Current method of UCC filing

Ice:



No one will ever be able to show you that HJR implies or states that there must be an account with John W. Snow or the Secretary of the Treasury or the Department of the Treasury for that matter. HJR 192 does not require in any capacity a fiduciary relationship with any third-parties for the discharge of debt.



All debts shall be discharged upon "tender of payment" dollar for dollar. Tender of payment is the key as you well know-- but for others, tender of payment is general and ambiguous and may be used as a remedy if one so chooses. However, I suggest that people take a closer look at the bookkeeping entries and the alleged contract between the alleged lendor/creditor before they act hastily with using instruments for the discharge of debt.



If the Bank/Lendor/Credit Facilitator has been paid as a result of the taking of ones promissory note, why tender payment for discharge? The only reason I can see at this point is if one is seeking a quick resolution to their debt matter. Personally I would not be opposed to offering a surety bond in the event the Alleged Lendor/Credit Facilitator is damaged while I create and execute an administrative remedy upon them...



Furthermore, I would expressly warn anyone that they should think twice about using instruments drawn against an alleged UCC Contract Trust Account or any third-party account for that matter. The basis is simple, if you cannot back it up in the event BB decides to bring a claim forth, then don't use such things for God's sake. Promissory Notes however, are utterly harmless and no one can end up in any sort of trouble with the use of such.



Presently, I am doing some extensive FOIA, Public Records Act, as well as Information Practices Act Requests directed at the Department of the Treasury and John W. Snow in an attempt to get to the bottom of some very long and unanswered questions.



I shall share the results of my inquries as soon as a receive my responses...



R1

[logos]

reasearch1:

I agree with you in that people should be cautious about using BoE's. If BB were to claim the BoE was bogus, the burden of proof would be on them to prove it. As long as the document is drawn up correctly, and the UCC Contract Trust Account has been properly set up, the only who can make it--or any other draft, for that matter--"bad" is the drawee, just like with a check or M.O.. Mr. Snow has been largely silent about all this, and I doubt BB could produce a Certificate of Protest evidencing dishonor. Of course, they may try to railroad one anyway.

GREAT POST RESEARCH1.

I'VE BEEN WONDERING ABOUT THIS ISSUE LATELY. IF THE ALLEGED CREDITOR/LENDER HAS BEEN "PAID "WITH THE PROMISSORY NOTE ALREADY WHY IS THERE A NEED TO DO IT AGAIN? BESIDES, IF THEY CAN'T VALIDATE THE DEBT FIRST WHY WOULD WE WANT TO ISSUE ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE ALLEGED DEBT.



I'M KIND OF NEW TO ALL THIS "REDEMPTION " PROCESS AND SO FAR I'M TRYING TO GET SOME DEBTS VALIDATED BY USING CASE LAW AND FDCPA.

[iamfreeru2]

Logos and research1



I concur that people should steer clear of BoEs if they do not know how to use such processes. One must know what they are doing before any attempt to use any redemption process. There are some that do not understand the use of close accounts, for instance, as Jerseee commented on earlier. Once you understand debits and credits and offsets and adjustments and how to use a closed account then and only then can one use a BoE on a closed account. If one is interested in educating themselves on this I would suggest getting Jack Smith's Monday night tapes. As with any process study is required to receive the knowledge needed. Jack's tapes are a starting point.



iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

I echo iamfree and research1,



Folks, please study and research this form of redemption before using it!!! It hurts my heart to see folks get jammed up with this stuff because they want a quick fix to their problem. Then when the going starts getting tough they look to the gurus for answers and the gurus are either, too busy with their own issues, unwilling, or just plain ignore the person altogether.



As I always say, "I believe that this works but do not encourage it since study is needed (about 1 year). Learn the law and the code and its history before delving into this practice."



I am a passionate man and hearing about or even reading about my fellow sovereigns being jailed for months over this really hurts me. I mean it really does. For those encarcerated, if they stuck to the law--they would know that each state's constitution (in the bill of rights) states that "No one shall be imprisoned for a debt, except in cases of fraud".



When they are argue over BOEs--that is where they lose and fraud is thrown on them instead of BB. NEVER ARGUE and study this stuff thoroughly before using it. Please.

[Ice]

[color=blue][b]Some of you are not listening -- you CANNOT USE A CLOSED ACCOUNT. The account number belongs to the bank and upon closing the account you have given up all rights to the number. If you use a CLOSED ACCOUNT number you will be committing a TRESPASS.

[logos]

Ice:

AFAIK, closing the account merely changes its status. One would think the account is yours regardless of its state. Why is it any more of a trespass to use it when it's closed than when it's open?

Besides, closed accounts are to be used for setoff and adjustment. Do you have any more data re not using closed accounts?

Members:



I sincerely agree with Ice on the closed account business. It is true that a closed account can be used for setoffs and adjustments; the only problem is that it is NOT your account, it is the banks. If you were to have your own charter or your own private banking institution that could interface with the banking realm you could use closed accounts for setoffs and adjustments. In the world of banking this is quite common place. Although I have seen people demonstrate success with closed accounts and boe's drawn thereupon there is too much at risk. Furthermore, I am well aware of Jack Smiths work, I have boxes of his audios, hundreds of them in fact. Also, I am well aware of Victoria Joy and everyone else commonly known for promoting the "closed checking account" business. My humble comment is one should do further investigation to determine who's account it is. Just look at the contract you have with your bank--they own the darn account man. DANGER Will Robinson, DANGER.



R1

[logos]

research1:

I don't doubt you when you say the account belongs to the bank. I just don't understand why it's OK to use it when it has an open status vs. when it has a closed status. Are there banking laws/code/etc prohibiting ordinary people from using the account when it has been closed? Or is it merely a case of the banks' giving people a hard time about it w/o any legitimate reason for doing so?

[Ice]

You cannot use the account number because they OWN the account number. It is not yours to use unless you have a contract with them to use it. Once you terminate the contract you terminate all rights to that number.



The Routing number is assigned to the Bank by the Fed Res... and that Routing number declares a specific Bank. You might say that the Routing number belongs to the Fed Res.



You do not have any right to the Banks property unless you have a contract with the Bank for the use of the Banks property. "Closed" means YOU HAVE NO CONTRACT WITH THE BANK TO USE ITS PROPERTY.



Yes, it is THAT simple.



The account number is only yours as long as you have a CONTRACT with the Bank. Once the Contract comes to an end so do your rights to any property/service that contract allowed you to make use of.



You wouldn't like someone using your property without your permission... would ya?