Thread: Constitutional Law Conversation .... Alberto Gonzales ;)

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Well, what the exchange demonstrates is not a lack of knowledge of constitutional law, but rather the fact that Gonzales understands full well that such constitutional guarantees do not apply to federal subjects or non-citizens, as was made clear in the Slaughterhouse cases.

I keep trying to explain to you guys the implicit rights waiver connected to the acceptance of the privilege of federal citizenship, as the franchise agreement in a UCC agreement and therefore requires (under sec. 1-207) a reservation of any rights one wishes to retain. Those who have not made their rights reservations in a specific and timely manner have acquiesced to the implicit waiver and instead have only the privileges and immunities that the federal entity wishes to extend. Have you always been careful to make your reservation of rights? Have you ever made a reservation of rights?

For those who still don't follow what I'm saying, allow me to clarify the nature of the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government. The Constitution is the compact between the People of the several republic states. The Constitution's protections are relative to the relationship between the federal entity and the People and their states. Just as it does not apply to the relationship between the federal entity and foreign governments, neither does it apply to the relationship between the federal entity and itself and its subjects, other than to specify that the federal government has sole authority over the District and its possessions and territories. If you identify as a US citizen rather than as a citizen of your state, you are identifying as that special status created by Amendment XIV, Sec. 1. You are then among those specified in the Slaughterhouse cases as being federal subjects and not accruing the direct protections of the Constitution and the natural rights it protects. since pretty much everyone (and particularly every holder of an SSN) is identified as a federal citizen from birth by one or another agreement, if you are an American reading this you are probably a federal subject. Have you ever noticed that almost any agreement you sign now requires that you affirm that you are a "U.S. resident"? Even contests include that stipulation in the rules. The "U.S." that is being referred to is the federal legislative democracy, as defined in Black's.

Okay, so this was a long explanation, but the point is that you should never dismiss a dangerous person like Alberto Gonzales as being ignorant. What may appear to be a case of misunderstanding of the law on his part is in fact a misapprehension of the way that some minor exceptions allowed in the Constitution have been parlayed into a means of subverting the intent of the Constitution without techincally changing or violating a word of it.

Complete nonsense.

First, though, I'll agree that Alberto's claims do not stem from his misapprehension of constitutional law. He probably does understand it, choosing to ignore it for political purposes and convenience and the love of power.

But listen to me. The Uniform Commercial Code in its entirety, including the little-cited reservation of rights clause, simply strives to make uniform the commercial law of the states, including sales, secured transactions, and commercial paper, such as checks, drafts, promissory notes and the like. The aim is to streamline commerce so it's less cumbersome, to the benefit of all.

The UCC has absolutely no, as in "none" "nada" "zippo", application to anything Alberto's concerning himself with or divorcing himself from.

The remainder of your claims truly require an enlargement of the meaning of "bizarre".

Nothing you've set forth in your post is taught in any bar-accredited law school. And should it ever be so, the law school in scenario would be placed on an accelerated fast-track to lose its accredited status.

You could dissuade me of my position were you to supply me with the cite to a single court case, appellate or lower, or a single law review article, from among the 180 or so ABA-accredited law schools, that supports your position.

That is to say, you cannot dissuade me.

But I issue the challenge. What authority, other than the synapitic impulse preceding your typing fingers, do you have to support your position?

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Well, what the exchange demonstrates is not a lack of knowledge of constitutional law, but rather the fact that Gonzales understands full well that such constitutional guarantees do not apply to federal subjects or non-citizens, as was made clear in the Slaughterhouse cases.

I keep trying to explain to you guys the implicit rights waiver connected to the acceptance of the privilege of federal citizenship, as the franchise agreement in a UCC agreement and therefore requires (under sec. 1-207) a reservation of any rights one wishes to retain. Those who have not made their rights reservations in a specific and timely manner have acquiesced to the implicit waiver and instead have only the privileges and immunities that the federal entity wishes to extend. Have you always been careful to make your reservation of rights? Have you ever made a reservation of rights?

