standing fast for liberty. Gal. 5:1
For help and support, call us at (334) 239-8987 or click here to email us.

Words from the Rising Republics

Available New Social Media Tools

 

New Social Media Tools without Censorship

 Parler = New Twitter

 Gab or MeWe = New Facebook

 Rumble = New YouTube

 DuckDuckGo = New Google Search

 Brave Browser = secure Chrome

 Telegraph or Signal = Secure Messaging

 NewsMax or OAN = New Fox News

Bill Witwicki advice from the grave

Bill died on Wednesday December 30, 2020 at the hospital where he was taken Sunday 27 December suffering from COVID-19. He was a retired Army Officer, Helicopter pilot. He served two combat tours in Vietnam. Isiah 57:1 is the real reason he died. He had suffered enough, forever dedicated to doing right. Philippians 2:13 best describes his life. Like Apostle Paul, he was imprisoned for proclaiming the right.
It is long, but worth keeping!!!
BILL WITWICKI 2012 COMMENTS ON VIDEO ABOUT THE UNLAWFULL SEIZURE OF HIS HOME AND RANCH.
THE IGNORED GOVERNING STATUTES
§ 7- 3-501(b)(2) .PRESENTMENT.
Surrender the instrument if full payment is made.
§ 7- 3-305. Defenses and Claims in Recoupment.
7-3-305c 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.
ROLL THE 2012 TAPE
You want to know about what happened to me with my mortgage and the subsequent foreclosure. I can tell you all I can give you.
Basically, my experience and that is that I really had a farm with two mortgages. On the house and nine acres, the mortgage was with Regions Bank. The attached 54 acres required another mortgage. In total, there were two mortgages. The 54- acres mortgage was with Alabama AG.
It was right around the end of said July 4, 2010 that I was reading about the nationwide foreclosures. The facts that were discovered was that the banks did not have the proper papers, hence “robo” signing fraud was set up to cover the destroyed documents fraud. The original instruments were nowhere to be found and most mortgages were unenforceable, and stuff like that.
All in the world that I wanted to know was, who was the holder in due course of my mortgage and was I paying the right person. Satisfy all the debt meant paying the right person.
Now mind you, I was up to date. I never missed a payment. I was on time, and all I mean, everything was going well. Again, all in the world that I wanted to know was, Regions, Alabama AG, Are you the holder new course? Are you the one that has my mortgage note? Am I paying the right person?
So, I sent a letter on 3 August 2010 to Alabama AG Credit which is who had the 54- acre mortgage. I also sent a certified letter to Regions Bank, sent to them both, at the same time. I informed them that I was paid up to date. There is no problem. I just want to pay in full the holder in due course. Jack, I got to tell you I was not prepared for what happened. Literally, both did not want to answer.
They just said, Really, we do not do that.
Regions Bank said we are not quite sure what you are asking.
I was asking to see who the holder in due course was. Who has the unseparated mortgage paperwork, who should I pay?
Now interesting, Regions was called at their Birmingham office. I asked to see the promissory note. They told me that that note is in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. It is locked in a vault. Regions declared that Regions is not going to produce it for me.
Wait a minute, I know I said that if you, the holder in due course, and me are in contract, I have the right to see the note.
Regions said, “We are not going to drag it out. if we drag it out and you do not show up, then we have gone through all this for nothing.”
I said, did you say Hattiesburg? I said I have always wanted to visit there. I'll go down there whenever you make me an appointment to see the note.”
Regions Bank’s lady said, “Well, we cannot take that chance. You know that if we set up an appointment and then you don't show up, all will be for nothing.”
I responded by mentioning that I was former military. Military men are trained to always be on time. I will be there 10 minutes early and everything.
She put me on hold. When she came back, she said “Fannie Mae has the note.
I asked, what does that mean? That was all the information I can get from them.
Her response generated yet another letter requesting information about Are you the new holder in the course.
Now to Alabama AG Credit ,the 54 acres. All I did was say, “Well I just want to know who the holder in due course is.
Alabama AG, the letter addressed to the CEO, was immediately sent it to an attorney firm. Attorney Bobby Brown said basically responded informing me that his client, Alabama AG rejected my request letter.
Wait a minute. How can you do that? Alabama Ag’s balance owed was $43,000. I sent Alabama AG a letter, registered mail. I said, I will pay in full based on proof of claim. Produce the original promissory note that lets me know you are the holder in due course, and I will pay you in full.
I had the ability to get the money to do that. Again, I get a letter from them. I sent the offer to Alabama AG CEO, and next thing I know the answer was from the Attorney that said his client rejects this.
How can they reject the offer? I wanted to pay the original promissory note in full, but I wanted to see the note as the example of what I would pay off now.
I did the same thing with Regions. I did not have that kind of money, but I said not paid in full. Regions and I could renegotiate or do whatever. Regions would not refinance, they only refused themselves or let me refinance with another entity. Regions started this silly stuff. Regions did not know what it is that was asks or if ng anything at all was asked.
I understand English. Regions pretended not to understand English. Further correspondence proved fruitless. Every time the reply was that my client rejects this. or no we do not know what you are asking.
So, the foreclosure began when they published the Legal Notice in the paper.
The first property to be foreclosed was the 54 acres. The auction was conducted on the courthouse steps. It is what is called non-judicial foreclosure sale, also called a judicial sale or a sheriff’s sale. Oddly enough, after offering full payment, Alabama AG published that the foreclosure auction was undertaken and justified because the note was declared in default.
The State of Alabama, when it comes to foreclosures, can operate as nonjudicial state or when consent is absent, act under judicial law. The deciding factor is that the State of Alabama is prohibited from any act or anything that supersedes the Alabama Constitution or the US Constitution.
Every citizen has God given unalienable rights under the Fifth Amendment, due process of law. In Alabama, a nonjudicial foreclosure is permissible if it is with voluntary consent.
Consent was not given by me either to Alabama AG or to Regions. I had offered in writing to make one final payment in full, both refused to present evidence of debt that would have been paid in full along with the surrender of the original promissory note stamped paid in full. I was not in default. They lied when they proclaimed the notes in default. The holder in due course is the only one that can legally be paid. The holder in due course impacts title conveyance.
I was going to abide by the law. Both Alabama AG and Regions manufactured circumstances that approved their fraud.
A note default could justify what was done only if the result of a judge’s order after a due process hearing that applied the law equally. Non-judicial default was declared despite the facts there was NO default. Why? Because I was willing to pay and all I wanted to know was, who is the holder in due course. Both improperly refused full payment.
So, both declared the notes in default. Now no judge did this. There was no court order that I was in default. It would be just like my saying to anyone that I believe you are in default and to go further to the next step, which is to proceed to a foreclosure auction sale.
Both Alabama AG and Regions did publish a LEGAL NOTICE in the local paper for three weeks stating that I was in default. So, factually both thereby slandered me. They lied when they said that I was in default and foreclosure was necessary to satisfy the demands of the note they could not and have not produced.
The property was sold as is with NO warranty of title on the courthouse steps.
Somebody like me has excellent rights to ask why, why the courthouse steps, why on the outside. I believe that is because if you go inside the courthouse in the county will be somewhat libelous from the proceedings. On the courthouse steps, anything applies. Outside the courthouse on the courthouse steps, when consensual, the proceeding is not a state action. Several people are expected to show up to buy the auctioned property that is up for bid.
Naturally, I was there prepared to satisfy legally both promissory notes. I had the forethought to bring a man to videotape the non-judicial proceedings where I asked the correct questions when answered lawfully, the proceeding could have continued.
The maker of the videotape could also act as witness.
The auctioneer, who was also an attorney said to be “skilled” in the law and the law’s proper application. First, I asked the auctioneer if he had the promissory note with my wet-ink signature. The auctioneer said NO, he did not have the original promissory note with my wet-ink signature. He did not even have a copy of the contract or the actual original promissory note and mortgage that could not be separated. It is all on video.
On the video, the Sheriff’s Chief Deputy stands near the courthouse entrance behind me.
The Chief Deputy Sheriff, Ronnie Wentworth I knew. He walks up and comes into the proceedings. I did not know it, at the time, but once law enforcement appears the proceeding immediately becomes a state action. The non-judicial foreclosure that happens, once an officer of the state comes into play, advances to a judicial hearing demand. The non-judicial foreclosure auction must stop.
A non-judicial foreclosure is voluntary self-help exercise without benefit of any judicial inquiry. In other words, a court can guarantee rights of due process and equal protection of the law, which an attorney swears to defend and support. So much for an attorney’s respect for his oath or his being barred.
The auctioneer defied the law by proceeding to auction the property. The high bid was $46,000 and was accepted.
The mortgage balance was $43,000. The foreclosure procedure that followed policy and not the law was finished. Alabama AG had sold the property that was the security of the promissory note. Alabama AG had no longer any interest in the property because Alabama AG had already sold the promissory note and mortgage.
