First, I strongly believe that many, many people are very mislead by misinformation that floats around on the internet regarding protecting your homestead property via, declaration of homestead. With us, our clients purchase a "service", not forms.
Reason: when a person files a declaration of any kind, that person is attesting to many various topics and well as citing the law involving that protection.
The biggest problem that I seen, is that people simply think that a declaration of homestead is a "silver bullet" but the problem lies is that in buying a form, they know absolutely nothing in how to defend that form in court, if that need ever arises.
Last week, I spoke to a gentleman that purchased a form from a very unqualified source and now this week he has to defend that form in court against a credit card company and their attorney which is he absolutely ignorant regards to defending it or explaining it. This is a major problem is that you could be easy picking against savvy attorney, like a lamb to the slaughter.
From my own personal experience, I defeated the FL Dept of Revenue on this very issue, even after I had filed a declaration (and other forms), they STILL tried to attach a illegal lien against my homestead - THE FORM DIDN'T PREVENT IT, MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOMESTEAD LAWS PREVENTED IT!
The attorneys and judges are in cahoots together and have been for decades especially in screwing over the average American citizen. This is why we sell a "service" not a form.
Example: Let's say you buy a "Do-it-yourself-will or trust", fill it out, file it and change the entitlement then a year later, the IRS serves you a audit summons to discuss what you did a year ago. Can you call the form company for help?? NO! You cant. You are completely on your own and now may have to hire any attorney to defend your actions. I dont understand why people get very "cheap" when it comes to protecting their most valuable asset, their homestead property - remember, you get what you pay for!
Even attorney Sharipo, who represented OJ Simpson is the owner of "Legalzoom", a legal form company, legalzoom does NOT sell Declaration of Homestead for FL or TX. Why?? Because the forms must be individually created and the wording must be exact and precise.
With our service, not only do we provide the forms needed but in the event you ever have to go to court, we provide you the legal research involving laws, statutes and case law that you will need to defend the forms that you have previously filed. We also provide you with update in any changes that occur with homestead laws that may affect you and your home.
We sell a invaluable service, not forms and you are selling yourself short in thinking that a form is a "silver bullet" to make all your legal problems go away.
Respectfully Submitted,
Darren-James: Michaels
Official capacity as recognized international official ID #200831045
Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1983, 1988, 2000(c)(4)
Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510
Federal Protected Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d)
I hate multi-level programs until I saw this one – This is the ONLY LINEAR compensation plan in the world which means allows you to benefits from ALL sales generated AROUND THE WORLD because all members are in ONE STRAIGHT LINE. This is not a “build out” or “binary” program.
It is only $27 a one-time subscription fee – that’s it! For more information -please contact me, ASAP Darren Michaels, at info@homesteadservicesflorida.com or (941)822-4663
SO WHAT IS…. “2 Plus 7” ??
OK, BOTTOMLINE - WHATS IS IT? And WHATS IN IT FOR ME??
I am going to be direct and right to the point. First, I hate multi-levels programs, BUT we all know that some past programs have providen to be quite lucrative if a person get involved at the right time, as quoted by Harvard Business School. Like I said I hate multi-levels programs, until I saw this program.
Once again, the main reason- It is the only plans that has a LINEAR compensation plan allows you to benefits from ALL sales generated AROUND THE WORLD because all members are in ONE STRAIGHT LINE. You only have to recruit two people at $27 – This is a no brainer!
WHY IS A LINEAR compensation plan superior? This is not a binary or a build out multi-level marketing program which mean you have to continually recruit people – 2 PLUS 7, you dont
For only $27 ONE-TIME ONLY, you receive a subscription to a huge list of benefits and a chance to create an income stream that is unmatched today. There are no other costs or fees whatsoever.
The “2 plus 7” is a LINEAR compensation plan which superior to a build out or binary plans that you may have seen before. The only requirement to start receiving an unlimited income stream is that you "Only" Need 2 Direct Sign-Ups to Qualify.You sign up two people and you made your $27 back!
WHY IS A LINEAR compensation plan superior?
IN A NUTSHELL” It is so simply to sign people up all you have to do is direct a prospect and “point and click” You ONLY need 2 people on your first line to qualify and be successful.
There are people today, making hundreds of thousands of dollars and this ground floor opportunity.
This is a LIST of Benefits Found currently in 2plus7!
When you subscribe to 2plus7 you have access to all these benefits for FREE!!
<Mortgage software - $1,500 value, learn to pay off your 30 yr mortgage in 1/3 the time
>Nutritionist - $1000 Value, Instruction on eating properly and healthy
>Medical Doctor -$1000 Value, medical updates daily
>Dr. Forex - $1000 Value, learn how to trade on the Forex market by a professional.
