Time: Sun Oct 12 05:22:12 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA10961;
	Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:28:45 -0700 (MST)
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA06546;
	Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:24:12 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:23:23 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: Uniform Commercial Code

There are several reasons why this is the case:

1.  the numbers get changed, but the concepts do not;

2.  "All Rights Reserved" appears everywhere:
    book credit pages, movie credits, software screens;

    you will now begin to notice this phrase all over the place! :)

3.  the UCC itself defines which nomenclature is "sufficient";
    "all rights reserved" and "without prejudice" are both 
    stated to be synomymous and sufficient;

4.  a debate rages about creating the presumption that you are
    in commerce, if you cite the UCC by chapter and verse;
    although there are ways around this, in pleadings,
    it is best to remove doubt by avoiding "UCC" and "1-207"

5.  the UCC cannot be used to preclude a common law action,
    and the UCC is complementary to the common law, unless
    the latter is expressly supplanted;  thus, "All Rights"
    would necessarily embrace the Seventh Amendment right
    to trial by jury, in common law proceedings.

Remember, the Seventh Amendment is supreme Law, and that
means that Congress can do nothing whatsoever to alter or
amend the terms used in that amendment.   The term 
"suits at common law" is an essential concept in the Seventh
Amendment, and that term can only be amended by three-fourths
of the Union states.  Obviously, then, "All Rights" would
embrace the fundamental Right to trial by jury in suits
at common law.  Such a fundamental Right is already 
expressly reserved to the People, by the Tenth Amendment.

By expressly stating "All Rights Reserved without Prejudice",
you are simply reminding others that you stand on this
fundamental Law, rather than to opt into the absolute
legislative democracy of the federal zone, where the
guarantees of the Constitution operate if and only if
Congress legislates those guarantees into existence,
via federal municipal statutes.  For authority, see
Hooven & Allison v. Evatt (1945):  the guarantees of
the Constitution extend to the federal zone ONLY as
Congress makes those guarantees applicable, by statute.
Hooven extended the Downes Doctrine, by allowing selected
portions of the Constitution to operate there, but 
ONLY by legislative fiat, not by fundamental Right.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 12:25 AM 10/12/97 -0400, you wrote:
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>Paul Mitchell disagrees that you should write 1-207 rights reserved.  His
>opinion is that it is better to write: All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice.
>  For further discusson on this, see Paul Mitchell (lawyer) at:

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail