New Page 1

Hello everyone. For some time now, I have heard continued ramblings about the applicability of the Uniform Commercial Code here in Canada. I have tried to inform people obviously without much success, that this U.S. law does not apply herein Canada and by attempting to use same, you are simply accelerating the Americanization of this land. However, I have waited until I received some further confirming information prior to sending out this email, and which I have attached hereto.

My first point is this: if we want to be Canadians, or at minimum, non Americans, why are people attempting to bring United States laws here into Canada? Many people continually profess to be anti-American yet repeatedly attempt to rely upon the UCC in their quest for justice. This is simply a non sequitor.

Second. The UCC is, as you can see by some attached excerpts from this law, a purely American law. It applies to the U.S. and quite probably its offshore lands such as Puerto Rico. It does not apply to Canada, which has our own analogous legislation, the Bills of Exchange Act, and various provincial legislation.

I have sent a letter to the Minister of Finance to confirm my views. I have just received his response, which is attached hereto. In no uncertain terms, the Minister makes it quite clear that Canada is NOT a signatory to the UCC nor does the UCC have any applicability here in Canada. I have quite frequently maintained, when trying to obtain information, apply the principle, "let them do the work"! In other words, instead of spending 100's of hours doing research, simply write a letter to the appropriate person and let them do the work for you. In this case, I let the Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodale do the work. This is their job. On an issue such as this, with no immediate possibility of exposure of criminal actions, I have no doubt in my mind that the Minister if not committing a fraud and lying to me in his letter - nor do I see any such lies ni his response.

If you are using the UCC, you are quoting foreign law which has no applicability herein Canada. There are however, a couple of exceptions. For eg., if I enter a contract with someone in the U.S., the onus is upon us to determine which country's laws will apply should a dispute arise. This must be specified expressly in the terms of the contract. If it is not and a dispute arises, with each party to the contract claiming their county's laws apply, if the claim is filed here in Canada, the judge will have to look to the nature and terms of the contract to see which country's laws should apply, pursuant to the terms and nature of the contract. The possibility exists that although there is no express mention of what country's laws apply, that there is, by reading the contract, an obvious intention as to what country's laws apply. If there is no express mention as to what country's laws apply and if the judge is unable by reading the contract to see if there is an implied intention of what laws are going to apply, then the judge is required to see what country's laws best apply to the issue at hand. This procedure has been upheld by the SCC and is what is followed by all lower courts. It certainly has some logic to it - not that I am a fan or supporter of the SCC - only to show that this is how contracts are interpreted here in Canada.

If two parties are both Canadian, no matter whether they are man or woman, person or corporation, then Canadian laws apply and you cannot, even consentually between both parties, choose to have the Canadian courts or political establishment, invoke and apply foreign law to Canadian contracts in Canada.

So if you are using the UCC, notwithstanding any purported 'sucess' you may appear to be having, this law does not apply and governments, banks etc are not bound by it. In the absence of any reason for your adversary's failure to contest, you can only presume, based upon their actions, they quite possibly they just don't want a hassle or some other reason for their want of interest in your matter. No different for eg in my case, CRA did not charge me notwithstanding that I have not filed since 1996. This does not permit me to go publically claiming that I am successful because CRA has not charged me. There was obviously other reasons, which I am not aware of, why they did not take action sooner. Similary, there could be an infinite number of reasons for any apparent success you may be having - the UCC is not one of them.