May 04, 2017

 

NOTICE OF FATAL DEFECT AND DEMAND FOR

CANCELLATION OF ALLEGED FORECLOSURE SALE

Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. possessed no contract to surrender as law requires.  Corruption personified. Instead executed will of incompetent or juvenile  without authority in probate hearing or notice. This notice published in Southern Star newspaper.

This is a response notice to a fatally defective LEGAL NOTICE published in the Southern Star January 9, 16, 23, 2013 numbered AL-90001116-12 by William G. Berry, Esq. for WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.

 COMES NOW, Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell, the affiants, after first being duly sworn who are of lawful age competent to handle all our private affairs, and of sound minds, living, well, breathing, natural born, a free man and a free woman living on the soil, two of the People Sui Juris having no legal disability, with and claiming all of his and her unlimited, inherent, unalienable, God given Rights and who are competent to testify to the facts set forth below and are voluntarily relating the following first-hand knowledge of such facts, hereby states that such facts are true, correct, and complete and are not intended to mislead and are telling the truth signed under the penalty of perjury.

Demand is hereby made for cancellation of an illegal foreclosure. Notice is hereby given of intent to convene a grand jury with full investigative powers under a writ of inquiry for criminal matters including but not limited to uttering of forged documents and simulation of legal process.

No venue and jurisdiction has been alleged by William G. Berry. Said notice contains no constitutional or statutory authority cited. Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell have never knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally consented to any equitable conversion of persons, property, papers, or effects, or knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally granted license for use of such to Probate Judge Sharon Michalic, Sheriff Wally Olson or attorney William G. Berry.

No venue or jurisdiction has been identified either in common law or in civil law in said notice, nor is there a statement or averment regarding the office of the probate and whether it is operating in a constitutional capacity as judge under general law powers or whether the office is acting as Chancellor under statutory commission.

Notice is hereby given of the definition of INSINUATION. In the civil law, THE TRANSCRIPTION OF AN ACT ON THE PUBLIC REGISTRY LIKE OUR RECORDING OF DEEDS. IT WAS NOT NECESSARY IN ANY OTHER ALIENATION BUT THAT APPROPIATED TO THE PURPOSE OF DONATION. Inst. 2,7,2.

NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE CONTINUATION OF A WILL. In the civil law, the first production of a will, or leaving it with the registrar, in order to its probate. Cowell; Blount. Black’s law dictionary2^nd.

Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell hereby declare that we never intended to register a will in probate under civil law and never have we alienated ourselves from the property and given the property as a donation. Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell have never knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally donated our property to or for the use of a third party.

We do not allow any further action. The foreclosure must be cancelled until you inform us as to how a mortgage document can be converted to a will. Never at any time in our life did we intend to create a will to be registered in the public domain in the probate office.

Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell have never knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally domiciled our person, property, papers or effects in any foreign third party jurisdiction or granted permission for our private signatures to be placed into commercial trade or for the use by any third party. There is no record of such action in the granting of such consent. You are hereby noticed that such activity constitutes civil and criminal trespass, civil and criminal theft, forgery, breach of peace which all are foundational grounds for contempt of the duties of public officials giving rise to summary process and attachment of trespassers private property.

The said notice did not identify the venue and the jurisdiction, and we do not allow said action to proceed any further until we obtain the source of authority.

We do not stipulate to any statements made in the said notice and do not acquiesce by silence. No reasonable response can be generated from a fatally defective publication and insufficient notice.   We do not agree to any statements made in the said notice. Furthermore, we do not consent to any attempt to obtain our acquiescence, consent or our ratification of commencement through said notice.

NOTICE OF FATAL DEFECT AND DEMAND FOR CANCELLATION OF ALLEGED FORECLOSURE SALE was executed this day January 14^th, 2013 A.D. at arm’s length and without the UNITED STATES.

April 25, 2017

 

Below is the CODE
 The Uniform Bonding Code - (UBC)
 5.2 -- Bonding of District Attorneys
   A city, county, state or federal district attorney (including a U.S. district attorney called a "U.S. Attorney') shall lose his bonding and shall not be bonded: 
 1.      if he refuses to properly identify himself to the citizen when asked to do so, including giving the citizen the name and address (or telephone number) of his bonding company and his bond policy number (bond number),
2.      if he fails or refuses to receive, for filing, a criminal complaint from a citizen against a citizen or an official,
3.      if he refused to mark or stamp the citizen's confirmed (compare with original) copy of the citizen's complaint with any of the following
A.     "Received"
B.     name of receiving office 
C.     date
D.     time
E.      signature or initial of receiving clerk or official, so that the citizen can have an official receipt for delivery of his complaint;
4.      if he fails or refuses to make a reasonably diligent effort to process the citizen's complaint (42 USC 1986),
5.      if he fails or refuses to see to it that the citizen's complaint is placed in the right hands for processing and/or answering, (return) 
6.      if he does not make every effort to make sure that the complaining party knows of the status or location of the complaint in the legal system, and does not give the complainant written notice of the same when it is possible. 

5.3 - The Bonding of Prosecuting Attorneys
 A prosecuting attorney shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and shall be deemed unbondable:
 1.      if he refuses to prosecute a complaint when it is possible to do so, regardless of whom the complaint is against,
2.      if he resorts to "selective prosecution," i.e., any excuse of immunity for an official in order to protect a malfeasant official from prosecution,
3.      if he resorts to "selective prosecution,"i.e., false or malicious prosecution of a citizen, in order to punish or destroy a citizen for attempting to have a malfeasant official prosecuted.
 5.4 - Bonding of Judges
    A judge shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and shall be deemed unbondable: 
1.      if he fails to protect the U.S, national constitutionally guaranteed remedies of due process and the equal protection of the laws of any citizen appearing in his court of law, or of any citizen appearing in any court of the county in which he works whose case may come to his attention by any means.
 5.5 - Bonding of Attorneys
    A lawyer or an attorney shall lose his bonding, shall not be bonded, and shall be deemed unbondable,:
 if he fails to protect the remedies of due process and the equal protection of the law of either his client or of the adverse party in an action. In an adversary system of law, each lawyer or attorney shall protect the representation of fact not only for their own party, but shall protect the legal process for both parties without, exception.

April 14, 2017

 

Robert Penn Warren wrote the novel All the King’s Men. “Women love the hellion, the roarer, and the reprobate, as in Samson’s riddle, out of the strong shall come forth sweetness.”

The honey from the lion’s carcass oozed across the Alabama landscape as Rebekah Mason’s deadly poison.

What we didn’t know was that the root of bitterness had long been cultivated in the hearts of Robert and Dianne Bentley and sprang up to trouble and to defile many.

Robert Bentley embraced temptation instead of accepting the God given way of escape, thus being put on the shelf as far as service is concerned because he is useless and not bearing fruit thinking himself as standing, failing to take heed. He failed to abide and was cast forth as a branch.

According to the representative who introduced the impeachment bill, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the bargained for appointment of Strange as US Senator. Mason had used her ungodly influence to make female judgeship appointments, and then strutted her “stuff”. After questionable appointments of mostly the inexperienced female, enough was enough and his rapid removal was materialized. Now she’s gone.

Sin brings death. God alone provide a path for escape and it is free. Believing the unseen sacrifice is faith, true when God has given His word. Just do it, give wise consent.

March 29, 2017

 

CHRISTIANS AND POLITICS.

The government that is always in control even if mankind is not.

"What is taught in the Word regarding the position of a Christian when called upon to vote?"

 

You will, perhaps, be startled when we tell you that your question involves the very foundations of Christianity. We would ask you, dear friend, to which world does the Christian belong? Does he belong to this world or to the world above? Is his citizenship on earth or in heaven? Is he dead to this world, or alive in it — which I If he be a citizen of this world — if his place, his portion, and his home be here, then, assuredly, he cannot take too active a part in its affairs. He should vote for town councilors and members of Congress, he should strain every nerve to get the right man into the right place, whether it be at the municipal board, or on the floor of Congress. He should put forth every effort to mend and regulate the world. If, in a word, he be a citizen of this world, he ought, to the best of his ability, to discharge the functions pertaining to such a position.

