Words from the Rising Republics

October 08, 2019

 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

     RES JUDICATA GIVES ADDRESS to location of TWO filed copies. Copy ONE was from the 2003 closing. ALTERED copy TWO was within days after the closing, the Note (the “cow”) and Mortgage (the “tail”) were separated, all rights and interest in the “Cow” was transferred to FHLMC complete with indorsement, altered, stamped “WITHOUT RECOURSE and the CUSIP NUMBER redacted. The Mortgage (the “tail”) was retained by Wells Fargo and made into a false filed instrument used as alleged authority to foreclose. Originals scanned, shredded.

     No assignment was recorded because the GSE refused to incur and pay the $12.50 transfer fee. Attorneys for Wells Fargo convinced the courts the mortgage alone would support WF’s foreclosure even though no default had occurred due to the facts of a prepayment in full offer that was improperly refused. NO paid-in-full Note has been surrendered even after the liquidation of the asset was payment in full. The scanned and then destroyed original Note is still electronically in circulation performing as a non-producing asset on the investment banking side.

     Which one of the contradicting copies is to be judged acceptable? NEITHER.

     Quiet Title Action requires PROOF OF CLAIM, THE ORIGINAL. No Original Negotiable Instrument pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002 has been filed by Wells Fargo that could impact title because Wells Fargo has sold its interest before 2009 and no longer has standing by virtue of it NO LONGER POSSESSES an Original Negotiable Instrument pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002 that can prove claim.

     Attorneys are required to be compliant, guided by court rules. Courts have their own rules that govern the discipline of attorneys. Un-sworn and un-verified statements by barred attorneys are not competent evidence. Judgment based on fact witnesses is a requirement and is now needed in this Quiet Title Action.

     What would the Defendant’s Attorneys have the court to believe? Ninety percent of all mortgages in American are similarly separated with un-recorded assignments, thus un-enforceable as ruled by the Kansa State Supreme Court in a 2009 ruling. In fact, many similarly styled Quiet Title Action cases in Dale County Circuit Court has enjoyed NO court judgment. § 35-10-9 declares this mortgage, as well as all similar mortgages, null and void by virtue of the fact that Wells Fargo is not entitled to the funds. The error must be corrected. Filing of a false instrument cannot be assigned by a judicial court as true without the assignor losing judicial immunity.

 

STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT AND ISSUES PRESENTED

    

     Appellant is seeking a Writ of Mandamus from this Honorable Court directing Kimberly A. Clark, Dale County Circuit Judge, to take judicial notice that case 26-CV-2019-000008.00 is a Quiet Title Action where legal title is all that is 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. Judge Clark dismissed in error the Quiet Title Action upon res judicata motion by Defendants. Original and authenticated instruments that could impact title have never appeared or filed.

Alabama Property Rights and Remedies

§ 10.10(c) “there is no statutory time which an action to quiet title must be brought.”

 

     The required elements for mandamus relief are as follows:

 

1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the order sought; 2) an imperative duty upon the respondent to perform, accompanied by a refusal to do so; 3) the lack of another adequate remedy; and 4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.

 

In order to justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be " 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).

 

The Court Official must show on what authority her decision is based upon and must prove her authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party.

 

   The plaintiff’s Quiet Title Action Complaint was dismissed based on Defendant’s motion for res judicata. Judge Kimberly Clark also ordered dismissal in previous case 26-CV-2013-000006.00 based on her ASSIGNMENT of “superior” merit to unsworn and unverified statements of Defendant’s counsel above DEFENDANT’S OWN EXHIBITS THAT CONTRADICT THE ATTORNEY STATEMENTS.

     In the 2013 case, was filed a notarized affidavit of Andres Kruse, Vice President Loan Department Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as EXHIBIT 1 and attached its EXHIBIT A, a true and correct (altered) copy of the Note and Mortgage. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. is a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

     EXHIBIT A, filed by the Defendant in its pleadings, is a copy of the original and “UNALTERED” Adjustable Rate Mortgage showing no redacted CUSIP NUMBER.

