FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS: ******* HELP *******

[suijuris]

Why not offer to pay on production of the original, unaltered note bearing my authentic signature, and full disclosure of their ledgers and who really funded the alledged loan.

You keep referring to the "debt"... who cares about the alleged debt!?!?

So don't challenge the fact that a note exists? It sounds like the issue then would NOT be whether or not there is a note, but whether or not the court has the power to enforce an agrement without the Plaintiff producing the original????

You had an "agreement" with them and they breached it from the get go. YOU funded the loan... they did not (note Par 3 states "loan agreement"... yeah, right, prove they loaned you something!! ) They didn't risk anything. They changed the original agreement and that makes it a "forgery".

I have read the threads as well as Griffin's book about the original note being changed, once the bank takes it and deposits it as an asset. But my question is two-fold:



Has anyone ever seen an original promissory note with these changes, stamps, alterations on them? If not, when a bank is asked to produce the original have they (all banks) ALWAYS failed to produce the orinal, or has there been a case when a bank did produce the original without any alteration?

Your signature isn't on it (look up "signature").

I assume you're talking about the COPY, correct?

I've said this before and I'll say it again -- attack the FRAUD.



Why not answer by simply stating that upon production of the original promissory note you will PAY the debt??

Back to the drawing board! I'll try constructing another Answer from this angle (without posting another). What might be a good idea and helpful for everyone reading this or going through the same thing is for me to upload a copy of the Complaint, and then my Answer, as well as any other Motions, or papers that get filed during Discovery process through the whole ordeal. This could be a kind of "reality program" as I go through the steps and provide the actual documents (excluding names and places of course).



<font size=3>Stay tuned for more scenes from "David and Goliath", the all new reality program, starring networht2 as David, and the State of X as Goliath. Also starring Devin Despot, Rita Robberbarron, and Sammy the Snake as themselves. A lowly serf is born into bondage in a system of lies and secrecy, where everything appears to be something it is not! Watch him fight against all odds and see for yourself the unexpected twists and turns he takes to keep his opponents off guard and guessing. Who will rise victorious? Keep watching to find out for yourselves... ;-)[/color]

Thanks RPT. Some good advice.

Originally Posted by redpilltaker

You know...Tom Schauf's secret banker's manual has always had my interest... What for $275...I have been leaning towards buying it myself...just to see if it has ANYTHING in it that I hadn't seen before....

I am very close to purchasing it myself. I'm just a bit uneasy sending a money order to an "affiliate" I can't talk to. I s'pose I should trust that I will get the manual in a reasonble time. I'd like to have it before I sent my Answer.



I could file a request to the court for an extension on my answer due to the hardship of finding an attorney with experience in these matters who would take the case (5 of the top real estate and construction law firms in my town "told me" they had conflicts or because of the issues, didn't want to represent me. Just as good anyway, since I've realized how much better I'll be off representing myself.

Originally Posted by redpilltaker

Another idea...does anyone have an actual and official copy of the Credit River Decision?

I'm sure this is public information and is accessible somehow. You're right! This would be invaluable to have for anyone going through this process. I'll look into this and let you know. Thanks again for the response.

Originally Posted by SuiJuris

Why not offer to pay on production of the original, unaltered note bearing my authentic signature, and full disclosure of their ledgers and who really funded the alledged loan.

Good advice SJ. I'm just having a difficult time figuring out what "form" these things should take on what type of a document, ie motion, declaration, interogatory, etc. Between studying rules of evidence, local procedure, the USC, UCC, Constitution, local statutes, difference between local and federal courts, etc, it's definitely overwhelming.



I'm burning the candles at both ends, staying up every night this until my head falls on my keyboard (sometimes until 4:30 am). Then up again at 7:00 or 8:00 am. Thank goodness for weekends when I can sleep in and get 4 or 5 hours sleep! ;-) I'm starting to hear violins!

[redpilltaker]

Please share with us as much as you are comfortable with....



Remember to focus on the answer first...there will be PLENTY of time after that point!! The process is slow so one step at a time...



Stay focused...especially since this is all on top of everything else in life...



Remember that your answer is not as detailed as the rest of the process...it is a part of the puzzle, but try to keep it as broad as you can, which will offer flexibility later...most of this seems to be about honor and good faith efforts....



And you are right...this thread has a lot of potential....



SJ, do you think BB will attack your site as this comes together? LOL



RPT

[Ice]

Originally Posted by networth2

So don't challenge the fact that a note exists? It sounds like the issue then would NOT be whether or not there is a note, but whether or not the court has the power to enforce an agrement without the Plaintiff producing the original????



