What about the write downs

[monk3]

I have a ? If I understand the banking ****, in short my debt to the bank is their asset right or wrong?

So my question is that if these banks are writing down billions in assets, then that means the are writing down my debt. and if so does that mean if it can be proven so that it should roll down hill to the customer? I know they will never say it should, but could it be argued in court that if they can not show a note then it proves the note was part of a write down??

Maybe a stretch but I was just wondering what you all thought about this and if there is any foundation for this argument.

[ezrhythm]

If you challenge them to produce the original wet ink endorsed note in court, they will not be able to produce it. Hence, mortgage discharged!
Though it is said that it is better if they draw you in to court.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

If you challenge them to produce the original wet ink endorsed note in court, they will not be able to produce it. Hence, mortgage discharged!
Though it is said that it is better if they draw you in to court.

Haha, yeah, right. This being the 21st century, photocopying of documents is standard practice. The Federal Rules of Evidence and analogous state court rules of evidence permit photocopies of documents to be admitted into evidence all the time. So unless you can prove forgery- that it's not really a photocopy of your valid signature from the original note - you're going to lose.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Haha, yeah, right. This being the 21st century, photocopying of documents is standard practice. The Federal Rules of Evidence and analogous state court rules of evidence permit photocopies of documents to be admitted into evidence all the time. So unless you can prove forgery- that it's not really a photocopy of your valid signature from the original note - you're going to lose.

LAWDOG is absolutely right, but only if there are attorneys for both the plaintiff and defendant, and both agree to accept copies. Copies are allowed by the court and attorneys. However, and the big however, is if you challenge the authenticity of the copy of the instrument, there becomes a great problem with the case. You can always allow the court(all actors) to proceed anyway, and hence, your consent that a copy is still ok will be assumed.

Once again, LAWDOG speaks half truths, and if you drink his coolaide, your goose is cooked.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Once again, LAWDOG speaks half truths, and if you drink his coolaide, your goose is cooked.

I will walk you through it step by step:

1) the subpoena specifies a personal appearance - served on the 16th for a foreclosure hearing on the 22nd. Note especially that duces tecum calls for the original note.

2) when the homeowner showed up on the 22nd he found out he had missed and defaulted on the secret and surprise foreclosure hearing on the 17th - the day after the subpoena was served. Note that once the action is on the docket they reveal - admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

3) the homeowner is so angry that he returns a bill of indictment on the magistrate who blindsided him (three attachments).

4) since all rulings from the magistrate were from a vacant office, no governmental immunity against a lien on all his property - even his airplane and private hangar.




Regards,

David Merrill.

[Lawdog]

Note that the third attachment from DiM states that the grantor/grantee index for the county shows no oath of office filed by a Robert Erler.

So what? Grantor/grantee indexes are for LAND DEEDS. Even assuming Colorado requires written copies of oaths of office to be filed, why the hell would they be in the LAND DEED RECORDS?

I guess you have to ask the voices in DiM's head.

[Lawdog]

Duplicate post deleted

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by moishanb

LAWDOG is absolutely right, but only if there are attorneys for both the plaintiff and defendant, and both agree to accept copies. Copies are allowed by the court and attorneys. However, and the big however, is if you challenge the authenticity of the copy of the instrument, there becomes a great problem with the case. You can always allow the court(all actors) to proceed anyway, and hence, your consent that a copy is still ok will be assumed.

Once again, LAWDOG speaks half truths, and if you drink his coolaide, your goose is cooked.

The Kool-Aid, little boy, is peddled by those with no legal training who think that owning a copy of some law dictionary makes them an expert.

If you allege that the photocopy of a note is not valid, then you will have to put on some evidence to that effect. And a jury would certainly be allowed to compare the note photocopy to authentic examplars of your signature, such as on cancelled bank checks. Or someone who saw you sign the original could certainly testify to that fact.

The idea that the bank can only win if they can produce the original note is ludicrous mythology.

[gldskr]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Haha, yeah, right. This being the 21st century, photocopying of documents is standard practice. The Federal Rules of Evidence and analogous state court rules of evidence permit photocopies of documents to be admitted into evidence all the time. So unless you can prove forgery- that it's not really a photocopy of your valid signature from the original note - you're going to lose.

Here's the problem with this logic. If lenders have no problem archiving and filing photocopies of documents, why do they always conveniently lose the original? As you say, this is the 21st century, but even if it was the 18th, wouldn't you put your important documents in a secure place. Perhaps a cardboard box in a safe?

Because of present technology, photocopies can be manipulated quite easily. So if losing originals seem to be habitual, perhaps regulation of records is in order.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Note that the third attachment from DiM states that the grantor/grantee index for the county shows no oath of office filed by a Robert Erler.

So what? Grantor/grantee indexes are for LAND DEEDS. Even assuming Colorado requires written copies of oaths of office to be filed, why the hell would they be in the LAND DEED RECORDS?

It goes to jurisdiction. Without the oath the suit is void.

gldskr

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by gldskr

It goes to jurisdiction. Without the oath the suit is void.

gldskr

No, it goes to DiM being delusional. Even if the magistrate judge's oath of office is required to be recorded with the county clerk, it would not be in the records which are reserved for LAND DEEDS. What part of "an oath of office does not pertain to an interest in land" do you NOT get, son?

Besides, this is another example of where DiM can't produce any proof of success. He never does. Never, ever will you see him post images or links that can be checked against something in public records for verification purposes.

But this is hardly surprising. After all, if DiM's methods worked as well as he claimed, why did he spend time in jail?