"UCC-1 equals Crap" vs. "UCC-1 dosn't equal crap"

[aksis]

There are many processes incorporating the UCC-1 and they are not all the same.

I know (first hand) people who have had success with process that includes doing a UCC-1 filing of a Security Agreement, and one man even does independent contract work on a military base... where he travels on base in his car, without a State Drivers Licence, no State Vehicle Registration, no State Plates on the car, and a WSA passport (Nationality: Californian) for ID.

People are doing *something* and are not going to jail, or any of the other things many have warned us WILL HAPPEN!!!

Obviously there are many wrong ways to do *something*... as ndusa's list of cites clearly shows in the thread titled "UCC-1=crap".

So, let's see, by what people call law, what the lawful way to do *something* is...

Before we even get into discussing what people, both those who are having success and those in all those cases that lost were even doing, (there are quite a few different complex processes making use of the UCC to various ends, and many people screw up even very common legal process), for the moment forget about the whole STRAWMAN/US PERSON/YOU vs. You concept - and lets get clear on law regarding a more common use of the UCC-1 filing of a Security Agreement:

[In this thread, I will be refering to this as: "Point #1"]

Show me the law aginst a natural person creating an artificial person (dosn't matter what kind, except another natural person), then creating a common contract (Security Agreement) with it, and then, doing a UCC-1 filing of the Security Agreement.

Point #1 must be settled before we will move on to Point #2.

The onus is on those who say People can't do this (Point #1)... The constitution forbids "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts", and persons have a right to contract.

I will ignore any case cites at this point, show me the law.

This thread,

is about: position, character, standing in law, securing your rights, and how the UCC-1 can relate to this.

in not about: IRS issues, debt elimination issues, right to travel issues, money issues, or any issues not related to what this thread is about.

Default in ten (10) days, unless point #1 is conceded by the major naysayers (ndusa,codee any others?).

____________________

P.S. Please keep off topic comments in the Post Scripts.

P.P.S. Granted, no bank would make such a person a loan unless you agreed to allow them into first position on the leins. So don't even try to bring that or like issues in to play.

[Codee]

Show me the law aginst a natural person creating an artificial person (dosn't matter what kind, except another natural person), then creating a common contract (Security Agreement) with it, and then, doing a UCC-1 filing of the Security Agreement.

Look into banking laws. you find that these corporations exist "arms" of the legislature. These banks being refered to as arms means that they are part of a larger whole. the banks represent an actuall Piece of the congress creating them.

Then in my discussion in "no office of person no ucc no sui juris thread" I point out that the state (in sovereign power) cannot skirt limitations by resorting to the corporate form.

This means that the corporate form and the state are not different entities. The "state resorting to coprporate form" is still the state... Let me know if you need the actuall citations brought in to this thread... I will do so.

You are also now doing the same thing. You are creating a legal entity (illeagally, not unlawfully) and are attempting to pretend that this person is not a part of you. It is. The natural person is an inseprable part of your mind and body. And artificial person can created by you functions as a part of you UNTIL alienated by way of contract.

Just like the Planter's Bank of Georgia cannot resort to the corporate form to skirt lawfull limitations on goverments of the state...

You as a natural person cannot skirt the rule of law that one cannot contract with himself simply by resorting to the corporate from and then saying "hey that thing I created and still control" is not me.

[ndusa]

Codee, let them file it. When the FBI comes a knockin, I bet that house won't be a rockin! It is fraud, plain and simple.

[aksis]

ndusa,

In Point #1, who is the victum of the fraud?

Where is the law?

Do not assume I am going where you think I am...

I will grind this down point by point and then you will kindly quit trying to scare everyone with stories of what happend to people who probably really did try to defraud some people.

P.S. I made a slight adjustment to this post (in bold). Its not you that I want to grind down ndusa.

[CanadianSteve]

Aksis I appreciate bringing the discussion back to first principles or building blocks, and look forward to the development of this thread.

I currently hold the belief that I was born free and not subject to any other human/government/corporate rules/laws unless I agreed to be subject to such rules/laws. I'm just trying to figure out the mechanics of how they have acquired (or claim to have acquired) my agreement, and how I can deny, revoke or disprove this.

I understand that the private creation of money loaned with interest is the root cause of pretty much all of society's ills. I'm reading Marc Steven's Adventures in Legal Land. I want out of debt-slavery.