>Event Planner - $500 Value, Secret Savings planning events such as weddings.
>Animal Therapist - $500 Value, books, how to handle your pet and other animals.
>Motivational - $1000 Value, motivational information on audio, and articles.
>Personal Development Coach - $500 Value
>Internet Tool Box - $500, All the free stuff from the internet all in one place
>Magician... DAN CAIN - $1000.00, Learn how to perform some of the GREATEST TRICKS
>National Discounts - SAVE THOUSANDS!! on companies like Avis, Starbucks, Disney, Staples etc.
>Dancing - $1,000 Value. Learn how to dance with a 10X National Champion as a Dance Instructor.
Here's more of what's coming every month.... The list is growing daily!
>National Chef - $500 Value, videos, prepare, cook, and present like a chef.
>Fitness Guru - $1,000 Value, National Body champion teaches to get fit thru video
>Lead Generation System - $1,000 Value, New leads and leads management system.
>Tax software - April 15 - $5000 value, created for home based businesses
>Internet Marketing - $10,000 Value, Learn how to do internet marketing
There are possible that you may include your business and your services rendered to be offered to other members, worldwide. All for only signing up one time for only $27, that’s it!
Disclaimer: This is an informational notice. This not spam or spam advertisement. If this was received by you by accident please disregard.
Darren-James: Michaels
Official capacity as recognized international official ID #200831045 Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1983, 1988, 2000(c)(4) Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510 Federal Protected Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d)
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989)
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994)
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
One of our members not only did not receive justice from a prejudiced judge, but he does not believe that he received justice from the judge, as required by law.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989)
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Does your judge follow the law?
Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued any judge who has been disqualified by law are valid, they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
However, as we know, many judges ignore the law, but by doing so, they not only attempt to harm you, the public, but they have made a mockery of the law, and have evidenced a disdain for Justices of higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. If judges do not have respect for other judges, why should judges expect the respect of the public?
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. The judge has no more lawful authority than your next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that your judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri , 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v.United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Darren-James: Michaels
Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1988
Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510
Federal Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d)
PROTECT YOUR HOME ANY ATTACHMENT OF ANY NON-EQUITY JUDGMENTS, LIENS, LEVIES, or ENCUMBRANCES
Q:"When a lien, judgment or encumbrance is filed against YOU then why does it apply to your property also???
A: These types of encumbrances are filed by the clerk of court, are filed against you (in your "person") in your official files and will also apply against your homestead property because there is NO separate distinction is made. So does a encumbrance apply against me or against my home? - it applys to Both!
Until certain statutory requirements are completed
Once a homestead property has completed specific statutory requirements, then no non-equity lien can be apply against it! This is actually a biblical term which means to "sanctify" means to "set apart" - it is what God did with the Sabbath Day - he set it apart from all other days and to stand alone. The same must be done with your homestead property. Once your homestead property has been legally "sanctified" with specific documentation filed properly with the correct government entitites as stated in the statutes "no lien attaches to property, and a creditor does not become a lien creditor as to liens until the debtor acquires an interest in the property. what does this mean??
this is defined as an "equity lien". So what is an equity lien?
1. Lender or Mortgage company that actually owns the note on your home.
2. Real Esate Taxes (applies only to US Citizens and aliens even though their is no such thing as a US citizen)
3. Maintenance or assessment fees - such as monthly condo, villas, deeded community property
4. Construction or Mechanics liens - labor that was conducted to increased the value of the realty.
OUTSIDE OF THESE "EQUITY" ENCUMBRANCES LISTED ABOVE, PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION, THEY CANNOT BE APPLIED AGAINST YOUR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY!!
BEWARE: THERE ARE IDIOTS OUT THERE THAT ARE SELLING A CHEAP FORM TO ACT AS A "SILVER BULLET" TO MAKE YOUR PROBLEMS ALL GO AWAY. ITS NOT THAT EASY. YOU BETTER HAVE IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE FORM MEANS, AND HOW TO DEFEND IT, IF YOU EVER HAVE TO GO TO COURT, IF NOT, HAVE AN EXPERT WITNESS THAT CAN.
I have personal experience in this matter in which I had defeated the FL Dept of Revenue on this very issue in which they still attempted to file a lien against my property even after my homestead property was legally "sanctified." It was only because of my knowledge of the homestead laws that prevented their illegal non-equity encumbrance to be attached my home.
We dont sell a form, we sell a service. Please remember the old saying "you get what you pay for".
DO YOU HAVE A CURRENT JUDGMENT LIEN AGAINST YOU OR YOUR HOME ??? YOU CAN MAKE ANY NON-EQUITY ENCUMBRANCE LEGALLY UNENFORCABLE WITHIN 60 DAYS!
