How To Drive A Zionist Banker Crazy
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: J
D
I have some banking questions which I hope may reveal some startling revelations.
We hear on the web the notion that banks create money out of thin air….Right?
Along with all this whining and gnashing of teeth concerning International Jewish bankers.
When these idiots on the web are questioned about their claims they soon hit a brick wall.
Hopefully.....this may in some way correct this famous quote: "My people shall suffer for lack of knowledge."
This is what the bankers, politicians and Elite in general DO NOT, want you to know….so, let's proceed….
What is money?
Let's take a closer look
Or rather the question should be; "What is credit?"
I think money could be anything from tally sticks to gold and everything in between.
But "credit" is something created out of credibility and that requires a signature on a legal document.
How does 'credit' get converted to 'money'??
What is the Personal Property Security Act asset item the banks and government always want from you?
Your signature!......because your signature backs the treasury in the country you reside in.
Have you ever noticed that when you purchase or pay for something you never receive a bill?
D, you can not….in all the transactions you have made in the past forty odd years claim to have been presented with a bill.
O' Yea you say and reach for a stack of invoices, gas receipts, credit card receipts and statements, etc.
Well D….I regret to inform you that legally speaking, not one of those items you handed me is a "bill."
They do not fit the legal description or the requirements to be termed a "bill."
A "bill" is quite simply "an unconditional order to pay" and what you presented me with are not "unconditional orders to pay" but rather announcements of what the charge is.
They simply announce to you that a bill exists….somewhere.
But they never, EVER seem to be able to find it.
These items you presented me with are not legal obligations to pay money.
Here is what a "bill" is and any addition or retraction from this removes the defined obligation to pay.
Bills of Exchange Act
16. (1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing,
addressed by one person to another, signed by the person
giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to
pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time,
a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified
person or to bearer.
Where is the governments/banks signature on their bills????
The most fascinating document I have ever run across is the Bills of Exchange Act here in Canada.
In the Bills of Exchange Act the "consumer" is listed as the "bank in fact."
The Financial Administration Act defines "money" as "negotiable Instruments."
Definition for: Money: Money includes any negotiable instrument
Definition for: Negotiable instrument: Negotiable instrument includes any cheque, draft, traveler's cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument;
From this you can see that money is very obviously more than what YOU thought it was. I have underlined bill of exchange in the above because that's what you'll settle with if they give you a bill, or if they do not!
Okay, you got that? Are you ready for the bomb? The reason they don't give you a bill, is that if they present you with a BILL, then you can settle with your signature, and a notation on the bill
- "Consumer Purchase"!
Did you get that? If they give you a bill, and even if they fail to complete it, or sign it, you can simply accept it, sign it and give it back to them! Don't believe? Check out the so-called 'laws' of CANADA.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT
57. (1) Every party whose signature appears on a bill is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, deemed to have become a party thereto for value.
Consumer Bill to be marked
190. (1) Every consumer bill or consumer note shall be prominently and legibly marked on its face with the words "Consumer Purchase" before or at the time when the instrument is signed by the purchaser or by any person signing to accommodate the purchaser.
Effects where not marked
(2) A consumer bill or consumer note that is not marked as required by this section is void, except in the hands of a holder in due course without notice that the bill or note is a consumer bill or consumer note or except as against a drawee without that notice.
R.S., c. 4(1st Supp.), s. 1.
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that: "A promise to pay, is its self, the money."
I think you should be getting very excited by now! This is telling you that if you sign the bill, you gave it value! It's telling you that your signature IS the money! BY signing the bill, and returning it to them, you gave them value! It says, "In absence of evidence to the contrary". Where is that going to come from?
NO EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT A BANK IN CANADA HAS EVER LENT A SINGLE SOUL ONE $1, EXCEPT THE MONEY WHICH HE CREATED WITH HIS OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY, HIS SIGNATURE.
