Friday, June 14, 2013
Collect 2-million by paying the currier company...
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
$8,500,000.00 IN A BOX AT JFK...
Attention Beneficiary Henry Kroll ,
Greetings. We wish to inform you that we have finally succeeded in getting your consignment box containing $8,500,000 million USD cash out of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) with the help of Barrister Charles Kelvin, a Senior advocate at High Court of Justice Benin Republic who acted as your representing Attorney and legal counsel here in Benin Republic during the process. Be informed that every necessary arrangement has been successfully made with Diplomat Anthony Bryan appointed to handle the delivery of the Consignment Box to your doorstep because of his diplomatic experience, he advised that the sealed consignment Box should not be delivered as cash but should be disguised as box of ( Family Valuables ).
The good news is that he is currently at J.F.K Airport New York city with your Consignment Box but called me this morning to inform me that he destroyed your delivery information/details which he had with him due to Custom's disturbance at J.F.K Airport New york and questioning why the Box containing ( Family Valuables ) was sealed ECOWAS Diplomatic Seal. I thank God that his diplomatic immunity confirmed that his trip is clear and genuine without any suspicious intention to your country only to deliver that Consignment Box to you and return back to base so you are advice to reconfirm your full delivery information to the Agent Immediately.
.
Call him right now and send requested information because he has limited time to complete the delivery and has no time to waste.
Diplomat Agent : Mr. Anthony Bryan
Email : (diplomatanthonybryan@gmail.com)
Telephone : 917-310-7806
Delivery Information
(1) Your Full Name=============
(2) Current Home Address======
(3) Mobile / Phone Number =======
(4) City=====================
(5) Nearest Airport = =============
(6) A Copy of Your I D For Identification.
Give him your maximum cooperation to complete his mission. Very Urgent !!!.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr. George Anderson
MORTGAGE FRAUD IS LOOSING
Mortgage Fraud IS LOOSING
Foreclosure Cases are WINNNING!!!
Guys you will need to sign up. But is free and easy. This site is showing the good guys are fighting back. … PASS THIS AROUND!!!
Search for These cases: 07CV2282, 07CV2532, 07CV2560, 07CV2602, 07CV2631, 07CV2638, 07CV2681, 07CV2695, 07CV2920, 07CV2930, 07CV2949, 07CV2950, 07CV3000, 07CV3029,
=================================================
On December 27, 2007,Federal Judge John D. HOLSCHUH, of the Southern District of Ohio (Eastern DIvision) Dismissed an Additional Fourteen Mortgage Foreclosures due to the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate requisite standing to bring the action in Federal COurt. Judge HOLSCHUH’s action followed earlier rulings in October and November by three other Ohio Federal Judges, who had dismissed at least sixty-six (66) cases without prejudice due to the failure of plainitffs to demonstrate that they owned the mortgages at the inception of the Federal Court foreclosure actions.
Judge HOLSCHUH’s dismissal order was a follow-up to a previous show cause order he enterred on November 27, 2007, ordering the plaintiff’s lawyer to file a memorandum of law showing cause while these cases should not be dismissed. Judge HOLSHUH’s earlier show cause order was reported within LEXIS-NEXIS at:
In re Foreclosure Cases, Case Nos. 07-cv-166, 07-cv-190, 07-cv-226, 07-cv-279, 07-cv-423, 07-cv-534, 07-cv-536, 07-cv-642, 07-cv-670, 07-cv-706, 07-cv-714, 07-cv-727, 07-cv-731, 07-cv-963, 07-cv-999, 07-cv-1047, 07-cv-1091, 07-cv-1119, 07-cv-1150, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90812, November 27, 2007, Decided, November 27, 2007, Filed. [Judge John D. HOLSCHUH]
The militancy of Ohio Federal COurts in demanding that plaintiff’s show minimal standing by demonstrating actual ownership of the mortgages they are seeking to foreclose was first shown by Judge Christopher A. BOYKO in an order handed down on October 31, 2007, dismissing fourteen cases where plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK had filed assignments showing that it acquired interest in the mortgages AFTER the commencement of the suit. On November 14, 2007, Judge Kathleen M. O’MALLEY, also like Judge BOYKO of the Northern District (Eastern Division), handed down an order dismissing thirty-two (32) additional cases. The very next day (November 15, 2007), Judge Thomas M. ROSE, of the Southern District (Western Division) dismissed an additional twenty (20) cases.