DO YOU HAVE A LIEN, JUDGMENT, OR PENDING LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU & CANT REFINANCE OR SELL??
WHAT IS A NON-EQUITY LIEN? credit card debt, bad debts, hospital bills, code enforcement, child support, law suits, attorney fees, judgtments, etc, etc.
WE CAN ASSIST YOU IN MAKING IT LEGALLY UNENFORCABLE WITHIN 60 DAYS!
FLORIDA HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION – Florida has the best homestead protection laws in the country but very few homeowners truly understands its contents and its benefits.
18 states have homestead laws but Florida has the most protection, then followed by Texas, etc. - Do you have a legal status of homestead? Bet you don't!
Most Residential Homeowners do not realize that they DO NOT have a legal status of Homestead but rather a false presumption in thinking their residential property is legally homesteaded – IT DOES NOT!
Example: let's use Florida The Florida Homestead Exemption form is primarily for tax purposes (ad valorem) and is filed with the Florida Dept of Revenue and not a part of a Florida homeowner’s public records.
Florida Homestead Exemption provides a $5Ok discount o(tierred) off the ad valorem taxes based on the assessed (not appraised) value of the home which is pursuant to “Save Our Homes” Act.
The majority of all Florida homeowners have NOT officially proclaimed their Florida home as homestead. "But I filed and qualify for Homestead Exemption each year" - The paramount question is - Does the protect your home? Answer: NO!
Fact: Homestead Exemption does not officially proclaim your home as homestead.
Homestead Exemption has two main functions:
1) $50,000 annual exemption (tierred) discounted off their real taxes based on the accessed value and not to increase more than 3% per annum (Save our Homes Legislation)
2) Prevents a "forced" sales from a "non-equity" lienor from forcing you to sell your home to pay a debt, lien, levy, judgment or encumbrances BUT IT DOES NOT PREVENT A "NON-EQUITY" LIEN FROM ATTACHING A LIEN AGAINST YOUR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY...... not until you have acquired a legal status of homestead which is a completely different Statutory and Separate Filing than Homestead Exemption!
ONCE AGAIN - Once you have a legal homestead status then NO "non-equity" liens, judgments, levies, encumbrances can be applied against your homestead property. Only when a lienor has an "equity-interest" in your homestead property can they make any claim against it pursuant to the Florida Constitution (art x, 4(a))
What is an "equity lien"? As clearly defined in the Florida Constitution art. x, sec 4(a) - it is those four types of liens listed above. Everything else is of a non-equity nature.
Disclaimer: we are not a law firm or attorneys. Nothing in this message should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed by your state bar association union.
After a February 24 trial on a Florida Bar Association complaint alleging that Charles "Chuck" Behm, a Florida attorney, had violated bar rules by committing a criminal act in refusing to file federal income tax returns since 1999, Judge Tyrie W. Boyer, a county judge in Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in Jacksonville, ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act.
The Florida Bar was obviously assisted by either DOJ, the IRS, or both because its presentation, right down to including the standard name calling and the stale half truths was DOJ SOP. From opening statement to close, the DOJ's fingerprints were all over the case. The only new twist was DOJ's latest slam against patriots, introducing a new name for what it calls anti-government groups like "tax protesters," "tax defiers," and now "Constitutionalists!" [Oh, the horror! Not that!] Behm's defense attorney, Truth Attack's Tom Cryer, had plenty to say about that in his response.
In his cross examination of the Bar's "expert" witness, Cryer was able to force the witness to admit that he could not cite any specific authority making Behm liable for the income tax, and that the absence of such a statute is not among the official list of "frivolous" arguments. The witness also admitted on cross examination that he did not really have a clear definition of "income."
Chuck Behm then testified that his research into the code and Supreme Court authorities forced him to conclude that he is not liable for the federal income tax and, therefore, not among those required to file returns, that he had no income within the meaning of the Constitution and the Sixteenth Amendment, and that he is engaging in no activity within the federal government's power to tax. Chuck was very thorough and precise in describing his research and the authorities, making a very clear and convincing account of his command of the subject.
In her closing, the Bar Counsel argued that people depend upon attorneys to set an example by following and supporting the government and its laws. Cryer rebutted that argument by contending that people do not depend on attorneys to support the government, but to support the Constitution, to protect their rights, and to stand up to the government when it abuses either.
Judge Boyer ruled that Behm had committed no criminal act by refusing to file federal income taxes, but the case is far from over. He also ruled that the failure to file was unlawful although he could give no specific basis for that finding. Now the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court for its ruling, and in that process the court will be challenged to show what law subjects Behm to liability and, hence, a lawful duty to file returns and pay income taxes.
we are not a law firm or attorneys. Nothing in this message should be considered legal advice or construed as such. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed by your state bar association.
