Flawed Redemption Process

[iamfreeru2]

In defense of Jerry; I find him knowledgeable in the area of Land Patents and he has sent me some info regarding the issue. He and I spoke on the phone the other day and I am looking forward to the contributions he will make on this board. I welcome him and believe he will bring much knowledge in the area of Land Patents and I for one will learn from that knowledge. As far as contributions are concerned; I believe he has already contributed to the members of this board.

iamfreeru2

Not a problem. We ALL make mistakes.

Jerry

[Jerseee]

Jerry,

Thanks for the info on land patents and the definition of newbie. However, this is not the land patent forum. I meant this subject. Offer solutions to this subject. this is where you posted. Or am I twisting that?

But I guess that is misconstruing and twisting your words too. Unbelievable. I made my position clear. I made the objective clear. I am do not support UCC redmeption. This is the topic. This is what I am talking about. there is no way to twist that. there is no way to twist that money changers were not welcomed by Jesus.

Your attempts to create a misdirection are feeble. I would suggest to find a better way to nullify my point and my position. Other than throwing up red herrings.

The fact still remains, I am not for UCC redmeption and I stated my reasons. I offered lawful means to attempt to get results desired (depending on the circumstances) as opposed to the redemption process.

If I need assistance with land patents and information there, I will contact you. You are free to accept or reject my request for information. But here, in this forum, where the topic is UCC matters--offer a solution. I am unsure why Iamfree needs defense from something that is not needed since Iamfree and myself have made our points on this issue and moved on. But hopefully you can inform me.

You stated, "... your comment bears little importance to me, and I respond only as a matter of protocol."

I will respond to anyone who calls on me (if I see the post), I don't have to give a disclaimer that I am responding out of protocol. No one on this site is obligated to do anything except follow the rules. So if you wish not to respond that is fine, if you wish to respond that is fine too. But a disclaimer is not needed. And I would sincerely hope that my comments do not bear importance to you---that is not my intent nor my wishes. Only to inform and discuss, nothing more.

If someone wants to differ with me on lawful things I will support my position. If they want to discredit a process I support and use, I will make every attempt to support my position with documentation and other forms of proof. So if I am taking aim at a process that is ruining people constantly and there is someone who believes in the process then by all means I understand their position to defend it. This was done already by Iamfree.

But you are neither for or against UCC redemption from what I am getting by your responses. So I can only deduct that you do not like my approach on how I attack a process. I came to this conclusion because you stated, "Likewise Jersee you have done nothing but criticize my position and criticize me for defending Iamfree's right to make a choice between the varying processes that are available. Am I for or against the redemption process??? Don't know... as yet, I have not completed my research on the subject. I will admit, that I am intrigued with the outlay of the program, but have not made a final decision."

If I am correct, I have not denied Iamfree from using UCC redemption (as if I could). And to quote Iamfree, he said, "My wife and I are still in our home. Is it a failure because the court ruled against us regarding the BoE? It is a setback, but I would not call it a failure. You see I look at this as a success. Any learning experience is a success to me. We are learning in the process and are growing as a result." This statement tells me that he is still using the process.

So since Iamfree is still using UCC redmeption processes, I have to ask...

So why does he need defending?

What does he need defending from?

If you are, "...defending Iamfree's right to make a choice between the varying processes..." who has denied him a choice?

I hope that isn't too twisted to support my biased position.


Good thread!

[Jerseee]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

In defense of Jerry; I find him knowledgeable in the area of Land Patents and he has sent me some info regarding the issue. He and I spoke on the phone the other day and I am looking forward to the contributions he will make on this board. I welcome him and believe he will bring much knowledge in the area of Land Patents and I for one will learn from that knowledge. As far as contributions are concerned; I believe he has already contributed to the members of this board.

iamfreeru2

Iamfree,

I agree. Jerry's responses are good and well written. However, I believe this is not the case. I'm trying to determine his position on this matter. Also, why does Jerry need to be defended? And from whom does he need to be defended from?

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Iamfree,

I agree. Jerry's responses are good and well written. However, I believe this is not the case. I'm trying to determine his position on this matter. Also, why does Jerry need to be defended? And from whom does he need to be defended from?

One more time Jersee. I stated earlier, that I had not taken a 'position' as yet. I believe my words were "I have not decided" or to that effect. It has also become common knowledge among those following this thread, that I have declared myself to be a 'newbie' with regard to this subject matter. Therefore, it should also be understood, that I do not have adequate knowledge on the subject to render a qualified decision to the question that you are desiring me to answer.

Would you expect a child to give an answer on a subject matter that you know he/she has not received adequate instruction? It would appear that you are demanding of me to give a pro or con answer relative to position when you already know that I have stated my in-decision, and have also expressed my lack of adequate understanding of the subject matter.

Until such time as I have been able to provide myself with the necessary education on the subject matter, you will have to simply be satisfied with the answers that I have already provided. I will not allow you or anyone else to force me to give an answer to a question such as you have put before me, without first evaluating all available information that would allow me to make that qualified answer.

