negotiable Instruments are...

[dashboy]

Fellas,


my problem is that I hear so many Gurus claim that there way is the proper way and I can deal with that as long as what the communicate to us newbies makes logical sense.& Is it fair to assume that this trust is for my benefit? I have set up a UCC Contract Trust private account with the U.S. treasury Dept. My understanding from what I read in the UCC Articles 3 and 4 is that the banks should be very familiar with the instruments and transfer systems. I'm just concerned that by sending the instrument only to John Snow, it will sit there on someones desk forever and never get taken care. Should the banks be handling these instruments like good little boys?& Is there some fallacy I am misconstruing in my mind concerning them?


I must say though that I have the utmost respect for you gentlemen who like to go and fight it out with them in court.& I am willing to do that also but only if I absolutely have too but not a the expense of my family!&To try and juggle a twelve hour a day&job along&with a wife and child is taxing enough.& I know most of you will say that you gotta sacrifice sometimes to win battles but sometimes those sacrifices cut days off your life and force family members into situations they never asked for. I consider myself a halfway intelligent guy who can look at the facts and decide whether or not stepping into the arena to fight Goliath is worth it at the time, but&also&knowing full well that some lumps are not worth taking!&It is good to have gentlemen in your corner who can help you get ready for the battle when you decide to take it. Anymore help in this is greatly appreciated!

Mornin', Dashboy....


I understand your point very well.& Or as someone once said: "A wise man chooses his own battles."& And since I still haven't grasped the "details" of UCC and so much other related stuff, I'm still staying away from 'em.& And big brother and its agents have taught us all, painfully so, that truly the devil IS in the details.


Convinced that agents look for a reason to nail you, I'm not gonna be the one to hand them the hammer.&


Randy

[Ice]

Originally Posted by logos

Some claim that "closed account" stuff is crap but the legal definition of it alone is a clue that there's probably something to it.

logos,


When a BoE references a "closed account" the routing number is part of that account number.& The routing number is the property of the bank as it is assigned that number by the Fed.& Use of that routing number is a "trespass".& I believe this to be the reason that so many are being arrested for the use of the BoE that uses such closed account numbers.


As I have stated in other posts: why not use the UCC FS filing number against the STRAWMAN instead of a closed account number?& Just pass along a part of the debt owed to you by your debtor STRAWMAN to the other party.& FRN's do that... why can't your BoE?


&

[Jerseee]

Dashboy,


I am not familiar with their system of accounting so, I stay away from BOEs.& Not that they are not a viable tool in commerce--its just that I am not familiar with their workings.

[dashboy]

Thank you fellas for the replies! Thus far I have been studying Winston Shrouts methods of discharge. I have not yet sent out any istruments because I want to be dam sure of what I am doing. Whether I use a BOE, CPN, or bond, all will make reference to my UCC Contract private trust account with Mr. Snow. Should this be the case?


&I have been looking at the downloadable VOD with CPN notice on this sites download section. I was wondering why on the BOE form there is&a space for&mention of the UCC financing statement number but not so when using the VOD with CPN. Should'nt the CPN make mention of the UCC FS number also? If not, why not?


I also noticed that in previous post Either by&ICE or Jersee, who&made mention that there is no need to establish a UCC Contract trust account with Snow and that Public Policy stipulates we all have the right to discharge debt based on public policy period. That we as the true creditors have the right to this even without a quote un quote UCC Contract trust account. Would my understanding&of what I just stated be correct? I guess what I am trying to do is get a greater understanding of the two when both premises are based on public policy. I hope that doesn't sound ignorant! :(


One other thing. I keep hearing that this trust was made for our benefit. do you guys agree with this? How is taking away or ability to pay a finacial debt with Gold or silver in exchange for debt for debt be beneficial? Ive been racking my brain trying to force it to come to grips with this concept. When I try to mesh it with my biblical views, I have an easier time because I realize the God paid the debt I owed him through his son but trying to carry that same premise over to the financial side is difficult. Especially when I read to owe no man and that usuary is a sin. What are your fellas thoughts on this?


thanks!


