Deep Judicial Corruption - ADVICE NEEDED

[its2die4]

Although I have responded to another post in another thread with the basic content of this post I feel the great need to solicit the help of all within Sui Juris for the steep and confirmed corruption that I am personally confronting from the Judiciary. I am in Illinois and I am still a neophyte warrior in that I have only recently become aware of the horrific truths concerning this country, in other words I chose to take the red pill only a couple of years ago and as you well know there is no going back now. Anyhow, I also have been involved in my own court battles with banks for the last couple of years. I initiated a Quiet Title (QT) action against my original mortgagor alleging that it was not holder in due course (HDC) of the recorded lien. Subsequently, there arose another lender that claimed it was HDC and came into court brandishing a so-called assignment document as proof and sought to intervene in my QT action. This assignment document was recorded against the title of my home and claimed to evidence a transfer of interest from the first lender (my original mortgagor) to the new lender many months prior. Well, it will come as no surprise to all that the judge unjustly dismissed my QT action and the second bank has since filed a retaliation foreclosure action. But, during my due diligence I discovered that their assignment document is a complete fraud and I have conclusive evidence to prove it! That means that the bank vice-president that signed it and her assistant and the notary that evidenced it and also the attorneys that submitted into court and mailed it to me using the US Postal Service are all complicit! So, I’ve filed affidavit after affidavit into the court with copies of the assignment document and they have gone completely unchallenged/uncontroverted yet the court continues to barrel through on its usual railroad mission. I have found this completely shocking although shouldn’t since I have for the last 2 years filed rock solid pleading after pleading that have continually been denied by all judges to-date. But, for these judges to allow egregious fraud on the court and to allow a fraudulently manufactured document to be used as evidence to transfer property interest (which can only be considered securities fraud) is indeed shocking to me! If anyone has any ideas what may be the best way to use this against these criminals to get them to halt their campaign, I am all ears at this point. Because, obviously my affidavits (5 in total now) are completely ineffective and this so-called legal maxim “an unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in the matter” is completely laughable to me at this point.

Its2Die4

[theghost]

its2die4,

a lot of great information can be found at eftrans.com. You will have to send a lot of FOIA's to compile evidence. I live in Illinois too, and am going through the same thing. E-mail me privately, and I'll share some docs with you.

[chuckhs12]

Hi,

I have been doing some research into the Commercial Lien Strategy to use against government officials and judges to hold them accountable. To summarize it, it can hurt them personally to get them to do thier jobs. This is a good place to start http://members.aol.com/BoycottBrazil...uit/rico2.html. But as always, take and apply this info at your own risk.

I wish you the best of luck and hope everything works out for you.

Chuck.

[mr.yet]

[quote=its2die4]Although I have responded to another post in another thread with the basic content of this post I feel the great need to solicit the help of all within Sui Juris for the steep and confirmed corruption that I am personally confronting from the Judiciary. I am in Illinois and I am still a neophyte warrior in that I have only recently become aware of the horrific

§ 102 ----Nature of title acquired by assignee–assignee stands in place of assignor [SUPPLEMENT] [6 Am Jur 2d ASSIGNMENTS]

Practice Aids: Irrevocability. 2 Am Jur Legal Forms 2d § 25:66.

–Assignment made without warranty. 2 Am Jur Legal Forms 2d § 25:84.

–Transfer of title to accounts. 2 Am Jur Legal Forms 2d § 25:85.

Restatements:

A joint obligee may effectively assign his right, but the assignee can enforce it only in the same manner and to the same extent as the assignor could have enforced it. Restatement, Contracts 2d § 335.

By an assignment the assignee acquires a right against the obligor only to the extent that the obligor is under a duty to the assignor; and if the right of the assignor would be voidable by the obligor or unenforceable against him if no assignment had been made, the right of the assignee is subject to the infirmity. Restatement, Contracts 2d § 336(1).

Where the right of an assignor is subject to discharge or modification in whole or in part by impracticability, public policy, non-occurrence of a condition, or present or prospective failure of performance by an obligee, the right of the assignee is to that extent subject to discharge or modification even after the obligor receives notification of the assignment. Restatement, Contracts 2d § 336(3).

Where the right of an assignor is limited or voidable or unenforceable or subject to discharge or modification, subsequent events which would eliminate the limitation or defense have the same effect on the right of the assignee. Restatement, Contracts 2d § 337.

So far as an assigned right is conditional on the performance of a return promise, and notwithstanding notification of the assignment, any modification of or substitution for the contract made by the assignor and obligor in good faith and in accordance with reasonable commercial standards is effective against the assignee. The assignee acquires corresponding rights under the modified or substituted contract. Restatement, Contracts 2d § 338(2).

