UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

This includes Live Birth Trusts (LBT), and "Accepted for value" (A4V)

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby bustthematrix » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:40 pm

rodgreenwell wrote:not my words... but a thought for you:-)
The truth of the matter is that the straw party is an agent for the grantor. So the straw party is the agent for "you" and therefore it belongs to the government.

Hi Rod

Says who? On what authority sayest thou these things? :wink:

Tell me, who alone is the sole energy for that Strawman? Who alone gives it any credibility or commercial meaning?

Microseoft...is completely...dead...without it's enabling human 'employees'. So is Tescoe and all other Legal fiction entities...
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:22 am

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby silverdollar » Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:16 am

Better questions to ask, who gave the battery authority to exist so it could store energy given to it?

The holder of the seal the registry uses who registered with registrar as a corporation in the first place.

See definitions for the following:

- registrar(register) of treasury

- Usufruct

- Public Trust Doctrine
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Free... well almost » Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:31 am

rodgreenwell wrote:not my words... but a thought for you:-)

Everyone is trying to act as authorized representative for the straw party. Straw party being not the name on the birth certificate but the security account associated with the cest que trust. The truth of the matter is that the straw party is an agent for the grantor. So the straw party is the agent for "you" and therefore it belongs to the government.

just thinking about this when we do a UCC1 finance statement and on our Notices/Afi's ... thoughts?

Hi rod,

As far as I know, your agent is only the governments until you stake claim to it. By recording a lein against your straw party and filing a UCC-1as a man on the private side, you are taking it from them and placing it under your full liability. And as its a physical impossibility for the government to object, The straw party is defaulted into your private ownership. By doing this the limited liability N.I trust is made obsolete. No limited liability exists in the real world.

I think whom ever wrote those words may be confused about what the straw party/man is. Any legal fiction the government creates for you is a strawman. You are always authorised representative and/or grantor/settlor but never strawman. YOUR strawman gave you permission to act on his behalf.

Free... well almost
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby rodgreenwell » Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:25 am

Just being provocative :grr: .... and it was a new twist on thinking :puzz: ... just wanted your views... :shake: but worthy of open debate...
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Budapest Hungary

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Farmer » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:13 am

Free... well almost wrote:However, I would suggest that if you reside in the UK and are not all that confident about all this then do things the UK way. For instance, companies here should work in accordance with the bills of exchange act 1882 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but they are NOT. This provides you with the same possible remedies as any US legislation such as the UCC or Truth in lending ACT. The great thing about the UK way is that there is very little misleading information flying about and you can be more certain about the way you need to go. It also means you'll have to do a lot more work = more competent!

In my example acceptance letter (previous post), "Truth In Lending" was a mistake on my part and i'm sorry if I caused confusion. I'm currently doing something very different as I am lucky (unlucky) enough to have 2 entry certificates with different numbers. I have lodged one with the US Treasury and am attempting to lodge the other with HM Treasury. As a result I am currently working on some US stuff hence the slip up. :blush:

Looking at the bigger picture, I personally think that all methods being investigated or that may be investigated may be of value knowledge wise in the future because when you have treaties being made that allows one country to have access and jurisdiction over someone living in another country, these may be tools that will be of value in the future.
If you're scared of 'them' poisoning 'us' with some shit then maybe you haven't noticed the shit they are already poisoning us with.
- prajna - fmotl.co.uk forum 2011
User avatar
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:07 am

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby addy5 » Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:44 pm

From the little research I've done it seems Private (trust) law offers some insight into the colouful commercial contracts, especially considering there is no device available for transfering value, save fiat currency, which is still absent of value.
Last edited by addy5 on Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:36 pm

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby strawmansarah » Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:59 pm

I have been of the opinion that 'some' of the CR process must be done on the private side, but the corresponding 'notices' must be filed on the public side, in order that 'they' will 'sort out' the beaurocracy between them - that way you (YOU) only communicate with the private and STRAWMAN only communicates with the public (or it is the other way around?) - my point being we must communicate with BOTH the private AND the public, in order to 'capture' our strawman. Does that sound about right?? :psst:
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby absconditus » Tue May 11, 2010 5:24 pm

