The UCC makes our Constitution irrelevant?

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Has anybody ever looked into the "Uniform Commercial Code" (UCC) versus our constitution?

Over the last week i've started looking into this rather weird conspiracy. Essentially, these conspiracists believe we are ruled not by the constitution, but by the UCC. This allows believers to declare their sovereignty (sovereign citizen) which then exempts them from out constitution … they stop paying taxes, drive without a license or license plates and even declare in open court that the courts don't have jurisdiction of them.

This is the same conspiracy theory Wesley Snipes tried to use to not pay taxes.

This may be the strangest conspiracy theory i've come across. Has anybody done any research into this to help jump start my own research?


Redemption movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

A look at the "sovereign citizen" movement - CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/15/60minutes/main20062666.shtml
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've pretty much ignored it as it seems so ridiculous.

The UCC itself seems very limited in scope.

The entire theory seems to take the conspiracy theory habit of overly circuitous semantic interpretations, and extend it out to a ridiculous degree. It's hard to even get your head around it, it's such nonsense.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It would be interesting to see how prevalent this theory is in trutherdom/chemtraildom. On the facebook chemtrail groups I'd say I see it mentioned about as much as reptilian bloodlines.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It all sounds kind of reasonable until he gets to berth/birth. The original meaning of berth was just "enough room for the ship", essentially what "parking space" is to a car.


OED says:

Etymology: A nautical term of uncertain origin: found first in end of 16th cent. Most probably a derivative of bear v.1​ in some of its senses: see especially sense 37, quot.1627, which suggests that berth is = ‘bearing off, room-way made by bearing-off’; compare also bear off in 26 b. The early spellings byrth , birth , coincide with those ofbirth n.1​bearing of offspring, bringing forth,’ but it is very doubtful whether the nautical use can go back to a time when that word had the general sense ‘bearing’; it looks more like a new formation on bear , without reference to the existing birth .(Of other derivations suggested, an Old English *beorgþ , *beorhþ ‘protection, defence, shelter’ (see barth n.), and Icelandic byrði ‘the board, i.e. side of a ship’ (see berthv.2​), do not well account for the original sense ‘sea-room.’ The sense is perhaps better explained by supposing berth to be a transposition of northern dialect breith =breadth ; but of this historical evidence is entirely wanting.)
[h=3]1. Naut. ‘Convenient sea-room, or a fit distance for ships under sail to keep clear, so as not to fall foul on one another’ (Bailey 1730), or run upon the shore, rocks, etc. Now, chiefly in phrases, to give a good, clear, or (usually since 1800) wide berth to , keep a wide berth of: to keep well away from, steer quite clear of. Also transf. and fig.[/h]
1622 R. Hawkins Observ. Voiage S. Sea (1847) 117 There lyeth a poynt of the shore a good byrth off, which is dangerous.
1626 J. Smith Accidence Young Sea-men 24 Watch bee vigilant to keepe your berth to windward.
1627 J. Smith Sea Gram. xiii. 60 Run a good berth ahead of him.
1740 T. Woodroofe in J. Hanway Hist. Acct. Brit. Trade Caspian Sea (1762) I. 274 It is necessary to give the‥bank a good birth.
1793 J. Smeaton Narr. Edystone Lighthouse (ed. 2) 193 Giving the Lighthouse a clear birth of 50 fathoms to the southward.
1829 Scott Lett. Demonol. x. 383 Giving the apparent phantom what seamen call a wide berth.
1855 Thackeray Newcomes II. xv. 150, I recommend you to keep a wide berth of me, sir.
1870 W. Morris Earthly Paradise I. i. 17 To keep the open sea And give to warring lands a full wide berth.
[h=3]2. Naut. ‘Convenient sea-room for a ship that rides at anchor’ (Philips 1706); ‘sufficient space wherein a ship may swing round at the length of her moorings’ (Falconer).[/h]
1658 E. Phillips New World Eng. Words, Berth, convenient room at Sea to moor a Ship in.
1692 Smith's Sea-mans Gram. i. xvi. 75 A Birth, a convenient space to moor a Ship in.
1721 N. Bailey Universal Etymol. Eng. Dict., Birth and Berth [as above].
1769–89 W. Falconer Universal Dict. Marine, Evitee, a birth [expl. as above].
1781 Westm. Mag. 9 327 Perceiving neither the Isis nor Diana making any signs to follow, though both of them lay in clear births for so doing [cf. clear berthin 1].
1854 G. B. Richardson Univ. Code (ed. 12) v. 423 You have given our ship a foul berth, or brought up in our hawse.
1858 in Mercantile Marine Mag. 5 226 The ship‥may‥choose her anchorage by giving either shore a berth of a couple of cables' length.

