|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid?
|
shibumi2
User ID: 196275
7/29/2007 3:01 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Hey. I'm both AC196275 and Shibumi2...I just don't always remember to put in the user name.
the trial management conference is probably just another name for a STATUS CALL...where no issues of the case are discussed but addresses where the case is...setting dates for discovery and possibly a trial. The use of the word is interesting because it implies that the trial is moving forward and once they see what your cards are...there will most certainly never be a trial.
Just show up tomorrow and remember that they will likely try to confuse and trick you...which would never happen in an impartial courtroom. Nothing of substance will happen and don't let them threaten you or intimidate you. Remember...the momentum is on YOUR side! After tomorrow you will have filed a MOTION and made your first steps towards defending yourself and your rights. It's like anything else...it may seem confusing at first but as you get EXPERIENCE it will become second nature. Besides, it's an ADVENTURE. You're taking on the system and when you win it will feel AMAZING! You're no longer a pawn, a slave and no longer AFRAID |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 272916
7/29/2007 3:57 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Aha! Identity so noted! Anyway - I hope you haven't left yet - this is curious to me. in my pile of papers is an Affadavit of Damages. It says:
1. In my capacity as Custodian of Records for Am. Distress, I have personal knowledge of the facts set below.
2. That according to the books and records of Am Ex., kept in ordinary course of business and under my supervision, defendant AC, entered into a credit card agreement with plaintiff Am Ex. Acct #: Yada-yada
It goes on to say no dispute was made (unfortunately - at least so far!) and it ends with:
3. If called on to testify to the above, I could do so completely.
Signed
Crooks and Liars
I know it goes back to the one and only one subject of maritime law - no contract - no deal.
But do you think he might have some papers that he might try to use as trickery in lieu of an original document? Which, as I said, is still in my possession - unsigned - because they gave me the option to call in my acceptance. Just trying to figure out what might catch me off guard. Of course, the only thing I'm prepared to say is "I neither admit nor deny. Respectfully request to see original contract."
Just curious!
Just curious! |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 241543
7/29/2007 3:59 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Any advice after the 30 days and more have passed and a judgment issued? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76936
7/29/2007 4:20 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
But do you think he might have some papers that he might try to use as trickery in lieu of an original document? Which, as I said, is still in my possession - unsigned - because they gave me the option to call in my acceptance. Just trying to figure out what might catch me off guard. Of course, the only thing I'm prepared to say is "I neither admit nor deny. Respectfully request to see original contract."
Just curious!
Just curious! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 272916
Hey, ac, I'm not shibumi2, but I can tell you this from experience: They might try to trick you with something other than original documents (I had a collection agency send me a bunch of copies of credit card payment records as if that was proof of a signed agreement. It wasn't.) Whatever papers they show, you just request original signed document. They will try to catch you off guard and admit something. Don't admit anything. Ask for proof. They don't have it, case closed. You're gonna win this easy! |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 272916
7/29/2007 4:38 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
But do you think he might have some papers that he might try to use as trickery in lieu of an original document? Which, as I said, is still in my possession - unsigned - because they gave me the option to call in my acceptance. Just trying to figure out what might catch me off guard. Of course, the only thing I'm prepared to say is "I neither admit nor deny. Respectfully request to see original contract."
Just curious!
Just curious!
Hey, ac, I'm not shibumi2, but I can tell you this from experience: They might try to trick you with something other than original documents (I had a collection agency send me a bunch of copies of credit card payment records as if that was proof of a signed agreement. It wasn't.) Whatever papers they show, you just request original signed document. They will try to catch you off guard and admit something. Don't admit anything. Ask for proof. They don't have it, case closed. You're gonna win this easy! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76936
Your lips to God's ears as they say (ever wonder who the "they" is/are??)! Anyway, I am feeling better now with everyone's help. A great book discussing maritime law and the UCC is available online by Mary Elizabeth Croft called "How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known To Man". Here it is as a PDF file:
[link to www.natural-person.ca]
It's also available as an html if you google her name. What held me back from doing Pro-Se all those months ago was that I thought first and foremost, one had to claim one's Strawman. I didn't consider myself saavy enough to go there! Besides, TPTB are onto this and they make it difficult to do. That's why this thread is such a blessing - And a synchronicity, for those of you who like to dabble in universal laws! Here it was - 2 days before I'm due in court with no lawyer, no nothing, and someone "just happens" to find this old thread after almost a year and post on it, bumping it onto first page for me to see. That's synchronicity! |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 274651
7/30/2007 8:49 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 42896 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76936
7/30/2007 2:10 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
btt |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 274825
7/30/2007 7:28 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Also another good source to find out how we got into the mess we're in today, as well as learning fascinating (and maddening!) facts behind the symbolism the illuminati shoves in our faces, is the website by Jordan Maxwell:
[link to www.jordanmaxwell.com]
Well, folks - Today was a bummer. I got to court and had my motion stamped, gave the clerk 4 bucks for two more copies and was all set to sit and wait when the clerk said - "You aren't scheduled for today"....
