1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

(UD) With out prejudice "Your Signature"

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ezoeni, Jan 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ezoeni

    ezoeni Well-Known Member

    How many people out there sign your government docs like this. Your drivers license, your pistol permit. others?

    Just curious, and maybe there just might be a few legal types out there that can explain it better than me
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2003
  2. PATH

    PATH Well-Known Member

    Could you please clarify and expound on this issue? I am a little lost on what it is you are asking.
  3. ezoeni

    ezoeni Well-Known Member

    Ill try I might not get it right. I was talking to a man about getting a CCW a years back. And he said whatever you do.

    Sign it (ud) = under duress, with out prejudice - your signature

    Now the UD is there for maintaining your constitutionally given rights to every American citizen. Meaning every one of us has the right to bear arms when we are a citizen in this country. If you sign a permit to carry a firearm you are signing a different agreement (state laws) and waving your constitutional rights.

    Im not sure what "with out prejudice " was for but it was just as important

    The same thing with the right to travel freely throughout the united states. But when you sign your drivers license. You agree to the restrictions of that document issued by what state you live in.

    Basically the main thing I remember about the conversation was that most people dont even now about this and they sign there rights away on a daily basis.

    The conversation I had was with a man that fought the ATF in a court battle and won. It was a impresive 15 minutes of listening

    I need to talk to this guy again and have him run through it again. I thought maybe someone here might have more info as well.

    Ill send a email over to him if I can find his card and get back here with more info
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2003
  4. PATH

    PATH Well-Known Member

    Thank you much. I am curious to know.
  5. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    Under duress means you're doing something that you wouldn't normally do if you weren't being compelled to do it.

    If a gun's held to your head or your kid is being dangled over a vat of boiling acid unless you sign, that's one thing. But if you're applying for something or signing a tax return, it's something altogether different. In neither event does (ud) have any bearing on the fact that you signed something.
  6. dinosaur

    dinosaur Well-Known Member

    For years we signed our paychecks with "Under Protest" written above the sig. The checks even said something like if you don`t agree with the amount, sign it that way. This was because the OT and night dif were constantly wrong. It took months to get the overtime money.

    Once they were computerized and we got the money in the next check, the wording on the check was dropped. I still signed all my checks that way until I retired.
  7. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    If you're applying for a permit or signing taxes don't you have a gun to your head in a sense? I would never bother with a permit or taxes if the government wasn't holding the "gun" of imprisonment and financial disaster over me. All of this is accomplished by threat of force and thus literally under duress, no? The fact the government might not like you pointing this out doesn't change it. neither does the fact pointing it out won't help you a bit in a government court.
  8. ezoeni

    ezoeni Well-Known Member

    neither does the fact pointing it out won't help you a bit in a government court

    Ive been thinking about that as well. I guess its a matter of principle.

    It still gets a few of the LEO officers I have met a little PO'ed when they see it.

    Apparently they dont like it.
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2003
  9. Edward429451

    Edward429451 member

    All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice

    Following is your recourse back into Common and Constitutional Law:

    UCC 1-207

    "A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest" or the like are sufficient."

    UCC 1-207:4

    "Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient such as "without prejudice."

    This "Reservation of Rights" can be excercised by making the following notaion above your signature on contracts and agreements and other documents requireing your signature.

    "All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice UCC 1-207" or "Without Prejudice UCC 1-207"

    UCC Effect of Reservation of Rights 1-207:7 states:

    "The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possess and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel."

    Your greatest protection is provided by reserving your Rights in writing. However the code does state that it is not a requirement that such reservation of rights be written but they must be explicit:

    UCC 1-207: 5 Form of Reservation, states:
    "The Code does not impose any requirement as to the form of the reservation, other than it be explicit..."

    (Explicit: Fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing implied.)

    UCC 1-207: 6 Reservation by conduct, states: "Although UCC 1-207 authorizes the making of an express reservation, it is not to be deduced that there is no reservation of rights unless that section is followed. To the contrary, when the conduct of a party clearly shows that he has not waived any rights, the fact that there was no express reservation as authorized by UCC 1-207 is not significant."

