You full time respond with personal opinions without any reasons or supporting
documents which are misleading and helpless to redemption process.
If Not UCC, then what's the remedy for "discharge the debt"?
please do not make irresponsible comments if you don't know enough.
If you don't know, just say you don't know and research it as we all have to.
You don't have to pretend you know anything, everything and leave the REAL
SOLUTIONS out.
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021, 11:49:34 AM PST, Jb <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The. Myth? Lol
On Nov 10, 2021, at 2:06 PM, Creative Contours <colleen90@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The truth about NESARA! NESARA - GESARA - The Myth behind it... - YouTube
From: administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Leroy
Smith <badhabit40366@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 11:44 AM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: UCC Code who.. That
general language is in alot of the State's commercial code where they're
establishing the commercial codes standing among the rest of the statutory
stuff. In SOUTH CAROLINA it says the commercial code takes precendence... Som
maybe check your state version for the language you're looking for
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021, 11:36 AM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
yeah I've spent the last hour looking for The Uniform Commercial Code Volume
1, Section 103.6 .6 doesn't exist. Question for all: was it moved or revised
like 1-307 which was moved in 2004 to 1-308?
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 9:51 AM Charley Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Then I know not where the code can be found On Nov 10, 2021, 6:41 AM -0700,
NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx>, wrote:
Thanks. I must be dense.
I do not see anywhere a UCC 1-103.6 STATES, "codes are complimentary to
common law which is still in affect" anywhere......
It stops at 103 a3 or b From:
administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Charley
Dan <charleydan@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 8:02 AM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: UCC Code who.. Only
for you Nelson, only for you would I research and find a copy.com Texas.:-).
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/sdocs/businessandcommercecode.pdf On ;
Nov 10, 2021, 4:24 AM -0700, NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx>, wrote:
Charley, or anyone
Can someone provide the link to UCC 1-103.6 quote ?
I cannot locate it easily.
From: Charley Dan
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 5:23 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: UCC Code who..
I flat out do not use it. After all UCC 1-103.6 STATES, "codes are
complimentary to common law which is still in affect"
So common law-contract is superior to UCC. Need one say more?
On Nov 9, 2021, 2:35 PM -0700, J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
UCC Code who..
United States Code. it's their corporate by-laws
It's for we the people to hold them accountable
Forgot who said in this chat they didn't like it or try not to use it.
this message is for you then.
