OPPT UCC filing confusion - still seeing these pop up, are they legitimate?
Hey everyone, I keep running across these OPPT UCC filings when I'm doing lien searches for our commercial clients. For those who don't know, OPPT stands for "One People's Public Trust" and there's a whole movement of people filing UCC-1 statements claiming they own themselves or their strawman or whatever. I've seen dozens of these now - people filing UCC-1s with themselves as both debtor and secured party, claiming massive dollar amounts like $500 billion in collateral value. My question is: do these filings have any legal standing whatsoever? They're clogging up the search results and making it harder to find legitimate commercial filings. Has anyone dealt with lenders who are concerned about these showing up on UCC searches? I know they're bogus but want to make sure I'm giving clients the right advice when they ask about them.
39 comments
Join the conversation
Daniel Rivera
These OPPT UCC filings are complete nonsense from a legal standpoint. They're based on sovereign citizen theories that have been repeatedly rejected by courts. The UCC is designed for commercial transactions between actual parties with real collateral - not philosophical statements about personal sovereignty. I've never seen one upheld in court.
0 coins
Sophie Footman
•Thank god someone said it. I was starting to wonder if I was missing something when I kept seeing these weird self-filings.
0 coins
Connor Rupert
•But what if a lender sees one on a search and gets spooked? Even if they're invalid, they could still cause problems for legitimate transactions.
0 coins
Molly Hansen
I actually ran into this exact issue last month. Had a client whose UCC search showed three OPPT filings against his business name variations. Even though they were clearly bogus, the bank's underwriter flagged them and wanted legal opinions. Cost the client an extra $2,500 in attorney fees and delayed closing by two weeks. These things are a real pain even when they're legally meaningless.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•That's exactly what I was worried about. Did the attorney end up having to file termination statements or just provide an opinion letter?
0 coins
Molly Hansen
•Just opinion letters explaining why the filings were invalid. You can't really terminate someone else's filing even if it's bogus - has to come from the secured party of record.
0 coins
Skylar Neal
•This is why I always tell clients to do preliminary UCC searches early in the process. Better to find this stuff before you're under deadline pressure.
0 coins
Vincent Bimbach
I've been dealing with these for years unfortunately. The OPPT movement peaked around 2013-2014 but you still see new filings occasionally. What's really frustrating is that some states have tried to implement screening procedures but most just accept any filing that meets basic formatting requirements. The Secretary of State offices aren't in the business of determining validity - they just file what gets submitted with the right fee.
0 coins
Kelsey Chin
•Wait so anyone can file a UCC-1 claiming anything as collateral? That seems like a major flaw in the system.
0 coins
Vincent Bimbach
•Pretty much, yes. The UCC filing system is notice-based, not approval-based. It's designed to be fast and efficient for legitimate commercial use, but that means it can also be abused.
0 coins
Owen Devar
•Exactly my point about them clogging up search results. Legitimate filers are paying the price for this abuse.
0 coins
Norah Quay
Pro tip: I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool for situations like this. You can upload the bogus UCC-1 along with legitimate corporate documents and it flags inconsistencies instantly. Really helpful when you need to quickly demonstrate to a lender why certain filings should be disregarded. The tool caught several red flags in OPPT filings that I used in my explanation to the bank.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Interesting - does it specifically identify OPPT-style filings or just general inconsistencies?
0 coins
Norah Quay
•It flags things like debtor/secured party conflicts, unrealistic collateral values, and formatting that doesn't match standard commercial practices. Makes it easy to build a case for why certain filings are questionable.
0 coins
Connor Rupert
I'm dealing with this RIGHT NOW. Client's UCC search shows an OPPT filing from 2019 and the lender is asking questions. The filing shows the debtor owing himself $999 trillion secured by 'all assets, tangible and intangible, known and unknown.' It's obviously ridiculous but how do I get the bank to move forward?
0 coins
Daniel Rivera
•Get a legal opinion letter from a UCC attorney. Most banks will accept that over trying to explain sovereign citizen theories to underwriters.
