Sovereign's UCC-1 Refused for Filling in PA

[Prof]

The King Of Kool's UCC-1 was refused for filling (in we later learn, PA). The King is a regular over at Sooey. His UCC-1 read as follows:

This is the entry of the collateral record owner; ____Name___ and of the Debtor; ____NAME____ in the Commercial Chamber under necessity and the following property is hereby registered in the same: All Certificates of Birth Document #55-0000000 as herein liened and claimed at a sum certain $100,000,000.00, ____State____ Driver License #K00-55-00000, SSN/UCC Contract Trust Account-prepaid account Number 555-55-5555; Exemption Identification Number 555555555, Security Agreement No. 66666666666, Power of Attorney No. 777777777, Copyright Notice No. 888888888, Hold Harmless & Indemnity Agreement # 999999999999. Said registration is to secure the rights, title(s) and interest in and of the Root of Title, and the Birth Certificate #55-0000000 as received by the ____STATE____ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE (Division of Vital Statistics), DNA, retina scans, fingerprints and all Debentures, Indentures, Accounts, and all the Pledges represented by same included but not limited to the pignus, hypotheca, hereditments, res, the energy and all products derived therefrom, nunc pro tunc, but not limited to all capitalized names: MIKE JOE SIXPACK, MIKE J. SIXPACK, M. J. SIXPACK, MIKE SIXPACK, or Mike Sixpact, or any derivatives thereof as used in commerce, and all contracts, agreements, and signatures and/or endorsements, facsimiles, printed, typed or photocopied of owner’s name predicated on the ‘Straw-man,’ Ens legis/Trust described as the debtor and all property is accepted for value and is Exempt from levy. Record owner is not the guarantor or surety to any other account by explicit reservation. Adjustment of this filing is from Public Policy HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 and UCC 1-104 and 10-104. All proceeds, products, accounts, baggage and fixtures and the Orders therefrom are to be released to the Secured Party as the authorized representative of the debtor. Debtor is a commercial transmitting utility and is a trust.

I wonder why "King" thinks that he is both a commercial trasmitting utility and a trust. Do you think he sticks his tongue in a light socket while trusting in Providence to spare him from harm?

[grixit]

Hmm, he leaves the judge with no option but to have him branded with the text of any court orders issued, as all other formats seem to be barred.

[LPC]

Filling?

[The Observer]

Yeah, filling in Filladelphia.

[webhick]

Filling?

UCC-1s make terrible pie filling. PA now recognizes this in a court of law.

[wserra]

"Pignus"?

Don't start.

[fortinbras]

For any normal people who are reading this, pignus is Latin for "a thing used as collateral" or "a thing pawned".

[Pottapaug1938]

Earlier this week, I was rereading the first Harry Potter book. In the part where Harry and Ron Weasley are on the Hogwarts Express, just having met, Ron is trying to turn his pet rat yellow using a spell which two of his brothers have given him. Of course, the "spell" is a fake, although it is full of "magic words".

I can't think of a much better metaphor for sovruns and their ilk, who come up with swill like this and pretend that it's chocolate pudding, simply because they use Genuine Magic Legal Words.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Hmm, he leaves the judge with no option but to have him branded with the text of any court orders issued, as all other formats seem to be barred.

I think I can make an interpretation that it could be tattooed instead. Also, does affixing it to him with a nail gun count as an endorsement or not? ("Bailiff, staple this note to the plaintiff so he doesn't lose it.")

[ashlynne39]

Earlier this week, I was rereading the first Harry Potter book. In the part where Harry and Ron Weasley are on the Hogwarts Express, just having met, Ron is trying to turn his pet rat yellow using a spell which two of his brothers have given him. Of course, the "spell" is a fake, although it is full of "magic words".

I can't think of a much better metaphor for sovruns and their ilk, who come up with swill like this and pretend that it's chocolate pudding, simply because they use Genuine Magic Legal Words.