(Hide quotations)




Thesaurus »
Categories »
[h=3]3. Hence, ‘A convenient place to moor a ship in’ (Phillips); the place where a ship lies when at anchor or at a wharf.[/h]
1706 Phillips's New World of Words (ed. 6) , Birth and Berth [see above].
1731 N. Bailey Universal Etymol. Eng. Dict., Birth and Berth [as in Phillips].
a1754 H. Fielding Jrnl. Voy. Lisbon (1755) 211 Before we could come to our former place of anchoring, or birth, as the captain called it.
1793 J. Smeaton Narr. Edystone Lighthouse (ed. 2) §266 We let go an anchor and warped the buss to her proper birth.
1801 Ld. Nelson in Dispatches & Lett. (1845) IV. 366 That the squadron may be anchored in a good berth.
1879 E. J. Castle Law of Rating 75 Certain berths for the use of steamers.


(Verb) 1.
Thesaurus »
Categories »
[h=3]a. trans. To moor or place (a ship) in a suitable position. Also refl. of the ship or sailors.[/h]
1667 S. Pepys Diary 30 June (1974) VIII. 310 The Henery‥birthed himself so well, as no pilot could ever have done better.
1673 Camden Soc. Misc. (1881) 27 We‥anchored againe, and birth'd our selves in our anchoring posture agreed on.
1871 Daily News 30 June, There was no dry dock‥where the monster ship could be berthed and cleaned.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He said you can easily look up your own stock price on the NYSE using your birth certificate. Why has nobody ever done this?

I guess the only real question here is how Jordan Maxwell makes money from this obvious nonsense.
 

Steve

Senior Member.
He said you can easily look up your own stock price on the NYSE using your birth certificate. Why has nobody ever done this?

I guess the only real question here is how Jordan Maxwell makes money from this obvious nonsense.
He sells videos and books just like good ol G.Edward Griffin.

http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/
He charges $50 a ticket for his lectures too
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Here is a link to an IRS bulletin that does a very good job of explaining some of the theories these people use: http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html (Scroll down to 'DISCUSSION OF THE “STRAW MAN” CLAIM')

This is a PDF titled '"Sovereign Citizens": Fringe In The Courtroom View attachment 199. This is an excellent article that really does a great job explaining this movement. All highlights were done by me as i read through the material.

This issue has hit close to home with me because a family member, who is EXTREMELY prone to believing ANY conspiracy theory, has started talking a lot about the "Uniform Commercial Code" and how the government is just a corporation.

Unfortunately, starting down the path of "Sovereign citizen" seems to put you at odds not only with the IRS, but with the FBI, where it is considered Domestic Terrorism: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Here is a link to an IRS bulletin that does a very good job of explaining some of the theories these people use...
The IRS is the equivalent of a Mafia extortion racket. You essentially have to "pay up, or else!". Failure to pay up can and will likely result in the same kind of tactics Mafia henchman will use to collect extortion fees - harassment, kidnapping, detainment, and possibly death, if you choose to rightfully resist their aggression. The IRS views tax resistors the same way the Mafia views extortion resistors. They are troublesome and need to be made an example out of.

