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

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Nor does the IRS link you provided mention a crucial step; common-law copyright of the trademark JOHN DOE SMITH....Any usage of copyrighted material without the owner's consent incurs a fee of $500,000.

Now you have really lost it - Ever heard of "fair usage"?

This is what can happen to people who believe the UCC nonsense

www.justanswer.com...

Years ago i encountered a group of people whom told me that by processing a UCC and an IRS Charge Back, I'd get all my monies from creditors back via my Straw Man et al. The literature sounded real...I was scammed out of thousands of dollars. Now the IRS is charging me $40,000 on frivolous claims AND those group of people aren't helping me out of this predicament.

reply to post by hellobruce


I never said anything about 'charge-back' quit putting 'frivolous arguments' into my mouth..Nor did the true book I referred to even mention such a thing. Of course; you didn't read it...I'm not quite sure why, I'm even having this discussion with you; you aren't even an American, your opinion doesn't mean diddly squat

reply to post by hellobruce

Now you have really lost it - Ever heard of "fair usage"?

Fair usage is only applicable for non-commercial(profit) purposes, sire.....

Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

en.wikipedia.org...

Attempting to extract money from me, does not count as a non-commercial(profit) purpose..

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Nor does the IRS link you provided mention a crucial step; common-law copyright of the trademark JOHN DOE SMITH....Any usage of copyrighted material without the owner's consent incurs a fee of $500,000.

How do I copyright a name, title, slogan, or logo?
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases.

www.copyright.gov...

You are still babbling nonsense....

reply to post by hellobruce


Name is not the same as a Trade-mark...JOHN QUINCY DOE, is a Trade-mark, not an infact name...

WARNER BROS CO. is a Trade-mark..

www.legalzoom.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

minnesotaattorney.com...

guides.wsj.com...

Ceasing Use of the Mark Regardless of whether trademark infringement is intentional or unintentional, trademark infringement may have devastating consequences. Even if you are innocently infringing, you will be forced to stop future infringements. You may have put time, money, and effort into a business in which your use of the mark is important. And you may be forced to stop using that mark, which may have devastating effects on your business. Additionally, there may be great cost in legal fees, etc. in establishing that your use of the mark was innocent and without knowledge of someone else’s trademark.

Payment of Damages A successful plaintiff in a trademark infringement case may recover the defendant infringer’s profits resulting from the infringement. Additionally, the plaintiff may also recover any actual damages, if the plaintiff proves that the damages were caused by the defendant’s use of the infringing mark, and that consumers were actually confused or deceived by the defendant’s use of the infringing mark. These actual damages may include other profits lost, injury to goodwill or business reputation, expenses incurred by the plaintiff in attempted to prevent customers from being deceived by the defendant, and the cost the plaintiff incurs for any corrective advertising to correct confusion or harm to goodwill cause by defendant’s use of the infringing mark.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


It is fairly obvious, that a created thing is never greater than, and can neither rule over it's creator. Follow this syllogism please..

1) God created Man, and rules over Man; therefore, Man can never be greater than, or rule over it's creator, God.

2) Man, created government, an artificial entity, as a service facility/slave;therefore, government can never be greater than, and can never rule over, Man.

3) Government then, created corporations and corporately colored entities (artificial persons/slaves; 14th Amendment), for the purpose of ruling over them (collecting revenue); therefore a corporation/corporately colored entity, can never be greater than, and can never rule over, the government that brought it into existence.

4) Therefore : A corporation/corporately colored entity, can never be greater than/rule over government; can never be greater than/rule over Man; can never be greater than/rule over God.

A useful analogy would be, a child can no more order their parents about, than pink elephants can fly...That is why the Government has indulged and implicated us all in this massive conspiracy/illusion; and why they must fight to preserve it at all costs, even ignoring properly addressed arguments...

Plenty of videos about cops making up the law and their interpretation of it, going insofar enough to even blatantly lie, and ignore questions....Judges are no different...

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
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...

No offense intended here....but you guys are hilarious with this stuff. Contract law? UCC filings? Excuse me? We're in a nation that hasn't even passed a Federal Budget as required black and white in the Constitution itself ..one of the ONLY things actually spelled out in the orignal document for a duty with details ....and this is supposed to matter?

We live in a nation where American citizens can be assassinated overseas without serious effort to arrest, let alone try them ...and UCC filings are supposed to matter to that same National leadership structure? If someone actually had any success with a thing like this, you might even find how far it's gone by little things like the NDAA.....from a black site in an undisclosed Mediterranean or Southeast Asian country you wake up in...wondering what the hell happened and how you got there, in a dark cell?

