An update on foreclosure

iamfreeru2 · #1 10-01-2004, 09:45 AM

Hello all,

Just to give you an update on our foreclosure. On Sept 29 we sent out a CA letter with the proposed order attached CAFV to the attorney, judge and clerk of court. The CA letter and attachment was received by the court yesterday and the attorney should receive it today. The ball is now in their court and we are awaiting a response. It has been now 14 days since the hearing date and 9 days since the judge was supposed to sign the order, which he has not done. The problem the Plaintiff has is proving their claim. If there is no proof of claim or there is a lack of response on their part they will be in deep cxxp.

What we could have done is avoid all this in the first place. If we had gotten the stipulation (evidence of agreement) before the hearing, we would not have to be doing this now. The key people is get the agreement of the other party before you go to court. If you have an agreement can they win? I think not.

What we are doing, if it works, can be chalked up as a win for Redemption. Will it work? That remains to be seen, but I can say it is right on the money. If there is agreement of the parties, guess what, there is no more war and it is taken care of honorably. Once there is no diuspute and you settle out of court then the court loses it's power. If everyone was able to do this the attorneys and the courts would have no more work and would be out of jobs. This would be a good thing, would it not? The best thing is YHWH gets the credit and the glory for it because does not His word say to agree with your opponent before you are taken to court?

When we were in court the judge said when we said: "The Secured Party has not seen or been presented with any material fact or evidence that the debt has not been discharged by the tender of the foreign Bill of Exchange." The Judge said. "Yes there is, you have been sued." No that is not evidence, but what he was saying is that we did not have a agreement. If there had been the evidence presented from us that we had the stipulation from the other party of the agreement that would have changed the entire proceeding. In fact if we had that I dought we would have had to even go to court and we would have the deed to the property now.

What I am saying is why go to war when you can get the other party to agree by stipulation. It is simple folks. Why make it difficult? I have learned so much through this process and am still learning. The day I stop learning and say that I know all there is to know about Redemption or any process and close my mind like others I know have done that bash it, then put me six feet under.

iamfreeru2

iamfreeru2 · #2 10-01-2004, 03:51 PM

Do not know what this means. We received a packet from the MC today that is dated September 23 that says: "In order for us to review your request for assistance, the following information must be completed and returned." This is dated 6 days after summary judgment was given to the MC. It looks like they want us to ask for assistance and reinstate the alleged loan. We asked for no such assistance from them. This is being put in W file.

It is very interesting as well that there is still no signed order. This is just helping our cause and is not over by a long shot. The saga continues.

iamfreeru2

gregtu · #3 10-01-2004, 04:39 PM

Sounds like they're trying to get you to validate the debt, or better yet get you back into a contract. Just my 2 cents.

iamfreeru2 · #4 10-02-2004, 09:04 AM

Gregtu,

I agree with your assessment. This is just a ploy to get us back under contract. My wife said they probaly believe we are fearful of losing the house. That may be, but they are soon in for a rude awakening.

The attorney was delivered the CA and CAFV yesterday. The 10 day response starts now and we will see what happens. I do not think a response will be forthcoming.

As of yesterday the order has still not been signed and entered. The judge now has the CA and CAFV to think about. The stamp below is what was stamped on the back of the CAFV proposed order.

ACCEPTED FOR VALUE UPON PROOF OF CLAIM THAT THE ALLEGED ACCOUNT/CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY AND THROUGH TENDER OF PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192 OF JUNE 5, 1933 (HJR 192) PUBLIC LAW 73-10, AS QUOTED IN GUARANTEE TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. HENWOOD 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847 (1939), (EMERGENCY BANKING RELIEF ACT OF MARCH 9, 1933), PUBLIC LAW 89-719 AND UCC 3-603(b)

ACCEPTED FOR VALUE UPON PROOF OF CLAIM THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA IS EXEMPT FROM HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 192Â* OF JUNE 5, 1933 (HJR 192) PUBLIC LAW 73-10, AS QUOTED IN GUARANTEE TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v HENWOOD 307 U.S. 247, 59 S.Ct. 847 (1939), (EMERGENCY BANKING RELIEF ACT OF MARCH 9, 1933), PUBLIC LAW 89-719

Â*Â*Â*ACCOUNT#_______________

Date: ______________________________

by: __________________________________

iamfreeru2

weishaupt1776 · #5 10-02-2004, 09:32 AM

[color=black][b]Fine Job, Fine Job.