     See the Kruse Affidavit’s promissory note, page 158 of the official record from the referenced res judicata case 26-CV-2013-000006 and Defendant’s EXHIBIT A and COMPARE the level of interest held by WF before and WF’s NO interest level after the sale of the note. Both documents are attached to this Writ of Mandamus request.

     Official Record page 158 establishes, beyond dispute, the ZERO level of interest the Defendant, Wells Fargo has, as its PROOF OF CLAIM and its STANDING for consideration in the Quiet Title Action. To date, Wells Fargo has denied courts the gaining of subject-matter jurisdiction. Judge Clark has ignored Rule 12(h)(3) and 12(b)(1):

Rule 12(h)3 Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court MUST dismiss the action.

 

Rule 12 (b)(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

 

Standing requires that the party prosecuting the action have a sufficient stake in the outcome and that the party bringing the claim be recognized in the law as being a real party in interest ENTITLED to bring the claim. This entitlement to prosecute a claim in Alabama courts rests exclusively in those persons granted by substantive law, the power to enforce the claim. ‘[t]he mortgage becomes useless in the hands of one who does not also hold the obligation because ONLY THE HOLDER OF THE OBLIGATION CAN FORECLOSE.’ Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. Diane GRAY v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION. 2120087. Decided: January 10, 2014.

 

“A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to hold,” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Also, Kumar Corp. v Nopal Lines, Ltd, et al, 462 So. 2d 1178, (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

 

Wells Fargo v. Reyes, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Dismissed with prejudice, Fraud on Court & Sanctions. Wells Fargo never owned the Mortgage.

 

     It was never “Show me the note”.  Mizell is attacking Wells Fargo on the “show me standing” and “show me that Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. is the real and beneficial party of interest who has the right to enforce the note”.

     Judge Clark also ignored the truthful fact report to the IRS identifying the actual lender to be FHLMC, not Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. See attached Form 1099A.

     The promissory Note was SOLD at some time prior to 2009, separated from the mortgage that Wells Fargo retained. Other courts have issued rulings germane to this mandamus requests. This Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama is on record as ruling:

Mortgages takes the position that a note and mortgage can be separated but that ‘[t]he mortgage becomes useless in the hands of one who does not also hold the obligation because only the holder of the obligation can foreclose.’ “‘The note is the cow and the mortgage the tail. The cow can survive without a tail, but the tail cannot survive without the cow.”

 

No debt instrument has been surrendered for authentication, which can be replaced by a court judgment.

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. See Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). THE JUDGMENT CANCELS THE NOTE. THE CLERK CANNOT RETURN THESE INSTRUMENTS TO THE PARTIES. Johnston v. Hudlett, 32 So. 3d 700 (Fla 4d DCA 2010)

 

           Servedio v. US Bank N.A (4D10-1898)

The summary judgment order should be reversed because the lender did not file “a copy of the original note and mortgage prior to the entry of judgment the original mortgage note with the trial court.” Even if the trial court considered the note and mortgage at the hearing, the documents were NOT AUTHENTICATED, filed, and served more than twenty days before the hearing as required byRules1.510(c), 1.510(e) and Appellee’s failure to abide by these rules also necessitates reversing the order granting summary judgment. Verizzo, 28 So. 3d at 977-78; Mack v. Commercial Indus. Park, Inc., 541 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

 

While Bank of America ALLEGED IN ITS UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT THAT IT WAS THE HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE, the copy of the note attached to the amended complaint CONTRADICTS that allegation. WHEN EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED TO A COMPLAINT, THE CONTENTS OF THE EXHIBITS CONTROL OVER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT. Khan v. Bank of America (Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2011)

 

(See Wright v. Emory, 41 So.3d 290,292(Fla. 4^th DCA 2010) (“[An] attorney’s unsworn and unverified statements do not establish competent evidence.”)).