With Judge HOLSHUH’s ruling, the BOYKO rationale seems to have now been embraced by four federal judges from two districts and both the Eastern and Western Division of the Southern District.
ALL three previous Ohio decisions are shown in the Legal Lounge at http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/lounge.html . See particularly, Judge BOYKO’s original Order (See http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche%20Bank%20Foreclosures%20Dismissed.pdf ). Hopefully, the webmaster will ADD Judge HOLSCHUH’s well reasoned decision, as well.
Attorney Peter L. Mehler, of Reimer, Lorber & Arnovitz Co., L.P.A., asserts within his USFN (a network of foreclosure plaintiff attorneys) article “OH: Federal Court Dismisses FCs en Masse for Lack of Standing” ( http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=8348&SECTION=Article_Library&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm ) that the BOYKO ruling has resulted in the dismissal of “well over 100 pending cases”. It is unclear what the basis is for this assertion, but it certainly SEEMS plausible. The three key orders cited above reflected bulk dismissals of cases brought by the SAME plaintiffs and seemingly the SAME attorney. It stands to reason that other dismissals of single cases wouldn’t have made the news. Moreover, it may very well be that plaintiffs realizing that they failed to meet the standing threashold may have taken a voluntary non-suit rather than incur the wrath of these Federal Judges and just await dismissal.
There ARE some published indications that at least Judge ROSE has enterred other orders to show cause since November 15, 2007:
HSBC Bank United States v. Rayford, Case No. 3:07-CV-428, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86215 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86214, November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
NovaStar Mortg., Inc. v. Riley, Case No. 3:07-CV-397, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR , November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
NovaStar Mortg. v. Grooms, Case No. 3:07-CV-395, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THETHE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86216, November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
There is admittedly a bit of a LEXIS reporting lag, so there may be some other show cause orders or dismissals that just haven’t been yet reported.
Trying to identify ALL of the federal cases DISMISSED as a consequence of the standing issue is challenging without reference to the names or parties or the cause numbers. WITH such information, the dismissal orders would presumably all be avilable through PACER.
*
Judge ROSE’s bulk dismissal order has also been published through LEXIS-NEXIS:
In re Foreclosure Cases, CASE NO. 3:07CV043, 07CV049, 07CV085, 07CV138, 07CV237, 07CV240, 07CV246, 07CV248, 07CV257, 07CV286, 07CV304, 07CV312, 07CV317, 07CV343, 07CV353, 07CV360, 07CV386, 07CV389, 07CV390, 07CV433, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84569, November 15, 2007, Decided, November 15, 2007, Filed [Judge THomas M. ROSE]
Similarly, Judge BOYKO’s dismissal order is also available through LEXIS-NEXIS:
In re Foreclosure Cases, CASE NO. NO.1:07CV2282, 07CV2532, 07CV2560, 07CV2602, 07CV2631, 07CV2638, 07CV2681, 07CV2695, 07CV2920, 07CV2930, 07CV2949, 07CV2950, 07CV3000, 07CV3029, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84011, October 31, 2007, Decided, October 31, 2007, Filed. [Judge Christopher A. BOYKO]
*
Gretchen MORGENSON, of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com), has reported the previous three Ohio federal court orders. Several Forum participants have cited Ms. MORGENSON’s articles in previous posts. The NY Times usually makes stories available online for FREE for thirty days. Thereafter, the stories are available in the fee-based Times Archive. Those not already familiar with this issue might want to review:
“Dubious Fees Hit Borrowers in Foreclosures”
By Gretchen MORGENSON
New York Times
November 6, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/06mortgage.html
“Foreclosures Hit a Snag for Lenders”
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
New York Times
November 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15lend.html
“Judge Demands Documentation in Foreclosures”
By Gretchen MORGENSON
NY Times
Nov. 17, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/business/17lend.html
It is unclear whether a fourth federal judge embracing the BOYKO reasoning is still national news.
