Critical Discussion: Is there Case Law Saying: Federal Tax Liens Superior?

[sheisaceo]

The question in it's entirety:

Is there a law or case law that says: Federal tax liens are superior to any other lien (with or without) a security interest?


It's time we took back our right to live and thrive and not be a victim of the Federal Reserve, phantom wealth, the interest rate, egos with badges, corruption fed by us and our wallets.

Please suijuris, discuss this very critical question about filing a UCC 1 against the IRS for the money they are indebted to each and every one of us.

We need to understand the mechanism here and slowly take it apart, find and replace the broken piece and make it work again. THERE IS NO ONE ELSE DOING THIS AND CERTAINLY NO ONE IN OUR GOVERNMENT THAT WILL FURTHER THE TRUTH HERE.

And, it's getting worse.

I invite everyone to crack the books on this and participate in a solution set. Thanks.

[rentiap]

The short and sweet of it is to ask your self if you are an artificial entity or are you a Woman?

The UCC is only for artificial entities.

The UCC is not your remedy.

[rentiap]

I'm sorry I guess I should have read your signature before I posted the above.
It is plain that you believe yourself to be an artificial entity because you being Pro-se are representing yourself/
Now ask yourself if you want to represent yourself (as an artificial entity)
Or would it not be better for you to be present as a woman?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Actually this one is not complicated- FTL's are treated the same as any other, subject to the laws of the local state.

Lien your property first at any rate, so as to hold a trump card over any later liens-federal, private, any at all. Its a "race to the courthouse", but usually we have a good head start.

[sheisaceo]

Originally Posted by rentiap

I'm sorry I guess I should have read your signature before I posted the above.
It is plain that you believe yourself to be an artificial entity because you being Pro-se are representing yourself/
Now ask yourself if you want to represent yourself (as an artificial entity)
Or would it not be better for you to be present as a woman?

At first glance, rentiap, I would say that you are working for 'them' but your questions are valid.

It occurs to me than in reading some of the remedies of filing UCC1 to do such things as freeing prisoners or getting your paid taxes from the IRS returned to you that secrecy post-filing is a part of the remedy. When any of the remedy, and relief, was made public then someone was placed in jail for this and this is a pattern I have seen. If these persons had not made public comment about this, AFTER THE FACT, then the remedy and relief would still be in place.

So, I can speak about this up to the point of doing it and then can never say anything again, BUT, this has to be in written form in the manner of law somewhere for it to be a convention and one that the authorities can take advantage of. IT JUST HAS TO BE.

This sounds so old-school, it's strange, but then the wording of refusing 'presentations' is just as 'Benjamin Franklin' and 'Thomas Jefferson' and 'Aaron Burr' as it gets. 'Dishonor' is not a word commonly used presently, but in the 1700's is was systematic to secure one's behavior with respect to this so it was made part and parcel of law.

Now, the task is to find where it states that when the remedy is made public that it becomes a contract to 'them'. To make it public creates a contract with 'them'.

David Merrill, are you reading this? I think if anyone can grasp this, it would be you.

I googled these words ‘ucc public constitution united states’ and this is what I got.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...es&btnG=Search

Reading…

[sheisaceo]

Joseph Sugarman solved for this:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/court/...tml#post130606

THIS I MIRED IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. As quoted by same thread:


Compare this to the requirements of the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "