Flawed Redemption Process

I'VE BEEN RESEARCHING THIS WHOLE REDEMPTION/UCC PROCESS FOR SIX MONTHS NOW AND QUITE FRANKLY IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.



I FOUND THIS ARTICLE THAT SORT OF LAYS IT OUT IN PLAIN ENGLISH. THE MAIN PART THAT PUZZELED ME ABOUT THIS WHOLE ISSUE WAS THAT OF CONTRACTING WITH YOURSELF OR YOUR STRAWMAN.



HAS ANYBODY SEEN THIS ARTICLE BEFORE?





18 USC Sec. 514 [01/06/97]

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 25 - COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY

Sec. 514. Fictitious Obligations Statute

Flawed Redemption Process



Taking Section 514 you can turn it around and use it on any government official, employee or the employee of the IRS to charge them under this section for failing to list the contract with the signature obligating the American, when they file a lien on the American,



I draw an analogy that even an eighth grader can understand. You don't have to go through a lot of gobble-de-gook of law to understand. You buy a 1500-dollar refrigerator from Sears under a contract to pay in 90-day cash. You sign the slip, they keep a copy, and you keep a copy. Sears delivers to your house. 90 days comes and you didn't pay. Sears now sends you a notice, commercial law you know, same as IRS operates under. You either ignore the letter or respond saying you will pay. Step one is done. Sears sends you a second letter. Same thing happens as in step one. Sears now sends you a third notice and demand to pay. Now step three is satisfied. Just like IRS does. Sears now goes to the county where you live and files a UCC-1 Form. One of two processes is required.



#1 The UCC-1 must contain the debtors signature and the creditors signature. Well Sears knows you are not going to sign that Form.



#2 The Form states that a bill, contract, must be presented containing the debtors signature before filing can occur. Sears has that contract you signed 180 days ago so Sears attaches the evidence to the UCC-1 Form and it is filed. This VERIFYS Sears Claim. Now Sears, (United States) can take you to court anytime it wants or send a collection agency (IRS) to hound you. Sears (United States, AKA Congress) can get a court judgment against you without your having to appear in court because you have been given the due process afforded under contract law. Sears can show the contract bearing your signature. Can the United States? Sears can show evidence of a 30-day letter, the second 30-day letter and the final 30-day letter, all totaling 90 days past the 90 days you agreed, by contract you would pay.



No, you cannot claim lack of due process under contract law because you did not have a court hearing. Sears created it's own court administratively and you failed to respond or responded incorrectly.



Now what does the IRS have to file with the county recorder if you won't go and sign the UCC-1 Form? Has the IRS this VALIDATION document that allows the County Recorder to file the Notice of Lien? Hey, you are big people and can figure it out for yourself, can't you? Ahhh , I see a lot of complicity with the IRS and County Recorders lighting up so that not only Section 514 can be used, but EXTORTION, FILING FALSE AND FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD, SLANDER OF TITLE, and any other cogent law that you can find in State law.



Now use this same principle in the Redemption scam. Yes, it is a scam. #1 You cannot contract with your self, is the maxim of law.



#2 Do you have a signed contract with the debtor, the alter ego you, that IRS says exists? Now you know why you can't file a UCC-1 on the alter ego debtor.



#3. You "accept for value" the debt the IRS laid on this alter ego.



What you have just done is verify the IRS has a claim and in accepting for value you just made yourself a surety for that 1500 dollar refrigerator. Geeze, just look it up in the UCC - it's right there. Now you must pay that and Sears (IRS) can make you pay it. IRS now has your signature verifying what they could not legally file,-- remember the contract bearing your signature that you signed for at the Sears store? You, in doing this Redemption crap just helped the IRS overcome the illegality of their flawed Lien process. It is all in the UCC if you took the time to read it ALL, instead of blindly following the blind who did not research far enough.



Will people ever learn? No, because everyone is looking for that silver bullet that is handed to them on a silver platter. There ain't no such two animals existing. No one wants to tax their brain, and as a result, for decades upon decades people go to jail, lose their property for failing to do their own research after we researchers have warned of such things. If it sounds to easy and too good to be true, 99 percent of the time it is nothing for nothing but heartache.



The INFORMER

[Jerseee]

The Informer is right about the process being a scam but he/she goes about explaining it all wrong.



First he/she makes assumptions and then holds them to be true in the context of his/her point. What I mean is that he/she makes it appear that there is lawful money being used when he/she should of made reference of laws that supported their position. Not US codes--but US laws.



The Informer is right overall and especially about doing research. Also about folks going to jail using this stuff!



All,



Read your State's Constitution and you will find that no one can be imprisoned for a debt. If they stayed on the side of law and not private codes for private banking--they would not end up in debtors prison.

[Ice]

I answered this in another section of the forum... but I'll be hanged if I can remember where...



Ice

[logos]

PJT04:

Redemption is not a scam. It does use law, just not the way some think it should be used. Many people simply don't understand it, and it doesn't help that clear, concise info on it isn't as readily available as the usual court/law material.

Keep in mind that the truth in law--as in every other field--has been deliberately made difficult to obtain for obvious reasons. Magicians generally don't write down how they perform their tricks, and it is foolish for us to expect them to do so.