I re-read the Harry Potter books every December. I started December 3 and am on book 5. None of that has anything to do with anything important, I just liked that you're re-reading book 1. Good example

[bmielke]

What is a UCC-1 filing really used for?

I thought they were a sovrun invention until I found out the TN Sec. State has them on their website.

[Pantherphil]

A UCC-1 Financing Statement is a document that a secured creditor holding a security interest in various types of personal property owned by a debtor files in a government office (typically in files maintained by the Secretary of State) to provide public notice that the secured creditor has an interest in the debtor's property to secure repayment of debt. The UCC-1 Financing Statement basically provides notice that there exists an "agreement" called a "security agreement" in which the debtor granted a "security interest" in the debtor's property to secure repayment of debt obligations and the creditor can enforce that agreement if the debtor fails to pay. Functions like a mortgage on real estate. Personal property security interests way back when in many states were called "chattel mortgages" and the UCC-1 filing is the counterpart to filing a real estate mortgage in the Registry of Deeds or other land records. The filing of the UCC-1 let's the public know that the debtor's property is "secured" to pay the debtor's commercial debt obligations. All of this is done under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code that deals with "secured transactions." Relatively simple and straightforward in most cases.

There are a variety of mystic magic remedies that the sovereign deadbeat community seek to exploit. One ploy is to file a UCC-1 on your own property so that your "security interest" will trump any claims from outside creditors or tax authorities. Another ploy is to create a sham entity or trust or agent to file the UCC-1 so it looks like the deadbeat's property is subject to a prior lien. The theory is that legitimate creditors or tax or governmental authorities won't waste their time trying to collect the deadbeat's property in a suit since there is a prior lien on the property. Both of these ploys are fraudulent transactions but may be effective to deter legitimate creditors from undertaking the cost and delay in proceedings necessary to eliminate the bogus liens. Another ploy is to file a UCC-1 to screw up the financial affairs of your "enemies" by filing bogus liens that makes it look like their property is encumbered with liens. The deadbeat files a UCC-1 claiming that the enemy-- judge, sheriff, opposing lawyer, opposing party, bank, governmental agency, tax collector, etc.-- owes the deadbeat money and that the deabeat claims an interest in the enemy's property. When the enemy goes to finance a purchase or take out a credit card or engage in some similar financial transaction, the UCC-1 filed against him will show up on the UCC lien check (and often the credit report as well). This can really make life difficult for the "enemy" to clear this blot off of the public records.

[Prof]

What is a UCC-1 filing really used for?

I thought they were a sovrun invention until I found out the TN Sec. State has them on their website.

A UCC-1 is more formally known as a "Financing Statement." In order to created a security interest under Art. 9 of the UCC in all secured transactions (where a lien on personal property secures repayment of a debt), a written Security Agreement granting the lien and executed by the borrower is required unless, as in a pawn shop transaction, the lender takes or retains possession of the collateral. In non-consumer purchase money transactions, in order to perfect the lien, a Financing Statement must be filed in the state where the borrower resides or is chartered. A Financing Statement is not required if the transaction is a purchase money (lender sold the goods and retained a lien or financed the purchase) of consumer goods, so long as there is a written security agreement. A Financing Statement is not required if the lender (i.e., a pawn shop) retains possession pending payment.

A UCC-1 is frequently filed before the loan is made -- a security interest does not attach, however, until money changes hands and borrower gets rights in the goods. UCC-1's are filed before consumation because the date of the filing establishes priority if there are competing liens which attach -- i.e., first to file wins.

[bmielke]

What is a UCC-1 filing really used for?

I thought they were a sovrun invention until I found out the TN Sec. State has them on their website.

A UCC-1 is more formally known as a "Financing Statement." In order to created a security interest under Art. 9 of the UCC in all secured transactions (where a lien on personal property secures repayment of a debt), a written Security Agreement granting the lien and executed by the borrower is required unless, as in a pawn shop transaction, the lender takes or retains possession of the collateral. In non-consumer purchase money transactions, in order to perfect the lien, a Financing Statement must be filed in the state where the borrower resides or is chartered. A Financing Statement is not required if the transaction is a purchase money (lender sold the goods and retained a lien or financed the purchase) of consumer goods, so long as there is a written security agreement. A Financing Statement is not required if the lender (i.e., a pawn shop) retains possession pending payment.