Notwithstanding a defect in the right of an assignee, he has the same power his assignor had to discharge or modify the duty of the obligor to the extent that the obligor gives value or otherwise changes his position in good faith and without knowledge or reason to know of the defect. Restatement, Contracts 2d § 338(3).

An assignee is entitled to priority of payment from the obligor's insolvent estate to the extent that the assignor would have been so entitled in the absence of assignment. Restatement, Contracts 2d § 340(1).

[mr.yet]

THey must give notice prior to assignements. Did they?


§ 115 --Estoppel [6 Am Jur 2d ASSIGNMENTS]

View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
Principles of the doctrine of estoppel may, in given circumstances, be applied to prevent a first assignee of a chose in action from asserting his right as against a subsequent assignee. 1 Failure to give notice of the assignment may become an important element in a situation from which equitable estoppel may arise against the first assignee. 2 Where one to whom a nonnegotiable chose has been assigned permits the assignor to retain possession of the evidence of the chose, thus allowing the circumstances to indicate the assignor retained full ownership, he will be estopped as against one taking a second assignment of the chose for value and without notice. 3 But it has been held that in the case of accounts receivable and the like, where it is impossible in any real sense to transfer possession, the first assignee is not estopped merely because he has not given notice to the debtor; there is no analogy between the giving of such notice and the taking possession of tangible personal property by a purchaser. 4 Nor will there be any estoppel if the subsequent assignee is chargeable with constructive notice of the first assignment, or with knowledge of facts sufficient to put him on inquiry as to the validity of the title he is about to acquire. 5


Footnotes

Footnote 1. Salem Trust Co. v Manufacturers' Finance Co. 264 US 182, 68 L ed 628, 44 S Ct 266, 31 ALR 867; Washington Twp. v First Nat. Bank, 147 Mich 571, 111 NW 349.

The maxim, "prior in tempore, potior in jure," must not be allowed to protect a party who has neglected a requisite precaution to protect from imposition those who may come after him. Fisher v Knox, 13 Pa 622, cited in Phillips's Estate, 205 Pa 515, 55 A 213.

Footnote 2. Salem Trust Co. v Manufacturers' Finance Co., supra (noting, however, that where the subsequent assignee has made no inquiry of the debtor as to whether he has received notice of a prior assignment, the failure of the prior assignee to give such notice is immaterial). See also Spain v Hamilton (Spain v. Brent) 1 Wall (US) 604, 17 L ed 619; Judson v Corcoran, 17 How (US) 612, 15 L ed 231.

Footnote 3. Atlanta Guano Co. v Hunt, 100 Tenn 89, 42 SW 482 (nonnegotiable notes).

Annotation: 37 ALR 1540.

One who loans money on a written assignment of contract for public work, but, without giving notice of his rights, permits the contractor to retain possession of the contract, complete the work, and obtain time orders for the amount due, which he sells for value to a stranger, will be subordinated to the rights of the latter. Washington Twp. v First Nat. Bank, 147 Mich 571, 111 NW 349.

In order to protect himself against a subsequent transfer by the assignor, where a notice is not given to the debtor, the assignee should obtain actual delivery and possession of the written instrument which represents the chose in action, or, if this is impossible from the very nature of the subject matter, he should take all the steps permitted by the law which are equivalent to actual possession. Washington Twp. v First Nat. Bank, supra.

Even in a jurisdiction where the view prevails that the first assignee will be protected against subsequent assignees although he has given no notice to them or to the obligor, it has been held that a second assignee, who first gives notice to the obligor, is preferred to a first assignee who is negligent not only in failing to give notice to the obligor, but also in failing to take possession of the written evidence of the obligation. Herman v Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. 218 Mass 181, 105 NE 450 (decision with respect to assignments of an insurance policy).

See Restatement, Contracts § 173(b) (iv), which declares that any assignee who purchases his assignment for value in good faith without notice of a prior assignment, and who obtains delivery of a tangible token or writing, surrender of which is required by the obligor's contract for its enforcement, can enforce against the obligor the assigned right.

Cf. Schumann v Bank of California, N. A. 114 Or 336, 233 P 860, 37 ALR 1531, where, upon denying the right of an assignee of a conditional sales contract, who had returned the document to the assignor, to recover from a subsequent bona fide transferee for value, to whom possession was delivered, the court held that the case did not turn on the question of estoppel but rather on the nature of the first assignee's interest in the chose in action which was that of a pledgee whose lien at all times depends upon possession.

Courts of equity may apply the principle of laches to an assignee who permitted an assignor to retain possession of the assigned nonnegotiable chose but who otherwise had priority as against a subsequent assignee who has been injured by the negligence of the former. State Bank v Jennings, 78 Misc 524, 138 NYS 606 (involving assignments of a lease contract).