*
As is well known to regular participants of the MS Fraud Forum, these Ohio federal court decisions have been the subject of spirited discussion. Several of the more spirited discussion threads are shown below:
“Judge halts foreclosures” http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2348972
“Another 27 foreclosures tossed-Boyko ruling cited”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2299367
“Ohio case might add to lender problems, Foreclosures blocked; ownership documents not produced in court”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2297748
“Major win in Ohio proves Nye’s arguments and contentions were right on target”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2288900
“The mess that Boyko made-a not so complimentary analysis” http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2321439
Bear in mind that this is NOT an exhaustive list of references to the BOYKO, ROSE and O’MALLEY Decisions. For a more comprehensive list of topical posts, use the MS Fraud Forum SEARCH facility with intuitive keywords like “BOYKO”, “O’MALLEY” and/or “ROSE”.
* * *
I am inclined to believe that the embrace of the BOYKO ruling by other federal judges reflects its likely durability and sustainability of that decision.
William A. Roper, Jr.
Posted 12/29/07 #2
I seem to be UNABLE to UPLOAD Judge John D. HOLSCHUH’s orders as these are Adobe Acrobat documents. If the webmaster contacts me, I will e-mail copies to post in the Legal Lounge.
In the interim, anyone desiring to have a copy of these orders should simply e-mail me.
Gary Wait
Posted 12/29/07 #3
The door is now being kicked wide open for the potential law suits against those that have already lost their home, or substantial amounts of money by lawyers working on the behalf of lenders that failed to do “Due Diligence” in researching their clients foreclosure!!
Secondly, Servicers that have not and could not, demonstrate their “Rights” under the mortgage or note contract to close could now see a flood of “Damage Claims” against them as well as their legal counsel’s.
When these courts find out that the very mortgages that were foreclosed upon are still being carried as “Performing Loans” as in the case’s of Litton Loan and CBASS who is going to go to jail for the “Frauds upon the Courts”? and Fraud against the damaged property owners?
I can tell you that time is on our side! As the more we learn of the Manufactured Foreclosure’s the deeper we will be able to go into corporations and their officers and directors. Many of you know I have said this several years ago, but with each passing day, more is learned of the network of property fraud.
These Courts have demonstrated their “Independence” by there brave decisions to go against the “Establishments” of the past that so many have come to expect as they proceeded into courts.
To those lawyers that drafted documents on behalf of their clients that were or are now in foreclosure a whole new area of legal malpractice, and negligence has been exposed. From the money laundering, etc.
A good new day is dawning! Happy New Year!
Guys you will need to sign up. But is free and easy. This site is showing the good guys are fighting back. … PASS THIS AROUND!!!
Search for These cases: 07CV2282, 07CV2532, 07CV2560, 07CV2602, 07CV2631, 07CV2638, 07CV2681, 07CV2695, 07CV2920, 07CV2930, 07CV2949, 07CV2950, 07CV3000, 07CV3029,
=================================================
On December 27, 2007,Federal Judge John D. HOLSCHUH, of the Southern District of Ohio (Eastern DIvision) Dismissed an Additional Fourteen Mortgage Foreclosures due to the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate requisite standing to bring the action in Federal COurt. Judge HOLSCHUH’s action followed earlier rulings in October and November by three other Ohio Federal Judges, who had dismissed at least sixty-six (66) cases without prejudice due to the failure of plainitffs to demonstrate that they owned the mortgages at the inception of the Federal Court foreclosure actions.
Judge HOLSCHUH’s dismissal order was a follow-up to a previous show cause order he enterred on November 27, 2007, ordering the plaintiff’s lawyer to file a memorandum of law showing cause while these cases should not be dismissed. Judge HOLSHUH’s earlier show cause order was reported within LEXIS-NEXIS at:
In re Foreclosure Cases, Case Nos. 07-cv-166, 07-cv-190, 07-cv-226, 07-cv-279, 07-cv-423, 07-cv-534, 07-cv-536, 07-cv-642, 07-cv-670, 07-cv-706, 07-cv-714, 07-cv-727, 07-cv-731, 07-cv-963, 07-cv-999, 07-cv-1047, 07-cv-1091, 07-cv-1119, 07-cv-1150, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90812, November 27, 2007, Decided, November 27, 2007, Filed. [Judge John D. HOLSCHUH]
The militancy of Ohio Federal COurts in demanding that plaintiff’s show minimal standing by demonstrating actual ownership of the mortgages they are seeking to foreclose was first shown by Judge Christopher A. BOYKO in an order handed down on October 31, 2007, dismissing fourteen cases where plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK had filed assignments showing that it acquired interest in the mortgages AFTER the commencement of the suit. On November 14, 2007, Judge Kathleen M. O’MALLEY, also like Judge BOYKO of the Northern District (Eastern Division), handed down an order dismissing thirty-two (32) additional cases. The very next day (November 15, 2007), Judge Thomas M. ROSE, of the Southern District (Western Division) dismissed an additional twenty (20) cases.
