Current method of UCC filing

[Ice]

The bank didn't make him an offer that he was willing to accept. Sooner or later they will find a taker for their offer... and then the case will be heard... regardless of what party actually gets evidence on the record.



Ever think that this judge recused himself because he didn't want to read all the stuff you dumped on him? Maybe that's what we need to do... make them work really hard!!



Congrats.



Don't let your guard down.



On the other matter...



The NOTE that was deposited by the bank as an asset, was actually "exchanged". The note was "converted" to FRN's. And that, sir, is using FRN's. If you are dealing with a mortgage issue then you are actually speaking of an instance in which the use of FRN's and the consequences of that use are being decided.



They want to demonstrate that you are their slave. And they will do everything in their power to make sure that you understand that, yes, you have given up your Sovereignty by playing in their sandbox.

[Jerseee]

iamfree,



common law is the basis and cannot be done away with. THis is the foundation of law. The case you speak of did not do away with common law courts. It combined equity and admiralty (i believe). I am not sure on the properties but I am sure of the combining of seeking relief in the same case.



Years ago, if a judgement was handed down--you would have to get equitable relief through a whole nother' process. All that did was combine the matter.



Now this is what I am speaking of...you want to ignore the rules and not hold the opposing party to the rules that they routinely break. This is faulty logic. THis is where the UCC redemptionists system breaks down.



Once you toss that stuff up in the court and do nto follow procedure and rules--you will get slammed. Why not use the info you got and follow the rules at the same time. Instead of going in there being a maverick and undoing all that hard work because of hatred against the courts.



Hey congrats but I think you know they will be back---be prepared.



Also, I have nothing good to say about Howard Freeman so his beliefs I do not hold to.

[iamfreeru2]

Ice,



I agree with you that the bank converted the funds to FRNs. Since I can prove I am the Secured Party Creditor and not the DEBTOR then how do FRNs reduce me to a slave. As the living flesh and blood man I do not use FRNs, the STRAWMAN does. The 2 must be kept separate and if not then I would agree with you. The SOS agrees there is a difference or the UCC-1s we entered as evidence would not have been filed in the first place.



Jerseee,



I stand by what I said earlier about the courts. I do not believe the common law is used and that our courts are merely commercial in nature. No one has been able to show me any different.



In an earlier post you said:

IMHO, I think the UCC redemtpion stuff is fine but when folks are putting this info out there and then you have newbies trying to grasp the idea and use it while they are in a bind--this recipe spells danger.

I totally agree with you on this point. Newbies should not be using Redemption methods untill they understand what they are doing. I for one will share with a newbie information, but I always give the warning do not use until you understand it and how to proceed. So to all newbies again, "WARNING PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION WITH ANY NEW IDEAS OR METHODS YOU ARE UNFAMILIAR WITH."



I will continue to keep all posted with our progress in the foreclosure case. And I agree with you guys that another Judge will be assigned to this and we will go into the court. I do not believe the "judge recused himself because he didn't want to read all the stuff we dumpt on him", as Ice puts it.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Ice,



I forgot one thing, who says I am playing in their sand box. The note is not in my Strawman, it is in my wife's. The mortgage was taken before we got married. So you have made a statement which is untrue because again you made an assumption. I will say again I have not given up my sovereignty and am not playing in their sandbox. I will say I am the Secured Party over both my and my wife's DEBTOR and I have the property listed as collateral on my UCC filings. They will have tuff time reducing me to anything.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Jerseee,

from Jerseee



Once you toss that stuff up in the court and do nto follow procedure and rules--you will get slammed. Why not use the info you got and follow the rules at the same time. Instead of going in there being a maverick and undoing all that hard work because of hatred against the courts.

