[Jerseee]

KT,



Logos speaks of hope through another means. I speak of action through lawful means.



Montana got her mortgage eliminated through LAW--not UCC redemption. Rory got part of his town back through LAW--not UCC redemption, a host of other members cleaned their credit reports through LAW & CODES--not UCC redemption. This is where we "kick-butt". Logos makes it sound like we storm in the courtroom in a dramatic sense and take over. Read about what we speak of and ask the people directly whom benefitted from using LAW vs UCC and I can tell you this much...most of the members here are former TSN members. That should tell you something about our methods.



As for logos' situation with foreclosure--I wish logos well if logos uses UCC redemption methods.



This is a lively debate about methods and I usually agree with logos on lots of issues, but this one I cannot. Not until UCC redmeptionist--prove that their method works. It has been around for quite some time now--surely they should have a multitude of DOCUMENTED wins.



Look, don't take it from either of us--do your own research on both issues and you will see for yourself. And after you've done that research--I will be more than glad to assist you in further understanding what we do and how we get results--LAWFULLY with public information. No hidden books, no commercial theories of undocumented accounts--kept at the Treasury...just straight hard hitting cases that support your position.



Logos,



Good debate on issues (nothing personal). Address the fraud from the beginning and ask what did the mort. co. or bank loan you? Ask them if they have standing? Ask to see the original note. Offer a good faith payment through your remedy and put the judge on judicial notice. Hope that helps, if not maybe this will:



If the debtor executes a new promissory note with a surety which the creditor accepts in satisfaction of the pre-existing debt, an action may not be maintained upon the original demand. Whitsett v Clayton, 5 Colo 476; Bullen v McGillicuddy, 32 Ky 90; Jenness v Lane, 26 Me 475; Creager v Link, 7 Md 259; Draper v Hitt, 43 Vt 439



The offense of uttering a forged mortgage may be committed by having the same recorded although it is not in any other way delivered to the mortgagee. People v Baker, 100 Cal 188, 34 P 649.



Alteration of a document without authority with the intent to defraud may constitute forgery and such alteration may consist of the insertion of matter in the document after it has been signed. Buck v Superior Court (Cal App) 41 Cal Rptr 718, subsequent op on reh 232 Cal App 2d 153, 42 Cal Rptr 527, 11 ALR3d 1064, cert den