0 coins
Leo McDonald
•999 trillion lol... these people really go all out with their fantasy numbers.
0 coins
Connor Rupert
•The whole thing is insane but it's holding up a legitimate $2M equipment financing. So frustrating.
0 coins
Sophie Footman
What I don't understand is why the Secretary of State offices don't have better screening. In my state you can literally file a UCC-1 claiming the moon as collateral and they'll accept it as long as you pay the fee.
0 coins
Vincent Bimbach
•Because screening would slow down the entire system and create liability for the state. They're administrators, not judges of commercial disputes.
0 coins
Jessica Nolan
•Plus imagine the bureaucracy if they had to evaluate every filing for legitimacy. The system would grind to a halt.
0 coins
Skylar Neal
From a practical standpoint, I always advise clients that OPPT filings are legally meaningless but can cause administrative delays. Build extra time into your transaction timeline if you spot them in preliminary searches. Better to address concerns early than scramble at closing.
0 coins
Owen Devar
•Good advice. I'm definitely going to start flagging these in my search reports with explanatory language.
0 coins
Angelina Farar
•Do you have standard language you use to explain these to clients who aren't familiar with the OPPT movement?
0 coins
Skylar Neal
•I usually just say they're 'protest filings with no legal significance' and leave it at that. Most clients don't need the full sovereign citizen backstory.
0 coins
Kelsey Chin
This whole thing makes me appreciate legitimate UCC filings more. At least when I see a normal bank-to-business UCC-1 I know what I'm dealing with.
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Right? Give me a straightforward equipment financing UCC any day over these philosophical statement filings.
0 coins
Sebastián Stevens
I've seen some creative variations too - not just OPPT but other sovereign citizen flavors. Had one that claimed exemption under 'Universal Commercial Code' (note the extra word) and another that referenced made-up UCC sections. Always good for a laugh if they weren't so disruptive to real business.
0 coins
Sophie Footman
•Universal Commercial Code lol... I guess regular UCC wasn't universal enough for them.
0 coins
Daniel Rivera
•The creativity is almost impressive if you ignore the legal nonsense and potential for causing real problems.
0 coins
Bethany Groves
•I saw one that claimed to be filed under 'UCC Prime' which apparently supersedes regular UCC. These people really think they can just make up law.
0 coins
Jessica Nolan
At the end of the day, courts have consistently ruled these filings have no legal effect. The problem is getting that message to lenders and title companies who see them pop up on searches. Education is really the key here.
0 coins
Owen Devar
•Agreed. Maybe we need some kind of industry guidance document that explains common red flags for bogus filings.
0 coins
Norah Quay
•That's actually a great idea. Something standardized that could be shared with underwriters and closing agents to speed up the explanation process.
0 coins
KingKongZilla
Thanks everyone for the input. Sounds like the consensus is these are legally meaningless but practically annoying. I'll make sure to build in extra time when I spot them and have legal opinion letter resources ready to go.
0 coins
Vincent Bimbach
•That's the smart approach. Better to be prepared than caught off guard at closing.
0 coins
Rebecca Johnston
•Good luck with your client situations. Hopefully the OPPT nonsense eventually fades away completely.
0 coins
James Martinez
This is such a timely discussion - I'm relatively new to UCC work and just encountered my first OPPT filing last week. The client was filing a legitimate equipment financing UCC-1 and when I ran the preliminary search, there was this bizarre filing where someone claimed to be the secured party for their own "biological property" worth $10 billion. I honestly didn't know what to make of it at first. Really helpful to hear from everyone that these are just nuisance filings with no legal weight. I'll definitely be including explanatory language in my search reports going forward so clients aren't caught off guard.
0 coins
Brielle Johnson
•Welcome to the wonderful world of sovereign citizen UCC filings! "Biological property" is a new one for me - I've seen "strawman," "vessel," and "corporate fiction" but that's creative. The $10 billion valuation is pretty standard though - they always go big with their imaginary numbers. You're absolutely right to include explanatory language in your reports. It saves so much time later when clients or lenders start asking questions.
0 coins