The clerk said a judgment of default was ALREADY entered against me - and because of that fact, today's Trial Management Conference was canceled and said they were under no obligation to tell me that I DID NOT need to show up today! - whereas when I called the lawyer last week, he told me: "Show up or you'll be in default".
The ONLY other paperwork that came in (only to me - not to the lawyer I have on retainer)earlier this month didn't say any judge had ruled anything against me. Those papers merely said that the Am. Ex. lawyer was filing an:
1. Affadavit and Request for Default and Default Judgment; and
2. Certificate of Service
Guess I screwed up by not answering the paperwork. So - now I have 2 copies of my stamped motion for continuance for nothing - and am out four bucks. Incidentally - the clerk misspelled my name, if that can account for anything. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76936
7/31/2007 10:29 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Also another good source to find out how we got into the mess we're in today, as well as learning fascinating (and maddening!) facts behind the symbolism the illuminati shoves in our faces, is the website by Jordan Maxwell:
[ link to www.jordanmaxwell.com]
Well, folks - Today was a bummer. I got to court and had my motion stamped, gave the clerk 4 bucks for two more copies and was all set to sit and wait when the clerk said - "You aren't scheduled for today"....
The clerk said a judgment of default was ALREADY entered against me - and because of that fact, today's Trial Management Conference was canceled and said they were under no obligation to tell me that I DID NOT need to show up today! - whereas when I called the lawyer last week, he told me: "Show up or you'll be in default".
The ONLY other paperwork that came in (only to me - not to the lawyer I have on retainer)earlier this month didn't say any judge had ruled anything against me. Those papers merely said that the Am. Ex. lawyer was filing an:
1. Affadavit and Request for Default and Default Judgment; and
2. Certificate of Service
Guess I screwed up by not answering the paperwork. So - now I have 2 copies of my stamped motion for continuance for nothing - and am out four bucks. Incidentally - the clerk misspelled my name, if that can account for anything.
bump for shibumi2 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 275576
8/1/2007 3:11 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
BUMP for getting rid of the straw man.... |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 275751
8/1/2007 2:02 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Well, it sounds like you had been served a MOTION FOR DEFAULT and there is a certificate of service in the court file which proves you had timely notice. Is that correct?
In other words, there was a PRIOR court date you missed (?) then a NOTICE OF DEFAULT was served on you (via certified mail or personal service) telling you that the credit cards attorney was asking the court for a default judgment on some date. Apparently you missed that court date and the judge granted the default judgment. Is that all correct?
If so, the next thing you can do is to file a MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT. In most states, this is automatically granted AS LONG AS YOU FILE THE MOTION WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT DATE. SO, check in the court file the date the judge signed the default judgment. If it is less than 30 days, it's alomst always immediately granted. You just follow the same format as for the request of time extension except you put the reasons you didn't show up. If you in fact never received service as indicated by the court files the ORDER is VOID anyway. YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE SERVICE OF A DEFAULT JUDGMENT. It's called DUE PROCESS.
If you didn't and you are within 30 days of the date the judge entered the order, you can get the order VACATED by making the request to the court.
If it is more than 30 days, you can still file the MOTION to VACATE but the judge has more discretion in granting or denying...in other words, you have to have a much better reason. The 30 days for courts is a magic date. Whatever happens is subject to review, appeal or reconsideration but it usually HAS TO BE WITHIN 30 days or it becomes a FINAL ORDER.
Check it out and file a MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT. It only has to be FILED within 30 days to preserve your rights. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289731
8/28/2007 10:05 AM | |
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 288902
8/28/2007 2:26 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Are you guys sure that by the time it goes to a debt collector, that it (the account) no longer belongs to the original so-called contractor? What about all the credit card statements? Does the third party actually have those or do they go back to the original contractor (like say, citibank) for it? Guess what I'm asking is - does the third party actually do business with the original contractor? They always SAY they represent the contractor.
In this case, it's for some furniture I bought from a local store that used citibank that has since gone out of business (the owner committed suicide).