&


&

[Ice]

Your statements are correct.& As I have said, if anyone can show me where HJR 192 states that there must be a UCC or TDA account... I'll apologize for my ignorance.& Until then it would seem the so-called "experts" are pulling our leg.


And correct again.& The Word is the plan... and the LAW.& How can we consider ourselves to be in obedience when engaging in the passing of debt certificates?& It just isn't right.


Now you know why the world belongs to the devil.Good thing WE DON'T.


&

[logos]

logos,


When a BoE references a "closed account" the routing number is part of that account number.& The routing number is the property of the bank as it is assigned that number by the Fed.& Use of that routing number is a "trespass".& I believe this to be the reason that so many are being arrested for the use of the BoE that uses such closed account numbers.


As I have stated in other posts: why not use the UCC FS filing number against the STRAWMAN instead of a closed account number?& Just pass along a part of the debt owed to you by your debtor STRAWMAN to the other party.& FRN's do that... why can't your BoE?

Ice,


Thanks for the info and insight. It's definately something to consider. However, I'd be hesitant to use the UCC-FS number because it doesn't represent an account, and the FS is just a notice. One can file a UCC-FS and have a corresponding SA, but I don't think that alone makes one the SP over the STRAWMAN. I'd also like to know the&reason why people are being arrested for using BoE's on closed accounts. What do the authorities charge them with? Perhaps they don't respond properly to the authorities' challenge and thus get nailed.&Perhaps the&principle can be applied, though people's application of it may be incorrect or deficient in some way, thus&getting them into trouble.


BTW, I suspect the UCC Contract Trust account would be necessary if one were to go global with this. If the&Treasury is now the IMF (or a front for it), and virtually all countries are hooked into that, then I suspect there is a way to access one's exemption if one is&a "resident" of&another country (having a STRAWMAN in&said country) and discharge debts that&your&STRAWMAN in that country had accumulated. After all, isn't the Treasury also a bank?


Any ideas?

[Ice]

The UCC filing number is proof of a debt owed to you... all you are doing is passing off a part of that debt... when you collect, they collect.& FRN's are debt certificates too.& Just pass along part of the debt your STRAWMAN owes you.


People are being arrested because they reference a "closed account".& If I wrote you a check from my checking account, and wrote several other people checks, and didn't have any funds in that account -- wouldn't I go to jail?


The experts claim that you can do this -- I claim that you cannot BECAUSE THE BANK OWNS THAT ACCOUNT NUMBER -- WHEN YOU CLOSE IT YOU RELINQUISH ALL RIGHTS TO IT.& Besides, the bank owns the "routing number" (it is assigned to the bank by the Fed).


A bad check is a bad check, no matter how you look at it.


Now, if any of those arrested actually win and get judgment that the debt has been "discharged" -- you let me know so I can do some apologizing -- but the way I see it, they are not in good shape at all.


&

[Jerseee]

Logos,

Also, you can create your own note number. These are just means of tracking.

You can create a promissory note with yoru own note number and the substance of your note can be your remedy and not some previous or alleged debt.

Use public policy to subsist your note and give your own unique number. Have a notary witness your signature and you now have a negotiable instrument.

Stop playing around with the defacto government's property and use your remedy. Ice and myself are not fans of the methods that are put out here getting folks locked up--when all you have to do is use your remedy. No one is immune from public policy.

good luck

[iamfreeru2]

Hello everyone,


First I would like to point out that Bank One v Ward was sent up on appeal and then remanded back to the lower court where the original victory for Sara Fugate was reversed and she lost the case. It was then sent back on appeal and the outcome is unknown. How do I know this because I know Sara& and have spoken may times with her about the case.


I have also used the BoE for my home and as a result have had a complaint to foreclose filed in August 2003. To date it is going nowhere. You will find a post on another thread that I have posted in this forum. I believe it is under An&Aware Group Warning where I explain what has taken place.


I have also used a BoE successfully against the IRS and have discharged 1997-2002 IRS claims. All I have to show that there is no debt is an IMF that shows zero amount owed for those years. Does this mean that they will cease coming after my strawman? This I do know that I am the Creditor (bank) and the BoE I use is a foreign BoE. When used properly they are a lawful instrument.


iamfreeru2