Back to questions

It is also good to know why something does NOT work: Why does UCC-Filing NOT work?

in the course, it was said tat UCC-Filling does not work.

Currently In the Netherlands Over 1.000 + people are trying this way. to protect their property and money ("income") "legally" being stolen

What do they do?
They create an agreement between party "A" (a wo/man) and Party "B" (the "STRAW-MAN of A)"

In this agreement Party "B" provides lodging of a deposit to party "A"
Everything "B"has as property, Physical and non-physical, now belongs to "A" (from date of creation of "B", few days after birth of "A")

This agreement is then Filled with the UCC (Commercial law) and

as condition, any 3rd party "C" (i.e. agent) must pay a fee when entering or attempting to breach the contract..

This support to protect party "A" when a Party "C" tries to steal from Party "B", which may cause harm to party "A".

Due to UCC commercial law is International, it is suppost to be above the Dutch (tax) law.

It is somewhat similar to Greg's letter to the IRS.
Where alan benjamin gergory paul loans to the ALAN BENJAMIN SMITH estate.
hence greg becomes "creditor" and ALAN BENJAMIN SMITH "Debtor".
with but here it is only kept in the private.

1) Why is Filling a "lodging of a deposit" with UCC not advisable?

In case for example:
a Man, "A", invites a party "C" (tax-collector) to open court.
besides, the claim of causing harm,
party "A" (and Party "B") is also able to bring forth the UCC-Filing.

which states that any 3rd party has to pay € 10 Million upon attempt entering the contract.

Want to see this question answered?

Click the "thumbs-up" icon. The questions with the most votes will be answered.