Thread: Lou Dobbs: No Impeachment

'll give you a hint. I'm just as old as my twin sister

Wrong! She was born first methinks.

Originally Posted by loservillelabor

'll give you a hint. I'm just as old as my twin sister

Wrong! She was born first methinks.

We have the same age, you smart one
That's what I meant. She was born first, but that was just your guess.

2ndamendsis wrote:
Gus
that would really depend on whether or not Cassie is even old enough to be in the tax world.


I DO pay tax ! It's very insulting what you said ! I also contribute to this nation by paying my tax and voting in almost any election. And how old I'm ?? 'll give you a hint. I'm just as old as my twin sister

Cassie,
that was by no means an insult so please don't be rude or act like a little child taking a temper tantrum. I have no idea if you're old enough to pay taxes....but you already knew that. My impression from your writing is that you are not. However, I held an open mind and didn't judge.

Now that you are old enough to pay taxes, it's time that you also learn about the foundation of our country. Why you pay taxes and exactly what your taxes are being used for by government. It would also be very productive for you to learn how your taxes are funding ILLEGAL ALIENS while they are sucking dry that which should be used for our citizens in need. If this continues, Cassie, you will be taxed into poverty yourself and have to move to PFrance to survive.

2ndamendsis wrote:

Cassie,
that was by no means an insult so please don't be rude or act like a little child taking a temper tantrum. I have no idea if you're old enough to pay taxes....but you already knew that. My impression from your writing is that you are not. However, I held an open mind and didn't judge.

sorry, I apologize if you experienced me being rude. I've repeatedly said that I'm a mother of 2 kids, work part time. This must indicate that you should know that I pay tax.

Now that you are old enough to pay taxes, it's time that you also learn about the foundation of our country. Why you pay taxes and exactly what your taxes are being used for by government. It would also be very productive for you to learn how your taxes are funding ILLEGAL ALIENS while they are sucking dry that which should be used for our citizens in need. If this continues, Cassie, you will be taxed into poverty yourself and have to move to PFrance to survive.

But we agree on this issue.
You should know by now how I think and what I believe.

1 - I told that illegals should not get any benefits.

2- We must build a fence to prevent illegals from entering our country

3 - companies that hire illegals should be fined

4 - amnesty for the illegals already here - neutral stance

This is what I think, it's clear that I oppose illegals getting my tax money.

CASSIE
let me ask you a very important question.

You are neutral on those ILLEGALS that are here.

Are you aware of how many people will be invading our country TAKING YOUR TAX MONEY if they are allowed to stay?

This is extremely important for you to think about. The reason being is that most people are not aware of the ramifications of an AMNESTY/GUEST WORKER that the Dems want just as much as many Repubs.

It's in the NUMBERS as well.

Also:
Are you aware of the number of Americans and Legal Residents that are killed by ILLEGALS?

These 2 questions might help you a great deal in your future decisions.

2ndamendsis wrote:

CASSIE
let me ask you a very important question.

You are neutral on those ILLEGALS that are here.

I'm busy answering you other posts in a word document, and will meanwhile answer this post. I think that the 4 points I made are very clear. Yes, I have a neutral stance on those illegals already here.

If they get deported - fine with me
If they get amnesty - fine with me too

I oppose NEW illegals entering this country.
those here, are just here. They should not receive any benefits.

Are you aware of how many people will be invading our country TAKING YOUR TAX MONEY if they are allowed to stay?

We must build that fence first, then we can propose amnesty or deportaion. But Boosh talked about amnesty while the border is still wide open. How stupid could he be ??? amnesty for the ones already here cost me nothing when they receive no benefits at all. The benefits to illegals must be stopped, it's consuming my tax money, it's my money and I prefer to spend it on my kids,and not some illegal alien.

This is extremely important for you to think about. The reason being is that most people are not aware of the ramifications of an AMNESTY/GUEST WORKER that the Dems want just as much as many Repubs.

didn't we have an amnesty in 1985 ? This was wrong because the border was wide open, and now we have 10 million illegals asa result. Close the border, build the fence, put the national guard on the border, and then we can discuss deportation or amnesty. It's not going to work if the border remains open. We have the busiest border in the world, and it's wide open. That's crazy.