NO mortgage assignment had been filed into the probate records that would identify the holder in due course. Alabama AG obviously wanted payment twice for the same debt. The sale was also like the sale of a stolen car without title.
Coincidently, I never got back my wet-ink signature that was on the promissory note that was to be surrendered, stamped paid in full.
The note was paid in full by proceeds from the auction but has never been surrendered as required by law.
NO accounting has been offered. Funds that were generated by the auction were more than the debt balance. Alabama AG has wrongfully kept what was not theirs.
As far as I know, the promissory note is still in commercial circulation. Well, maybe a couple years from now, somebody could come up and say, “Hey, we have this promissory note now that was once with Alabama AG. We want the money or the property.
Regions Foreclosure auction was the same as Alabama AGs auction.
Regions did the same thing; they had an auctioneer. I asked the auctioneer the same questions again. Specifically, it is on the video. There was also a first-hand witness. The auctioneer attorney indicated that he did not have the wet-ink signature instrument either. I said well, you cannot proceed without possession of the instruments contract.
The auctioneer walked away from us, to have a little bit of privacy. When he came back, he said, “The auction will proceed as scheduled anyway. We are going to proceed”.
At the end of the Regions auction the high bid of $115,000 was accepted. Again, I only owed $113,000. I did not get the accounting or the difference in money. Regions likewise kept what was not theirs. I have never had surrendered to me the now satisfied original stamped paid in full promissory note.
Regions refused to validate and to produce the note as stipulated by law. The truth is out and there is plenty of law backing up the fact that Regions, as well as Alabama AG, are criminals.
What happens next after the auction is their policy procedure, not lawful procedure.
“It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that a party making the representation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representation, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations”.
In Coffee County one can justifiably wonder if theft there is legal plunder.
“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise to pay single or entire.”
Regions and Alabama AG received the equity in the property, for free, in exchange for an unpaid bank liability that the bank cannot pay, without returning the mortgage note.
If the bank had fulfilled its end of the contract, the bank could not have received the equity in the property for free. Both kept the equity for free, and when called upon to return the mortgage note, both defaulted and became a criminal “dead beat”.
What they do next is, acting as the “creditor” their attorney sends, almost immediately within three days, what is called a demand for possession of the property. The 10-day notice given to vacate the auctioned property is a notice written on the attorney’s letterhead and signed by the attorney. Looks legal though illegally, unjust enrichment.
I did not know it, at the time, but I since learned that this is the procedure that is in a voluntary non-judicial foreclosure. If you leave the property voluntarily, there is an “undisclosed” clause in the contract that says you have abandoned the property.
The bank then claims the abandoned property as theirs and can then convey clear title that would otherwise be conveyed only by a wet-ink signature on a deed by the owner.
I did not leave voluntarily. Not only did I not leave voluntarily, but I also had a typed, notarized document, recorded it in the courthouse probate records as an affidavit of non-abandonment. I would not leave the property.
Thirty days from filing the document, the document became cured without rebuttal.
The Homestead Exemption with an affidavit of non-abandonment prohibited eviction. I did not leave voluntarily.
A year later, the high bidder who had “bought the property”, sued me.
Now here is another egregious act on their part, because the “new owner”, if you will, employed the services of an attorney, from the Enterprise area, Bruce McLean. The attorney should have known that to use a judicial court to enforce a nonjudicial foreclosure violates my rights of due process of law.
All non-judicial proceeding should have stopped. We should have gone to court even to the Supreme Court. At least I would have had redress to their charges.
They could not afford me equal protection of the law, to do so meant they would have lost all, free for nothing property, being taken, with aid of Law Enforcement’s badge and gun.
Later, the same vacate-the-property notice happens with Regions.
However, now it was Fannie Mae who “bought” the property, without recorded assignment, non-cash, just a credit bid. A year later, Fannie Mae sent me the same 10-day letter.
Again, I was sued in the Coffee County Circuit Court for ejectment. Again, an attorney came out.
What is funny is in this procedure, the attorney was acting, doing it more like that of a person of interest in the court. Both sides, two representative attorneys should have called on my address. There was no other person of interest. I was acting as a pro se litigant representing myself.
There are parallels here. They are using a judicial procedure, the courts, an agency of the state. If you will, to enforce a nonjudicial voluntary self-help private foreclosure, in both cases the judge's ruling was that of an “administrator” not as a judge that acted after conducting a full hearing.
The Judge should know or should have known, that a judicial state act to enforce a non-judicial foreclosure violates all new Uniform Commercial Code 9-503.
The UCC Code is clear, it says that one cannot use an agency of the state, that which is judicial, to enforce a nonjudicial procedure.
When I complained, the lawful complaint fell on deaf ears. The law was ignored. I reminded all there that, without the original evidence of debt, the promissory note, there could be no subject matter jurisdiction and that their case must be dismissed by rule of law because of lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction in both cases.
The judge ruled in favor of Alabama AG and in favor of Fannie Mae losing judicial immunity doing so. I have never received notice of any hearing to address the subject of my alleged default. I never had a hearing on their claim that the notes were in default. It seems that the court does what the judge wants regardless of the law.
Take Alabama AG, the 54 acres, first, so, 13 August 2012 the Sheriff's Deputy came to my house and tells me that I am given, by the sheriff, two days to remove my animals from the 54 acres or they will throw me into jail.
Now mind you, this is a civil procedure not subject to arrest or being thrown into jail, arrest is a better word, if I did not get the animals off. but I only did it under duress. I did get the animals off within the Sherriff’s timeframe.
Later I was arrested, arraigned for a misdemeanor, convicted, but sentenced as a felon, and served 10 months in Covington County imprisoned. My filed notice of their actions being illegal and noticed that their agreement had been gained by their silence, which is tantamount to default. The notice was called, by the arresting officials, a lien, a false instrument. There did not care that the notice was a notice and not a lien. Anger wants revenge. Fraud cannot be exposed. After all judicial officers believe themselves to be judicially immune, they just think they are.
Eight o’clock in the mornings on August 17, 2012 was the deadline for the removal of all animals, 18 cows and 12 horses. It took late into the night of August 16, 2012 to finish removing the animals. I do not want to be arrested.
On the morning of the August 17th at 8 o'clock, I was ready, not wanting to be arrested. Even under duress. I do not want to be arrested.
A couple of minutes before 8 o’clock I was sitting in my driveway in my utility vehicle, drinking a cup of coffee and eating doughnuts, unprepared for what was about to happen.
A SWAT team rolled in on me. There were four vehicles from which disembarked several law enforcement personnel, armed, deployed around me with automatic weapons. The deployed SWAT team did have their automatic weapons pointed down with their finger on the trigger, that is an aggressive posture. Hovering overhead was a police helicopter.
I was sitting there in the utility vehicle with a cup of coffee and in the left hand and a donut in the right hand. The Sheriff's Deputy, in command, ordered me to show my hands. Ronnie and Frank came over and positioned themselves, one at my 9 o’clock and the other at my 3 o’clock position.
Ronnie demanded to know the status of that land as to, have the animals been removed? I was then told that if there is even one animal on that land, they were going to arrest me.
Now, at that point I am really confused because the procedure was a simple procedure, and they are treating me like a criminal. I had never been, in my adult life, arrested and charged much less convicted of anything. I have never threatened anyone as the SWAT team threatened me.
Regardless, the intention was to stay on the land. I complied by removing all my animals. So again, the one in command, I knew him. He was adamant in his most authoritative tone of voice. Again, if there was even one animal, meaning my cows or horses, just one that was the property, I would be arrested.
So, I said, “Well, let us go out and see.” That threw them.
The drive distance was about two football fields away. I said, “Here it is. Empty.”
The leader of the SWAT team, Don, was from Houston County and wanted to talk to me on a first name basis. I learned later that three counties had mobilized assets considered needed to conduct the raid with all these people. Even the SWAT team had a backup team in reserve. The Enterprise Police Department functioned as the reserve.
I have never done anything and have never threatened anyone, and I had never been incarcerated.
Don asked me, he said something about me being in a group. What about the 27 people group?
I said, “Oh, you mean the grand jury”?
Don said, “It is a grand jury”?
I said, “Yes.
We all wanted to know about a grand jury and how grand jury works. So, 27 of us signed up. We took a course. I taught part of the course.
“It was a grand jury?”
I said, “Yes it was”. I can apply right now what I learned. What I learned is that you are violating my fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