It's humorous to me that anyone would link to what the IRS federal Mafia extortion racket says about tax resistors, as if it has any credibility whatsoever. Why would victims of an extortion racket defend the extortionists, unless they suffer from Stockholm syndrome?
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
It's humorous to me that anyone would link to what the IRS federal Mafia extortion racket says about tax resistors, as if it has any credibility whatsoever. Why would victims of an extortion racket defend the extortionists, unless they suffer from Stockholm syndrome?
Who is defending? Agree or disagree with the IRS or their rules, the bulletin simply explains why you will be arrested if you make a "straw man" claim. Ha Ha
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Who is defending? Agree or disagree with the IRS or their rules, the bulletin simply explains why you will be arrested if you make a "straw man" claim. Ha Ha
You're defending. The Sicilian Mafia could put up a website that simply explains why you will be kidnapped and have your legs broken if you attempt to talk your way out of paying their neighborhood "protection fees", but that doesn't make it somehow justified or right. You'd probably call the victims of a Mafia extortion racket "conspiracy theorists" for trying to argue their way out of it.

Only a clown would do that.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
I think the issue there is one of legality.
So? Openly owning other human beings as chattel slaves was once legal in this country. A lot of immoral things are legal and can be made legal, but that doesn't make it right or justified.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
But most people don't consider income tax to be anything like slavery.
No, most people have been conditioned pretty well to believe that the income tax is for their own benefit and provides essential government services, which is patently false. But that's neither here nor there.

What's important is not what people think, but what is, and the income tax represents a claim on the labor of an individual, which is essentially the same claim a slave owner makes over his slave. As such, the income tax is just another form of slavery, but better disguised and marketed to its victims.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Alternatively it is what provides you with your military (42 cents of every Federal income tax $), health care (22 cents), servicing the debt that lets you live in the lap of luxury compared to the rest of the world (10 cents), anti-poverty programmes (8.7c), education, training & social services (4.4c), your bloated Federal Govt &law enforcement takes a whole 3.9 cents of every greenback, housing & community development squander 3.3 cents, environment, energy and science spending burns up 2.9cents, agriculture, commerce & transport use up 1.5 cents, and international aid spends 1 cent of it.

So yeah - I guess you can survive without any federal military, the FBI and any federal social services.

Of course those canucks & wetbacks will probably just take you over in a few less years than they're going to anyway - but at least you won't have paid any federal income tax in the meantime!!

A quick question though - why is federal income tax wrong, but not other taxes??

I quite like the Rationalwiki article on "tax protest"
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No, most people have been conditioned pretty well to believe that the income tax is for their own benefit and provides essential government services, which is patently false. But that's neither here nor there.

What's important is not what people think, but what is, and the income tax represents a claim on the labor of an individual, which is essentially the same claim a slave owner makes over his slave. As such, the income tax is just another form of slavery, but better disguised and marketed to its victims.
I think that's essentially semantic though. There's a vast difference between someone owning you as property, being able to order you to do anything, even being able to sell you, and someone taxing you.

Taxes (of many kinds, income, sales, property, federal, state, local) are just how society works. Most people are fine with this.

How would life be better for you personally if there were no taxes at all? What would the world look like?

And what do you think about the UCC hoax?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
I think that's essentially semantic though. There's a vast difference between someone owning you as property, being able to order you to do anything, even being able to sell you, and someone taxing you.
I'm not sure the difference is that vast. The essential component of slavery is someone claiming your labor or the productive output of your labor as their own, and that's essentially what the U.S. income tax constitutes. It represents a primary claim on the labor, exchange of labor, and productive output of the labor of the American people.

Taxes (of many kinds, income, sales, property, federal, state, local) are just how society works.
Taxation is just another form of theft, and no, theft isn't the way society - or a just society - works. It's how a slave plantation works, but not a real society.

Most people are fine with this.
This is the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

How would life be better for you personally if there were no taxes at all? What would the world look like?
How would the world be better with less slavery, robbery, coercion, and violence? It would probably be a whole lot more civil and less corrupt.

And what do you think about the UCC hoax?
I'm not so sure it's a hoax to begin with.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Originally Posted by MikeC
A quick question though - why is federal income tax wrong, but not other taxes??
Straw man much?
If it seems to be only Federal Income Tax that is the problem - why is it a problem and not other taxes seems like a perfectly reasonable, relevant and valid question.

If other taxes are also a problem then just say so - if not why not.

How about addressing it, and also the information that shows just what services it does actually generate?

