standing fast for liberty. Gal. 5:1
For help and support, call us at (334) 239-8987 or click here to email us.

Welcome to Freedom Yell


Words from the Rising Republics

 

You decide. It is against equity to deprive freemen of the free disposal of their own property. Wells Fargo controls the state and federal courts. Should one be allowed to pay off his mortgage and be allowed to sell his property? The following is a transcript of a USMD hearing. The attorneys used the WF “secret” Manual to deceive the courts, doing so perfectly. The property is 285 East Broad Street in Ozark, AL.

 

CASE #: 1:14-CV-00013-WHA-CSS

Mizell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al (MAC+)

Assigned to: Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III

Referred to: Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody

Case in other court: Circuit Court of Dale

County, Alabama, CV-13-000006

Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 01/03/2014

DateTerminated:05/30/2014
JuryDemand: Plaintiff Plaintiff
NatureofSuit:440Civil Rights: Other

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

After weeks of delay the audio CD of the hearing was purchased. Sony Audio software converted the audio to a wave file. Dragon Naturally speaking transcribed the audio into text. Even the extremely low volume was brought forth.

 

Plaintiff

Haywood Jackson Mizell

Defendant:

Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.                                 represented by Stephen K. Pudner

Hearing proceedings held before Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody: Motion Hearing held on 2/28/2014 RE; Docket #8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Wells Fargo Bank:, N.A.

In Gallery: James B. Graham

Began 10 AM lasted 16 minutes

 

Judge Charles S. Coody:

We are here for argument on the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in Mizell versus Wells Fargo Bank 14 civil 13.

Mr. Mizell. Good morning.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

Good Morning, Sir.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

I’ve read all of your materials.

And you raise a number of arguments all of which are soundly rejected by the Alabama courts. So why shouldn’t the motion to dismiss be granted?

You can pull the microphone down a little bit to you so you can speak into it. I understand you need to sit and I understand and that’s fine.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

The first thing I think, is that the removal from the state to the federal court is in question, from my perspective. First of all, I don’t think that the federal courts have any jurisdiction over property in Alabama.

There were three items involved; one of them was distance, and of course Wells Fargo qualifies there. They are in Iowa and we Alabama for diversity of location, but the other one was that the property has value. From my perspective and from everybody who knows anything about real estate since it is without title that the property value is zero. So they can’t possibly qualify under that because they destroyed the method of getting any title. So since it doesn’t qualify, my question would be, why are we in this court?

Next, they have a list of procedures that they have to go by. I’m supposed to make a motion for it to be remanded back to the state court. Part is appealable and part is not. So until those issues are resolved, whichever way you rule one way or the other, your remanding to state courts, they will appeal and try their best to prolong over a long period time and since they have deep pockets, they want to spend me into submission.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

What is it that you want any court to do?

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

The court to do. If you look at the original petition, I simply didn’t ask for any money. I just wanted them to bring forward their standing or whether they are the holder-in-due-course. Because they went ahead and said, on the first legal notice, that I was in default. When I was not in default.

I wanted to pay it off. I had money to pay it off, even had it in silver but they wouldn’t give me any indication that they were in possession. Federal law requires, at least most courts require, a lien be perfected by possession. As long as there is somebody out who might have some claim in equity against the legal title to the property, then there is a “cloud” over the title.

Now the city of Ozark bought the property knowing they did not have title. They have the same motive that I had originally, and that is to preserve this very, let’s say, “Mona Lisa painting”, if you will as from some’s perspective about the property.

So that basically what I’m asking the court that if they have something to present, it is very simple. The city of Ozark paid for the debt. There is no question about the debt being satisfied. The law says they must surrender the instrument when full payment is made. It has been over a whole year. So now we have this question before us. We have to know that they have separated the note from the mortgage.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Mr. Mizell, I’ve read that argument. I don’t know why you think that argument has any validity, but it doesn’t have any validity. So don’t waste the court’s time. It is invalid.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

The question is this, they have the note, and just let me have it, that’s all.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well it’s not your note. It’s Faye Mizell’s. You did not sign the note. Alice Mizell signed the note.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

Okay. Something of what I conceded that I don’t know why it was, but the next thing was I signed the security instrument.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

True

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

In the Security Instrument says that the Borrower Covenants. So my job is to defend the title. That is what I’m trying to do, unless I am misguided. Tell me how I am misguided.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

For what purpose are you trying to do that? Look you had a mortgage. You didn’t pay it. They foreclosed on you. Are you telling me that you don’t have to pay a debt you owe?