Who on planet earth can provide proof positive that your signature has no value? That's actually a slander of credit because your signature DOES have value, PERIOD! No body can provide proof to the contrary, EVER! The bank accepted your signature as having value on your mortgage, did they not? They accepted your signature as having value on your car loan, did they not? They let you take the car didn't they? What does everybody want from you all the time? Your signature!!!!
What if they refuse to provide a bill? Then they have admitted to no obligation!
Example:
Traffic tickets are "bills" pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act 16. (1) signed by the officer demanding you pay within 30 days or show up at a later date to pay and the second you take possession of the copy presented, you are legally deemed to be in dishonour and are liable for the acceptance of a forged "bill".
By neglecting to ask the officer for the original in order that you may settle, you have in effect and in fact, by accepting a copy (forgery) admitted you owe the "bill" as presented.
The cops in Saskatoon have three words on their crest and badge: "COMMERCE - INDUSTRY - EDUCATION" and we all know "commerce" is conducted pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act.
That's why you can not win in court…..you are deemed guilty by just showing up to argue and fight.
You waved your right to dispute the bill using a notary within 72 hours of accepting the copy (forgery).
Now they have you under legal contract.
Ever notice they always give you 30 plus days before you have to appear in court?
They have to by law, give you 30 plus days in order to dispute the bill.
So….40 days later you show up in court to fight and the judge asks you if you have your copy of the ticket with you and you of course wave it under his nose thereby admitting evidence to having accepted a forgery as the real thing when, the judge is sitting there with the original….the only bill (original) in dispute [that you refused to get your hands on by neglecting to demand it or dispute the offer made by the cop] which is now in the judges hands and he is the holder in due course.
YOUR Done For!! AND YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF!!
The only document having full and absolute standing (recognition) in any court is the "original blue ink signed legal instrument."
[Off subject….maybe now you know why the Jews claim the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a forgery……that no original exists, so……it can't be used against them in a court of law.]
Unbeknownst to us, were looking kind of stupid here aren't we?
Look up "Notary Public" in any decent dictionary and you will find that his/her job is to dispute "bills of exchange"
The "Notary Public" has the right to demand the original upon notice of dishonour along with costs incurred.
Every jail in the free world has a notary public on hand in order that you may dispute their offer of a bill…..even murder, which is bill valued here at around 4-4.5 million.
If a lawyer shows up you have three options of employing him 1, as a solicitor, 2, as a barrister, 3, as a notary public.
Hence, the shingle hanging out front: "EISNER & CO. BARRISTER, SOLICITOR and NOTARY PUBLIC."
You only get to choose one.
A solicitor or barrister cannot secure and defend your rights.
Only you can do that by empowering a Notary Public.
The Notary is the Joker, the wild card in the judicial deck and undoubtedly, the most powerful of the lot.
The other two are just smoke and mirror artists conducting a Dog & Pony Show.
And the judge on the bench…..he's the banker.(bench in Latin is banque)
These bankers have a price on everything.
NO ONE needs to lose their home in a mortgage foreclosure simply because of the facts presented here.
Here is what is written on the bottom of the document the banks use here when initiating a foreclosure:
To the defendants:
Take notice that you are entitled at any time, by notice in writing, to demand from the
plaintiff's solicitors (if the plaintiff sues in person, insert "plaintiff ") full particulars of the amount
claimed by the plaintiff, and production for your inspection of the mortgage, and any other
documents sued upon.
Do you see where you have the right to demand the mortgage note be produced for your inspection?
The bank will not produce the note……it is near impossible!!
The bank may try to bring a copy (forgery) to court or file an affidavit of "Lost Note" but that don't cut it….NO STANDING!!....unless of course you agree to allow it.
Remember no lawyer/solicitor is going to protect your rights?
Here is the problem the bank has:
If, the bank were to bring the original "note" to court for inspection the discerning observer may just find the note has been converted to a "Bearer Instrument/Bearer Bond", [a bunch of endorsements will appear on the back of which some may be blank evidencing that they sold the note without your consent or knowledge] and now whoever physically holds [Bearer Bond]the original note or listed as holder [Bearer Instrument] also holds "legal title" (due to its conversion) to all the property listed on the note.