    The common debtor citizen, or someone interested in the Rights of American Citizens did not write the Uniform Commercial Code or its predecessors, the Law Merchant or The Negotiable Instrument Law. The history of this Code shows that it was originally created by barbarians to codify and give the semblance of legality to "robbery" by the creditors! These documents were written by and for the benefit of creditors, without any "seperation of powers" protections, without due process for the debtor, and without respect for any equity the debtor may have invested in property that the creditor may seize. Therefore, it is imperitive that you ALWAYS reserve your rights on all signed documents.

    What does all this have to do with signing tickets, you ask?...
  10. Edward429451

    Edward429451 member

    Every scrap of paper that represents money

    in any form, such as receipts, invoices, prommissary notes, financial agreements, contracts (of which tickets are a form of), checks and so forth are subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, period.

    If there was a law that they could make you pay for speeding or whatever, then they wouldn't need your signature... Get it? By your signature on the ticket, you agree to the terms of the contract!

    I always politely ask the LEO what would happen if I refuse to sign the ticket. They usually politely tell me that I would immediately go to jail. This has threatened my liberty and puts me in a state of duress or coercien. So I sign the ticket "under duress all rights reserved UCC 1-207"

    Ever wonder why when you go to court the first thing they ask you to do is to waive your rights by signing different forms? If they ask you to sign, its red flag time, meaning do your homework first. If they could do it to you without a signature, they would, period.

    How come if you murder someone in front of an LEO, he dont ask you to sign something? Hmmmm. There's a law that says Do not Murder, Thats why.

    Theres a difference between laws and ordinances. Law says No Signature Required. Ordinances say: Sign Here, join our payment club. Most LEO's (No disrespect intended) are just glorified meter maids selling their product.

    Homework done, Rant off.:cuss:

  11. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    Legally, the UD argument is worthless.
  12. AK103K

    AK103K Well-Known Member

    I'll tell you this much, if you sign a contract with "All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice UCC 1-207", I'd be willing to bet that the people your signing with will refuse to do business with you, especially if financing is involved. I've already encountered this a couple of years back. A friend of mine, who still is fighting the IRS, and anyone else he can :rolleyes: had me try it to prove a point. It backfired and was my wife ever pissed! :) It was a contract for something she was buying. She eventually got it, but we had to go to a couple of places before we got the financing. When the boy at the bank saw that line above my signature, his eyes got wide, and he took the paper and ran out of the room. Came back in a bit with his boss and I was told that there was no way they could accept the document with that on it. He said if I wanted the loan, I'd have to sign a new contract without that on it or go elsewhere. I walked, and after trying two other places with the same result, gave up. If you want the money, you have to agree to their terms. As for the government and this issue, I dont know how it would work, unless it is tied to the commerical code.
  13. Bill Adair

    Bill Adair Well-Known Member

    "under duress all rights reserved UCC 1-207"


    Think I'll have my next order of checks printed, with that notation above the signature line. :D

    Joking aside, why would signing any document forfeit your constitutional rights?

    Can any legal contract (or document) abrogate your rights?

  14. ezoeni

    ezoeni Well-Known Member

    I dont know bill, thats why I posted this. For a discussion. and to learn.
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2003
  15. Bill Adair

    Bill Adair Well-Known Member

    Well, I'm glad you did, as it's a pretty interesting thread.

  16. AK103K

    AK103K Well-Known Member

    I believe that contract law has nothing to do with constitutional law. Your simply agreeing to the terms of the contract. Under the commerical code(UCC) you are agreeing to the terms of the code. Things have become so confusing anymore, you need a lawyer just to go to the bathroom with you to make sure the paperwork is correct. Just look at asset forfieture, its the government using civil law against you without benefit of constitutional law. I think you need to know what court your in at the time also, theres tax courts, contitutional courts, night court, kangaroo court, the food court..........mmm, I'm hungry! :)
  17. Edward429451

    Edward429451 member

    Depends on the wording of the contract. You would think not but...lets just say you better read the fine print. In legal matters such as courts or traffic tickets, absolutely yes. They usually tell you this too..."Sign here, waive that, ben dover..."

    I'm no legal eagle so you got to take this with a grain of salt and draw your own conclusions, do your own homework. I read this stuff, pretty much understand it, but is there loopholes for them? Presumeably so. Got a lawyer in the house? Hope so.