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

The question is that I was more than happy to pay the debt.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

The fact is, you didn’t pay the debt as you were supposed to. That’s a big difference. Let me ask counsel for the defendant something. Mr. Mizell, for the first time, admittedly does raise an interesting question about jurisdiction of diversity. The original complaint in this case was filed, then there was an amended complaint filed, it was at that point that you moved the case, but didn’t diversity exists at the time of the original complaint.

Defense Counsel Stephen K. Pudner:

Service was never perfected in the state court. The state court had shown Wells Fargo as being served, but was stricken later. They had served on foreclosure counsel, the secretary of the former foreclosure counsel office and the court had shown that as a Wells Fargo service.

Even today Wells Fargo has never been actually served. In the state court we became aware and timely removed as soon as we became aware of the state court lawsuit, but it was not because of the amended complaint being filed.

As soon as we got notice of the lawsuit, we did remove timely. And as far as is there diversity? There is diversity of the properly served parties. And Mizell asked $1.3 million in damages.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Yeah.

All right.

Mr. Mizell, one of the claims that you appear to make, is something that you characterizes as a due process claim. Tell me about that.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I filed this Petition for Injunctive Relief. I had filed a Misprision of Felony and because, even though I didn’t sign the promissory note, I did sign the security instrument. Later I had an exchange with Wells Fargo and they couldn’t talk to me unless I signed that I would be speaking in behalf of my wife, Alice Faye, which I did. And they began talking to me.

Well I left. I didn’t know what it will do that day that was designated to be foreclosed but I had a guy who said he was there. There were a bunch of Sheriff Deputies and a bunch of City Policemen and of Clerk of the Court, I think. I don’t remember exactly, but he reduced that to an affidavit and said he would give it to me. Well, I didn’t know until I actually came up here to the Supreme Court library and found out that this basically is a deprivation of due process rights. Because in all called self-help repossession, all non-judicial, it has to be 100% consent. I had filed in the paper, when they had a legal notice that there was default, that there was no default.

I was prepared to pay and all they had to do was to bring the note and my wife would pay.

I got the affidavit from the sources of the funds. It was Mr. Graham.

Well, we began years ago and he gave me a job which enable me to go to college. So I have very affectionate feelings toward him.

He was been having some serious health problems. Now he is well. In fact I think we should feel honored that he’s in our present now. He is in the courtroom, Mr. James B. Graham. So he said that he reduce his to an affidavit that he was prepared to lend me the money.

I called Wells Fargo and said he was up visiting his father-in-law in Iowa. Our thinking was, if you have the note here Wednesday, we will have the cash there, which is already on deposit in the Birmingham bank in silver. If you will have it here, we will make the exchange.

The Wells Fargo lady says, “We don’t disperse original documents”.

I said, “Well mame, the law says that I must pay. And I got a covenant that sees to it that it’s paid. I will pay it. That is my covenant. If we continue to pay it to the end, then can I get the note?

She said, “No”.

I said, “Mame, you understand the law says you must surrender the note “.

She said, to the exact affect, what she said was that that is the Uniform Commercial Code 3 and we’re not governed by that, we don’t have to abide by that, and I said, will you put that in writing, and also tell me why you think you don’t have to give it. So she sent me a letter that said, we don’t disperse original documents. And we are not required to do so because we never filed it in public office. She stated that it was in at 2107. So that was it, sorry.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Who are you claiming deprived of due property? Who is it that you claim deprived you of due process?

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I don’t know them individually. All I know is they were law enforcement and they were there present.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well, they are not named as defendants in this lawsuit.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I don’t know who they are. I think they are named inside of the affidavit of those who were there present. I think one of them is the city, County Clerk I think his name is David Glen or something like that. I don’t know because I was not there. I cannot speak firsthand.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well if you’re going to make claim about somebody you got to be able to identify them, and we don’t have, we don’t have.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I submit to the people that were there and their testimony to identify them in the affidavit.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well, anything else?