In a foreclosure action, one defensive position has been in the contestation of the lender to produce the "original note". Some people have been successful in delaying a foreclosure action and some people have not been successful. This should not be the only defensive position utilized. You may need more bullets in your gun.
In demanding for a court to grant a TRO against the lender to prevent foreclosing until the production of discovery is officially submitted, on and for the record. The Defendant should utilize a independent third party, as an expert witness, to fully conduct forensic analysis of the mortgage contract between the parties, also known as the "FOUR CORNER RULE" of a contract for violations of
TRUTH IN LENDING ACT (TILA),
REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT (RESPA),
HOME OWNERSHIP AND EQUITY PROTECTION ACT (HOEPA),
EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT (ECOA),
BREACH OF CONTRACT,
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST,
UNCONSCIONABILITY,
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
Four Corners Of An Instrument
(n) The phrase 'Four Corners of An Instrument ' is used to limit the meaning and understanding of the provisions contained in a document within the expressed words in that document. In such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning.
Four Corners Rule
(n) Four Corners Rule requires to interpret the meaning and understanding of the provisions contained in a document by considering the overall meaning and intention of that document. In such an interpretation of document, the external factors will not influence the meaning. But the meaning of a sentence or clause is influenced by the document as a whole.
When applying these rules, the court’s function is to “construe the contract made by the parties, not to make a contract for them. The question for the court is what did the parties agree to as evidenced by their contract. The guiding light in the construction of a contract is the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the words they have used, and courts are bound to say that the parties intended what the written instrument plainly declares.” Irwin, 47 Va. App. at 293, 623 S.E.2d at 441 (quoting Wilson, 227 Va. at 187, 313 S.E.2d at 398).
Equity Law:
Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract.
For the party being foreclosed upon to utilize 3rd party to submit their documented conclusion to the court of their finding of facts and conclusion of law. The 3rd party conducting such analysis can also become a expert witness in not only preventing foreclosure but possible counter-claim against the lender for damages and injuries suffered.
Common Law:
Common Law is based on God’s Law. Any time someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. see: Hale v HenkelAny violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT, and is punishable.
If defects are found within the contract, then you can either file a counter-claim with the assistance of an attorney or as pro se. You can also recruit a thirty party firm that will access and document any damages and injuries suffered.
STOPPING FORECLOSURES - SAY "NO" TO LOAN MODIFICATIONS & "YES" TO VERIFICATION By Darren Michaels, Private Attorney General www.homesteadservicesflorida.com
One thing that a homeowner can use as evidence against the alleged lender to possibly stall a foreclosure action is with a a "verification of debt" in demanding for their "alleged" lender to produce the original mortgage documents and note. During the real estate boom, many mortgages were sold and resold, bundled into securities and peddled to investors - often leaving the original note signed by the homeowner lost, stored in a distant warehouse or even destroyed. It is known as "Proof of claim" a.k.a. evidence.
If your lender cannot produce "proof of claim" then they do not have any legal standing or jurisdiction to foreclose or to even collect a mortgage payment.
three basic steps that have been utilized: 1. Temporary Restraining order - stops the foreclosure 2. Petition for Discovery (proof of claim) and if not produce 3. Counter-claim for fraud, civil RICO, deceptive business practices, fraudulent presentments, counterfeit security fraud, mail fraud, etc.
Please note:
But dont use this as your only bullet in your defensive gun - remember EQUITY LAW COMPELS PERFORMANCE OR TO PERFORM TO THE EXACT LETTER OF THE CONTRACT Even if you are not delinquent or not in a foreclosure status, you can still use a "verification of debt" against your lender to validate if they still possess the actual note. Most lenders do not! and do not answer the "verification of debt" or what them by default or what is known as estoppel by acquiescence which means "I say nothing" - the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that Silence can only be equivalent to fraud ! See: Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480(1983). “Fraud and deceit may arise from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth.”
All parties may be liable under Alter Ego Liability – a judicial doctrine applied to corporations where a court may hold the individual shareholders liable where the business entity is merely the "Alter Ego" of its shareholders, a member of a corporation or LLC may also be held liable for the corporation / LLCs debts and liabilities.
