Hive Law and Order

	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links
	Main Index Search Register Login Who's Online FAQ Links

	2 Online, 0 Active		You are not logged in

This is a historical archiveThe forum is read-only. Private information has been removed. It is not possible to login.

	Law and Order

All 24 posts Subject: UCC-1 Financing Statement Filings Please login to post Down

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-19-04 05:44
No 536527
      UCC-1 Financing Statement Filings

Does anyone have any expeirance with the UCC-1 Financing Statement Filings? I'm not that smart so I'm gonna let another bee handle this but if what I read was true........
Would it mean that you could not be touched, similer to diplomatic immunity?

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-19-04 05:46
No 536528
      .........

and if anyone could tell me why all my threads end with an orange italic ! that would be great too.

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
10-19-04 07:26
No 536538
User Picture       What exactly did you read?

The Uniform Commercial Code doesn't give people anything even remotely resembling diplomtic immunity.

and if anyone could tell me why all my threads end with an orange italic ! that would be great too.

We just think that everything you say is so god damn important we decided to put one there.

Milk rots your brain.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
10-19-04 14:46
No 536614
      UCC-1 form filings

UCC-1 forms are statments to the public that show a security interest has been granted in personal property. The property is listed. If you make a loan secured by a lien on personal property (automobiles are not included in many states) that lien is not perfected until a UCC1 is filed with the appropriate government agency. In my state, that is the county clerk's office, where deeds to real property are recorded. Perfection of a security interest is a question of priority among creditors. If you have judgements against you, and you have creditors trying to attach your property in satisfaction of their judgment, if they have a perfected security interest their right to the specific property listed in the UCC1 is prior, or superior, to the general lien of a judgment creditor. The bank that loaned you the money for the leather couch and love seat in the living room have first dibs on that leather couch and love seat, over your other creditors, and other creditors may attach and sell that sofa and love seat only if your debt is first satisfied IF the bank perfected their security interest by filing a UCC1 statement.

mostly harmless

Rhodium
(Chief Bee)
10-20-04 02:07
No 536715
User Picture       About the Hive feature

Post 492363 (fierceness: "Hive feature: exclamation point :)", General Discourse)

^{The Hive - Clandestine Chemists Without Borders}

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-20-04 05:30
No 536743
      what about using it for your name?

What about using it to gain full right of your legal name. Seeing that courts can only deal with names, and that the goverment assumes ownership ofer everyones name by defualt, if you were to take legal ownership over your name or "strawname" wouldn't you there by be soveirgn and free from any calim? if anyone wishes I could type out the document I have, its really long but interesting as hell, or has anyone heard of the filing being used like this?

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
10-20-04 05:53
No 536748
User Picture       I'd be happy if you could just retype the...

I'd be happy if you could just retype the above paragraph in English.

The answer is still no.

abolt
(Comandante A)
10-20-04 06:03
No 536750
User Picture       DJ

If you have read one of those books like "cracking the code":

http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

Then forget all about what you are trying to do.

If I remember correctly, this Straw man scenario has already been run in U.S. courts and, predictably, it failed.

NO law court is going to let you get away with some piece of percieved "legalese" trickery.

Law courts are not about "fairness and justice" they are about upholding power whilst eliciting an illusion of "fairness and Justice".

Whilst I believe the "Straw man" scenario is legally correct, I do not believe you will ever find a Judge to rule in your favor.

My advice is, instead of trying to find loopholes in the system, try to avoid it all together by flying "under the radar".

Try this "Strawman" scenario and you will find that out for yourself.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
10-20-04 14:21
No 536800
      abolition of slavery

The abolition of slavery pretty much prevents using a UCC1 financing statement to create a security interest in a human as "personal property."

All they do is put potential creditors on notice of a particular creditor's priorty claim to personal property. The people concerned with them, for the most part, are banks and financial institutions.

mostly harmless

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
10-20-04 17:36
No 536819
User Picture       What are you people talking about?

What are you people talking about?

