Anatomy of a Scam

reply to post by vkey08


here's a complaint filed against him:
www.cheatingfrenzy.com...

and the judgement:
www.cheatingfrenzy.com...

for the lazy, he lost. why?

because ucc scams don't work.

edited to add:

JUDGMENTS AND LIENS STATE OF NEVADA
CLARK COUNTY RECORDER (RD)
DEBTOR: SHROUT,WINSTON
ADDRESS: 1001 N MAIN ST #10
LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
CREDITOR: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
AMOUNT: $ 11,848
NUMBER: 200701040000285
TYPE: FEDERAL TAX LIEN
IRS Serial No. 334681206
ENTERED: 01/04/2007


DEBTOR: SHROUT,WINSTON
ADDRESS: 1001 N MAIN #10
LAS VEGAS, NV 89101
SSN/TAX ID: [redacted by moderator]
CREDITOR: IRS
AMOUNT: $ 37,858
NUMBER: 200509150000065
TYPE: FEDERAL TAX LIEN
IRS Serial No. 245793505
ENTERED: 09/15/2005

seems to fail with some frequency.

reply to post by vkey08

hi guys, i just stopped by cause i cannot believe this thread is still going

however, thanks again Vkey08, you've really helped to clarify things along the way ... especially from your most recent link

and "understand" (as in "do you understand?") means "stand under," as in "do you stand under these words?" (i.e., accept the terms of our contract).

yes, we've heard that.

but then your link goes on to say ...

The English word "understand" derives from an Old English word meaning stand in the midst of - under

yep, thought so, thanks again

reply to post by Honor93


Cherry picking it doesn't help.. if you read the WHOLE quote it also says:

deriving from the Proto-Indo-European root *nter-, meaning "between" or "among", from where the modern English prefix "inter-" also derives.

helps to have the WHOLE thing for perspective.. What is says is stand comes form X place and Under actually comes from the root *nter and it means between or among.. But you conveniently forgot that?

reply to post by vkey08

derivitives do not detract from its legal meaning ... to stand - under.
don't need the additional history to muddy the water we're already standing in/under.

reply to post by Honor93


Actually you're focusing upon the derivative. proto-European predates middle English.

reply to post by Hefficide

no, i'm focusing on the 'legal' definition, not the origin of the word.

btw, i notice this 'source' has never been brought forward, although, it does seem vital in this conversation so i do wonder why ?
UCL

Originally posted by fourthmeal
Fine, show me the transcript or audio show that explicitly states that Heather stated the gold has been taken off-world for safe-keeping.

Here is where she claims she had the gold teleported



about 2 hrs 11 min.

Also she lied about Boehner being the President, she lied about 77 congressmen being arrested and transported to the Hague....

reply to post by Honor93


the dash signified in that , that the word Stand's definition had ended and they were moving on to the word Under, not stand- Under that's where you're stuck, it wasn't typed out correctly..

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Hefficide

 

no, i'm focusing on the 'legal' definition, not the origin of the word.

btw, i notice this 'source' has never been brought forward, although, it does seem vital in this conversation so i do wonder why ?
UCL

Actually I pulled my quote from Rational Wiki, and the UCC Revised 9 stuff from the National Council of Governors which was stated as source in my original thread.

reply to post by hellobruce


and, because they realized, after the fact that it sounded ludicrous, American kabuki edited the post saying that heather never said it, presumably because they know that the only people who can make it that far into the show are most likely sleeping.

reply to post by vkey08

yeah ok, i quoted your Rational wiki source, is there a problem with it ?

oh btw, your RW link didn't provide the "legal" definition by any chance, did it ??

the term is too ambiguous to stand alone as anything ... it signifies an agreement between parties.

thelawdictionary.org...
In the law of contracts. This is a loose and ambiguous term, [color=amber]unless it be accompanied by some expression to show that it constituted a meeting of the minds of parties upon something respecting which they intended to be bound. Camp v. Waring, 25 Conn. 529. [color=amber]But it may denote an informal agreement, or a concur- rence as to its terms. See Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 507, 3 N. W. 10.

or, if you take issue with Black's, here's the onlinefree version ...

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
A general term referring to an agreement, either express or implied, written or oral.

The term understanding is an ambiguous one; in order to determine whether a particular understanding would constitute a contract that is legally binding on the parties involved, the circumstances must be examined to discover whether a meeting of the minds and an intent to be bound occurred.

not sure about you, but that sure sounds familiar to me.

even the foreigners view it the same way ... from same link (above)

Foreign phrases: Conventio facit legem.An agreement creetes the law, i.e. the parties to a binding contract will be held to their promises.

what do either of those sources have to do with the one i linked ?

and btw, your answer doesn't answer the question ... i wonder why such a vital source has never been brought forward ?

if one is to understand UCC, it kinda helps to go to The Source, right ??
i was just sharing.

reply to post by Honor93


I didn't use the Uniform Law Center because they are not the source of the UCC, the National Council of Governors writes the UCC regulations. And I *did* use them.. The ULC is a non-profit think tank funded by the states to try and make common laws that every state has, uniform across state lines. Such as, and this is an extreme example but I've been effected by it so it's one I know to well.