With Judge HOLSHUH’s ruling, the BOYKO rationale seems to have now been embraced by four federal judges from two districts and both the Eastern and Western Division of the Southern District.
ALL three previous Ohio decisions are shown in the Legal Lounge at http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/lounge.html . See particularly, Judge BOYKO’s original Order (See http://www.msfraud.org/law/lounge/Deutsche%20Bank%20Foreclosures%20Dismissed.pdf ). Hopefully, the webmaster will ADD Judge HOLSCHUH’s well reasoned decision, as well.
Attorney Peter L. Mehler, of Reimer, Lorber & Arnovitz Co., L.P.A., asserts within his USFN (a network of foreclosure plaintiff attorneys) article “OH: Federal Court Dismisses FCs en Masse for Lack of Standing” ( http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=8348&SECTION=Article_Library&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm ) that the BOYKO ruling has resulted in the dismissal of “well over 100 pending cases”. It is unclear what the basis is for this assertion, but it certainly SEEMS plausible. The three key orders cited above reflected bulk dismissals of cases brought by the SAME plaintiffs and seemingly the SAME attorney. It stands to reason that other dismissals of single cases wouldn’t have made the news. Moreover, it may very well be that plaintiffs realizing that they failed to meet the standing threashold may have taken a voluntary non-suit rather than incur the wrath of these Federal Judges and just await dismissal.
There ARE some published indications that at least Judge ROSE has enterred other orders to show cause since November 15, 2007:
HSBC Bank United States v. Rayford, Case No. 3:07-CV-428, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86215 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86214, November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
NovaStar Mortg., Inc. v. Riley, Case No. 3:07-CV-397, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR , November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
NovaStar Mortg. v. Grooms, Case No. 3:07-CV-395, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THETHE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86216, November 21, 2007, Decided, November 21, 2007, Filed. [Judge Thomas M. ROSE]
There is admittedly a bit of a LEXIS reporting lag, so there may be some other show cause orders or dismissals that just haven’t been yet reported.
Trying to identify ALL of the federal cases DISMISSED as a consequence of the standing issue is challenging without reference to the names or parties or the cause numbers. WITH such information, the dismissal orders would presumably all be avilable through PACER.
*
Judge ROSE’s bulk dismissal order has also been published through LEXIS-NEXIS:
In re Foreclosure Cases, CASE NO. 3:07CV043, 07CV049, 07CV085, 07CV138, 07CV237, 07CV240, 07CV246, 07CV248, 07CV257, 07CV286, 07CV304, 07CV312, 07CV317, 07CV343, 07CV353, 07CV360, 07CV386, 07CV389, 07CV390, 07CV433, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84569, November 15, 2007, Decided, November 15, 2007, Filed [Judge THomas M. ROSE]
Similarly, Judge BOYKO’s dismissal order is also available through LEXIS-NEXIS:
In re Foreclosure Cases, CASE NO. NO.1:07CV2282, 07CV2532, 07CV2560, 07CV2602, 07CV2631, 07CV2638, 07CV2681, 07CV2695, 07CV2920, 07CV2930, 07CV2949, 07CV2950, 07CV3000, 07CV3029, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84011, October 31, 2007, Decided, October 31, 2007, Filed. [Judge Christopher A. BOYKO]
*
Gretchen MORGENSON, of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com), has reported the previous three Ohio federal court orders. Several Forum participants have cited Ms. MORGENSON’s articles in previous posts. The NY Times usually makes stories available online for FREE for thirty days. Thereafter, the stories are available in the fee-based Times Archive. Those not already familiar with this issue might want to review:
“Dubious Fees Hit Borrowers in Foreclosures”
By Gretchen MORGENSON
New York Times
November 6, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/business/06mortgage.html
“Foreclosures Hit a Snag for Lenders”
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
New York Times
November 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15lend.html
“Judge Demands Documentation in Foreclosures”
By Gretchen MORGENSON
NY Times
Nov. 17, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/business/17lend.html
It is unclear whether a fourth federal judge embracing the BOYKO reasoning is still national news.
