February 13, 2018

 

Written by Davis Victor Hanson

The effort to use the federal government to thwart the candidacy of an unpopular presidential candidate and then to smear and ruin his early tenure as president.

    

     What is the endgame to never-ending wrongdoing? The FISA-gate, Clinton emails, and Uranium One scandals are sort of reaching a consensus. Many things quite wrong and illegal were done by both Hillary Clinton and her entourage and members of the Obama agencies and administration — both the acts themselves and the cover-ups and omissions that ensued. Remember, in the FISA-gate scandal such likely widespread criminal behavior was predicated on two premises: 1) certainty of an easy Clinton victory, after which the miscreants would be not only excused but probably rewarded for their zeal; 2) progressive hubris in which our supposedly moral betters felt it their right, indeed their duty, to use unethical and even unlawful means for the “greater good” — to achieve their self-described moral ends of stopping the crude and reactionary Trump.

     The wrongdoing probably includes attempting to warp a U.S. election, Russian collusion, repeatedly misleading and lying before the FISA courts, improperly surveilling American citizens, unmasking the names of citizens swept up in unlawful surveillance and then illegally leaking them to the press, disseminating and authenticating opposition smears during a political campaign, lying under oath to Congress, obstructing ongoing investigations, using federal funds to purchase ad hominem gossip against a presidential candidate, blatant conflicts of interests, weaponizing federal investigations, trafficking in and leaking classified information . . . The list goes on and on. The State Department is now involved.

       Apparently anyone who was a former Clinton smear artist can pass fantasies to a sympathetic or known political appointee at State. And if the “dossier” fits the proper narrative and shared agenda, it gains credence enough to ensure that it is passed up to senior State officials and on to the FBI. Perhaps a private citizen with a grudge against a rival should try that as well. These scandals will grow even greater before various congressional investigations expire. But then what? In some sense, we are in uncharted territory — given the misadventure of appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel. His team is now replaying the role of Patrick Fitzgerald in the Scooter Libby case: investigating a crime that did not exist and that even if it did was committed by someone else.

     The Mueller team’s likely parachute will have little if anything to do with the Russian collusion that it originally and chiefly was appointed to investigate. Instead, it’s likely to settle for perjury and obstruction charges against peripheral Trump officials (if the cases are not thrown out by possible reliance on tainted FISA transcripts). The indictments may gain a little traction if they are timed to be released before the midterm elections, hyped in the mainstream media, and calibrated to be tried before liberal D.C. juries.

     The investigation may seek some redemption or justification if it criminalizes the secretly taped bombast of a Trump family member, catching him in some sort of perjury trap or business misdeed. Yet Mueller’s appointment makes resolution of FISA-gate and its associated scandals more difficult to resolve. His value for the Left is not in what he will find but that his mere presence will become an argument ipso facto for never again appointing anyone like him. After all, has the U.S. government ever had two special counsels working at cross-purposes, each investigating one of the two candidates in the prior presidential election?

     Once a special counsel is appointed, can he be superseded by a really special or special-special counsel? Once a special counsel is appointed, can he be superseded by a really special or special-special counsel, an attorney who might have to investigate the other special counsel (who was in charge of the botched Clinton Uranium One scandal, who was appointed through a clear and constructed conflict of interest, and whose own team is largely composed of proud partisans and campaign donors, and who may have been involved in using poisoned FISA surveillance data to leverage confessions or indictments)?

     It is unlikely that Rod Rosenstein will demand to see whether Mueller, after almost nine months, has actually found much evidence of collusion. Nor is Rosenstein apt to order Mueller to cease a mostly dead-end investigation and redirect it along a freeway of Clinton-Obama-connected collusion, obstruction, and fraud. (Read the Page-Strzok text archive to see why the present weaponized bureaucratic culture in D.C. is utterly incapable of disinterested inquiry.) Still, Democrats at some point will see that what they thought was the formerly defensible is now becoming absolutely indefensible. Adam Schiff, after months of leaking, making grandiose false statements on cable TV, and getting punked by Russian comedians, is now a caricature. He became the sad legislative bookend to the neurotic James Comey. Schiff will probably soon be forced to pivot back to his former incarnation as a loud critic of FISA-court abuse.