I have recently been watching the winston shrout dvd's and I have a question on the BC bond. I know I have read that someone on this thread has sent their BC to the treasury. My question is that if you use this bond to indemnify your self at court then surely the court must have a way to check that you really do have the bond in place you say you have.
Therefor confirming or denying, as the case may be, the existence?
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:24 pm

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Free » Wed May 12, 2010 1:53 am

Have a look at Brandon Adams' stuff on creditorsincommerce.com

I kept falling asleep watching Winston, but the video and audio material on creditors in commerce is much more refreshing and direct. I've applied the particulars of their processes to mine. Suddenly it all comes together.

The irony of it all (love the irony) is that the remedy can be found at the last place we'd ever think to look.

I tested the principles out last week in a court, offering conditional acceptance upon proof of a verified claim plus, a remedy to the matter should we be unsuccessful. The barrister about fell over speechless and the judge stepped in to cover for them. However we got a result and no judgement was made on the day.

I'm also using AFV to settle multiple utilities companies, with mixed responses, shall we say!

Have you looked at AFV-ing your birth certificate? In doing so we Claim back Trusteeship of the account and become Grantor, Trustee and Beneficiary. This is possible only because we become one of multiple beneficiaries and not sole beneficiary.

I've drawn up a Private Registered Bond for Setoff which can now be sent as we now know who the new treasury minister is.

The tax offfice has a special dept which deals only in bonds/orders/negotiable instruments/etc which I'm just researching now.

Ironic, that those who would consider us mad choose to live in the madness of an illusion
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:59 am
Location: Sovereign Lands

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Dipsy » Wed May 12, 2010 4:08 am

Well a few people get the right idea UCC can be used in the UK. I tell you this its all about jurisdiction and intent. When you do a Notice contract with someone remember its YOUR words and YOUR law so long as you act lawfully and don't involve fraud you can site UCC above your local statutes. So UCC is used globally on the public side for international commerce. If i bought or sold something from the US the contract will be UCC anywhere and if i had a problem i can take it to the courts here and they will act as a mediator. Example lets say i bought a time share Condo in Miami. Plenty of mortgage contracts sold in the UK are UCC compiled even though they will be converted to English Law and heard under english law for disputes. This is because its purely public fiction and UK jurisdiction has full standing.

A long time ago i sold high value commercial stuff from the UK to Iraq and the contracts were all UCC. It worked because we both understood UCC and we both had LAWFUL not legal standing for it in either country. The entire process was based on UCC starting as codified form of a Notice of Intent to Order, Notice of Order, to using a Bill of landing and Bills of Exchange etc. If either party screwed up it would be filed in the US under maritime law and the penalties were high for late shipments etc. Oh i recall we used a notary too:) What the process does is LIFT the man doing the deals in each country above local jurisdiction under full personal liability in order to trade internationally.

Now on the private side you can site anything you like as a private agreement. You see now jurisdiction doesn't matter its man against man even within the UK. I can give you a contract in German if we agree upon it then it stands so there is NO reason why I cant send a negative averment notice to any PTB in this country and if they ignore it then they agreed to it. UCC in the US will handle the filing. What about company versus a company? ALWAYS they have to stay in full legal fiction and all the statutes apply under restricted and capped liability. Technically we as men were NEVER supposed to be treated as a company and exposed to 700,000 ACTS.

Liens from ALL over the WORLD are stored In the US from shipping tractors and containers in global trade. AND get this in the drop down box for UCC filing it says UK!!!

So i hope its a bit clearer now for the same reason you think traffic tickets only apply to your straw-man and not YOU then you try to separate the entity to escape jurisdiction. By default you are IN and accepted as a UK citizen UNLESS you have a lawful excuse and private contract agreements.
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:58 pm


Return to Commercial Redemption

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests