$14,000,000,000,000,000 Dollar UCC-1 lien filed against the Federal Reserve?

Originally posted by Bildo

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Honor93

 

Furthermore, why would a country who possess the legal and Constitutional authority to coin their own legal tender need a credit bureau???

Honor93... you are on the right track. Keep digging. This is the deepest rabbit hole in the history of mankind.

You are absolutely right. This is the deepest rabbit hole in the history of mankind. The rabbit hole splits off in different directions too.
And yes, the Republic our founders started has been reseated. They have calls you can get in on to ask questions. They also have informational meetings if you want to discuss things in person.

As stated earlier, What products and services does a circuit court have to sell?
In one of our city buildings we used to have the City Attorney. The placard on the door says---CORPORATION COUNSEL. -----Corporation, not government. Corporations are in commerce. Commerce is ruled by the Uniform Commercial Code. This is not difficult. Although it can be very time consuming.

edit on 23-1-2013 by Bildo because: (no reason given)

There is nothing to say that a corporation must be engaged in commerce. I'd say that most probably are, but that certainly is not a requirement of a corporation.

cor·po·ra·tion   /ˌkɔrpəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kawr-puh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
2. ( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
4. Informal . a paunch; potbelly.

Hell, a corporation doesnt even mean a business.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

They haven't even bothered to pass a budget contrary to black letter law in the Constitution itself. Why would UCC filings mean much? He's executive Branch. He could technically disband whatever handles UCC filings entirely and slap his hands together as he walks out chuckling.

No he can't.....UCC is what governs all commercial contracts....They have tied themselves up inseparably in it....Contracts are the oldest form of law, UCC invloves contracts. If you understand the charade going on in American courtrooms you'd understand their not using penal code or statutes they're using statutory(Maritime/Admiralty) jurisdiction which is legislative. Much of the original U.S. common law has been codified in a single Federal statute, the Uniform Commercial Code.

reply to post by hellobruce


Legal means color of law, which does not make it lawful; but of course, you are just hard at work trolling here again..

reply to post by flyswatter
I don't know if you are referring to me about "not wanting to pay taxes", but that wasn't the issue. If I am liable for a tax I'll pay the tax. If you enjoy paying taxes, that's fine with me. But I will not pay a tax if I am not liable for it. A friend told me to take my UCC-1 to my employer. I did it to prove him wrong. I proved myself wrong. If you are too scared to make your life better, then don't. I told everyone what I did, and what the results were. I found out I'm not the first to do this, many have.
And that brings up another issue --there is no lawful money to pay debts at law. You can not use a fiat currency to "pay" anything. FRN's are debt notes. Read "Modern Money Mechanics" by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank.
Do you own your car? No, you don't. You have a "Certificate of Title". Sooo, who has the actual title?
Biiiiig rabbit hole!

Originally posted by flyswatter

If you've studied the issue in depth for over 20 years, you'd be well versed on what the Freemen on the Land Movement is. Their actions are based mostly on many of the things that are argued in this thread and on the links provided in it - the US being a corporation, creation of a straw man, legal definitions of a person, etc, etc.

Killing the myth that the US exists solely as a corporation goes a long way in dealing the death blow to this whole movement. Supporters run with United States Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 176, Subchapter A, saying "Look! Look! This means we're a Federal Corporation!" But the fact is that a corporation can exist as a private business, a non-profit, or a government ... there is no singular definition that defines which.

Listen, if you dont want to pay taxes, or you want to raise your fist and scream "FIGHT THE POWER!", go right ahead. But misleading others into believing that they can get away with it and not have a worry about suffering any consequences is both unethical and unfunny.

I shouldn't have stated I didn't know what it is - I should have stated that I don't put stock in it. That said, what is being claimed is in fact true and correct. The legal maneuvering being advocated by such groups is what is highly suspect. If one could execute these legal maneuvers, there would be a booming cottage industry raking in billions.

Take a look at the link I posted above - it gives a very accurate timeline describing what has occurred. How to fight it? Ah, I haven't figured that out... yet!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


If you are sincerely interested in this and learning the truth, I would recommend downloading and reading "Cracking the Code 3rd Edition". It covers all of this in detail. If you can not find it, ask, and I will send you my copy...This is not something you can sit down and understand in 30 minutes time with a case of beer....It requires lots of research and hardwork, which 98% of the people who have posted on this thread are unwilling to do..