*
As is well known to regular participants of the MS Fraud Forum, these Ohio federal court decisions have been the subject of spirited discussion. Several of the more spirited discussion threads are shown below:
“Judge halts foreclosures” http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2348972
“Another 27 foreclosures tossed-Boyko ruling cited”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2299367
“Ohio case might add to lender problems, Foreclosures blocked; ownership documents not produced in court”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2297748
“Major win in Ohio proves Nye’s arguments and contentions were right on target”
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2288900
“The mess that Boyko made-a not so complimentary analysis” http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/ssgoldstar/vpost?id=2321439
Bear in mind that this is NOT an exhaustive list of references to the BOYKO, ROSE and O’MALLEY Decisions. For a more comprehensive list of topical posts, use the MS Fraud Forum SEARCH facility with intuitive keywords like “BOYKO”, “O’MALLEY” and/or “ROSE”.
* * *
I am inclined to believe that the embrace of the BOYKO ruling by other federal judges reflects its likely durability and sustainability of that decision.
William A. Roper, Jr.
Posted 12/29/07 #2
I seem to be UNABLE to UPLOAD Judge John D. HOLSCHUH’s orders as these are Adobe Acrobat documents. If the webmaster contacts me, I will e-mail copies to post in the Legal Lounge.
In the interim, anyone desiring to have a copy of these orders should simply e-mail me.
Gary Wait
Posted 12/29/07 #3
The door is now being kicked wide open for the potential law suits against those that have already lost their home, or substantial amounts of money by lawyers working on the behalf of lenders that failed to do “Due Diligence” in researching their clients foreclosure!!
Secondly, Servicers that have not and could not, demonstrate their “Rights” under the mortgage or note contract to close could now see a flood of “Damage Claims” against them as well as their legal counsel’s.
When these courts find out that the very mortgages that were foreclosed upon are still being carried as “Performing Loans” as in the case’s of Litton Loan and CBASS who is going to go to jail for the “Frauds upon the Courts”? and Fraud against the damaged property owners?
I can tell you that time is on our side! As the more we learn of the Manufactured Foreclosure’s the deeper we will be able to go into corporations and their officers and directors. Many of you know I have said this several years ago, but with each passing day, more is learned of the network of property fraud.
These Courts have demonstrated their “Independence” by there brave decisions to go against the “Establishments” of the past that so many have come to expect as they proceeded into courts.
To those lawyers that drafted documents on behalf of their clients that were or are now in foreclosure a whole new area of legal malpractice, and negligence has been exposed. From the money laundering, etc.
A good new day is dawning! Happy New Year!
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Won lottery share millions pay Courier Service
|
10:29 PM (9 hours ago)
 | | ||
| ||||
Our Valued Customer:
You are welcome to World Courier Services, where every services rendered are unique. You are to provide to us your mailling address that your parcel will be sent to.
please fill this form below;
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
MOBILE:
COUNTRY:
For delivery outside UK, please make use of our International Services. Once you have made a choice, do get back to us via e-mail, phone or fax with your choice so we can process your tracking number and delivery via your prefferred choice.
Customers from Lottery offices are not expected to make use of the (Next Day, inbound only) or (INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT SERVICES (BULKY GOODS). please take note of this.
Understand that the World Courier Services will not take responsibility of your delivery charges. To avoid delays in processing or delivery, ensure you make a choice that is affordable to you.
Delivery will not be made to any third party as this is against our policy and it also protects your parcel from wrong delivery or theft. Payments must be effected by the Authorized owners and all payments must be from their names and address other wise, it would not be accepted or confirmed. This is part of our security measures.
