mortgage

[manros]

I was told the UCC is the note, but the banksters do not file it. We have to demand it back.

They deposit the note or financial instrument to then do conversion (into money) without telling you about it. Then, they go after your money and life for 30 years (extorsion)

I was told I should rescind my signature on the application for the loan and on the mortgage, since I was told the lie they would lend me the money.

The note itself is the UCC lien, only that it is no to their convenience to record it.

I was told I can make my own new note if they refuse to return it to me and record it in the recorder's home. If the locals do not want to record it i should keep it at home with me.

They profit on the future equity of your home, not on the actual equity. It is regarded as a commodity, I was told.

Also, "possesion is 9 tenths of the law". It means you have actual possession of your home, not then, and you have all these rights.

I am not trying to confuse any one. I am new to this subject myself. I am not good at explaining it, either.
But I would like the more gifted and educated members to consider this piece of information for the benefit of all.

[Notorial dissent]

My but you have been told a lot of stuff, all of it malarkey. The moon is made of green cheese. Now you have one more thing that you have been told that is of equal value.

Originally Posted by manros

I was told the UCC is the note, but the banksters do not file it. We have to demand it back.
The UCC has nothing to do with real estate transactions to being with. Notes are not filed, ever, so this too is equally nonsense. The note is returned when the debt is cancelled, not before.

They deposit the note or financial instrument to then do conversion (into money) without telling you about it. Then, they go after your money and life for 30 years (extorsion) Sure they do, and there are little green men up there mining the cheese.


I was told I should rescind my signature on the application for the loan and on the mortgage, since I was told the lie they would lend me the money.
You had the opportunity to walk away from the loan during the recission period before you accepted the funds, you didn’t, you can’t unilaterally void a contract. Since they did lend you the money, you have no grounds for complaint.

The note itself is the UCC lien, only that it is no to their convenience to record it.
The note is a note, and never a lien shall be. For some one who keeps going on about the UCC, you really should actually read it, but then you would know it doesn’t apply to real estate, and that notes aren’t liens. Notes are not recorded, Deeds of Trust are.

I was told I can make my own new note if they refuse to return it to me and record it in the recorder's home. If the locals do not want to record it i should keep it at home with me. This statement is pure gibberish. Again, you DO NOT record a note, and you might want to look up your state’s filing of fictitious financial documents statutes, they usually constitute felony charges for the privilege.


They profit on the future equity of your home, not on the actual equity. It is regarded as a commodity, I was told. They profit on you honoring your promise to pay and repaying the principal and interest on the note.


Also, "possesion is 9 tenths of the law". It means you have actual possession of your home, not then, and you have all these rights. Again nonsense, you have fee simple title to your home, the DOT provides only bare title that can be enforced only if you default on your loan, otherwise it is dormant.


I am not trying to confuse any one. I am new to this subject myself. I am not good at explaining it, either. Strange, you seem to be doing a good job of it.

But I would like the more gifted and educated members to consider this piece of information for the benefit of all.

A nice collection of malarkey, but malarkey none the less.

[manros]

Thanks for your opinion, ND. I am not good at explaining -as I said- but understand better- you may not believe it.

And I say you might not believe my understanding is good, because after reading your post, I felt you agree with me.

I certainly thank your input. It diverts the attention so well that it will help other members to post their ideas.

I really would like a lot of members to talk about this particular details:

Why the note is not the lien (UCC lien?)

Why they never record it.

Why the banksters keep it if it is not theirs?

Why do they deposit it as an asset and not as a debit? I may be wrong on this. If I am, ...Where and how can I get proof to the contrary? Can you educate me on this?

Thanks again.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by manros

Thanks for your opinion, ND. I am not good at explaining -as I said- but understand better- you may not believe it.

And I say you might not believe my understanding is good, because after reading your post, I felt you agree with me.

I certainly thank your input. It diverts the attention so well that it will help other members to post their ideas.

I really would like a lot of members to talk about this particular details:

Why the note is not the lien (UCC lien?)

Why they never record it.

Why the banksters keep it if it is not theirs?

Why do they deposit it as an asset and not as a debit? I may be wrong on this. If I am, ...Where and how can I get proof to the contrary? Can you educate me on this?

Thanks again.

Notorial Dissent is a Quatloser:

http://quatloos.com/qforum/profile.p...profile&u=3228

He or she is on my Ignore List. And this sums up that mentality well, even with a language barrier:

I certainly thank your input. It diverts the attention so well that it will help other members to post their ideas.