They would rather just type in "UCC Hoax" or something similar because they would much rather suffer from the cognitive dissonance, and believe such a thing isn't true...

reply to post by Bildo


By Certificate of Title, and real title, the 'Real' Title, would refer to the Manufacturer's Deed.

reply to post by Bildo


Exactly! Common Law has been codified into statutes under UCC. This is part of the web designed to both deceive and entrap. There is no beating the system without defeating the system. It is as tight as a drum!

reply to post by VeritasAequitas
Yup. MSO, MCO. Not sure, but I think it's
treasury that has those.

Originally posted by flyswatter
There is nothing to say that a corporation must be engaged in commerce. I'd say that most probably are, but that certainly is not a requirement of a corporation.

cor·po·ra·tion   /ˌkɔrpəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kawr-puh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
2. ( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
4. Informal . a paunch; potbelly.

Hell, a corporation doesnt even mean a business.

True! Now put on your thinking cap for a moment... Why then does a "government" need to codify and organize under the articles of incorporation? What is to be gained by a government entity entering into such a formalized arrangement when simple Common Law could easily cover the governance of such an operation? What is the "benefit"???

Originally posted by Bildo
reply to post by flyswatter

 

I don't know if you are referring to me about "not wanting to pay taxes", but that wasn't the issue. If I am liable for a tax I'll pay the tax. If you enjoy paying taxes, that's fine with me. But I will not pay a tax if I am not liable for it. A friend told me to take my UCC-1 to my employer. I did it to prove him wrong. I proved myself wrong. If you are too scared to make your life better, then don't. I told everyone what I did, and what the results were. I found out I'm not the first to do this, many have.
And that brings up another issue --there is no lawful money to pay debts at law. You can not use a fiat currency to "pay" anything. FRN's are debt notes. Read "Modern Money Mechanics" by the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank.
Do you own your car? No, you don't. You have a "Certificate of Title". Sooo, who has the actual title?
Biiiiig rabbit hole!

Well, lets set aside the fact that I dont believe a damn word you said about taking it to your employer and the result of it. Now that we have that out of the way ... the premise of the UCC-1 filing is that you are laying claim to the straw man that was created. But it (the straw man) doesnt exist, so the UCC-1 filing is null and void and can actually be seen as fraud if filed.

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by flyswatter
There is nothing to say that a corporation must be engaged in commerce. I'd say that most probably are, but that certainly is not a requirement of a corporation.

cor·po·ra·tion   /ˌkɔrpəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kawr-puh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
2. ( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
4. Informal . a paunch; potbelly.

Hell, a corporation doesnt even mean a business.

True! Now put on your thinking cap for a moment... Why then does a "government" need to codify and organize under the articles of incorporation? What is to be gained by a government entity entering into such a formalized arrangement when simple Common Law could easily cover the governance of such an operation? What is the "benefit"???

I'm sure that there are reasons for it, although I am not one that can just spit them out like they were second nature. But the reasons for it (good ones or bad ones, doesnt matter) are irrelevant.

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Bildo

 

Exactly! Common Law has been codified into statutes under UCC. This is part of the web designed to both deceive and entrap. There is no beating the system without defeating the system. It is as tight as a drum!

Quite awhile ago a friend of mine was pulled over by a state trooper. My friend handed the trooper his UCC-1, the trooper looked at it and said, "Hey, you're pre-1933, have a good day". And that was that. Made me do a bunch of digging to see what's up with that. Found out the courts, and everything, are all in commerce.

reply to post by Bildo


Bingo! No more Allodial Title. Under the 14th Amendment you are entitled to the benefits of citizenship, but in exchange for the use of said benefits you are contractually obligated to fulfill their requirements. One of which is the surrender of all personal property. They don't confiscate it, of course. That would blow the illusion. They let you use it and create conditions and restrictions regarding its use.

"Driving" is a perfect example. "Driving" is an act of commerce under UCC and requires licensing, regulating and taxing. However, "Travelling" is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The conflict comes in when a.) The Constitution has been suspended, b.) People willingly enter into a contract with the state to "Drive" and c.) Subject themselves willingly to the contractual terms outlined therein - in other words, you signed it all away!

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by flyswatter
There is nothing to say that a corporation must be engaged in commerce. I'd say that most probably are, but that certainly is not a requirement of a corporation.

cor·po·ra·tion   /ˌkɔrpəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kawr-puh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
2. ( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
4. Informal . a paunch; potbelly.