Footnote 4. Salem Trust Co. v Manufacturers' Finance Co. 264 US 182, 68 L ed 628, 44 S Ct 266, 31 ALR 867.

Footnote 5. ****ey, Tansley & Co. v Pocomoke City Nat. Bank, 89 Md 280, 43 A 33 (involving assignments of a fire insurance policy); Wood v Sparks (Tex Com App) 59 SW2d 361, reh den (Tex Com App) 63 SW2d 1109) (involving assignments of mechanic's lien contract and nonnegotiable note).

Annotation: 37 ALR 1542.

[mr.yet]

§ 248 Status as holder; necessity of negotiation [11 Am Jur 2d BILLS AND NOTES]

View Entire Section
Go to Parallel Reference Table
A holder in due course must be a holder. 56 Since "holder" is defined as either the person in possession of bearer paper or the person in possession of an instrument payable to an identified person if the person in possession is that identified person, 57 and since negotiation is defined as the transfer of possession of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes a holder, 58 it follows that a person cannot be a holder in due course of an instrument by a transfer which does not amount to a negotiation. 59

When the transfer of commercial paper amounts to only an assignment, the transferee is by definition not a holder and cannot be a holder in due course. 60
Clearly, a person cannot be a holder in due course who lacks possession of the instrument. 61


Footnotes

Footnote 56. UCC §3-302(1) [1952]; UCC § 3-302(a) [1990 Rev].

Footnote 57. § 236.

Footnote 58. UCC § 3-202(1) [1952], UCC § 3-201(b) [1990 Rev], discussed in §§ 212 et seq.

Footnote 59. Ederer v Fisher (Fla App D2) 183 So 2d 39 (holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish genuine indorsement of the note by the payee to the transferee from whom plaintiffs purchased the note and, therefore, neither payee's transferee nor plaintiffs acquired the status of holder in due course).
The bank that took a mortgage on assignment without an indorsement of the mortgage note was not entitled to a claim as holder in due course. Second Nat'l Bank v G.M.T. Properties, Inc. (Fla App D3) 364 So 2d 59.
A bank could not become a holder in due course of a draft payable to two payees where there was lacking the necessary indorsement of one of the payees when the other payee deposited the draft with the bank, there being no valid statutory negotiation. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Marine Nat'l Bank (5 Fla) 431 F2d 341, 7 UCCRS 1327.

Annotation: Fraud in the inducement and fraud in the factum as defenses under UCC § 3-305 against holder in due course, 78 ALR3d 1020.
Footnote 60. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co. v Raines, 125 Ga App 263, 187 SE2d 320, 10 UCCRS 665; Ballengee v New Mexico Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 109 NM 423, 786 P2d 37, 11 UCCRS2d 124; Hewett v Marine Midland Bank, N.A. (2d Dept) 86 App Div 2d 263, 449 NYS2d 745, 33 UCCRS 1696.

Footnote 61. Western Nat'l Bank v Rives (Tex App Amarillo) 927 SW2d 681, reh overr (Tex App Amarillo) 1996 Tex App LEXIS 3651, writ den (Feb 21, 1997) and rehg of writ of error overr (Apr 10, 1997).

It's been my experience in my vast travels and interactions with the judiciary, that most Judges are pretty good people, and have high ethics.

Originally Posted by buck08

It's been my experience in my vast travels and interactions with the judiciary, that most Judges are pretty good people, and have high ethics.

1: you are a lawyer?
2: you are a judge?
3: you are not in touch with reality?

4: we have conflicting ideas on the definition of 'ethics'?


"Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit. If ever the laws of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter. "

"I will never reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay anyone's cause for lucre or malice. So help me God."

If either number one or two is correct, then you would recognize the second quotation as being the last clause of the Oath that an attorney takes. You tell me.

Jerry

[iamfreeru2]

I may be wrong but I do believe that Bucko8 is also Bucko9, don't ya think? Frequents Quatloos regularly and I do believe that is why he gives the answers he does. I believe him to be nothing more than a troll. I would not doubt it if he is some type of gov. agent or attorney or just an informant, hmm? It's either that or he just plain brainwashed into believing all the garbage he spews out.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by buck08

It's been my experience in my vast travels and interactions with the judiciary, that most Judges are pretty good people, and have high ethics.

To a degree, I would agree... I think most in the judiciary started out as good people with high ethics...

But I also believe Buck is just here to yank our "chains" lol

But I would like to thank Buck, as he does this site an invaluable service.

I'm sorry if this offends you, Buck... this is not my point at all... I'm not trying to hurt or offend you... but I am going to use your example, and make some observations, that potentially, may save many folks, some unnecessary pain and frustration.