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-20-04 18:09
No 536827
      well doubt anyone cares

Doubt anyone cares but i know of one person who has successfully done just that. He tells me that by law he doesn't even have to pay taxes. But he continues to live life very normally, and isn't involved at all in a any criminal activities. He's using it more as a back up in case anything were to happen to him. He said it took years and $1,000's. The fact of the matter is is that no one is free if someone other then yourself can make a claim of any sort on you. When any of you were born (in the usa for this matter)did you choose to become a citizen, did you sign a paper saying that you would follow all the laws, so how can you be held in court for anything? The fact that they can is that they own legal rights over your name. And it is up to you to distiguish the differance. And up to you to gain legal rights over your name, they own it by defualt. Normally I wouldn't even bring this up because its too heavy for me (i'm not that smart) but because of the person i know who has done this, I just wanted to hear bee's opinions on this.

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
10-20-04 18:15
No 536830
User Picture       "The person you know who has done this

"The person you know who has done this" paid a lot of money and a lot of time for absolutely nothing. He has no protection from anything whatsoever. If he was ever sued and you can get the judge to stop laughing after 20 minutes, it would be thrown out of court.

The fact of the matter is is that no one is free if someone other then yourself can make a claim of any sort on you. When any of you were born (in the usa for this matter)did you choose to become a citizen, did you sign a paper saying that you would follow all the laws, so how can you be held in court for anything? The fact that they can is that they own legal rights over your name. And it is up to you to distiguish the differance.

This is perhaps the most absurd crock of bullshit I have ever heard in the law forum.

Milk rots your brain.

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-20-04 18:42
No 536835
      more info

Government and commercial law can deal only against fictitious entities (persons, artificial persons) and the documents creating them, such as corporations, trusts, certificates of title, birth certifiates, ect, and contracts involving the same. Such persons include your all-capital letter name, i.e. your straw man, which also happens to be what is called "corporation sole" (an incorporation of yourself). The real parties of intrest who own all the land and all the money, and the agencies/resources of essentially all the world's governments, created your straw man shortly after your birth. Since they created and presumed ownership of your straw man they can tax, regulate, and destroy their property as they see fit. The real you, i.e. your living, sentient, biological being is indivisibly untied with your fictitious name, straw man person, as the ego is inextricably untied with the organism. The staw man includes your ego and the words, concepts, thoughts and ideas with which you interact with other people in speaking or writing. That which is done to the straw man is transmitted/transferred to the being linked thereto.

A sovereign possesses full right to dispense with his own property in any matter he wishes. If the sovereign elite who owns the straw man with which you are contractually presumed to have become unified, elect to tax, fine, regulate, enslave, or kill the abstract staw man, then, you the physical/biological being, experience the consequences in reality. In such legal status you are devoid of capacity to assert/enforce any rights. You have no "standing in law". A slave cannot sue his master/owner.

Whyen you secure ownership of your straw man in accordance with the legal procedures required to do so, you reuntie inherent rights and title to rights. In such case you have all claim on your straw man. In such case no other being in the universe has any claim on your straw man. In such case all other enities are devoid of capacity to act against you or any property you have thus secured.

The commercial crux of the matter is: WHO OWNS YOUR STRAW MAN? Unless you legally own your starw man, officals of the system possess the right in law, i.e. deadly force, to treat you in the manner the system mandates or allows, becuase the system owns your straw man. On the other hand, if you own your staw man no one in government, or anywhere else, can "state a claim" upon which relief can be granted", i.e. no one can penetrate your universe legally or commercially. They are estopped, ab initio

Presumption of contractual ownership of your straw man by the system is the basis of the systems claim against you. When you legally dissolve the presumption of contract between you and their ownership of your staw man, the basis of the governmen't claim on you is removed and you are legally established as soverieign and free

Regain the legal capacity of a sovereign and you have standing in law to assert your rights and can successfully rebut the foundational presumption of law by which the entire legal system functions. That presumption of law is that you have- as a free-will sovereign exercising your power of free choice- knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily contracted to be bound with, and therby be subjected to, the system. If you can properly rebut the presumption of bondage you are free; if you fail to do so your failure is a legal default (agreement by silence), signifying agreement with the position of the system that you are indeed a slave.

The rules are self-enforcing. The law is self-supporting. If you use the law improperly (which includes failure to use it at all) you lose by default. If you use the rules properly, you not only win but place the entirety of the law enforcement machinery of the world on your side instead of against you.

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
10-20-04 18:59
No 536839
      whatever you do...