Guess I need some reassurance 'cuz I've been reading this thread for quite some time and today, a creditor turned my file over to a third party bitch from hell and, well....I guess she kinda got me pissed off 'cuz I answered the phone and used Shibumi's tips and....
I about was having a heart attack when I hung up. Part worrying I'm out of my league with what I just did and part being pissed as hell at this self-righteous bitch saying I should be glad SHE is calling rather than citibank, because SHE is my case manager...I told no - she was NOT my "case manager". And I asked to see the original document. After stammering, she said I'd have to call citibank (o, gee- Sure! I'll get rite on it----NOT!). I kept to my guns saying no contract, no deal. She said - after a tirade - that she was going to report that I was unwilling to pay. I said "I never said I was unwilling to pay. I simply asked for you to send the original document".
She was SO snotty. With the economy going to hell in a hand basket, I guess they're trying harder than ever to collect these illegal debts.
But I DID do it right, didn't I? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 288902
8/28/2007 7:28 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
For Shibumi2 ?? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 288902
8/29/2007 7:00 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Bump again for anyone???
|
|
trashman
User ID: 291829
9/1/2007 1:30 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
You had asked who has tried any of these remedies and i have. to more or less some success.
on court and attorneys including the government i always write back that i dont give them permission to make any legal determination about me. works every time. cross my heart
once when i had already agreed and spent 2 years battling in court before i found this info, i simply said in court for record that i withdrew my permission for them to adjucate a decision for me. done, really it worked. but be prepared they get pissed off like nothing youve ever seen, you have just let them know to themselves that they are crooks and theyll hate you for it. There is only one way to respond to this and that is with the love and understanding of a parent to a child. and then leave as fast as you can. If they can get you angry or make a smart expression or remark theyll pull you back in.
thats the best i know.
How I Clobbered... on the www.natural-person.ca has been my best source for how to deal with the debt credit system. If you choose to read it i recommend you read 10 times and i mean it. everything you need to know is in there.
what do you think? |
|
Illumanatti
User ID: 308987
10/8/2007 12:14 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
It does not say ANYWHERE in the FDCPA about an ORIGINAL Verification and or ORIGINAL Contract. It actually says:
"...., the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgement against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgement will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector."
So please answer this. |
|
Ganid
User ID: 204982
10/8/2007 1:07 PM
 | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
George Mercier's Book,
"Invisible Contracts"
can be obtained here:
[link to web.archive.org]
By the way, a researcher in
Ontario, Canada has come up with
a method of dealing with the strawman
issue, which is currently undergoing
a test period. His method is an act of
"submitting" the birth certificate copy
back to the originating Province or State,
along with an apology to the issuing
authority for one's wrongful use in
ignorance of the State or Crown owned
name. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308987
10/10/2007 4:08 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
It does not say ANYWHERE in the FDCPA about an ORIGINAL Verification and or ORIGINAL Contract. It actually says:
"...., the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgement against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgement will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector."
So please answer this. Quoting: Illumanatti
Any answer to this comment? |
|
nefer_temu
User ID: 316612
10/24/2007 2:54 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Hello, everyone ,
This is my first post ever on this forum.
Regarding debt from credit issuers: please let me state that I have had some dealing with such with considerable success. Dealing with this system is quite fustrating and unfair, especially for the consumer.
An important resource for anyone who is considering to dispute any statement or debt they owe or allegedly owe is that of the FDIC. If any credit issuer is a "N.A." bank, they are compelled perforce to the laws thereof. In the Truth & Lending Rules of the FDIC in 226.13, such listed as "Billing-Error Resolution", the issuer of credit is to exhaust any and all remedies of any billing dispute before implementing the use of legal remedy, along with the estoppel of interest or penalties, adverse credit reporting and the like.
Never attempt to call the issuer in any billing dipute error matters, unless it is over a minor charge that they can credit your account for. If you have a real and larger issue , it had better be in writing and sent to the issuer with certified mail.
Regretfully, despite these explicit rules, the banks usually just ignore them and do whatever they want to; however, if you sue them for such, as I have now done a couple of times, these matters of transgressions on the behalf of the issuer are no longer in "the shadows".
Many people are familiar with the FCRA and FDCPA laws, but not those offering any relief under TILA (Truth in Lending Act).
In all reality, despite the fact ( yes, fact ) that the entire banking system is a scam, we do have some choices that we can make for ourselves, such as not borrowing money from anyone for anything, not using credit cards, not letting ourselves open for problems and further disclosure of our lives ( the banks share and report information , and not always correctly, either ).
