SJ, thanks for the links. They've been very helpful. Did you get my post to you in another forum? I haven't received a response to it yet.



RPT, I appreciate the link you gave me. I researched many of the files to get an idea on Answers to Complaints. Exactly what I was looking for, even though it's on a different topic.



Jerseee,



Thanks for the response...

Quote:

how did the law firm get involved? Did the bank hire them or did they sell the debt to them?

The bank hired them

Quote:

If they are representing the bank--ask for certified verification of the debt. If they know this debt to be valid, they should have no problem writing a letter and signing it attesting this fact or alleged fact. source USC 15 chapter 41

In my studies of local and federal rules of procedure, If I am going to acknowledge myself as the trustee of the commercial "person" they list as Defendant (I'm still in question as to whether or not this is the best thing to do), I have to submit an "Answer to Complaint", which would "admit", "deny", or state that "Defendant is without sufficient information and leaves Plaintiff to his proof."



Because both the Local and Federal Rules of Evidence require that an original be produced, I am going to assert that "Defendant is without sufficient information as to whether or not any obligation exists until an original promissory note is produced (and then list the local statute that requires an original be produced to prove their position that there is even a debt).



This being said, if I answer this one claim of theirs on this basis, I'm wondering if I need to ask them for certified verification of the debt. Or is this something entirely different than asking for the original promissory note as proof that they are in possession of it?

Quote:

Next thought, have you verified that there is an IRS lien? Did someone tell you or did you see it filed against your person? Do a UCC 3 search and find out if this is true. If it is not true, you can use that certified search results in your favor of course. Most of the time it is not filed with the county or state. Do both and even that demands verification (believe it or not).

It was filed May 4 at the county recorder and can be viewed online. The attorney also submitted this with their Summons as an exibit. Are you saying that I should ask them for certified verification? There are other local rules of evidence that allows copies of documents if they have been recorded and stamped with the county. I'm thinking that this is sufficient for the court, and asking for more proof may be considered a "frivolous" request by the judge.

Quote:

Now back to the law firm....did you know that purchasing evidence is a felony? How did the law firm become party to this situation?

Not sure where you would be going with this. I can only assume that the bank called them up when they ran a title search and found the IRS lien on the property, as well as the title transferred from my (and my wife's) name, into the name of an asset protection trust. With my dispute with the contractor and the IRS lien and the transfer of title, they handed it over to their attorney.

Quote:

Ask to see the original application that the bank should have. this is evidence of the debt.

By "original application" are you talking about the original "promissory note" or just the application I filled out and submitted to the mortgage broker. I don't think the application has any weight does it? I'm also a mortgage broker. We hold onto the original applications of our clients and they would be easy to obtain if the lender needed to produce them. They would simply call us and ask for them. It's the promissory note and trust deed that are the negotiable and debt instruments right?

Quote:

Was the bank at risk of losing something?

This is what is so completely absurd. They held a first position lien on the title. They had no risk at all. I have made timely payments and have always been on top of the progress of the project (construction). This is one of the issues I plan to bring up in a counter-claim.

Quote:

These are all valid questions--and I don't think this situation is warranted for demanding jursidicational issues. This looks to be commerce only.

I assume you are saying that I should not question jurisdiction.

Quote:

RPT is correct in that the land patent may take time but to declare it I think is another story. I'm not sure about this but file your declaration with the county--as this is public notice as well.

When you say, "file your declaration," I assume you are talking about a notice during pretrial conferences or the discovery process. I can't really declare anything in my Answer to the Complaint, since I have 15 more days to file my Answer, and I won't have the land patent completed by that time.

Quote:

Do everything in writing and do not discuss such matters over the phone. Don't forget your remedy, involve the use of a notary and never argue.

I have read many threads on the issue of arguing vs questioning. However, the way the administrative and prodedural process of these cases are set up, it is adversarial by nature, and when claims are made, I must admit, deny, or question the validity of the claims. Although I can question validity by requesting verification and originals, there are many issues that I must either admit or deny. Rules of procedure dictate the process and even the words I must use in responding to certain claims.



I appreciate all of your considerations