For those who still don't follow what I'm saying, allow me to clarify the nature of the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government. The Constitution is the compact between the People of the several republic states. The Constitution's protections are relative to the relationship between the federal entity and the People and their states. Just as it does not apply to the relationship between the federal entity and foreign governments, neither does it apply to the relationship between the federal entity and itself and its subjects, other than to specify that the federal government has sole authority over the District and its possessions and territories. If you identify as a US citizen rather than as a citizen of your state, you are identifying as that special status created by Amendment XIV, Sec. 1. You are then among those specified in the Slaughterhouse cases as being federal subjects and not accruing the direct protections of the Constitution and the natural rights it protects. since pretty much everyone (and particularly every holder of an SSN) is identified as a federal citizen from birth by one or another agreement, if you are an American reading this you are probably a federal subject. Have you ever noticed that almost any agreement you sign now requires that you affirm that you are a "U.S. resident"? Even contests include that stipulation in the rules. The "U.S." that is being referred to is the federal legislative democracy, as defined in Black's.

Okay, so this was a long explanation, but the point is that you should never dismiss a dangerous person like Alberto Gonzales as being ignorant. What may appear to be a case of misunderstanding of the law on his part is in fact a misapprehension of the way that some minor exceptions allowed in the Constitution have been parlayed into a means of subverting the intent of the Constitution without techincally changing or violating a word of it.

Complete nonsense.

First, though, I'll agree that Alberto's claims do not stem from his misapprehension of constitutional law. He probably does understand it, choosing to ignore it for political purposes and convenience and the love of power.

But listen to me. The Uniform Commercial Code in its entirety, including the little-cited reservation of rights clause, simply strives to make uniform the commercial law of the states, including sales, secured transactions, and commercial paper, such as checks, drafts, promissory notes and the like. The aim is to streamline commerce so it's less cumbersome, to the benefit of all.

The UCC has absolutely no, as in "none" "nada" "zippo", application to anything Alberto's concerning himself with or divorcing himself from.

The remainder of your claims truly require an enlargement of the meaning of "bizarre".

Nothing you've set forth in your post is taught in any bar-accredited law school. And should it ever be so, the law school in scenario would be placed on an accelerated fast-track to lose its accredited status.

You could dissuade me of my position were you to supply me with the cite to a single court case, appellate or lower, or a single law review article, from among the 180 or so ABA-accredited law schools, that supports your position.

That is to say, you cannot dissuade me.

But I issue the challenge. What authority, other than the synapitic impulse preceding your typing fingers, do you have to support your position?

I have about a half-dozen actual cases in which I have applied the argument and prevailed in pretrial motions. And no, I'm not going to to hand you my identification by citing cases that I was involved in. I had another troll make that challenge before and had the dirtbag track down my home address and harass me for a couple of years. As a matter of fact, your verbiage looks familiar.

As for constitutionally guaranteed rights being inapplicable to federal citizens, review any meaningful commentary on the Slaughterhouse cases.

I'm truly not interested in your personal legal problems.

I'm just asking: can you, or can you not, cite me a single case from any court, or from any law review casenote or comment, standing for the propositiion that the Uniform Commercial Code plays any role whatsoever in the retaining or waiving any of the rights rostered in the Bill of Rights, or that the UCC informs on the issue of habeas corpus, or that somehow the Bill of Rights does not apply to all Americans equally beyond those residents of Washington, D.C.?

Just one case. Just one law review article of some sort.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

For what you've posted does not relect anything real and is incomprehensible to anyone conversant in the tenets of American jurisprudence.

In fact your argument is so bizarre, I'm not sure I've even reproduced it accurately herein. You've explained yourself in a way that cannot be explained.

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

I'm truly not interested in your personal legal problems.

I'm just asking: can you, or can you not, cite me a single case from any court, or from any law review casenote or comment, standing for the propositiion that the Uniform Commercial Code plays any role whatsoever in the retaining or waiving any of the rights rostered in the Bill of Rights, or that the UCC informs on the issue of habeas corpus, or that somehow the Bill of Rights does not apply to all Americans equally beyond those residents of Washington, D.C.?

Just one case. Just one law review article of some sort.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

For what you've posted does not relect anything real and is incomprehensible to anyone conversant in the tenets of American jurisprudence.

In fact your argument is so bizarre, I'm not sure I've even reproduced it accurately herein. You've explained yourself in a way that cannot be explained.

The Slaughterhouse cases ARE the precedent that removes the Bill of Rights from consideration within the federal zone. I'm sure that you are well aware of that fact, and it is so fundamental a premise that the internet is swimming in articles about the impact of those cases. Just do a web search.