Whatever you do... keep paying taxes. I don't give a damn what you think the law is, but if you think you can beat the IRS by using UCC-1, I will tell you right now there is room in the federal penetientiary system for you.

mostly harmless

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
10-20-04 19:13
No 536843
User Picture       i stand corrected

The commercial crux of the matter is: WHO OWNS YOUR STRAW MAN? Unless you legally own your starw man, officals of the system possess the right in law, i.e. deadly force, to treat you in the manner the system mandates or allows, becuase the system owns your straw man. On the other hand, if you own your staw man no one in government, or anywhere else, can "state a claim" upon which relief can be granted", i.e. no one can penetrate your universe legally or commercially. They are estopped, ab initio

Presumption of contractual ownership of your straw man by the system is the basis of the systems claim against you. When you legally dissolve the presumption of contract between you and their ownership of your staw man, the basis of the governmen't claim on you is removed and you are legally established as soverieign and free

OK, I was wrong. THAT is the most absurd thing I've ever heard in the legal forum.

Go ahead and assert owenrship over your scarecrow if you like. While you're at it, you might want to assert owernship over the Kingdom of Atlantis as well. The two will be about as legally binding, and besides, you'll need to move to Atlantis once you've assrted your own soverieghty and the US and every other country tells you that since you are not a citizen of their country, you'll have to leave.

(That last part is a joke. They won't actually tell you you have to leave, they'll just arrest you as an illegal alien, and with no other country to deport your ass to, you'd just spend the rest of your years in jail.)

All hail the Kingdom of Dumbjanitor. A more appropriately named country has never existed.

Milk rots your brain.

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-20-04 19:32
No 536849
      how this came about....

A land mark supreame court case of 1795, penhallow vs. doane's administrators, defines governments succinctly: "governments are corporations". Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, anabstraction, a creature of the mind only, a government can deal only with artificial persons. The imaginary, having no real substance, cannot create or attain parity with the real. The legal aspect of this is that no government, or any law, agency, aspect, or court thereof, can concern itself with anything other then corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them. One might immediately dispute this statement by pointing oiut that people are acted upon by agents of governments and fined, imprisoned, plundered and killed by government officials every day. The reason this can occur in law is due to the following:

1. The powers that be, who know and use the law, have stolen, conquered, subjugated and laid claim to the planet and the six billion poeple on it by using a foundational and inviolabe axiom of the law: "AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT, CALIM, OR CHARGE (no matter how preposterous, criminal, or illegitimate)STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE"

2. The maxim cited above is necessarily true because unless what is asserted is rebutted or disputed by the affected party there is no basis for anyone to know or act in any matter contrary to the unrebutted/undisputed claim or charge. This is a free-will universe. The unit of expeirience, rights and sovereignty is eatch particuler man. No one in the universe can speak for you other than you- including rebutting or disputing a presumption. As per the famous quote in Longfellow's Courtship of Miles Standfish; "why don't you speak for yourself John? [Alden]". This is the basis of the ancient maxim of law: "he who fails to assert his rights has none".

3. The governemnt acts against the artificial person that the government creates and owns. The real being is acted upon because of presumptiob that the real being has knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily contracted to be unified or identified with the artificial person owed by the real parties of intrest for whom the government fronts as the real parties in intrest. If you do not rebt the presumption, it stands as the truth and the judgment of the law.

4. The above-referanced presumption contract of the system's ownership of your straw man is considered valid because you have failed to dispute the presumption of a contractual nexus- therby agreeing- and you lose by default. Or, worse yet, you expressly ratify the contract by action of wrtitten assent. To accept any benefit from the system is to contractually incyr the abligations therewith.

5. Examples of contract ratification are:
a. Ratification by act (implied contract)occurs in a resturant when you order and consume a meal. You have, by your actions and without siging a written contract, contractually agreed to pay for the meal.
b. Ratification by express contract with the government occurs whenever anyone signs a form or application to accept any government benefit or privilege, such as driving a car, welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, ect. One who accepts the contractual benefits simultaneously incurs the contractual obligations. In the case of contracts with government, the obligations you incur are decided wholly by the government.

