Words from the Rising Republics
June 09, 2016
Turn your personal check over and read the words printed over and over on the rear. “ORIGINAL DOCUMENT”.
Banks require “ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS” before cashing a check. Your wet-ink signature makes the check an original.
The same “ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS” bank will try to take your property through foreclosure without a
“GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE”
Who do they think they are?
Maybe the bank thinks that the judicial system is dumb in that it will overlook the original document requirement and order a sheriff to make an unlawful eviction. Rules of Civil Procedure require the “GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE” to be filed with the clerk of the court days before any hearing. A judgment replaces the note taking it out of circulation. Without the note there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the court. Case dismissed.
Not So. The same law is clear in every state. Uniform Commercial Code requires a surrendering of the “GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE” when full payment is made (See UCC § 3-501(b)(2) Surrender the instrument if full payment is made. A judge confesses to fraud on the court if he says a non original is alright.
Why pay a note to anyone who is not the holder in due course?
You don’t have to. There is no moral hazard in refusing a thief. Don’t be a law breaker
(See UCC 3-305c) “An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course and the obligor proves that the instrument is a lost or stolen instrument.”
The law requires a bank to offer a loan modification before foreclosure. A thief who has no original cannot offer a true loan modification because a loan modification satisfies the original promissory note forcing the surrender of the original note filed as satisfied. The loan modification documents become the new originals.
If the bank, or the institution that services cannot “Produce the Note”, they are not the holder in due course. Foreclose is without subject matter jurisdiction. All action stops until the issue is settled. The judge is then a trespasser of the law without excuse.
Should the judge not have subject-matter jurisdiction, then the law states that the judge has not only violated the law, but is also a trespasser of the law. --Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson , 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
"If the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers." --Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)
When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.
When a Judge rules that a copy (not original) be paid, the Judge is liable and creates devastation.