Current method of UCC filing

[suijuris]

You know, I think I may start calling some of these experts in the redemption / patriot movement "priests."



After all, without their intercession, how many people can access their remedy? That is, unless you want use the law...



Fair assessment?

[iamfreeru2]

Suijuris,



Again I will answer with regard to an active account. A closed account is active. That means it is being used and is used for offsets and adjustments. Just because an account is closed does not mean it is not active. Does Black's say that a closed account is inactive.The flesh and blood man uses it because it is used for offsets and ajdjustments. I hope I made that clear. The definition of offset is:



(Offset) - The reduction of the amount owed by one party to a second party by crediting the first party with amounts owed it by the second party. The existence and scope of offset rights may be determined by contract language as well as statutory, regulatory and judicial law.



The use of a closed account is to access the private asset funds to discharge the claimed debt through the Treasury. The fact that the Secured Party (flesh and blood man/woman) is the Creditor, or the bank, is what gives the flesh and blood man/woman the authority to use such an account. Can you prove to me otherwise? It is no more than using the exemption (remedy) we have been given due to the removal of money from our use.



Can I prove the use of a closed account successfully by someone else. This I do not know. All I know is that they are used successfully. A man just used a BoE on a closed account in a court in Ohio and was on one of Jack Smith's Monday night tapes. The tape is dated June 21, 2004 and is titled Cactus Pipe and is an 8 tape set if you would like to contact Jack to get it.



As I have said before I cannot prove that a BoE zeroed my IRS claims, as my IMF does not specifically say that. The debt is gone, however, and how do you explain that? Hmm.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Suijuris,



You may call me what you like. That does not negate the fact that I have successes and others in Redemption as well. Just because we do not have it in black and white does not mean it is not so. I do not care how it comes just as long as it comes.



iamfreeru2

[iamfreeru2]

Suijuris,

from Sujuris



The truth is, we could care or less if it is a called a redemption process. All we care about is if it works, and if it has backing in law, and is adequately explained. If not, it will be challenged strongly.



Some of these processes MAY work for some folks. But are we really being good stewards of our time and money to chase after these experts who give out half the details, when the law is freely available and can provide our remedy?

What and who's law are we talking about here? What and who's remedy? You keep stating it must be backed in Law. I keep telling you that what I do is backed in Law, God's Law. I will keep saying it as well. You prefer to use man's Law and I prefer God's. Now if you are saying the word of God is not the Law, then I would say you have real problem and not with me. You are not challenging me, but the one who wrote the law book.



When did I ever claim to be an expert in anything. I am not an expert, but know the one that is. Why is this such a threat to you? You keep inferring that following God's law is a mistake for those of us that are in Redemption and will get us nowhere and it is a mistake to chase after such foolishness. Anything that is not backed in man's law is foolishness to you. You did not use the word, but that is what you imply. Say what you will.



iamfreeru2

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Suijuris,

You may call me what you like. That does not negate the fact that I have successes and others in Redemption as well. Just because we do not have it in black and white does not mean it is not so. I do not care how it comes just as long as it comes.



When did I ever claim to be an expert in anything. I am not an expert, but know the one that is.

I have read elsewhere that you do not claim to be an expert. As any comments I have made about experts were not directed at you, you need not take offense at my opinions on these experts. But I should not have departed from the topic in any event, and I apologize for doing so.

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

What and who's law are we talking about here?

LAW. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other.

A system of principles and rules of human conduct, being the aggregate of those commandments and principles <u>which are either prescribed or recognized by the governing power in an organized jural society</u> as its will in relation ot the conduct of the members of such society, and which it undertakes to maintain and sanction and use as the criteria of the actions of such members.

With reference to its origin, "law" is derived either from judicial precedents, from legislation, or from custom. That part of the law which is derived from judicial precedents is called "common law," "equity," or "admiralty," "probate," or "ecclestiastical law," acording to the nature of the courts by which it was originally enforced. That part of the law which is derived from legislation is called the "statute law." That part of the law which is derived from custom is sometimes called the "customary law." - Blacks 3rd



Answer: Any law that can be enforced in this country.

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

What and who's remedy?

REMEDY. The means by which a right is enforced or the violation of a right is prevented, redressed, or compensated. -Blacks 3rd



Answer: Anyone's remedy for any action!

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

You prefer to use man's Law and I prefer God's. Now if you are saying the word of God is not the Law, then I would say you have real problem and not with me. You are not challenging me, but the one who wrote the law book

I deny ever stating any preference as to what type of law I would rather use.

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

You keep inferring that following God's law is a mistake for those of us that are in Redemption and will get us nowhere and it is a mistake to chase after such foolishness. Anything that is not backed in man's law is foolishness to you. You did not use the word, but that is what you imply. Say what you will.