Hell, a corporation doesnt even mean a business.

True! Now put on your thinking cap for a moment... Why then does a "government" need to codify and organize under the articles of incorporation? What is to be gained by a government entity entering into such a formalized arrangement when simple Common Law could easily cover the governance of such an operation? What is the "benefit"???

I'm sure that there are reasons for it, although I am not one that can just spit them out like they were second nature. But the reasons for it (good ones or bad ones, doesnt matter) are irrelevant.

Oh, I beg to differ. It matters a GREAT deal! If you are unwilling to do the work required to understand why it matters, then I am at a loss to help you. As Veritas pointed out, you are experiencing cognitive dissonance - which is normal when first encountering this.

By your own admission, you have chosen to live in the Matrix. Just remember, your "reality" is NOT real!

reply to post by flyswatter
Sorry you don't believe it. Those around me know it to be the truth. Besides, why would I lie about something like that? What pupose would that serve? None.

Originally posted by Bildo

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Bildo

 

Exactly! Common Law has been codified into statutes under UCC. This is part of the web designed to both deceive and entrap. There is no beating the system without defeating the system. It is as tight as a drum!

Quite awhile ago a friend of mine was pulled over by a state trooper. My friend handed the trooper his UCC-1, the trooper looked at it and said, "Hey, you're pre-1933, have a good day". And that was that. Made me do a bunch of digging to see what's up with that. Found out the courts, and everything, are all in commerce.

This is the exception, certainly not the rule. I've heard similar stories but have yet to be able to independently verify a single one. I'm not saying it doesn't or hasn't happened. I'm saying I'm highly skeptical because I know how tightly they woven this thread of deceit - they haven't left much room for legal maneuvers.

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by flyswatter
There is nothing to say that a corporation must be engaged in commerce. I'd say that most probably are, but that certainly is not a requirement of a corporation.

cor·po·ra·tion   /ˌkɔrpəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled[kawr-puh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
2. ( initial capital letter ) the group of principal officials of a borough or other municipal division in England.
3. any group of persons united or regarded as united in one body.
4. Informal . a paunch; potbelly.

Hell, a corporation doesnt even mean a business.

True! Now put on your thinking cap for a moment... Why then does a "government" need to codify and organize under the articles of incorporation? What is to be gained by a government entity entering into such a formalized arrangement when simple Common Law could easily cover the governance of such an operation? What is the "benefit"???

I'm sure that there are reasons for it, although I am not one that can just spit them out like they were second nature. But the reasons for it (good ones or bad ones, doesnt matter) are irrelevant.

Oh, I beg to differ. It matters a GREAT deal! If you are unwilling to do the work required to understand why it matters, then I am at a loss to help you. As Veritas pointed out, you are experiencing cognitive dissonance - which is normal when first encountering this.

By your own admission, you have chosen to live in the Matrix. Just remember, your "reality" is NOT real!

Its not a matter of wont, its a matter of cant at the moment. If you can point me to literature about it, I'm more than happy to read it. I'm currently at work and cant really take the time to search a ton at the moment though. I dont see where the reasons for it would matter at all, but I dont have any valid reason to refuse to read something.

Originally posted by kozmo
reply to post by Bildo

 

Bingo! No more Allodial Title. Under the 14th Amendment you are entitled to the benefits of citizenship, but in exchange for the use of said benefits you are contractually obligated to fulfill their requirements. One of which is the surrender of all personal property. They don't confiscate it, of course. That would blow the illusion. They let you use it and create conditions and restrictions regarding its use.

"Driving" is a perfect example. "Driving" is an act of commerce under UCC and requires licensing, regulating and taxing. However, "Travelling" is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The conflict comes in when a.) The Constitution has been suspended, b.) People willingly enter into a contract with the state to "Drive" and c.) Subject themselves willingly to the contractual terms outlined therein - in other words, you signed it all away!

Thank you. That's it exactly. I am not a 14th Ammendment citizen. I also demanded ALL contracts with THEM be put on the table so I could contest them. I refused the "benefit" of citizenship in their corporate democracy. I'm in the Republic. Most people have no clue what it means to be a "US citizen". You aren't born that way, you contract in to it. And benefits are not always a positive thing, they are, nowadays, mostly negative.

reply to post by kozmo
You're right. That was an exeption. But, at the same time, why would a cop do that. If the document had no meaning, the "driver" would have been punished. The cop knew something.