August 30, 2021

 

From Haywood Jackson Mizell                                                           October 29, 2019

To: Delores Woodham,Circuit Court Clerk,Dale County, Alabama

RE: Authenticated Instrument filed by Wells Fargo in Dale Circuit Court: CV-19-8.

Dear Delores Woodham,

     Your correspondence was received October 25, 2019.

“Mr. Mizell: Enclosed please find a copy of Wells Fargo Loan/Mortgage # 0128507779. We cannot certify that this is a true copy of the original because the original was not filed in the clerk’s office.”

     Please understand that Wells Fargo has provided numerous copies of the same documents all in an effort to convince me that a copy functions the same as the original.

Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original

An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content…

       To convince me was not the one who needed convincing, the 2008 buyer who determined that Wells Fargo had “clouded” the title by filing a false instrument saying Wells Fargo was the holder in due course while WF reported otherwise. Mostly, only WF’s lawyers expressed a lack of understanding. (Job 32:8, Psalms 32:9)

§ 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.

     No sale would be made without the “cloud” being removed. No Homeland Security report was made. The buyer has not changed his position, refusing to buy an unmarketable property having zero value.

       Mizell was denied hundreds of thousands of dollars and the City of Ozark was denied the tax revenue that an extensively developed tourist attraction would produce.

     Just for the refreshment of it, below are just a few of the hundreds of conclusions that were mined, resulting from years of digging. The criminal phase can now begin, complete with perfected discovery.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.’S LACK OF STANDING

   NO ONE CAN BE DEPRIVED OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

     Due process commences first with a determination of standing of the parties. Wells Fargo is absent any instrument that gives standing. So-called government officials who allow standing to be gained without merit are co-conspirators to theft.

     A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938).

     When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity& Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697

     "We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would-be treason to the Constitution." Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. v. Will, 499 U.S. 200

     NOTE: By law, a judge is a state officer. The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person). When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the Judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges' orders are not voidable, but VOID, and of no legal force or effect. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States."

 

     WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. is a federal bank with its principal place of business in California. It has said to have been the loan servicer on the Subject Property for several years. A servicer cannot foreclose in its own name.

     Wells refused Mizell his prepayment rights as outlined in the said agreement, agreement that does not appear. In 2008, agreement was made to sell the subject property. The sales agreement was sealed with earnest money. The contract to sale was tortuously interrupted by Wells, which had imposed a “cloud” over the title making the property value zero. Wells refused to accept full payment from the sale of the property. Wells could produce NO evidence of debt even for review, without which no legal conveyance could be made after full payment. Wells refused to surrender the debt instrument that was to be stamped paid when paid in full. Wells refusal to present the debt instrument for inspection, placed a “cloud” by Wells over the title, which made the property value zero, unmarketable even for a public use purchase by eminent domain.

     Later in 2012, James B. Graham deposited legal tender in an amount twice Wells’ stated debt as outstanding by Mizell. Had Wells been able to surrender the debt instrument, legal tender from the Graham deposit could be used to satisfy the debt. No permission was granted Wells for the seizure of the deposit. The debt instrument, when paid in full, had to be surrendered. Wells refused to accept the prepayment of Graham funds unless the surrender condition was eliminated.

     Wells had, on numerous occasions, tortuously interfered with the contracts that recognized the value of the property, a value only when the property was without the title “cloud” imposed by Wells. Again, prepayment was refused by Wells, forestalling the sale. After having refused prepayment, Wells can never declare the note in default and use the word default as grounds for the authority in a foreclosure enforcement. Instead, Wells made default the operative word in the wrongful non-judicial foreclosure, which was paraded as a state action.

     “Please send the unaltered genuine original promissory note to Wells Fargo Ozark Alabama Branch. After authentication a certified amount can be determined that will, when payment is made in full, require you to surrender the instrument.”

     Please mail also the documents you filed with Homeland Security identifying the source of funds involving Loan Number 708-0128507779. With this information I can be assured that the source of funds will be satisfied. Please answer the request as required by law.” From Letter to Wells Fargo sent certified by ALICE FAYE MIZELL dated January 9, 2012.