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

Well, I think for a longtime I didn’t understand why they were trying to be so evasive. I did find the law that you know about process service and then they were told to file Title 12. And then Failure to state a claim that relief could be granted. Now I am supposed to move to the state court. I found that it in May one of the Circuit Judges in Dale County ruled on an identical claim. He ruled that the foreclosure deed be null and void, everything reversed. He identified the couple who were the owners of the property, and then said they were subject to the mortgage that was on file at the courthouse.

They came back a little later and try to foreclose again on him. He filed another public notice that he had paid and must have the original document to prove it. On the original document would be the absolute proof that it was “without recourse”, that it had been paid. They didn’t so have. I think it was Citicorp. The judge says that the other side bring forth the mortgage, bring forth the complaint into the Judicial Court and prove the case that states that the couple would have to yield to what they already agreed to pay. At least it would have to be something they had agreed to.

I may not be speaking that in legalese, but I do have a copy of that here if you would like to see that particular ruling.

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well that ruling is not applicable here. I don’t think it is the same set of circumstances.

Anything else? Counsel I have read all your submissions.

Defense Counsel Stephen K. Pudner:

Just a quick. I would like to point out that Wells Fargo feels bad for Mr. Mizell’s situation. It appears that he came under the sway of this James Graham who is in the courtroom. He filed similar lawsuit against Wells Fargo in state court 2011 900069 in Dale County. His claims were rejected. He was enjoined from taking any further actions against. He appealed it. His appeal was dismissed. He then filed a lawsuit in this court CV 12-1034. His claim was again rejected and he appealed and the 11th Circuit rejected his claims. Apparently, he is here to do proxy for Mr. Mizell.

Plaintiff Haywood Jackson Mizell:

I didn’t hear him. Did he say someone filed a suit?

Judge Charles S. Coody:

Well, I heard him Mr. Mizell. I understand.

Gentlemen, I’ll take the motion to dismiss under submission. Mr. Mizell, I have read all of your papers and will consider all the arguments that you have made in writing and this morning. We will be adjourned.

   Long, but perfect example why the swamp must be drained.

Words from the Rising Republics

 

CONFLICT OF INTENTIONS

A married couple, the “borrowers”, wish to make a mortgage loan so that they would be able to purchase a homestead that would be made their home. The mortgage closing date is set with the lender for the completion of the transaction called the “closing”. What is hidden from the couple is the intentions of the lender that will make them peons paying monthly for property they will never own making them renters only. How is that done right before your eyes with the help of law enforcement and the judicial system even though peonage and slavery is prohibited in America?

MORTGAGE STANDARD WITH NOTE EVIDENCING THE DEBT

A “lender” who makes a mortgage loan must have the promissory note that evidences the debt placed in a secure locked, fireproof container. (See EXHIBIT CFR-R 34 CFR 674.19(4)-Fiscal procedures and records)

The original promissory note secured by mortgage must have the mortgage of the real property placed on file at the recorder of deeds and mortgages at the courthouse in the county where the real property is located. (See Ala. Code § 35-4-51.)

The promissory note and mortgage must remain one unit and cannot be separated; therefore, once filed the mortgage is returned by the recorder to the lender. ALABAMA UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT page 46 Paragraph 11(a) evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage must be sold as a unit.

Once paid in full the mortgage loan promissory note instrument must be returned to the borrower stamped paid in full. (See Ala. Code 7-3-501(b) (2) and 7 CFR 1951).

The lender that is the “loan originator” can sell the note and mortgage unit to another lender. The assignment from the “loan originator” to the buyer must be an assignment recorded into public record so that the holder of the mortgage can be always known.

 

The holder in due course of the note and mortgage can delegate the collection of the monthly payments to a company that is the designated servicer. All changes to the service must be identified in writing to the borrower.

 

Should the “lender” elect to sell the promissory note, the assignment must be duly executed and the assignment placed on file in the same courthouse. Each and every assignment must be recorded. The chain of title must remain unbroken. (See Ala. Uniform Securities Act Page 46, Paragraph 11(a)) The purpose of the recording is to give notice to the world of the ownership of the property and who might have interest in the property, the holder-in-due-course of a debt instrument.

Only the holder-in-due-course with the properly assigned note duly recorded can liquidate the mortgage identified as the real property to be used to satisfy the note which is the evidence of debt. (See §7-3-305 Defenses and Claims in Recoupment). In every mortgage loan when the note which evidences the debt is paid in full, then the note must be stamped paid in full and returned promptly to the borrower. (See §7-3-501(b)(2)). When the borrower holds the note then it is clear that the note has been satisfied and taken out of circulation.