Problems with a Loan Modification: 10 POINTS TO CONSIDER
1. The borrowers will think they are modifying their current loan when in fact they are starting all over again. 2. The Foreclosing entity which lacks standing to bring lawsuit, is not authorized to modify anything since they are not the owner of the loan in question. 3. Since the real parties in interest are no where to be found, they are taking it upon themselves with the help of theirl awyers to steal your property. 4. The borrower is actually getting a new loan which may enjoin borrower from rescinding new transaction. 5. The foreclosing entity is STILL not using their own fundsto modify (new loan) loan. They are getting funds to lend borrowers through Federal bail outs, insurance proceeds and believe it or not Investors. [same process] 6. Their lawyers are not acting in a lawyer’s capacity but asBROKERS; [middlemen] they are getting paid commission on every new loan they help brokered. 7. What Does Loan Modification Mean?A modification to an existing loan made by a lender in response to aborrower’s long-term inability to repay the loan. Loan modifications typically involve a reduction in the interest rate on the loan, an extension of the length of the term of the loan, a different type of loan or any combination of the three. A lender might be open to modifying a loan because the cost of doing so is less than the cost of default. 8. Why would they need to re-qualify if they claim they would make the borrowers payments and rates to be less? 9. The borrower took the loan out with lender “A” but an unknown lender “B” is trying to modify it. 10. When the modification is said and done, the borrower will have lender “B” as the lender. What happened to lender “A”???
Anyone need our assistance, you may contact us at: www.homesteadservicesflorida.com (941)822-4663
Darren-James: Michaels Private Attorney General – 42 USC 1988 Qualified Criminal Investigator – 18 USC 1510 Federal Witness – 18 USC 1512,13, 1964(a)(b)(c)(d) Ordained Minister/Ambassador - Protected Foreign official -18 USC 11, 112 Absolute Immunity as a Corporation 28 USC 1608 FSIA(1976,1997), Secured Foreign Party - 28 USC 1602-1611 Florida Notary – F.S. 117 Florida Insurance Broker: licenses – 215,216,218,240,266
There are a lot of "dirty cops" out there that are nothing more than ego induced, abuse of power, idiots with guns and that abusing citizens rights on a daily basis. These public servants are fully accountable under the law. I currently have a pending federal law suit against 10+ "dirty cops" from three different agencies in Florida (Sarasota and Orlando) that have clearly abused their authority and jurisdiction.
I have alleged over 60 federal felonies committed against each officer. a formal federal complaint was filed: internal affairs for each dept failed to act, FL Dept of Law Enforcement (LeFiles) failed to act FL ATTY GENERAL failed to act, US ATTY GENERAL (acosta) failed to act, USDOJ failed to act, ACLU wont act, just waiting on the IRS under misuse and abusive of federal funding (Qui Tam Action) by each department.
If a cop abuses your constitutional rights - sue him and his employer!
"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).
"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).
"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).
"Justice Joseph Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that `a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, `If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the `ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.
As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)
All existing or future so-called "gun and/or ammunition laws", of whatever name or form under "color of law", whether Federal, Federal Agency, Pseudo Federal Agency, State, County or Municipal that infringes, abridges or restricts in any manner, the God given, unalienable, indefeasible, Constitutional right of Citizens to keep and bear Arms peaceably, openly or concealed, for their defense of life, liberty, and property are prima facie violations of Article 1, Sec. 9, Part 3; Article 6, Part 2; and Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X of the Constitution for the United States of America.
Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
BE IT KNOWN that any law, statute, or ordinance that is repugnant to the written Constitutions for the United States of America (1787) - Marbury vs. Madison 5 US 137,174, 176, (1803); and the State of Arkansas (1874) is NULL and VOID, ab initio, ultra vires.
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The written Constitution for the United States of America is the supreme law of the land, any statute to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the written Constitution for the United States of America and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its inactment, and not merely from the date so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Sixteenth American Jurisprudence Second Edition, Section 256
RECENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER - PASCO FLORIDA - CHIEF JUDGE - "NO NOTE, NO FORECLOSURE"
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO AND PINELLAS COUNTIES, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2008081 PA/PICIR printerfriendly version RE: MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE ACTIONS BY INSTITUTIONAL LENDERS Mortgage foreclosure cases have increased at an unprecedented rate in the Sixth Judicial Circuit. In the Sixth Judicial Circuit in the last year alone, mortgage foreclosure case filings increased approximately 118%. Frequently, attorneys who handle a large volume of mortgage foreclosure cases do not have their pleadings in order or fail to appear at scheduled hearings, causing the court to reschedule or delay hearings in mortgage foreclosure cases. The volume of the cases and the resetting of these hearings results in difficulties scheduling these summary proceedings. In light of the court’s finite resources, it is necessary to establish procedures for more efficient handling of mortgage foreclosure cases. Pursuant to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.215, the Chief Judge has the authority to adopt administrative orders necessary to administer the court’s affairs. Therefore, it is
