12 Years For Filing Lien Against Judge

[Livefire]

Excellent point David!

Make that official prove that he/she in FACT performing as a de jure officer. No oath, no immunity and the "official" is liable for any and all acts! Then by all means lien away.

[sheisaceo]

Originally Posted by rentiap

You obviously have not listened and comprehended all of Vic's material.

If you had then you would not be posting this question.

The thought of my filing a lien against a judge never crossed my mind and I have been listening to Beck. I am glad that you gave this to me.

[sheisaceo]

I don't do like Shoonra. I did not post this to scare the masses.

[Shoonra]

I thought I had posted this on this thread but evidently I hadn't.
The URL in the first message doesn't seem to work because of erroneous spaces. The link leads to a news item which is a straight reprint of a DOJ press release.
Here is the text in full:

-------------------------------------------

NEWS RELEASE FROM UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE:

BEAUMONT, TX - United States Attorney John Ratcliffe announced today that a 54-year-old inmate at the Beaumont Federal Prison has been sentenced to 144 months in federal prison for filing a false lien in the Eastern District of Texas.

ROBERT DANIEL DAVIS was sentenced today by United States District Judge Marcia Crone.

According to information presented in court, while imprisoned at the Federal Correctional Complex in Beaumont, Davis created and forged groundless Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) financing statements in the amount of $500 million against U.S. District Judge Sim Lake on June 21, 2004 and Assistant U.S. Attorney Glen Cook on May 27, 2005. Judge Lake and AUSA Cook were involved in Davis' previous federal drug conviction in the Southern District of Texas which led to his incarceration in Beaumont. Judge Lake and AUSA Cook stated they did not sign or authorize the creation or filing of the UCC/TCA FS-4 "True Bill" which bear their names and a reproduction of their signatures and have never had a financial or contractual relationship with Davis. Davis told investigators he filed the fraudulent lien against Judge Lake because the Judge allowed the prosecuting attorney, AUSA Cook, to perjure himself during his trial and did nothing about it. Davis stated he filed the fraudulent lien against AUSA Cook because Cook lied about the amount of drugs Davis was being prosecuted for. Davis pleaded guilty to those drug charges. Davis was convicted of the fraudulent filing charges by a jury on August 28, 2007.

This case was investigated by the Texas Attorney General's Office and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney David H. Henderson, Jr. and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Gerard Rawls.
-- --

[sheisaceo]

Hey Shoonra, how many times are you going to repost this?

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/succes...m-board-3.html

as a reply to the above thread.

[Madeline]

Originally Posted by sheisaceo

Hey Shoonra, how many times are you going to repost this? -- --

You posted the topic. Why wouldn't someone repost the article?

When I took the space out of the link, it took me to a sports page on the news website.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Judge Lake and AUSA Cook stated they did not sign or authorize the creation or filing of the UCC/TCA FS-4 "True Bill" which bear their names and a reproduction of their signatures and have never had a financial or contractual relationship with Davis.
-- --

Reproducing people's signatures is generally a bad idea.

We really need to read things completely and not just for what we do or do not want to see.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Livefire

Excellent point David!

Make that official prove that he/she in FACT performing as a de jure officer. No oath, no immunity and the "official" is liable for any and all acts! Then by all means lien away.

Interestingly, by the timing the facts of a bill of indictment against a fellow who forecloses against 75-100 homeowners a day, all of which are null judgments, has brought Madeline out from under her rock.

I suggest for your entertainment around here, whatever state you are in find the statutory requirements for publication of oaths with a competent clerk and for grins, find the requirement that a claimant bring the original note to the Foreclosure Hearing.

This "bungling bundling fiasco" is just new paint on an old and ongoing problem. The moneychangers have always put the note out there for double-enrichment as a banking tradition.




Regards.

David Merrill.

[moishanb]

Good grief David, why would anyone follow the precise rules of evidence, when the courts/judges/attorneys accept copies?

Don't you know how much the banks are suffering from all these technicalities that would cost a whole bunch of money to the banks if they were to be required to follow the rules set out to protect consumers/investors?