Yes, you challenge the existence of the note by stating that you will pay the note upon its presentation. The court cannot enforce a thing that does not exist so you demand the original... just claim the copy does not contain your signature but looks like a crafty forgery.

I have read the threads as well as Griffin's book about the original note being changed, once the bank takes it and deposits it as an asset. But my question is two-fold:



Has anyone ever seen an original promissory note with these changes, stamps, alterations on them? If not, when a bank is asked to produce the original have they (all banks) ALWAYS failed to produce the orinal, or has there been a case when a bank did produce the original without any alteration?



I do not know of any instance in which the original note has ever been produced. I have asked to be informed of any known instance and have not received any response to that request. If there is any such thing... it is deep in the past... when things were actually on a more honest footing.

I assume you're talking about the COPY, correct?



Nope... even on the original. You didn't sign a note that had all those extra stamps on it ... the note was "altered" and that makes the signature NOT A SIGNATURE. Check the definition of signature and you will have a better understanding of my statement.

[Jerseee]

networth2,



You can see our commitment to you and your success throughout this thread. One thing remains common amongst us all. Attack the Fraud. Their whole case depends on your ignorance of commerce.



Another theme that is pounded into you is the original note. this is the key to the fraud.



You are right about the jurisdiction.



RPT said it....Answer first--prepare to attack later.

[re-ality]

"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"



Please take this as constuctive criticism, the way that is worded is in their language, it satifies what they desire for your name, you recognizing the accuser. your ALL CAPS name is the defendant, your body is the offender still. Make it what it really is, between their corp and your person, and whether your person lawfully has to do what they claim,



Defendant is without suffient information by this you are recognizing that you are the name which is the defendant, you said that the letter used your all cap then your real upper lower in the body(this is in form, to them you are somebody or sum body)isn't the sum a math term? so answer as "upper lower" , not the defendant/ALL CAPS, then seperate from the name, talk as your lookin into the interogation room on the other side of the mirror glass, your name being intorogated about somethin, yup the debt. They are really askin how is ALL CAPS going to pay,from the other side of the glass lookin in, the man would answer, ALL CAPS will pay when certified verification is given to him(don't use me), cause all the upper lower is writing back for is to see if the claim is valid on ALL CAPS, that's why the answer to your letter is in upper lower it's the sum and your upper lower is in the body form of that letter. somebody



NO certified verification has been seen nor given in this matter and it is beleived the alleged debt does not lawfully exist, in order to make arrangments to pay this "alleged debt " the corp"will have to produce certified verification for ALL CAPS in order to......

"whatever assumption/accusation in the ltter."



seperate from your name, this fight is between the verification and your name ,without that name(no valid claim), not plaintiff and defendant isn't that what they want(recognition). As the go between for the current charges that name you own is resisting, so if they wanna use it your just there to see if the current charge(-E)is valid or not to use the name.



-E(neg. charges) = I (man showing up) mutiplyed by R (ALL CAPS/man showing up resisting their letter/claim)



E= I X R how is that for ohm's law



when you show up and you the man or what is said" I am here" write when a man says I for the name is when you become the defendant till then a man is an offender, I multiplied by resistance is the voltage of the whole circut court. the judge being the equal sign, gives new meaning to resistance is futile. So when you show up as I, I am just here to see if certified verification is there for the claim against ALL CAPS, get it I is here, certified verication is over there on their side of the judge



now it changed to I=E/R



information(look that word up and you will see why it's wrong to use), information is what they are giving you(in form) , you want cirtified verification of this claim, make sure they know what it means(who took a loss, who is injured, what account did that come from, what was the former account of that account)



just tryin to help so the response written does not give them anything to stand on and so u understand that every little word is key, keep it simple but use their words so you create the 180 degree spin on the claim that is in form ation TO: ALL CAPS



"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"





this part is good



this is just how re-ality views co-responding....

Thanks Jerseee, I do see everyone's commitment, and understand the cause. I am grateful to you more than you can believe.



Thanks re-ality. Great illustration! In fact, with all that resistance, I'm all charged up now. And to think, I was going to go to bed at 2:15 in the morning! I've got at least another couple hours now! ;-)



Just one question, similar to my challenge in another forum on certified verification. Why wouldn't I simply ask for the original promissory note, as opposed to a certified VOD? Federal and local rules of evidence requires, and case law supports the need for this when such great loss is at stake. Wouldn't I only ask for certified VOD as a last resort, if for some reason the judge decided to allow a copy to be used as sufficient evidence?

Networth2,



VOD and producing the original note are synonymous. If a copy would work, you could ba liable to all the copy holders.



What if 10 banks had copies of your note?