 

In re Leisure Time Sports, Inc. 194 B.R. 859, 861 (9th Cir. 1996) THE HOLDER OF A NOTE HAS STANDING TO SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF THE NOTE, Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of THE EXHIBITS CONTROL OVER THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT.

 

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.

 

ONLY A HOLDER-IN-DUE COURSE CAN GRANT

THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION.

 

Ala. Code § 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.

 

     Wells Fargo has not surrendered the instrument, even after the foreclosure auction paid in full the “absent un-possessed” instrument.

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

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

 

     Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant/Appellee has filed NO Original Negotiable Instrument pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002 simply because it SOLD THE ORIGINAL and it no longer has possession. THE HOLDER-IN-DUE COURSE HAS NOT APPEARED. The foreclosure conducted by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. was WRONGFUL. The City of Ozark can purchase private property only through its power exercised in an EMINENT DOMAIN procedure. No title to the property was conveyed to the City of Ozark by Wells Fargo who had no title to convey. Whoever has superior title is owner.

“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)

 

     Purchase by a municipality using an Eminent Domain Procedure cannot be completed without the granted consent of the private property owner. Said protection is embodied in the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, as well as language of Art. I, § 23 Eminent Domain, Alabama Constitution 1901 and untold rulings by the SCOTUS and reports citing legal precedence in courts throughout the nation.

     In addition, Judge Clark should be encouraged to allow Haywood Jackson Mizell, Appellant/Plaintiff and his forensic document experts, to examine the 2003 Original pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002, and unseparated, promissory note and mortgage unit contract instruments executed with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Appellee/Defendant in lieu of the alleged certified copy of such promissory note, introduced by reference by the Appellee in pleadings and during hearings in case 26-CV-2013-000006 and in case 26-CV-2019-000008.00 pleadings and at hearing on June 19, 2019. In light of the fact, that document expert affidavits may be able to attest that the alleged certified copy is a computer-generated forgery when compared to the Original pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002.

     This court has jurisdiction for such Writ of Mandamus, as Appellant is merely asking for authentication of a certified copy of a document, which was introduced by reference in pleadings before the courts. This court has jurisdiction to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of its jurisdiction and agreeable to the usages and principles of law pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §1651.

§ 1651. WRITS

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.

 

     Such Mandamus will not represent any harm or undue hardship on Wells Fargo, Appellee, but is of paramount importance and crucial for Mizell/Appellant and for all similar cases throughout the whole nation in light of the fact that the admissibility of fact witness evidence be considered competent and should prevail over hearsay evidence such as un-certified and un-sworn statements of attorney’s copies.

     Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is currently occupying a fiduciary position as a bank/mortgagee. Integrity of US bankers is about to be undermined yet again. Civil rights and human rights of the U.S. citizens to conduct business with institutions of integrity, as well for due process and redemption rights of the Appellant is about to be taken away yet again without this Honorable Court granting such Writ of Mandamus. Due to the fact, that according to experts, alleged certified copy could be a forgery, and due to the fact, that officials, who released this alleged certified copy, suspected to be uttering a forgery, obstructing   justice and refusing to allow access to the original, and due to concerns of further tampering or destruction of the document in question, appellant respectfully request immediate transportation of the original 2003 promissory note and mortgage that establish standing for claims made by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and that gain for the court subject-matter jurisdiction, plus the document in question as stored electronically, as well as 2003 microfiche film containing a copy of such scanned record, to secure and fire resistant facility offsite, such as Fort Rucker Army Base until further inspection and expert examination of above documents can be performed.

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

     This Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is based on 28 U.S.C §1651.

 

     Case at hand was filed by Plaintiff. In the other case, during the December 16, 2014 hearing D. Keith Andress, Attorney for Wells Fargo argued that the document he was waiving was the original promissory note that had been converted to a check that was due to be retained by WF and not filed into the court record for examination.