I am hoping this may address some of the questions in your post.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_2.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_1.jpg

Note the Pay to the Order Of is a check in itself. And:

www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg

So not only does a bank generate the credit for the loan off the Debtor, they sell that credit too. They double-enrich and can be called through a letter of credit to redeem directly from the Treasury. (attached)

Or drafted off of an identical letter of credit:

One can also authorize the redemption of the bill as a coupon:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/succes...r-coupon.html?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[gldskr]

David

This looks similar to the failed methods used by redemptionists, however, I see that your POMC takes on the character of a promissory note. You're only liable when they again issue real money. Yea, when pigs fly.

gldskr

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by gldskr

David

This looks similar to the failed methods used by redemptionists, however, I see that your POMC takes on the character of a promissory note. You're only liable when they again issue real money. Yea, when pigs fly.

gldskr

There are a couple twists and turns from the UCC stuff; but you are right. Note the date on my POMC.

I would still be advocating the HJR-192 approach in general instead of the Libel of Review if the public trustee were simply to issue the Warranty Deed in all cases.

The main problem I see in the letter of credit approach is the same today as it was over a decade ago - whoever you issue it to for redemption is not of the same character as the issuer. The mortgager is a citizen of the US and is therefore subject to "the [Fourteenth Amendment] jurisdiction thereof" - singular US corporate description. This subjects the redeemer to the absurd notion that redeeming gold in 1933 was "hoarding".

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...March_1933.jpg

Otherwise I would take exception to your comparison with the UCC/Strawman Redemption. I was warned that people could get themselves in trouble just parroting the LoC via Internet copy.

There is a definite invoking of Title 28 U.S.C. §1333 Diversity Issue required to make sense of anything and that leads me into the Libel of Review. Post 1861 emergency seems to justify that people demanding their own gold is "hoarding". And the LoC as drafted above seems to allude to freely compacted states and state citizenship - which without the right to secede from the Union, simply do not exist:

However on the other hand, nobody wants that issue in their courtroom. Nobody wants to be the black-robed attorney who simply says David Merrill is right.

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588

Note these Letters of Credit from many years back. The earlier one leaves only a comma between David and my family name to distinguish the diversity of citizenship. Whereas there is a vast difference in nomen and signature authorizing the second a couple months of research later. Pay particular attention to the POMC reference. I printed it out with the earlier Book and Page but wrote in the new Book and Page with the Great Seal of Authority for the State of Colorado.


Regards,

David Merrill.



P.S. I decided to open a $15K account with the City of Colorado Springs with a POMC so they could just deduct any future fines from my account. The prosecutor for the DA decided the size of the POMC I offered was too close to a check and accused me of forgery. However the DA was running a vacant office and when I put that Certificate of Fact into the case jacket (from the Secretary of State) he quit work altogether the next morning.

[manros]

Thank you, Mr. Merrill! You are offering a wonderful education!

I will also place Notorial Disent on my "Ignore List". I believe he or she is purposely ignorant.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by gldskr

I see that your POMC takes on the character of a promissory note. You're only liable when they again issue real money.

So it's not a check and it's not a promissory note because it is conditional on an event that will never happen .... yet it also has a 120-day deadline.

Nobody should be surprised when the bank bounces this and the creditors want to see legal tender.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by manros

Thanks for your opinion, ND. I am not good at explaining -as I said- but understand better- you may not believe it.
I don’t, you aren’t.

And I say you might not believe my understanding is good, because after reading your post, I felt you agree with me.
Gee, wrong again.

I certainly thank your input. It diverts the attention so well that it will help other members to post their ideas.
No, you are just oblivious.

I really would like a lot of members to talk about this particular details:

Why the note is not the lien (UCC lien?)
A note is not and never has been considered to be a lien, UCC or otherwise.

Why they never record it.
Notes are not recorded, they are property.

Why the banksters keep it if it is not theirs?
The note belongs to the person who purchased it. Try reading the UCC which you claim to understand.

Why do they deposit it as an asset and not as a debit? I may be wrong on this. If I am, ...Where and how can I get proof to the contrary? Can you educate me on this?
A note is an asset to the owner as it means money coming in, it is a liability to the maker as it means money that must be repaid. You are wrong, try something novel like a business finance text or basic economics or accounting.

Thanks again.

Merrill you lied to me, yet again. You promised faithfully that you would ignore me and you lied about it again.

Since Merrill doesn’t know the difference between a check, a promissory note, or a delusion, he is useless on many fronts, except for amusement.

[Shoonra]

Yep, DiM is a terrible liar. What do you expect from a con?