Are you aware of the number of Americans and Legal Residents that are killed by ILLEGALS?

I don't know

CASSIE
where are you from?

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

CASSIE
where are you from?

Originally the same city as my twin sister
City of Angels, not living there anymore.
Moved to Sac few years ago.
My husband and I will be moving to Ga this year due to his work.

Originally Posted by cassie

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

CASSIE
where are you from?

Originally the same city as my twin sister
City of Angels, not living there anymore.
Moved to Sac few years ago.
My husband and I will be moving to Ga this year due to his work.

That should be interesting...

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

CROCKET

this thread has gotten so off the beaten track but I'll twist it a bit more since one of my pet peeves was already mentioned.

Having several of the Justices go public {without shame I might add} admitting that their opinions are influenced by International Law BEFORE our U.S. Constitution {which is unConstitutional from the get-go}

? In your opinion, is the Uniform Commercial Code {UCC} based in any part on international mercantile law?

Let me add some food for thought to any who might be reading this thread: The above information pertaining to the Supremes & international law is, imo and not humbly, where the underpinnings of our Constitution are being dismantled. International Law is the foundation of all the enemies of the US of A.

Yeah, the UCC is the domestic codification of the lex mercatorum, which is the international commercial code. There were a couple of meaningless concessions made for the domestic version (the UCC), such as the provision at 1-103 that says:

“The Code is complimentary [sic] to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.”

But since the Common Law permits unlimited right to contract, all that has to happen is for an individual or group to be suckered into an underlying contract whose provisions include a rights waiver. That removes the potential recourse relative to the given right or rights waived, and is the reason that I had previously made the statement challenged by our visitor that reservations of rights and jurisdictional or subject matter challenges determine whether a case can be tried under that jurisdiction or whether there is a legitimate Common Law question. In the event that there is a sound agreement pursuant the UCC in force or that an unsound agreement is not challenged as such, any litigation relative to that agreement or any conduct or performance pursuant that agreement is subject to the mercantile jurisdiction, which has nothing to do with our Constitution or domestic Common Law. In that respect, the more relevant precedent for the purpose of stare decisis is that found in so-called "international law" and not in older Common Law cases or in constitutional law. The applicability of mercantile or administrative law to a citizen is continent on either the person engaging in privileged activity subject to administrative regulation or the existence of an underlying contract or agreement that moves the person into the realm of commerce and commercial law. A good example of this is the conversion of the right of travel into the "privilege" of driving. Driving is defined in statute as the operation of a motor vehicle and the motor vehicle is defined as a self-propelled carriage used in transportation. That's where they get you. Transportation is uniformly defined in statute as the movement of persons or goods for hire. So they either move you into commerce by having you self-describe your activity as commercial or by compelling performance under a contract or agreement whose terms you probably don't even know. Did you know the entirety of the Social Security Act and its implementing regulations when you signed that agreement, for example? So what you are looking at is compelled performance and self-described status as chattel or of one's activities as regulated commercial activities.

I'm sure our little naysayer will have all sorts of commentary, but you can easily do the research of terms like transportation in your state's code, and you can read through the UCC and see that it is about collateral, performance, and titles or other commercial paper. In international law, commercial paper is not limited to what we normally think of, but may include collateralization of future labor (indentured servitude) or just about any other property, commodity or activity that can used as chattel or collateral. What people have trouble wrapping their heads around is that they have in many cases unwittingly pledged themselves, their property, their labor or other activites as collateral and are therefore subject to compelled performance. For those who may not understand that term, compelled performance is the legally enforceable actions (such as obeying the regulations for a privileged activity, as in traffic laws), payments, transfers or other promised term of a contract or agreement which would ordinarily constitute a violation of one's rights. In other words, you could ordinarily never be subjected to criminal prosecution for an act for which there is no injured party, yet speeding is prosecuted as a criminal offense without the need for an injured party because it is prosecuted under commerce a a violation of promised performance. The agreement is your licensure, which is why the state is the aggrieved party.