For anyone else, the UCC most certainly DOES contain an implicit rights waiver. Its sole remedy is the reservation of rights specified under sec. 1-207. Read the section in context and its purpose is clear. Just as the Constitution has nothing to do with maritime admiralty other than establishing that the federal government could create courts to adjudicate cases in that jurisdiction (which, being a supranational code of law that by definition has nothing to do with constitutional law and vice versa), so neither does it constrain the lex mercatorum, which is the basis for the Commercial Code. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of law knows that international mercantile codes may not be modified or constrained by the domestic laws of the various nations, as they exist completely outside of the domestic legal frameworks for the purpose of uniformity. The UCC is simply the domestic codification of lex mercatorum. The UCC was not created until the various states became party to the "common debt" (also specified within the UCC) under the international lex mercatorum (because the creditors included European banks). The idea that it was foisted on the states for the purpose of uniformity is obviously not accurate, given that each state passes its own implementation of the UCC, meaning that the codes are anything but "uniform" with the exception of a handful of common and essential provisions. Differences range from numbering systems to specific verbiage to the inclusion or lack thereof of various provisions from one state to another.

While there are groups that falsely claim that the UCC has become the "supreme law of the land," that is not the literal case. The UCC itslef makes clear that it is promulgated in harmony with the Common Law. The problem is that the Common Law preserves the unlimited right to contract, and that a person is free to waive any or all rights as conditions of a contract so long as there is a tangible benefit derived from such waiver (otherwise the contract may be contested as unconscionable). However, becoming party to any of a number of commercial agreements that include performance for benefit may serve to waive rights. So long as the agreement is formally accepted and signed and (according to the terms of the UCC) so long as a party derives or exercises the benefits of the agreement, the waivers and other provisions are binding. This is a much lower threshold for enforceability than for a Common Law contract, for which a person seeking to enforce the terms must demonstrate that the other party entered into the agreement knowingly, willingly and intentionally.

But then, most people reading along really could not care less and I doubt the sincerity of the guy making the challenge.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

I'm truly not interested in your personal legal problems.

I'm just asking: can you, or can you not, cite me a single case from any court, or from any law review casenote or comment, standing for the propositiion that the Uniform Commercial Code plays any role whatsoever in the retaining or waiving any of the rights rostered in the Bill of Rights, or that the UCC informs on the issue of habeas corpus, or that somehow the Bill of Rights does not apply to all Americans equally beyond those residents of Washington, D.C.?

Just one case. Just one law review article of some sort.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

For what you've posted does not relect anything real and is incomprehensible to anyone conversant in the tenets of American jurisprudence.

In fact your argument is so bizarre, I'm not sure I've even reproduced it accurately herein. You've explained yourself in a way that cannot be explained.

The Slaughterhouse cases ARE the precedent that removes the Bill of Rights from consideration within the federal zone. I'm sure that you are well aware of that fact, and it is so fundamental a premise that the internet is swimming in articles about the impact of those cases. Just do a web search.

For anyone else, the UCC most certainly DOES contain an implicit rights waiver. Its sole remedy is the reservation of rights specified under sec. 1-207. Read the section in context and its purpose is clear. Just as the Constitution has nothing to do with maritime admiralty other than establishing that the federal government could create courts to adjudicate cases in that jurisdiction (which, being a supranational code of law that by definition has nothing to do with constitutional law and vice versa), so neither does it constrain the lex mercatorum, which is the basis for the Commercial Code. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of law knows that international mercantile codes may not be modified or constrained by the domestic laws of the various nations, as they exist completely outside of the domestic legal frameworks for the purpose of uniformity. The UCC is simply the domestic codification of lex mercatorum. The UCC was not created until the various states became party to the "common debt" (also specified within the UCC) under the international lex mercatorum (because the creditors included European banks). The idea that it was foisted on the states for the purpose of uniformity is obviously not accurate, given that each state passes its own implementation of the UCC, meaning that the codes are anything but "uniform" with the exception of a handful of common and essential provisions. Differences range from numbering systems to specific verbiage to the inclusion or lack thereof of various provisions from one state to another.

While there are groups that falsely claim that the UCC has become the "supreme law of the land," that is not the literal case. The UCC itslef makes clear that it is promulgated in harmony with the Common Law. The problem is that the Common Law preserves the unlimited right to contract, and that a person is free to waive any or all rights as conditions of a contract so long as there is a tangible benefit derived from such waiver (otherwise the contract may be contested as unconscionable). However, becoming party to any of a number of commercial agreements that include performance for benefit may serve to waive rights. So long as the agreement is formally accepted and signed and (according to the terms of the UCC) so long as a party derives or exercises the benefits of the agreement, the waivers and other provisions are binding. This is a much lower threshold for enforceability than for a Common Law contract, for which a person seeking to enforce the terms must demonstrate that the other party entered into the agreement knowingly, willingly and intentionally.

