You're viewing a single thread.
I’ve gotten better with SovCit speak, but imma going to need a glossary for this post. I got the gist but that was it.
The critical document in this story is the BOE, but I have no idea what that's supposed to stand for.
I also don't know POA. (Maybe power of attorney, but doesn't make sense).
"Recision of security interest" sounds a lot like a document that attempts to void out the part of the loan papers that let the lender repossess the car on default.
CFO is chief financial officer, an executive at the lender organization.
UCC is the Uniform Commercial Code, a set of laws enacted in most states covering business practice regarding contracts and such.
SEC is the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates publicly traded stocks ("securities"). This seems to confuse the investment meaning of security with the different meaning of "security" on the loan.
CFPB is the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This organization does do things to protect borrowers in default from unfair debt collection practices. I can't imagine why they wouldn't just leap into action for this case.
Finally IRS collects federal income taxes. Form 3949a is a tattle tale form that lets you report things like your friend's improper deductions to the IRS. That's real nice.
Yeah it’s the BOE and 3949a I didn’t know. Also “poa” but I think that’s “power of attorney”.
Sorry I edited some of this stuff in.
I'm still stumped on BOE, but IRS form 3949a allows you to narc on people for tax misconduct.
Wow. That’s a crazy one. Thanks for putting that together!
Bill of Exchange is a financial document used to facilitate payments, similar to a check or promissory note.
So sov cits admit they're dealing in commerce with their vehicles?
I think I've seen this before, idk what boe stands for but it's some sort of document that a lender can give you that basically waives needing to pay. I don't know the details and it's not like they use these things in good faith. Essentially this person is trying to get out of paying for their car. That's why it got repossessed.
I also don’t know POA. (Maybe power of attorney, but doesn’t make sense).
I get dizzy trying to follow this, but SovCit may have given the lender a limited power of attorney over the super-duper-definitely-real trust account that they've reclaimed from the fake government, so the lender can draw down the funds to pay for the car. SovCit is not a thief, after all!
I'm going to try to explain the revocation of power of attorney from the sovcit point of view, keep it mind that none of this is how anything actually works and that it doesn't make a lot of sense.
There are two different entities at play. First is the strawman that the government created when they generated the birth certificate. The strawman was sold to foreign investors as collateral for loans and the cash used for that collateral was placed into a Treasury account in the strawman's name. The second is the natural person who the strawman represents. By filing the correct paperwork to declare that the natural person does not consent to the sale of their strawman and does not wish to contract with the government the natural person can separate themselves from the government no longer being a citizen or subject of the government but a sovereign unto themselves. When the natural person becomes sovereign they gain control of the strawman and, by acting on behalf of the strawman, can access the money in the Treasury account. To be able to contract on behalf of the strawman and use the Treasury account they grant themselves power of attorney over the strawman. When they buy the car they do so on behalf of the strawman and contract for the loan using that POA. After attempting to pay using the money from the Treasury account one step that they can take when that payment isn't accepted is to, again acting on behalf of the strawman, revoke their own power of attorney for that particular transaction. By revoking their right to contract on behalf of the strawman they believe that they are invalidating the loan contract and, because the loan contract is with a different company and separate from the purchase agreement they believe that invalidating the loan contract does not invalidate the purchase agreement so their strawman gets to keep the car.