A UCC-1 is frequently filed before the loan is made -- a security interest does not attach, however, until money changes hands and borrower gets rights in the goods. UCC-1's are filed before consumation because the date of the filing establishes priority if there are competing liens which attach -- i.e., first to file wins.

Thanks professor that makes sense.

[grixit]

So then, it's like a pawn ticket if pawnbrokers were required to register every transaction?

[Prof]

So then, it's like a pawn ticket if pawnbrokers were required to register every transaction?

Yes, the idea of a loan secured by personal property really dates back to the pawn broker of the Middle Ages. The "mortgage chattel" (sp?) -- a more complicated transaction -- eventually matures into the security interest of the UCC (the civilian countries had a lot of problems in the early 20th Century in adopting non-possessory security intertest, which is a stranger to the Napolenonic Code; this was a huge drag on the consumer economy in Europe).

However, in the US (outside of LA), the states developed the concept of a trust relationship, in which the buyer/borrower held the goods in trust for the lender/seller -- which is why lawyers sometimes refer to defaulting borrowers as being "out of trust." Eventually, this became the Uniform Trust Receipts Act. The Trusts Receipts Acts acts were uniformly replaced by Art. 9 of the UCC in the early 70's in all states but LA, which eventually adopted Art. 9 in the 90's (IIRC).

Both the business and consumer economies of the US are driven, in part, by the availability of secured credit for personal property purchases -- one historian suggested that mass production, the movies, and the revoling charge account (secured or unsecured) created the booming economy of the Roaring Twenties. (Mowery, if IIRC, later chair at UNC)

The trick that the trust acts and Art. 9 accomplished was to recognize possessory security interests (e.g., goods in pawn) but adapt the concept also to create a mechanism to form non-possessory security interests, so that the borrower/buyer/debtor can continue to use the goods securing the loan for business or pleasure and, equally importantly, to allow the lender to perfect those interests, or its lien, against the claims of other creditors of the borrower/buyer/debtor, including other Art. 9 lenders, judgment lenders, the IRS, etc.

The security agreement deals with the agreement between lender and borrower; the UCC-1 is the perfection mechanism which gives notice to other lenders/judgment creditors, etc., of where "in line" the UCC lender will be or is.

Under the security agreement, lender agrees to take the collateral but the debtor agrees that the lender can have the collateral in satisfaction of the debt in the event of default. Art. 9 even provides for self-help repossession, unless the borrower resists (no breach of the peace).

Hope this is enough history/etc.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So then, it's like a pawn ticket if pawnbrokers were required to register every transaction?

Was going to respond but saw Prof's recent explanation.

[grixit]

So then, it's like a pawn ticket if pawnbrokers were required to register every transaction?

Was going to respond but saw Prof's recent explanation.

That's ok, you can explain how Shylock should have proceeded when a deadbeat tried to use paytriot argumentation to avoid foreclosure.

[Judge Roy Bean]

So then, it's like a pawn ticket if pawnbrokers were required to register every transaction?

Was going to respond but saw Prof's recent explanation.

That's ok, you can explain how Shylock should have proceeded when a deadbeat tried to use paytriot argumentation to avoid foreclosure.

I must have missed something . . . more details, please.

[Quixote]

So then, it's like a pawn ticket if pawnbrokers were required to register every transaction?

Was going to respond but saw Prof's recent explanation.

That's ok, you can explain how Shylock should have proceeded when a deadbeat tried to use paytriot argumentation to avoid foreclosure.

Tried? Anthony succeeded in the common law court presided over by Portia. Shylock should have noticed that the court room flag had no gold fringe, or at least that the judge was a woman.