But then, most people reading along really could not care less and I doubt the sincerity of the guy making the challenge.

Just as I predicted, you can't cite a single case from any court, or a law review article by any jurist or published by any law school, not one, supporting your theory that the Uniform Commercial Code impacts habeas corpus jurisprudence and the loss of rights under the Bill of Rights.

Surely even you can see that your desperate reach for the Slaughterhouse Cases, always a favorite of fringe rightwing conspiracy theorists, cannot count: they were heard in 1872.

The UCC, a product of private enterprise, which itself didn't become law enacted by the legislatures of those states choosing to adopt it, wasn't even conceived until 1952, much less passed into law by then.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, so I'll give it another shot:

Show me one case, from any court, or a law review article published by any law school, which explains how the Uniform Commercial Code impacts habeas corpus jurisprudence or results in the loss of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Just one, Ghost.

Not your words. Those of a court or a law professor or other distinguished jurist.

As for your claim about the Bill of Rights not applying uniformly to all Americans, except those residing in Washington, D.C., why in the world are all these judges and juries and prosecutors and defense bars, in both federal and state courts, across the land, from Alaska to Florida, from Hawaii to Maine, and all points in between, "acting" as if the Bill of Rights does indeed apply to all uniformly?

Answer? The Slaughterhouse Cases did not remove the Bill of Rights from the protection of Americans. The Bill of Rights applies uniformly to all.

In sum, if you can't cite a case, or a law review article, just say so. Please spare us the warped verbosity as a product of your own mind.

Again, I'm asking for a case or law review article.

Not your "stuff".

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

I'm truly not interested in your personal legal problems.

I'm just asking: can you, or can you not, cite me a single case from any court, or from any law review casenote or comment, standing for the propositiion that the Uniform Commercial Code plays any role whatsoever in the retaining or waiving any of the rights rostered in the Bill of Rights, or that the UCC informs on the issue of habeas corpus, or that somehow the Bill of Rights does not apply to all Americans equally beyond those residents of Washington, D.C.?

Just one case. Just one law review article of some sort.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

For what you've posted does not relect anything real and is incomprehensible to anyone conversant in the tenets of American jurisprudence.

In fact your argument is so bizarre, I'm not sure I've even reproduced it accurately herein. You've explained yourself in a way that cannot be explained.

The Slaughterhouse cases ARE the precedent that removes the Bill of Rights from consideration within the federal zone. I'm sure that you are well aware of that fact, and it is so fundamental a premise that the internet is swimming in articles about the impact of those cases. Just do a web search.

For anyone else, the UCC most certainly DOES contain an implicit rights waiver. Its sole remedy is the reservation of rights specified under sec. 1-207. Read the section in context and its purpose is clear. Just as the Constitution has nothing to do with maritime admiralty other than establishing that the federal government could create courts to adjudicate cases in that jurisdiction (which, being a supranational code of law that by definition has nothing to do with constitutional law and vice versa), so neither does it constrain the lex mercatorum, which is the basis for the Commercial Code. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of law knows that international mercantile codes may not be modified or constrained by the domestic laws of the various nations, as they exist completely outside of the domestic legal frameworks for the purpose of uniformity. The UCC is simply the domestic codification of lex mercatorum. The UCC was not created until the various states became party to the "common debt" (also specified within the UCC) under the international lex mercatorum (because the creditors included European banks). The idea that it was foisted on the states for the purpose of uniformity is obviously not accurate, given that each state passes its own implementation of the UCC, meaning that the codes are anything but "uniform" with the exception of a handful of common and essential provisions. Differences range from numbering systems to specific verbiage to the inclusion or lack thereof of various provisions from one state to another.

While there are groups that falsely claim that the UCC has become the "supreme law of the land," that is not the literal case. The UCC itslef makes clear that it is promulgated in harmony with the Common Law. The problem is that the Common Law preserves the unlimited right to contract, and that a person is free to waive any or all rights as conditions of a contract so long as there is a tangible benefit derived from such waiver (otherwise the contract may be contested as unconscionable). However, becoming party to any of a number of commercial agreements that include performance for benefit may serve to waive rights. So long as the agreement is formally accepted and signed and (according to the terms of the UCC) so long as a party derives or exercises the benefits of the agreement, the waivers and other provisions are binding. This is a much lower threshold for enforceability than for a Common Law contract, for which a person seeking to enforce the terms must demonstrate that the other party entered into the agreement knowingly, willingly and intentionally.

