UNLAWFUL: The city says this obviously fake toy gun is too real.
Posted on 01/17/2012 5:54:29 PM PST by massmike
Now this is a real stickup!
The owner of a discount store in Brooklyn says the city is holding him up for $30,000 in fines he can’t afford — all because he stocked six toy sheriff sets that included plastic guns.
And now the .44-caliber fines for the orange-tipped, obvious fakes are forcing him to close for good. “It doesn’t make any sense,” said Khaled Mohamed, 23, manager of 99¢ Target in Flatlands, which has been ordered to pay a staggering $5,000 fine for each gun offered for sale — the maximum under the law.
The rule is designed to prevent cops from mistaking the toys for the real thing — and shooting an innocent kid — and to thwart criminals from using them to commit crimes. Retailers can get around the law by making sure the toy guns are brightly colored.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
UNLAWFUL: The city says this obviously fake toy gun is too real.
I can go out and buy an electronic game where the object is to kill people, I can playthis game day and night until my mind is pickled with the people I have killed in this game, yet I cannot buy a toy pistol.
This is so fuggedup it isn’t funny.
Is somebody taking these Stalinists to court?
This “law” is arbitrary, subjective, and unenforceable.
Tell Brooklyn to screw off!
I wonder if he still hearts NY.
I remember when NYC police arrested some kids for playing with cap or water guns 43 years ago. It appears that the NYPD has a great fear of children with toys.
Anyone who would even do gun business there is insane.
Ain’t big government grand?
Learn the law...
See my tagline...
UCC 1-103 & 1-207
UCC 1-207 is “Remedy” from Colorable Statutory Law and UCC 1-103 is your
“Recourse”!!! Use UCC 1-207 to reserve your right and 1-103 to argueyo ur
rights, under the Common Law, in court. State must produce a “flesh and blood” damaged party!!
U.C.C. 1-207:4 Sufficiency of reservation.
Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as
“without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reservation,” or “with reservation of
all our rights.”
The Code states an “explicit” reservation must be made. “Explicit” undoubtedly
is used in place of “express” to indicate that the reservation must not only be
“express” but it must also be “clear” that such a reservation was intended.
The term “explicit” as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means “that which is so clearly
stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.”.. ..
U.C.C. 1-207:7 Effect of reservation of rights.
The making of avalid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person
then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of
waiver or estoppel....
U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation
thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion at a later date....
U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.
The Code is “Complementary” to the common law which remains in forceexcept 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.... “The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law action.”
EXAMPLE
My use of “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207” near my
signature on this document indicates that Ihave exercised
the “Remedy” provided for me in the Uniform Commercial
Code in Book 1 at Section 207, whereby I have reserved
my Common Lawright not to be compelled to perform
under any contract, and/or agreement, or bankruptcy that I
have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all
administrative agencies of government — national, state and
local — that I do not, and will not, accept the liability
associated with the “compelled” performance of any unrevealed
commercial agreement, and/or contract, or
bankruptcy.
Perhaps some experts here can educate us on this:
Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution defines the kinds of judicial power the courts have:
1. common law
2. equity
3. admiralty
4. maritime
At the common law - a crime exists only when there is a victim with actual damages like a broken arm.
In equity - otherwise known as civil law a private contract is or agreement is involved. For an action to be brought there must be a breach of contract and damages.
Maritime - or commercial contract law originates in the rules of trade upon the high seas between international merchants and is enforced by military organizations.
Admiralty - is armed enforcement of the laws of commerce(the law merchant)
All birth certificates, licenses, registrations, insurances, bank accounts, permits, titles, deeds, etc. are commercial contracts created under the UCC - (Uniform Commercial Code) and this is where the confusion begins. Most people do not know that commercial law cannot regulate private dealings between civilians much less where to draw the line.
Where does one draw the line?
The Uniform Commercial Code
The Uniform Commercial Code was adopted by all states in 1964 making it the supreme law of the land. Take a look in the first part of every Federal and State code books and you will the find the Uniform Commercial Code consistent throughout.
UCC 1-103.6 defines how contract law must be in compliance with the rules of the common law providing there is made a knowing reservation of common law rights.
“The Code is complimentary 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.” (UCC 1-103.6)
What’s the remedy?
“The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel.” (UCC 1-207.7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. “I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!”, the judge will most likely say, “You mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court!” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say “I demand my Constitutional Rights?” No. The proper answer is: “THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN.” You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say...
“When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date.” (UCC 1-207.9)
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
“The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice”. (UCC 1-207.4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: “Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4).” This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing “without prejudice UCC 1-207” on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!
Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
When you use “without prejudice UCC 1-207” in connection with your signature, you are saying, “I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.”
UCC 1-207. Performance or acceptance under Reservation of Rights.
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.