On a side note, I've been tracking many threads on this forum and I have to clear up a misconception. I am an articling student-at-law at a large firm. The majority of the concepts on this forum were never mentioned during law school, let alone taught. During our tax law class we were never shown that income tax was applicable to people; we were just told it was and then had a debate and discussion on the pros and cons of the various types of taxation methods. Everyone treated legal history class as a complete joke; looking back it was jaw-droppingly inadequate and probably one of the most important areas of knowledge that helps to understand how the system in place has come to be and how it operates.

If I were to discuss the concepts discussed on these forums with the lawyers here they would look at me like I'm insane. I think most people including lawyers just assume that laws apply to them because it has been said over and over again to them. I would hazard a guess that 99% of lawyers have no idea of these concepts. To even think that the law was inapplicable without somehow acquiring someone's agreement to be subject to the law is a concept outside of their reality.

I've always been able to wipe the slate clean of my ideas I accepted as true at the time, and take a premise or idea and explore it and it's potential. Some people just can't examine/comprehend/accept an idea that is in conflict with another idea that they hold as true. Which leads me to ask, "Can one really grow without taking in a foreign concept/idea and incorporating it into your reality?" Were not our current ideas foreign at some point in our life?

[aksis]

Codee,

For some reason I missed seeing your post and addressed ndusa first.

Anyways,

Originally Posted by codee

You are also now doing the same thing [maybe. I would nit pick the word "same"]. You are creating a legal entity (illeagally, not unlawfully) [there is nothing illegal or unlawful about creating a person, probably a mistake made in a rush, this post seemed a little rushed... some typos.. no big deal, I will correct it as I go] and are attempting to pretend that this person is not a part of you. It is [not really a part of "me", but I can pretend it is]. The natural person is an inseprable part of your mind and body.

Granted, loosly speaking, or in some poetic verse, or the mind of someone suffering from a morbid group psychosis, people are persons and blah blah blah.... yet,

In light of the etymology of the word person (persona - the mask an actor wears), in reality a human being (the actor), can never be a person (the mask). Thus persons are property (kind of like a book or a magazine would be property), and they are owned by People or other persons, excepting that a natural person can belong to no other then the human being it pertains to.

So, codee, I must disagree with these points.

Neither the artificial person or natural person is technicaly "me" or "you".

It is not our mind or body or a part of either. It is a product of someones mind and body (the mind causes the hands to type the name, etc...), and is compleatly seperate from that which produced it (unless you want to get into the whole "oneness" debat - lets save that one for another thread, this one will be complex enough in a few more posts.).

Now, my physical body is obviously a natural part of "me", and your's of "you". Attempts to own the body of another, to any degree, is slavery and a very serious crime in global common law (I hear it carries with it a death sentance on the part of earth called China).

In context of the root/eytomology of the word, a person may be my property, or the property of another.

Let's look at the natural persona a little deeper.

Our natural person, in part, describes with words, pictures, finger prints, etc.. our bodies phisical attributes and some other aspects that I will get into a little later, traditionaly done on paper and ink, but in this electronic age, computer files have become the norm.

Finger prints would be an unamendable aspect of our natural person, so would the description of eye, hair, and skin color, unless we were severly deformed or some major transfiguration occured (like a plastic surgery for exmaple).

Weight and height do change over time, and one's natural person should be amended to accuratly reflect these atributes, yet it's kind of a gray area, many people do very little maintinance of their natural person, and normaly this duty is left to someone geting paid to act in persona of a "public servent".

A very simple natural person could be constituted by nothing more then a photograph, and on the back, a name, physical discription, a finger print of the one photographed, their signature, and 2 witnesses to its creation who know you well (and even legalized via notarization).

Now, its obvious that the photograph is not me, it is a picture of me, and most natural persons would definatly contain a photograph. This is an amendable aspect of a natural person as well, and just to have it said, the new picture would obviously have to be a picture of the same human being the last picture was of.

We find that quite a few aspects of the natural person are amendable, there are a few that are not, and some that are amendable, but would not be wise to amend lightly without some contemplation as to the forseeable effects of the changes.

As anyone can clearly see, the natural person is not me, or my mind or body.

My clothing is not a part of "me", it may or may not be a temporary aspect of the natural person as well (picture an APB that included in the description, the clothing the suspect was wearing).

Now I could go on, but I am probably becomeing boring. So let us now look at artificial persons.

Now an artificial person, one I created, may or may not be under my control once it is prefected (created), it could be created, with a condition/article in the instrument, that another person be its owner upon prefection of the instrument.

Originally Posted by codee

An artificial person can [be] created by you[, and] functions as a part of you UNTIL alienated by way of contract.

I agree that, "An artificial person can [be] created by" "me", but isn't a part of "me", it is technicly property.

One does not say, "I am the corporation."

