top of page

UCC Article 3 on Promissory Notes: Homeowner is the "note-maker" but who is "PETE?"

Updated: Sep 28, 2022

It helps to start with clear definitions. Below uploaded are experts' and scholars' works:

1) Professor Emeritus Douglas Whaley, who writes with technical precision yet also for the layperson, and worth a read; 2 ) Retired attorney, foreclosure analyst and author Robert M. Janes who places great emphasis on educating Judges ( audio and article); 3) article by Neil Garfield former Wall Street lawyer and longtime analyst, podcast host and homeowners' advocate; 4) Prof. Christopher L. Peterson's scholarly article on MERS and how the security instrument follows he Note; 5) Prof. John Campbell's video breaking down "Mortgage Crisis in a Nutshell." See also

We start with an introduction.

The "Uniform Commercial Code" or the UCC is a body of law pre-dating the Constitution of the United States. International traders and residents between different regions and territories needed a "uniform" set of protocols for conducting commerce; and eventually a numbering system for these protocols was coded into the UCC. Eventually each of the 50 States adopted these codes "uniformly" as well, assigning numbering systems that mirror the UCC. (For example Calif. Commercial Code 3118 dictates the same language as UCC 3-118.)

The UCC and each State's corresponding commercial code is a body of law "on the books" still, remaining in place as governing law applicable to transactions and commerce, as defined by the terms of those transactions and

the sections of the UCC applying to those transactions.

We turn to the UCC Article 3 to start, governing "negotiable instruments"which include by definition, promissory notes, to learn the definitions to understand the codes and rules that govern. A well-respected expert Robert M. Janes by AUDIO and some of his other material HERE. .

Here we have a dispute arising from a promissory note made by the homeowner (who is "note-maker,") who promises to repay a loan to finance ownership of real property. The note is a "debt-instrument," a written paper that evidences a contract of indebtedness. The indebtedness is proven by way of the note-maker's original "wet-ink signature," on an original paper. Until that paper is back in the possession of the note-maker, also known as the note's "payor" with that paper note stamped "paid in full," or the equivalent; it is supposed to be in possession of someone else, presumably the same note's "payee," who would normally be the person or entity entitled to payments due on that note. This "payee" is also referred to as the "holder" of the note, or "holder in due course" of the note: the latter term refers to the current owner who isn't the original "lender" but whoever paid for value to be the lawfully current holder, in a series of lawful dealings constituting an "unbroken chain of title," thus resulting in a bonafide "holder in due course" of that note.

Other types of promissory notes include: normal checks or bank drafts we sign when paying bills, for example, i.e. when we write a check this too is our promise to pay the payee, and we sign our signature on the same paper check. Certainly, we the payor present a "wet-ink signature" on an original check to our payee - a mere photocopy of our signed check won't be honored or accepted by the payee nor by their bank! Neither would we be lawfully bound to cash a check brought to us by someone who had only a photocopy of one we signed: we would "not be in dishonor" of that photocopied check with our photocopied signature if we refused to cash it. We could rightly say, "I signed an original check to the payee, bring me the original and prove you are that payee (or a holder in due course) and I can exchange that check (promissory note) for cash; and when I do you'll return my original check to me." If the person making "presentment" of our check is not the original payee we must make sure that he/she is the lawful "holder in due course" by proper "indorsement" of our check of the original payee to this new "holder in due course," because if we cash that check to a fraudulent entity and the true payee later demands payment we are liable to the true payee and we wouldn't get credit for the earlier payout in cash to the prior imposter! That bank draft or check in the example; as well as the promissory notes to obtain a home-loan-derived debt are both equally governable under UCC Article 3 for Promissory Notes.

This is why the UCC governing promissory notes and other negotiable instruments includes uniform codes of business conduct and commercial practices addressing such items as original signatures and "indorsements" and identification of a "holder in due course," and more: to avoid disputes and pre-empt controversy by having clear definitions and agreements PRIOR to entering a contract of indebtedness such as between note-maker and note-holder! This is especially true when a debt can be sold and resold to subsequent parties, thus creating a "chain of title ownership" of a debt instrument. Parties along that chain must be uniform in their dealings to protect their rights and interests as buyers and sellers of the paper -- AND the original note-maker also has the lawful right under the UCC, on any given day, to obtain clear and certain knowledge of who the "one, intact, identifiable entity" or current payee is, opposite the payor and note-maker! These rules appear to be sensible, reasonable and prudent, do they not? Apparently these rules under the UCC have worked for hundreds of years, tradition and workable tradition speaks for itself: We then judiciously invoke and lawfully apply this body of law, our Uniform Commercial Code, pre-dating and practiced since before the ratification of our United States Constitution.