Like this:
“WITHOUT PREJUDICE” UCC 1-207”
First-Middle:Last
Your autograph is among your most valuable assets. It is not a good idea to autograph a contract without reserving your rights. If you must carry a driver’s license you should get a new one with a reservation of rights above your autograph on the license itself. As a matter of fact it is wisest to reserve your rights in any agreement, just in case there is some small print that suggests waiver of your God given freedom.
NOTE:
UCC 1-308 now replaces UCC 1-207
More here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/general-discussion/2504-common-law-ucc-1-308-a.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/78775/does-anyone-sign-their-name-without-prejudice-ucc-1-308
Does anyone sign their name “Without Prejudice UCC 1-308”?
Submitted by juliusbragg on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 22:41
in
• Daily Paul Liberty Forum
0 votes
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:mv1pVTb0QdwJ:www.consti...
note: in 2004 U.C.C. 1-207 was changed to U.C.C. 1-308.
I have a stamp that I ordered that says “without prejudice U.C.C 1-308”.
I carry it everywhere, and anything I sign has the stamp. They say a stamp is better than just writing it, because it shows premeditation of your concern.
Rules of Admiralty
Submitted by rhythmhawk on Tue, 11/10/2009 - 16:32.
After reading the posts/comments concerning “UCC 1-207/308”, I am left with the conclusion that many simply do not know the truth about this “Article”, nor about our “true” legal system.
To begin with, all lawyers, and judges, are “officer’s of the court”, therefore, they work for the very system that has been thieving from this nation for almost 100 years; they truly DO NOT work for you or your best interests!! (That would be an automatic “conflict of interest on thier part because they are “officer’s of the court”.)
Secondly, all courts work for the “state”, which in turn, works for the “corporate government” - remember, the US government is a “corporation”, therefore,
**The ‘United States’ has always been a “legal fiction” corporation. See: Republica v. Sween, 1 Dallas 43 & 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)**
Now, here comes the “slippery-slope” of “legalese”: The Constitution was never intended for the US citizen!! Proof of this statement can be found at Padelford, Fay, & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah [14 Georgia 438, 520].
Wherein the judges’ decision clearly stated: “But indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he [the private person] is not a party to it.”
The Constitution was converted into a “trust”, which is possessed by the King of England (now Queen of England) and the Holy Roman Church. Everything you “think” that you “own” actually belongs to the one(s) who possess the “trust”.
The “Trustees” are all federal and state public officials, which means that they are “agents” of a foriegn power.
If I have gleaned your full attention, then you will desire to learn more - especially if you wish to regain your sovereignty!! Please note, I never have and never will asked for any type or form of compensation for the research that I do. Why? Because you, the citizens of the united States have a RIGHT to know the truth.
Here is a (virus free) link to a “pdf” file that explains this matter in great detail (31 pages). I recommend reading it, studieing it, living it. Anyone who tells you that using “UCC 1-308” to regain your sovereignty is pointless, does not know the law! Ignorance of the law is no excuse!!
The United States government is a corporation, and therefore, bound by the UCC - on all levels of government, federal, state, and local!!!
http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/09_Global/090805.Matri...
While all the information within the file is of utmost importance, pages 20 onward reveal thye “Admiralty Law” situation with which we have been living under.
Here is another (virus free) link which “ties-in” UCC 1-308; however, at the time this was written the code was UCC 1-207. Other than the “moving” of the code, nothing else has changed:
http://supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htm
Thank you for your time in reading my reply.
The sooner that placed in nuked, the better.
Anybody dumb enough to live in that marxist hell hole deserves whatever happens to them.
They accomplished exactly what they set out to do ... close the store. The gun thing was just a ruse to close the place. Probably need to check nearby competitors.
Yeah, we are supposed to feel sorry for him. He’s a small business owner. I really don’t care what his name is. He’s just a guy trying to make a living.
Democrats separate people into groups based on their races and ethnicities. Republicans separate people into groups based on their behavior. I fail to see why this guy doesn’t deserve a little sympathy.
New York City and the state of California require that toy guns (Imitation Firearms) be completely colored in Bright Orange or Bright Green. The Blaze Orange plug just isn’t enough for these jack-booted statists.
He could have opened his business in a real American city and saved himself a lot of grief.
Sorry, Mohammed. You’ve just been buttfucked by liberal New York. My advise,besides get a new job, if there are any, is to vote CONSERVATIVE, REPUBLICAN, and/or the “CLEAN OUT THE LEFTIST BASTARDS PARTY” next time.
He thought he was moving to the land of the free. No one told him there are exceptions. NYC being a big one.
"Realistic-looking imitation guns are illegal and dangerous, and just last week, a 15-year-old in Texas was killed while holding one of these guns," she said.
That's a flat-out lie.
No similarity whatsoever.
Only an insane person would live in NYC.
They were both Glocks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.