As a deputy, you took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution as it is and the Constitutional of the State of Alabama.
I said, “Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution?”
The men deployed around me still had the automatic weapons, they are wearing their armor, and suddenly, all looked at each other with these blank looks. None of them had ever read the Constitution. They all had sworn to support and defend the Constitution wherein is the Bill of Rights.
I did a radio show at the time. You may remember, and I had just spent, coincidently three weeks, on the Bill of Rights going over each one of them. The Bill of Rights outline the protective function of government is in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Again, blank looks.
I asked the men about what I thought was an easy question to answer. I said, “How about the Declaration of Independence, about 21 pages, have you read that document? Nothing. So, right then evidently, they did not consider us a threat.
I said, “As a matter of fact, I told these two deputies that I guarantee the safety of everybody that comes on my place.
The SWAT team members slowly began to put down their weapons and started unbuckling their vest and moved back into the cars.
When I went over to them. they shook hands with me now.
That was the 54 acres. Five months later, on the 16thJanuary 2013, I get the same two deputies, the setup man, Ronnie Wentworth and Frank Chirico, animal control officer. They come over and tell me that they are there, and they are going to kick me off the property and would do so at 9 o'clock.
It was my house; my possessions had been prayed over. I had moved most everything, all out, just in case. This time though, I had two witnesses there in the house and, of course, they can see the deputies and the SWAT team. This time they brought 11 vehicles and, as in both times, they had a helicopter above.
The knock on the door presented the two deputies to tell me that they were there to evict me from the property again.
Mind you this is a civil matter. I am not a criminal. There is no criminal indictment or anything like that. So, I said, “Well if you are here to evict me and everything, you have guns and badges”.
Mind you, I saw the helicopter. I saw people with their hands on their automatic weapons. I said, “I have been reading my Bible. I am going to go back and get my Bible. I'm leaving under duress because you've got the guns and the badgers, plus I am afraid for my life”.
Even though I had not yet left the house, I was told that if I even turned around and took one step that I would be arrested and the two to my friends inside the house would be arrested as well and all would be going to jail.
Now again, I never threatened anyone. I had made sure that I and my friends inside the house did not have any firearms or anything like that. They did not. I did not really pose a threat.
Anyway, I stood there, and I said, Well, I am going to get my Bible”.
The Deputy reiterated that if I take one step back into the house, I would be arrested.
When you think about the SWAT team, that is a threat, automatic weapons are threat instruments even when not pointed at me. The SWAT team members did have their fingers on the triggers.
So, anyway one of my friends came up behind me and he told the two deputies saying that he would get the Bible and then we would all leave peacefully.
When Becky got the Bible, we walked out. As I turned into the driveway, I counted 11 black sedans. I cannot tell you how many there were there. My guess would be upward 15. The helicopter was in the air.
Mind you, I have not been indicted for anything. I have not threatened anybody. Sheriff comes over and tells me that once I leave the property, if I ever came back onto that property, I would be arrested, and would go to jail.
I said, “I cannot leave. You have me blocked in”.
If I could sum it up. In summary, I would say this, all in the world that I wanted was to know if I was paying the right people. I guess the creditors considered that some form of a threat is the situation, both cases, Alabama AG and Regions Bank.
Afterwards, it took on a life of its own. Had I written in any correspondence even wrote, Mary had a Little Lamb, neither would have listened. They did not listen to anything that I had to say at all, especially with the 54 acres. They could have been paid by me, but in both cases I offered to pay in full been a little harder to get the $113,000 that I needed to pay Regions, but I had a father who was well off, he has since deceased, but my intentions were to come up with the satisfaction funds.
I read the law. Regions refused the offer, would not renegotiate, the CEO, through the attorney, refused to even listen or negotiate. Regions considered foreclosure the only option available that could cover the fraud embodied in the note and mortgage separation, never undisclosed. It was cut and dry.
They were bound and determined to foreclose. Both foreclosed. Both did it unlawfully. Both trampled on all my rights, which are due process rights and equal protection of the law.
What we discovered, now we know not during the time, that we were embroiled in its battle just doing the best you can just to survive.
Thanks to the digital revolution of the internet, the secret passageways are revealed and bear investigation.
Discovery exposed that the methods banker now use are completely different from the century’s old previous procedures. Separation that once rendered the note and mortgage null and void, and beyond enforcement, is not just about my two cases.
I noticed that the note and mortgage are really two things that must be maintained as one unit. The security instrument, the mortgage, also called the deed of trust, is worthless without simultaneous possession of the promissory note the mortgage secures.
These two together comprise a mortgage and they are to remain together, alive as long as they stay together not separated. Separation is called bifurcated, which means the two have been separated, made null and void under the law. Once the two are separated, my obligation is done, especially if they took that note and sold that note to someone else and kept the security instrument pretending to also possess the separated note.
What I was trying to ascertain, was the note sold and separated. Who has the note, the holder in due course? Whom will I pay? I would not like to pay for 30 years and be shocked to find out that I had been paying the wrong person. I did not know and was not told who had the note.
I mean, it is a simple thing, if, by parallel, I am in contract with you to make widgets and there arises a question concerning one of the widgets I would like to see the contract. You are obligated to show me the contract.
If the contract is with Regions Bank or Alabama AG, the contract will never again appear as if it does not exist. Regions and Alabama AG will tell you what the contract says, and you are to believe their testimony to be without error.
Here is the funny thing. I did not recognize at the time; I am now somewhat more sophisticated. When you look at your promissory note, I am single so my one signature, in the case of a married couple, there are two signatures. In either case, there is NO signature from any officer from the bank. So, is it a valid contract? I maintain that it is not.
Not only that, but I was not ever given full disclosure.
A contract comprises four elements: an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and full disclosure. I never got full disclosure. Nobody disclosed to me the holder in due course to whom only I could make full prepayment. I signed a promissory note and was denied full disclosure. I will certainly question some of the things I have studied and will keep a close look-out in the future.
Study, it is because I believe that creditors conceal facts that they know yet never to be presented to us that do affect us all.
I remember specifically, the one for Alabama AG closing, was conducted by an attorney. I had to pay for that attorney as the signer of the note and buyer of the property that involves the security instrument. I remember him saying its routine here, sign here, to get us through this, sign here, this point, just initial here.
Blind signing will get one through the routine. I will even read the fine print; I will never agree to the omission of full disclosure again. Read the contract. Give yourself at least a couple of days to study the contract before you sign.
I need to make sure that nothing is concealed. If I have questions, that is when full disclosure can be confirmed. later.
One question that was revealed when answered, why the attorney was there?
Attorney is said to represent the buyer, the signer of the note and mortgage. Was the attorney representing the seller, the realtor, or me? The attorney was actually representing the government evidenced by his taking of the closing documents to the Probate Office, needed for recording.
The promissory note is a negotiable instrument and is never recorded. So, what he did. I have come to understand is he ah-torned me. He ah-torned me to property that I, as peon, would pay for 30 years, but I will never own.
The state will seize the property if the tax is not timely paid. The mortgage states the mortgagor to be tenants on the property. and people I know people who have paid their mortgage for 30 years having it paid it in full, and they are still paying property taxes because they are truly tenants on the property.
This is not right; a man’s home should be his castle. I know, after studying the works of the founding fathers back when we had a land that was patented. The founding fathers came from England where no one owns land. The king owns land.
The founding fathers deemed the ownership of land so important that they made it extremely difficult, under the law, for someone to take land. Nowadays, you hear about the number of foreclosures being in the millions, and guess what, all are wrongful, unlawful. I had a homestead exemption. I offered to pay in full and Regions and Alabama AG improperly rejected the offer.
Okay, when they rejected the offer, they forfeited their right to declare me in default and pursue a default, foreclosure, and I think they did it twice and both Alabama AG and Regions Bank were offered payment in full. I offered full payment twice and both times the offer was improperly rejected. The foreclosures were wrongfully, absolutely.
Below are photos of “unbonded officials”, unlawfully seated in office, who sell their souls for a paycheck, blindly doing what is thought to be their duty, and all the while defying their oath of office that makes their word worthless. Facts are indeed stubborn.
	