But then, most people reading along really could not care less and I doubt the sincerity of the guy making the challenge.

Just as I predicted, you can't cite a single case from any court, or a law review article by any jurist or published by any law school, not one, supporting your theory that the Uniform Commercial Code impacts habeas corpus jurisprudence and the loss of rights under the Bill of Rights.

Surely even you can see that your desperate reach for the Slaughterhouse Cases, always a favorite of fringe rightwing conspiracy theorists, cannot count: they were heard in 1872.

The UCC, a product of private enterprise, which itself didn't become law enacted by the legislatures of those states choosing to adopt it, wasn't even conceived until 1952, much less passed into law by then.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, so I'll give it another shot:

Show me one case, from any court, or a law review article published by any law school, which explains how the Uniform Commercial Code impacts habeas corpus jurisprudence or results in the loss of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Just one, Ghost.

Not your words. Those of a court or a law professor or other distinguished jurist.

As for your claim about the Bill of Rights not applying uniformly to all Americans, except those residing in Washington, D.C., why in the world are all these judges and juries and prosecutors and defense bars, in both federal and state courts, across the land, from Alaska to Florida, from Hawaii to Maine, and all points in between, "acting" as if the Bill of Rights does indeed apply to all uniformly?

Answer? The Slaughterhouse Cases did not remove the Bill of Rights from the protection of Americans. The Bill of Rights applies uniformly to all.

In sum, if you can't cite a case, or a law review article, just say so. Please spare us the warped verbosity as a product of your own mind.

Again, I'm asking for a case or law review article.

Not your "stuff".

If you knew the first thing you would know that when you challenge a charge based on reservation of rights or the lack of existence of an underlying UCC agreement, there is no case to cite because the case is thrown out before it ever gets to trial. If you don't make the motions, all the assertions of rights and other nonsense won't save your arse. That's why so many of these idiots claiming that the income tax violates the Constitution end up being convicted on all charges. It's a foreign venue.

I'm not going to pollute this thread with the reams of legal arguments that would be necessary to make this point and that you would just try to dance around while providing nothing in the way of your own argument. I have already provided the cases that demonstrate, for example, that all traffic and vehicle licensure laws are promulgated under the Commercial Code in another thread. Go look it up.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Bamajdphd

I'm truly not interested in your personal legal problems.

I'm just asking: can you, or can you not, cite me a single case from any court, or from any law review casenote or comment, standing for the propositiion that the Uniform Commercial Code plays any role whatsoever in the retaining or waiving any of the rights rostered in the Bill of Rights, or that the UCC informs on the issue of habeas corpus, or that somehow the Bill of Rights does not apply to all Americans equally beyond those residents of Washington, D.C.?

Just one case. Just one law review article of some sort.

I guarantee you that you cannot.

For what you've posted does not relect anything real and is incomprehensible to anyone conversant in the tenets of American jurisprudence.

In fact your argument is so bizarre, I'm not sure I've even reproduced it accurately herein. You've explained yourself in a way that cannot be explained.

The Slaughterhouse cases ARE the precedent that removes the Bill of Rights from consideration within the federal zone. I'm sure that you are well aware of that fact, and it is so fundamental a premise that the internet is swimming in articles about the impact of those cases. Just do a web search.

For anyone else, the UCC most certainly DOES contain an implicit rights waiver. Its sole remedy is the reservation of rights specified under sec. 1-207. Read the section in context and its purpose is clear. Just as the Constitution has nothing to do with maritime admiralty other than establishing that the federal government could create courts to adjudicate cases in that jurisdiction (which, being a supranational code of law that by definition has nothing to do with constitutional law and vice versa), so neither does it constrain the lex mercatorum, which is the basis for the Commercial Code. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of law knows that international mercantile codes may not be modified or constrained by the domestic laws of the various nations, as they exist completely outside of the domestic legal frameworks for the purpose of uniformity. The UCC is simply the domestic codification of lex mercatorum. The UCC was not created until the various states became party to the "common debt" (also specified within the UCC) under the international lex mercatorum (because the creditors included European banks). The idea that it was foisted on the states for the purpose of uniformity is obviously not accurate, given that each state passes its own implementation of the UCC, meaning that the codes are anything but "uniform" with the exception of a handful of common and essential provisions. Differences range from numbering systems to specific verbiage to the inclusion or lack thereof of various provisions from one state to another.