I know some of this is pretty involved, but if you have any specific questions I will try to answer them.

1. You say:

I know some of this is pretty involved, but if you have any specific questions I will try to answer them.

"Involved" isn't the right word. But yes, I have some questions. And comments.

Preliminarily, nothing you've addressed here comes remotely close to demonstrating that the UCC supposedly applies in any manner to govern this illegal immigrant lady's sweepstakes situation; indeed, your point is a non sequitur. In short, nothing you've addressed here supports your claim that the UCC applies to sweepstakes at all.

No wonder you've not cited to a single case, law review article, or legal treatise to support your position that the UCC in any manner governs this illegal immigrant lady's sweepstakes issue or even applies to sweepstakes at all.

Further your infamous "standard UCC rules statement" remains an uncited orphan concept, save for its authoring by your typing fingers, which isn't to say that this infamous "document" is distinguished by any of your other claims. Because, in fact, you cite to nothing, period, other than one single reference to the UCC itself, discussed immediately below at "2.", which is embarrassingly irrelevant to anything we're discussing.

2. You say:

Yeah, the UCC is the domestic codification of the lex mercatorum, which is the international commercial code. There were a couple of meaningless concessions made for the domestic version (the UCC), such as the provision at 1-103 that says:

“The Code is complimentary [sic] to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.”

First, your citation proves nothing, absolutely nothing, and has no bearing whatsoever on whether the UCC applies to the illegal immigrant's sweepstakes issue, or to sweepstakes at all.

Second, your representation to the contrary, that's not what UCC 1-103 states. At all!

Contrast, for yourself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-103.html

You know who does represent UCC 1-103 as saying what you say?

As it relates to the UCC, it's the rightwing, tax-protesting, posse comitatus type groups who fear that fringes on the courtroom flag bespeak some hidden clue as to the court's "real" jurisdiction:

See it here:

http://link.toolbot.com/google.com/58401

Adjusting your cut-and-pasted typo "complimentary" for 'complementary" produces no meaningful difference.

In sum, your UCC sec. 1-103 simply does not exist.

But Ghost, what do you think "common law" means and is? Be sure to answer that. You offered. I accepted. We have a contract! Do you know that common law is essentially just the body of caselaw that exists from the various jurisdictions? And that the Uniform Commercial CODE, for example, is simply a "CODIFICATION" of the common law elements thought to be either most efficacious or an improvement upon them?

Consider this, from Uniform Commercial Code, an esteemed hornbook by the veneable White and Summers, in Section 2 of the Introduction, entitled "Sec. 2. Commercial Law Not Covered; Freedom of Contract", pp 5-6:

The Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to the sale of realty or security interests in realty (except fixtures), yet these are undeniably commercial matters. The Code does not apply tothe formation, performance, and enforcement of insurance contracts. It does not apply to suretyship transactions (except where the surety is a party to a negotiable instrument) It does not govern bankruptcy. It does not define legal tender. It is not a comprehensive codification of commercial law. The Code does not even cover all aspects of transactions to which its provisions do apply. For example, it includes several innovative provisions on the formation of sales contracts, but it still leaves most issues of contract formation to non-Code law"

In the next paragraph, White and Summers state the following:

Unless displaced by the particular provisions of this act, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principle and agent, estoppel, fraurd, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, or other validating or invalidating cause shall supplement its provisions.

The Official Comment to the UCC further states: "The listing given in this section ismerely illustrative; no listing could be exhaustive."

Continuing:

As Professor Grant Gilmore once put it, the Code "derives from the common law" and "assumes the contintuing existence of a large body of pre-Code and non-Code law on which it rests for support, without which the Code "could not survive". Much of the pre-Code and non-Code law to which Professor Gilmore refers is case law from such fields as contracts, agency, and property.

