Here's a quick wrap up and confirmation of what we accomplished last night as we look ahead to next week.
In attendance: Tony, Kyle, Mike, Lynita Kaye, Misty, Mark,
We raised the issue of 'what are the intended objectives?' and the fact that there are different paths to different objectives, i.e. staying in the system and working it as the 'owner of the contract/secured creditor, or getting official recognition as a 'national' and not a 'citizen'
Patrick's teachings seem to have focused as of late, on the former and not so much on the later. We need to delineate between the two and be clear on what are the intended objectives and then establish the road to achieving that.
We agreed that completing the non-ucc documentation up front is the basis for claiming 'ownership' of the contract and works as a starting point to either objective as mentioned above.
The other two roads we discussed as options are:
1) filing a statement as a US National for the passport process as documentation to establish status. Tony has already done this and I am going to do it shortly.
2) the other road is getting a court decree in recognition of status as we saw an example in last Monday's Web meeting.
============================================
We discovered that someone in Patrick's group is doing transcripts of recent calls which are found on this link:
However, they are in .txt format and difficult to read.
We agreed to each take one or more of these transcripts and re-format it, to clean it up in the following way;
1) Create a simple outline of the key points discussed and put that at the top in bullet point format.
2) Separate the paragraphs, and generally just clean it up.
3) Insert sub-headers above the appropriate paragraphs, where appropriate, when the subject changes, for quick scanning ability and reference.
For next week here are the tasks agreed to as it relates to cleaning up the transcripts linked above;
Lynita Kaye - 7/31 Misty - 9/11
Mike - 8/03
Mark - 9/14
Kyle - 9/07
Olga - 7/27 & 7/20
Tam - 7/24 (Tam is not able to attend meetings but willing to contribute, thanks Tam!)
Tony - is analyzing the info we have on the forum for the initial non-ucc process form(s) and comparing that to what he finds in Patrick's resources for the purpose of putting together a complete process relating to authenticating the COLB and then completing the non-ucc forms. We don't expect this process to be complete next week. But at least an initial analysis can hopefully identify the key elements and what we need to put together for a reasonably complete instruction on this part.
Next meeting: Thursday Sept. 22 8:00 PM Central Time Meeting details to be announced by email as usual.
==========================================
Misty raised a question/issue which warrants our attention and we can hopefully provide some input and discussion next week. This is the issue:
"Patrick said in one of his calls that Article 9 of the UCC states that you can choose which law you want to be under. I wanted to verify this.
I could not find anything under article 9 for "non-UCC" but instead found one entry for "Non-Uniform Commercial." It didn't have anything to do with choosing which law to be subject to. However:
UCC 9-306b has info which leads you to UCC 5-116. UCC 5-116 is what allows you to choose which law you want to be under and this is done either by presumption or by contract depending on the type of item you have security interest in, whether or not that interest has been perfected or not and more. It also basically supports Mark's "law of the flag" information that has previously been presented.
This section also states that if any processes with your UCC security interest stuff conflicts with that article (UCC 5-116) that 5-116 prevails.
There are more sections need to be studied under 5-116 that I have not looked at but are important.
Beware: It states that it prevails as long as it doesn't conflict with "non-negotionables" listed in section 5-103.
I did not get a chance to review or study 5-103. I have no idea if the terms in 5-103 are conflict with de jure law or not.
Thanks very much to everyone!
Mark
|
