UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

This includes Live Birth Trusts (LBT), and "Accepted for value" (A4V)

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby traderfluff » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:58 pm

Hi all,

Totally new to this so don't shoot me but, I think the UCC-1 forms relevance to the UK a clue could be in the form its self as it asks for a postal code? don't the US only have zip codes and postal codes are world wide!! also if it were only US only why have a blank box for country as well???


Damn Mary Croft being Canadian :) She's over here soon in November with the AV3 tour: http://avlll.co.uk !!


Best of luck..
Emotions come and go but what you stand for lasts forever...
http://traderfluff.blogspot.com
User avatar
traderfluff
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Reigne » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:29 pm

You mentioned zip codes - maybe there is something like this in the UK?

Zip codes are for identifying US Territories - that includes DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam...not the 50 States. Additionally, the zip code MUST be used when the state is abbreviated...
Having a mailbox on your property makes it a US Territory...and everything (including 'person') that is on that land/territory is under the US Jurisdiction.

In my case, when someone MUST have a zip code (usually companies like Dell, etc.) I tell them that it must be placed inside brackets ex: [12345] The brackets (or box) make things legally 'disappear' - not visible in the legal areas ie: courts.

This bracket/box "rule" seems to be in place everywhere with a bit of variable difference. For instance, in Australia, it's the opposite from the US "rule." Whatever is in brackets/box is visible, whereas what is outside of the brackets/box is not visible (so they must bring whatever is outside of the box/bracket into it with a signature that begins outside of the box/brackets and goes into the box/brackets ... it 'drags' everything outside of the box/bracket into the box/bracket)
Note: this is MY comprehension from what I have listened to regarding those in Australia.

Maybe there is something like that in the UK? Meaning the postal code/zip code may be something to identify the Crown or UN Territory? Or maybe an abbreviation of of some sort?

I'm sorry I don't know enough about the UK statutes - but with so many "similarities" between "different" countries/nations (bankrupt corporations), it makes me think there must be something "of the like" in place in the UK as well.

We actually have 2 mail services in the United States - the United States Postal Service and the United States Post Office - one being of the govt, while the other is not part of the govt (this is where those who do not reside in State of ____ can obtain their mail - however, more often than not, the General Post Master does not know what his own job is and hassles people when they want to 'opt out' of the govt services)

And of course there is the UPU (Universal Postal Union in Bern, Switzerland)

While what I included below does not pertain entirely to UK, I'm sure someone here knows of a similar Act of Parliment (like the Act of Congress below) and Treaty which has been put into statutes in the UK.

RE: Item tendered for Discharge of Debt.
The instrument tendered to whomever, and negotiated to the United States Treasury
for settlement, is an “Obligation of THE UNITED STATES,” under Title 18USC
Sect.8, representing, as the definition provides, a “certificate of indebtedness ….drawn
upon an authorized officer of the United States,” (in this case the Secretary of the
Treasury) ”issued under an Act of Congress” (in this case public law 73-10, HJR-192
of 1933, Title 31 USC 3123 and 31 USC 5103) and by treaty (in this case the UNITED
NATIONS CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND
INTERNATIONAL PROMISSORY NOTES (UNCITRAL)
and the Universal Postal
Union headquartered in Bern, Switzerland).
Reigne

I am "Me," "Myself," and "I" - There is no way to say it any more clearer

"Those who are willing to give up some liberty for some security deserve neither!" Ben Franklin
Reigne
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby U.wazcallywabbit » Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:22 pm

how do you apply for or get an EIN number?
U.wazcallywabbit
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Free... well almost » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:53 pm

I know this thread is old but...

freeman lee wrote:Hi all,

The UCC was created so international business could take place regardless of country or border. A prerequistie for a global currency in a way. Without it, countries would find it difficult to trade with each other. Washington DC is simply the administration centre for it. I have filed a UCC-1 myself and submitted my birth certificate bond to HM Treasury on the 18th May and alistair Darling did not dishonour it. OID1099 and certain other forms seem to be applicable to certain countries only and we have to find our equivalent in the UK.

hope this helps..

freeman lee


Freeman lee is right here!