Now you are making assumptions. Who ever said I would toss anything like that in the courts. I put everything in colorably so as to not give them too much truth. As I stated before they cannot handle too much truth. When guys go in spouting more truth than they can handle they (the Courts) just start using, this guy is a looney bin crap, and then throw them in a mental hospital. Like I said before they do not want the truth to get out before they are ready. You will not find anything in my paperwork that uses any Rdemption terminology. DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.

iamfreeru2

hmm, try to REALLY USE REDEMPTION and you WILL be in front of a jury and i WOULD give them JURY INSTRUCTIONS so that they know what they suppose to be doing, you can go in and let the prosecutor control them if you want, good luck.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Ice,



I forgot one thing, who says I am playing in their sand box. The note is not in my Strawman, it is in my wife's. The mortgage was taken before we got married. So you have made a statement which is untrue because again you made an assumption. I will say again I have not given up my sovereignty and am not playing in their sandbox. I will say I am the Secured Party over both my and my wife's DEBTOR and I have the property listed as collateral on my UCC filings. They will have tuff time reducing me to anything.



iamfreeru2

NO wonder the judge wanted out of this one.



You claim that you are in control of your wifes STRAWMAN... and then you give authority to someone else to handle this court situation... and the court isn't going to understand why you couldn't just do this all yourself AS THE SOVEREIGN you claim to be.



If you are the Secured Party why do you need a "Trustee"?... why do you need to have anyone else appear in court? It's like those that attempt to hide "income" from the IRS with all these trusts and such.



But, here is what you have done: You have demonstrated that you are the PARTY to which the court should direct its inquiries, notices and such. And you, as the PROPER PARTY, are not going to appear and thereby not have any eveidence put on the Record.



The judge renders a decision according to which Party enters the best evidence onto the Record. He can only make a decision according to what evidence is presented to him. If you don't "make the Record" then you haven't presented any evidence.



You still played in their sandbox when you allowed any of the STRAWMAN entities that you have control over to continue any contractual relationship with a bank... including any account of any kind as well as a mortgage.

[iamfreeru2]

Ice,



You still do not understand. In order to file court documents we need a buffer (Fiduciary) to do that as the flesh and blood man cannot do it becasue he lacks authority to represent the Debtor. He is not a dead person and cannot represent the dead (fictions). Let the dead represent themselves.



The documents were filed into the so called record but we did not do it. Either the Judge or the Attorney did. I keep telling you that I am controling the Fiduciary. If you saw our paperwork you would know what is happening. Have you ever seen a Letter Rogatory and an Affidavit in Support of the LR? Until you know fully what we are doing you need to stop making assumptions.



You are also making assumptions why the Judge recused himself. I am glad you have a crystal ball or that you can read the Judge's mind.



You completely mistook what Jack Smith said as him saying when you deal in the private you lose your sovereingty. He laughed when I told him that and said it is because of a lack of understanding. A direct quote from Jack: "Sovereignty means to serve, not to rule." That is exactly what the Lord did when He had His ministry on earth. Philippians 2: 5-8 Says: "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus who although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking on the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obediant to the point of death, even death on a cross." Is that the kind of sovereigns are on this site? Do you serve or rule, there is a difference? I would rather use my sovereignty to serve. I hope and pray I have that kind of attitude in regard to my sovereignty. After all it is a gift from almighty God.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Ice,

You still played in their sandbox when you allowed any of the STRAWMAN entities that you have control over to continue any contractual relationship with a bank... including any account of any kind as well as a mortgage.

One thing more you do not understand. The Strawman has no account any longer with the MC. The matter has been settled and closed. We have made no payments with "FED private money" since March of last year. Can they prove we have not settled and closed the matter? So why is that we are playing in their sandbox? More assumptions. You are just full of assumptions aren't you.



iamfreeru2

[logos]

all:

Another way to look at this: if you tender a BoE (legit per HJR192) in response to their settlement offer, for the amount of their settlement offer, then where's the dispute to arbitrate? Wasn't that the whole idea behind our sending them a VOD and CPN to discharge an alleged debt--to eliminate the controversy before it gets to court, right? Without a dispute, there's little for a court to do, I think.