 

American Jurisprudence 2d  § 618. Liability for wrongful repossession

Furthermore, 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.)

    

     Snipers, as believed by William Berry, foreclosure attorney for WF who provided confirmation in the writing by letter, were placed on the courthouse roof on the day of the auction so as to prevent Mizell or any independent bidder from participating in the wrongful foreclosure auction.

     Days before the auction, Mizell hand-delivered a Misprision of Felony to Judge William H. Filmore’s office to inform a judge, as the law demands, of the impending theft. The Misprision of Felony written notice was ignored. The theft nevertheless occurred as scheduled. Mizell’s expectation was for the judge to demand of Wells to show evidence of debt enforcement if authorized and the auction not criminal. Wells conducted the auction in the manner consistent with acts of any criminal enterprise. Prepayment refusal, the possession of NO instrument of authority, and the denial of due process combined to define the operational enterprise. The “cloud” must be removed before the purchase with title could be completed. Wells refused the to show any evidence that could be authenticated or a notarized certified copy under the penalty of perjury. There has been no production of debt encumbrance instrument secured by the subject property, even now after more than five years. Property conveyance is now legal by the deed holder. The property was wrongfully taken without due process in violation of DUE PROCESS RIGHTS and its taking has severe consequences for the thief, including treble damages.

     Wells denied due process, proceeded with a simulated non-judicial foreclosure in the presence of law-enforcement. Law enforcement Deputies and Police Officers were posted to control the number of bidders present at the auction held on the Dale County Courthouse steps. The non-judicial foreclosure auction should not have proceeded since the presence of law enforcement made the auction a state judicial action that requires a Judge’s order. Due process rights were denied.

     Since Wells Fargo has been unable to present the debt instrument during the past five years, its authority to enforce it has expired. Wells Fargo violated Ala. Code § 7-3-501 and therefore is time barred from ever gaining standing in this note case.

Ala. Code § 7-3-501(b)(2). PRESENTMENT.

§7-3-501(b)(2) Surrender the instrument if full payment is made.

 

     Wells Fargo has not demonstrated that it is the holder in due course of Mizell’s Promissory Note or that it is the agent of the holder in due course that alone can foreclose.

     Mizell moved the courts of Dale County CV-2013-6, USMD CASE #: 1:14-CV-00013-WHA-CSS and Dale County CV-2019-8, which we now know in this case to be null and void courts, proceeding without standing and subject matter jurisdiction, to have Wells Fargo stipulate and admit on and for the record whether or not they are the creditor and whether or not they are the holder in due course or if they contend that they are acting on authority of the Holder in Due Course with the authority to enforce any clause on Mizell’s DOT or Promissory Note. The courts ruled then without having been granted subject matter jurisdiction, as now confirmed, deceived into relying on unsworn and unverified statements of WF’s attorneys rather than on absent competent evidence. See Title 18 § 1512 withholding evidence or availability for use in an official proceeding.

Alabama Code Title 35. Property § 35-10-1

     Where a power to sell lands is given to the grantee in any mortgage, or other conveyance intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security, and may be executed by any person, or the personal representative of any person who, by assignment or otherwise, becomes entitled to the money thus secured;  and a conveyance of the lands sold under such power of sale to the purchaser at the sale, executed by the mortgagee, any assignee or other person entitled to the money thus secured, his agent or attorney, or the auctioneer making the sale, vests the legal title thereto in such purchaser.  Probate judges shall index foreclosure deeds by the names of the original grantor and grantee in the mortgage, and also by the names of the grantor and grantee in the foreclosure deeds.

Alabama Code Title 35. Property § 35-10-9

     All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.

 

     Wells Fargo refused to admit as to whether they are or are not the creditor and/or the holder in due course. Wells Fargo should have been considered in contempt of ill- advised court.

     There is no evidence that Wells Fargo has been damaged.

     There is no possession evidence of the existence or the identity of a true holder in due course. Wells Fargo demonstrated NO authority for its actions.

     The wrong party is named as the lender on the alleged note and the alleged deed of trust/mortgage recorded in the Dale County Probate Office records further clouding title to Mizell’s property.

     The alleged note has allegedly been transferred to FHLMC per affidavit of VP of loan department.

     FHLMC has allegedly deposited said note in a securitization trust.

     By transferring ownership and holding of the mortgage promissory note to certificate holders of a publicly traded security, the transfer negated the ability of the alleged lender, trustee or servicing agent to act as the owner or holder of the promissory note or its agent.

     A DOT/Mortgage cannot be enforced on behalf of the owner and holder of a Promissory Note who does not actually own or possess the Promissory Note.

     There is a difference between what is required to enforce an unsecured note and what is required to enforce a deed of trust/mortgage in foreclosure.

     The alleged note and deed of trust have been separated. The Note has been sold to FHLMC and subsequently to investors in Mortgage-Backed Securities and is therefore owned by shareholders in stocks. The alleged Deed of Trust that identifies Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. as the “lender”/ “beneficiary”/ “owner”. This is fraudulent and a cloud on Mizell’s Legal Title. Reducing the value to zero.

     The promissory note as a note remains enforceable if it has not been paid, but the deed of trust is not. The note is no longer secured by Mizell’s Property.

     Wherefore, Mizell sought an order from the court declaring that Wells Fargo lacks standing to enforce any provision on the Mizell’s DOT/Mortgage or to foreclose on the Mizell’s real Homestead property and place of business. DENIED.

     Severe and irreparable harm through the loss of clients, the loss of reputation, the loss of income, emotional distress and family depression and anxiety has been suffered by the Mizell’s and their family, should the loss be allowed to continue of their Homestead and place of business, which is not only the basis for their claims against Wells Fargo, but is also unique and irreplaceable.

       All previous court actions that proceeded without standing and subject matter jurisdiction are VOID.

       A Quiet Title Action should be conducted in a court of competent jurisdiction, which applies the law in response to the fact-witness instruments with a hearing where only the validity of the instruments can be challenged. A jury is not allowed because the superior fact-witness cannot be tampered with and is evident and needs no jury to determine fact.

Title 18 §1512(B) Whosoever, alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

The American Bar Association's opinion concerning foreclosures: Standing and subject-matter-jurisdiction.…… this Court has the responsibility to assure itself that the foreclosure Plaintiffs have standing and that subject-matter-jurisdiction requirements are met at the time the complaint is filed. Even without the concerns raised by the documents the Plaintiffs have filed, there is reason to question the existence of standing and the jurisdictional amount".

American Jurisprudence 2d 1966:

(Volume 25, Ejectment § 19 Strength of own title)

"A well-established principle which has acquired the force of a maxim is to the effect that a Plaintiff in ejectment can recover only on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's. The defendant is not required to show title in himself, and he may lawfully say to the Plaintiff, "Until you show title, you have no right to disturb me."

         Mizell possesses the only instrument that can impact title. Ownership remains in him until a superior title appears; otherwise cease disturbing me.

 Yours truly, Haywood Jackson Mizell, Case 1:21-cv-00110-ECM-JTA Document 22-5 Page 635-642

August 20, 2021

 

                           Grand misunderstood truth.

     One truth that every wise businessman or woman knows is that no one buys a piece of property. What is bought is title to the property.

  

     Jack Newman, a friend of mine, learned this truth the hard way. He bought 36 cars at what he thought to be at a bargain price. The man who sold him the cars has escaped the county for Thailand.

    

     All of the cars were returned to title holders. Mr. Newman never recovered his “investment”.

 

     When one stands on the “Brooklyn Bridge” and offers the bridge for sale, the offer to sale is valid only if the seller holds title to the bridge, even if the bridge is in foreclosure.

 

“No title is conveyed through the sale when a party who lacks a right to enforce the note proceeds with foreclosure sale.” Williams, supra. Cited in Holms v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. et al, 43^rd Jud. Cir. Ct. Div II, No. 08CN-CV00944 (Jan. 26, 2015).