What you might not have realised is that Being a "sovereign" means you are a free-man-on-ANY-LAND. Admiralty law, which is business law does not have any borders accept business borders e.g. UNITED KINGDOM Corp, US Corp, CANADA Corp etc... business has nothing to do with the physical land beneath our feet.

When you are a citizen, you are a subsidiary business of which ever country/business you are in. when you claim to be a free-man-on-the-land, you are saying that you are no longer a subsidiary/citizen of that business/country. So... which business/country are you a member of now? ........YOUR OWN!!!

You are now YOUR OWN business/country. and can now make up YOUR OWN business/country laws. If you choose to adopt the UCC as a means to do business with the US or UK that is YOUR CHOICE!!! :clap: :cheer: :8-): :sun:

Submit your copyright, security agreement, Birth Cetificate, UCC-1 and bond order to HM Treasury and if done correctly, it will not be rejected.

When you have your bond in place, and know about commercial liens, only god can help those NWO assholes!
Free... well almost
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby rodgreenwell » Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:30 pm

Hi Free...

would have agreed with you but there are stranger things afoot...... have been following a guy called christian walters recently who says the whole CR thing is 180 degrees out of kilter.... and that filing a UCC1 and copyrighting name, filing a security agreeement puts everything in the public but we should really be operating in the private.

further, there is also a notion that simply filing a ucc1 is not sufficient... you have to actually file a lien against your strawman as well....

just my thoughts
rodgreenwell
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 12:23 pm
Location: Budapest Hungary

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Free... well almost » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:30 pm

Hey Rod,

I haven't heard of christian walters so thanks for pointing him out. The more I read the better! do you have any links to his stuff? :grin:

Based on your description though, I think he might be a little wrong here. What we are doing when lodging our bond is to say hey, this is ME the Wo/Man and not just my public representative. This means that the PTB cannot deny your strawman is backed by real value which creates a bridge between you in the private and them in the public. If we ONLY act in a private capacity, our notices and affidavits can just be ignored as we bear no "legal" weight whatsoever (man saying truth against fiction that operates in deception) :ouch: . We NEED to back ourselves up with "legal" recognition - a commercial shield :police:

I forget where I heard this but apparently fraud is honorable until it injures a real man. So if we have a liened up strawman with unlimited funds (the sheild), they can be as fraudulent as they like (with money) and it doesn't hurt you the man as they cannot get at you legally. But when they try to send us to prison for one reason or another we have "legal" and "lawfull" proof that they would not ONLY be injuring our "person" but the Wo/man behind it.

Our bond gives us the ability to be equal in court or any other "legal" matter as we are providing insurance for everything they do in the public whist being recognised as a sovereign.

This is obviously my own opinion, and I hope i've explained it ok :puzz:
Free... well almost
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Free... well almost » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:55 pm

I'm just reading through some of his stuff, VERY INTERESTING! :geek:
Free... well almost
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Free... well almost » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:48 pm

Ok, I take back my assumption he is wrong. having read some stuff, it seems he is not at odds with the debtor creditor theory. Just that it manifests in a different way. I do not understand it yet so I will reserve judgment. :puzz:
Free... well almost
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby michael » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:11 pm

Hi Rod and Free....
I've found some mp3s of Christian's - could you post a link to any documents..?
Thanks.
Truth is within ourselves; it takes no rise
From outward things, whate'er you may believe.


Robert Browning
michael
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 11:24 am

Re: UCC-1 / Commercial Redemption Concerns

Postby Free... well almost » Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:32 pm

Hey michael,

Sorry for not replying sooner - Happy new year! :grin:

I've not found any documents of Christian's yet (Ha, i meant to type listening not "reading" :puzz: ) but he does seem to mention in some of his mp3's that he's writing an article about all his theories. I'm currently trying to find it.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to start a new thread and post links to any information we can find on him. What do you think?

Having "listened" to his stuff i think he's onto something. At no point during the radio shows i've heard does he disagree with commercial redemption as a remedy, he just seems to give further insight into how it might work behind the scenes. I'm still confident that creating a birth certificate bond is essential to underpinning our interaction with the public however, the method for accepting it for value has changed a bit with his understanding. If Trusts are the new way of processing contracts but masked by colorable common-law then the addition of Grantor/settlor to the autograph will not do any harm.
Free... well almost
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:32 am

PreviousNext

Return to Commercial Redemption

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests