Jersee,



The reason I'm questioning jurisdiction is NOT whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the pretrial hearing and the subject matter of whether or not the bank should be allowed to foreclose. This is the way the Complaint was structured. I have not yet been foreclosed on. The bank is asking the court for permission to foreclose on the loan BECAUSE of the above listed defaults they are claiming.



My question on jurisdiction would be on the matter of the IRS lien. Because the United States Government has no jurisdiction in the court the plaintiff filed his complaint, the IRS lien (which isn't valid anyway) a moot point and is void. If it is void, the use of it as evidence to support a default is baseless.



So my thought on jurisdiction is simply to question or challenge their claim of a default because of an IRS lien "on the grounds of subject matter jurisdiction." The state court has no jurisdiction to rule over federal matters that involve the United States. Am I on the right path here?



In my Answer to the Complaint, I have to respond to each of the individual issues in the Plaintif's complaint. I can't just respond to one of them. However, because the basis of the Complaint hinges on the allegation that there is or was a promissory note, all other issues are subordinate to this one point. If the bank cannot prove that there is a debt by certified verification of the debt, then all other issues are moot, correct?



So, here's where I'm headed...



The Complaint has 9 paragraphs that I must answer. I list them below, with my proposed "answer" to each. I'm polishing my gun before I load it with ammo! ;-)



Par 1

The caption of the Complaint lists my and my wife's corporate persons "Husband and Wife" as the Defendant, along with the contractor, the Trustee for my Trust (under which I transferred title), The US of A, "through its Internal Revenue Service", and the Contractor.



First, my corporate person is listed as a Defendant. But then my individual name is used in the body of the Complaint (using both upper & lower case letters). I could challenge misidentification by telling them they served me as an individual, but listing a fictitious entity as the Defendant. I'm wondering if anyone has challenged a Summons/Complaint, based on misidentification, and caused the opposing side to restructure the Complaint with the correct "spelling". I'm not sure how this would be done.



Secondly, because it lists 4 Defendants (1) me and my wife, (2) the trustee of my trust, (3) the USA, and (4) the contractor, I would like to request that I be tried separately as one defendant.



Par 2

Claims that I executed and delivered to plaintiff a Promissory Note, and states that it is attached as Exhibit 1.



If I am going QUESTION everything, as opposed to DEFENDING or ARGUING everything, then my stance should probably be as follows:



Defendant is without sufficient information about a promissory note and leaves plaintiff to prove that a debt exists by following local and federal rules of evidence, requiring the original document to be produced in order to substantiate this claim.



I'm wondering if I should specifically use the words 'Promissory Note", asking for them to produce it, rather than just asking them to prove that a debt exists. Is this one in the same?



Par 3

Claims that "...as part of the loan agreement, [i] executed a deed of trust on certain real property described therein... attached as Exhibit 2"



My answer would basically be the same as above, with the exception of replacing the "debt" or "promissory note" used above with "deed of trust". I'm just wondering if this is the original would be produced without a hitch by the bank.



Par 4

Claims that I am "in breach under the terms of the Note and Trust Deed by reason of (1) [my] unauthorized transfer of the real property to [my trust], (2) allowing an IRS lien to be placed on the real property, and (3) by terminating the contractor."



My answer to this could be:



Defendant is without sufficient information and leaves plaintiff to prove that there is a debt, or any agreement by Defendant not to transfer property into a trust. Furthermore, plaintiff is left to prove that there is a lien by the United States Government and its Internal Revenue Service against the real property, since recording a notice of a lien is neither sufficient evidence of an actual lien, nor does this court have subject matter jurisdiction over federal issues. Defendant is also without sufficient information that any agreement exists wherby defendant agreed to obtaining plaintiff's consent on certain matters.



Par 5

Claims that I owe them the full amount of the loan, together with interest...



My answer would be the same as Par 1 above



Par 6

Claims that the "Defendant United States of America", claims an interest in the real property... by reason of a tax lien, filed on _____"



Because it is a "Notice of tax lien", it is NOT a tax lien as stated in the Complaint. It is also NOT a lien against the real property since the United States of America has no jurisdiction in matters of the State.



So, I'm wondering if I should out right deny that a lien exists, or if I should again state that...



Defendant is without sufficient information to conclude that a lien exists on the above-entitled real property and leaves the plaintiff to prove that the United States of America has jurisdiction over real property that is within a State, whose purpose is to protect its citizens.



Par 7

Claims that the trustee of my Trust claims and interest in the real property "which is subject to and inferior to plaintiff's interest."



If I stay on the same line of "questioning" or asking for proof, rather than "denying" or "arguing", it would seem logical to answer...



Defendant is without sufficient information to conclude that the Plaintiff has a superior interest in the real property by means of a promissory note that indebted Defendant to Plaintiff, and leaves Plaintiff to prove that a debt exists.



Par 8

Claims that the contractor claims an interest in the real property by reason of a construction lien, filed without proper notice to plaintiff, and therefore inferior to plaintiff's superior position...



Defendant is without sufficient information to accept the validity of construction lien, or that contractor holds an inferior position to any superior position, and leaves Plaintiff to prove that any debt exists by the Defendant which would give plaintiff any position in the above-entitled real property.



Par 9

Claims the "the Note and Trust Deed provides for an award of attorney fees in any action brought to enforce the terms of the Note and Trust Deed."



Again, if the rules of evidence requires them to produce the original note in order to prove there is a legitimate debt, and if they can't or won't produce it, then everything else is moot, then basing my Anwer to each of the complaints will basically be the same, ie



Defendant is without sufficient information about any agreement to an award of attorneys fees to the prevailing party, but would accept an award of court costs from the Plaintiff to Defendant, and leaves the Plaintiff to prove a debt exists by producing the original document.



I am also considering a Counter-claim in my answer, but don't have this fully baked yet. Still studying furiously!



The biggest concern I have is HOW I structure my answer. A "pre-trial conference" is scheduled for Sept 29. Because this is NOT the actual trial itself, the pre-trial hearing is scheduled for the purposes of "setting the stage" by laying out the framework of the trial itself. If I don't bring up certain issues now, I won't be able to bring them up later (generally speaking).



During the pre-trial conference, the judge, the opposing side, and me will discuss how long we think the trial will take, how many witnesses (if any), what type of discovery, motions, etc. we believe will need to be made before the trial, all for the purposes of efficient case management (expeditious trials so they can move as many through the system as possible).



With this said (in in conclusion.... No, really, I promise), if I structure my answers ALL in such a way that they question the validity of the Plaintiff's actual claim itself, then virtually all of the paragraphs in the complaint will be questioning the validity of any debt. For if no debt exists, then the very issue itself is meaningless.



Lastly (no, really, I mean it this time...), there are several other issues I can bring up, such as "was the bank at risk?", but wouldn't this indirectly acknowledge that there was some agreement? If I bring these issues up, it would seem that I would be dangerously close to admitting that there was some agreement between me and the bank.



So whatta ya think?