The pop culture allusion seems a little forced, even given the "planet" in the litigant's argument; still, it struck me as worth passing along:
At the outset, we note that we decline to elaborate on many of Calvin's "issues" raised in his briefs that are utterly without support. For example, Calvin goes on at some length in both his opening and reply briefs to contend all of California's statutes which have been codified in the various codes are void under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, arguing that only common law exists and therefore the trial court had no jurisdiction to determine any of the marital dissolution issues in this case. Although a court could well engage in some scholarly analysis of the plenary power of the California Legislature to enact laws and the irrelevance of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to any examination of the validity of the California codes and the trial court's jurisdiction, we decline the opportunity to do so. Propositions raised in the briefs which are patently absurd do not require in-depth analysis or discussion.
This is also particularly true for Calvin's argument, contrary to his contention the California codes are invalid, that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is the "supreme codified law of the planet" which makes his separate claim to all property in this dissolution matter superior to any purported community property claim. With apologies to the former television series Star Trek, we decline "to boldly go where no [rational analysis] has gone before." (Star Trek: Episode Introduction monologue.)
In re Marriage of Ross, 2007 WL 1632365 (Cal. App. June 7).
"Sometimes you deal with a nut, sometimes you don't"
(And this time they did).
E.g., this sort of finding:
"I find it hard, it's hard to find. Oh well, whatever. Nevermind."
I'm not sure the Court has properly blue booked that reference.
I sure wish the defendant had been someone named "Hobbes."
NB the disclaimer at the bottom of the latter page.
Thanks for sharing. And I meant that sincerely. What a bunch of whack-jobs--particularly his explanation of the conspiracy. Supposedly finding out the secret because he was lecturing the jury on the law as an expert witness.
The scary thing is that there are people who believe that kind of crap.
Is this the sort of thing that needs a specific citation, especially since you've already identified the source - "the television series Star Trek" - generally?
Sometimes the beliefs and theories are propagated by professional hucksters, and sometimes by sincere but deluded amateurs. There is probably an entertaining treatise on the history of these legal theories, just waiting for the right author.
Nick
I think that the meme that the UCC has replaced the constitution had its origin in single line of wry humorous dicta in an otherwise run of the mill contracts case years ago. Back when I first heard of these UCC theories, I actually found and read the case. Forgot the cite though. It might be easier to track down these days with LEXIS or similar searches.
I also think it's likely that most of the bases of all these theories can be found in perfectly legitimate sources, perfectly bizarrely misunderstood or misinterpreted. That includes the fringed flag jurisdiction by decoration.