 

What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by JUDGMENT OF A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL. (Maxim of Law)

 

What does not appear and what is not, is the same; it is not the defect of the law, but the WANT OF PROOF. (Maxim of Law).

 

     The Taliban and all of its followers are governed by this common misconception. The year of Jubilee clearly identifies the real titleholder of all property, God.

 

“So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community”. William Blackstone. 1767

July 20, 2021

 

WHO HOLDS TITLE TO THE HOLMAN HOUSE IN OZARK, ALABAMA?

A deed was recorded in 1982 transferring title to H. J. Mizell.

There was no proven encumbrance against the property in 2013.

Without any authority, Nathan E. Hardwick, attorney conducted a wrongful non-judicial foreclosure that accepted $296,000 of taxpayer money that was no “just compensation” that had been decided by an Eminent Domain Tribunal.

Deceived by Hardwick, the City of Ozark is occupying the property and making improvements in violation of Historical Preservation Law. The unpaid monthly rental charge is $62,500. The question is now before the U.S. Middle District Court of Alabama for adjudication.

Alabama has the most stringent taking/compensation laws.                                            

“No title is conveyed through the sale when a party who lacks a right to enforce the note proceeds with foreclosure sale.”

The US and Alabama Constitutions enacted law that forbids the taking of private property without “just compensation”. Alabama laws are the most severe. Alabama “just compensation” law was consistently ignored by all the state judicial system courts including probate court. Now what will the federal courts decide?

IGNORED: Courts in Alabama differ from the normal rule, as they have asserted that the court of equity should award damages even though no other type of relief is sought. An Alabama court stated:

     If the county through its duly constituted authorities without the consent of the landowner whose title and possession is not disputed takes or undertakes to appropriate private property for public use, a court of equity will intervene and require just compensation to be made. Id. at 137-38, 43 So. 2d at 116.

     The city had the discretion to acquire an airport or not to acquire it, to take this or that land or not to take it. It did not have the discretion to take land without paying for it. After the taking the duty to condemn became ministerial.63 Brown v. Murphy, supra note 62, at 321, 47 A.2d at 597.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment allows federal, state, and local governments to take private property for public use under eminent domain, as long as the private landowners are justly compensated for the taking of their property

In 1985, in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, the Supreme Court held that in cases claiming just compensation for private property taken by state or local governments, the owner had to demonstrate that the case was ripe for litigation by exhausting state law remedies "first." As it turned out, however, courts also took the position that when property owners complied with this rule and sued "first" in state court, the state court decision would give rise to res judicata or issue preclusion, so the owner's claim of federal constitutional violation could never be heard in federal court under federal law. This decision has come under criticism as it denied property owners, and them alone, access to federal courts and to protection of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause

Under Eminent Domain law, the government can “take” private property for public use – but must provide landowners with just compensation. ... Further, if the government “leaves out” certain property or fails to provide select landowners with just compensation, landowners can sue the government under Inverse Condemnation.

Inverse condemnation is a term used in the law to describe a situation in which the government takes private property but fails to pay the compensation required by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, so the property's owner has to sue to obtain the required just compensation.

In some states the term also includes damaging of property as well as it taking. In inverse condemnation cases the owner is the plaintiff and that is why the action is called inverse – the order of parties is reversed, as compared to the usual procedure in direct condemnation where the government is the plaintiff who sues a defendant-owner to take his or her property.

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court

Supreme Court

Knick petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. Knick's petition pointed out that there was a split in how Williamson County was applied in the Circuit Courts. The Third Circuit's decision agreed with the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in prior case law, but was in conflict with the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits. Additionally, the petition referred to Justice John Roberts' denial for writ of certiorari in Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC v. Durham (2016), a case that also sought to challenge the Williamson County decision, which had been joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy. In the denial, Roberts suggested that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to review Williamson County, due to the onus it puts on property owners, but required a proper case for that review.^[5]

The Court granted the petition in March 2018, with the first oral arguments heard on October 3, 2018, before an eight-member Supreme Court, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh had yet to be sworn into office. In November 2018, the Court announced it would hold a second argument before all nine Justices; while the Court did not provide a rationale, analysts believed that this indicated the eight Justices were deadlocked, thus requiring Justice Kavanaugh to take part in the case to break the deadlock.^7] The second oral hearings before the full court was held January 16, 2019.

