The Uniform Commercial Code is nothing like
that represented on a number of websites on the Net. The UCC is a
suggested set of commercial laws that States can enact applicable
within their jurisdictions, but there is no “uniformity” among all
States. Each State has enacted its own version of the UCC with
modifications to the suggested version, and while there is general
uniformity across this country, there is no absolute uniformity.
After all, the commercial laws regarding oil and gas are far more
developed in Texas than in Vermont. And the banking laws are more
developed in New York than in Wyoming.
The “UCC” adopted by a particular state applies only within its
jurisdiction and not outside of it. Thus, a “UCC” transaction that
occurs in Washington State has no effect outside of that State. An
alleged UCC transaction in Washington State is further not
applicable worldwide. The UCC laws in Washington have no effect in
Idaho, the adjoining state.
Here is a real world example. Texarkana, Texas/Arkansas is a city
sitting on the border of Texas and Arkansas, with “State Line
Avenue” dividing the city between Texas and Arkansas. Suppose a
construction firm having business and assets in Texas, Arkansas,
and Louisiana (90 miles south of Texarkana) seeks a loan from a
Texas bank in Texarkana. If that bank desires a security interest
in the assets of that company, it must file a “UCC financing
statement” in Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana. Simply filing a “UCC
financing statement” in Texas would not encumber the assets of the
company or comply with the UCC laws in Arkansas or Louisiana.
Consequently, that same financing statement must be filed in the
other states.
A UCC Financing Statement
(or Similar Document Evidencing Consent) Require the Debtor’s
Signature.
Mortgages on land typically happen when land is being sold. A
buyer of such land typically secures a loan from a bank, and the
security for the loan is the land. A borrower signs both a
promissory note, which is the evidence of the debt, and the
mortgage, which secures payment of the loan, and these
transactions are governed by state law. The UCC governs similar
transactions that do not involve land but personal property like a
car or equipment. There is both a promissory note evidencing the
debt, and the financing statement acts like a mortgage, but it
applies only to the personal property. The borrower/debtor
must
sign both the note and some document granting the security
interest in the personal property subject to the financing
statement. This is required pursuant to UCC § 9-509. A financing
statement or other similar instrument that is not signed by the
debtor has no legal effect.
The One People’s Public
Trust.
In 2012, Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf started a scam. She created this
alleged trust, and
then filed a UCC financing statement that allegedly encumbered all
of the assets of all governments around the world as well as the
assets of banks and other large corporations. But, there are huge
problems with this contention. First, the alleged debtors did not
sign any promissory note and certainly did not sign any financing
statements or similar instruments. As such, these alleged
transactions are void and have no legal substance or validity. But
ignoring this problem, a financing statement filed in Washington
State could only be valid there, and it would not apply in any
other state in this country. And it certainly would not be valid
in any other part of the world. Further, Tucci-Jarraf did not
obtain the alleged debtor’s signature to the financing statement
or a similar document. What she claims happened simply did not,
and her claims are thus false.
Nonetheless, she then claimed that she foreclosed on these
“debtors”, thus freeing the entire world. Typically when a
lender forecloses, the lender takes possession of the property and
then conducts a public sale of the pledged assets. Tucci-Jarraf
never took possession of anything and never held any sale. All of
the claims she makes regarding this entire transaction are false,
but she has used these false claims to deceive the gullible,
especially her claim that every American was going to receive
5
billion bux (or tons of gold) as a result of what she did
with OPPT.
Once she gained a group of followers, she started asking for funds
to buy several motor homes to travel around the country to speak
about the OPPT (the OPAL tour). After buying such vehicles, she
and a group went on a tour, eventually ending in Florida, where
she came up with a new idea: start a commune in Morocco with a
free energy device. In 2013, she and a number of her followers
moved to Morroco, and lived there for a while promoting communal
living and free energy. But when the contributions dried up, the
community fell apart and Heather eventually moved back to the U.S.
of A. A more detailed discussion of Heather is posted
here.
A video presentation is posted
here.
In 1999, Roger Elvick developed and promoted the "
redemption
process", the features of which involved the "strawman"
names in CAPS argument, UCC, and Treasury Direct Accounts
(explained
here).
The assertion that every American has lots of funds on deposit in
a Treasury Direct Account is nothing but utter nonsense, a wild
and crazy idea. To have such an account, you must open one with
the US Treasury and deposit funds into that account, from which
you can buy and sell US debt instruments. Tucci-Jarraf has
recently started this baseless argument all over again.
Heather contends that every American has such an account and funds
may be drawn from it. To withdraw those funds, one must use a
check with a particular routing number having some relationship to
your SSN. She also claims that, via some process similar to
NESARA, those funds are available now. Randall Beane tried this
process, obtained a half million bux, then bought a large,
expensive motor home. Both Heather and Randall have been
indicted.
Randall Beane recently
stated:
Heather’s UCC law filings have been followed by a
widely diverse group of beings who have to deal with the court
systems which are all based on UCC law and its international
equivalents. They may arrest you on a criminal charge but
they always convert that to a “TRUE BILL” which is an
undisclosed UCC “bill of lading” for human cargo which they
monetize against the same TDA accounts the courts claim are
“fictiious” and non-existant. The legal dictionaries
define it as an “indictment” but that truly is not what it
is. Every court case is monetized for millions of dollars
as are prison bonds and court bonds. China is the largest
purchaser of US court bonds, holding an undue amount of
financial influence on the court systems.
Roger Elvick made the same baseless claim. This whole story is
nothing but the manifestations of the lunatic fringe.