     Those who still persist in denying the extent of clear wrongdoing will suffer the tragicomic fate of Watergate-era Representative Charles Sandman (an authentic World War II hero) and Rabbi Baruch Korff (who as a child fled Ukrainian pogroms). The last diehard supporters of Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment, they both ended up widely discredited because of their political inability or personal unwillingness to see what was right before their eyes. After all, professed civil libertarians, hard-hitting investigative reporters, and skeptics of nontransparent and overreaching federal agencies are now insidiously defending not the just the indefensible, but what they have claimed to have fought against their entire lives. Woodward and Bernstein in their sunset years have missed the far greater scandal and in their dotage will likely nullify what they once did in their salad days. If the economy keeps improving, if Trump’s popularity nears 50 percent, and if polls show the midterm elections still tightening, we should see the politics of Democratic equivocation sooner rather than later.

     So what would be their terms to call it all off? I think the Democratic fallback position will be to point to the career carnage at the FBI and DOJ as punishment enough. Director Comey was fired. Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was forcibly retired. FBI lawyer Lisa Page was reassigned and demoted. FBI general counsel James Baker resigned. Senior agent Peter Strzok was reassigned and demoted. The former FBI director’s chief of staff, James Rybicki, resigned. Mike Kortan, FBI assistant director for public affairs, took retirement. Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr was reassigned and demoted. Justice Department’s counterintelligence head, David Laufman, resigned. A cadre of others “unexpectedly” have left, allegedly (or conveniently) for private-sector jobs. Such career implosions do not happen without cause.

     And if that is not enough, Democrats may further tsk-tsk that if there were perhaps zealotry and excesses, they were in the distant past. An out-of-office Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power, James Clapper, John Brennan — and Barack Obama — may have stepped over the line a bit in matters of surveillance, unmasking, and leaking. But do we really wish to go back and put another administration on trial, politicizing governmental transitions?

     And if that is not enough, Democrats will also shrug that the collusion mess was analogous to another Republican Benghazi hearing: lots of embarrassing smoke of “what difference does it make” admissions, but little fire in proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the main players engaged in prosecutable crimes.

     And if that is still not enough, Democrats in extremis may concede that Mueller could retire with his minor scalps, and both sides then could call it quits, even-steven. Who knows, perhaps they will say that Christopher Steele had a history with Russian oligarchs and was using his paymaster Hillary Clinton as well as being used by her?

      Accepting any of these obfuscations would be a grave mistake. Despite a nonstop media assault on Trump’s administration, Representative Devin Nunes, and the congressional investigative committees, more than 50 percent of the public already believes that the Trump campaign was illegally surveilled and smeared through the confluence of the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration, and the FBI. Voters would only grow more cynical if some Americans were allowed to abuse constitutionally protected civil liberties, and to lie to the Congress, the FBI, and the courts, while the less connected others go to jail for much less.

     Without a judicial accounting, it will be impossible to clean up the hierarchies of the FBI and the DOJ. Indeed, absent accountability and punishment, the new modus operandi would be for any lame- duck incumbent administration to use federal agencies to enhance the campaign of its own party’s nominee. It would be only logical to conclude that criminal acts used to help a successor would be forgotten or rewarded under the victor’s tenure. Voters would only grow more cynical if some Americans were allowed to abuse constitutionally protected civil liberties, and to lie to the Congress, the FBI, and the courts, while the less connected others go to jail for much less.