THAT'S FRAUD!!!! AND WHAT BANK IS GOING TO ADMIT DOING THAT??
Some bank in China or Singapore may claim to hold legal title to your property even after you have paid it off.
They never return the original note simply because you never demanded it!!
Very few Goyim are aware that upon fulfilling their legal obligation to the bank, they have the legal right to demand the return of the original note thereby, evidencing THE BILL IS PAID and they now hold "LEGAL TITLE" (owner).
Or, in lieu of the original note you may settle with the bank by arranging for a certificate of trust to be deposited into an account for the entire amount plus all the interest to be made available for your investment purposes.
The Certificate of Title these people sluff off on to you at Land Titles is simply "Equity Title" and lists you as a "tenant."
In Canada the Escheats Act about says it all: "All property reverts to the crown for want of a competent heir."
Legally speaking, all "persons" in Canada or anywhere for that matter are deemed incompetent slaves by the very nature of incorporation.
SUBORDINATE DEAD LEGAL FICTIONS HAVE NO CLAIM OF RIGHT which by reason of deduction=NO RIGHT TO CLAIM ANYTHING…..NOTHING!! NOT EVEN WHAT YOU CLAIM AS YOUR SHORTS!!
One may wish to clarify this with your crown (government)….I did and to my sole benefit.
We will unpack that one another day, so… back on point.
Some notes have been split into 2-3 parts and held by two or three banks where you may be foreclosed on up to three times on a single piece of real estate!!
Now you know why you demand the original note be produced.
No one needs to pay any bank or government bill unless they agree to.
Why would you agree (offer) to pay unless your legally obligated to????
Banks and governments are legal entities and deal strictly in legal instruments with legal obligations under contract law. (See my post: Their trying to use contract law)
The case listed below was brought by the Deutsche Bank that happened to purchase a single named instrument from JP Morgan's and of the 14 so-called mortgage holders only some, were in default.
And because it was purchased as a "single named instrument" the bank had to foreclose on all 14.
No bank or government ever comes to the table your at, with a legal obligation to pay.
They don't dare!!
For fear of exposing their fraud!!
I have never, EVER witnessed a single incident where the informed fellow who knows who he is, MUST PAY!!
Only stupid dumb sheep (goyium) step up to be sheared and that's the truth.
Jackie-Grant-Vel'oice: Harper
c/o 1040-B 20th Street West, Saskatoon city, Saskatchewan province.
Free-man-on-the-Land, Non-consenting and ungoverned
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended, By the Grace of God, The Rule of Law and the Law of the Land.
p.s. I have all the knowledge (and it gets a lot better than this) needed to contract one through this procedure.
Below you will see that 14 people who (without a lawyer) walked out of court while retaining their homes with the bonus of having no one to make their mortgage payments to!!!
Same applies in France, Switzerland, England, Ireland, USA, etc.,
Now that….must have driven the German Jew Banker mad!!!
Only chickens go scratching around for chicken feed.
What do you want to own????
All hats off and a salute to: JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO!!!! for committing this act of manumission!!!!
HAHAHAHA!!! GO GET 'EM!!!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE FORECLOSURE CASES ) CASE NO. NO.1:07CV2282
) 07CV2532
) 07CV2560
) 07CV2602
) 07CV2631
) 07CV2638
) 07CV2681
) 07CV2695
) 07CV2920
) 07CV2930
) 07CV2949
) 07CV2950
) 07CV3000
) 07CV3029
))
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
))))
OPINION AND ORDER
))
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
On October 10, 2007, this Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff-Lenders in a
number of pending foreclosure cases to file a copy of the executed Assignment demonstrating
Plaintiff was the holder and owner of the Note and Mortgage as of the date the Complaint
was filed, or the Court would enter a dismissal. After considering the submissions, along
with all the documents filed of record, the Court dismisses the captioned cases without
prejudice. The Court has reached today's determination after a thorough review of all the
relevant law and the briefs and arguments recently presented by the parties, including oral
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 6
-2-
arguments heard on Plaintiff Deutsche Bank's Motion for Reconsideration. The decision,
therefore, is applicable from this date forward, and shall not have retroactive effect.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A party seeking to bring a case into federal court on grounds of diversity carries the
burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Coyne v. American Tobacco Company, 183 F.