			
		
	</div>
</div>
<div class=

LETTER ABOUT ONE OF THE GREATEST ALABAMA ROBBERIES

 

Haywood Jackson Mizell                                                             December 02, 2020

4518 Woodledge Drive      

Montgomery, AL 36109                     Certified Mail 7020 0640 0000 9460 7784

                                                           Return Receipt 9590 9402 6139 0209 7020 27

                                        

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Return Mail Operation

PO Box 10368

Des Moines, IA 50306-0368

ATTN: WF CEO Charles Scharf & Amy Wachter

Senior Vice President

Wells Fargo Home Lending    

 

Subject Status: Acknowledgment of your latest letter by Amy Wachter dated November 18, 2020. Account (instruments sold to Client 708) ·0128507779.

 

Dear CEO Charles Scharf & Amy Wachter,

 

This letter is to respond to your letter dated November 18, 2020 and signed by Amy Wachter. The format of this letter is such that it can used when published by Kindle.

 

Please accept all 170 previous certified mail correspondence as if all were incorporated in this letter.

 

The actions of Wells Fargo are broken into two groups, one that is in the public arena and the second is in the private arena where NO state or federal law can impair the obligations of the contract that is the subject of this letter.

 

The problem is that the subject contract has been declared null and void by Alabama Code Section 35-10-9. Theft and denial of due process rights are the primary issues that stand out.

 

Theft of property involving Wells Fargo in this matter was no gain for WF. The greater treasure of honesty and integrity, which was nowhere to be found with WF, was instead sacrificed. Well Fargo demonstrated that what WF spent was what it did not have. WF is without honesty or integrity.  

 

Wells Fargo piped a tune that enticed the City of Ozark away from its population’s greatest commodities, peace, honesty, integrity and prosperity where, “equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy” is the standard guiding all of Ozark’s just behavior. Such a culture common to Ozark was considered foolishness to Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo could not lose what it did not possess. Wells Fargo paraded deceit, an imitation of the real and true. Wells Fargo made no effort to expose honesty, an honesty that even Stevie Wonder can see.

 

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Romans 10:3 KJV

 

PUBLIC ISSUE

 

This letter is addressing two specific issues.

 

The first issue is the undeniable theft of property by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

 

The second issue is the seizure of private property by the public City of Ozark, done absent an Eminent-Domain-Due-Process-Probate Court-Administration hearings.

NO “just” compensation allowed the purchase of the seized private property.

 

The seized property rental charge amount for the past seven years is set by law at 12% per year based on the “just” compensation set by the Probate Judge’s Eminent Domain Tribunal. The outstanding rental amount is $5,875,000.00. After the granting of consent by the title holder, purchase of the seized property and the conveyance of said property legal title can be made of record.

 

Why is it necessary? Theft of property plus the omission of Eminent Domain are both errors that citizen’s duty demand that both actions must be brought to within the range of Alabama law’s tolerance. Below is the precedence for compliance.

 

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."  American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 332, 442 (1950).

 

What are the errors? First Theft of Property by Wells Fargo.

 

Frederic Bastiat in 1850 made this observation in The Law.

“the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning.”

“When plunder becomes a way of life

                                         For a group of men,

                                        They create for themselves

                                         In the course of time

                                         A legal system that authorizes it

And a moral code that glorifies it.”

He went on to write the statement below that is germane to the issue of theft in this subject case.

“When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated, that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this is exactly what the law ought to repress always and everywhere. If the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, I say that plunder is still perpetrated, and even, in a social point of view, under aggravated circumstances.

ANN RAND FOLLOWED BY VANITY FAIR ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS WHERE THE FBI STATES THAT 80% OF ALL MORTGAGE FRAUD IS

DONE BY THE CREDITOR, NOT BY THE BORROWER.

“Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion…when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing …when you see your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you…when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty become a self-sacrifice…you may know that your society is doomed.” The quotation by Ann Rand in “Atlas Shrugged.”

                                           “ It can fairly be said that

   The chain of catastrophic bets

Made over the past decade

By a few hundred bankers

May well turn out to be the

Greatest non-violent crime

   Against humanity in history”

            Mr. Potter, Vanity Fair Magazine

FEBRUARY 19, 2013 ROBBERY UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW

 

The City of Ozark seized private property without authority and offered the property owner NO legal “just” compensation. In Alabama only the Alabama Historic Commission can purchase structures that are on the National Register of Historic Places signed as worthy of preservation by the Governor of the State of Alabama.

Only property on the National Register of Historic Places can qualify for the IRS 25% investment tax credit for use against a taxpayer’s expenditure in his restoration of the historic private property.

 

 

 

BRGY. SINDALAN VS. CA

Expropriation, if misused or abused, would trench on the property rights of individuals without due process of law.

The exercise of the power of eminent domain is constrained by two constitutional provisions:

(1) That private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation under Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 9 (2) That no person shall be deprived of his/her life, liberty, or property without due process of law

 

“Public use” is defined as whatever is beneficially employed for the community

            - The number of people is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use, provided the use is exercisable in common and is not limited to particular individuals

 

Requisites for a valid exercise of Eminent domain:

            1. Expropriation is for a public use

            2. The payment of just compensation to the property owner.

                        a. it must be real, substantial, full, and ample

                        b. should be made within a “reasonable time” from the taking of the      property

                        c. any further delay in the payment will result in the imposition of 12% interest per annum.

 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

If there is no state remedy available to compensate a landowner for property taken from him, would the landowner have any right to seek relief in a federal court? The answer to the question is yes. A refusal by a state court to grant compensation to a landowner whose property has been taken constitutes a taking of property without due process of law and hence violates the fourteenth amendment.

From the Code of Alabama 1975

Section 41-9-240

2009 Alabama Code Title 41 — STATE GOVERNMENT.
Chapter 9 — BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

Alabama Historic Commission
Section 41-9-249 Powers and duties of commission generally.

(4) To acquire, by exercise of the power of eminent domain, historic structures of paramount or exceptional importance, such as those Alabama landmarks eligible for nomination to or recorded in the National Register of Historic Places; provided, that at least two-thirds of the members of the commission shall vote to acquire such structures by the exercise of this measure;

 

EMINENT DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES

 

Eminent domain in the United States refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring "just" compensation to be given to the original owner. It can be legislatively delegated by the state to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character.