Make a choice from our delivery options below;
City Link Couriers Services. (Rates & Transit Time)
Get back to us with your prefferred choice.
Your satisfaction is guaranteed.
Mrs. Julia Parker
Dispatch Officer
Tel : +447031742970
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1994-2013 City Link Courier Services
All rights reserved..
Confidentiality Note:
The information contained in this message is confidential and/or privileged. This message is intended to be read only by the person named above. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee, (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), please notify the originator by return message and destroy the original message
Sunday, June 9, 2013
How to win in court & UCC 1-207 explained
Dean Clifford, Menard, Bonacci and others are discovering how to win in court. Type their names into youtube.
I was saddled with two ten-year-long lawsuits. The lawyers and Judges drag these things out because they are making money off you. I wound up spending over $250,000 in legal fees for nothing. You only have forty years of useful productive life from age 25 to 65. After that, for the most part you are too old and disabled to start over building a retirement. Before age 25 you usually don’t know what to do with the rest of your life and you lack education. Two of these ten-year-long lawsuits will take half of your useful productive life away and there is nothing more wasteful. It wasn’t until I fired my lawyers that I started winning. Now that I understand how these very destructive type of lawsuits work they will never bother me again. The only problem now is that I am 69 years old and have wasted most of my life fighting bogus lawsuits before I got wise. Here is what you must do:
When you go into court and you are asked to state your name, say:
I am the Executor and Beneficiary of the last will and testament of God.
What is your standing here?
Are you the Trustee?
What is your claim?
Who are you?
What is your name?
I am administrating here. (You have to establish what roles the various people are playing in the courtroom. Once you have that established you are free to go.)
All courts use corporate law. There has to be three officers to make a corporation.
Corporate Law is the highest law in the land. It is god’s Law. It is the Holy Trinity. The Bible is God’s Last Will and Testament. Picture a triangle with God at the top and Jesus at lower left. Then you have the Holy Ghost at lower right. In a courtroom situation the Judge is the Executor/executioner at the top. The Holy Ghost is the corporate government at the right. The Holy Ghost government and the God/Executor/executioner is all the same thing while you are the beneficiary. Everyone in the courtroom is there for one thing: to take something from you rather it be your trust/money/life savings/insurance, house, land etc. or in some cases even your, life. Not much has changed since the days of the Inquisition...
All contract/corporate law operates by presumption. Practically every court in the land uses this highest form of law. They automatically turn your name into a corporate fiction with all capital letters so that the corporate/contract law will apply to your corporate fiction.
Under contract law you never want to be the trustee and you never want the Judge to be the Executor. Under contract law a person (you are a person or dead animal defined in Blacks Law) cannot hold the office of Beneficiary and Trustee or Executor and that’s exactly what is going on in the courtroom. In a courtroom the government holds two offices, the Executor/Judge and the Trustee who wants what you have. They want to throw you in jail, take away your trust and birth bond which is worth millions.
The Judge is not the Executor but he wants you to presume that he is. In reality, he is working for the government who is the trustee. His paycheck comes from the government but he gets a big bonus if he puts someone in jail. In most cases he also has his retirement pension invested in prison stocks therefore everyone he puts in prison benefits the prison company stockholders and fellow Judges...
The government holds everything in trust for the people. So when you walk into a courtroom you automatically have two corporate entities trying to get something from you rather it be for you to confess to a crime you did not do or to take something from you like your house, land, inheritance, IRA, life insurance etc., etc. You are the one that owns something that the lawyers want to get.
You can nullify all that right off if you establish what rolls the people are playing in the courtroom.
When you hire a lawyer to re-present you he has previously sworn an oath to the Barr Association that supersedes any kind of commitment that he has to re-present you. Therefor you have hired someone who is automatically on the side of the government. For the most part any money you give him for a retainer to re-present you is a big waste of money unless you know the attorney is really working for you and has a good chance of winning. About 3 percent of defendants actually win a case. Your odds of actually winning a case with a lawyer are quite small.
You then have a very small chance to contest this by asking the question: “Can I be bound to a contract when my lawyer has a superseding oath?” You can say: “He didn’t provide full disclosure and my lawyer allowed the trial to go forward with the “Presumption” that the Judge is both the Administrator and Executor (executioner).