[Jerseee]

Jerry,

I understand clearly now, thanks. And I would not ask such a thing of a child (I never considered you to be a child nor have I alluded to that). But I must ask this...

Why are you defending something that you do not have adequate knowledge of?

This is why I stated that I believe you are discussing my approach against this process and not the process itself. Well in any event, I understand where you are now and this information was needed for clarification only---not to tag you with a position or force anyone to decide something. But if your read the posts just as you asked me to do--you'll find that my position is against the process and not focusing on my approach of how I am against the process.

So what you have just provided has let me know that you are not knowledgeable about this process and explains to me why this discussion gravitated to nuances of the posts rather than the process itself.

I apologize for this miscommunication. I should have asked for your knowledge level on this paticular issue before engaging in any dialogue.

But I remain perplexed as to why defend something you know very little of?

If you don't mind answering that question please.

Great thread!!

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Jerry,

I understand clearly now, thanks. And I would not ask such a thing of a child (I never considered you to be a child nor have I alluded to that).

The analogy of the child was simply that, an analogy. It was not intended for anyone to receive literally. At 57 years of age, certainly I am not a child, but regarding many aspects of this technological era, most of us could be considered 'child-like' when regarding their individual level of expertise on a given subject.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

But I must ask this...
Why are you defending something that you do not have adequate knowledge of?

This again is where you have miscontrued my intentions. I was not defending a process, but rather was taking a position along a fellow Christian brother who, I determined in the Spirit of truth, was being greived by a spirit that was not conducive to 'unity'. That is about as close as I can explain the situation without stepping on toes.

-----------

Originally Posted by Jerseee

I apologize for this miscommunication. I should have asked for your knowledge level on this paticular issue before engaging in any dialogue.

Apology accepted

[iamfreeru2]

I just cannot understand how people can bash Redemption and that it does not work, when I have not seen any of the other processes on this site work any better. There are many people on this site that claim so-called "lawful" processes work and can document it. Where are they? You know we need to be working together to find answers instead of making accusations and false claims. Let's find the answers.

People are getting homes taken and going to jail and it matters not if it is through Rdemption or so-called "lawful" process. I say so-called because if it is truely "lawful" and recognized as such by the courts then why is it not working? I have had more success personally with Redemption, but that does not mean I throw out all other processes.

Something is definitely wrong and we all need to work together to figure it out. This is what the powers that be want us to be doing is fighting and bickering among ourselves. It is called divide and conquer. A house divided will fall.

You do not have to be for any particular process, but if you see something that may work for either why not help rather than bash? If you are not willing to work together in this then this is not the place I thought it was. If we are not willing to do that then I believe this site is worthless. We are so bent on tearing the other process down we are missing what we are supposed to be about. We should be looking at what is good about the process and then trying to make it better.

Now I have stated that God can use any process for His glory. I was asked by another. "So when you failed using the redemption process--I guess you were using it the wrong way and for your glory only?" Part of my answer was, "What I am saying is that things do not always work the way we want them too. God sees the big picture and everything goes according to His plan, not ours." I will say that there are times we allow pride to come in and we think we best know how things should be done and we push God out of the picture. I am certainly guilty of that. And when I do I fall and fall hard. We all are guilty of letting pride and ego get the best of us. Let's put that aside and work together to find the answers we all are looking for. If we do not then we are just playing into the hands of the enemy.

I for one am willing to do whatever it takes.

In His service,
iamfreeru2

[Jerseee]

Iamfree,

Uh, I am doing that. I am working with anyone who wants to use a "lawful" process.

I have read up on UCC redemption in the beginning so I am familiar with it but I will not recommend it. If folks ask me questions about UCC stuff--I try to answer them or refer them to other knowledgeable members but I always make that notice that I am not a supporter of such methods.

There are ways to handle this so folks don't get their homes taken, but no one wants to listen or they use redemption methods, get into default and then that's when they're hosed.

I offered to inform Montana of a lawful method and she and I conversed through private means and I guided her to a person that I knew could help. And it worked! I'm not taking credit for her courage but, I am merely answering your post. You basically are saying work together and I always have and will--regardless of anyone's position.

I just don't want anything to do with redemption and I cannot help anyone who uses it. I don't study it and I don't approve of it. Now if folks want to use redemption methods, I refer them to other members with knowledge of such things--just as anything else.

If things don't work in court---there is remedy for misconduct by public officials. I did not want to infer that lawful means are guaranteed wins--but there is remedy using public things. there maybe remedy in private dealings too--but there is no need for private remedy when all people struggling need remedy through methods that they can easily comprehend. You have to dig deep into UCC stuff to even have a fighting chance. Then you can't avail yourself of remedy when there is blatant misconduct by banks that ignore their own rules.

Iamfree, I am a team player. I just don't play by UCC redemption rules.
And I will be the poster child for not supporting it. this is the risk I'll take because I'm not so full of pride that I cannot admit when I am wrong. So I take a position. But I'm still a team player. If I have ever refused to help someone on this site, it was because I was either too busy or my expertise in that area is limited. But never on purpose.

Very responsive and nicely stated comments Jersee.. I can appreciate all that you said in this last post of yours.

Jerry