    I've used this 'tactic' maybe 6 times over the years (in court) and its worked for me exactly once. They wouldn't admit it, did find me guilty orally, and gave no official recognition of any of my rights at all. I went on the record immediately saying I was denied due process and absolutely would not recognize the legality of the courts decision or pay the extortion (fine). I left, and never heard any more about it. No payment, no bench warrant, nothing. It never made the record, I'm paying the court for something else in payments and it never showed up on the record...Years ago. Judge with a bit of conscience?

    No one hardly ever excercises their rights in court so over time they got used to just operating the system without them. Technically speaking, this stuff is the truth but its like the 2nd, you got to have a high priced lawyer to stuff it down their throats and even then they may laugh at you. So in a practical sense, wildalaska is right. Its not a defense thats viable at this point in history. Unless you're very brave or have a high priced lawyer or both, it wont get you anything but surrounded by all their machineguns and maybe dead. Then they'll splash you on the screen as a bad guy extremist type and give themselves medals for taking you down.

    It is the truth though! If they ask for your sig, there's more to it than meets the eye.
  18. Edward429451

    Edward429451 member

    Oh, BTW,

    It has everything to do with Constitutional law. Every scrap of paper that represents monetary value in any way is subject to the UCC...But you have to wade through the volumes of legalese to connect it just like the tax code. Lots of exceptions, exclusions, procedure and timing to be followed to the letter or you get laughed at and lose.:banghead:
  19. hammer4nc

    hammer4nc Well-Known Member

    Good topic. There are several technical legal concepts that fall into this category, i.e.:

    Your name in "capital letters" on legal documents = a legal entity that has no constitutional rights;

    Gold fringe on court flags = military tribunal, not bound to observe US constitution;

    United States citizenship, vs. citizen of a soveriegn state, relative to constitutional rights and governmental powers.

    On the internet, you can find practitioners of these devices saying its the key to avoiding taxes, prosecution, or other laws they don't like. These are very interesting to read and discuss, yes?

    On various bulletin boards, the pragmatists come forward to reject these arguments out of hand, and point to the poor idiots who have ended up in jail because they tried to use said devices. However, you will note that most of the pragmatists are members of the law-related industry (attorneys, cpa's, etc.), who make quite a nice living from the "status quo". Yet, they never seem to be willing or able to argue against the concept on a legal basis; only on the practical results. Hence disparaging references to "fringers" that some may remember.

    Likewise, when someone raises these issues in court, you would think the judge would praise the person for taking the time to research the letter of the law, and provide a direct explanation refuting or supporting the argument. Instead, I have observed judges getting very irate, ignoring the question, and prohibiting any further discussion as "irrelevant", and very soon threatening a contempt citation!

    All the above leads me to the conclusion that the "rule of law" is a term paraded by the establishment when it suits their purpose; in reality "the law" is no more than what they want it to be...these days measured in revenue generated, or behavior required.

    And the second conclusion, is the law is only as good as what can be forced on the population, which makes the second amendment so important.
  20. AK103K

    AK103K Well-Known Member

    This pretty much sums it up. If your not up on every little thing, you will be bit in the ass, and it can be a very hard bite. I still dont see that its truly tied to Constitutional law though. If you have to waive a right in the "letter" of the contract, and the other party wont accept your "without predjuice" signature, you either walk and do without or sign and get(and loose, at the same time). Its all a game, its all tied to money, that part I'll agree with, then again, everything is about money, the more someone denies this, the more its true. This also goes for all the people pushing you to "bail out, stop paying taxes, etc. There is a lot of money being made with these, for lack of a better word, "scams". I've seen a number of them, and know people involved with them, some are in jail, or have gone to jail, and some dont pay taxes, and so far havent gone to jail, but they are playing that dangerous game of cross the "I" and dot the "T", and for their sakes, I hope they win, but at this point, it will be a hollow victory as they are loosing their health due to the battle, and have already lost most of their friends and familys. If you want to play at this, be ready to commit everything you have to it, your time, health, money, family, and friends. You may win(some of, or maybe all) the battles, but in the long run, I think you'll lose the war.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page