Before you have been suckered into one of these contract courtrooms you definitely must establish a CLAIM OF RIGHT. Simply ask in writing: “Please provide proof of claim for something that you are alleging that I cannot do.” State: “My rights have a fee attached. My offers are non-negotiable. Violating any of my God given rights is a fee of ten-million dollars. You got 21 days to respond.
“Send me some facts or evidence of something I cannot do!”
Say: “I plead guilty to the facts.”
All bureaucrats are non-productive entities. All they produce is paperwork. They need us because we are the only ones producing things. All others are parasites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UCC 1-207
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UCC 1-207
Every
system of law has Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way out under the law.
Recourse
provides that if you have been damaged under the law you can recover your loss.
When
you go to court you are in Commercial
International Jurisdiction. If you claim Constitutional Rights you can
be charged with Contempt of Court.
You can’t be charged under one Jurisdiction and defend
yourself in another!
So: In a UCC Court
you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.
The proper answer is: “The Law doesn’t apply to me.” Then
you must make your reservation in which you are charged. UCC 1-207.
“Without Prejudice” is OK
When asked to explain say: “I reserve my right not to be
compelled to perform under any contract on Commercial Agreement that I did not
enter knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.” “I don not accept the
liability of the compelled benefit of any unreserved contract or Commercial
Agreement.”
UCC 1-203.6 ANDERSON
“The code is
complimentary to the Common Law which remains in force except where displaced
by the Code. A statute should be constructed in harmony with the Common
Law, unless there is a clear Legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.
UCC 1-206 ANDERSON Uniform Code Lawyers Cooperative
Publishing Company:
“The code cannot be read to preclude Common Law.”
Section UCC 103.c Say:
“I have a remedy under the UCC, to reserve my rights under
Common Law. I have exercised the remedy and now you must construe this statute
in harmony with the Common Law. To be in Harmony with Common Law you must come
forth with the damaged party.”
If the Judge proceeds then ask: “Let me see if I understand.
Your Honor, has the court made a , legal determination that Section 1-207 and
1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code which is the system of Law you are
operating under are not valid law before this court?
If the answer is yes then say: “I put this court on notice
that I am appealing your legal determination. The higher court will uphold the
Code on appeal.”
When you sign a driver’s license, lease, buy a car,
snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, divorce decree etc. or any
other document you have a right to draw a line through anything that is not in
your interest. It can be a number, a word or group of words. A contract must
have all of the contract in full disclosure at the time of signing. Add: Seller
makes no express guarantees of sea worthiness or condition. Add: “UCC 1-207” or
“Without Prejudice” then sign your name.
VERY URGENT DO NOT OPEN THIS E-MAIL..
VERY URGENT!!!
PLEASE CIRCULATE
In the coming days, DO NOT open any message with an attachment called: BLACK MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE ,regardless of who sent it to you. It is a virus that opens an Olympics torch that burns the whole hard disk C of your computer. This virus comes from a known person who you have in your list.
Directions: You should send this message to all of your contacts. It is better to receive this e-mail 25 times than to receive the virus and open it. If you receive a message called BLACK MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE even if sent by a friend, do not open, and shut down your machine immediately. It is the worst virus announced by CNN. This new virus has been discovered recently it has been classified by Microsoft as the virus most destructive ever.
This virus was discovered yesterday afternoon by McAfee.. There is no repair yet for this kind of virus. This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the hard disk, where vital information function is stored.
PLEASE CIRCULATE
In the coming days, DO NOT open any message with an attachment called: BLACK MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE ,regardless of who sent it to you. It is a virus that opens an Olympics torch that burns the whole hard disk C of your computer. This virus comes from a known person who you have in your list.
Directions: You should send this message to all of your contacts. It is better to receive this e-mail 25 times than to receive the virus and open it. If you receive a message called BLACK MUSLIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE even if sent by a friend, do not open, and shut down your machine immediately. It is the worst virus announced by CNN. This new virus has been discovered recently it has been classified by Microsoft as the virus most destructive ever.
This virus was discovered yesterday afternoon by McAfee.. There is no repair yet for this kind of virus. This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the hard disk, where vital information function is stored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)