While there are groups that falsely claim that the UCC has become the "supreme law of the land," that is not the literal case. The UCC itslef makes clear that it is promulgated in harmony with the Common Law. The problem is that the Common Law preserves the unlimited right to contract, and that a person is free to waive any or all rights as conditions of a contract so long as there is a tangible benefit derived from such waiver (otherwise the contract may be contested as unconscionable). However, becoming party to any of a number of commercial agreements that include performance for benefit may serve to waive rights. So long as the agreement is formally accepted and signed and (according to the terms of the UCC) so long as a party derives or exercises the benefits of the agreement, the waivers and other provisions are binding. This is a much lower threshold for enforceability than for a Common Law contract, for which a person seeking to enforce the terms must demonstrate that the other party entered into the agreement knowingly, willingly and intentionally.

But then, most people reading along really could not care less and I doubt the sincerity of the guy making the challenge.

Just as I predicted, you can't cite a single case from any court, or a law review article by any jurist or published by any law school, not one, supporting your theory that the Uniform Commercial Code impacts habeas corpus jurisprudence and the loss of rights under the Bill of Rights.

Surely even you can see that your desperate reach for the Slaughterhouse Cases, always a favorite of fringe rightwing conspiracy theorists, cannot count: they were heard in 1872.

The UCC, a product of private enterprise, which itself didn't become law enacted by the legislatures of those states choosing to adopt it, wasn't even conceived until 1952, much less passed into law by then.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, so I'll give it another shot:

Show me one case, from any court, or a law review article published by any law school, which explains how the Uniform Commercial Code impacts habeas corpus jurisprudence or results in the loss of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Just one, Ghost.

Not your words. Those of a court or a law professor or other distinguished jurist.

As for your claim about the Bill of Rights not applying uniformly to all Americans, except those residing in Washington, D.C., why in the world are all these judges and juries and prosecutors and defense bars, in both federal and state courts, across the land, from Alaska to Florida, from Hawaii to Maine, and all points in between, "acting" as if the Bill of Rights does indeed apply to all uniformly?

Answer? The Slaughterhouse Cases did not remove the Bill of Rights from the protection of Americans. The Bill of Rights applies uniformly to all.

In sum, if you can't cite a case, or a law review article, just say so. Please spare us the warped verbosity as a product of your own mind.

Again, I'm asking for a case or law review article.

Not your "stuff".

[1] If you knew the first thing you would know that when you challenge a charge based on reservation of rights or the lack of existence of an underlying UCC agreement, there is no case to cite because the case is thrown out before it ever gets to trial.

[2] I'm not going to pollute this thread with the reams of legal arguments that would be necessary to make this point and that you would just try to dance around while providing nothing in the way of your own argument. I have already provided the cases that demonstrate, for example, that all traffic and vehicle licensure laws are promulgated under the Commercial Code in another thread. Go look it up.

Of course you cannot provide any cites to any cases or law review articles as requested.

They do not exist.

That's why it was so easy to make my prediction that you would cite absolutely nothing. Thank you for proving my point, Ghost, not that there was anything you could do about it.

[1] Your claims are getting more bizarre, Ghost. If a case gets thrown out of court, the losing side doesn't just go home. The loser appeals from the lower court's judgment to the appellate court, which then hands down its opinion. In some states, there are a couple more levels of appeals involved, each rendering its decision to be reviewed by the court above.

Surely, in all of the land, at least one of the losers to your orphaned theory, involving the phantom hobglobin you've come up with (where the innocuous UCC allegedly interacts with habeas corpus review and the restriction of the Bill of Rights to only certain Americans) appealed their loss, didn't they? If so, you'd have appellate precedent, all the way up the appeals ladder. But even if they didn't appeal, surely you can provide us the cite to a single lower court, just one, whose judgment produced this UCC-arguing loser, can you not?

Of course you cannot. What you've conjured does not exist.

[2] You've not provided a single case, nor a single law review casenote, not a single law review comment, nor a single scholarly article by a single respected jurist pertaining to the matter's you've asserted. Not a one.

