Originally posted by vkey08

What is false and ignorant about showing that this movement, and anything associated with it is nothing but a scam?

You've shown the former, NOT the latter.

I never debated or disputed that the LEGITIMATE usage of the Uniform Commercial Code is valid,

Anyone can use the UCC code legitimately.

The evidence that they CAN do this, is nowhere to be found, and therefore, non existent, and as such makes the OPPT and by extension anyone who believes this UCC Strawman concept invalid.

Here the ANC govt blamed apartheid for the pope resigning, but they do that a lot lately. /jk

So tell me why I need to research anything about the invalid use of the UCC,

Because you clearly don't know much about it.

But so far, noone has shown where any of this is legal.

Not legal no, LAWFUL. Legality is only the appearance of law.

1) In a foreclosure, there is a procedure that needs to be followed.

Yeah, that's why MERS has been declared an invalid agent to act in repossesions, because the banks broke those laws for years with impunity. MERS had never had the legal or lawful right to foreclose, how many lives have they ruined while breaking the law? Are you saying this system is working? Where families are ruined for profit? Is that your contention??

2) If this is legal

Asking questions isn't the same as presenting facts. You've still not given any facts, merely thrown questions at things you know nothing about, and returned to vague generalisations about "everything they say is a lie". Now sincerely, if you cannot grasp the difference between legal and lawful, and its application in commercial law you really should get out the MSM box sometime.

The flags really did bring me in here, but you don't deserve any of them, very poor thread

Originally posted by harryhaller
But of course, your'e the top of the economic food chain,

Very far from it.

you have to believe that your priviledge is earned.

I've never believed and I have any privilege. And, in fact, I favor many social programs and have never call them "entitlements."

why are you defending the criminals we know about?

I never did. I've only ever advocated personal responsibility.

I still find it very difficult to follow your logic, as if there's some core assumption you have that I've not yet grokked.

Originally posted by Honor93
so, how is that any different than what the bank is doing ?

Not sure what you think the bank is doing. I think they're giving me a note to pay back the cash they give me to pay the seller of the home I just bought. Let's start there.

they don't OWN the property,

Correct.

heck, they don't even own the debt they're selling.

I'm not buying debt from them, so I don't know what you mean here.

if i borrow $1000 from you and don't pay you back, does that give you authority to 'steal' any of my property ?

Only if we're entered an agreement where you've offered collateral for that $1,000.

if not, then why are ppl forced (mortgage agreement) to grant such authority to any lender ?

No on is "forced," it's all in the mortgage contract.

and, once they have paid for it ... why don't they OWN it outright ??

They do. I've bought two homes from people who had no lien/mortgage on the home.

whenever was the government granted authority to 'claim' against real property based on future speculative payments ... ie: taxes

Never. Only against historic unpaid back taxes.

Originally posted by Honor93
who mentioned "mortgage delinquency" ??
if that was in the video, my apology, i cannot view it.

The video showed a stack of delinquent mortgage bills being held and shown to the camera by the person trying to keep the home.

Where is the logic in listing a long line of appeals to emotion and using them as a basis to try and validate a claim??? For those quietly watching this interaction - pay attention to how a shell game operates. This is three card Monty and your freedom and good name are the wager that they are asking you to plop down on the cardboard box that they're using as a playing surface.

America was never a Democracy. It is a very specific form of Government called a Representative Republic. It is based upon Democratic principles, but is not, in fact, a true Democracy at all. If it were a true Democracy we'd all have to vote every single time our Government made any decision at all.

The fact that the USA, Inc. issue somehow got retabled just stymies me. But, hey, if folks want to believe that this country is actually a Corporation for amateur athletics, running out of Delaware, that owes just over a hundred bucks in back taxes, and was created by some woman in the late eighties? I suppose that falls under the auspices of personal choice.

It is almost surreal to me that it has been clearly demonstrated that people are going to jail over this and that fact is being rebutted with talk of treaties that predate the US as a nation and a few other straw man arguments and red herrings. I guess it is no surprise that a movement based upon some false understanding of the term "straw man" would feel comfortable using them for their own agenda.

It is easy for rhetoric to distract from reality in these conversations. Do I think that it's fair that a woman lost her home for a $3,500.00 tax bill? Of course not. I tend to think there is probably more to the story, but that doesn't really matter for the sake of this conversation. What does matter is that this woman losing her house has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. The truth is if that if this person sought to save her home by the tactics being discussed here she'd be out of her home and would be in jail for attempted bank fraud.

I live in the Atlanta, Georgia area and have a dog in this fight. For those reading, a quick Google will show you that Atlanta is pretty much the motherland for this movement. It's in our local news incessantly. Here it is a very common thing for "sovereigns" to try and take possession of empty houses. They squat, pull all sorts of attempted legal tricks, and end up going to prison after the law finally has enough time to process the paperwork, get the charges and warrants settled, and make an arrest.

One of the people I have to deal with in my real life is a firm believer in this stuff. It's rather funny. He and I will have heated and drawn out debates about it - standing in my front yard. He will tell me over and over again that he needs no drivers license, nor tag, nor insurance for his brand new truck - due to the commerce clause. He brags that every local cop assures him that he's right and that they are on his side. He brags that local judges support him and that even the insurance company has told him he is right.

At this I laugh because he does have a tag, and a license, and insurance. When I ask him why this is, he can never give me a straight answer. The best he can come up with is that is wife is uncomfortable exercising her rights and is still "asleep" - so he follows the artificial and irrelevant laws for her benefit.

Oh he also gets angry with me because I won't listen to his belief that there are seven ancient families in control of the entire galaxy - and that we're slaves of the lizard clan. But that's a different story.

Originally posted by Konoyaro
What is property tax anyway?

In a perfect world, all tax is an investment in society. Property tax is intended to be an investment in the community in which the property resides. Pay for schools, roads, social services, facilities for others in the communities such as libraries and skate parks, programs for the poor, etc.

Now... we live in an imperfect world, so it's not all going to work that way. But sometimes it comes close enough to serve as an incentive for people to pay their property taxes.

Originally posted by Hefficide

One of the people I have to deal with in my real life is a firm believer in this stuff. It's rather funny. He and I will have heated and drawn out debates about it - standing in my front yard. He will tell me over and over again that he needs no drivers license, nor tag, nor insurance for his brand new truck - due to the commerce clause. He brags that every local cop assures him that he's right and that they are on his side. He brags that local judges support him and that even the insurance company has told him he is right.

Concerning the driving issue…..

TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT," NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE”

Even if we wanted to trade are inalienable rights for man-made privilege, we cannot.

How about some precedent proving this, No problem, here you go.

The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the roadways and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

The use of the roadways for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. (Emphasis added) See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; See: Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; See: Boone v. Clark, 214 S. W. 607;

The term "Public Highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads, streets, highways-and roadways which the public has a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public roadways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

The streets and roadways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, obviously differs radically from that of one who makes the highways his principal place of business and uses it for private gain ... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra

I haven’t even scratched the surface of case law refuting what you are saying to your neighbor. Please do not tell me that precedent and rulings by the Supreme Court do not count either.

Originally posted by Konoyaro
I really can't understand why you should pay anything to live on the earth itself,

Lots of people get along without owning property and paying taxes on the property. Paying such taxes are not a prerequisite to living.