Finally, however, who the heck is "PETE?" Its a "legal person" but Pete isn't his name: it's short for Person Entitled To Enforce. The person could be literally an individual or it could be a corporation or other entity capable of owning the Note and becoming the "obligee" of it (note-maker and homeowner is the obligor). The PETE at one point duly obtained 100% ownership of the note (not part-ownership, which is prohibited by the UCC) by paying "for value" (traded something valuable for it like money); and who duly and lawfully obtained the rights of a PETE. The status and standing of a PETE is well-defined according to applicable laws and rules governing notes pursuant to the UCC. Certainly other governing law such as contract law etc. could and would apply.

In other words, under Uniform Commercial Code the PETE is one intact identifiable party, who proves it CURRENTLY owns the note. The PETE may be the original lender or it may be a subsequent and current PETE if it obtained that status after the note was sold (or resold any number of times if allowed under the terms of the note). There has to be an unbroken chain of title from the original lender and between subsequent PETE entities along that chain; so that there is no ambiguity that the current party claiming to be PETE for that note is indeed without controversy - clearly evident and provable. By proving its status as the PETE, that party, then ,has proven its "standing," to enforce the note, i.e.its right to demand payment on the note (make "presentment" pursuant to UCC) or in other words its right to be paid on the note according to the terms of the note -- because it owns the debt arising from the note, which is a written and signed debt-instrument, signed by the note-maker. Hopefully this is clear, stated in a few different ways for clarity.

Certainly, the foreclosure-driven entities in the current culture of the industry (ie. incentivized only to dispossess dwellers of the "collaterol-real-property") have been wrongly schooled that our Uniform Commercial Code and these sound-minded rules about original signatures and original documents aren't relevant! Oh, but they are very relevant - they are the law that governs here! For good reason: compliance with rules that work create ORDER and allow mutual profit and benefit in commerce; breaking those rules and going "rogue" creates CHAOS, a recipe for controversy and dispute.

A Person Entitled To Enforce, i.e. the true INJURED PARTY who is injured by non-payment should be cured of its injury in a lawful manner pursuant to UCC which governs. A note-maker is injured if denied her rights under her name under the same UCC if her entire family suffers irreparable damage by loss of very dwelling if the UCC and other governing law was trounced and violated leading to such damage. One example of this is the homeowners' incessant applications to reinstate her good standing on the note, which calls for monthly periodic payments but she is repeatedly for years denied reinstatement by an undisclosed phantom entity who is NOT the proven "inured party and PETE," while the alleged third party agent and debt-collector-only for the PETE relentlessly attacks to separate her and her family from the home and real property instead.

Consider: the note-maker proves financial ability to reinstate payments on the note, after recovering and restructuring finances adequately - or digging into savings - or selling assets TO SAVE THE FAMILY HOME -- and especially if the entire American taxpayer base was forced to foot the bill when the U.S. Treasury BAILED OUT the mega-banks who were supposed to workout "loan modifications" and get American families onto recovery in the wake of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

But all incentivization structures reveal an abomination of players and entities we have come to name a "foreclosure-machine," where rule of law is trampled and grave injury amongst working people and small business owners -- we the backbone of our Republic and of our economy -- by way of uprooting people from our rights to domain and dwelling, our sacred human right to domain and dwelling, to live and engage in family relationships, community and productive community life.

Grave and woeful evil this is and has been. We the People, We the Posterity do NOT consent -- and we invoke the Rule of Law and will stand our ground. We stand our ground for the sake of the generations behind us - INCLUDING the children and grandchildren of our very attackers who would otherwise be met with similar thievery once they hope to contract with lending institutions and financial entities! Take heed -- the Republic is under a strange siege that hates our rules, laws, and codes of honor. OUR COURTS ARE ONE BASTION OF SCHOLARLY JUDICIOUS OPINION AND CORRECTIVE ORDERS -- educating the public is another.

