what to do if this is how
you wish to sign legal documents.
the section of the
UCC that you refer to in your signature is not applicable to legal
government documents - it is there as a provision for someone who enters
into a contract that is also governed by the UCC
§ 1-102. Scope of Article.
This article applies to a transaction to the extent that it is governed by another article of [the Uniform Commercial Code]. therefore,
if obtaining a driver's license is governed by the UCC, i would appreciate seeing that section.
CUSTOMER: That is basically my point I am being forced to obtain a licese even though it doesn't
apply
to me under the UCC as a sovern individual. Seeing as I have no SSN
and the Birth Certificate was a document setting me up as a Coperation
rather than an individual without my consent. I do have the freedom of
travel as afforded to me under the constitution but that is another
battle for May of this year. I guess right now the system the way it is
screws people out of their God given birth right to force them to serve
as surfs to an Illegitamate Government. Ok Thank you.
LAWYER: hi i understand that. i really do. but we have to deal
with the laws until they are changed. if you think being a rebel in this
manner is going to get those laws changed, God Bless you. but until
then, if you want a driver's license you will need to sign your legal
name or take the US Government to Court. Sam40204.1336760069
Read more:
I attempted to obtain a new drivers license to day in the state - JustAnswer http://www.justanswer.com/law/3281e-attempted-obtain-new-drivers-license-day-state.html#ixzz2FGQGHhYH
ETHICAL DONATORS
AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS
SPACE WITH YOUR POLITICAL SLOGANS, ADVERTISING OFFERS, WEBSITE DETAILS, CHARITY REQUESTS, LECTURE
OPPORTUNITIES, EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS, SPIRITUAL
AND/OR HEALTH ENLIGHTENMENT COURSES.
AS AN IMPORTANT MEMBER OF THE
GLOBAL INDEPENDENT
MEDIA COMMUNITY, MIKIVERSE LAW HONOURABLY REQUESTS YOUR HELP TO
KEEP YOUR NEWS, DIVERSE,
AND FREE OF CORPORATE, GOVERNMENT SPIN AND
CONTROL. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW YOU MAY ASSIST, PLEASE CONTACT:
themikiverse@gmail.com
Here what I see is the lawyer not venturing into the real issue which is does the so-called sovereign have a right to protect oneself from liability when entering into a contractual agreement or is it merely a privilege? If one has a right to protect themselves from unwittingly signing their name to a legal or non legal document whereby liability would be attached to them solely due to their signature being affixed to such document/s, then there is no Law or statue or code etc...that can abridge any rights, however if such desired action of the so-called sovereign is a 'mere privilege' then such can be abridged.
ReplyDelete