The Alabama Historic Commission did not vote to purchase, by exercise of the power of Eminent Domain, the J. D. Holman house located in the city of Ozark, which structure is recorded in the National Register of Historic Places.

The subject property was NOT condemned by a Probate Judge’s administration determination after a required due process condemnation hearing.

No Probate Judge appointment of an Eminent Domain Tribunal for the purpose of establishing “just” compensation was mobilized. No offer of “just” compensation was made to the property owner before, during or after the wrongful simulated foreclosure was conducted.

Notice was published in the Southern Star weekly newspaper, immediately prior to the wrongful foreclosure auction, that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. had no authority to foreclosure.

The property was not donated.

The total loan had been paid in full. The use of the word default was the product of a scriptural abomination.

The paid in full instrument had not been surrendered by Wells Fargo as is required in violation of Alabama law and the demands of Ezekiel 18: 13, an abomination that carries the death penalty.

The written reason Wells Fargo used to evade “restore the pledge” or instrument surrender compliance, after the loan had been paid in full, was written in a July 23, 2012 letter, which read in part:

“We are not providing you with the original Note, because WFHM is not subject to USC Title 18, Part1, Chapter 101, Section 2071, as the Note was not deposited or filed with any judicial or public officer of the United States.”

USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101, Section 2071

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and ...

 

The original monetized promissory note has not appeared and therefore does not exist as said in a maxim of law, “It is the same thing not to exist and not to appear”.

 

The post auction deed filed by David Sigler, WF attorney, is a false instrument. He refused to timely file additional proof of the validity of the lien or instrument.

 

additional proof of the validity of the lien or instrument shall be filed with the recording official within 14 days of the date of mailing the notice and that the failure to do so could result in the lien or instrument being nullified or expunged.”

 

The Dale County Probate Judge declared WF’s court exhibits of record to be false.

 

(See Wright v. Emory, 41 So.3d 290,292(Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[An] attorney’s unsworn and unverified statements do not establish competent evidence.”)).

 

The Probate Judge erroneously accepted WF’s attorney’s unproven and false claim, when the attorney wrote an unsworn and unverified statement, contrary to recorded facts.

 

Wells Fargo wrongfully foreclosed with NO possessed authority. Theft of property.

 

“No title is conveyed through the sale when a party who lacks a right to enforce the note proceeds with foreclosure sale.” Williams, supra. Cited in Holms v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. et al, 43rd Jud. Cir. Ct. Div II, No. 08CN-CV00944 (Jan. 26, 2015).

 

The property was claimed after “default” by the foreclosure legal firm, then the proceeds from the auction stolen by Nathan E. Hardwick, who slandered the secured property by stating the “loan” to be in default.

 

Hardwick, the faithless attorney, was encouraged to profit by his own wrong. The legal profession lost the sanctions of honor and good faith to which it is entitled.

 

Default was impossible because Wells Fargo had improperly refused to accept, if any, remaining full payment.

 

Wells Fargo could not prove itself to be the holder in due course, thereby sabotaged an accepted-earnest-money-sealed 2008 offer to purchase.

What does not appear and what is not, is the same; it is not the defect of the law, but the WANT OF PROOF. (Maxim of Law)

 

Hardwick fraudulently enticed the City of Ozark to surrender $296,000 to him, for his sole use, based on an unlawfully cried auction bid for property that had a “cloud” over the title.

Courthouse roof top snipers positioned to assure outcome of wrongful foreclosure auction on the steps below.

 

Haywood Jackson Mizell                                                           November 05, 2020

4518 Woodledge Drive

Montgomery, AL 36109

Mark Blankenship, Mayor - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

1-Leah Harlow This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it " target="_self"> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

2-Les Perault This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it " target="_self"> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

3-Winston Jackson, Pro Tem This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it " target="_self"> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

4-Brenda Simechak, President This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it " target="_self"> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it  

5-Stanley Enfinger This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it " target="_self"> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

City Clerk Denise Strickland,   This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it " target="_self"> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

City Attorney Joe Adams This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

RE: Requirement for Eminent Domain Due Process 

Dear Mayor Blankenship et al,

     The purpose of this email is to determine your intensions concerning property located at 285 East Broad Street, Ozark, Alabama. Below is the precedent that is the basis of my request. The property was wrongfully taken from me without the exercising of the procedure of Eminent Domain and I was denied my right to Due Process under law.

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.

     In order to be a lawful acquisition, the City of Ozark needed to meet the following criteria, particularly as owner I was to be paid just compensation at the fair market value of the property as determined during the Eminent Domain process. Additional, payment was to be made to me, the owner, within a “reasonable time” after the acquiring of the property. This was never done.

REQUISITES FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN:

     1. Expropriation is for a public use

     2. The payment of just compensation to the property owner.

                 a. it must be real, substantial, full, and ample

                 b. should be made within a “reasonable time” from the taking of the property

                 c. any further delay in the payment will result in the imposition of 12% interest per annum

 

     It has been seven years since the City of Ozark seized the property that is the subject of this demand. To date, there has been NO probate Judge administering of a condemnation hearing and there has been NO Eminent Domain Tribunal established to determine the payment of “just compensation” for my property.

 

     Note: In 2008 Prudential Showcase Properties advertised the property for sale to be valued for $4,500,000. A gentleman from the western US gave me earnest money to seal a purchase agreement. A Wells Fargo imposed ‘cloud” over the title to the property prevented the materialization of the sale.

 

     As the law requires due process, no just compensation has been lawfully established. The exact amount of the occupancy cost has not been lawfully established. It is reasonable to conclude that the “just compensation” amount will range between the tax appraised value and the 2008 advertised value. The minimum to the maximum should range between the tax-based value or the sale 2008 sale price-based value.

 

     The current multiple for occupancy alone will be 1.3 times the “just compensation” amount. No purchase of title is included in the multiple.

 

     The monthly range from minimum to maximum is $9,152.77 to $62,500.00. There has already past 84 months. ($768,832.68 to $5,875,000.00)

     Previous City of Ozark administrations were said to be motivated as published, “When the house was in serious disrepair, it was put up for public sale, and the City of Ozark purchased it.”

     The City Attorneys and Circuit Court Judges have thus far prompted essentially “fiat accompli”,

 

a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.

Fait Accompli is a tactic described by Gerard I. Nierenberg. The phrase is French for “accomplished fact,” and refers to a deed that is already done—and is therefore irreversible. You employ this tactic when you do something without first negotiating it.

       Reason may prompt you to risk going on as has been conducted and it is your choice. You may erroneously assume that since you paid a foreclosing attorney what the attorney declared to be the outstanding balance on a mortgage, a mortgage where he declared the borrower to have defaulted in his obligation to pay. He declared that the borrower’s default authorized the power of sale, which he conducted having no possessed authority permitting the conducting of a simulated and wrongful foreclosure. Please note that there been NO authenticated evidence of default to appear and therefore does not exist.

     The facts that are of record is that there could have been no possible default because, among many reasons, Wells Fargo had refused to accept full payment of all, if any, remaining balance. The loan had been paid in full by June 2012. We later saw a 2014 affidavit filed into court records by a Wells Fargo vice-president that indicated that there was an overpayment of some $92,000.

American Jurisprudence 2d   § 618.

Liability for wrongful repossession

Furthermore, it has been said that where the creditor improperly refuses to accept payment of the debt, the creditor is estopped from repossessing the collateral on the basis that the debtor is in default, a conversion action is especially appropriate where wrongful repossession is at issue. (See Chesterton State Bank v Coffey (Ind App) 454 NE2d 1233.)

     From a Certified Letter to Wells Fargo written to Wells Fargo on January 9, 2012. An offer to pay any remaining balance was made 14 months before the wrongful foreclosure auction.

