It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Whole Fraud Depends On You Thinking You Are A Legal Fiction

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The interesting thing...

While the documents themselves aren't some kind of iron-clad legal binding, if a dispute arises they can be used in court with disastrous consequences...Here's one I remember hearing about a bit ago on in the financial news:



Mistakes happen. But a national financial institution discovered recently that a relatively simple mistake cost about $1.5 billion. On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as agent, and other members of a syndicated term loan did not hold a perfected security interest in General Motors' collateral because a UCC-3 filed in error terminated the interest, despite the lack of intent to terminate the security interest. As a result, Chase and other term loan lenders became unsecured creditors, joined the class of other unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of GM and its subsidiaries, and will share in a pro rata distribution of any assets remaining in the bankruptcy estate. The Second Circuit denied Chase's petition for reconsideration of the ruling on April 13, 2015.

[url=http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/396210/Insolvency+Bankruptcy/Costly+Mistake+UCC3+Termination+Statements+Effective+Regardless+of+Intent]Link[ /url]

1.5 billion ... all because of a simple paperwork error. I had to pick my jaw up off the ground. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the paralegal who did that paperwork probably doesn't have their job anymore?

Oh, and I was kind of surprised it didn't make a bigger splash in the news...being a part of the GM bailout and whatnot.
edit on 29-2-2016 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Good catch, I had not seen this ruling.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

personal rant - bordering ` off topic ` - despite the fact that most paperwork in solicitors offices is done by spotty YTS muppets - the cnuts still charge £224 / hour for the " service "

edit on 29-2-2016 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Could you give me an example of how this information can be used? A scenario, perhaps?



posted on Mar, 8 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Kester

In know a guy who used the similar argument recently and it worked sort of....He had some fines from 15 years or so ago when he got into trouble, he came home to an undercover cop crash tackling him to the ground....

In court he renounced his name,license, bank accounts passports etc...argued that his legal name had no bearing to him and he did not accept the name or the fines......the fines were then allocated to his "straw man name" and he walked free without paying them and he will get away with as long as he has no need to use his name....or trading name as you put it...S&F



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Thank you.

The argument is logical and factual. The opposing argument is fictional.

There will always be occasions when using your legal fiction for trading can be beneficial to you. As in all things, moderation is the key.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
In court he renounced his name,license, bank accounts passports etc...argued that his legal name had no bearing to him and he did not accept the name or the fines......the fines were then allocated to his "straw man name" and he walked free without paying them


Care to show us that actual court case....

Of course you cannot, funny that.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

citation required



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

that was an un-evidenced annecdote



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce



Those who wish to learn will find out if they look.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Yet common and following logic, not following blind belief and subservience.



posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

yet un-evidenced



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join