       What is needed? Attorney General Sessions must find muscular, ambitious, and combative prosecutors (preferably from outside Washington, D.C., and preferably existing federal attorneys), direct them to call a Grand Jury, and begin collating information from congressional investigations to get to the bottom of what is likely one of gravest scandals in post-war American history: the effort to use the federal government to thwart the candidacy of an unpopular presidential candidate and then to smear and ruin his early tenure as president. Only another prosecutorial investigation, one way or another, will lead to resolution, take the entire mess out of the partisan arena, and keep the anemic Mueller investigation honest — with the full knowledge that if its own investigators have violated laws or used tainted evidence or in the past obstructed justice, then they too will be held to account.

January 03, 2018

 

Date: April 30, 2017, Subject research results and bond locations.

From: Jack Mizell, taxpayer. To: Mr. Young Boozer, Treasurer and Mr. Jim Zeigler, Auditor

 

It has been a couple of years since I visited with you in your office.  At that time, I was midway in my discovery of the mortgage industry non-disclosure fraud.

Since my discovery is far enough along, perhaps a report is in order.  However, you may already know much of the non-disclosed information.

1.       A system was set up so that the taxpayer would co-sign with otherwise unqualified borrowers. Tax Payer “bailout”. Legal jeopardy was avoided by a criminal declaration that the promissory note was never filed into public record despite the law requiring the mortgage and note to remain one unit.

2.       Banks appeared to be the lender, but was only a servicer.  The notes were separated from the security making both legally null and void.

3.       The holder-in-due-course, who alone could foreclose, was never identified.

4.       Banks found it more profitable to foreclose being paid handsomely to do so. Refinance was continually rejected because there was no evidence of debt to be surrendered stamped paid-in-full. Cover up of the fraud was foremost.

5.       All foreclosures were wrongful.  Kansas State Supreme Court estimated 62 million unenforceable mortgages were of record in 2009.  Now it is grown by ten million.

6.       Quite Title actions have exposed who the title holder really is.

7.      “Robo-signing” was considered a crime, but offenders could pay fines then labeled as members of corporations “too big to fail.” Now the attorneys are exempt from any sanctions and their unsworn and unverified statements are considered competent evidence for transforming an immoral lie into a legal truth.

8.       Notes stamped paid-in-full by proceeds from the auction of property are not surrendered, but instead placed on the investment banker side as non-performing assets.  The FBI calls such theft “accounting control fraud”.

9.       When a certified forensic loan audit is presented for a loan by a certified expert, the bank does not prevail in rebutting the audit by an institutional banker.  The punitive damages are $5 million after treble damages are imposed and all payment funds returned.

10.   Fortunately, there is no statute of limitation on a quiet title action and on fraud.

11.   The past decade of chicanery is expected to require more than a century to unravel. 

12.   In my case three items of fraud were involved.

a. No holder-in-due course that could be identified creating a “cloud” over the title that prevented clear title conveyance.

b.  Law enforcement present at the auction eliminated the possibility of a non-judicial auction.

c. Prepayment was refused even when funds were already on deposit in a WF main bank.

d. Petition for injunctive relief was denied by un-bonded judges, who was none-the-less charmed by barred attorney statements even when the attorney was not the authorized corporate representative.

e. The judgment made after a forty-five-minute hearing was affirmed by higher courts. The newly appointed circuit court female judge hoped to avoid the embarrassment that comes from the forfeiture of judicial immunity by acting outside the written law. The female judge’s appointment succeeded because of the threat condition of Governor Bentley’s chief adviser, Rebekah Mason.

13.   WF’s secret manual was published only for attorneys and was the attorney’s guide to be used to deceive the courts into accepting the “color of law” the attorney presented.

14.   CEOs absorbed the fruit while blaming subordinates and congress for the non-disclosure.

Suffice it to says that the swamp is populated by a multitude of alligators and the swamp dimension covers the entire US. Donald Trump boiled the blood of those, now angry, who had been deceived.

Just check with the Secretary of State to determine how few legally hold office.  Where is your bond?

Jack

Separate note: Office holders without required performance bonds, which benefit the taxpayer and are not filed, include the Governor, Secretary of State and the Attorney General. All their actions without bonds are declared null and void by an OPERATION OF LAW. Pray for Doug Jones.