Please send the unaltered genuine original promissory note to Wells Fargo Ozark Alabama Branch. After authentication, a certified amount can be determined that will, when payment is made in full, require you to surrender the instrument.

     Please also mail the documents you filed with Homeland Security identifying the source of funds involving Loan Number 708-0128507779. With this information I can be assured that the source of funds will be satisfied. Please answer the request as required by law.

     Wells Fargo, in a July 23, 2012 letter, stated why Wells Fargo believed themselves to be exempt for compliance with the request for them to surrender the paid in full loan instrument. No other reply, just silence.

“Enclosed is a copy of the Note you executed. We are not providing you with the original Note, because WFHM is not subject to USC Title 18, Part1, Chapter 101, Section 2071, as the Note was not deposited or filed with any judicial or public officer of the United States.”

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE FOLLOWED,

HOPEFULLY TO COVER THE FRAUD

     Law enforcement were present at the wrongful non-judicial foreclosure auction, their presence made the entire foreclosure auction null and void and the subsequent deed, filed by attorney, David Sigler false and worthless. Ask the policemen and the deputies plus the roof-top snipers if they think my assertion is correct?

§ 611 Due process applications

However, even when self-help repossession is valid under applicable due process standards, when state law enforcement personnel are present in the course of what began as a self- help repossession, the proceedings become state action and the debtor must be given notice and opportunity to be heard or there is a DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Waisner v Jones, NM 260, 755 P2d 598, 6 UCCRS2d 1374.

 

     Wells Fargo sold the promissory note in 2003 and no longer has any interest in the loan and informed the IRS who the real lender was. The separation of the note from the mortgage made the agreement null and void because no assignment was of record. (See MISC 282 pages 288-302)

Section 35-10-9 Sales contrary to article null and void.

All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.

     More important Wells Fargo no longer had the original to stamp paid-in-full or to surrender after full payment had been paid.

Circuit Clerk Delores Woodham wrote and was received October 25, 2019.

“Mr. Mizell: Enclosed please find a copy of Wells Fargo Loan/Mortgage # 0128507779. We cannot certify that this is a true copy of the original because the original was not filed in the clerk’s office.” (Wells Fargo has never surrendered the mortgage instruments even after the auction. Fraud)

     This one statement by the clerk make all the Circuit Court orders and opinions in the Case 26-CV-13-06 and cases and 26-CV-19-08, 07 null and void by an OPERATION OF LAW.

     Why is the authenticated original so important?

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

The American Bar Association's opinion concerning foreclosures: Standing and subject-matter-jurisdiction.

……………… this Court has the responsibility to assure itself that the foreclosure Plaintiffs have standing and that subject-matter-jurisdiction requirements are met at the time the complaint is filed. Even without the concerns raised by the documents the Plaintiffs have filed, there is reason to question the existence of standing and the jurisdictional amount".

 

Johnston v. Hudlett, 32 So. 3d 700 (Fla 4d DCA 2010)
Moreover, in the case of original mortgages and promissory notes, they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment. The judgment takes the place of the promissory note. SURRENDERING THE NOTE IS ESSENTIAL so that it cannot thereafter be negotiated. See Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The judgment cancels the note. THE CLERK CANNOT RETURN THESE INSTRUMENTS TO THE PARTIES.

 

Servedio v. US Bank N.A (4D10-1898)
The summary judgment order should be reversed because the lender did not file “a copy of the original note and mortgage prior to the entry of judgment the original mortgage note with the trial court.”
Even  if  the  trial  court  considered  the  note  and mortgage  at  the hearing,  THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AUTHENTICATED,  filed, and served more than twenty days before  the hearing as  required by Rules 1.510(c) and 1.510(e).

   Appellee’s  failure  to  abide  by  these  rules  also  necessitates reversing  the order granting summary  judgment.   Verizzo, 28 So. 3d at 977-78; Mack v. Commercial Indus. Park,  Inc., 541 So. 2d 800  (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

 

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Rule 1002. Requirement of the Original

An original writing, recording, or photograph IS REQUIRED in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise.

 

     Below is a portion of the Transcript of the Quiet Title Hearing June 2019 that was supposed to be held in Judge’s Chambers with Fact Witnesses (Title authenticated Instruments) to determine Superior Title holder. Judge ignored the law governing a Quiet Title Action. NO Superior Title Holder was identified, defying entirely its purpose.

 

     THE COURT: and that’s essentially what I’m trying to explain to Mr. Mizell that he can’t go back and do that. If that note was offered, then it is already admitted into evidence.

       MR. MIZELL: Ma’am, here’s the thing. He made a statement- of course, he’s not sworn and so I don’t know if it’s true or not- but he said in a letter to me I presented that the original promissory note and mortgage during the last hearing with the court. That’s what he said what he presented was not authenticated. I challenge it.

     THE COURT: Yes, sir. But we do have certain- and I’m not trying to give you a lesson in the law, but we do have certain rules of evidence that apply and as a business record, it is self-authenticating.

     MR. MIZELL: Well, now, see, I’m totally confused.

     THE COURT: And I-

     MR. MIZELL: Here’s what he said was he presented it, and what he presented was not what was in this affidavit by the loan department. Said it had already been- let me- I don’t want you to take my word for it, but right here it is. You can see it if you like.

       THE COURT: I have seen it.

       MR. MIZELL: see it says that is paid.- And on top of that and is signed by Heather Parton, assistant secretary of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage- that they no longer have any interest in it.

      THE COURT: they don’t because it was sold at foreclosure, the city of Ozark.

       MR. MIZELL: no, ma’am. This was done before at least 2009 there’s no date on here for sure but it was the first identifying Client 708, so they disposed of that their interest in it.

   THE COURT: But see, we can’t go back and relitigate that, the other case. All I can do is tell you here today that Wells Fargo is not seeking $270,000 from you, and you don’t owe them $270,000—

     MR. MIZELL: Let me ask you this.

     THE COURT: --because that case has already been disposed.

     MR. MIZELL: She says she represented the city of Ozark and the city of Ozark is a public entity, municipality. The only way they can acquire private property is by Eminent Domain. And if they had done what they said, presented me the original being paid in full, then I could have sold the property in 2008.

       THE COURT: All of that would have been taken care of by the last case. There is nothing that happened during that proceeding that I can go back and do today.

       Mr. Mizell: let me just make one point and I’ll hush.

     THE COURT: Okay.

       MR. MIZELL: that trial in the probate one was basically discovery it had no standing and no subject-matter jurisdiction so all that cases, both of them are null and void by law.

       THE COURT: Well, the problem with that line of-- I was going to say reasoning but I’m trying desperately to help you to understand. When there is an order issued by Circuit Court, there’s a certain timeframe that attaches to it for appeal, okay, that went up on appeal to our Court of Civil Appeals and before the Supreme Court. And that becomes a final judgment. Whether you accept it as such, that’s what the law is, and I can’t go back and undo it. And we don’t get to file the same type actions, regardless of what the title is, I’m required to look at the content of what is filed, (NO INSTRUMENTS OF TITLE WERE FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS. See Clerk’s statement) not necessarily the title that is placed at the top of the page.

         MR. MIZELL: that case was dismissed, okay and the Court of Appeals dismissed. They said affirmed, no opinion.

     THE COURT: Yes, sir. That means they uphold what the trial court did.

     MR. MIZELL: Okay. My interpretation of what dismissed meant in that case was when they found that they had no subject matter jurisdiction, they were required to dismiss the action. I don’t know what particular one. I think I have it here somewhere, but the thing is the law requires that when you have no subject matter jurisdiction and no standing, which they didn’t, because the standing has to be authenticated before can be granted (Rule 12(B)). So that case was dismissed because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing. And I have no different opinion of that because the only thing they can do. They had to do that.