Comparing taxation to slavery is the real straw man. Chattel ownership of a person, usually including subsequent chattel ownership of their offspring, controlling who they can marry, where they live, the ability to split up families by selling members, the legal right of life and death without due process - if you equate these to taxation for the running of a civil society then you are, IMO, engaging in sophistry.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
The essential component of slavery is someone claiming your labor or the productive output of your labor as their own ...
Using your logic, is your relationship with your employer also slavery? You work for "X" dollars per hour. Your employer sells your productivity for an amount greater than your rate of pay (profit). Put another way, you're being paid less than the real value of your labor, your employer is laying claim to a portion of your labor (the profit). Is profit a form of slavery?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
So you'd abolish all taxes then? How would that work?
I'd abolish all non-voluntary, coercive taxes, yes.

What do you mean, how would that work? I think not having people impose taxes on me through violence and try to steal my labor would work just fine.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
If it seems to be only Federal Income Tax that is the problem - why is it a problem and not other taxes seems like a perfectly reasonable, relevant and valid question.
Who says the federal income tax is the only problem? I certainly didn't.

You framed your question as a logical fallacy, so would should I answer it?

If other taxes are also a problem then just say so - if not why not.
All coercive taxation is a problem, but I find the income tax to be especially outrageous.

How about addressing it, and also the information that shows just what services it does actually generate?
What information? The income tax doesn't generate revenue for anything necessary or essential. In fact, the people of the United States did just fine without an income tax, all the way up to 1913.

Comparing taxation to slavery is the real straw man. Chattel ownership of a person, usually including subsequent chattel ownership of their offspring, controlling who they can marry, where they live, the ability to split up families by selling members, the legal right of life and death without due process - if you equate these to taxation for the running of a civil society then you are, IMO, engaging in sophistry.
What's "civil" about a society based on coercive taxes collected through threats of violence, detainment, and death? If your marriage to a woman was kept together through threats of violence, detainment, and death, would you also consider that a "civil marriage"?

Don't be ridiculous.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Using your logic, is your relationship with your employer also slavery? You work for "X" dollars per hour. Your employer sells your productivity for an amount greater than your rate of pay (profit). Put another way, you're being paid less than the real value of your labor, your employer is laying claim to a portion of your labor (the profit). Is profit a form of slavery?
This is nonsense, not logic.

My employer voluntarily offered me a compensation package in exchange for my services. I voluntarily accepted. I give my employer my mental and physical labor, while my employer gives me a paycheck and benefits. It's a voluntary exchange for both parties.

How is that in any way similar to the income tax, which is based on an involuntary basis?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'd abolish all non-voluntary, coercive taxes, yes.

What do you mean, how would that work? I think not having people impose taxes on me through violence and try to steal my labor would work just fine.
What taxes specifically would you leave? And what would you do to the people who refused to pay those taxes?
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
The essential component of slavery is someone claiming your labor or the productive output of your labor as their own ...

Using your logic, is your relationship with your employer also slavery? You work for "X" dollars per hour. Your employer sells your productivity for an amount greater than your rate of pay (profit). Put another way, you're being paid less than the real value of your labor, your employer is laying claim to a portion of your labor (the profit). Is profit a form of slavery?

This is nonsense, not logic.

My employer voluntarily offered me a compensation package in exchange for my services. I voluntarily accepted. I give my employer my mental and physical labor, while my employer gives me a paycheck and benefits. It's a voluntary exchange for both parties.

How is that in any way similar to the income tax, which is based on an involuntary basis?


So it comes down to voluntary/involuntary? Not whether ...

... someone claiming your labor or the productive output of your labor as their own ...
...?

You can avoid taxes if you chose to run into the wilderness and live off the land in a grass hut some place. You won't be taxed for catching a fish in a stream so you can eat. Of course you wouldn't have electricity, roads, emergency services, or any form of communication or infrastructure. But the bright side is, while you're out there banging two rocks together, at least you wouldn't be a slave to taxes. Then again, maybe you would ponder whether paying taxes is a fair trade for all the amenities of modern life.

Now, if your beef is not whether paying taxes is a fair trade for our standard of living, but rather, whether government wastes our taxes on things you don't wish to pay for, then that's a whole 'nother issue with which we would have common ground.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
What taxes specifically would you leave? And what would you do to the people who refused to pay those taxes?
Nothing, as there would not be any coercive taxation.