December 06, 2017

 

GET WITHIN TOLERANCE

Project Purchase real estate using future income.

Objective: creation of wealth.

Scope of work: Cost of wealth creation using recognized “legal tender” as index.

Translation of imagined into real.

Equipment needed for translation. Human labor

PROCESS

Agreement for digits to be used to initiate scope of work. (Signature authenticated by notary for use in creating negotiable instrument with specific value on promise to pay instrument and secured by the real estate equal in value to the created negotiable instrument).

SPECIFICATIONS

Both instruments, promise to pay and mortgage must be maintained as one unit that cannot be separated.

Mortgage instrument must be recorded in public record at Probate Office in county where the real estate is located. Promissory Note remains unfiled and stored in a locked, fire-proof container until full payment is made and then surrendered stamped paid-in-full to the signor.

The agreement remains private. A public state action is required for enforcement compliance by both parties. If the “borrower” defaults, the real-estate may be sold to satisfy the demands of the promissory note. If the “lender” defaults and conducts a wrongful foreclosure, treble damages are to be assessed and awarded to the “borrower.”

The standard for law enforcement of contract compliance is due process. A foreclosure of mortgaged property auction cannot be conducted in the presence of law enforcement except when ordered by a Judge whose judgment replaces the promissory note after the note has been filed un-returnable into the case record with the local circuit clerk allowing the note to be authenticated.

Failure to record the mortgage into public record or failure to file the note into the circuit clerk’s court records, tenders the agreement to be null and void because the “lender” is left without the standing necessary to seek law enforcement absent a valid contract to be enforced.

NOTE: Public officials enlisted for contract compliance enforcement qualify for office by posting both a payment and performance bonds, which are on file with the Secretary of State Office. An official who issues a judgment yet has posted no bond, assumes personal liability for any damages resulting from any actual non-compliance findings.

Summary for non-compliance:

“Borrower” default allows the sale of property to satisfy the promissory note>

“Lender” failure to be holder-in-due-course of the original promissory note therefore no filing into Circuit Clerk’s case record. Refusal to accept full payment is default by the “lender”.

Result: Compliance law enforcement renders the agreement null and void as completed.

November 27, 2017

 

PROOF OF CLAIM: Look, if you are planning to sue someone and you accuse them of some wrong doing, you better have proof.  The person doing the accusing (the Plaintiff) has the burden of proof.

Before you can go to court, you must have some sort of grievance that you are seeking relief on.  For example, if you had a contract and the other person broke that contract causing you to suffer as a result of that breach.  This is called a Cause of Action.  In other words, “why are you suing this guy?  What wrong did he do to you?” You must have a valid reason to bring your suit. http://www.fraudstoppers.org/who-has-the-burden-of-proof/

There are a number of different causes of action you can accuse the other party of.  For example, breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference, etc. Another very special type of cause of action is called a Quiet Title Action.  These types of “Actions” (an “Action” is just legal jargon for a civil action…or a civil suit) are done when there is a cloud of title issue that needs to be resolved.  As a title owner, you have an obligation to defend your title against encroachments.  For example, if I started to build fence three feet into your land and you say nothing… then five years later, I sell my land, and change the legal description to include that extra three feet…and you say nothing, then that extra three feet is mine.

Let’s discuss the Deed of Trust and Mortgage to see how this all fits in.

The Deed of Trust or Mortgage:

The Deed of Trust is a special Trust that is created specifically so that you (the landlord) temporarily grant your title in trust to the new Trust to secure against the promissory note.  When you create a Trust, you appoint a Trustee.  You also give that Trustee the power to sell your property in the event of a default of the promissory note.  This is the vehicle and mechanism your “lender” uses to foreclose and sell your house.  The same goes with a Mortgage in a Judicial State, except there is no need for a Trustee.

In the event that there is a problem with the promissory note or deed of trust, then there is an issue called “cloud of title”.  When a title is clouded, you will have a problem selling your house.  Let me give you an example.

