Harry Wombat
Pete...
As I said, I was hoping that comment wasn't a shitstain. I thought I might of had an "aha" moment and would post it to see if Scott liked it to determine if I was on to something. As you can see, he didn't. :(
____________
Anyways...I'll now elaborate on what I feared may have been a shitstain.
I'm in the process of trying to discover what Scott meant in an earlier post (Dan Wilson PM conversation) regarding a SECURITY AGREEMENT (a written agreement between parties which identifies the collateral/property and is signed by the debtor to confirm they agree to have their property liened or seized if they do not pay their debt) NOT being NECESSARY for us to acquire prior to initiating a lien because it (the security agreement) "....is INCLUDED in THE TENDER FOR LAW that MONEY provides."
I thought I was on to why that is true, when I read..."If you do not want the laws you bought, then that is your choice!"
-----------------------
I was thinking (you should have seen the smoke come out my ears)...
I think I sort of get it now; my person doesn't have to provide/obtain a written and signed (by the surety) security AGREEMENT (even if their clubhouse rules say the person has provide one when requested to within x days or every couple of years) because:
commercial transactions/contracts/obligations are in themselves a SECURITY AGREEMENT when fiat money is involved. Acts and Statutes and Codes PLUS money PLUS a SURETY= SECURITY and SECURITY AGREEMENTS. The NOTE itself is a securitized promise/agreement to pay at some point in the future.
The SURETY acknowledges this SECURITY. It's our INSURANCE.
There's an AGREEMENT that they and "their" stuff is part of the SECURITY by their AGREEMENT to use fiat money which has already included a SECURITY AGREEMENT - which in turn allows me to lien property (securitize and secure their obligation). My ability to hold persons and their stuff accountable and lien them if they don't act honourably is my "insurance policy". If they don't want to be SURETY for our SECURITY AGREEMENT, they didn't have to buy/sell the Acts and Statutes or accept the THE TENDER FOR LAW and the SECURITY AGREEMENT that money includes.
And so I typed..."SECURITY of the SURETY is our INSURANCE" _______________
I'm still trying to figure it out myself. I know I don't quite have it yet. If I don't figure it out soon I'll just ask Scott:
How does THE TENDER FOR LAW that money provides include a SECURITY AGREEMENT - as defined/described by their Acts and Statutes?