My argument against your position is that you alone think the way you do; which is to say, no court anywhere has rendered any decision supporting your claims, nor has it been written about in any law review.

My argument has thusly gone unrebutted by you -- for you've provided precisely no cites, whatsoever, just as I initially postulated would invariably be your inevitable fate.

Alright, you're being buttheaded now, because you well know that any case that is won on a jurisdictional basis HAS NO TRIAL PRECEDENT per se because it does not go to trial. So OF COURSE there is no precedent for cases won on the basis that a reservation of rights or non-acceptance of benefit on pretrial motion has been demonstrated.

For those who do not understand the concept, it's pretty simple:

"It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is…a tacit admission that the court has a right to judge in the case, and is a waiver to all exceptions to the jurisdiction." Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush Ky. 8.

In other words, if the jurisdiction for a given case, say a lex mercatorum case, does not exist, there is no trial. IF, however, reservations have not been made and the presumption of acceptance of benefit without reservation of rights exists by virtue of the entering of a plea in the venue, then the issue of the waived rights CANNOT be raised in the trial and the defendant is bound by the presumption of willing acceptance of benefit and the conditions of the underlying agreement. He is bound by the specific limitations of the given venue. In a commercial case, only such rights as are addressed and reserved by the underlying agreement may be asserted.

So in trials convened under the lex mercatorum, either such issues cannot be raised at trial because a plea has been entered or else the matter is disposed pretrial on motion, meaning that there is no trial and so no precedent.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

[1] Alright, you're being buttheaded now, because you well know that any case that is won on a jurisdictional basis HAS NO TRIAL PRECEDENT per se because it does not go to trial.

[2] So OF COURSE there is no precedent for cases won on the basis that a reservation of rights or non-acceptance of benefit on pretrial motion has been demonstrated.

[3] For those who do not understand the concept, it's pretty simple:

"It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is…a tacit admission that the court has a right to judge in the case, and is a waiver to all exceptions to the jurisdiction." Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush Ky. 8.

[4] In other words, if the jurisdiction for a given case, say a lex mercatorum case, does not exist, there is no trial. IF, however, reservations have not been made and the presumption of acceptance of benefit without reservation of rights exists by virtue of the entering of a plea in the venue, then the issue of the waived rights CANNOT be raised in the trial and the defendant is bound by the presumption of willing acceptance of benefit and the conditions of the underlying agreement. He is bound by the specific limitations of the given venue. In a commercial case, only such rights as are addressed and reserved by the underlying agreement may be asserted.

So in trials convened under the lex mercatorum, either such issues cannot be raised at trial because a plea has been entered or else the matter is disposed pretrial on motion, meaning that there is no trial and so no precedent.

[1] A red herring. I never asked for "trial precedent". Know why? Because there is no such animal as your all-caps "TRIAL PRECEDENT". There are decisions of precedential weight from the trial court, but they arise regardless of whether the matter goes to trial. In fact, most cases don't go to trial and thus much of appellate jurisprudence consists of reviewing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, which were obviously granted or there'd be no loser to appeal the matter.

Second, caselaw is REPLETE with cases won -- or lost -- regarding jurisdictional issues. They're legion. Again, just because your aggrieved UCC-loser gets his case tossed out of court at the trial level, that's no impediment to his appealing it to the appeals courts, where the trial court's reasoning will be reviewed. AND YET YOU STILL CANNOT EVEN FIND A SINGLE CASE? Why do you suppose that is? I'll tell you why. Because it's a perfect reflection of the legitimacy of your "analysis": it doesn't exist either.

Third, even though you can provide not a single case or law review treatise, or anything beyond your own unique "analysis" of what you think the law is while simultaneously finding yourself unable to point to anything outside your head to corroborate what you think the law is, please explain to me how on earth "jurisdiction" now enters your analysis of whether the Uniform Commerical Code (of all innocuous things): (a) caused the Bill of Rights to be applicable to only select Americans and not uniformly apply to us all?; (b) mandated that habeas corpus petitions not be available to all Americans?; (c) resulted in the loss of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

[2] Your sentence is incomprehensibly mad. Any time a court disposes of a case, whether by granting motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss or motions to acquit as a matter of law, whatever the basis of the disposal, the court then hands down its judgment, in written form, and it, accompanied by the opinion detailing the reasons for the case's disposal, becomes precedent -- without a trial ever occuring. The disingenuous reason that you give for failing my challenge to produce a single case cite (or even a cite to a single law review article, which articles are often written in the abstract and thus need no trial or appeal as a basis for explication, and yet you can't produce even one of these sources in support of your bizarre "abstract" theory) thus falls of its own weight.