Let’s say the County places an imminent domain claim on a strip of land on your property to lay down some pipes.  They then record this on your county records.  But because of budget cuts, they decided not to lay the pipes, but forgot to give you your land back.  2 years later, you are trying to sell your house.  It will be stopped because you are selling part of a land you don’t own (i.e. the strip for the un-laid pipes).  In order to un-cloud the title, you will need to seek a Quiet Title Action.

As we discussed, your promissory note has been permanently converted into a stock.  It has also been fully discharged.  The language on your Deed of Trust says, “This Deed of Trust secures a promissory note”, and if the promissory note is destroyed through permanent conversion, then the Deed of Trust secures nothing.  This is just like the situation with the strip of land with the un-laid pipes.  It’s lost property.  It’s unclaimed land.  As the Title owner, you have an obligation to defend your land and title.

This is why we need to do a Quiet Title Action to reclaim our land to resolve the controversy.  In a Quiet Title Action, you basically issue a challenge to all parties wishing to lay a claim on our property to come forth and provide the proof of their claim(s).

October 25, 2017

 

Present day Alabama. Forces of the present day use the same methods used over eleven hundred years ago by Jezebel and Ahab. The object was to take Naboth’s property located near the King’s summer palace in Jezreel. Bearing false witness achieved the goal that ended in the stoning of Naboth. Today, theft uses unsworn and unverified statements of barred attorneys accepted, not as false, but true. So effective is the method that murder is rarely is murder necessary. See 1 Kings 21 & 2 Kings 9. Sometimes when digging to please the King fails, begging is all that remains, and, without mercy, death is certain.

CHAPTER ONE: FOURTEEN YEARS, AGO A DIFFERENCE IN INTENTIONS

Maxim: A hidden intention is bad. My intent gives a name to my act.

The “borrowers”, Haywood Jackson and Alice Faye Mizell wished to make a mortgage loan so that they would be able to purchase a piece of real “historical” property that would be preserved as restored and made their home. The mortgage closing date with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. was June 9, 2003.

MORTGAGE STANDARD: NOTE EVIDENCES 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) 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 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.) Please note that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. ceased its corporate existence in the spring of 2004, months before Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. was approved to do business in Alabama. Obviously, the assignment, “without recourse”, signed by an official of WFHM, Inc, transferring the unit from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. to Client 708, FHLMC was before Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. became a servicer qualified to do business in Alabama. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. never owned the promissory note, the evidence of debt, acting solely as Servicer.

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. 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 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.  

UNSECURED CHECK WHEN SEPARATED FROMTHE MORTGAGE

The “lender” Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. 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 if the borrower defaults.

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., the “lender”, before the transfer to Freddie Mac, 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 is executed and delivered to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc. 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 Freddie Mac who 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 the (now defunct since 2004) 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 the instruments filed into public record is false.

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 since the instant case foreclosure was for a check, the publishing for three actual weeks was insufficient making the foreclosure deed false. The publication should have been for four successive weeks. What bank was the check drawn on?

Again, when the “lender” defaults by refusing prepayment in full, re-conveyance is made without publishing notice.

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 wet-ink 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. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. destroyed the note after it was scanned and transferred to Freddie Mac, identified as the lender, 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 FHLMC 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 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 proven ownership of the debt. The holder in due course by assignment or the holder or bearer of the note at the time of foreclosure begins 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 attorney for Wells Fargo, Stephen Pudner, stated in the hearing in February 2014 Federal Court that the instruments were a mortgage and that the Appellant had defaulted, but Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. would not surrender the instrument even though full payment had been made because no original can be disbursed. The unit had been destroyed as no longer needed. Many copies are available. Mr. Pudner stated that Wells Fargo sympathized with the Mr. Mizell in the unfortunate circumstances especially seeing that the Mr. Mizell had been swayed by James B. Graham, who signed an affidavit to refinance and showed that the source of funds on deposit with Wells Fargo, deposits to be used in full payment and satisfaction of the mortgage. Wells Fargo refused the verified prepayment offer and foreclosed to cover the obvious fraud.