3d 488 (6th Cir. 1999). Further, the plaintiff "bears the burden of demonstrating standing and
must plead its components with specificity." Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge Christian
College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982).
The minimum constitutional requirements for standing are: proof of injury in fact, causation,
and redressability. Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472. In addition, "the plaintiff must be a proper
proponent, and the action a proper vehicle, to vindicate the rights asserted." Coyne, 183 F. 3d
at 494 (quoting Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 926 F. 2d 573, 576 (6th Cir. 1991)). To
satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution, the plaintiff must
show he has personally suffered some actual injury as a result of the illegal conduct of the
defendant. (Emphasis added). Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472.
In each of the above-captioned Complaints, the named Plaintiff alleges it is the holder
and owner of the Note and Mortgage. However, the attached Note and Mortgage identify the
mortgagee and promisee as the original lending institution — one other than the named
Plaintiff. Further, the Preliminary Judicial Report attached as an exhibit to the Complaint
makes no reference to the named Plaintiff in the recorded chain of title/interest. The Court's
Amended General Order No. 2006-16 requires Plaintiff to submit an affidavit along with the
Complaint, which identifies Plaintiff either as the original mortgage holder, or as an assignee,
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 6
-3-
trustee or successor-in-interest. Once again, the affidavits submitted in all these cases recite
the averment that Plaintiff is the owner of the Note and Mortgage, without any mention of an
assignment or trust or successor interest. Consequently, the very filings and submissions of
the Plaintiff create a conflict. In every instance, then, Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden of
demonstrating standing at the time of the filing of the Complaint.
Understandably, the Court requested clarification by requiring each Plaintiff to submit
a copy of the Assignment of the Note and Mortgage, executed as of the date of the
Foreclosure Complaint. In the above-captioned cases, none of the Assignments show the
named Plaintiff to be the owner of the rights, title and interest under the Mortgage at issue as
of the date of the Foreclosure Complaint. The Assignments, in every instance, express a
present intent to convey all rights, title and interest in the Mortgage and the accompanying
Note to the Plaintiff named in the caption of the Foreclosure Complaint upon receipt of
sufficient consideration on the date the Assignment was signed and notarized. Further, the
Assignment documents are all prepared by counsel for the named Plaintiffs. These proffered
documents belie Plaintiffs' assertion they own the Note and Mortgage by means of a purchase
which pre-dated the Complaint by days, months or years.
Plaintiff-Lenders shall take note, furthermore, that prior to the issuance of its October
10, 2007 Order, the Court considered the principles of "real party in interest," and examined
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 — "Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity" and its associated
Commentary. The Rule is not apropos to the situation raised by these Foreclosure
Complaints. The Rule's Commentary offers this explanation: "The provision should not be
misunderstood or distorted. It is intended to prevent forfeiture when determination of the
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 3 of 6
1 Astoundingly, counsel at oral argument stated that his client, the purchaser from the original mortgagee,
acquired complete legal and equitable interest in land when money changed hands, even before the
purchase agreement, let alone a proper assignment, made its way into his client's possession.
-4-
proper party to sue is difficult or when an understandable mistake has been made. ... It is, in
cases of this sort, intended to insure against forfeiture and injustice ..." Plaintiff-Lenders do
not allege mistake or that a party cannot be identified. Nor will Plaintiff-Lenders suffer
forfeiture or injustice by the dismissal of these defective complaints otherwise than on the
merits.
