[Jerseee]

Networth2,



Take heed to Ice's post. I will answer your questions to me.





<font color=red>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?[/color]



Usually an application can be used as a negotiable instrument as well. I asked this because I was not sure if this was a mortgage or another type of loan.



<font color=red>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.[/color]



If you do a UCC search with the state and not the county and there is not one filed with the state--then you may have something that is not frivilous. However, does the county have its own tax? If so, you can use your remedy to satisfy this fraud too.



If the bank hired the attorney--I would demand that they verify the debt. In the meantime, you should write all three CRAs and demand that they verify the debt as well. THis is listed on the credit report. Demand that they verify the debt--when they can't verify the debt--it does not exist. They have 30 days to do this--give them 60. In any event, you want to see the original note and a contract is not validation of a debt as the contract is not the consideration but only outlines the terms of the deal.



There are a host of things that can be debt instruments as long as they have the elements of a negotiable instrument. Which even a napkin can be used as one.



If the bank can prove it was at risk--they have a claim. And making payments is not the issue. You must first learn to stop defending yourself when accused and stop offering testimony that can be used against you. If you admit to making payments (no matter how honest it may seem) you admit to the debt. If there was no valid debt--then why are you making payments? Do you see that?



Why would you bring up jurisdiction? Answer that and you should be able to see if you can use it or not.



When I said file a declaration--I was talking about the land patent declaration. File it with the recorder--that too is public notice. Now if anyone wants to rebut that they can--wouldn't you like to see if the bank is going to try to get a land patent--they can't.





<font color=red>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.[/color]



I understand procedure but how can you admit or deny something that may or may not be valid? You cannot perjure yourself and you cannot be forced to admit to something you have no first hand knowledge of. If you can prove that the debt is valid--then there would be no need to ask for verification. You now know they need to establish a controversy through procedure--find a way to stay in line with procedure but not with what they want you to do. Admit to a debt. It may be proceudre but it can be duress too.