[3] This ancient case you cite is of laughable support to your claim. It's truly a non sequitur. But your claim is so bizarre, I'm gonna address it anyway. It sounds to me like the language you quoted pertains to personal jurisdiction, back then probably cited as in personum jurisdiction, as distinguished from subject matter jurisdiction, two completely different things. (The former is largely a geographical matter and can be waived, while the latter is topical and cannot be waived. In fact, as to the latter, contestants may successfully raise objections to subject matter jurisdiction even after the matter has been otherwise resolved after trial and on appeal.) So your case cite simply addresses the generally ancient civil practice fact that if a person has personally appeared before the court, even to argue the lack of jurisdiction, he's impliedly submitted himself to the court's personal jurisdiction over him. That is to say, if the defendant appeared in a Texas court, he couldn't argue that the fact of his California residence precludes the Texas court from having jurisdiction over him -- for he's already there, in the Texas court. Relatively modern revisions to the rules of civil procedure have softened this result greatly, by allowing the defendant to appear before the court for the limited purpose of contesting personal jurisdiction without also impliedly conceding such jurisdiction.

That ancient case site you gave about a defendant's waiver of personal jurisdiction by dint of his presence before the court is completely inapposite to whether the UCC has eroded the Bill of Rights, the availability of habeas corpus, or truncated the Bill of Rights' applicability to a select few Americans.

You truly don't know what you're talking about, you're just making it up.

Which is why you can't cite a single case, or a single law review article. You can't even provide a cite to AmJur or CJS or any of the ALRs, nothing.

What you've argued does not really exist, Ghost.

[4] None of this makes any sense. It exists nowhere in American jurisprudence. You've made it up. In evidence, kindly note that you cite to no case, no law review article, no legal treatise, no respected jurist. It is just a string of incomprehensible gobbledegook. Really and truly. Very very bizarre.

Perhaps, Ghost, since you've AGAIN failed to cite a single case, a single law review article, or a single legal treatise in support of your bizarre position that the UCC (of all things) plays a pivotal role in habeas corpus petitions or has worked an erosion of the Bill of Rights and an inapplicability of the Bill of Rights to all but select Americans, perhaps you can tell me this, so that I have it clearly in mind:

What do you think is the reason for your failure to provide a single case, a solitary law review article, or even one legal treatise that supports your odd claims regarding, of all things, the Uniform COMMERCIAL Code's interplay with habeas corpus law and the erosion and inapplicability of the Bill of Rights?

Then we'll check your work. For I have the key.

Here's a hint: you can't cite a single requested source because nothing of what you've written about has ever happened, on any docket, in any court, anywhere in America, ever, not even once. If you still think it has happened, why can't you provide a single case in evidence?

Strother, you are as redundant as you are inaccurate. Generally speaking, published case law in commerce DOES NOT include cases tossed out on jurisdictional grounds. Since you are so demanding of a precedent, why don't YOU provide an example of commercial case law in which a case was tossed out purely on jurisdictional grounds related to subject matter jurisdiction?

You also ignore that it is not uncommon for certain cases that do not go to open trial to be sealed. This has happened in a number of cases in which an associate of mine in Ohio has acted as legal counsel. The rules are much different under the commercial jurisdiction than they were under our old system of substantive due process which, for example, why judges in such courts have been known to threaten contempt of court if the process of jury nullification is mentioned to a jury. It is also why jury nullification is precluded in the jury instructions in most of our courts today.

Your counterclaim in item [3] is entirely presumptive, and you even admit that you have no idea of the circumstance of the ruling. Nevertheless, the FACT of the ruling and its effect are clear. Once one has entered a plea he has accepted jurisdiction of the court in question. What's more, you call it an "ancient" case as if temporal proximity has anything to do with validity. Ah, but then if you were aware of the fact that the creation of the domestic commercial jurisdiction obviated many of the common law decisions before 1937, then and only then would your comment make sense. But if that is the case, then your entire harangue is disingenuous because that would mean that you KNOW that a new jurisdiction not bound by earlier federal court precedent (before FDR's Federal Rules Act) exists. And of course we have established this many times in the past.

If you want to continue the discussion, then do so via PM. I am not going to further hijack or disrupt this thread, whose subject is Alberto Gonzales.