Many of us homeowners (including this writer) BEGGED for years - applying and re-applying for loan modifications in the wake of "lost paperwork" to CURE THE DEBILITATING STRESS OF FORECLOSURE, easily foregoing any principle reduction or interest rate reduction and offering to pay late fees for forbearance to put the "arrears" on the back end of loan term --- NOPE, wrongfully denied time and again for four years contnuously facing sale after sale date, denials without a reason, most often the official reason for denial was a flat atrocious lie.

Worse yet, homeowners were routinely "Bait 'n Switched," lulled into relief and told "Your new modified loan is in the mail," then to be shocked days before the auction that suddenly"came back on calendar" with a few days to spare -- the house back on the auctioneer's block, forcing homeowner into emergency bankruptcy or other desperate measure, even if one is available. (Yes, writing from first-hand experience.) [See whistleblower reports: here and here

Then when refused disclosure of just who it was we "owed" the loan to, which caused great uncertainty and unacceptable risk to us, we sought to refinance with outside funding or to have a friend or relative buy the house for the FULL claimed amount -- to be told that this was "against the rules," because it had to be an "arm's length transaction" and the original inhabitants -- the FAMILY residing in their own home -- WERE NOT ALLOWED TO RESIDE IN THE HOME AFTER SUCH A "SALE!" Even if every dollar "due" was offered these 3rd party rogues???Yes - this writer knows of at least two direct instances of this denial for the abominable "arms' length" reason. To add insult to injury the auctioned sales price is later found to be LESS than the offer made by the family's relative! *

* These two transgressions ended in loss of both family homes at auction and eviction of the families; one a multi-generational family home of over 45 years, the other housing two working adults and half a dozen children and teen siblings who had been adopted and given stability only to have it ripped from them again. Yes in both instances a close relative and friend had proof of funds to pay every inflated dollar claimed by the "servicer" who does not own the debt nor ever claim it does, but who stood to gain only by the most harmful dispossession of the real property and family's dwelling -- FULL PAYMENT REFUSED then auctioned for LESS than claimed. It is clear that trauma-making and deliberate insult added to injury is part and parcel of this beast. We implore participants to put down their pens and heed their conscience. Wrong is harmful. Wrong-doing is harmful to both the wielder and the injured.

This "foreclosure crisis" with so much injury in its wake can only happen when UCC rules of law governing our promissory note, dictating a 30-year, periodically due payment plan (360-months) are violated and never corrected, leading to law enforcement dragging that family out of their home. "Non-judicial foreclosure" states, numbering 32 out of 50 states - streamlines this unconstitutional wrong, but even in judicial foreclosure states where a court and trial is required before obtaining a writ of eviction, the UCC and basic contract law is too often thrown under some strange new statutes or even only assertions that the practices of a foreclosure-machine are just "business as usual" and thus proper! Add to this violation of UCC Article 9 governing the "security instrument" (deed-of-trust or mortgage), violation of basic contract law, Amendments 5 and 14 of our Constitution guaranteeing "due process before dispossession of property," the rules and penalties regarding perjury and fraud upon the court, and rules on recording public land title registry documents, powers of attorney contracts, legal standing (Persona Standi in Judicio) and other jurisprudence -- all or some would have to be similarly denounced, despised and trampled by several players in the arena.

Yet, still, we appeal to our judiciary -- to help educate our judges of what we "on the ground on Main Street America" grapple with up close almost constantly, in order to defend house and home and rights by law! Seeing that our legislature has codified as legal that which is unlawful and harmful, such as "non-judicial foreclosure" a deplorable dereliction of law and duty; we yet seek judicial review and wise counsel from our judges.


Does the borrower then unjustly "receive a free house?"

We answer with another question: "In the event of a void foreclosure, would not the totally unproven and apparently rogue third-party debt-collector for an apparent phantom stranger to the transaction unjustly receive a free house -- having effectively stolen a family's very home?" We all know that any" borrower-homedweller" has paid out in down-payment, monthly payments made, maintenance and sweat equity most likely, taxes, insurance , loan closing costs etc. There is never a "free house" to the homeowner and "borrower." But what of a debt-collector who is a mortgage-servicer? Did they pay "pennies on the dollar" for the "right" to collect on that note? If so, the law says they must disclose it and comply with federal law governing "debt collectors" which is a very different status than a PETE or "injured party!"