.     THE COURT: Okay. I will certainly take a look at that and then issue an order with regard to this. And I’ve said, I read these pleadings more than once in an effort to get my head around exactly what you’re arguing here, so I will take that matter under advisement and issue orders regarding those motions in that case

     MR. MIZELL: Make one more thing. I do not want to discard or draw attention away from the Eminent Domain. Can you also consider that I want to transfer the title to them, but they have to do it according to the law, Eminent Domain? Right now, they have no Legal Title.

     THE COURT: I will take that matter under advisement, also, going to release you unless you have something else to add,

     MR. ANDRESS: We don’t.

     THE COURT:- as I’ve indicated I don’t mean that to talk down to you, but I actually read what was filed so it’s not necessary to read it to me here this morning.

     MS. STEINDROFF: Thank you.

     THE COURT: I will excuse you. That will take care of case number eight, and then will move to number seven which is Lot 8 of Lakeland Hill subdivision.

     MS. STEINDORFF: Thank you, Your Honor.

(End of proceedings.)

EXHIBIT QUIET TITLE ORDER

CIRCUIT JUDGE KIMBERLY A. CLARK

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B).

 

     The order of dismissal was issued for reasons stated in Rule 12(B), which listed first is (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

     Since NO instrument of title was filed with the clerk by Wells FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE and WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., there was no subject matter for the court to decide. The deed of record at the Probate Records (Deed Book 106 Page 509) showed H. J. Mizell to have Superior Legal Title.

 

     Only a certified Copy of the title deed issued to H. Jack Mizell from Jesse Adams in 1982 for the 285 East Broad Street, Ozark, Alabama property prevailed as EVIDENCE OF SUPERIOR TITLE, with NO outstanding encumbrance.

 

     The Court of Appeals will not review a case that has not a final order. NO Superior Title Holder has been identified by the court; therefore, no appeal can be made in the Quiet Title Action, action that has no statute of Limitations.

ALABAMA PROPERTY RIGHTS AND REMEDIES § 10.10(e)

     Because proof of title in actions to quiet title often depends on the lapse of time, there is no statutory time within which an action to quiet title must be brought. Williams v. Mertz,549 So. 2d 87 (Ala. 1989) (holding that Ala. Code § 6-2-3 is not a statute of limitations) citing Gilley v. Daniel, 378 So. 2d 716 (Ala. 1979) and Hooper v. Peters Mineral Land Co., 210 Ala.346, 98 So 6 (1923).

 

LAWFUL POSITION OF LEGAL TITLE HOLDER

American Jurisprudence 2d 1966:

(Volume 25, Ejectment § 19 Strength of own title)

"A well-established principle which has acquired the force of a maxim is to the effect that a plaintiff in ejectment can recover only on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's. The defendant is not required to show title in himself, and he may LAWFULLY SAY TO THE PLAINTIFF, "UNTIL YOU SHOW TITLE, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISTURB ME."

 

     Judge Kimberly A. Clark has filed NO “faithful performance” surety bond that law requires for her to file before she can be sworn in. Like all Public Servants, she prematurely sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution (NOT TO IGNORE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS).

 

I, _____________________ do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I WILL FAITHFULLY AND HONESTLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God.

 

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)

     All Judge’s rulings and orders, made without a ”faithful performance” bond of record, are null and void by AN OPERATION OF LAW.

"Without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. This distinction runs through all the cases on the subject; and it proves, that the jurisdiction of any court exercising authority over a subject, may be inquired into in every court, when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought before the latter, by the party claiming the benefit of such proceedings." --In re TIP-PA-HANS Enterprises, Inc., 27 B.R. 780, 783 (1983)

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.

 

     Please consider this request for you to inform me of your intentions to be consistent with MY PERSONAL INTENTIONS OF ALWAYS GIVING NOTICE before an event and its consequences become an unpleasant surprise. The notice in the Southern Star costs $283.00 to publish and was of a most serious nature.

     Please recall that before the 2013 auction of the 285 East Broad property there was published in the Southern Star a notice given that the property had NO encumbrance granting power of sale, plus the property was NOT granted to anyone as a donation and that no incompetent is owner.

 

     Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. possessed no contract to surrender as law requires.  Corruption personified. Instead executed will of incompetent or juvenile without authority from a probate hearing or notice. This notice published in Southern Star newspaper. (See below portions of the notice)

EXHIBIT FATAL NOTICE DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY Page 1 of 3                                                                                                      

NOTICE OF FATAL DEFECT AND DEMAND FOR CANCELLATION OF ALLEGED FORECLOSURE SALE

    

     This is a response notice to a fatally defective LEGAL NOTICE published in the Southern Star January 9, 16, 23, 2013 numbered AL-90001116-12 by William G. Berry, Esq. for WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.

 

STATEMENTS INCORPORATED THEREIN

“Demand is hereby made for cancellation of an illegal foreclosure”.

 

“Said notice contains no constitutional or statutory authority cited. Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell have never knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally consented to any equitable conversion of persons, property, papers, or effects, or knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally granted license for use of such to Probate Judge Sharon Michalic, Sheriff Wally Olson or attorney William G. Berry”.

 

“Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell have never knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, or intentionally donated our property to or for the use of a third party”.

There is no record of such action in the granting of such consent. You are hereby noticed that such activity constitutes civil and criminal trespass, civil and criminal theft, forgery, breach of peace which all are foundational grounds for contempt of the duties of public officials giving rise to summary process and attachment of trespassers private property.

 

“WE DO NOT ALLOW SAID ACTION TO PROCEED ANY FURTHER UNTIL WE OBTAIN THE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY”.

 

NOTICE OF FATAL DEFECT AND DEMAND FOR CANCELLATION OF ALLEGED FORECLOSURE SALE was executed this day January 14th, 2013 A.D.

 

     Perhaps now is the occasion to point out the most unreasonable acts by attorneys who claim to possess an instrument of authority that granted power of sale of 285 East Broad Street yet the attorney steadfastly refuses to make the instrument available for authentication in an official proceeding. (Violation of Title 18 § 1512 Tampering with a witness).

 

“alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;” carries a 20-year sentence.

 

GERMANE LAW

 

American Jurisprudence 2d 1966:

(Volume 25, Ejectment § 19 Strength of own title)

"A well-established principle which has acquired the force of a maxim is to the effect that a plaintiff in ejectment can recover only on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's. The defendant is not required to show title in himself, and he may LAWFULLY SAY TO THE PLAINTIFF, "UNTIL YOU SHOW TITLE, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISTURB ME."

 

1.510(c). "[I]t is apodictic that summary judgments may not be granted ... absent the existence" of admissible evidence in the record. TRG-Brickell Point NE, Ltd v. Wajsblat, 34 So.3d 53, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Without evidence demonstrating appellee's status as holder and owner of the note and mortgage, GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT REMAIN, and summary judgment was improper.

 

Accordingly, we reverse the entry of final summary judgment in favor of appellee and remand for further proceedings. We note that a summary judgment motion may be filed "at any time" under Rule 1.510(a), and "this opinion does not preclude a re-filing of such motion, IF AND WHEN, THE NECESSARY LEGAL DOCUMENTS ARE BEFORE THE COURT." Mack, 541 So.2d at 800.

We cannot rely on the representations of counsel alone. Wright v. Emory, 41 So.3d 290, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ("[AN] ATTORNEY'S UNSWORN, UNVERIFIED STATEMENTS DO NOT ESTABLISH COMPETENT EVIDENCE.").

 

AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE 2d §110.

In the case of certain debts, such as loans affected by municipalities and corporations of large capital, which are payable at a fixed and known place of payment and at a fixed period, at which place and time THE CREDITOR IS TO PRESENT HIS EVIDENCE OF DEBT AND RECEIVE PAYMENT, INTEREST WILL STOP FROM THAT MOMENT,

 

     The facts in this case are extremely simple. Due process was evaded. However, the questions are numerous, necessitating an unfortunately long statement. Is due process a duty for every sworn public servant? How much does an evasion of duty cost the evader, whose acts are contrary to law and equity and are unquestionable, as they are in defiance of the fundamental Maxim that “equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy”, The law establishes a remedy in this case to be 12% per annum.

