Random Thoughts – 2011-02-11 3:00 AM

 

Some times I just need to throw things out there to the world via a blog entry with the thought that I might go back and review it.

 

Thought 1 – glass 1/2 Empty/Full

If someone has drunk from the glass that’s half empty, are they doomed from ever drinking from the glass that’s half full?

My Commentary: This is all about attitude.  It’s a question that falls in the nature/nurture debate.  If you’re a half full guy then you don’t have a problem and if you’re the half empty guy then you do.  I guess this is a rhetorical question made to confront someone who has half empty attitude.

 

Thought 2 – Teleconference, Type of

a format suggestion of how to have a particular type of teleconference. I was thinking that we could have a particular type of teleconference where two people over the phone are having a conversation and the party that is being asked to give an account or an understanding of why e.g. he is Two House One Covenant. I was thinking about my Chicago friend Tom Quick that I met at the UCC conference teaching. When I was discussing this with him, he seemed generally intrigued and so I was thinking about how I could communicate this

names 1) the two way interview, or 2) the two people having an conversation with witnesses.

• No ganging up
• It’s a conversation between two people who have met in person and so the primary responsibility is between these two people
• This interview type thing resolves the question of bringing in people who might not be a good fit. i.e.
• Having these guidelines brings order to the teleconference. It’s sort of replaces the agenda with something else that still has order. By its structure it prevents the conversation from getting out of hand because it narrows down not specifically what is going to be said (we can’t know what’s on the mind of the inquisitive party until it happens … think run time) who will be having the conversation; therefore much of our expectations are well defined which gives order.
• Exercise of respecting the position of the primary people
• In the format of the interview we are with due diligence protecting our assembly and exercising our authority (quo warranto) to assemble by right.

 

Thought 3 – Filling the UCC 1

I was also thinking last night about a worry/challenge of getting my UCC filed properly. In particular how to deal with someone at the S of S’s office that won’t give you your remedy to file your UCC 1. I concluded that we should view it as an offer and make them a counter offer.  If they say “we can’t file that type or record” then your counter offer is that that S of S needs to formally reject it and if there is an extra fee involved for “rejecting a filing that has already been deemed unworthy from the clerk behind the counter” then inform them that they will pay this extra fee.   Are they rejecting you or testing you?

Other suggestions might be to go prepared e.g. bring a witness with you and (secretly?) record the encounter. The purpose for recording the conversation would be to memorialize the event and for gaining wisdom but not for “charging your brother”.

With an attitude of “the watchman on the wall”…

• On and for the record both here on earth and in heaven are you practicing law behind the counter?
  • If so are you not putting your principle in jeopardy?
• On and for the record both here on earth and in heaven are you prematurely stultifying me?
  • if I can’t get my UCC 1 filed then the stultification is premature?
• On and for the record both here on earth and in heaven are you denying me my remedy to my birth right?
  • If my birthright is bound up in my straw man / cestui que trust then I’m I not being damage by not being able to gain access to it’s funds?
• Are you going to force me to make a claim against this office?

 

Thought 4– Honorary Foreign Consul

My preliminary thoughts and research on Honorary Foreign Consul.

Consul, Definition of

consul (kon-sal), n. 1. A governmental represen­tative living in a foreign country to oversee commercial and other matters involving the representative’s home country and its citizens in that foreign country. • Because they are not diplomatic agents, consuls are subject to local law and jurisdiction. — consular (kon-sa-lar), adj. — consulship (kon-sal-ship), n.

"Consuls are commercial, not diplomatic agents. They reside abroad for the purpose of protecting the individual interests of traders, travellers, and mariners belonging to the State which employs them…. They exercise juris­diction over their countrymen, their persons are inviola­ble, their residences may be used as asylums in the case of war or tumult, and in fact they possess more than the ordinary diplomatic immunities." T.J. Lawrence, A Handbook of Public International Law 86-87 (10th ed. 1925).

"Consuls are not diplomatic agents; they perform vari­ous services for a state or its subjects in another state, without, however, representing the former in the full sense. They may be nationals of either state, and gener­ally they are made subject to the authority of the diplo­matic representative of the state for which they act. They watch over commercial interests of the state for which they act; collection information for it; help its nationals with advice, administer their property if they die abroad, and register their births, deaths, and mar­riages; they authenticate documents for legal purposes, take depositions from witnesses, visa passports, and the like." J.L. Brierly, The Law of Nations 216 (5th ed. 1955).

"The usual criterion used for the distinction between diplomats and consuls is the representative character of the former of which the latter are devoid. However, this distinction is not altogether correct. Undoubtedly diplo­matic agents have a general representative character since in all matters and relations they represent their country in the state to which they are accredited. Con­suls, on the other hand, as state organs, also represent their country in another state, but only in matters within their competence. Thus, the representative char­acter of consuls is, like their competence, specific, and secondary to that of diplomatic agents." Constantin Economides, "Consuls," in 1 Encyclopedia of Public Interna­tional Law 770 (1992).

consul general. A high-ranking consul ap­pointed to a strategically important region and often having supervisory powers over other regions or other consuls.

2. Roman law. One of two chief magistrates elected annually during the Republic to exer­cise supreme authority. • Under the Empire, the consulship was reduced to a sinecure, held by appointees of the emperor or the emperor himself.

Pg 311 Blacks 7^th.