I have no problem with lotteries, direct user fees, and other forms of "taxation" that are completely voluntary.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
You can avoid taxes if you chose to run into the wilderness and live off the land in a grass hut some place. You won't be taxed for catching a fish in a stream so you can eat. Of course you wouldn't have electricity, roads, emergency services, or any form of communication or infrastructure. But the bright side is, while you're out there banging two rocks together, at least you wouldn't be a slave to taxes. Then again, maybe you would ponder whether paying taxes is a fair trade for all the amenities of modern life.
Why should I have to flee my home to avoid the State's extortion racket? How does that justify extortion?

If the Mafia knocked on your door and demanded 20% of your earnings per month to "protect" you and when you objected they said, "well, you do have a choice, you can either pay up or run away!". Would that somehow make their extortion scheme OK? What if they justified their extortion scheme by saying, "hey, this is the price you have to pay for living in a nice neighborhood"? Would that make it OK?

Now, if your beef is not whether paying taxes is a fair trade for our standard of living, but rather, whether government wastes our taxes on things you don't wish to pay for, then that's a whole 'nother issue with which we would have common ground.
No, my beef is that coercive, involuntary taxation is theft, and no society should be based on theft.

I've never once in my life heard or read a good argument to the contrary.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Interesting. So presumably the military and the police force would be paid for by lottery?
If there has to be a government, military, and police, then yes, the money would have to come through voluntary measures like lotteries, user fees, donations, etc... If enough money can't be raised through voluntary means to fund those things, then there won't be a government and those services simply won't exist. The people will have basically voted with their money. The market can then provide alternatives.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
And what about schools, social security, and medicare? All abolished?
The private sector can provide those services just as well as the government can. After all, the government can't pay for any of those services without stealing the money from the private sector first.

Without a government in place stealing trillions of dollars in tax money, the people will have more of their own money to send their kids to private schools, save for retirement, and medical care.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If there has to be a government, military, and police, then yes, the money would have to come through voluntary measures like lotteries, user fees, donations, etc... If enough money can't be raised through voluntary means to fund those things, then there won't be a government and those services simply won't exist. The people will have basically voted with their money. The market can then provide alternatives.
That would be interesting. But it seems rather unlikely to happen based on it being entirely unlike all of human history. Are there any practical goals you might work towards, or is this really just all theoretical?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Without a government in place stealing trillions of dollars in tax money, the people will have more of their own money to send their kids to private schools, save for retirement, and medical care.
Except for the unemployed, of course. Their children will go without an education, and hence not get a job.

Your position is extreme. Most people do not hold this position. I'm afraid it's not going to happen.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
That would be interesting. But it seems rather unlikely to happen based on it being entirely unlike all of human history.
I'm not sure how the past is relevant here or a good indicator of human potential. If we look back through history, we can see that mankind has never traveled to Mars. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that mankind can't or won't ever travel to Mars, it just means that mankind hasn't yet developed the technology and understanding to travel to Mars. It's certainly doable, though.

Are there any practical goals you might work towards, or is this really just all theoretical?
That depends. What would you consider "practical"?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Except for the unemployed, of course. Their children will go without an education, and hence not get a job.
Why would someone be unemployed? Why would they stay that way? Why do you believe that a person can only educate himself by attending a formal school? Who put that idea in your head?

Your position is extreme.
What's "extreme" about advocating for a society based on voluntarism, the non-aggression principle, and non-violence?

Most people do not hold this position. I'm afraid it's not going to happen.
At one time, "most people" believed the world was flat. How did that work out?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
If there has to be a government, military, and police, then yes, the money would have to come through voluntary measures like lotteries, user fees, donations, etc... If enough money can't be raised through voluntary means to fund those things, then there won't be a government and those services simply won't exist. The people will have basically voted with their money. The market can then provide alternatives.
Then there would be no police. People don't voluntarily pay for things that benefit others as much or more than themselves. Rational self interest dictates that individuals try to pay less than the next guy if they both derive the same benefit irrespective of contribution. The net result is that no voluntary payments are made for collective benefits. The market alternative in the policing arena is that the guy with the deepest pockets that buys best private security team makes the laws.
 
Top