But, on the other hand, if it be true that the Christian is, as regards this world, "dead" — if his citizenship is in heaven, if his place, his portion, and his home be on high, if he is only a pilgrim and a stranger here below, then it follows that he is not called to meddle in any way with this world's politics, but to pass on his pilgrim way, patiently submitting himself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, yielding obedience to the powers that be, and praying for their preservation and well-being in all things.

"What is taught in the Word" on this point? An all-important question. What, then, saith the Scripture? A passage or two will suffice. Hear what our Lord said, when addressing the Father in reference to "His own in the world:"

"I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world."

Again, hear the inspired apostle on this subject: "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)”

“For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ." (Phil. 3: 17-20)

So also, in the epistle to the Colossians, we read, "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with: Christ in God. When Christ our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory."

Some, however, may say that the fore-going Scriptures no longer apply — that "the world" of John 17 is not the world of the twenty-first century — that the former was a pagan world, whereas the latter is a somewhat Christian world. To all who take this ground, we have nothing to say. If the teaching of the New Testament was only designed for a bygone age, if it bears only upon the things that were, and has no application to the things that are, then, indeed, we know not where we are, or whither to turn for guidance or authority. But, thank God, we have a divine: and, therefore, all-sufficient directory for all ages, all times, and all conditions.

If, therefore, we are to be guided by Scripture, we have no warrant whatever for meddling in this world's politics. The cross of Jesus has snapped the link which connected us with this world. We are identified with Him. He is our Model. If He were here, He would find His place outside the range of this world. You would not see Him at the council-board, on the judicial bench, in the Halls of Congress, or with the sword in His hand. By and by, He will wield the scepter, draw the sword, and hold the reins of government in His hand. (May God hasten the day?) But now He is rejected, and we are called to share His rejection.

Our path in this world, as Christians, is obedience or suffering. We are called to pray for all in authority, but not to be in authority ourselves. There is not so much as a single line of Scripture to guide me as a voter, or a member, or a magistrate. If, therefore, I act in these characters, I do so without one word of direction from my Master — nay, more, I act in a way utterly opposed to Him, and in direct opposition to the spirit and teaching of the New Testament.

May God make us more faithful to Christ! May we be delivered more completely, in heart and spirit, from this present evil world, and be enabled to pursue, with holy decision, our pilgrim path across the sand of the desert! We are quite aware that what we have written on this subject will prove unsavory and unpopular; but this must not deter us from speaking the truth, and we trust it may not deter us from acting the truth also.

December 10, 2016

 

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 11^th 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.

November 24, 2016

 

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?

October 17, 2016

 

RECOUPMENT § 7-3-305. Defenses and Claims in Recoupment.

§7-3-305c An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.

15 U.S. Code § 1635 - Right of rescission as to certain transactions

(3) Right of recoupment under State law

Nothing in this subsection affects a consumer’s right of rescission in recoupment under State law.

§ 7-3-501(b)(2). PRESENTMENT.

       Surrender the instrument if full payment is made.

In contract law, rescission has been defined as the unmaking of a contract between parties. Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract (the status quo ante).

BY OPERATION OF LAW means that the only way it can be avoided is by getting a due process court order.

Recoupment: To recover a loss by a subsequent gain. In Pleading, to set forth a claim against the plaintiff when an action is brought against one as a defendant. Keeping back of something that is due, because there is an equitable reason to withhold it. A right of the defendant to have a deduction from the amount of the plaintiff's damages, for the reason that the plaintiff has not complied with the cross-obligations or independent covenants arising under the same contract.

GAAP. On bank’s financial statement all loans are considered assets. The customers promissory note is a liability which it must surrender if full payment is made.  

             On private customer of the bank books, the loan is a liability that must be paid to the bank, the promissory note given the bank is an asset that the bank must return. (Paid-in-Full).            