[/quote]

3. You say:

But since the Common Law permits unlimited right to contract, all that has to happen is for an individual or group to be suckered into an underlying contract whose provisions include a rights waiver.

First, this has no bearing whatsoever on the alleged applicability of the UCC to resolve the illegal immigrant lady's sweepstakes issue, and no bearing whatsoever to the UCC's application to sweepstakes period.

Second, the common law has NEVER permitted an unlimited right to contract. Rules regarding prostitution and contracts to kill and sell alcohol have long been forbidden in most jurisdictions. The pre-Code common law also included limits on the extent to which a minor, a drunk, or an addled mother could contract, and this list could go on and on. But there's never been an unlimited right to contract.

Second, even today, under the UCC, the parties to a contract for the sale of goods are in most cases allowed to opt out of the UCC provisions by their private agreement to do so.

See this comment to UCC 1-103:

These principles include the ability of the parties to vary the effect of the provisions of Article 2A, subject to certain limitations including those that relate to the obligations of good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care (Section 1-102(3)). Consistent with those principles no negative inference is to be drawn by the episodic use of the phrase "unless otherwise agreed" in certain provisions of Article 2A. Section 1-102(4). Indeed, the contrary is true, as the general rule in the Act, including this Article, is that the effect of the Act's provisions may be varied by agreement. Section 1-102(3). This conclusion follows even where the statutory analogue contains the phrase and the correlative provision in Article 2A does not.

4. You say:

[A] rights waiver [under 1-207] removes the potential recourse relative to the given right or rights waived, and is the reason that I had previously made the statement challenged by our visitor that reservations of rights and jurisdictional or subject matter challenges determine whether a case can be tried under that jurisdiction or whether there is a legitimate Common Law question.

This is complete nonsense.

First, I'll note that you still have not demonstrated how this makes the UCC applicable to sweepstakes, which it is not, or how it resolves the issue of the illegal immigrant lady's sweepstakes issue, which it doesn't.

Second, could you kindly supply one cite to any tribunal anywhere, or any law review article, anywhere, or to any legal treatise, anywhere, or to any respected jurist anywhere, to show that someone sane believes as you believe?

Third, the reservation of rights at UCC 1-207 is innocuous. Only fringe rightwing conspiracy sites believe it's the equivalent of The Fall.

Here's what the text of UCC 1-207 states:

A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to perfromance in a mannder 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.

What's that mean? The Official Comment sets forth its "purpose" as follows:

This section provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines contemplated by the contract despite a pending dispute[.] This section does not add any new requirement of language or rservation where not already required by law, but merely provides a specific measure on which a party can rely as he makes or concurs in any interim adjustment in the course of performance.

That's it. That's all there is to your scary reservation of rights provision in the UCC.

Finally, this sentence of yours, "[R]eservations of rights and jurisdictional or subject matter challenges determine whether a case can be tried under that jurisdiction or whether there is a legitimate Common Law question. , makes absolutely no sense.

Tell me what you think determines the triable difference between "a legitimate common law question," and a case that can be tried under "that jurisdiction."

This is such gobbledegook that it's like having someone explain Avagardo's number in the context of chemotherapy and the quarterback rating of Rex Grossman. It's just nonsense, mere typing.


5. You say:

\In the event that there is a sound agreement pursuant the UCC in force or that an unsound agreement is not challenged as such, any litigation relative to that agreement or any conduct or performance pursuant that agreement is subject to the mercantile jurisdiction, which has nothing to do with our Constitution or domestic Common Law.

First, this has absolutely no bearing on how YOU THINK the UCC applies to the illegal immigrant's sweepstakes issue, which it doesn't, or on how YOU THINK the UCC applies to sweepstakes at all, which it doesn't.

Second, no citation to any authority whatsoever. None.

Third, it's just gibberish, which is why you can cite to nothing.

It should be easy as pie to find a case (if it existed) showing where UCC agreements, with or without the reservation of rights, means that the case thus has "nothing to do with our constitution or domestic common law."

But there is not one single case or law review comment or any authority whatsoever to support this ridiculous claim of yours. Not one.