[KaosTheory]

In order to have a meaningful conversation on Redemption, one must explain exactly what part of this process they are talking about. One must also understand the nature of the contracts or agreements they are under or not under. One must understand the definition of Consideration and what the Consideration is that is mentioned in the contract or agreement. One must understand the difference between Lawful Money and Credit money as Consideration in their contracts or agreements.



For instance, if one were told that Redemption is a hoax then one might also incorrectly draw the conclusion that there is no such thing as a STRAW MAN. This could cause confusion when trying to learn why some laws apply to you and other laws which appear to apply to you .....do not apply to you.



It can get very complicated very fast. I think CTC3 did a good job of explaining the commercial nature of the Defacto Gumment and how it is operating....through commercial agreements. It did not mention BoE's. It did mention CPN's and VOD which are quite real and useful and are within the law. I do feel that the book was incomplete though.



I am not defending or condemning Redemption because all Redemption really means is to Redeem your property that has been put in a commercial trust through the use of a legal construct of law/code..... known to us as the ENS LEGIS or STRAW MAN. At least, this is where I am at this point in my understanding.



KT

[Jerseee]

KT,



Adjudicated case law explains a great deal. That is were redemption is. It is not in the UCC theory. it is in decided cases that expose the truth.



The constitution tells you that there is a difference in the United States and the United States of America. The supreme court decisions and even some US Code elaborates and backs the consitution.



There is no doubt about a fictional person but, the true human being's remedy from commercial fraud--does not lie in their rules and convoluted process of fraud....it lies in the case law that exposes every tactic that they have perpetrated on the people since the nation's formation.



This is what we are trying to impress on folks. Your remedy lies within the case law handed down from superoir courts that have decided on this stuff--years ago.



Mixing commercial law and constitutional law--is bad joo joo. ANd is a recipe for failure or private agreements.

[logos]

KT:



The majority of what goes on in the courts is a fiction to test you and most people buy into it. The people here seem to ignore the political realities of much of what they're dealing with. For example, do you really think the courts are going to rule in favor of the defendants in foreclosure cases? Rarely is it done, and no matter how well they follow procedure and use case law there won't be any more wins than there are now (virtually none). The legal system is the enforcement arm of the financial system. It's true they don't lend money and they won't produce the original note if you challenge them to. Since when does that stop them? In the end all they have to do is submit an Affidavit of Loss and El Judgo will "reinstate" the contract. It's totally wrong, but it's done all the time and this is why I'm switching tactics in my case. Taking it up on appeal won't help either. I agree with the basic logic of what these guys are saying and their methods would work IF the courts were operating the way they think the courts do, but unfortunately, what's going on is something altogether different.


A point to ponder: what would happen to the financial industry if judges started ruling against banks, mortgage cos., and CCC's because they couldn't/wouldn't produce the original notes/contracts? The bulk of its operations would grind to a halt compelling most of the people involved to find a new line of work. Such precedents would cause many "paying customers" to start waking up. God knows what other disasters (from their standpoint) this could lead to. The legal system will not allow this to happen to their masters. The judges and lawyers are protecting their jobs. This is the reality underlying many of our individual legal problems.


People say their business practices are fraudulent. Oh?

Who pretends to lend? A fiction called a bank/CCC/etc. To whom is the "money" "lent"? Your STRAWMAN, another fiction. For their to be a fraud, someone must be getting screwed somehow, but who's getting screwed? You, or your STRAWMAN? How can one fiction harm another fiction? It can't. So how much of a fraud is their fraud? Could it be it's an illusion and they're testing you and you're falling for it?


The pincipals on this site have an agenda to "kick butt" and take back the courts. The former part of their agenda is nothing new and stems from ego. The latter part of their goal is laudible, though unrealistic. So many people would have to wake up to reach a critical mass for this to happen, and I don't see it happening any time soon. The "kick butt" mentality so many "patriots" have had over the years has never worked because it isn't in harmony with the legal system as it really works. What's being touted on this site is, for the most part, nothing new. To rise to an equal level of footing of the Big Boys requires a change in mentality. We must come to understand the law as the Elite do. They are where they are in the world precisely because they don't think like us.

[KaosTheory]

Thanks for the great replies guys. I believe that I understand where both of you are coming from. I am just trying to keep an open mind and rely on reason and my ability to learn. The only thing we can really do is do what we are already doing. Banding together, sharing ideas and observations, plugging data into the equation and seeing what comes out, then adapting as necessary.



Jersee, my heart is with you and I'm trying to learn about the things you mention.



Logos, I have seen things from your perspective and understand what you are saying. I hope things work out with your mortgage problem. Are you familiar with what Montana did with her mortgage? It made sense to me and apparently worked very well. I'd be interested in reading about your experience if there is a post somewhere on it. Also, have you followed the land patent route? I am just now starting to learn more about it. Just wondering.



KT

[Jerseee]

KT,



Logos speaks of hope through another means. I speak of action through lawful means.