I say what I mean and mean what I say. I deny having inferred that following God's law is a mistake for anyone, whether "in Redemption" or not, or it will get you nowhere, or that it is a mistake, or that doing so is chasing after foolishness. Futher, I deny having inferred that anything not backed in man's law is foolishness.



Why are you accusing me of inferring things regarding "God's Law"? I went back and read the entire thread, and could not find anything that either of use (or anyone else for that matter) said about "God's Law" or "man's law." I do not want to debate anything, but yet you created a contraversy in an apparent attempt to draw me into one.



I respectfully decline your offer to debate aspects concerning "God's Law" vs. "man's law." I believe the topic was regarding closed accounts.

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

The use of a closed account is to access the private asset funds to discharge the claimed debt through the Treasury. It is no more than using the exemption (remedy) we have been given due to the removal of money from our use.

Then why use it at all, considering the admitted risk and lack of information available? Why not discharge with a method proven to be free of the risk involved with a closed account, like a CPN? As you and others have stated, people have gone to jail for using closed accounts. I would not want a reader to try it based on the sketchy details provided here and be the next!

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

The fact that the Secured Party (flesh and blood man/woman) is the Creditor, or the bank, is what gives the flesh and blood man/woman the authority to use such an account. Can you prove to me otherwise?

Can one prove as a fact that the Secured Party is the bank? If not, could the people who have gone to jail for using closed accounts be your proof otherwise?



Feel free to provide more information and answers as time permits. I will await the outcome and hope for some good material to aid me in my research of this subject.

[Ice]

This is so simple and yet being made to complicated .. and for what?... to prove what?



Look -- the account BELONGS TO THE BANK. If you use it without their express permission then you are committing a TRESPASS.



What you need to prove is that you have the authority to use the account. You cannot prove that without a current contract with the Bank.



If we had the authority to use these accounts then it wouldn't be necessary to ever change Banks and receive new accounts... we could just keep using the same account (same number, etc.).



But lets not lose sight of the point -- Using something that is not yours is committing a TRESPASS unless you can prove you have authority to use it.



And that is what a judge will look for.

[logos]

Ice:

I agree with much of what you're saying. We definately need the bank's authorization to use their account. We are given authorization (obviously) to use the bank's account when we first set it up with an open status, but do you have any data that indicates that that authorization is rescinded when we change the account's status to closed? For example, is this stated in our contract with the bank? If it isn't, then isn't it reasonable to assume we still have authorization to use the account after it's closed? Could it be we have permission to use the account regardless of status until we rescind said account?


This brings up another question: while accounts are normally created having an open status, is it possible to have the bank create an account for us initially with a closed status? Hmmm......

[Jerseee]

Logos,



Private property is private property no matter how you look at it. If the bank never discloses all the terms with any of their other agreements--what would lead you to believe that they would disclose terms for use of a closed account?



If you have to apply for an account--you are asking for permission and are contracting their services. Bank accounts are not natural god given rights. They are private property to the owners.



If let you borrow my lawn mower, that is a privilege. But do you think that if you move from my neighborhood and I have my garage closed--that the previous agreement still stands? In any event you have to ask for permission. Even to use a closed account--you need permission.



I am not speaking of the method of offsetting debts with using closed accounts. I am speaking on using the account itself without permission.



And it may be possible to open a closed account. That sounds funny just saying it--don't it?

[Ice]

If you could open a "closed" account... they would probably charge a high fee for it!!



For all of those that have doubts as to my stand on this... check the jails and prisons around the country and you will find a lot of people have been locked up for using a Banks account. It's called "Fraud". It doesn't matter if you use a "check" from that Bank or a BoE that references that account ... it is still "Fraud" (because a claim of authority to use the account is made [just by referencing the account on the instrument] when there actually is no authority [or authorization] to use the account).

[logos]

Ice:

I still haven't seen any indication authorization for an account's use is any different when closed vs open. Maybe it is, but I haven't seen it. When you speak of a closed account, it's almost as if it were something altogether different than an open account thus requiring authorization to use, even though you don't say that. We all agree it's their account and we need permission to use it. My point is: you've already received permission to use it when it was first created! It's still the same account. Does the bank contract say it may only be used when open, but when closed it's off limits? Where does it say things are suddenly different when an account changes status? I agree with iamfree when he/she says some people out there are successfully using closed accounts. I'm trying to determine what do those people who successfully use closed accounts do correctly (and thus stay out of jail) vs those who use it and end up in jail. Doesn't anyone else out there want to know too?

Just because we do not have it in black and white does not mean it is not so.

Amen to that, iamfree. I've been saying this all along. Just as we must pay attention to what is said, we must pay more attention to what is NOT said.