The attitude he reflects, is typical of what you find in America today. I call it the "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!! " perspective.

To some degree, we are all taught this !

One of the most obvious, and ironicly, extreme examples of folks insisting on their ignorance, are police officers... (quoted from another thread)

Originally Posted by Akira

Would you ask a guy who has never turned a wrench, to work on the car your kids ride in?

Would you get into an ambulance today, if you knew the people 'treating' you didn't have a clue about medicine? I know I wouldn't !!!

But yet, back in the 40's and 50's, when someone was.... hypotheticly, in a car accident... there was no rescue, or ambulance.... if the crash had a survivor... they would call the local MORGUE, and two guys would drive, with the hearse, to the scene, pick you up, and put you on the stretcher (regardless of injuries), and strap you down. Then, both men, would hop into the front seat of the hearse, leaving you unattended in the back, and they would drive like mainiacs, to get you to the hospital, as quickly as possible.

Now, doesn't the above senario seem rediculous?

So then..... why would you let a 'person' who doesn't have a clue about the 'law', someone who isn't even entitled to a 'legal opinion', in court or anywhere else, tell you, a sovereign King, with a birthright from God, the law, and how to run your life?

So, police officers are the 'exception to the rule', as, "ignorance of the law, especially by them, is NO EXCUSE !" talk about irony....

At least for me, I find responding, rather than reacting to them, perhaps the greatest challenge of all. lol

But, generally, it is extremely important to be humble, and patient, with the remainder of people who, insist on claiming their 'right' to ignore fact, and be 'ignor-ant', as, again, this is what we all were taught !

This 'slave mind set' is extremely pervasive today. After all, we were all there once, until we experienced enough pain, to wake us up. History is replete with quotes that address this issue. Perhaps the most succinct being John Cougar Melloncamp's "Stand for something, or Fall for anything !"

In Buck's case, I'm relatively sure, he doesn't realize, that he speaks volumes about himself, to the trained observer, when he does this. But his reaction is really quite typical.

If I may be so bold as to make a clinical observation....

His apparent preoccupation with 'pulling our chains' implies that he likely has issues of co-dependancy, and may need chronic attention, as compensation for percieved, internal 'lacks'.

Example: The "UCC-1337" in his signature. the "1337" is a numeric representation of 'leet' which is slang for 'elite'. An expression used, among other places, in the higher echelons of the 'warez' community... the software black market, where people download pirated movies, games, ect. If you move alot of pirated software, you are said to be '1337'.

So Buck, at least, appears to have a very high opinion of himself.

In psychology, they call this self promotion 'leveling', which is a fear based reaction, usually employed by someone with esteme issues. The premise is, they either pump themselves up or talk down/criticise others, to compensate for percieved inadaquacies.

So, he actually gives us two clues, that this is the case. (sorry Buck)

My point here, is not to pick on him, or put him down. This is part of the slave mind set that is taught in federally funded schools... Or as Pink Floyd put it in their classic song 'the Wall', "Teacher, leave those kids alone !"

The goal of which is the implementation of what is known in psychology, as a 'negative feedback loop'. It goes like this...

poor performance, leads to, poor self image, which leads to, poor self esteme, which leads back to, poor performance --> poor self image --> poor self esteme --> poor performance --> poor self image --> poor self esteme... and on and on...

Once in place, these folks will pass this negative lesson along, because, to have you succeed, will mean, they could have succeeded, which only reinforces their own self loathing... Thus the attitude... " Don't even bother trying, you won't make it... you can't fight city hall..."

The end result is a nation FULL of emotionally crippled adults, who are afraid to 'rock the boat', and/or stand up for themselves. Instead, they fill their day, looking for ways to fill a hole within their head, and heart, that, in reality, doesn't exist, even though, it feels so very real. Some use attention, or drugs, or food, or sex, or most common, chasing money and materialism....

To quote 'them': "go be the best you can at your chosen field and produce, produce, produce... and let a 'legal professional' worry about your legal matters... " ha !

The fact is... God (by whatever name you call him) doesn't make junk... nor spare parts... Each of us, is a King ! We aren't different or 'special'.... those words separate ! We are Holy ! That word binds ! We each have our own unique place, and purpose, for HIS names sake. We are all different, yet all the same... yet another dicotomy, a pair of opposites.. (hot/cold, light/dark, big/small, male/female...) a prerequisit (law of nature)... essential to existance in the phyical universe . Just what your unique talents are, are found inside you, not outside you. Be still and know. One must seek to discover their OWN unique blessings/tools, before they can ever hope to self-realize, and finally, self-actualize.

So, please be patient with folks who respond like Buck, regardless of his motivations... he is, after all, only a reflection of our past-selves.

For HIS Glory,
Akira