A general boycotting of the system is what is needed, and it starts with us and our own attitudes and habits.
Thank You.
Nefer-Temu |
|
SunHolder
User ID: 334219
12/1/2007 3:58 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
This is a very good thread!
I have to say when dealing with any debt:
1. Credit Card
2. Doctor Bill
3. Tickets
4. (any non-living soul)
I have used an affidavit demanding they sign under penalty of perjury. It stops them in their tracks everytime... |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 334163
12/1/2007 4:36 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
This is a very good thread!
I have to say when dealing with any debt:
1. Credit Card
2. Doctor Bill
3. Tickets
4. (any non-living soul)
I have used an affidavit demanding they sign under penalty of perjury. It stops them in their tracks everytime... Quoting: SunHolder
Can you explain this affadavit, what you say in it and why it works?? Thanks |
|
fredknapp
User ID: 340716
12/15/2007 11:48 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
all of this to seemingly help people who ran up debts not pay them.
You don't need legal help, you need character! |
|
Courttroubles
User ID: 345476
12/26/2007 1:24 AM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Hello, I've been thru the wringer so to speak with what's happened to me. I got behind on a 2nd mortgage here in the state of MO.
I tried to reinstate note to no avail from servicer. This happened in Oct 2005. Tried to reinstate probably end of Jan beg of Feb 2006. Since I tried to fix problem and they wouldn't give me info I never paid. They tried to foreclose in June 06. I got this stopped because I found out they don't actually know who owns this 2nd lien on my home.
In Oct 06 we ended up filing a chp 13. Our attorney from day 1 didn't believe us and wanted it proven in court. While this was proven this year and it was even made to where we don't have to pay for debt we've faced some challenging financial times with the job market here in St. Louis,and ended up defaulting on our chp 13. And until last month didn't have enough income to support our family. Now that we may mortgage company and vehicle financing have been approved for lift of stay to foreclose. I've gotten mortgagee to possibly do a loan modification. But I don't know if I can trust them. All they produced were copies of the debt instruments. Never requested true proof of debt as described.
I've yet to invoke any soverign rights...I'm just not sure the right way to go forward. The judge could of extinguished the lien but didn't. And well I don't feel we've been given the best representation by our attorney after finding these websites. While some ?? the validity of such claims I find most of it to be true now, not knowing before...So I'm trying to decide the best way to handle this. As not many attorneys want to handle such a case as they don't see the merit even though we've caught them in their lies...Any advice?
Thanks
Kathy |
|
Jame Spond
User ID: 360753
1/23/2008 8:01 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
To shibumi2 and other honorable ones,
What are your thoughts on this Florida traffic citation I received Jan 1. 2008? I signed my name on the ticket then added "without prejudice UCC 1-308." The officer took the original and I got the copy. He said, "interesting signature" and walked away.
After I got home, I took my copy, wrote on the back, "Receipt of your offer of contract is acknowledged and returned for discharge and closure for your failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. I do not wish to contract with you. My signature, Jan 4, 2008, Agent." This is from Mary Croft's book, How I Clobbered...
I sent it three days later, Jan. 4, 2008 to the clerk's office. Where I screwed up was by sending it REGULAR mail. So now they claim they never received it. I do have a digital copy of the ticket and what I wrote on the back of it.
My options at this point seem to be either pay or set a court date and try to adapt some of the techniques mentioned in this thread, although they're not specifically about traffic tickets.
I did hear of another option which sounds interesting wherein I send a Promissory Note to pay the fine. I have it notarized and mailed certified mail by the notary on my behalf. I give the court ten days to respond to the note. If they don't, I send another notice that says something else, basically claiming they accept the note as payment. The end. What that notice is exactly I forget.
Any help will be greatly appreciated and gladly and eagerly paid forward into the cosmos.
JS |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 360764
1/23/2008 8:24 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
To all: one can not pay. There is no money. When presented one has two choices accept or pay, see above! Do the acceptance. |
|
tony
User ID: 360830
1/23/2008 10:06 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 42896 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 360830
1/23/2008 10:07 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
Any advice after the 30 days and more have passed and a judgment issued? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 241543
help |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 357778
1/24/2008 7:08 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
This is a really good resource with respect to the whole sovereignty thing; it's not a long read either and very, very informative:
[link to www.mediafire.com] |
|
D-MAN
User ID: 363536
1/28/2008 1:15 PM | | Re: HELP! Legal Straw Man and Sovereignty UCC-1 theory valid? | Quote |
DOES THAT WORK W/ CREDIT CARDS TOO? |
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