BTY, is it necessary to attach your HJR & PL references as exhibits and indicate they are attached within the four corners CA4V & then number every page 1 of 1, 2 of 2, etc. . .?

iamfreeru2 · #6 10-02-2004, 09:47 AM

Weis,

I do not believe that is necessary, but someone else may want to chime in on that. I think once we have the Notarial Protest memorializing their (MC) stipulation that the BoE is suffuicient it won't matter. By not signing and entering the order that has just given us the time needed to complete this process.

iamfreeru2

iamfreeru2 · #7 10-05-2004, 04:29 PM

Okay here is another update.

Still no order from the court in the file, on-line or in the mail. It is going on three weeks now. The attorney for the plaintiff has been most helpful in letting us know what to do to bring this to a close. In that I mean the stipulation letter we sent was responded to and we were told what correction to make to get the stipulation that the tendered BoE is sufficient to discharge the debt. Another letter was sent and we are awaiting the time limit to issue the Notarial Protest to memeorialize their (MC) stipulation. They are giving us every opportunity to settle the matter. We should have this settled and closed by the first week of November. I will inform everyone of the progress we are making, but we are very close to settlement and closure.

Anyone that says to me Redemption does not work does not know what they are talking about. Everything is happening the way I was told it would by Jack Smith and others who have helped us with the procedures that we have followed. Everything has been done in honor and it is starting to look better and better all the time.

Just because an SJ was issued in the public does not mean a loss in the private. As I have said many times the powers that be do not want too much truth to get out in the public and what is done in the public is just the opposite of what is done in the private. It is what happens that matters and not what is necessarily said. What they don't say is sometimes more important than what they say.

I realize this is not over yet and we are certainly not counting our chickens, but things are looking very good. It is a matter of being in honor and remaining in honor.

For His glory,

iamfreeru2

chuckhs12 · #8 10-05-2004, 06:36 PM

Hi,

I am glad to here things are going well for you iamfreeru2.

I am new to this redemption process. I have been doing research on the FED Reserve and other issues relating to money. I came across the redemption process and I am doing more research into the UCC process.

I have heard various coments on this process and the waters is getting pretty muddied. I have also noticed on other threads on other sites, the ego's seem to start showing up very fast and create a lot of confrontation.

I am interested in conversing with someone (private or public) about the process and to get some question answered before I move forward. I have aquired some material along the UCC/Redemption lines and could use some clarification from someone going through the process or has gone through the process.

Thank you and God Bless,

Chuck

To have peace, teach peace to learn peace." - A Course in Miracles

iamfreeru2 · #9 10-05-2004, 06:50 PM

Chuckhs12,

Welcome to the site. I would be happy to discuss what I am doing and have done with Redemption. I am not apposed to other methods, but I am happy with what I am doing at present and I am seeing success with it. Although I have not completed the process I am curently using, it is headed in the right direction. I am hoping to have a success story for all here in the very near future. If you would like to send me a private e-mail I will give you my contact info. There are quite a few on this site that are opposed to Redemption and say it does not work. All I will say is do your own research and do not listen to what others may say including me.

I have also started to research using Admiralty jurisdiction and am finding it very interesting. I have a post under Admiralty that has a link to start a study on the subject. It looks like that may be the way to go if one is using the courts.

iamfreeru2

chuckhs12 · #10 10-05-2004, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

Chuckhs12,

Welcome to the site. I would be happy to discuss what I am doing and have done with Redemption. I am not apposed to other methods, but I am happy with what I am doing at present and I am seeing success with it. Although I have not completed the process I am curently using, it is headed in the right direction. I am hoping to have a success story for all here in the very near future. If you would like to send me a private e-mail I will give you my contact info. There are quite a few on this site that are opposed to Redemption and say it does not work. All I will say is do your own research and do not listen to what others may say including me.

I have also started to research using Admiralty jurisdiction and am finding it very interesting. I have a post under Admiralty that has a link to start a study on the subject. It looks like that may be the way to go if one is using the courts.

iamfreeru2

Thank you iamfreeru2, I have sent you a private e-mail.

Chuck.