LAW states registration not required

[shikamaru]

I gave you the keys (reference to cites), but not going to open the door for you. There is no silver platter here, time to man up.

No you didn't. Keep copping out.
Perhaps you need to learn how to research.
If you do that, your theories won't be half baked.

Again, what about title theory states versus lien theory states?
Can you answer or do I have to show you how real research is done, son?

[motla68]

No you didn't. Keep copping out.
Perhaps you need to learn how to research.
If you do that, your theories won't be half baked.

Again, what about title theory states versus lien theory states?
Can you answer or do I have to show you how real research is done, son?

You seem to be expecting a lot more from me then what you are willing to do yourself, for that I cannot help you.
Also you boast as if you allegedly already have your own answer, so why ask the question ?

You win, this ego is checking out.

[shikamaru]

You seem to be expecting a lot more from me then what you are willing to do yourself, for that I cannot help you.
Also you boast as if you allegedly already have your own answer, so why ask the question ?

You win, this ego is checking out.

Don't run, son.
You are about to receive a lesson on how to research.

You never answer a single question nor can you produce any resources.
Time for me to show you how it's done.

Again, what about title theory states versus lien theory states with respect to mortgages?
I'll give you some time before I unload on you.

[motla68]

Don't run, son.
You are about to receive a lesson on how to research.

You never answer a single question nor can you produce any resources.
Time for me to show you how it's done.

Again, what about title theory states versus lien theory states with respect to mortgages?
I'll give you some time before I unload on you.

I have my own method of research which fairs me pretty well, no thank you.

You missed it the first time and the second time, here it is again:

697.02 Nature of a mortgage.—A mortgage shall be held to be a specific lien on the property therein described, and not a conveyance of the legal title or of the right of possession.
History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 525, 1853; RS 1982; GS 2495; RGS 3837; CGL 5725.

Florida statutes, go look and prove me wrong if you think I am fabricating it.

Unload on me? have you ever stopped unloading on me?
I was just here asked of a friend to share some information, i did not expect the treatment i got here. You have posted so many things of hearsay in here and have given even a lot less then I have, you claim you know something just because someone else said it and you call that research, no thank you.

[shikamaru]

I have my own method of research which fairs me pretty well, no thank you.

No offense, but your methods suck.
You present half stories or only those which support your view (after attorning it a bit). You don't cite what you present. You hardly ever present source documents nor do cover the depth or breadth of the subject.

You missed it the first time and the second time, here it is again:

697.02 Nature of a mortgage.—A mortgage shall be held to be a specific lien on the property therein described, and not a conveyance of the legal title or of the right of possession.
History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 525, 1853; RS 1982; GS 2495; RGS 3837; CGL 5725.

Florida statutes, go look and prove me wrong if you think I am fabricating it.

Now you copied that from somewhere.
Where is your source document? I'm sure you acquired that off the web, therefore where is the URL to this resource?

Unload on me? have you ever stopped unloading on me?

You don't know what unloading looks like from me. Everything prior to this point was light sprinting.

I was just here asked of a friend to share some information, i did not expect the treatment i got here.

Cut the "holier than thou" crap.

You have posted so many things of hearsay in here and have given even a lot less then I have, you claim you know something just because someone else said it and you call that research, no thank you.

I'm back. Now I'll show you unloading!
I'll have to disagree with the claim that "I've posted so many things of hearsay in here" and that "I have given less than you (motla68).
I present more treatises, citations, and such on this board than you have even contemplated existed.
Stop using the term "hearsay". You don't know what it means.
I see you didn't answer one single question. Not that I expected you to. You know not how.

Let's analyze an example of some of your "research" and hearsay:

Errors are highlighted in red.
No citations are highlighted in blue.

Commenting on what happened in 1933 and the change of that act, the limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed after President Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of gold coins, bars and certificates by an act of Congress codified in Pub.L. 93-373 [1] [2] which went into effect December 31, 1974. P.L. 93-373 does not repeal the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933, which makes unlawful any contracts which specify payment in a fixed amount of money or a fixed amount of gold. That is, contracts are unenforceable if they use gold monetarily rather than as a commodity of trade.

(Source)

Could you cite where I may find the "Gold Clause Resolution of 1933" ... or will any B.S. do?
Where in this "Gold Clause Resolution of 1933" does it make gold clauses unlawful in contracts .... or will any B.S. do?
These public laws... if they are public, they are published, right? You can't find a copy of the P.L.s online ... or will any B.S. do?