We say, "I own the corporation."

So in this light, we remain the owner (via principle of right of creation), of any person we create, "UNTIL alienated by way of contract."

What principle of wisdom/common sense, law, or statute, if any, prohibits/prevents the alienation of the artificial person within the contract "Security Agreement"?

P.S.

CanadianSteve, "I want out of debt-slavery.", The age old saying, "Neither a borrower nor lender be." comes to my mind.

Kindly forgive the briefness of my response to your post, but it would cause many tangents, and I am going to remain focused on the task at hand.

ndusa, The People acting in persona of "Agent" of the FBI aren't investagating fraud, they are making sure that People, once discovering the fraud, aren't ploting and planning to kill people who are acting in persona of "public servant" like some groups did, namely "Montana Freemen".

It's not really the current "public servant" that even commited the fraud, it was their predecessors, and like us, they were born and find they have been left a big mess to clear up. Some are trying to keep the fraud going from what I have been observing due to greed.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by ndusa

Codee, let them file it. When the FBI comes a knockin, I bet that house won't be a rockin! It is fraud, plain and simple.

Do we have documented cases on record where the FBI came knocking just because someone filed a UCC-1 FS?

[Codee]

###################

[Codee]

*********************

[Codee]

The error of all your theory is a gross misunderstanding of “wholes” in general. For you to say that you are technically not your person is true.
Weird that your error is true. You just don’t know how to think about whole things.

Technically you are not your Left arm.
Technically you are not your Brain.
Technically you are not your Id
Technically you are not your Ego
Technically you are not your Conscience
Technically you are not your Blood
Technically you are not any piece of your flesh

You argument of saying that you are inherently different from your person is a one way street. You are not your arm but your arm IS (a part of) you. You can live without an arm. The arm cannot live without you. Once you get rid of enough of the base elements of a whole the “whole” devolves into a lesser state. For instance if I were to eliminate all atoms then all molecules would also be eliminated as there is no more base material for those objects.

If a person were to destroy all of there cells that person has destroyed himself, even though the person is not technically every single cell. The cells that you can live without are none the less a part of you. You seem to think that the only part of you is the part which is the conceptualization of “I” or even worse just the part that can recognize the concept of “I”.

You now think that you can excise you “person” from your body and not have to worry that someone is prosecuting your person with the law of nature dictating that the person (a metaphysical tool of the man or woman) can be punished corporally and also via stripping it of the comforts of its acquired money.

Now just like I am not my person (Which is the PART of me that relates to other men and to society,,, usually by way of speech and sometimes via other methods of communication; hence the etymology of the word “by sound” being the choice for humans to describe the relation portion of their beings.) I am not my hand.

Do you think I can name my “hand” and create a UCC-1 agreement with my hand that holds “Me” indemnified for the actions that “Hand” does? Nope! Nonetheless the hand is still controlled by me. There is no provision of the common law that allows a man to separate himself from his actions by stating that he is not any part of his body. Let’s analyze this concept to the end and I hope you will understand the error. Even if you could separate your “I” concept from your body… you are still left with your body getting punished. You would have no claim to stop the body from being punished as you have separated yourself from the body that committed an act such as pulling the trigger. In some countries it was admissible to chop off a hand of the offender for stealing. This is not how American law works. Now lets apply this to the aspect of your metaphysical consciousness that deals with its society that we will call your “person” your person is that which communicates and decides how the man or woman it is attached to will interact with the world. The person is in fact controlled by the “I” concept as it is controlled by every part of the man in some degree as that is how a whole functions. Let’s say your person commits a crime. Society is going to punish your person much in the same way they could cut off your hand. The person being that which relates to the world or commonly a man as he relates to society will now be punished and that is done again by severance. Society will sever you “ability to interact with society” by locking your body in a sub society separate from the society the crime was committed within. By locking your body in a prison the person associated with that body is effectively punished.

The other way to punish the person is to strip it of ITS tools to interact with society. This can be taking of money, issuing a stay away order, issuing injunctions against certain behavior.

Again if you can file a UCC-1 against some part of you then what is to stop one from filing a UCC-1 against other parts like a hand? Where is the law that says that a hand cannot be incorporated and turned into an artificial person? The laws of Nature say so. You cannot separate you natural person from yourself. Thus the entire self will be punished for the actions of the person.

you should love your person and protect it. You should neverr shun a part of you in such a manner as you have done. You should never agree not protect your person from harm as the harm visited upon it will be visited upon you as well.

The process is illeagal as there is no common law nor stautory proceedure for doing so. It becomes unlawful when it is taken to the point of commiting a fraud.