     He argued that due to possession of said original promissory note that any alleged copy of such mortgage document and the relief sought by Mizell cannot be granted and the case then at hand be moot and is FAIT ACCOMPLI.

a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.

 

     Haywood Jackson Mizell, from first-hand knowledge, observed that the alleged “original” that Andress had waived, to be a crude computer-generated forgery, and not a true and correct copy of the 2003 Original Negotiable Instrument pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002 type written long form promissory and mortgage instrument, allegedly issued to Mr. Andress only after the foreclosure auction of 2013.

     In the current Quiet Title Action, a claim of Res Judicata was stated that justified a Rule 12(B) dismissal order by Judge Clark. NO FINAL JUDGMENT has been issued thus preventing an appeal. Res Judicata claim suggests that the court clerk in that case has the Original Negotiable Instrument pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002 that is necessary in PROOF OF CLAIM of who has the legal title at issue in the action that could DRAW THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The Original Negotiable Instrument pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002 has never been filed into any case or into Public Record. In fact, an affidavit by a vice president of the Wells Fargo loan department exhibited the fact that Wells Fargo no longer has the Original Negotiable Instrument pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002 that can be filed because Wells Fargo HAD BEEN PAID AND TRANSFERRED ITS INTEREST “WITHOUT RECOURSE”. (See Exhibit page 158)

     The Quiet Title Action case has been dismissed with no ability for appeal, refusing this court examination of the Original pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002, with no original for court comparison, verification of its legitimacy is impossible relative to impact on superior title holder.

     Haywood Jackson Mizell requests an appeal court hearing, arguing that the dismissal order was in error without a court judgment.

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."  American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 332, 442 (1950).

 

     The original has never been made public anywhere that could support a res judicata argument. Res Judicata gives an address where a Quiet title proof of claim may reside. All res judicata claims favorable to the defendants are based on un-verified copies, not certified Originals pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002. All that a Quiet Title Action asks is that original document in question be made public for its impact on who has superior title holder status.

     A before sale reduced COPY of the above-mentioned long form promissory note and mortgage is so public, that Wells Fargo is profiteering from it by seizing property and by posting the alleged certified copy into court records and selling property without warranty of title.

     The Circuit Court Clerk and the Probate Judge did not respond to the request for any administrative appeal hearing and never allowed inspection of the Original pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002. Haywood Jackson Mizell was told that the Circuit Clerk and the Probate Judge can certify only to what is of record and will not and CANNOT CERTIFY TO THAT WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR.

     Haywood Jackson Mizell sought loan source information that had been filed with the Department of Homeland Security. NO records had even been reported that could confirm that Wells Fargo had ever made said loan. The only report that could identify the source of funds was filed with the Internal Revenue Service and that report was submitted by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage identifying FHLMC (Freddie Mac), shown to be the real lender and that according to a commercial database. This is significant, as a lender, who does not have a valid promissory note and mortgage in their possession has to resort to use of stolen and fraudulently obtained worthless documents whose existence was not reported to the Homeland Security due to its non-existence.

     Without an Original Negotiable Instrument pursuant to FRCP Rule 1002 there is NO VALID CLAIM that can be proven, and the plaintiff is denied protection of EMINENT DOMAIN TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE.

     Haywood Jackson Mizell has a copy of the Andrea Kruse, Vice-President Loan Documentation Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. affidavit showing that the said Wells Fargo Home Mortgage document, the security CUSIP number, was redacted so that the number could not be seen by the public because separation on the note and mortgage would be evident, and that alone rendered the documents null and void. Wells Fargo justified its wrongful foreclosure on an absent obligation instrument even though NOT ENTITLED to the funds. The auction sale was null and void.

Alabama Code Title 35. Property § 35-10-12

Where a power to sell lands is given in any mortgage, 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.

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.

 

     The legal title is all that is in issue in the Quiet Title Action, and such title, when ascertained, whether in the plaintiff or in the defendant, draws to it the JUDGMENT of the court.