Recoupment is the return to each his classified asset. The loan is returned to the bank, promissory note returned to borrower.

American Jurisprudence 2d  § 618. Liability for wrongful repossession

It has been said that where the creditor improperly refuses to accept payment of the debt, the creditor is estopped from repossessing the collateral on the basis that the debtor is in default, a conversion action is especially appropriate where wrongful repossession is at issue. (See Chesterton State Bank v Coffey (Ind App) 454 NE2d 1233.)

Above are laws ignored by Circuit Judge Kimberly Clark who ruled after the agreement had been canceled for rescission. With the ignored laws, the borrower was prohibited from selling the Holman House property even when earnest money was paid by the purchaser who then backed out because there was a “cloud” over the title since there was a mortgage with a “Criminal Enterprise”, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Full payment was refused by Wells Fargo even though there were more than adequate deposits on hand in their Bank. Why? Because the “Criminal Enterprise” could produce no authenticated evidence of debt. Wells Fargo just pretended to having made the loan. The IRS was told recently that Freddie Mac was, in fact, the lender. Only the holder in due course can foreclose. Quiet title!

October 16, 2016

 

Hindsight 20/20

THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

By Bruce Wiseman Thursday, March 19, 2009

Greenspan had been the Fed Chairman for seven years when, in 1994, a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was rewritten by Congress. The new version had the purpose of providing loans to help deserving minorities afford homes. Nice thought, but the new legislation opened the door to loans that set aside certain lending criteria: little things like a down payment, enough income to service the mortgage and a good credit record.

With CRA’s facelift, we have in place two of the five elements of the perfect financial storm: Alan (Easy Money) Greenspan at the helm of the Fed and a piece of legislation that turned mortgage lenders into a division of the Salvation Army.

Perhaps you can see the pot beginning to boil here. But the real fuel to the fire was yet to come.

GLASS-STEAGALL

To understand the third element of the storm, we travel back in time to the Great Depression and the 1933 passage of a federal law called the Glass-Steagall Act. As excess speculation by banks was one of the key factors of the banking collapse of 1929, this law forbade commercial banks from underwriting (promoting and selling) stocks and bonds.

That activity was left to the purview of “Investment Banks” (names of major investment banks you might recognize include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the recently deceased Lehman Brothers).

Commercial banks could take deposits and make loans to people.

Investment banks underwrote (facilitated the issuing of) stocks and bonds.

To repeat, this law was put in place to prevent the banking speculation that caused the Great Depression. Among other regulations, Glass-Steagall kept commercial banks out of the securities.

Greenspan’s role in our not-so-little drama is made clear in one of his first speeches before Congress in 1987 in which he calls for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. In other words, he’s trying to get rid of the legislation that kept a lid on banks speculating in financial markets with securities.

He continued to push for the repeal until 1999 when New York banks successfully lobbied Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Easy-Money Alan hailed the repeal as a revolution in finance.

Yeah, Baby!

A revolution was coming.

With Glass-Steagall gone, and the permissible mergers of commercial banks with investment banks, there was nothing to prevent these combined financial institutions from packaging up the subprime CRA mortgages with normal prime loans and selling them off as mortgage-backed securities through a different arm of the same financial institution. No external due diligence required.

You now have three of the five Horsemen of the Fiscal Apocalypse: Greenspan, CRA mortgages and repeal of Glass-Steagall.

That was a short time ago.

What now?

Ship American jobs overseas.

Encourage more debt and larger homes and unlimited credit card use. In three years when the jobs are lost, foreclose on real property bought with worthless printing press “bail-out money” so that the elite dictators can eat out the substance of the people.

Attire the apathetic in designer clothing. Take IN GOD WE TRUST off the paper money and in the pledge of allegiance.

There can now be no “wrath of god”. Tornado, hurricanes, volcanos, natural disasters and mass murder are all normal behavior, not manufactured crisis for enslavement. We ascended from animals. Situation ethics is to be worshiped. Who cares?

A slave culture will be complete when there arises a champion liar, Marxist leaning leader.