The Court issued its judgment on June 21, 2019. In its 5–4 decision along ideological lines, it vacated the Third Circuit's judgment and remanded the case to the lower court. The decision overruled the portion of Williamson County decision that required those seeking legal action for takings-compensation to seek state litigation first, finding that the original decision was poorly reasoned. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, writing that "A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it." The opinion emphasized that unfair compensation when private land is taken is constitutional violation, and thus ripe for the federal court system. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority, and in a separate opinion, wrote "Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent." Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent and expressed concerns that by eliminating the need to bring such takings-compensation cases to state courts first, it could require federal courts to become involved in understanding complex state law issues.^[8] Kagan's decision also expressed concern that Knick along with other recent Court decisions such as Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt shows a trend that the current Court is ready to ignore long-standing precedent and overturn past rulings. Justice Stephen Breyer had expressed similar concern in his dissent with Hyatt.

May 20, 2021

 

The internet declared that $75,000 in 1912 is adjusted to the same value in 2019, $1,940,152.

J.D. Holman of Ozark, Alabama spent $75,000 in 1912 for construction of his residence at 285 East Broad Street in Ozark, AL. The cost of renovation in the 1980s, including an addition of a 60% increase in usable space, was made for only $3,759,216. The effective renovation cost does not include the $173,000 per year in maintenance and operation expenses.

The City of Ozark performed its sovereign powers as a public entity and took the property without making any “just compensation” for the taking of private property for public usage. The City of Ozark did surrender public taxpayer funds to Nathan E. Hardwick, a convicted felon, as the only bidder at a simulated foreclosure auction. The auction was necessary in order to give the appearance that it was legal to pay only 6% of the property’s “appraised value”, especially on property that had no proven encumbrance and in no default. The lawful rental cost for the last eight years has risen to millions.

“No title is conveyed through the sale when a party who lacks a right to enforce the note proceeds with foreclosure sale.”

The US and Alabama Constitutions enacted law that forbids the taking of private property without “just compensation”. Alabama laws are more severe.

Courts in Alabama differ from the normal rule, as they have asserted that the court of equity should award damages even though no other type of relief is sought. An Alabama court stated:

     If the county through its duly constituted authorities without the consent of the landowner whose title and possession is not disputed takes or undertakes to appropriate private property for public use, a court of equity will intervene and require just compensation to be made. Id. at 137-38, 43 So. 2d at 116.

     The city had the discretion to acquire an airport or not to acquire it, to take this or that land or not to take it. It did not have the discretion to take land without paying for it. After the taking the duty to condemn became ministerial.63 Brown v. Murphy, supra note 62, at 321, 47 A.2d at 597.

The old adage that one cannot fight City Hall has proven merit. No court of equity exists in Dale County. The tragedy is that the values of similar items have increased from 1912 to 2019, 25.8 times. The value of the dollar continues to decline. What is even worse in that there has been a similar free fall of integrity. “Legal Plunder” is now the rage.

“There is now no condemnation”, that is just the way it is.

May 15, 2021

 

The mission of Freedom Yell is to identify the two positions: The natural man and the spiritual man. One is bondage and the other freedom. Freedom Yell shows the path to freedom.

1 Corinthians 2:14King James Version (KJV)

¹⁴ But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Genesis 4:14King James Version (KJV)

¹⁴ Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

John 3:18King James Version (KJV)

¹⁸ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36King James Version (KJV)

³⁶ He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

1 John 5:12King James Version (KJV)

¹² He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

John 16:9King James Version (KJV)

⁹ Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Galatians 5:1King James Version (KJV)

5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

1 Peter 2:11King James Version (KJV)

¹¹ Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

Hebrews 11:13King James Version (KJV)

¹³ These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Acts 20:24King James Version (KJV)

²⁴ But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Romans 10:9-10King James Version (KJV)