In a mortgage loan when a borrower default occurs, consent is given in the mortgage itself and that consent is called “power of sale” in that the property may be liquidated to satisfy the note which is the evidence of debt.

Prepayment of the mortgage loan note satisfies the loan taking the loan out of circulation by stamping the note “paid in full” and returning the note to the signers of the instrument note. The mortgage is thereby extinguished. Should the “lender” improperly refuse prepayment in full, (See American Jurisprudence §618) then the lender has defaulted and must pay treble damages as an operation of law, if a wrongful foreclosure has been conducted.

(See § 55-59.6. Foreclosure; civil penalty for fraud; civil action

C. The owner of the property subject to foreclosure has a civil cause action against a person who has violated this section, and shall be entitled to recover from such person compensatory damages in the amount of three times the damages incurred by the owner as a result of the violation in addition to reasonable attorney fees and costs.)

 

It is important to note that in a mortgage foreclosure based on a borrower’s default in payment, legal notice of the time and date of the foreclosure auction conducted with “power of sale” must be published in a local newspaper for three consecutive weeks (four successive weeks where there is no “power of sale”) or the sale is not valid.

When a creditor defaults by improperly refusing prepayment in full, the re-conveyance requires no legal notice publication. See American Jurisprudence § 618.  

CONFLICT: UNSECURED CHECK WHEN SEPARATED FROM

THE MORTGAGE

The borrower couple’s “lender” wished to purchase a promissory note for resale, but wished to mislead the borrowers into thinking that they have received a mortgage loan with the real property to be purchased to become security for the mortgage loan in the event that the borrower defaults.

The “lender”, before the assignment transfer to a buyer investor, the actual lender, wishes to keep its dealings with the promissory note a secret, the usual legal term is fraudulent concealment. Why? Once the promissory note and mortgage is executed and delivered to “loan originator” it can be made into an electronic file after it has been scanned and then, to avoid duplication, the original can be shredded. The promissory note in electronic form can be delivered to buyer after buyer who actually came forward with funds to purchase the promissory note.

Freddie Mac’s procedural manual required physical delivery of the note and mortgage complete with the original signor signatures.  The promissory note sold to Freddie Mac is stamped “WITHOUT RECOURSE PAY TO THE ORDER OF________________” and signed by a corporate official. The promissory note has been changed into a check separated from the mortgage and distributed into commercial trade. No mortgage loan has ever been made, which establishes that false instruments were filed. The “loan originator” is no longer the holder in due course and cannot foreclose with just a check.

Please note that to collect on a check which has no attached “power of sale” for specific property must publish four successive weeks of legal notice in a local newspaper. See Ala. Code § 35-10-3. What bank was the check drawn?

Again, when the “lender” defaults by refusing prepayment in full, re-conveyance is made without publishing notice. The lender cannot refuse payment in full.

Since the borrowers were made to believe that they were making a mortgage loan, they were not asked for consent that the promissory note be transformed into a check for distribution into commercial trade. Therefore, the check is circulated without consent. A false instrument is a “document”, a photocopy bearing no original negotiable instrument signature granting consent.

How the determination is made as to the “lender's” treatment of the promissory note is simple. Once sold a promissory note is not required to be returned to the borrower after the promissory note has been made into a check and put into commercial trade. A promissory note secured by a mortgage must be returned to the borrower if full payment is made. The return of the promissory note defines its being a check or a mortgage.

Central to the understanding of this conflict of intentions between the “borrower” and the “lender” is knowing that the signature on a piece of paper is the property of the signer and is of great value. The signature on a piece of paper constituting a promissory note, the instrument, which becomes tangible property and cannot be destroyed by anyone other than the signer. The signer can destroy the note once it has been paid in full.

The “loan Originator” destroyed the note after it was scanned and transferred to a silent buyer, identified as the investor, and before the false instrument paraded as a mortgage was filed in the courthouse records. No subsequent assignments are on record as checks require no recordation. Having been separated from the mortgage with no recorded assignment, the note is null and void making the mortgage unenforceable.