Montana got her mortgage eliminated through LAW--not UCC redemption. Rory got part of his town back through LAW--not UCC redemption, a host of other members cleaned their credit reports through LAW & CODES--not UCC redemption. This is where we "kick-butt". Logos makes it sound like we storm in the courtroom in a dramatic sense and take over. Read about what we speak of and ask the people directly whom benefitted from using LAW vs UCC and I can tell you this much...most of the members here are former TSN members. That should tell you something about our methods.



As for logos' situation with foreclosure--I wish logos well if logos uses UCC redemption methods.



This is a lively debate about methods and I usually agree with logos on lots of issues, but this one I cannot. Not until UCC redmeptionist--prove that their method works. It has been around for quite some time now--surely they should have a multitude of DOCUMENTED wins.



Look, don't take it from either of us--do your own research on both issues and you will see for yourself. And after you've done that research--I will be more than glad to assist you in further understanding what we do and how we get results--LAWFULLY with public information. No hidden books, no commercial theories of undocumented accounts--kept at the Treasury...just straight hard hitting cases that support your position.



Logos,



Good debate on issues (nothing personal). Address the fraud from the beginning and ask what did the mort. co. or bank loan you? Ask them if they have standing? Ask to see the original note. Offer a good faith payment through your remedy and put the judge on judicial notice. Hope that helps, if not maybe this will:



If the debtor executes a new promissory note with a surety which the creditor accepts in satisfaction of the pre-existing debt, an action may not be maintained upon the original demand. Whitsett v Clayton, 5 Colo 476; Bullen v McGillicuddy, 32 Ky 90; Jenness v Lane, 26 Me 475; Creager v Link, 7 Md 259; Draper v Hitt, 43 Vt 439



The offense of uttering a forged mortgage may be committed by having the same recorded although it is not in any other way delivered to the mortgagee. People v Baker, 100 Cal 188, 34 P 649.



Alteration of a document without authority with the intent to defraud may constitute forgery and such alteration may consist of the insertion of matter in the document after it has been signed. Buck v Superior Court (Cal App) 41 Cal Rptr 718, subsequent op on reh 232 Cal App 2d 153, 42 Cal Rptr 527, 11 ALR3d 1064, cert den

[Jerseee]

Logos,



Please do not use UCC redemption to fight the foreclosure. Take a look at this and think.



John P. McCAY, Jr. and Rosemary L. McCay v.

CAPITAL RESOURCES COMPANY, LTD.



96-200 ___ S.W.2d ___



Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 24, 1997





1. Mortgages -- original note's terms could not be enforced by use of copy without proving it lost, destroyed, or stolen as required in code -- adequate protection to appellants from future claim not given. -- Where appellee apparently never possessed appellants' original note as provided in Ark. Code Ann. 4-3-309(a)(i) (Repl. 1991), but was required, even if it had, to have proven all three factors specified in 4-3-309(a) and did not do so, appellee could not enforce the original note's terms by the use of a copy; even if all three requirements in 4-3-309(a) had been proven, the trial court was still obligated to ensure that appellee provided adequate protection to the appellants from any future claim, and this, too, was not done.



2. Evidence -- argument that rules of evidence supersede requirements of UCC <u><font color=red>without merit [/color]</u>-- appellee failed to either produce original of note or satisfy requirements for lost negotiable instrument. -- Appellee's argument that the trial court was correct in admitting the copy of the note as an exception under the best evidence rule and that the Arkansas Rules of Evidence superseded the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was <font color=red>without merit[/color]; if a duplicate was allowed in place of the original note, the appellants could later be subjected to double liability if the actual holder of the note appeared; <u>the rules of evidence are rules of the court involving legal proceedings, while the UCC is composed of statutes of law</u> that established the rights and liabilities of persons; appellee, as an assignee of the appellants' note, could not sue on the underlying debt the appellants owed to the original lender; in order for appellee to have prevailed in enforcing the note, it was required either to produce the original or satisfy the requirements for a lost negotiable instrument under 4-3-309(a) and (b); because appellee failed to do either, the case was reversed and remanded.



HERE IS SOME MORE HELPFUL INFO.



Profert of a promissory note is required by statutes placing promissory notes on the same footing and of equal dignity with instruments under seal.

Beebe v. Real Estate Bank, 4 Ark. (1842)





See Vandergriff v. Vandergriff, 211 Ark. 848, 202 S.W.2d 967 (1947), where this court held there can be no judgment on a note when it is not introduced into evidence and where the note's absence is not

explained.





This court has also held that secondary evidence of the contents of a note is inadmissible when the original is within the control or custody of the one seeking to enforce it.

Chaviers v. Simmons, 256 Ark. 731, 510 S.W.2d 301 (1974).





FRCP Rule 37 Part 5 - Methods to Discover Additional Matter.

Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property under Rule 34 or 45(a)(1)(C), for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission.



Whether a court has power to dismiss a complaint because of noncompliance with a production order depends exclusively upon this rule providing that if any party refuses to obey an order to produce any document or other thing for inspection, the court may dismiss the action or proceeding. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et commerciales, S. A. v. Brownell, U.S.1958, 78 S.Ct. 337, 355 U.S. 910, 2 L.Ed.2d 271 .