Você está na página 1de 3

Apples & Oranges

Appleman wants to buy an apple farm. On this farm Appleman will have an apple orchard. Appleman needs money to buy the apple trees. Appleman takes out a loan (tangible obligation) with Banana lender and promises to repay the Apple loan from the proceeds made available upon harvesting the apples. Banana lender to further protect his investment requires Appleman to put up as security the account receivable (intangible payment stream intangible obligation) as alternate means to repay the loan in case Applemans harvest fails.

In this strictly personal property intangible operation we see that Banana lender has only a perfected right of alternate collection to that of the payment stream of the apples when the apples are sold. Where apples are crops and not that of real property, any pledging of the apples as alternate method of payment for the obligation would be perfected under personal property laws such as Uniform Commercial Code Article 9, a UCC Financing statement could be filed to perfect and protect the alternate means of collecting a tangible personal property debt to a secured creditor.

Whereas, Appleman has not pledged the account receivables from the sale of the oranges, Banana lender under the tangible obligation could file of court suit to collect under the tangible obligation and achieve a judicial order granting rights to the orange funds. Utilizing the laws surrounding the negotiation of a negotiable instrument and noting in the above there was no tangible note negotiation, Banana lender owned both the tangible and intangible obligation to the apples and as such, laying claim to the security securing is in accordance to applicable tangible and intangible laws.

Now we begin creating various flavors of applesauce.

Appleman requires financing not only for the apple trees but for that of purchasing the dirt the apple trees are planted on. Banana lender lends money to Appleman (Tangible Obligor) to buy the dirt and trees and Banana lender files of a public record the Security Instrument noting Banana lender is as a Secured Tangible Creditor as being the Original Payee (Originating Tangible Obligee) as identified on the Tangible Obligation and the Tangible Security Instrument securing.

Banana lender at this point in time is in a lawful position to execute the Tangible Security Instrument as an alternate means to collect upon Applemans failure to repay the Tangible Obligation.

Rotten Apples
Whereas Appleman may be learned in the growing of apples and oranges and unbeknownst to Appleman and at Banana lenders urging, Appleman signed a Security Instrument unlawfully stipulating, usually identified in Covenant #20 as an interest in along with this Security Instrument can be sold, that the Tangible Security Instrument could be bifurcated from the Tangible Note Obligation which is a legal impossibility.

Now we travel beyond real property lien laws, travel beyond personal property lien laws on upwards to securities law that govern the creation of special investment vehicles whose value and life is dependent upon the validity of the Tangible Obligation. Documents that prescribe the method and means for the

creation of these special tax evasive instruments are written with absolute precise requirements. One such requirement is that the Tangible Obligations are to be properly secured by a Perfected Security Instrument in accordance to law, and that the Secured Tangible Obligations are to be properly negotiated to the trust vehicles in accordance to law. The law allows that an Account Debtor can pledge an intangible interest (intangible payment stream) while wearing the same hat as being that of a Tangible Obligee. At this point and stage the Tangible Obligee if public records so reflects could also be a Secured Tangible Obligee and the Intangible Obligee if not filed of record is not the Tangible Secured Obligee reflecting a negotiation of the tangible obligation. Assigning perfection of an Intangible Security Interest in the Intangible Obligation is only an assignment of rights to collecting intangible payments that the Account Debtor has pledged as collateral.

To make matters even worse, where tax evasive trusts require multiple true sales of the tangible negotiable instrument to reach the trust pools and the intervening tangible assignments and tangible negotiations are missing further makes concern of serious tax liabilities and places considerable doubt to the trusts being a Tangible Secured Creditor of Public Record.

Maybe our lawmakers and judges would like to believe that most of the American people still have the mentality of residing in a banana republic, but we must ask this serious question. Why it is the lawmakers that passed these laws are now just inquiring as to what went wrong. Did the American people elect a bunch of monkeys to lead the greatest nation in the world, must have for it looks like a lot of spilled applesauce.