ORDERED: 1. Filing of Initial Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint: An institutional mortgagee lender that after January 19, 2009, files a complaint to foreclose a mortgage on homestead property must provide the following to the Clerk of Circuit Court with the initial filing: a. A Notice to Homeowner, a copy of which is attached to this Administrative Order as Attachment A. b. A Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet, a copy of which is attached to this Administrative Order as Attachment B. Homestead property is property designated as “homestead” by the property appraiser’s office on the date of filing the complaint. The plaintiff must include the Notice to Homeowner and Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet with each summons serving a complaint on the owner of residential homestead property. 2. Certificate Filed Prior to Requesting Summary Judgment Hearing Dates: Prior to requesting a mortgage foreclosure summary judgment hearing date from the court, the attorney of record for the plaintiff must file a uniform certificate titled “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” with the Clerk. The uniform certificate is Attachment C to this Administrative Order. The uniform certificate provides the attorney’s certification of the completion of requisite actions and the dates on which they were completed. 3. Foreclosure Judgment Packet Prior to Hearing: Unless the presiding judge provides otherwise, the plaintiff’s attorney must deliver a foreclosure judgment packet to the presiding judge’s office at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date for a motion for summary judgment. The foreclosure judgment packet consists of the following documents: a. Proposed Uniform Final Judgment. Include sufficient copies for conforming and stamped, addressed envelopes for all parties; b. Original Promissory Note (unless previously filed); c. Notice of Sale; d. A copy of the Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures; and e. A copy of the Notice of Hearing. 4. Uniform Final Judgment: All proposed final judgments of foreclosure shall be in the format of the Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit as provided in Attachment D unless otherwise specifically approved by the judge entering the final judgment. Any changes to the Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure from that prescribed in Attachment D shall be brought to the attention of the presiding judge at the final judgment hearing. 5. Cancellation of Foreclosure Sale by Clerk upon Suggestion of Bankruptcy: If the Clerk of Circuit Court receives, prior to the commencement of a foreclosure sale, a mailed or faxed suggestion of bankruptcy on behalf of a named defendant in a pending foreclosure action, the Clerk is directed to cancel the foreclosure sale. The Clerk shall not cancel the sale if subsequently directed otherwise by the presiding judge or a United States Bankruptcy Judge. The plaintiff is responsible to separately file with the Clerk any order from a United States Bankruptcy Judge that would preclude the Clerk from canceling a foreclosure sale; such filing must not be an attachment or exhibit. 6. Additional Procedures: The judicial practice preferences of each judge, which may contain a judge’s individualized procedures for mortgage foreclosure cases, may be found on the Circuit’s Internet site at http://www.jud6.org/LegalCommunity/PracticeRequirementsofJudges.html. The Chief Judge may update or make other amendments to the attachments of this Administrative Order without further amendment to this Administrative Order. 7. Application: This Administrative Order applies to all mortgage foreclosure actions by institutional lenders except that paragraph one only applies to homestead property. 8. Effective Dates: All mortgage foreclosure complaints filed after January 19, 2009, and all mortgage foreclosure summary judgment hearings scheduled to occur after January 19, 2009, must comply with this Administrative Order. A plaintiff, who as of the date of this Administrative Order, has filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and already has a foreclosure summary judgment hearing scheduled to occur after January 19, 2009, may keep the scheduled date and time. However, the plaintiff’s attorney must file the Foreclosure Judgment Package, as prescribed in paragraph 3 of this Administrative Order, including the “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” with the Clerk of Circuit Court at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The presiding judge may cancel a schedule hearing that does not have the Foreclosure Judgment Package filed by that day. A plaintiff, who as of the date of this Administrative Order, has filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint and has yet to schedule a foreclosure summary judgment hearing, must comply with paragraph 2 of this Administrative Order and file a “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” prior to requesting a hearing hearing, must comply with paragraph 2 of this Administrative Order and file a “Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures” prior to requesting a hearing date. Additionally, the plaintiff must file the Foreclosure Judgment Package, as prescribed in paragraph 3 of this Administrative Order, with the Clerk of Circuit Court at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled hearing date. A plaintiff who files a mortgage foreclosure complaint after January 19, 2009, must comply with all requirements of this Administrative Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of December 2008. _____________________________ Robert J. Morris, Jr., Chief Judge Attachment: cc: All Judges The Honorable Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pinellas County The Honorable Jed Pittman, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Pasco County Paula O’Neil, Chief Deputy, Pasco County Clerk’s Office Debbie Gay, Assistant Court Services Director, Pasco County Clerk’s Office Carol Heath, Executive Director, Pinellas County Clerk’s Office Gay L. Inskeep, Trial Courts Administrator Bar Associations, Pasco and Pinellas County Law Libraries, Pasco and Pinellas County (A) Notice to Homeowner (html) (A) Notice to Homeowner (word version) (B) Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet (html) (B) Plaintiff/Lender’s Contact Information Sheet (word version) (C) Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures (html) (C) Certification of Compliance with Foreclosure Procedures (word version) (D) Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit (html) (D) Uniform Final Judgment of Foreclosure for the Sixth Judicial Circuit (word version)
Florida has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country.