Moreover, this Court is obligated to carefully scrutinize all filings and pleadings in
foreclosure actions, since the unique nature of real property requires contracts and
transactions concerning real property to be in writing. R.C. § 1335.04. Ohio law holds that
when a mortgage is assigned, moreover, the assignment is subject to the recording
requirements of R.C. § 5301.25. Creager v. Anderson (1934), 16 Ohio Law Abs. 400
(interpreting the former statute, G.C. § 8543). "Thus, with regards to real property, before an
entity assigned an interest in that property would be entitled to receive a distribution from the
sale of the property, their interest therein must have been recorded in accordance with Ohio
law." In re Ochmanek, 266 B.R. 114, 120 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 2000) (citing Pinney v.
Merchants' National Bank of Defiance, 71 Ohio St. 173, 177 (1904).1
This Court acknowledges the right of banks, holding valid mortgages, to receive
timely payments. And, if they do not receive timely payments, banks have the right to
properly file actions on the defaulted notes — seeking foreclosure on the property securing
the notes. Yet, this Court possesses the independent obligations to preserve the judicial
integrity of the federal court and to jealously guard federal jurisdiction. Neither the fluidity of
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 4 of 6
2
Plaintiff's reliance on Ohio's "real party in interest rule" (ORCP 17) and on any Ohio case citations is
misplaced. Although Ohio law guides federal courts on substantive issues, state procedural law cannot be
used to explain, modify or contradict a federal rule of procedure, which purpose is clearly spelled out in
the Commentary. "In federal diversity actions, state law governs substantive issues and federal law
governs procedural issues." Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 63 (1938); Legg v. Chopra, 286 F. 3d
286, 289 (6th Cir. 2002); Gafford v. General Electric Company, 997 F. 2d 150, 165-6 (6th Cir. 1993).
3
Plaintiff's, "Judge, you just don't understand how things work," argument reveals a condescending
mindset and quasi-monopolistic system where financial institutions have traditionally controlled, and still
control, the foreclosure process. Typically, the homeowner who finds himself/herself in financial straits,
fails to make the required mortgage payments and faces a foreclosure suit, is not interested in testing state
or federal jurisdictional requirements, either pro se or through counsel. Their focus is either, "how do I
save my home," or "if I have to give it up, I'll simply leave and find somewhere else to live."
In the meantime, the financial institutions or successors/assignees rush to foreclose, obtain a
default judgment and then sit on the deed, avoiding responsibility for maintaining the property while
reaping the financial benefits of interest running on a judgment. The financial institutions know the law
charges the one with title (still the homeowner) with maintaining the property.
There is no doubt every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure process is
driven by money. And the legal work which flows from winning the financial institution's favor is highly
lucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financial institutions or law firms making a profit —
to the contrary , they should be rewarded for sound business and legal practices. However, unchallenged
by underfinanced opponents, the institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about
maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions, the federal courts must act as gatekeepers,
assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through.
Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their
arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing
-5-
the secondary mortgage market, nor monetary or economic considerations of the parties, nor
the convenience of the litigants supersede those obligations.
Despite Plaintiffs' counsel's belief that "there appears to be some level of
disagreement and/or misunderstanding amongst professionals, borrowers, attorneys and
members of the judiciary," the Court does not require instruction and is not operating under
any misapprehension. The "real party in interest" rule, to which the Plaintiff-Lenders
continually refer in their responses or motions, is clearly comprehended by the Court and is
not intended to assist banks in avoiding traditional federal diversity requirements.2 Unlike
Ohio State law and procedure, as Plaintiffs perceive it, the federal judicial system need not,
and will not, be "forgiving in this regard."3
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 5 of 6
and jurisdictional burdens. The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this
for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak
legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate.
The Court will illustrate in simple terms its decision: "Fluidity of the market" — "X" dollars,
"contractual arrangements between institutions and counsel" — "X" dollars, "purchasing mortgages in
bulk and securitizing" — "X" dollars, "rush to file, slow to record after judgment" — "X" dollars,
"the jurisdictional integrity of United States District Court" — "Priceless."
-6-
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned Foreclosure Complaints are
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 31, 2007
S/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 6 of 6
|
|