[landons nana] Tweet: @originalmarkz: I have been obscenely busy today. That doesn't change that the news is STILL great!
[zaneandres] Ok so I am gonna drop what I got today. Then we can see what Mark may have to say.
[zaneandres] President has now stopped the RV for the 21st time. He is kind of in a rock and a hard place. On one hand the world is wanting and needing this. On the other hand there are people that do not want this. It can't be stopped forever but people are running around like rats in a corporate takeover.
[landons nana] zaneandres well not what I was hoping for lol
[zaneandres] CL went to the world court and is playing hardball and essentially gave him 2 days to comply. The US has already paid billions in committed UST notes so if he does not sign off on their release then the checks will bounce so to speak. This can't happen.
[zaneandres] If the world court issues an order against him, criminal, then he will more than likely be impeached right away.
[wingnaprayer] zaneandres Keep going....getting better grin
[speedracer] zaneandres don't know the exact number, but yes, O is the hold-up
[speedracer] has been for at least 3 years that I know of
[zaneandres] So I think this week things are coming to a head and he has a decision to make. But you bet in his mind he is thinking that if I sign off I will be treated like JFK and if not I will take down the US financially and be impeached.
[Digs] zaneandres never gonna happen......
[zaneandres] Digs, what will never happen?
[Digs] zaneandres impeachment for non action
[zaneandres] Well if the World Court issues an issue for his arrest for international crimes we would have to
[speedracer] zaneandres who says that taking down the US economy isn't the objective............
[zaneandres] If he does not sign off on the UST notes/Asset Backed, then we as a country have committed some serious crimes/fraud
[weimar] no offense, but world court takes a very long time to do anything
[roudy] The RV/CE was stopped again by the power controller. No one, that I know of , knows who that is. It is now PAUSED, not delayed, and Tony agreed with this action. Tony's call could have been any call in the last 6 months, IMO. Every call has been ANY DAY NOW excused. Are we closer to release? YGIAGAM (Your guess is as good as Mine)
TINK » June 4th, 2014, 9:04 pm
To call in dial..(760) 569-7699 and pin# 156996#
SPECIAL RECORDING BY FRANK26 ......6-4-14
Jaybird: I WANTED TO DROP BY AND SAY HAVE ANY OF U HEARD WHAT FRANK SAID TONIGHT… HE SAID HE THINKS THERE WORKING ON AN IR NOW….I NTERNATONAL RATE NOW WE JUST CANT SEE IT YET
FRANK 26 CC TONIGHT
TropicalrockStar: Why do we need to write “All right’s reserved” and “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207” over account application signature?
post by AmazingLamont :
"All Right Reserved" may not be sufficient to preserve your rights. no
Personally, I will sign all documents as follows: Without prejudice UCC 1-207
Write this in just above your signature; your signature MUST be the last thing on the document.
This is a provision under the Uniform Commercial Code that reserves your rights under common law.
It does a few things for you.
•It prevents your rights under common law from being forfeited.
•It prevents any terms of the contract that are not directly written in the contract from being implied or enforced.
•It protects you from terms of a contract that are agreed to under duress or force; something you have no real choice in.
I understand that the Federal version of the UCC has been updated and is now UCC 1-301.
However, almost every state has adopted and codified the UCC; look it up for your state.
1-207. Performance or acceptance under reservation of rights.
(1) A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest" or the like are sufficient.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.
Once again, I am not an attorney! Check with your own attorney for legal advice.
Ozark76: let's say there was something implied in a contract you were signing, that was not readily obvious, nor explicitly stating in writing. Nevertheless, the other party is holding you to it. By using "all rights reserved" before your signature invoking UCC 1-308 protections, you have shielded yourself to only being liable for the word-to-word provisions of the contract, and have not accepted any "compelled benefits" or liabilities that were not explicitly stated.
(It also leaves an open loophole for common law remedies where none would have otherwise existed.)
It does NOT invalidate the terms of the contract. You are explicitly bound by the contract only, not implied or unstated crap.
UCC 1-207 was replaced over 10 years ago.
It is now UCC 1-308: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308
EFrantz: All right's reserved........
This is a habit of people whose paranoia exceeds their legal knowledge, people who often feel very strongly that they are smarter than the system and are one step away from wearing tinfoil hats so the government doesn't steal their thoughts.
The legal meaning of the term is that no rights are waived except those expressly stated in the document. Example: If I offer you $100 for your property that you claim I damaged, "without prejudice" means that my offer is just an offer of money but is not an admission of guilt.
In your case, it won't change anything. If the document waives your right to sue for neglect, then writing "without prejudice" won't change that, despite the amateurs who insist that it is important.
You can sign the document, or you don't sign it. If you don't sign it, or if you put conditions that are unacceptable to the school, then your daugher can be blocked from the trip.