We have never pled for or argued for a "free house." We have begged to pay our attacker for half this decade-long fight. The last half we call forth the "injured party" who proves standing, begging still to pay the entity called "PETE.!"

There are perfectly plausible reasons why a current true PETE and Injured Party fails to appear and prove its standing: Credit Default Swaps are one common reason - insurance paid out to insiders long ago. Or the Note and debt was sold and resold multiple times - illegally - aided by the electronic duplication of "notes" such that the original "wet ink" version of the old days was destroyed; and one electronic version looked exactly like another, or ten others! Much remains mystified - we can only surmise from the fallout and effects of so much fraud, forgery and fabrication -- all three being EVIDENT, proven, and admitted by players in the "foreclosure machine" operations.

REMEMBER: The entire controversy arises from a 360-month or 30-year periodic repayment contract, purchased note by the PETE as a "promissory note" to purchase real property for that borrower - and most often for primary residence dwelling, domain, home -- the basic necessary human right to life. A true "PETE" allegedly purchased THIS repayment schedule (thus becoming a "holder in due course" who could easily prove its payment transaction and "standing" if it were true), now the PETE positioned to profit from a discount price off the face value of the note, presumably, and also from interest payable over many months and years ....

So why does it appear its agent is in the



Borrowers" need Loan Modifications because A " LOAN" was the ORIGINAL CONTRACT and TERMS: Obviously if we had had $400,000 in cash buried in Grandma's backyard we wouldn't even have needed the loan! We would have just paid cash for the house, and avoided this whole deplorable deal. But alas, we were encouraged by all our "experts" even our President at the time to "tap into our home's equity" pay down higher interest debt, and build a robust economy together as a nation. Hurrah! Hurrah!

Global Financial Crisis Hit: We follow our "experts and leaders" again. We seek to reinstate our good standing and cure this debilitating stress of "being in foreclosure," BEGGING TO PAY by applying for "loan modifications" - BUT ROUTINELY DENIED!


The information is the next vital information-stronghold to grasp and hoist up to: See today’s blog post HERE.


" ... The Banks have succeeded in getting everyone to think about how unfair it is that homeowners would even think of pursuing a “free house”. By doing that they distract from the fact that the homeowners and the investors who put up the origination or acquisition money are both excluded from the huge profits generated by trading on the signature of borrowers and the money of investors who do not get to share in the bounty, which is often 20-40 times the amount of the loan.

The courts don’t want to hear about esoteric arguments about the securitization process. Judges assume that somewhere in the complex moving parts of the securitization scheme there is an owner of the debt who will get compensated as a result of the homeowner’s refusal or failure to make monthly payments of interest and principal.

That assumption is untrue.

This is revealed when the money from the sale of property is traced. If you trace the check you will be misled. Regardless of where the check is mailed, the check is actually cashed by a servicer who deposits it to the account of an investment bank who has already received many times the amount of the loan principal. That money is neither credited to the account of the borrower nor reported, much less distributed to investors who bought certificates (wrongly named “mortgage bonds”).

Neither the investors who bought the original uncertificated certificates nor the investors who purchased contracts based upon the apparent value of the certificates ever see a penny of the proceeds of a foreclosure sale.  In order to maintain the illusion of legality and an orderly marketplace the banks and their servicers must continue to push foreclosures. ...."

[more from this article below]

[See also “Who Is the Injured Party” page on this website for podcast audio and more analysis and expose from Garfield and colleagues.]


The incentivization structures already in place as planned caused mortgage-servicers to loathe loan modifications in which their names would be on the other end of a 30-year loan leaving them liable! No, the big clean up act for servicers was to end their role and their name in the “chain of title” by flipping that property as fast as possible and covering the whole deplorable deal over with new entities who the law would treat as “bonafide purchasers,” and innocent parties shielded from any former dispute. This is lawless, injurious, and ugly – we find it abominable: Unjust irreparable harm disguised as business model is that: abominable.


Brazen lawlessness with all its harm, however, created windows and doors for humanity to ponder and peer through, turning to study. We were assaulted with such failure of logic and reason we were forced to this study. There is a silver lining! What was hidden in the dark before came to light: humanity’s gaze is that light, for consciousness is light of energized intelligence. It is how we were created by a masterful Creator who too observes: and so it is.


