Talk:Uniform Commercial Code

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Conspiracy Theories

I contend that this article should mention the ...ah... interesting theories some sections of the U.S. far right have about the UCC, so I added the following:

The Uniform Commercial Code plays an significant part in the legal theories of far right groups such as Christian Patriots and Posse Comitatus. The "redemption movement" even claims that the Uniform Commercial Code is now "actually the supreme law of the land".[1]

(The Christian Patriots and Posse Comitatus (U.S. movement) articles both mention the UCC, and the quote comes from Beyond Redemption, a Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report from Winter 2002.)

User 68.89.176.128 (talk · contribs) has just deleted the whole section with the edit comment:

Conspiracy Theory section rather unilateral and unfounded. Also based soley on one organization's judgment. If you're going to post one verdict, let the other side speak. Audi alteram partem.

I'm going to undo the deletion, because I don't see that there are two sides here. I'm not aware of anyone denying that some far-right groups have constitutional/legal theories about the UCC. I can find other reliable sources for this stuff if needed. (I tried to keep the section short to avoid giving it "undue weight".) Perhaps the anon is claiming that these theories are not conspiracy theories? (But those theories which I've read about all do involve conspiracies.) What do other editors (especially the anon) think?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely about the conspiracy section being deleted! It's this kind of thinking that would delete anything on any page relating to Christianity because he believes it is "crack pot". I would like to read Much More on these theories, whether they are conspiracy or not. If the section gets too big for this article, then I propose that a new page dedicated to the subject should be created.--96.13.59.176 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this section short

I've just trimmed the "Conspiracy Theories" section a bit, because it seemed to have grown into WP:UNDUE territory. This real topic of this article is an interesting piece of legislation, not the conspiracy theories. (Hmm. Maybe it's because I live in another Federation of States that I find the Uniform Code stuff interesting.) One day, I hope, Wikipedia will have good articles about the various groups with odd ideas about the UCC, and that section will basically be a list of those articles. Until then, let's put info about the beliefs and history of those groups into the articles about those groups, not in this article. Thanks, CWC 16:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with editor CWC that the conspiracy theories section should be kept to a minimum in this article, for the reasons CWC stated. Wikipedia has done the same thing with tax protester theories (frivolous arguments about U.S. Federal income tax law) in the articles on taxation. We keep the tax protester stuff to a minimum in the articles on taxation, and set up separate, specific articles for the tax protester stuff. Otherwise you do have an "undue weight" problem, as most conspiracy theories (and all tax protester theories) are extreme fringe theories. Yours, Famspear 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to support deleting this section entirely. Wikipedia is not a place for every crackpot theory on the internet. This is an example of some wackos who try to cheat people and banks out of money. We don't have an article for every bank heist in history. If these groups are substantial enough to warrant an entry, their theories should be listed there, linked to the UCC.

This section should be deleted, because nobody really knows what they are babbling about, based upon what I see here. As far as "wackos" trying to cheat people and banks out of money, there are no reliable sources here that state who and how this happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.55.97 (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the section. It's material doesn't seem to be appropriate for this article, and perhaps for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogburt (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the deletion of the Conspiracy Theory section. A quick search will show all sorts of UCC related conspiracy theories and related fraudulent schemes. The videos concerning UCC on Youtube with the highest view counts are all conspiratorial in nature for example claiming UCC applies everywhere on the planet. It should remain on the page if only on the offchance someone is considering in doing something fraudulent UCC related, comes across the article and is discouraged from doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.149.134 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

References / Notes

This is the first article where the reference section is blank. There are notes instead. Is this a format specifically designed for one type of article?Lgkkitkat (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories, again.

Here in Italy there are some people that try to no pay taxes, fines et cetera quoting UCC. Statements are very bizzare like "The Declaration of I Am" in which you can read sentences as "I, also perceived as numerous given identifiers, alias, abbreviations, and idem sonans, inclusive of Source of all that Is, Source Prime, Eternal Essence, Father, God, Allah, Yaweh"... I read that this stuff come from USA, but in the UCC's lemma of en Wikipedia there is not a word about this social phenomena. There is any study? Any analysis of this? Thank you.--Adriano G. V. Esposito (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC) An example: http://www.oltre12.net/2014/03/le-dichiarazioni-di-io-sono-traduzione.html --Adriano G. V. Esposito (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource

s:Wikisource:Requested texts#Uniform Commercial Code. Hausratte (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

They can't add it, at least not in full, because ALI maintains copyright on it and charges $146.00 for hard copy of the official version. Certainly, Wikisource can add versions of the UCC as enacted in particular states, but every state enacts it in their own strange way and they all deviate from the official version in one way or another in hundreds of ways. There are one or two huge multi-volume UCC treatises that actually have EVERY version of every section (both official and as-enacted in all U.S. jurisdictions), but those treatises are privately published and are horrendously expensive. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I didn't know about it :( Thank you for explanation. I'll close the request. Hausratte (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)