Promise and Pledge

Merriam-Webster defines Redux : brought back used postpositively

Further back in time, the definition of Dux, applies to a few : Dux (/dks, dks/;
plural: duces) is Latin for "leader" (from the verb ducere, "to lead")
Curts of A., Daffy Duck appeared in a television cartoon where Daffy Duck
exclaims, All Mine, if one seeks the cartoon, one will understand the three
dots pre and post.
If this writer was still a child, the term Redux would have a total different meaning
as the writer was ignorant and would have most likely have seen the term Redux
being Re-Duck. Exuberance of youth allows many things not logical to exist. With
decades of learning applicable, this writer would inquire upon hearing that if it
looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it most likely is a duck, however age of the
decades would require inquiry to determine if an appearance by a duck was a
costume to give another the appearance of a duck for benefit.
Okiee: time to leave duck soup to the cooks. Quack, Quack went not the bell.
Within many a courts it has been opined and stipulated that a Note evidences a
monetary obligation. This writer has no objection to such determination. Logic
does dictate that if no Note exist(s) then logically there would be no evidence that a
monetary obligation existed. However, applying the Uniform Commercial Code
and the states adopted version, an alternate means of proof is allowable. To be
proof within a tribunal such alternate means of proof needs to be in admissible
form. Admissible Form cannot be that of hearsay comments, another question
presents and this writer could under proper conditions stipulate that a monetary

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/redux

obligation could be re-attached to the Note for the Note to be eligible for
negotiation, Beware a caveat, such only applies to a Uniform Commercial Code
Article 3 negotiable instrument.
What this writer has not seen opined by a judicial tribunal is a precise definition of
what is a Security Instrument (Deed of Trust, Mortgage, e.g.). Commonly it is
argued that the Mortgage follows the Note. If as it has been stipulated that a Note
only evidences a monetary obligation, then by a similar relevance would not the
Security Instrument evidence a pledge of collateral (real or personal property.)
Such definition would be amendable to interpretation of Uniform Commercial
Code Article 9; However, Article 9-109(d) excludes Article 9 from being
applicable to lien(s) upon real property.
Does a genuine issue of law arise to determine if a genuine issue of fact as to what
does a Security Instrument represent. By all factors to this writer a Security
Instrument evidences presence and identity of proposed collateral.
Hence, serious question(s) arise of law before facts (matters) of a case can be
determined.
1. Does a Security Instrument evidence a collateral pledge?
2. Does a Security Instrument follow the Note?
3. If in fact a collateral pledge exists, does such pledge follow the Note or the
Monetary Obligation?
4. If Question 3 is valid, what statutes become applicable to establish and
determine rights that the pledge follows the monetary obligation?
5. Several other question(s) arise(s) under law to determine relevant facts thus
adjudication of law sometimes is required to allow Motion for Summary
Judgment.