The attorney, D. Keith Andress, for Wells Fargo stated in the state court December 2014 hearing that the instrument was a check and was the property of Wells Fargo. WF does not surrender original documents, but would give the Appellant a photocopy. No instrument was offered, only a false instrument. No mention was made of the true lender, FHLMC as reported to the IRS on a form 1099A.

Mizell gave written authorization to WFHM for Mr. Mizell to speak as representative for he and his wife. Mr. Andress had no authority to speak for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. No one was present to speak for Wells Fargo. The court instead permitted an unsworn and unverified statement from Mr. Andress that was as competent evidence. The Judge does not have a performance bond as required by law. The judge has a filed payment bond of record. The law prohibits anyone from holding a public office who has no filed performance bond. All actions by an unbonded judge are void even his recognition of incompetent evidence.

Mr. Andress filed an appearance, but will not file written authorization from the Wells Fargo’s Board of Directors. Wells Fargo has no barred attorney representation in this case. By law, hearsay cannot be accepted as competent evidence.

Who is the true lender? Let the True-lender’s Counsel speak.

Who does Wells Fargo perform servicer duties for? Mr. Andress could show no Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Who and where is the “party-of-interest” whose identity can be proven?

Why was there no face to face meeting before foreclosure as required by law? A face to face is not required for collection of a check. Wells Fargo knew it was a check, but conducted a “power of sale” auction without four weeks of sufficient notice making the entire foreclosure wrongful and subject to treble damages as required by HUD.

Wells Fargo filed, on an IRS 1099A form, that the true lender was Freddie Mac. Wells Fargo had sold its interest to Freddie Mac, but had failed to record the assignment of the transfer on public record. Wells Fargo used the separated mortgage on file with the Dale 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. The law prohibits foreclosure auction conducted before thirty days after the last legal published notice. Theft depends on an evasion of legal conduct.

No mention was made of Wells Fargo’s improper refusal of prepayment. After all, Wells Fargo stated that they only foreclosed on those who did not deserve to remain in their homes implying that only a borrower can default, never a lender.

Law enforcement was illegally presence at the non-judicial foreclosure auction of Mizell’s property.

So, denial of trial by jury has kept secret the recognition 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 “tail” is dead. The cow is recognized as the note, and the mortgage as the tail. The cow can live without the tail, but the tail cannot live without the tail.

These are few issues in controversy. Creditor default is defined as improperly refusing payment. Slander of Title and default Judgment are other examples of lender default.

The FBI has stated that 80% of all mortgage fraud is conducted by the lender, not the borrower. The public holds that the opposite is true. So sad. The national asset ownership in the hands of the one-percent has grown from 9% in 1999 to 48% in 2017. One must admit that the method Jezebel used in 900 B.C. is just as effective when used in 2017.

October 24, 2017

 

Frederic Bastiat in 1850 made this observation in The Law.

“the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning.”

       “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it

and a moral code that glorifies it.”

       Mr. Potter, Vanity Fair Magazine “It can fairly be said that the chain of catastrophic bets made over the past decade by a few hundred bankers

may well turn out to be the greatest non-violent crime against humanity in history”

Frederic Bastiat in 1850:

“When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated, that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this is exactly what the law ought to repress always and everywhere. If the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, I say that plunder is still perpetrated, and even, in a social point of view, under aggravated circumstances. In this case however, he who profits from the plunder is not responsible for it; it is the lawgiver, society itself, and this is where the political danger lies. I declare that I do not mean to impugn the intentions nor the morality of anybody. I am attacking an idea that I believe to be false-a system that appears to me to be unjust; and this is so independent of intentions, that each of us profits by it without wishing it, and suffers from it without being aware of the cause.”  