     What is asked of this court is to order the lower court to faithfully perform its duty and make a just judgment of the court based on fact witnesses as to who is holder of Superior Title.

     Evidence rules of the state of Alabama are similar to Federal Rules of Evidence. State of Alabama provides "Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies of excerpts, if the original is not readily available, provided that upon request parties shall be given an opportunity to compare with the original."

     Federal Rule of Evidence 1002 states that "[t]o prove the content of a writing, recording or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress." The Federal Rules of Evidence do indeed provide otherwise. With regard to duplicates and public or official records, the rules state in pertinent part as follows:

A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original,... or by mechanical or electronic re-recording,... or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original. Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(4). A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (l) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. Federal Rule of Evidence 1003. (emphasis added)

 

     In violation of its own rules of evidence, as well as federal rules of evidence and Gambles best evidence rule, Kimberly A. Clark, Judge is refusing to allow Haywood Jackson Mizell and his forensic document experts inspection of the original promissory note and mortgage unit in lieu of the alleged certified copy introduced by reference by the Appellee in pleadings and during the June 19, 2019 hearing in above mentioned case.

     Haywood Jackson Mizell, Plaintiff/Appellant raises a genuine question regarding authenticity of alleged certified copy of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s promissory note and mortgage contract with plaintiff.

     This is a case of national importance. It is essential and exigent for this court to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering Kimberly a. Clark, Judge to allow Haywood Jackson Mizell, and his document experts, inspection of the original type written long form promissory note and mortgage unit with Haywood Jackson Mizell, in order to perform authentication of the alleged certified copy, referenced during the June 19, 2019 hearing.

     Such relief will not prejudice Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as WF has already released the alleged certified copy and inspection of the original cannot be prejudicial.

     There is no hardship on the defendant or Kimberly A. Clark, Judge, as defendant is not required to do anything, and Dale County Circuit Court and Dale County Probate Office routinely allow inspection of records.

     If the requested Writ of Mandamus is not granted, Appellant will be greatly prejudiced, as his case is intimately connected to the “original” certificate in question. Appellees introduced the alleged certified copy as proof of existence of the document in question on file and as basis for their position that the instant case needs to be dismissed. Without access to the original appellant cannot disprove allegations by the Appellees.

American Jurisprudence 2d Volume 25 §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." Thus, even against one without title, plaintiff cannot recover in ejectment unless he proves title or prior possession in himself;

 

     The legal title is all that is in issue in the action, and such title, when ascertained, whether in the plaintiff or in the defendant , draws to it THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. “Cloud over property” that made the value of the property ZERO and the property UN-MARKETABLE, can be removed. Then City of Ozark can purchase legal title by the exercise its power of Eminent Domain by paying just compensation.

CONCLUSION

     Judge Kimberly A. Clark assigned merit to a non-existent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. claim that can never be filed as proof into public record.

     On July 23, 2012 RE: Loan Number 708-012850779, I am responding on behalf of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (WFHM) to your complaint filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

     Enclosed is a copy of the Note you executed. We are not providing you with the original Note, because WFHM is not subject to USC Title 18, Part1, Chapter 101, Section 2071, as the Note was not deposited or filed with any judicial or public officer of the United States.

 

     Signed by Brooke Bosier, Executive Mortgage Specialist, Office of Executive Complaints, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

     Letter written August 31, 2012 by Amber Regan Executive Mortgage Specialist, Office of Executive Complaints, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. explains Wells Fargo’s policy RE: 708-0128507779.

     As stated in our prior responses to you WFHM does not disburse original documents. However, WFHM does have a valid loan and lien on this property.

 

     WFHM is consistent in the exercise of its policy. The proof of claim has never been filed into any case, including the instant Quiet Title Action Complaint, because a judge can be easily convinced by the unsworn and unverified statement of the barred attorney who represents WF in court. A sworn pro se presentation of Fact Witnesses is not to be believed. “Robo signers” are replaced by effective statement of attorneys without regard to truth facts. Peonage is re-instated by Wells Fargo, not abolished.