We now understand upon study that actually "borrower-signature" created

the loan proceeds quite "out of thin air" and admittedly so -

it is a fundamental of bank lending in a debt-based financial system,

but this is outside the immediate topic here.

Further disclosure and education (videos) HERE and HERE and HERE.

This news, a revelation, spread like wildfire amongst the people: reaching this "borrower" who sought to understand, and who now does, that her own signature created

the very loan proceeds according to customary lending practices


She did see

that she and her fellow Americans are

currently subject to a debt-based financial system which is mathematically untenable

under the rules of logic -- and unlawful under the laws of the Republic and of Divine Law.

Note-maker, who owns her "signatory-credit" and home dweller, says this all warrants review:

her OWN SIGNATURE CREATING THE LOAN FUNDS should be weighed by any judicious well-reasoned mind, in light of adverse parties' usurpations of law and her rights in the debauchery of unconstitutional dispossession of property and dwelling.

But she has pled and does plead actions with merit and proof of merit

above and beyond the astonishing facts surrounding MONEY-CREATION, as sufficient

to warrant lawful remedy and a claim for damages, by her standing as a real party in interest,

as signatory on that note and her rights by law thereby, as detailed in this post.

Still, we suggest careful ponder: "How can a party be injured

to the extent of the face value of the Note, when not itself nor any entity allocated or moved

any of its own money or assets of any kind equivalent to the Note's face value --

but rather that the very borrower's signature on the Note, the debt-instrument,

in fact created that "book ledger entry" or "electronic accounting entry"

quite OUT OF THIN AIR!?"


This self-represented homeowner believes that it is ENOUGH to leave the above situation rest as is at this time, and object and counterattack armed with applicable governing law for Promissory Notes pursuant to UCC Articles 3 and 9 and other governing law --

because there is no claim without a Presentment of Note.

When "PETE" and note owner makes UCC 3-501 Presentment to note maker, a lawful claim on the promissory note is duly made. When duly made for the Note, only then has the "security instrument" (deed of trust or mortgage) found its authorized enforcer AKA the "Boss of the Note."

"Boss of the Note = Boss of the Deed of Trust or Mortgage instrument"

Absent a PRESENTMENT-MAKER (a legal person who EXISTS) who appears and makes UCC 3-501 Presentment to the Note-Maker (the counter-party also a legal person, the "borrower"), there has been no lawful demand made on the Note and debt; and therefore Note-Maker is not “in default” because no party with STANDING to declare it has appeared and so declared it against Note-Maker.

The Foreclosure Machine, however, never wants the duties of note-ownership: it wants to wave around only the "tail of the animal" the security instrument DIVORCED FROM THE NOTE, which alone conveys no standing. It's schematic aims at real estate acquisition under color of law and to paper-over fraud, forgery and fabrication -- while also perpetuating the lie that this is all lending-as-usual.


From Neil Garfield's Living Lies blog: "The goal of the investment bank as creditor was not to make money on a loan but to make money by trading in “securities” whose value was derived from the existence of the loan — all without actually granting the normal rights to title and interest to the debt, note and mortgage. This preserved the right to sell the same debt multiple times.


The reason why thousands of cases have been confidentially settled with satisfactions of mortgages, payment of attorney’s fees and damages is that the banks are willing to pay anything necessary to preserve the tree (certificates) and the branches (derivatives) and the leaves (minibonds and contracts like credit default swaps). The risk to the investment bank is enormous if the tree falls.

". ...  The trusts didn’t exist and there were no trustees. But in the upside down world of foreclosure here we are with most foreclosures filed in the name of a nonexistent implied trust on behalf of a “trustee” with no trustee powers, obligations or duties to administer any assets much less loans in foreclosure.

In order to understand this you must throw out any ideas of a rational market driven by fundamental economics and accept the fact that the banks  and their servicers continue to be engaged in the largest economic crime in human history. Their objective is foreclosure because that accomplishes two goals: first, it rubber stamps prior illegal practices and theft of borrowers’ identities for purposes of trading profits and second, it gives them a free house and free money.