It isn't that I argue the basic concept of this. Naww.. That's fine. The concept of not paying taxes does...on some levels..make legal sense too. As does Sovereign Citizen ideas. They all have SOME basis with truth and legitimacy. However, this is like going to Moscow, Russia and DEMANDING your rights under International laws and treaties. The local police will find the whole thing quite humorous as you're taken off to a different cell there to ponder ....where your assumptions went so terribly wrong.

Perhaps, it starts with assuming the legal authority gives a hoot either way about your concept of the law? That's where I think reality meets hilarity.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


We the people, are meant to hold them accountable for their wrong doings...Now why aren't we? If you agree that they are wrongly doing whatever they want, why is it that nobody does anything about it to hold them accountable?

Your silence is your consent...



Just like if you know a crime has taken place, and you don't report it, can be considered aiding and abetting; party to a crime. There is a different word than part, but I can't recall it at this time..

A useful instance of this would be; My neighbors wife was from Canada, and a few years ago, some of her friend's had broken into somebody's house, assaulted and robbed them...Because she knew about the crime, and failed to report it; they charged her with the crimes as well, and deported her.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Well, I'm awfully glad you said that, that way, and used that graphic to illustrate it. Something had occurred to me after I posted and I'd kicked myself for not mentioning it.

First....I don't personally believe in the efficacy of this anymore than I believe the tooth fairy leaves the coins (since becoming the tooth fairy myself..lol) or Santa leaves the presents ..for the same reason. That's important to state. Also, it's not out of ignorance. The continued statements by more than one person here that those of us who don't agree with this must simply be too stupid to understand it isn't even something to cause anger. It's just losing all respect you may have carried with some people. (sigh)

Now having made that point clearly, here is the one I'd forgotten to mention. IF you and others believe SO strongly in this and are so sure it's effective and workable ... Kindly show where you have taken real world action to USE this as a tool against what you insist can/must be stopped by it?

As you say, silence is consent and omission of action is as guilty as action taken in the wrong direction. So where is your action to support your words? I'm not seeing that part mentioned anywhere? Surely .... with such a good approach carrying the full force of law...you'll have started the process by now . . . Right?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

The continued statements by more than one person here that those of us who don't agree with this must simply be too stupid to understand it isn't even something to cause anger. It's just losing all respect you may have carried with some people.

I never said this Wrabbit; don't put words in my mouth please...I generally respect your opinion on a good majority of matters.

If you want to point fingers at anybody, I would start with Senior 'hellobruce' who from every thread I have encountered him in, can not even have a proper debate with somebody without resorting to tactics of accusing people of lying, calling them silly, and labeling them as 'Birthers', 'Truthers', and 'Conspiracy' nuts; general undermining and defamation of character....

Secondly, to address your comments, I have just recently become familiar with these concepts and am studying for application of the procedures....I haven't had the need to argue any of it...I don't make it a priority to go about committing crimes.

Last; to address you concerns about whether or not this works, the friends that I am in contact with, never make it into the court record, they are escorted to the Judges chamber where they negotiate payment of court costs...I have no reason to believe they or people like Bilbo are lying about their experiences, but all the reason in the world to believe the government and it's con-men are full of deceit. After all, Iraq had WMD didn't they?

Please, just read the copy of the book I linked HERE and then determine the validity....It is rather thorough, and even lists a few successes at the beginning of the book.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I'll leave the fight between you and another member you name specifically, out of this. I have no dog in that hunt and have no desire to be any part of it. I will say this....in reading across the whole thread to catch up on what I've missed before making my first reply to you? It was written with all your previous messages to date here in mind. 'nough said, IMO.

On the book? Okay. Fair enough. I skimmed over it a bit and it runs from taxes or mortgages to student loans all being written off and 100% cleared to the penny. Interesting....quite interesting. I'll see what some economics experts at the college think of it before spending serious time reading it all myself but I'll give it a fair look to at least that extent. If those who know far more than you or I do on this give me a response either positive or ...negative in an odd way? I'll get to reading all of it.

I sure won't debate or judge the material until understanding that specific book a bit better. Thanks for the offer of a solid source to sink my teeth into beyond an MSM story or a few paragraphs on a blog.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I sure won't debate or judge the material until understanding that specific book a bit better. Thanks for the offer of a solid source to sink my teeth into beyond an MSM story or a few paragraphs on a blog.

You are quite welcome; thank you for taking the time to actually look into the material before waving it away in a dismissive manner. It goes to show you aren't above broadening your mind to what is possibly going on, which in itself is a sign of an open mind...

I look at all the other corrupted things our Government has done, and gotten away with; and when I look at the enormity of a matter like this, and it's implications, it is no wonder court records about successes are either withheld or not filed....