§ 7-3-305c implies that an investor having bought a check that is separated from the mortgage (a mortgage must be assigned and recorded), is without rights of a holder-in-due-course that is connected with a mortgage. Separation of the note and mortgage renders the note and mortgage null and void. Only the one entitled to the money secured is entitled to foreclose or the ownership of the debt. The holder in due course by assignment or the holder or bearer of the note at the time of foreclosure can foreclose. Ownership of the mortgage does not pass though indorsed in blank. Property cannot be transferred when the foreclosure deed is invalid because of lack of authority to foreclose.  The assignment by an agent to a mortgage cannot be valid other than by possession from delivery of the instrument which consents to “power of sale”.

The couple first learns that something is amiss when a refinance to lower the interest rate is denied. A refinance notes and mortgage made to satisfy the first note and mortgage, would require that the first mortgage, when paid, be returned to the borrower. This cannot be done because the original has been shredded after made into electronic file. An electronic file cannot be stamped paid in full. The separated mortgage on file at the courthouse is a false instrument.

 

Should the couple elect to sell the homestead, no title can be conveyed because the electronic file and the false instrument recorded at the courthouse places a “cloud” over the title. Any potential purchaser requires clear title to the property purchased.

When the borrower wishes to make a prepayment that would result in the surrender of the instrument by the lender if full payment is made. The lender can only refuse to accept prepayment because there is no legitimate evidence of debt.

 

Once the payment in full is refused, a simulated foreclosure allows the lender to cover his fraud by taking possession of the homestead. When the couple refuses to abandon the property to the lender, the lender then seeks a judge’s order for eviction carried out by the sheriff.

 

Now the lender has shown himself to be above the law and secured law enforcement to beckon to his command. An IRS 1099A form is filed that identifies the true lender who then places the electronic file as an asset in an off the books accounting to be used in the Wall Street casino.

In summary, the “loan originator” lender sold its interest to several investors, but had failed to record the assignment of the transfer on public record. The “loan originator” lender used the separated mortgage on file with the County Probate Office as authority to foreclose claiming the check as a valid loan and lien. Publication was made for three consecutive weeks wanting all to believe that the false instruments were a mortgage loan, not a check.

No mention is ever made of the “loan originator’s” improper refusal of prepayment. After all, the financial industry states that they only foreclosed on those who do not deserve to remain in their homes.

Law enforcement presence at a non-judicial foreclosure auction is a state action eliminating a non-judicial foreclosure.

A judge is needed to deny trial by jury and to keep secret the determination of the true lender, the true holder-in-due-course, and the determination of the validity after the separation of the note from the mortgage, or if the mortgage is dead. These are but a few of the issues at controversy-- creditor default by improperly refusing payment, Slander of Title, and Default Judgment.

It is time for the voter to speak. Jesus cast out all of the money changers.   The peons may do the same. Can you feel the anger?

True Bondage Relief

Every adult on earth is either “in Adam” or “in Christ.” The first man leads to eternal death; the second man leads to eternal life.

“Ye be born again.” The New Birth is accomplished by the word of God ( 1 Peter 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.) and carried out by the Holy Spirit (John 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”) The part of man that is “born again” is his spirit, not his soul (Ephesians 2: 1-9 “ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”)

Merely “believing in Christ” does nothing for the sinner. The Devil believes every word written in the bible and is not “reconciled.” The fact that God charged the world’s sins and those trespasses were paid in full at Calvary doesn’t do anything for you (or anyone else) if you do not personally take Jesus Christ as your “payment” ( John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”) Until then, your sins are still charged to you.

Romans 5:12-19King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.



The Declaration of Independence canceled any notion that kings ruled by Divine Right. The Prince of this World could only offer bondage. God gave each of his creation the opportunity to be free simply by accepting His plea, a free gift or remedy provided the remedy was accepted, from the heart, within a specified length of time. After death, one who refused the free remedy has an eternal hell to pay.

The Constitution granted freedom governed through “public Law”. Since 1933, all Americans are today governed by “public policy”. Rid yourself of “default thinking” and embrace “future based thinking” where freedom alone prevails.

DECLARE FREEDOM FOR YOURSELF
RECORD YOUR OWN “FREEDOM CHRONICLES”.
LET THE WORLD HEAR YOUR SHOUT

“FREE AT LAST. FREE AT LAST.
THANK GOD ALMIGHTY.  FREE AT LAST”.