If they lose a foreclosure case nobody suffers a financial loss. If they win, which they do most of the time (except where homeowners aggressively defend) they get a free house and the proceeds of sale are distributed to the players who are laughing, pardon the pun, all the way to the bank. Investors get ZERO.


 if the facts were allowed in as evidence, the homeowner would be entitled to a share of the bounty that was a windfall to the investment bank and its affiliates by trading on the borrower’s signature. A “free house” only partially compensates the homeowner for the illegal noncensual trading on his name with the intent of screwing him/her later.

Upon liquidation of the property the proceeds of sale are deposited not by an owner of the debt, but by one of the players who just added insult to injury to both the borrower and the original investors who paid real money but failed to get an interest in the fabricated closing documents — i.e., the note and mortgage.


Rule of law cures confusion and compels parties to stick to fair play.

If we can see the symmetry of being fair, then see how fair play is beholden to beauty,

for symmetry is beautiful.

There is and has been a woeful and erroneous deviation which has institutionalized a Failure to Prove Standing by law and replaced that law with breach: a granting of the status to interlopers who scoff at "proofs" of any sort, claiming the sheer level of brazen viciousness of attack tactics by none other entity but themselves should cause all men and women to cower and give it up to this tyrant who proves only that it dares commit this incivility and violence. We the People of this Republic, We the Posterity mourn with our founding fathers and mothers!


Here we turn to the writings of Professor Emeritus Douglas Whaley, an expert scholar, writer and lecturer on the Uniform Commercial Code in particular, in his article titled "Mortgage Foreclosures,Promissory Notes, and the Uniform Commercial Code." by Douglas Whaley*

"As is true of many things in life the Uniform Commercial Code’s statutes concerning the role of promissory notes in a mortgage foreclosure are both simple and at the same time complicated. The purpose of this article is to draw out the matter in detail, but let’s begin with the simple (and basic) rule first. Indeed let’s call the Golden Rule of Mortgage Foreclosure: the Uniform Commercial Code forbids foreclosure of the mortgage unless the creditor possesses the properly-negotiated original promissory note. If this can’t be done the foreclosure must stop.

Of course there are exceptions and situations in which problems with the note can be addressed and cleared up, and those will be explored as we progress. The difficulty is that all too often the Golden Rule of Mortgage Foreclosure is simply ignored and the foreclosure goes ahead as if the rule were not the statutory law of every jurisdiction in the United States.1


∗ Professor Emeritus, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. The author would like to thank Professor Stephen McJohn of the Suffolk University Law School for his help in researching this article, and the many attorneys (often former students) whose contacts and questions has gotten him involved in these issues. Professor Whaley's blog has a post which updates current developments in mortgage foreclosure matters; see

1 Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code has been adopted in all jurisdictions in the United States. New York has adopted only the original version of Article 3, but in that state the relevant citations and the law remain the same with only minor variations in language.

[full article linked above by its title, or by clicking image above ]


For scholarly review, law professor Christopher L. Peterson details how the "security instrument" (the mortgage or deed-of-trust) follows the Note; pursuant to a mountain of case law for hundreds of years, including in the United States Supreme Court, Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 21 L. Ed. 313, 16 Wall. 271, 1872 at a minimum. Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registration System's Land Title Theory, linked HERE, also dissects that the strange entity known as "MERS," Mortgage Electronic Registration System cannot, and never did nor does OWN notes or the debt arising from them. MERS neither is nor was ever capable of being an "injured party," thus incapable of transferring interest or rights it cannot and does not itself hold: "Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet," defined as "the basic principle that a person who does not own property, especially a thief, cannot confer it on another except with the true owner's authority."

The deed-of-trust or mortgage follows the note = The security or encumbrance follows the debt.

The deed-of trust without the note is void = The security instrument

without the debt instrument is void.

The “Boss of the Note” is the boss of the deed of trust,

who must Make Presentment as " Boss of the Note"


because only the Boss OWNS that Note and Debt,

and only the Boss can ENFORCE the deed-of-trust,


If the "Note" is the dog or cat, the "Deed of Trust" or "Mortgage" is merely the tail of the animal -

it has no LIFE of its own apart from the dog or cat.

We will NOT lose our dwellings to a "bloody detached tail" being waved

in our faces or submitted into courts of law as a living animal:

Only the Injured Party / Note Owner with Proof of Standing is authorized to enforce the security.

bottom of page