Here is the statute in my local:


From the Texas Property Code:

§ 12.0011. INSTRUMENTS CONCERNING PROPERTY: ORIGINAL
SIGNATURE REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS. (a) For the purposes
of this section, "paper document" means a document received by a
county clerk in a form that is not electronic.
(b) A paper document concerning real or personal property
may not be recorded or serve as notice of the paper document unless:
(1) the paper document contains an original signature
or signatures that are acknowledged, sworn to with a proper jurat,
or proved according to law; or
(2) the paper document is attached as an exhibit to a
paper affidavit or other document that has an original signature or
signatures that are acknowledged, sworn to with a proper jurat, or
proved according to law.
(c) An original signature may not be required for an
electronic instrument or other document that complies with the
requirements of Chapter 15 of this code, Chapter 195, Local
Government Code, Chapter 43, Business & Commerce Code, or other
applicable law.

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 213, § 1, eff. September
1, 2007.

Let me add the following:

COURTS ACCEPT COPIES, JUDGES/MAGISTRATES ACCEPT COPIES, COUNTY RECORDERS ACCEPT COPIES. WILL YOU ACCEPT COPIES?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Good grief David, why would anyone follow the precise rules of evidence, when the courts/judges/attorneys accept copies?

Don't you know how much the banks are suffering from all these technicalities that would cost a whole bunch of money to the banks if they were to be required to follow the rules set out to protect consumers/investors?

Here is the statute in my local:


From the Texas Property Code:

§ 12.0011. INSTRUMENTS CONCERNING PROPERTY: ORIGINAL
SIGNATURE REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN INSTRUMENTS. (a) For the purposes
of this section, "paper document" means a document received by a
county clerk in a form that is not electronic.
(b) A paper document concerning real or personal property
may not be recorded or serve as notice of the paper document unless:
(1) the paper document contains an original signature
or signatures that are acknowledged, sworn to with a proper jurat,
or proved according to law; or
(2) the paper document is attached as an exhibit to a
paper affidavit or other document that has an original signature or
signatures that are acknowledged, sworn to with a proper jurat, or
proved according to law.
(c) An original signature may not be required for an
electronic instrument or other document that complies with the
requirements of Chapter 15 of this code, Chapter 195, Local
Government Code, Chapter 43, Business & Commerce Code, or other
applicable law.

Added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 213, § 1, eff. September
1, 2007.

Let me add the following:

COURTS ACCEPT COPIES, JUDGES/MAGISTRATES ACCEPT COPIES, COUNTY RECORDERS ACCEPT COPIES. WILL YOU ACCEPT COPIES?

I am gathering that in a non-judicial foreclosure state like Texas, it is suffice in the non-judicial courts to bring a certified copy of the note, from the county clerk and recorder who presumably demanded a wet-ink original note...

For one thing, where did the judiciary go? And where did your right to demand judicial review go? Just because you are in the non-judicial realm - State of Texas - you have given up right to a judicial hearing?

For another thing - it sounds good to the layman - that one can use the clerk to keep track of the original note by certified copy? Well, maybe it sounds better to attorneys, I am not sure...

Meaning maybe it is easier for the layman to step back from the legaleze and examine things with common sense. Since the owner of the note is owner of the title to the home, is effectively owner of the home; then the owner of the note can sell the note but cannot "unfile" that evidence referencing the note. Therefore you are not prejudiced by being in the State of Texas from your common law right for someone making claim to your home, to have to produce the original note.

After all, they may have sold the note to somebody else, collected payment for that and now they are trying to lay hands on the home - classical stellionation - double - enrichment. The court, if judicial would have judicial Rules of Evidence, demanding the original note instead of a relic from the county clerk and recorder.

http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_2.jpg
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/sui...te-check_1.jpg

Notice the Pay to the Order of... on Page 2.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[moishanb]

Ah yes, but here in the land of Texas, a non-judicial foreclosure state, the deed of trust is foreclosed upon. The note is never filed with the court, not even a copy. The only document files is the deed of trust.

The minor premise is the deed of trust, the major premise is the default evidenced by an original note, but wait, where's the original note? You should not focus on that, you should focus on the deed of trust. But please don't focus on the deed of trust relying on the note(which is purported to be in default). You need to focus over here, over here over here

David and others, since I am somewhat new to posting on this fourm, please accept my sarcasim. I am mocking the system, whether it be in Ohio, Colorado, or the land of Texas.

The nisi prius courts will accept copies, if you will, just like the courts will accept guilty pleas, without any evidence. The courts will always accept your acceptance.

There is never a note recorded in the recorder's office. Only the deed of trust is recorded. Furthermore, there isn't a UCC statement or any claims coming up either. Your thoughts please............

"I say what you mean, and you mean what I say, get it?"