Evidence of what we speak of. - Page 2

logos · #11 07-28-2004, 02:30 PM

Jerseee:

Of course some people are preying upon others--what else is new? This is to be found in just about every field of endeavor, and as far the legal arena is concerned, there have been many more people taking advantage of others by peddling court/"law" material vs those dealing in redemption. This has nothing to do with the process itself. I don't think there's much in the way of "lawful due process" as is commonly believed. People have been continuously nailed over the years doing essentially the same things they're doing now. People do have other remedies than fighting with their adversary (B.B.), which almost always leads to nowhere.

Advising people to stay away form courts and "law" is not necessarily bad, as long as one clarifies what one means and offers alternatives. And yes, there are alternatives to dealing with the "law" and courts in the usual manner than is popularly believed. I've come to realise the legal system doesn't work as many believe it to. So much of it is an illusion and a test. BB and associates are <u>way</u> ahead of just about everyone in their understanding of the law. It is we who are incorrect. Witness the results over the years.

KaosTheory · #12 07-28-2004, 03:34 PM

Hmm the quote function is not working right. When I quote a post....neither the quote nor my text appear.

OK, I wrote "Is the judgement even legal"? I should have asked if it was lawful instead.

Logos wrote : "I'm not convinced they are, nor that it matters. There must be lawful money for judgments to be executed, and since there is none, I'm not sure there really are judgments being passed. It could be part of the illusion, a test."

KaosTheory · #13 07-28-2004, 03:34 PM

This is my point exactly. The judgement is bogus so who really cares if the court has a judgement against them (BBCOA)? Even if the judgement is for performance instead of money. To compel performance implies a contract so we're back to challenging the contract or investigating the commercial nature of the parties in the alleged contract. I.E. is the judgement against fictions or flesh and blood? Of course it is against fictions.

Jersee, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just trying to keep things in perspective. Their judgement is not final and doesn't amount to much more than a scare tactic if anything....IMO.

The powers that be are smarter than we because they control what we see. They control the vertical and the horizontal if you know what I mean. They also control the schools of this nation which is their greatest asset.

KT

Jerseee · #14 07-29-2004, 03:32 AM

Logos,

good luck.

KT,

disagreement is fine with me--in fact it is refreshing to hear other sides of an issue.

But the judgement stands. So you really can't ignore it because it was a contractual event between two parties and not the STATE v. BBCOA (there is a difference).

If you don't think the judgement is valid ask the defendants why they did not respond to the complaint? The court did not screw them--they screwed themselves by not following the rules. Ignore rules and procedure and I too would stay away from the courts.

I'd rather lose by trying to fight--than to lose by not holding them accountable to the same rules they place upon others.

KT & logos,

This is not meant to group you both together but just to consolidate my response:

Go to court and fight! If needed. There are more losses using UCC redemption than there are actual cases being fought. In any event, good luck because not following rules and procedures of the court--luck is needed since knowledge is not used.

logos · #15 07-29-2004, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Go to court and fight! If needed. There are more losses using UCC redemption than there are actual cases being fought. In any event, good luck because not following rules and procedures of the court--luck is needed since knowledge is not used.

Typical. Everyone wants to fight. It is this mindset that continually does people in. Fighting is NOT needed. As you constantly say: use your remedy. Little more is needed.

Luck is not needed. You guys still don't get it. How do you figure there are more losses using UCC redemption than cases being fought?

Jerseee · #16 07-29-2004, 06:43 AM

Logos,

The "fight" will be short lived once the facts hit the table, your remedy being one of them--which I do advocate you use. Don't fight--just sit there with the UCC FS on the record in court. Hey, use the UCC redemption stuff. Go for it. We have proof here that rules, procedure, and case law work.

Sj has also provided that the UCC redemption gurus had an opportunity to show that UCC redemption works but, did not. So I have given proof (thanks to SJ) that what we do works and what UCC redemptionists do does not. Geez, all they had to do was answer the complaint. A simple answer-that's all.

You are free to provide DOCUMENTED proof that I am wrong. Hearsay about a guy in another state who lives next to a woman a block away from the actual person who had success with UCC redemption, won't cut it.

If the process works it works. I am not an advocate of it--nor do I push it. But I can discredit it witht he proof that I have. You are free to do the same with our method.

I really don't know why its so hard to get DOCUMENTED proof of this technique. It is like pulling teeth to get DOCUMENTED proof. Or better yet, get the actual person who was success with it to show and prove, since these covetted documents are so hard to find or even see it.

Now I read and hear all about UCC redemption folks getting put in jail--but I have yet to hear Richard Cornforth or Michael Badnarik get put in jail or even judgements against them.

For the latest UCC redemption debacle, go to the COURTS forum and read the post by Blacktruth. See how far he got with UCC redemption sold to him.

Anybody on this forum or any other visitors can accept my challenge to show DOCUMENTED proof or go and get the lady from across the river in Minnesota, whose daughter dates the guy's cousin, whose grandfather on his aunt Jenny's side--has success with UCC redemption, to come and post their DOCUMENTED proof.

Hey Logos, this is not to imply that you are a UCC redemption die hard. I'm just responding to your post Logos. good luck is needed and necessary using this stuff--until proven otherwise.

Ice · #17 07-29-2004, 07:18 PM

logos,

The term "fight" does not actually mean to do battle... we should actually say "demonstrate the truth of the matter". Because that is all you do. There is no arguing with decided case law... and if you have that backing you up... then what is there for them to argue against?

The only "fight" that actually may occur is when they attempt to side step or ignore their own rules of procedure... and that is where the "objection" comes in... and we then hold them accountable for their attempted actions.

The court is not a "private" venue and should not ever be looked upon as such. It is a Public venue and once it has been called upon judicial/court procedure is in play.

How can you be heard if you don't speak? If you don't use the court procedure you will not be heard.

Ice