Marriage

[husky2kawi]

If there is interest, here is the Sections and Applicable forms from Chris Hansen's book:
Sections to read: 4.13.6
8.5.3.2

Applicable forms in sections: 15.5.1
15.5.2
Husky

[husky2kawi]

If there is interest, here is the Sections and Applicable forms from Chris Hansen's book:
Sections to read: 4.13.6
8.5.3.2

Applicable forms in sections: 15.5.1
15.5.2
Husky

[Ice]

Good job!& Thanks for the detailed info!

[Ice]

Good job!& Thanks for the detailed info!

[dmc53]

Suis Juris,


In your chargeback for birth certificate example it&is written&"I accept for value". I&know that accept&has been&the&word that is best understood as the best to use&but&I have recently read that "take" or "taken for value"&is more correct because of the meaning of the word.& I will try to find where&I read this and post the location here.


Do you (or others)&have any&thoughts on&this?


dmc53&

[dmc53]

Suis Juris, Ice, Others


Found It!& Its posted in the truthseekers network forum at uuusg.com.


These are excerpted quotes.&


Acceptance” is a negative; it connotes liability.& “Acceptance” is a promise to pay.& Acceptance of any draft renders that draft a promissory note.& Further, it is entirely possible that the originator of the phrase misunderstood the term, i.e. “acceptance,” and believed it to mean, “assume/take ownership of” (that which is accepted).



Ownership is acquired by exchange of value (consideration/valuable consideration). “<U>Taken for value</U>,” for example, is a recognized phrase, and implies an assumption of ownership of the right to enforce (payment of) the instrument, and appears in the UCC (e.g. UCC 3-206(b)).& It means that the indorser/new holder simply took the instrument (as an indorser) from the previous holder based on a credit balance of some kind with said previous holder.& The indorser/new holder did not need to give consideration at the time of the transaction because he already had a credit balance of some kind that allowed him to just <U>take</U> the instrument (“for value,” i.e. “for value already given at an earlier point in time”).& &

“Acceptance” does not connote assumption of ownership, but rather assumption of liability.& One does not need to exchange “value” in order to take on a liability; one just needs to assent/consent/agree/promise.


Consider this and let us all know if you think "I take for value" would work better.


I will be gald to point those here who are members of the truthseekers network to the exact location of this thread and the specific location of the borrowed&quotes.


dmc53

[dmc53]

Suis Juris, Ice, Others



Found It!& Its posted in the truthseekers network forum at uuusg.com.


Correction: <U>uccsg.com</U>


Sorry, it's late!


dmc53

[Ice]

dmc,


Now that sounds about right... and may be the reason that so many of the A4V stuff hasn't really worked.


But now, ask yourself how/if this affects your documents.& For example, we send a BoE to discharge a debt.& Are we not seeking the target to "accept" the BoE/CPN - thereby accepting the liability&for the debt?& Isn't the process just another tool that demonstrates our "exemption"?& Are we not the "creditors" in the first place?... therefore we "already had a credit balance of some kind that allowed him to just <U>take</U> the instrument".& Right?& So we "take" their presentment and send the docs in order for them to accept the liability for the alleged debt... right?


Interesting... isn't it?


&

[dmc53]

Ice,


It does make sense that&taken for value would probably work better in this chargeback/draft.


Have you used a similar charge back regarding your birth certificate or do you think this is necessary?& I have seen very little&about bc's in the forums I visit.& I remember on the first tapes I heard with Vick B. He spoke a lot about bc's and people getting possession of their own bc 's with stamps from banks in&other countries on them.& This was just before ctc3 was printed.


You're right, I don't see how this affects my documents in any way.& Yes we are the creditors in the first place.& What a trick they have pulled&by teaching us from a&young age that we are not.


It is interesting, and consuming.


dmc


&

the two parties? In other words, can you put your new wife on your company insurance policy? Will she still have all the benefits of the license even though she has the protection of the Certificate? Wouldn't getting it notarized and filing in the courthouse records serve the same legal purpose as the state License without making the state a party?

Been trying to look it up on the net without much success.

Thanks folks,
Ken