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

[Jerseee]

networth2,



you can ask for the original note but someone has a claim against you. Can they prove their claim? If so, then it should not be a problem for them to draft a letter sign it and have a notary sign it. then ask to see the document. they will not do this.



if you said that i owe you and you had the original application in your files UNMARKED and you produced evidence of your claim--then the debt is valid.



If you claim that i owe you and you just produce an account statement--that is not proof of the debt as anyone can manufacture a statement.



You know all of this could be resolved if they just show you the original note so you can satisfy any alleged debt.



Is it a crime to ask for proof of a debt so that no fraudulent practice was being done against you?



Is it wrong to protect yourself?



Would it disturb you that they cannot prove the debt?



Com'on get with it man!

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

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?

Henry,



I must disagree - I know of no court rule that you can hold them to regarding VOD, but requiring the originals, that is backed by the rules of the court.



Ask Ice about basing your entire defense upon requesting verification of the debt, see what he tells you.

Thanks. I see the error.



HB

Jerseee,



Either you haven't had enough sleep lately, or it's me that's a bit foggy on what point you were trying to make. I know I haven't had much sleep this week, but I've read your note several times and can't tell whether you're proposing that I ask for VOD or the original note.



Based on SJ's note below yours, VOD and the original PN are not one in the same. I have always contended (CLICK HERE) that the bank should be asked to produce the original note, which is supported by law. VODs might work for lesser debts or when dealing with CRAs, but I cannot believe they would ever work for a mortgage. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.



So, unless I'm missing the point, I think we're in agreement

[Ice]

In a mortgage situation the NOTE is the VERIFICATION. That is why they must produce the note... to verify the alleged debt.



BUT -- the NOTE was recorded as an "asset" -- which means you gave the bank $$. And that is the next challenge. There is "verification" yet to be done even if they produce the note... it must not have been altered and etc. But, of course, they will not produce the original note anyway and that, by law, should be a win for you. The sad truth is that the banks got the judge in their pocket... and we have got to make "the best evidence" on the record while not missing any part of the judicial process.

[Jerseee]

networth2,



Ice just answered your question.



I think I should state this:



VOD means "Verification of Debt". If you already know this--I apologize but your last post appears that you are not clear on the meaning of VOD.

Thanks Jerseee, I do understand VOD. Funny how easy it is to misconstrue things in this language. No wonder it's been easy to dupe so many people back into a feudal system! :-(



Thanks for your response in this and the other forum Ice. Your last response in the "Cites - Promissory Note Fraud" was very helpful as far as "summing it all up".



I have another question that I actually asked in my very first post in this thread that didn't ever get answered by anyone....



The Summons was to my commercial person (all caps). I have heard Howard Griswold or Rice McLeod talk about submitting an Affidavit to the court (as evidence), regarding the commercial person. However, I'm not quite sure how to do this regarding the Summons I received.



If I answer it (whether as my individual, or as the commercial person) I am going to be acknowledging that I am the trustee of their trust, who is the real entity they sent the complaint to.



My concern is that if I Answer the Complaint, I am acknowledging that I am trustee of their Trust. Has anyone dealt with this kind of issue before? Is there a special form? What is the correct procedure to follow (ie rules of court)? Should I respond in the Answer to this issue? Or should I respond in a separate form? Either way, I must Answer the Complaint by the 29th of July. Do I simply tell them in my answer that they have misidentified me?

[redpilltaker]

Wow,



Answering vs. Special Appearance vs. testifying?!



I am still fuzzy about how to go about your issue as well. An affidavit is signed under the penalty of perjury...so will your answer will be as well...so, I am wondering if your answer could not just state:



"Comes now, John Henry Doe, a living man created by the Great I am, Bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ, on behalf of the defendant, JOHN HENRY DOE...."



There are supposed to be supreme court decisions that have verbiage in them about the biblical origins of our system...



Anyone else have any ideas...I still don't have my head around this part....like the other discussions concerning establishing a distinction between a live person vs. a juristic person....Of course I like the idea, but I have no experiences to bank on....



SJ, was it you that talked about letting the "system" know right up front that they are dealing with a real person?



Anyone out there been through a civil proceeding and handled this yet?



Blessings,



RPT

[suijuris]

"SJ, was it you that talked about letting the "system" know right up front that they are dealing with a real person?"



I would never tell the court I am any type of person. I would be sure to have the judge take judicial notice of his oath of office so he is aware that he will be held to it, as well as to inform the court that my every utterance will be the truth.



I believe you may have seen this under a thread titled "move to common law court" or something like that. It is applicable to civil procedings as well.

[suijuris]

Networth, if you wish to challenge jurisdiction, you should study up on Special Appearance. A special appearance is made for the purpose of such a challenge, and does not grant jurisdiction as would a general appearance, or any other kind of appearance.