⁹ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

¹⁰ For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

1 Corinthians 15:1-5King James Version (KJV)

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

² By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

³ For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

⁴ And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

⁵ And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Ephesians 2:19King James Version (KJV)

¹⁹ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Revelation 1:6King James Version (KJV)

⁶ And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

SOVEREIGN AT LAST AND FOREVER

Bride of Christ, Member of His Body

Body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit

Heir of eternal glory, Joint heir with Christ

April 29, 2021

 

     Courts in Alabama differ from the normal rule, as they have asserted that the court of equity should award damages even though no other type of relief is sought. An Alabama court stated: (12% interest per anum)

      If the county through its duly constituted authorities without the consent of the landowner whose title and possession is not disputed takes or undertakes to appropriate private property for public use, a court of equity will intervene and require just compensation to be made. Id. at 137-38, 43 So. 2d at 116.

      The city had the discretion to acquire an airport or not to acquire it, to take this or that land or not to take it. It did not have the discretion to take land without paying for it. After the taking the duty to condemn became ministerial.63 Brown v. Murphy, supra note 62, at 321, 47 A.2d at 597.

      Haywood Jackson Mizell for years has sought intervention by a Court of Equity so that just compensation would be made. The City of Ozark exercised the discretion to take the Holman House, but has refused to pay just compensation for its occupancy or for the purchase of the legal title.

   What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent tribunal. Maxim of law.

     Haywood Jackson Mizell sought factual judgment determination of the Superior Title holder, done so by his filing of a Quiet Title Action in the Dale County Circuit Court, Kimberly A. Clark, Dale County Circuit Presiding Judge, in case 26-CV-2019-000008.00, where legal title was all that was in issue in the action, and such title, when ascertained, whether in the plaintiff or in the defendant, draws to it a REQUIRED JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT.

February 11, 2021

 

Covenant verses Contract

     When one swears to uphold and defend the US Constitution, he becomes a servant of the Constitution, which makes him a freeman. His oath is a covenant not just a contract.

     A covenant is a gift one gives even when there is no balance of exchange. On the other hand, a contract is an exchange of items of equal value.

     “Let each esteem other better than themselves”. The central theme of the Constitution, based on Christian principle was unique, the first government established on the rule of law that held all men to be equal in opportunity to give of himself freely within the limits of the dimension of his God-given rights, rights that could not be deprived, but maintained.

     The struggle attached to all contracts is to gain balance. Both parties much give only what he gets in equal value in return. This exchange is commonly referred to as capitalism. Crony-capitalism is one side given favor, normally the battle for control. Two essential ingredients in any contract are respect and integrity.

   For over 155 years, the United States attempts to maintain the appearance of being governed by the US Constitution covenant. The covenant was abandoned, giving way to congress controlled crony-capitalism where control is most important, more important than the body’s wellbeing. Demonizing opposition is routine when control is the objective.

     The covenant before us daily is the marriage covenant, not to be confused with the same sex contract where no procreation is possible and where self-gratification is paramount. When essential respect and integrity departs from the marriage covenant, the covenant dies an instant death, even though the parties may practice battles on a contract field until one side gives into physical death.

     Intimacy between parties without a covenant relationship engage in “How can I get the most for the least.” The battle centers on getting control to gain advantage.

     Such is the current scene in America. Death looms all around us waiting for the funeral to be announced. The end justifies the means. Delusion, the believing of the lie, refusing the truth, pollutes the air we all breathe.

     The overthrow of the Prince of this world at the second coming is our hope. For some, the blessed hope is to be taken safely out before the battle begins and the world dissolves with fervent heat. Self-righteousness is being ignorant of God’s righteousness. Death, Burial, and resurrection we see everyday giving life in the sunrise, sunset, night then again. Who is the light of the world?  

January 07, 2021

 

New Social Media Tools without Censorship

 Parler = New Twitter

 Gab or MeWe = New Facebook

 Rumble = New YouTube

 DuckDuckGo = New Google Search

 Brave Browser = secure Chrome

 Telegraph or Signal = Secure Messaging

 NewsMax or OAN = New Fox News