Hello :Joyce-M:,
I was going to write a point-by-point reply to your statements above. And I still want to begin by admitting where you have made an excellent point, to wit: I must agree that to the extent that government agencies participate in commercial activities, they are subject to the UCC. This is buried in the UCC definitions section, where government agencies are included in the definition of a legal "person".
However, the UCC also describes some situations where entities are specifically treated differently from individuals, such as for example the requirements for appropriately giving notice. And to use Idaho statutes as an example: the UCC is chapters 1 thru 10 of title 28, while the entire code consists of 74 titles, many of which relate to activities of public agencies which are not specifically addressed in the UCC. So it is certainly an oversimplification to believe that the other 73 titles can safely be neglected, although I'm not sure that's what you're saying.
As to the rest, could it be that you are writing "legal scripture"? What I mean to say is this. We are all familiar with such scriptures as the Christian New Testament, the Hebrew Tanakh and Torah, the Islamic Quran, and so forth. My own reaction to these holy books is that they are obviously fictional. The Red Sea did not really part to allow the Hebrews to escape from captivity, at least not as it is depicted in Charlton Heston movies, with the water standing like two walls defining a passageway. If a man dies on a crucifix and is buried in a cave, he does not come back to life. Water does not change into wine, and you cannot feed a multitude with three fishes. And I am not trying to deny the spiritual value of scripture, but I am saying that I can't bring myself to take it literally.
Yet I know that there are many true believers, who insist that all these things and more happened in the flesh, exactly as the scripture says.
I claim that the "Ringing Cedars" are also scripture. For me this is obvious from the introductory paragraph of Book 1 (Larisa Malgosheva-Bartone edition) which states:
This series of nine books tells the story of a remarkable woman named Anastasia, discovered in 1995 by a Siberian trader, Vladimir Megré, while he was plying the waters of the remote Ob River. Anastasia was born in the forest in 1969 to parents who died tragically when she was just a baby. Living for the most part without warm clothes, food cultivation or man-made shelter, she has survived on fruit, nuts, berries and mushrooms, brought to her by "wild" animals with which she lives in peaceful harmony.
After watching the film of Agafia Lykova, how can anyone seriously believe that a young woman could survive in such a climate without clothes or shelter, and be sustained by wild animals? They would simply eat her alive. Beyond the absurdity of the basic premise, many more fantastic elements quickly emerge as the story unfolds. Anastasia "exists for those, for whom she exists" and for the rest of us, she exists as a parable, or a symbol, or an inspiration; but certainly not as a physical human being. Call me a "doubting Thomas" if you will, but I say that Vladimir Megre made this up.
1 Corinthians 5:5-8 tells us that the resurrected Jesus appeared first to Peter and the twelve, and then to five hundred brothers at one time, then to James and all the apostles, and finally to Paul himself. If you take Paul's statement at face value, the evidence is massive. How can you argue with five hundred eyewitnesses? For that matter, how dare you disagree with Paul himself, when he says he saw with his own eyes? But... I don't actually know any of those people! It all happened so long ago, and far away.
In much the same way, we are told that Russell-Jay :Gould has mailed himself around the world with postage stamps, thus cementing his credentials to become Commander and Chief of all the world's armies. "Former" spies and military propagandists like Robert-Leroy :Horton and Robert David Steele assure us that we can take Gould's word salad at face value. And in a similar vein, Thomas Clark Nelson tells us that he is a legal superhero who can have any Federal case dismissed summarily for lack of jurisdiction, simply by filing extinguishment of contract by rescission.
And even you, :Joyce-M:, are saying in this very forum, that you have seen such legal miracles happen yourself. Cases closed and sealed, judges cowering in fear of "red pilled" defendants. But where is the proof, I ask? Where is one single such case that I can read the court's decision, or even know the names of the beneficiaries of these wonderful events?
I say there is no evidence that such events have actually taken place, because this is all "legal scripture" you are writing and speaking about. That includes David-Wynn :Miller, Russell-Jay :Gould and Thomas Clark Nelson, as well as you, :Joyce-M:.
What you say may be inspirational, or hopeful, or aimed at creating a better world than where we're living now. But it's also legal fiction, not legal fact.
And in conclusion, I would say to the readers other than ourselves who are following this thread -- that I wholeheartedly agree with :Joyce-M:'s admonition. Do your own research, look at primary sources, evaluate the third-party sources for their accuracy and credibility, and reach your own conclusions. Verify everything for yourself, especially before you go striding into the courtroom.