Can you imagine the pile of dung, they would be in, if a concept like this was so easily provable? Every 'citizen'/'Citizen', of America would be coming after them, just like they would if they knew many of the things that they have done, like drone killings, illegal detentions and so forth..I've had cops blatantly lie to my face and attempt to misrepresent the law in order to force compliance...I see no reason why Judge's would be different...They are just bullies in positions of power...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Since this Cracking the UCC Code book seemed so important, I thought I'd take a quick look. The "successes" listed at the front of the book were anecdotal. No written evidence was provided, and the author pointed out that none of the cases ever went to court. The government was not involved in any of them, so I don't see that they have any particular value.

On Page 39 of the .pdf we read:

"As you will soon learn, no law/code/statute/definition is actually ever repealed . . . In the case of a controversy between an existing law/code/statute/definition and one that has been repealed, the repealed law/code/statute/ definition controls."

Really, once a man has said that, there is no reason to pay attention to anything else he might say. It's like a clock striking thirteen, it's clearly broken.

I can't suggest relying on that book for any purpose, whatsoever.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Can you imagine the pile of dung, they would be in, if a concept like this was so easily provable?

If the concept actually did what it claims we we see everyone using it.... and we would see success stories. All we see are failures, people being fined when they try this nonsense.

Also if it worked as claimed the laws would be very quickly changed to stop it.

reply to post by charles1952

Since this Cracking the UCC Code book seemed so important, I thought I'd take a quick look. The "successes" listed at the front of the book were anecdotal. No written evidence was provided, and the author pointed out that none of the cases ever went to court. The government was not involved in any of them, so I don't see that they have any particular value.

Because it doesn't involve the Judicial system; hence no reason to go to court...

reply to post by hellobruce

Also if it worked as claimed the laws would be very quickly changed to stop it.

The government was the one who crookedly made things that way in the first place; of course they aren't going to change it or inform you about it >.>

reply to post by hellobruce

If the concept actually did what it claims we we see everyone using it.... and we would see success stories. All we see are failures, people being fined when they try this nonsense.

Because the ones who do make it; aren't filed on to the court record or even make it to court for that matter...Debt collectors just leave them alone..

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Dear VeritasAequitas,

Thank you for responding to my comment. Might I ask you for one further opinion? Do you agree with the book here:

On Page 39 of the .pdf we read:
"As you will soon learn, no law/code/statute/definition is actually ever repealed . . . In the case of a controversy between an existing law/code/statute/definition and one that has been repealed, the repealed law/code/statute/ definition controls."

Really, once a man has said that, there is no reason to pay attention to anything else he might say. It's like a clock striking thirteen, it's clearly broken.

I can't suggest relying on that book for any purpose, whatsoever.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. Even if the courts don't report it, the lawyers know if they won, and they will spread it to other trustworthy lawyers they are friends with. Further, the clerks and bailiffs will know, and, of course, all the judges. To think this has been hidden in hundreds of cases all over the country for over 25 years without some official leaking it, is to stretch credulity beyond snapping. - C -

reply to post by charles1952

P.s. Even if the courts don't report it, the lawyers know if they won, and they will spread it to other trustworthy lawyers they are friends with. Further, the clerks and bailiffs will know, and, of course, all the judges. To think this has been hidden in hundreds of cases all over the country for over 25 years without some official leaking it, is to stretch credulity beyond snapping. - C -

The problem is, the Lawyers and Attorney's are in on it...Look up the Titles of Nobility Act, which was ratified, but later 'removed'....Basically, anybody who accepts a Title of Nobility, like Esquire, which Judges, Lawyers, and Attorney's do; they are no longer considered, 'citizens of the United States'. They work for the Crown, just like the President does, which is why every single one, except Martin Van Buren, has been related to King John Lackland, who signed the Treaty of 1213. That is how I knew back in 2011 before the Elections and whatnot even got started, that it would be down to Romney and Obama, because Romney was the only one related to him. I said that Obama would win, specifically because I think they may be trying to use him to usher in some type of end-times, Revelations scenario.

Quite a few copies of the Constitution can be found with this listed as an amendment, but these are very old, and you will likely need to look in a law library to find one...I have a photo of the amendment added somewhere on my hard drive or facebook, but I'll need to find it. I will update a bit later when I do.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Just because of the tactics already used here; you wouldn't take it too personal if I didn't believe you, would ya? I mean can you prove it?

That ^ is what I'm talking about...Nothing against you, but just because you can't prove something, doesn't mean it isn't true...I would happily give you a court case; but I can't even find my own, I've looked them up in my county and state records, and these were for something far less trivial than outsmarting the government.

Look at the Libor Scandal with HSBC and gang......As far as I know, they haven't even received a slap on the wrist...Most corporations pay little to no taxes on their enormous profits...

Zip codes are crucial as well.

I never said I'm refusing to believe - I simply said I am asking for records to see the proof. I'm certainly not all-knowing, so I am just choosing to reserve judgement on the issue until I see it. I am highly skeptical, but I'm doing the right thing in at least giving the whole thing a chance.