VICTIMS OF LAWFUL PLUNDER

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

THE RESULTS OF LEGAL PLUNDER

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus, we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

PROPERTY AND PLUNDER

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus, it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

THE RESULTS OF LEGAL PLUNDER

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus, we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

October 18, 2017

 

Harvey Weinstein is an American film producer and former film studio executive accused of sexual harassment. He and his brother Bob Weinstein co-founded Miramax, which produced several popular independent films.

The first thing that comes to mind, “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

Obviously, were he a believer, he could bear in mind that if believers are dead to the law, believers are dead to this present evil world also, and linked with a risen, ascended and glorified Christ, Hence, believers of death, burial, and resurrection are not of the world, even as Christ is not of the world. A believer should not contend for position in the world to do so is to deny that believers are dead to the law; for a believer cannot be alive to the one and dead to the other. The death of Christ has delivered as from the law, from the power of sin, from this present evil world, and from the fear of death. But then all these things hang together, and a believer cannot go delivered from one without being delivered from all. To assert our freedom from the law, while pursuing a course of carnality, self-indulgence and worldliness, is one of the darkest and deadliest evils of the last days.

The believer is called to prove, in his daily life, that grace can produce results that law could never reach. It is one of the moral glories of Christianity to enable a man to surrender self and live for others. Law never could do this. It occupied a man with himself. Under the rule of law, every man had to do the best he could for himself. If he tried to love his neighbor, it was to work out a righteousness for himself. Under grace, all is blessedly and gloriously reversed. Self is set aside as a thing crucified, dead and buried. The old "I" is gone, and the new "I" is before God in all the acceptability and preciousness of Christ. He is our life, our righteousness, our holiness, our object, our model, our all. He is in us as believers and are in Him; and our daily practical life is to be simply Christ reproduced in us, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Hence, we believers are not only called to love our neighbor, but our enemy; and this, not to work out a righteousness, for we have become the righteousness of God in Christ; it is simply the outflow of the life which we possess, which is in us; and this life is Christ. A believer is a man who should live Christ. He is neither a Jew, "under law;" nor a Gentile "without law;" but "a man in Christ," standing in grace, called to the same character of obedience as that which was rendered by the Lord Jesus Himself.

September 25, 2017

 

Private Mortgage Agreement Default

No State or Federal law can impair the obligations of the parties to the agreement.

 

Borrower default:

1. 1.Failure to pay as agreed.
2. 2.Omission of maintenance
3. 3.Lapse in insurance coverage
4. 4.Deficient in tax obligations

Lender default:

1. 1.Failure to file on public record the mortgage or its assignment.
2. 2.Separation of promissory note and mortgage that must remain one unit
3. 3.Refuse equitable right of prepayment
4. 4.It is against equity to deprive freeman of the free disposal of their own property.
5. 5.Law enforcement personnel cannot be present at auction in a non-judicial state.

Judicial aid is limited to enforcement of the agreement. No attorney is needed.

The agreement is private with no need of public involvement.

The FBI has determined that 80% of all mortgage fraud is done by the lender not the borrower.

FRAUD EXAMPLES

1. 1.Original are scanned and made into an electronic copy to avoid transfer assignments at the courthouse.
2. 2.Instruments are shredded so that millions of copies can be made when desired.
3. 3.Accounting control fraud permits mortgages to be accounted as assets on the Investment Banking Books as non-performing.
4. 4.Claiming title to property by declaring the property to be abandoned after foreclosure
5. 5.Refusing to surrender the instrument if full payment is made.
6. 6.Foreclosing without rights of the holder-in-due-course.

Why?

Unsworn and unverified statements by Barred Attorneys are unlawfully considered competent evidence in both Judicial and Non-Judicial courts.

It is politically correct to classify all default to be by the borrower.

Federal courts have no jurisdiction over property inside a state unless due process rights are denied. Courts proclaim judgments with subject matter jurisdiction in both State and Federal courts.

Equal justice of the law is ignored for the borrower.

Moreover, in the case of original mortgages and promissory notes, they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment. The judgment takes the place of the promissory note. Surrendering the note is essential so that it cannot thereafter be negotiated.