Is your bank operating under fraud?? MOST OF THEM ARE
I can’t tell you how many calls that I get from homeowners asking me if there is any way that they can prevent foreclosure. One very important issue is normally in the complaint that is filed by the plaintiff (bank) in a case.
Typically what I have seen is that most of the foreclosures are based on blatant, premeditated fraud by the banks and mortgage companies. In their complaint, there may be a paragraph that states "the original note has been lost or misplaced" this may be true or maybe a blatant lie but it is the real issue to challenge the plaintiff's complaint by filing a petition for discovery and/or deposing the bookkeeper for the bank and getting down the "brass facts" of what really happened to the original note.
There has been more and more federal cases surfacing in which some (honest) federal judges are dismissing the plaintiff cases for lack of standing or jurisdiction because they cannot produce the original mortgage note.
In Florida, Florida’s best evidence rule “requires that when the contents of writing … are being proved, an original must be offered unless a statutory excuse.
The Florida Evidence Code provides that Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording or photograph. § 90.952, Fla. Stat. The requirement of an “original” ensures that the evidence presented is an accurate transmittal of the critical facts contained within it. See McKeehan v. State, 838 So. 2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). the “original writing is required because oral testimony may be inaccurate [or] fraud may result.” C. Ehrhardt, Fla. Evid. § 952.1. See also U.S. v. Howard, 953 F.2d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1992).
The Evidence Code, however, does permit the introduction of duplicates under certain circumstances: A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless: …. (2) A genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.
(3) It is unfair, under the circumstance, to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. § 90.953, Fla. Stat. Thus, for the copies of the purported Holder paper to be admissible, (a) the copies must be “duplicates,” (b) no genuine question can exist regarding authenticity; and (b) it must be fair to admit the paper in lieu of the original. When there is insufficient proof to establish that the photocopy is the same as the original, the evidence must be excluded. A duplicate may not be admitted into evidence if there is “genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.” § 90.953(2), Fla. Stat. As a leading treatise on Florida evidence explains,
If there is a genuine question concerning the authenticity of the duplicate, the duplicate is not admissible under section 90.953(2). For example, if a defendant alleges that he did not sign a contract upon which the plaintiff sued, but rather signed a different contract, a genuine question is “raised about the authenticity of the original” and the duplicate is not admissible under section 90.953(2). The original must be offered unless an adequate excuse for its non-production is demonstrated under section 90.954.” See: C. Ehrhardt, Fla. Evid. § 953.1 (2004).
The bottom line is "proof of claim" , the burden of proof falls back into the lap of your bank - if your bank cannot provide prima facie evidence that they do not have standing or jurisdiction to sue you in a foreclosure action. Furthermore, it makes your bank subject to counter-claim under false claim act 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (federal) or FloridaFalseClaimsAct 68.081-68.09, not to mention, violations of FDCPA, FTC "deceptive business practices" and "fraudulent presentments", SEC, and mail fraud, etc.
The court recognized that the debtor had the necessary motive to fabricate the “letter” to serve his own self-interest. Some banks have sold the original note in asset backed trust pool to international investors. Similar to "factoring" where the note is sold for a discounted price or cash to a new owner.
The biggest hurdle that any pro-se litigant or non-attorney faces today is the corruption of our courts but don’t give up - winners never quit and quitters never win. Fight for your rights and for your home.
Ten Tips for Success in Court: by Fredrick graves, Esq.
1. Deserve the Judgment You Seek 2. Follow the Rules 3. Make Everyone Follow the Rules
a. Rules of Civil Procedure b. Rules of Evidence c. General Legal Principles d. Common-Sense & Reason
4. Allow No Monkey-Shines! 5. Demand the Truth
a. Require Sworn Testimony b. Verify Pleadings & Motions
6. Make an Effective Record
c. Use Well-Paid Court Reporters b. Do Not Go Off-the-Record
7. Use Simple Sentences 8. Manage Your Own Case
a. Don't Allow Opponent Control b. Don't Allow Court Direction
9. Expect a Favorable Judgment 10. Demand Your Right to Win!
NEVER GIVE IN AND NEVER GIVE UP!
If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact us at:
(941)822-4663 OR INFO@HOMESTEADSERVICESFLORIDA.COM
DISCLAIMER: we are not a law firm or attorneys. Nothing in this message should be considered legal or tax advice. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed by your state bar association and for tax advice please consult a CPA or qualified accountant.
KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE - DONT EVER LET ANYONE TELL YOU WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE.
Florida has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country.
Is your bank operating under fraud??
