If the judge won't allow your questions

[jaylon]

The court is sworn by its oath of office under which it sits to uphold the Constitution and to grant fair and impartial consideration to all claims and to know nothing in this case except fact in evidence proven before it.
This is a Court of law.
We trust the Court is here to discern fact and truth by the rules of evidence and procedure as it is presented from the parties and then to apply the law only to what is properly established in evidence before it.

Your honor, there are some questions here , that when answered will likely end this case in dismissal and will certainly deny summary judgment.

Thus far the bank has offered no competent fact witness by affidavit or otherwise they have been legal holders of this alleged debt to enforce it, or what the actual agreement between us was for the Court to judge whether either of us has kept it.
Is opposing counsel prepared today to offer sworn affidavit or other competent fact witness from the bank They are still legal holders of the original, unnegotiated, unconverted, debt instrument who would have standing to bring this action? And be able to prove to the Court, by the original, unaltered contract, what the agreement actually was that I agreed to, and that I signed it.
--equivocation—--holding forth the affidavit or pleadings—
Your honor, we will stand here and let him show where he has established in his pleadings by any competent fact witness acceptable in law they have been legal holders of this alleged debt to enforce it, what the agreement actually was that I agreed to, and that I signed it.
--equivocation—--
As the Court can see your honor, Plaintiff’s pleadings and Affidavit establishes in no way that it is still holder of the alleged debt…… that it still exists,……that it was signed by the Defendant ………… or what the agreement between the parties actually was Defendant did sign, as the affidavit makes no affirmation or reference that the debt instrument can be produced to establish these facts.

-- holding forth copy of the contract--

Your honor, [[as we have in our affidavit ]] I do here today specifically deny this is the agreement I put my hand to and that this is my signature that was on that agreement until they can produce the original contract for me to determine this.

In the day of computer technology and the sophisticated means by which a document can be put together to make the copies say whatever the plaintiff wants to have them say with Defendants signature from the original attached in fact is no proof of anything without competent fact witness they still hold the debt to make claim, [[ and can show what the original agreement actually was, or Defendant’s agreement to it, as the subject matter of this action giving jurisdiction for the Court to hear the claim.



And yet they have provided no factual evidence to demonstrate this despite numerous requests [[ not then and not now in discovery. ]]

Case law [[ we have cited]] is replete that proof of the claim requires presentment of the original note/debt instrument.
Where the complaining party can not prove the existence of the debt, then there is no debt.
This is established as well under MS Code 75- 3-302, holder in due course. Absent this, Plaintiff's pleadings fail to empower the court with personal or subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The party claiming jurisdiction for the Court to hear them has the burden to establish it, if challenged.

If Plaintiff cannot produce any competent fact witness They are still legal holders of the original, unnegotiated unconverted, debt instrument, who would have personal jurisdiction and standing before the Court to bring this action, which they have not, as a matter of law their claim must be dismissed.

If they cannot provide the Court with a competent fact witness, more especially the debt instrument itself, to show the Court what the original, unaltered signed contract actually was that we agreed to, which they have not, then the Court has no way to judge the compliance of either of us to the contract if it doesn’t know as fact established by the rules of evidence what the substance of the actual contract was.
And as a matter of law, the Court then lacks subject matter of an actual agreement to have jurisdiction to hear any claims based on it, and they must be dismissed.
The Court knows that’s the law your honor and this is a Court of law.

And then if they can not produced the original debt instrument to show the Court there are no markings that exchange, deposit or monetary conversion of it into equity has been made by the bank to recover the funding of its loan, then the Court has no way to know as fact established by the rules of evidence the bank has actual loss and damage from my non performance,
And as a matter of law, the Court then lacks subject matter of actual loss or damage from a competent fact witness, as basis to bring this claim, and it must be dismissed.
The Court knows that’s the law your honor and this is a Court of law.
[[ Anything less is certain to be overturned on appeal. ]]

--def ag summary judgm—
Yet even if somehow this were to be denied your honor, there is nothing for the Court to consider to deny summary judgment as well.

As we have said, Pursuant to MS Code 75-3-308, we have specifically denied the validity of my signature on the original note/credit agreement [[[ and the individual charge slips ]]]] as to its authenticity until it can be verified it was not used for purposes unauthorized by me in the agreement.

In our affidavit and defenses we have disputed they are legal holders of the debt I actually signed as they have provided no factual evidence to demonstrate they have it, despite numerous requests, and now in discovery we have demanded strict proof of it by production of the original debt instrument.
These challenges are not responded to in any way.
[[[[[ They haven’t even sworn an affidavit they’re still holders of it. ]]]]]

Presently your honor,
What the agreement between us I signed actually was,
whether they are still legal holders to enforce it,
or that a debt between us still exists,
as well as whether it has markings that monetary conversion of the debt instrument into equity has been gained by the bank to recover the funding of its loan
[[ without [the] risk of loss to its existing assets and deposits to recover represented to me in their agreement,]]
which would offsets any loss or damage they had from my non-performance as a cause for action to bring this suit,
are material fact of the plaintiff’s claims that are in dispute unsupported by presentment of the original, signed, unaltered, unmarked, unnegotiated, unconverted, debt instrument, in their possession, requiring production of the actual debt instrument and trial of these facts in dispute before the Court can apply the law to this case.

Under Rule 56 This precludes summary judgment on the face of it as a matter of law your honor, and if summary judgment is not denied it is certain to be overturned on appeal, if the whole case is not to be dismissed.