Finally, what do you think "mercantile jurisdiction" means?

I'm here to tell you that is also a fantasy of your imagination. All courts of general jurisdiction may hear commercial cases. Your "mercantile jurisdiction" doesn't exist in this country, leastways as some sort of stand-alone court system.

6. You say:

In that respect, the more relevant precedent for the purpose of stare decisis is that found in so-called "international law" and not in older Common Law cases or in constitutional law.

Again this has nothing to do with the issue; namely whether, as you errantly claim, the UCC resolves the illegal immigrant lady's sweepstakes winnings or whether the UCC, as you further ignorantly claim, applies to sweepstakes at all. The answer is no on both counts.

But here, and I'll let slide that you're woefully misusing the term "stare decisis," if you're right and you know what the "more relevant precedent is", WHY DON'T YOU KINDLY PROVIDE ME WITH A CITE TO THAT PRECEDENT.

We know the answer to that is simply because you cannot. It doesn't exist. Anywhere.

7. You say:

The applicability of mercantile or administrative law to a citizen is continent on either the person engaging in privileged activity subject to administrative regulation or the existence of an underlying contract or agreement that moves the person into the realm of commerce and commercial law. A good example of this is the conversion of the right of travel into the "privilege" of driving. Driving is defined in statute as the operation of a motor vehicle and the motor vehicle is defined as a self-propelled carriage used in transportation. That's where they get you. Transportation is uniformly defined in statute as the movement of persons or goods for hire. So they either move you into commerce by having you self-describe your activity as commercial or by compelling performance under a contract or agreement whose terms you probably don't even know. Did you know the entirety of the Social Security Act and its implementing regulations when you signed that agreement, for example? So what you are looking at is compelled performance and self-described status as chattel or of one's activities as regulated commercial activities.

This obviously does not resolve the issue at hand, as I've reiterated in each of the subject headings above.

Somehow you believe your (absolutely BIZARRE) discussion on drivers licenses and social security numbers bears on this UCC discussion, which is doubtlessly a belief shared by fringe rightwing Freeman type sites, but which is not a tenet addressed by any court, any law review article, any legal treatise, any respected jurist, anywhere in the land. Only you and your fringe ilk believe as you do.

8. You say:

I'm sure our little naysayer will have all sorts of commentary, but you can easily do the research of terms like transportation in your state's code, and you can read through the UCC and see that it is about collateral, performance, and titles or other commercial paper.

You got that first part right. But if you're gonna make a claim, back it up.

Don't put the onus of supporting your beyond-outlandish claims on the readers of this board. It's your duty to support what you say, nobody else's.

Nobody disputes that the UCC is about "collateral, performance, and titles or other commercial paper." [Except to correct you yet again and tell you that "titles" are NOT "other commerical paper". Commercial paper consists of such things as checks, drafts, promissory notes, and certificates of deposit.]

So why are you writing about it as if it were so disputed?

Because you're just typing, that's why.

9. You say:

In international law, commercial paper is not limited to what we normally think of, but may include collateralization of future labor (indentured servitude) or just about any other property, commodity or activity that can used as chattel or collateral. What people have trouble wrapping their heads around is that they have in many cases unwittingly pledged themselves, their property, their labor or other activites as collateral and are therefore subject to compelled performance. For those who may not understand that term, compelled performance is the legally enforceable actions (such as obeying the regulations for a privileged activity, as in traffic laws), payments, transfers or other promised term of a contract or agreement which would ordinarily constitute a violation of one's rights. In other words, you could ordinarily never be subjected to criminal prosecution for an act for which there is no injured party, yet speeding is prosecuted as a criminal offense without the need for an injured party because it is prosecuted under commerce a a violation of promised performance. The agreement is your licensure, which is why the state is the aggrieved party.

It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. There are no cites to ANYTHING.

And it truly is too insane to discuss. Which is not to say that your other typing rants possessed any cogency, but to say that my threshold for tolerating this bizarritude has been surpassed.