I can’t tell you how many calls that I get from homeowners asking me if there is any way that they can prevent foreclosure. One very important issue is normally in the complaint that is filed by the plaintiff (bank) in a case.
Typically what I have seen is that most of the foreclosures are based on blatant, premeditated fraud by the banks and mortgage companies. In their complaint, there may be a paragraph that states "the original note has been lost or misplaced" this may be true or maybe a blatant lie but it is the real issue to challenge the plaintiff's complaint by filing a petition for discovery and/or deposing the bookkeeper for the bank and getting down the "brass facts" of what really happened to the original note.
There has been more and more federal cases surfacing in which some (honest) federal judges are dismissing the plaintiff cases for lack of standing or jurisdiction because they cannot produce the original mortgage note.
In Florida, Florida’s best evidence rule “requires that when the contents of writing … are being proved, an original must be offered unless a statutory excuse.
The Florida Evidence Code provides that Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording or photograph. § 90.952, Fla. Stat. The requirement of an “original” ensures that the evidence presented is an accurate transmittal of the critical facts contained within it. See McKeehan v. State, 838 So. 2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). the “original writing is required because oral testimony may be inaccurate [or] fraud may result.” C. Ehrhardt, Fla. Evid. § 952.1. See also U.S. v. Howard, 953 F.2d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1992).
The Evidence Code, however, does permit the introduction of duplicates under certain circumstances: A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original, unless: …. (2) A genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.
(3) It is unfair, under the circumstance, to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original. § 90.953, Fla. Stat. Thus, for the copies of the purported Holder paper to be admissible, (a) the copies must be “duplicates,” (b) no genuine question can exist regarding authenticity; and (b) it must be fair to admit the paper in lieu of the original. When there is insufficient proof to establish that the photocopy is the same as the original, the evidence must be excluded. A duplicate may not be admitted into evidence if there is “genuine question is raised about the authenticity of the original or any other document or writing.” § 90.953(2), Fla. Stat. As a leading treatise on Florida evidence explains,
If there is a genuine question concerning the authenticity of the duplicate, the duplicate is not admissible under section 90.953(2). For example, if a defendant alleges that he did not sign a contract upon which the plaintiff sued, but rather signed a different contract, a genuine question is “raised about the authenticity of the original” and the duplicate is not admissible under section 90.953(2). The original must be offered unless an adequate excuse for its non-production is demonstrated under section 90.954.” See: C. Ehrhardt, Fla. Evid. § 953.1 (2004).
The bottom line is "proof of claim" , the burden of proof falls back into the lap of your bank - if your bank cannot provide prima facie evidence that they do not have standing or jurisdiction to sue you in a foreclosure action. Furthermore, it makes your bank subject to counter-claim under false claim act 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (federal) or FloridaFalseClaimsAct 68.081-68.09, not to mention, violations of FDCPA, FTC "deceptive business practices" and "fraudulent presentments", SEC, and mail fraud, etc.
The court recognized that the debtor had the necessary motive to fabricate the “letter” to serve his own self-interest. Some banks have sold the original note in asset backed trust pool to international investors. Similar to "factoring" where the note is sold for a discounted price or cash to a new owner.
The biggest hurdle that any pro-se litigant or non-attorney faces today is the corruption of our courts but don’t give up - winners never quit and quitters never win. Fight for your rights and for your home.
Ten Tips for Success in Court: by Fredrick graves, Esq.
1. Deserve the Judgment You Seek 2. Follow the Rules 3. Make Everyone Follow the Rules
a. Rules of Civil Procedure b. Rules of Evidence c. General Legal Principles d. Common-Sense & Reason
4. Allow No Monkey-Shines! 5. Demand the Truth
a. Require Sworn Testimony b. Verify Pleadings & Motions
6. Make an Effective Record
c. Use Well-Paid Court Reporters b. Do Not Go Off-the-Record
7. Use Simple Sentences 8. Manage Your Own Case
a. Don't Allow Opponent Control b. Don't Allow Court Direction
9. Expect a Favorable Judgment 10. Demand Your Right to Win!
NEVER GIVE IN AND NEVER GIVE UP!
If anyone has any questions, feel free to contact us at:
(941)822-4663 OR INFO@HOMESTEADSERVICESFLORIDA.COM
DISCLAIMER: we are not a law firm or attorneys. Nothing in this message should be considered legal or tax advice. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed by your state bar association and for tax advice please consult a CPA or qualified accountant.
KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE - DONT EVER LET ANYONE TELL YOU WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE.
Disclaimer: ActiveRain Corp. does not necessarily endorse the real estate agents, loan officers and brokers listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs and blog entries are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a house. ActiveRain Corp. takes no responsibility for the content in these profiles, that are written by the members of this community.
;)
;)
