Ken Dost
Intellectual
properties are both ‘embodiments’ and ‘representations’. Embodiments
consist of real-time human communications, stored and forwarded
messaging, documents and collections,
dynamic and persistent data structures and databases, scripts, source
code, partially or fully compiled
programs and applications, all of
which is generally referred to as ‘content.’ Embodiments also include
theoretical and abstract concepts exemplified through patents and
automated processes as a specific form of content thereto.
Legal
rights, contracts, agreements, and other assertions are embodied in the
form of content, but are not the embodiment of the intellectual property
itself. Rather, these are representations of the intellectual property,
such as a Deed of Trust or title, to a home, vehicle and
representations of physical or real properties.
Embodiments and
representations of intellectual properties are intangibles of virtual
existence, but with direct connection possessive to the tangible and
real. This is exemplified by the mandatory patentability rule, that in
order for a process to be patentable it must produce a ‘concrete and
tangible’ result.
The software and programming industry has
embodiments of intellectual properties in program driven goods,
services, and products, with representations of property rights in
licenses, legal contracts and agreements, copyrights, trademarks, and
patents.
Given the State Street v Signature Financial Group 1998
ruling, 2001 revisions to UCC9, various statutory acts, and various
international treaties gives an entirely different meaning to word
‘value.’ The speed by which assets and properties accrues is much
faster, and because it is all virtual around its base, the form upon
which it takes has no quantum limit, and therefore extremely valuable to
the base property owner’s principal stakeholder and beneficiary. Given
the value with full faith and credit and inherent wealth, there is not a
single person who would knowingly or willingly sign away all rights,
title, and interest, along with any and all control over to third party
others.
This though was the point of the intentionally concealed,
secret and private, MERS/Nationsbank credit/security agreement, to take
into private our intellectual properties and assets, through and by
theft of identity, in name, signature, and entity. This was covered over
by an agreement executed with reliance on blatant intentional
misrepresentations and fabrications of a mortgage loan refinancing that
with great preponderance, can easily be shown never ever existed.
MERS/Nationsbank is the veil: on one side is actual truth and fact and
the other the greatest public deception and fraud in history.
MERS/Nationsbank is the veil: on one side resides undisclosed
sophisticated automated business practices that are NOT ordinary course.
On the other, sits a population deceived by false and fabricated
representations that all is ordinary course, and a paradigm that has
been dead for at least 15 years.
MERS/Nationsbank is the veil: on
one side we are made to serve as the prostitute subject of patented
processes, exploited for my credit and value, and trafficked throughout
the world. On this side I am a slave serving to the pleasures and
profits of legal representatives, subsidiaries, an affiliates. On the
other side, I am the embodiment of the American Dream – a homeowner, and
completely ignorant of the evil that hovers all around.
My scope
of knowledge on intellectual properties way back in 2005, was not
advanced, in fact rather limited and general, which was more by name
association to an invention, and a label identifying of a product, and
not much more. For instance, Alexander Graham Bell as the patented
inventor of the telephone, and Thomas Edison as the inventor and patent
owner of the lightbulb. On the trademark side, the labeling of goods and
products serves as a means for consumers to identify a certain
manufacturers’ goods and products, but also as legal protection of
manufacturer from infringement.
So a transaction in real property
with concrete attachment to patents and trademarks would seem to
necessitate full disclosure and representation. I believe this is what
is referred to as mutual assent, absent of this, denies a potential
buyer from performing competent due diligence. I lack capacity to enter
into a transaction that is far out of the realm of my knowledge base
that ventures into the unknown, and absent truthful disclosure from the
seller, renders me incompetent. Ownit’s deceptive trade practices and
unlawful model, is rounded out by further fraudulent acts and
misrepresentations, with execution of an ordinary course mortgage loan
refinancing that is a descent into ignorance.
Other than Ownit’s
tendered ignorance, public deception, and a rigged court, there is no
evidence whatsoever to ever prove there was a mortgage loan of any sort
or kind, except for false belief and BAR attorney fraud.
No comments:
Post a Comment