42 U.S. Code § 1994 - Peonage abolished

The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.

 

     Once the mortgage fraud is out front and known, it becomes apparent that the homeowner will never own his home property with a legal and unbroken chain of title, the homeowner then will realize that he was and will always be a tenant on his property making payments that will never purchase the home property, then he knows he is an involuntary indentured servant.

     Before the foreclosure auction, a notice of a misprision of felony was hand delivered to Honorable Judge William Filmore, Dale County Circuit Judge. It was ignored.

18 USC § 4 - Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

 

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".

 

     In Alabama, the eligible person, H. J. Mizell, who holds legal title to the real estate filed the quiet title action. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. had previously sold its interest in the property and does not have sufficient interest to participate in the Quiet Title Action. All that WF can do is slander the title.

The elements of a slander of title action under Alabama law are: (1) ownership of the property by plaintiff; (2) falsity of the words published; (3) malice of defendant in publishing the statements; (4) publication to some person other than the owner; (5) the publication must be in disparagement of plaintiff's property or the title thereof; and (6) that special damages were the proximate result of such publication. Ala. Code 1975, § 6–5–211. Buckentin v. SunTrust Mortg. Corp., 928 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (N.D. Ala. 2013) (applying Alabama law).

 

     Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has NO required Mortgage Banker Bond to secure its compliance with the mortgage contract and execute replevin.

"Replevied," used in its technical sense, means delivered to the owner (Steuer v. Maguire, 66 N. E. 706, 707; 182 Mass. 575, 576 (1903) while the words "to replevy" means to recover possession by an action of replevin. (Tillson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89870, May 28, 1991, 197 SCRA 587, 598).

 

     NO DEFAULT. A 2012 offer to pay in full was improperly refused. (See EX AFM).

 

     PETITIONER HAS NO REMEDY OTHER THAN THIS COURT MANDAMUS REQUEST. PROOF OF CLAIM MUST BE FILED FOR CONSIDERATION.

     Remedy in Maxim of Law.   In the delivery of writing, not what he said, but what is done is to be considered.

FOR WHAT ITS WORTH

     The real issue always at hand is distilled into one word, CONTROL. In the instant Quiet Title Action, Wells Fargo had sold the loan and was without lien yet took control so that the City of Ozark could take control of the property without an Eminent Domain procedure and appearing to gain control at a small fraction of the property value.

     In 2008, when earnest money had sealed a sale, Wells Fargo sabotaged the sale by reducing the property value to zero and making it unmarketable. Snipers on the roof and other law enforcement personnel were at the foreclosure auction to control the number of bidders, limiting the number to one.

     What do you call it when a bunch of companies colludes to set prices, fix markets, close off competition, capture regulators, and bribe politicians? We call it a cartel, right? Few have heard the term, BANKING CARTEL.

Nelson Rockefeller famously said, “The secret to success is to own nothing, but control everything.”

 

It is against equity to deprive freeman of the free disposal of their own property. Co. Litt. 223. See 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 455, 460.

 

     Big Central bank officials escape 20-year jail sentences because the corporations are considered by congress “too big to fail” even when the officials function as criminals making them what the FBI before congress has labeled as “criminal enterprises”. A multitude of crimes, at a minimum, avoid prosecution under Title 18 §1512(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit, and, with a flick of the pen, they will create enough money to buy it all back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.” - Lord Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1940.

 

     Slightly over the past decade, the one percent have amassed control of nearly forty-six percent of the nation’s assets up from less than ten percent two decades ago. Will “Proof of Claim” enforced by the Rule of Law prevail? Public officials work for the citizens not the other way around and especially not work for the CARTEL FICTION.

              

                         Respectfully submitted,

 

 

                          

                         ______________________________

                         Haywood Jackson Mizell, pro se

                                                            

         August 6, 2019

 

< Prev		Next >