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-20-04 19:38
No 536850
      unobtanium

listen man i in no way am trying to argue this at all i'm just putting it out there and asking dumb questions. and as far as...
Go ahead and assert owenrship over your scarecrow if you like. While you're at it, you might want to assert owernship over the Kingdom of Atlantis as well. The two will be about as legally binding, and besides, you'll need to move to Atlantis once you've assrted your own soverieghty and the US and every other country tells you that since you are not a citizen of their country, you'll have to leave.
I think the author is merly staing that since most all country's laws are based on the universal commercial code, it aplies to those contries who follow it, BUT I'M PROBALLY WRONG

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
10-20-04 19:52
No 536853
User Picture       People are not countries.

Anyone planning to assert their own sovereignty better have a big fucking army.

Milk rots your brain.

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-20-04 19:58
No 536855
      thats what i thought

thats what i thought unob, if you were a threat to any government they could just kill you and say nothing becuase you have no rights, and since you aren't a contry there will be nothing said. I mean if this does work they could just wipe out all reacords of you and you would have never exisited.

Osmium
(Stoni's sexual toy)
10-20-04 21:06
No 536864
User Picture       I still don't comprehend what this is all...

I still don't comprehend what this is all about.

> since most all country's laws are based on the universal commercial code

Is there a universial commercial code? I didn't know that.
And laws are based on a lot of things but not on commerce, at least where I currently reside.

BUSH/CHENEY 2004! After all, it ain't my country!
www.american-buddha.com/addict.war.1.htm

geezmeister
(Of Counsel)
10-20-04 21:24
No 536868
      Don't try to comprehend it

Don't try to comprehend it Os. Its legal nonsense. Its the sort of stuff that tax protesters toss out to justify not paying taxes. Its the sort of stuff that makes them noticed, and imprisoned, for deliberately not paying taxes. It does not make any sense. Its Jabberwocky of the most absurd kind.

mostly harmless

dumbjanitor
(Hive Bee)
10-20-04 21:31
No 536873
      i don't know what to think

It does sound all like bullshit, but it was mentioned on the bbc, and this guy i know did it, so I don't know. I was just curious to see what you guys thought. I just wrote all that stuff out becuase i sounded like a dumbass trying to explain all of it. But the purpose this guy did this for was not for taxes, it was more of a back up in case he ever faced a jail sentance, but i dunno its probally b.s.

Unobtainium
(Minister of Propaganda)
10-20-04 21:58
No 536886
User Picture       A lot of people pull legal manuevers and claim

A lot of people pull legal manuevers and claim that they work, and they do, until they are tested. The number of wealthy people who have gotten bilked out of hundreds of thousands of dollars to set themselves up in "tax havens" think that their money is safe. And since most of them will escape scrutiny by the IRS, they will continue thinking they've pulled a crafty maneuver until the day they die.

But the few who do draw the attention of the IRS will quickly find out that the IRS doesn't acknowledge their little scheme and that it offers them no protection.

This is what the guy you know has done. He bought the story, and wasted the effort to build himdelf a wall of false security. If he never gets into any trouble, he will probably die thinking he beat the system. But if he fucks up with the law, he'll soon find out how little the government honors his personal declaration of sovereignty.

Milk rots your brain.

abolt
(Comandante A)
10-25-04 08:48
No 537654
User Picture       No good

I knew I had this stuff somewhere.

Check this out DJ & Co.:

Objections to name printed in block letters (all-caps):   US v. Lindbloom (WD Wash unpub 4/16/97) 79 AFTR2d 2578, 97 USTC para 50650; Braun v. Stotts (D Kan unpub 6/19/97) aff’d (10th Cir unpub 2/4/98); Jaeger v. Dubuque County (ND Iowa 1995) 880 F.Supp 640 at 643 ("The court finds Jaeger’s arguments concerning capitalization otherwise specious. The court routinely capitalizes the names of all parties before this court in all matters, civil and criminal, without any regard to their corporate or individual status....";

http://www.militia-watchdog.org/suss4.htm#capitals

http://www.militia-watchdog.org/suss1.htm

"The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation by, despite McLaughlin's protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts." McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

http://www.earthtoamerica.org/

	https://the-hive.archive.erowid.org	the-hive@erowid.org



Powdered by Sadism(TM) Release 7.04.2, © 2016, the Mhadi Army Associates
Links Erowid Rhodium

	All 24 posts		Subject: UCC-1 Financing Statement Filings		Please login to post		Down

All 24 posts	End of thread	Top