In Massachusetts, if someone forcibly assaults another (such as rape) a certain set of conditions must be met for it to be considered as such. It is different across the line in New York. Therefore, if you are from Massachusetts and you know the laws as to what is and isn't, it may not be across the line and the person is only guilty of simple assault. The ULC recommended and wrote a proposal for a law to be passed by the states, that is the same set of rules for every state. Now, the states do not NEED to enact ULC recommendations, as they are just suggestions.

IN the case of the UCC, they make recommendations to the Council of State Governors and then it's up to them whether to accept them or not, and lot of times they do,but there are plenty of times they don't. That's why the ULC isn't being used as s source, they deal with all aspects of law in an advisory situation.

Now you keep talking about Legal Definition vs Definition, there's not a distinction. If you were to come into my office and I asked you if you understood something, I mean.. Do you get it?, and sometimes I'm that short about it... (Hell I've even asked people if their brains can handle what's been said, yes I get that pissy sometimes)

So when the cops are asking if ya understand, they really truly are asking if you get it..... not if you're going to stand under their authority... the first place I had ever heard that was that stupid Meet Your Strawman video and found out that Roger Elvick had coined that one..

i've read the last few pages and hadn't seen this posted yet.

Ann Bressington (Australian politician) says she has put the OPPT stuff past a retired corporate lawyer in Australia and he confirms the OPPT UCC FILINGS have legs, the question is whether the people will enforce it! (Courtesy Notices and invoices people! NOW).
Also she says in the courts there are two sets of rules going on: the judicial run on UCC and lawyers run on statutes - hence why the people do not find remedy.

does having a politician supporting OPPT make it legit or is this just a case of a politician falling into the OPPT trap as well?

link to MP3 of the interview

reply to post by blackangel13


The OPPT is irrelevant, Washington State has now removed all of Heather's filings..

in her own words she realized it but seems to not care..

However, if you search the WA State branch of the Commercial Registry ( fortress.wa.gov... ), and search by file/receipt number you will see that they are no longer there, and the attached letter to this email is the purported basis why they were “removed”/”cancelled”…I only included one of the letters, but all the same.

SO Washington State in accordance with UCC Revised 9, removed and cancelled ALL of her filings, therefore that which she claims is unrebutted is no more and does not NEED to be rebutted as it was frivolous and fraudulent to begin with, can we end this now? Washington DC takes a little longer to remove things but they will to....

reply to post by blackangel13


an australian politician didn't know the laws of Australia, consulted with an australian corporate lawyer who told her that the Uniform Commercial Code, a set of United States Commerce laws, which aren't even Uniform in the United States, has legs in Australia?

y'all need new politicians and better lawyers. They don't have legs to stand on in the states. Washington State has pulled Heather's filings as they are invalid, pointless and useless.

If the state of Washington thinks they're useless, and this is a state where the UCC actually has jurisdiction, how on earth can they be valid in a country where the UCC has no jurisdiction?

I see now people opposing OPPT (thus really opposing the People) have taken to attacking Ann Bressington.

Keep it up! Keep attacking the few people who are directly opposed to corruption.


I'm sure all people of the Earth would, when properly informed, love to hear about the folks that helped perpetrate Agenda 21 and other Club of Rome thinktank ideas of ruling the world.

I've never been more ashamed of being a member here.

Originally posted by fourthmeal
I see now people opposing OPPT (thus really opposing the People) have taken to attacking Ann Bressington.

Keep it up! Keep attacking the few people who are directly opposed to corruption.


I'm sure all people of the Earth would, when properly informed, love to hear about the folks that helped perpetrate Agenda 21 and other Club of Rome thinktank ideas of ruling the world.

I've never been more ashamed of being a member here.

THERE IS NO OPPT, IT'S OVER!!!! Washington State

REMOVED

all of Heather's filings, DC is next, once they are all gone and invalidated, she has NO BASIS FOR HER ARGUMENT..

Now will you admit defeat or claim that it's irrelevant that they were removed... Removed by the way means NOT IN EFFECT, NEVER IN EFFECT..

Where's my gold? I want it ALL now! As Heather is now guilty of Grand Larceny if she actually has it all...

Sorry, I knew this is how it would end from day one..... NO Gold NO UCC Filings and certainly NO Nothing..

reply to post by blackangel13


My friend, as much as Ann has done for the world by exposing the Elite, I would say she is an excellent, reliable source.

Nevermind that she knows and reports that all the stuff I spoke of in this thread is true. In the eyes of this forum, no expert, no insider, no paperwork, no TRUTH will help this discussion.

reply to post by vkey08


One day you'll learn. Until then, as I told you in PM, PEACE OUT Vkey.

Your negativity and seething hatred for other equal people will not be missed.

reply to post by fourthmeal

Keep it up! Keep attacking the few people who are directly opposed to corruption.

Please read the thread. It is the OPPT that is corrupt.