Erie RR and the UCC
From:
<mailto:becraft@hiwaay.net>Larry Becraft
To: <mailto:freedomfight@egroups.com>freedomfight@egroups.com
Sent:
Wednesday, May 17, 2000 2:10 AM
Subject:
Erie RR and the UCC
To whom it may concern,
It appears that the old, discredited theory regarding the Erie RR case
is surfacing all over again. For example, just tonight there has been
circulating on the Net the URL to a web site which asserts as follows:
”What was the effect and the significance of the Erie RR. v. Thompkins
case decision of 1938? The significance is that since the Erie decision,
no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1939. There can be no
mixing of the old law with the new law.”
The meaning and effect of the decision in Erie RR is claimed to be that of
approval of some national declaration of bankruptcy. This opinion has
nothing to do with this matter and you are invited to read the case:
<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=304&amp;invol=64>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol04&amp;invold
Is it true that cases decided before 1938 may not be cited by American
courts today? This is a ludicrous idea and I encounter decisions rendered
all the time citing pre-1938 cases. To quash this erroneous idea, I quote
a portion of the recent decision by the Supremes in the case of US. v.
Brzonkala, decided a couple of days ago:
As we observed in Lopez, modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence has
”identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate
under its commerce power.” 514 U.S., at 558 (citing Hodel v. Virginia
Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 276 277 (1981);
Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150 (1971)). “First, Congress may
regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.” 514 U.S., at 558
(citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 256
(1964); United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 114 (1941)). “Second,
Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even
though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.” 514 U.S., at
558 (citing Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v.
United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911); Perez, supra, at 150). “Finally,
Congress’ commerce authority includes the power to regulate those
activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, & i.e.,
those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” 514 U.S.,
at 558 559 (citing Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 37).
As you can easily see, cases from 1911 and 1914 are cited here. To contend
that cases prior to 1939 cannot be cited by American courts today is
greatly in error. You may read the decision in Brzonkala here:
<http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZO.html>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/995.ZO.html
The same web site asserts that the Erie RR case was needed to set up the
national bankruptcy, which included the states. This is rather remarkable,
because just 2 years before the 1938 Erie RR case, the Supremes decided
the case of Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist., 298 U.S.
513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936), which held that State governments and their
political subdivisions can’t use bankruptcy. You may read that case here:
<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&amp;vol=298&amp;page=513
>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navbyÊse&court=us&amp;vol)8&amp;pageQ3
This idea regarding “national bankruptcy” and the UCC being the foundation
for everything legal today has been around for at least 10 years. Not only
is it incorrect, it has also been litigated in the following cases:
1. Jones v. City of Little Rock, 314 Ark. 383, 862 S.W.2d 273, 274
(1993)(In reference to traffic tickets, the court stated, “The Uniform
Commercial Code does not apply to any of these offenses”)
2. United States v. Stoecklin, 848 F.Supp. 1521 (M.D. Fla. 1994)
3. Barcroft v. State, 881 S.W.2d 838, 840 (Tex.App. 1994)(“First, the UCC
is not applicable to criminal proceedings; it applies to commercial
transactions”)
4. United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Tex. 1996)(also
raised flag and common law court issues)
5. United States v. Andra, 923 F.Supp. 157 (D.Idaho 1996)(“The complaint
filed by the plaintiff is not a negotiable instrument and the Uniform
Commercial Code is inapplicable”)
6. Watts v. IRS, 925 F.Supp. 271, 276 (D.N.J. 1996)(“The IRS’s Notice of
Intent to Levy is not a negotiable instrument”)
7. United States v. Klimek, 952 F.Supp. 1100 (E.D.Pa. 1997)(returning
lawsuit complaint marked “Refusal For Cause Without Dishonor UCC 3-501”
and refusing other court pleadings “for fraud” based upon UCC argument got
nowhere; also raised nom de guerre and flag issues)
8. City of Kansas City v. Hayward, 954 SW2d 399 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997).
Of course, you are within your rights to believe this legal theory. But I
am also within my rights when I state that it is predictable that this
theory will be rejected by the courts: not because of some conspiracy, but
because the theory is wrong.
Please remember, there are lots of erroneous legal arguments found on the
Net. This theory regarding the UCC is one of them and constitutes nothing
but legal “science fiction.”
Larry Becraft
Get paid for the stuff you know!
Get answers for the stuff you don’t. And get $10 to spend on the site!
http://click.egroups.com/1/2200/2/_/19987/_/958557052/