UCC Basic Explanation

[trbish]

yes, that is the goal, a superio lein and could it be adventagous when attempting a ME process limiting the lenders ability to foreclose

so if I understand your point, if The Bank did not sign as obligee on your PN to make them a debtor---the superior lein would not be in effect?

Trbish,

You are correct with your last statement.

If the proper ME process is used, mortgage payments are continued to be made. The only time you quit making payment is after the court order invalidating the mortgage contract. At that point, the bank will not have a valid deed of trust or promissory note to foreclose on.

Sweed

[trbish]

do you know of a ME process that has resulted in a court order invalidating the mortgage contract, was it repeated?---if, so what time frame should a person expect?

Seach the forum topics and check out ccrresources.com (I think). Should answer your questions.

trbish,

I realize this is late, but from what I understand the Security Agreement is the perfection, not the UCC-1. It doesn't matter when you file the UCC-1; within 72-hours or later, as long as, the date in the Security Agreement is clear (not when it was notarized). So if you take that date back to when you were eighteen, married, or born (depending on your school), that is the date that predeeds the lender's lien.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by weaponx71

How can anything from this website be taken seriously?

When a site starts talking about Illuminitiai...

Yeah, if there really was a small cabal of international bankers runing world events behind the scenes, Dan Rather or Rush Limbau would tell us about it.

Originally Posted by weaponx71

and aliens protecting us from our own government....????

Well...if they are, they're not doing a great job of it. I also don't buy that.

Originally Posted by weaponx71

How can they be trusted about anything past that?

Now here's a flaw in your logic. They also mention in that site that GW Bush is prisident, should we disbelieve that?

Here's an example. I say:
a. the sky is blue
b. the earth is round
c. if a person does not eat food they will not live
d. Condi Rice is a robot controlled by crab people in the center of the earth.

Does the inclusion of d make a-c false? IMHO things should be considered point for point (like an affidavit), and rebutting or disproving one point does not invalidate the whole.

Of course I don't believe everything I read, nor do I disbelieve many things off hand. I try to keep an open mind and look for other sources of verification or dispoval.

I'm not saying what to believe or not out of this website, nor am I speculating as to the motive of its author. I personally believe there is a lot of truth in there, and a lot more things worth looking into.

Keep in mind, a powerful tool of propaganda works like my example. You can have someone publicly come out and state a position that you want people to ignore. If it is a person that is easily discredited, or "everyone knows he's a nut, liar, etc.", you can shut down an undesirable line of thinking from any further critical examination.

Here's an example, with the 9/11 coverup, the only people that got the most press say a pile of true stuff, then one or two things that are verifyably false and more blatantly absurd than the official story. Now when you try to talk to the average sheeple about the topic, they'll dismiss you off hand and say " yeah and you probably want me to believe that missiles hit the trade center towers". It automatically closes the allready narrow mind of the average sheep.

I always keep this in mind when researching. A lot of really on point stuff comes packaged with something so rediculous that it drops the credibility of the source and thus the credibility of anything else the source tries to say. I suspect a lot of this is manufactured propaganda to confuse and distract truth seekers.

[logos]

Originally Posted by weaponx71

How can anything from this website be taken seriously? When a site starts talking about Illuminati...

SuiJuris.net talks about some pretty weird stuff from the average sheep's standpoint. I guess this site shouldn't be taken seriously.... Hey, in this world, what constitutes "weird"?

From another standpoint: Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there. All you can say is that YOU haven't perceived any reptilians/whatever, not that such things don't exist. If it is alright for you to judge another's perceptions, then it's alright for others to dictate yours--something any thinking soul doesn't appreciate.

To me, reptilians being discussed in the same paragraph as UCC1 filings isn't ridiculous as everything is connected to everything. It's just a matter of how many degrees of seperation.

[wisper]

First, I'd say there lots of objectional websites,yet many have messages or information you may find of value, as in *Halexandria*. As far as "weird" is concerned why even address slang use?
weird (wîrd)
adj., weird·er, weird·est.

1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of the preternatural or supernatural.
2. Of a strikingly odd or unusual character; strange.
3. Archaic. Of or relating to fate or the Fates.

As an example *I think* 1. above is applicable to to any subjects involving beliefs.

When I first came to sui juris, i got an impression with all the talk of mortgages and credit cards that I was going to hear a lot of Nesara stuff.