     Does the City of Ozark wish to gain title to 285 East Broad Street? If it is the decision that title is to be purchased, then Eminent Domain due process will establish the “just compensation” offer that can then be accepted or rejected.

     The City of Ozark can just continue to occupy the property at a 12% per annum interest. As property owner, I have no choice given the sovereignty provision of the municipality.

MAXIM SUMMARY

What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by judgment of a competent tribunal.

     I would be remiss were I NOT to point out what SCOTUS, the supreme law of the land, has ruled as to the rights of the individual citizen.

One’s private life is his alone, even President Trump. The public cannot interfere.

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43(1906)

Hale v. Henkel was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1906. The opinion of the court states, in part:

     Page 201 U. S. 44 "There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State;"

     Page 201 U. S. 74 "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and CAN ONLY BE TAKEN FROM HIM BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or SEIZURE EXCEPT UNDER A WARRANT OF THE LAW. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

     Hale v. Henkel is binding on all the courts of the United States of America until another Supreme Court case says it is not. No other Supreme Court case has ever overturned Hale v. Henkel.

     None of the various issues of Hale v. Henkel have ever been overruled.

Since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by the Federal and State Appellate Court systems over 1,600 times! In nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on precedent authority of the cited case.

     Compared with other previously decided Supreme Court cases, no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts.

     Please advise me of your choice. Previous City of Ozark officials, that are no longer in elected office, refused to address Eminent Domain or to response to my certified written requests. The former Mayors as well as the City Attorney has so far not rebutted any of my assertions, but instead consented to them by silent acquiescence. Perhaps precedence shown below states their position better.

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”  U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (1977).

Ala. Code §7-3-309(a)

A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person.

Yours truly,

Haywood Jackson Mizell

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

334-498-4187 cell

P.S. The attorney who orchestrated the simulated wrongful foreclosure in 2013 was Nathan E. Hardwick IV, managing partner with MHS, Atlanta Law Firm. His address can be found within the federal prison system and will remain so for 15 years. He is commanded to make restitution.

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Northern District of Georgia


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Atlanta real estate attorney receives 15-year sentence for defrauding his law firm out of millions of dollars

ATLANTA –Nathan E. Hardwick IV has been sentenced to 15 years in federal prison for orchestrating a scheme to defraud his law firm out of millions of dollars. On October 12, 2018, following a four-week trial, a federal jury convicted Hardwick of wire fraud, conspiracy, and making false statements to a federally insured financial institution.

“This attorney violated the trust placed in him by his clients and his partners; as a result, he is now facing a lengthy prison sentence,” said U.S. Attorney Byung J. “BJay” Pak. “Lawyers who steal client money and embezzle from their partners can expect years in prison for their violation of trust.”

“It is especially troubling that this crime was orchestrated by a lawyer who swore an oath to uphold the law and represent his clients with integrity,” said Chris Hacker, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “Hardwick was in debt through his own fault and chose to steal from his clients and firm to pay back that debt and finance his extravagant lifestyle. Now he will pay back his debt to society in prison.”

According to U.S. Attorney Pak, the charges and other information presented in court: Hardwick and Asha R. Maurya engaged in a scheme to defraud MHSLAW, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Morris Hardwick Schneider, LLC, and LandCastle Title, LLC, (collectively referred to as “MHS”). MHS owned and operated a law firm that specialized in residential real estate closings and foreclosures, and it ran a title business. MHS employed approximately 800 people in 16 states. Hardwick was the managing partner of the law firm and the CEO of the title business. He also ran the law firm’s closing division, which was based in Atlanta. Maurya managed MHS’s accounting operations under Hardwick's supervision and control.

In early 2007, Hardwick and his law partners sold off part of their business, and Hardwick pocketed approximately $11.8 million. Hardwick quickly squandered that money, however, and by the end of 2010 was broke and deeply in debt.

From January 2011 through August 2014, Hardwick siphoned off more than $26 million from MHS’s accounts to pay his personal debts and expenses and to finance his extravagant lifestyle. MORE THAN $19 MILLION OF THAT WAS CLIENT MONEY THAT WAS STOLEN FROM MHS’s ATTORNEY TRUST ACCOUNTS. Hardwick spent approximately $18.5 million of the fraud proceeds on gambling, private jets, and more than 50 different social companions.

MHS’s audited financial statements showed that the firm’s combined net income from 2011 through 2013 was approximately $10 million. During that same three-year period, however, Hardwick took more than $20 million out of the firm’s accounts.

Both Hardwick and Maurya made numerous false statements to Hardwick’s law partners concerning the amount of money that Hardwick was taking out of the firm. And Hardwick and Maurya conspired to cover-up the fraud.

Nathan E. Hardwick IV, 53, of Atlanta, Georgia, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Eleanor L. Ross to serve 15 years, forfeit over $19.9 million in criminal proceeds, given a $2,300 special assessment, and will be required

When he is released from prison, Hardwick will be required to serve six years on supervised release.  Judge Ross sentenced Asha R. Maurya to seven years in prison, and three years of supervised release.  Maurya was also ordered to forfeit $900,000 in criminal proceeds.  Their restitution hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2019.

This case was investigated by the FBI.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Russell Phillips, Lynsey Barron, Kelly Connors, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Doug Gilfillan prosecuted the case.

For further information please contact the U.S. Attorney’s Public Affairs Office at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or (404) 581-6016. The Internet address for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia is http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga.

     Finally, the standard is easily seen as established. It is my intent to allow each to convict himself as to his relative status in face of the standard, thus condemning no one. I thought it good and worthy of effort to completely inform you of the events surrounding the absence of Eminent Domain and the ABSENCE OF “ENTITLEMENT TO FORECLOSURE FUNDS” by the actors. Please, be thorough and informed.

Constution Demands Eminent Domain Adherance

 

CONSTITUTION DEMANDS

  1. 1.Condemnation Hearing
  2. 2.Eminent Domain Tribunal to determine Just Compensation
  3. 3.Probate Judge Ruling
  4. 4.Purchase private property for public usage with title conveyance

   provided owner consents or rental at 12% per annum interest

  1. 5. Delay payments at 12% per annum interest.

 

     The City of Ozark seized 285 East Broad Street property outside Eminent Domain proceedings and must pay the lawfully established 12% per annum interest delay payment amount until the property is returned for private usage.

 

Delay Payment Chart showing three possible property values.

Interest 12% per anum and no title conveyed.

 

Property Just compensation value varies as shown with yearly payments delayed

 

$659,000.00 Property Tax appraisal       $109,833.33 2013

      $659,000.00 2014-2019

          $109,833.33 2020 to date

                                                                    $878,666.66 Total Due

 

$4,500,000.00 2008 Prudential Appraisal   $625,000.00 2013

                                                                     $4,500,000.00 2014-2019

                                                                        $625,000.00 2020 to date

                                                                     $5,750,000.00 Total Due

 

$2,250,000.00 One-half Prudential             $312,500.00 2013

                                                                    $2,250,000.00 2014-2019

                                                                       $312,500.00 2020

                                                                    $2,875,000.00 Total Due

 

 

 

 

PUBLISHED MOTIVATION: PRESERVE OZARK HISTORY

 

PUBLIC SERVANT’S OATH OF OFFICE

I,                                                                                     , do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God.

 

DUTY DEMANDS

 

CONSTITUTION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1789 (REV. 1992)

AMENDMENT V

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

MAXIM OF LAW BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION

What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by judgment of a competent tribunal.

 

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury v. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,

LAWFUL POSITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER

 

"A well-established principle which has acquired the force of a maxim is to the effect that a plaintiff in ejectment can recover only on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary's. The defendant is not required to show title in himself, and he may lawfully say to the plaintiff, "UNTIL YOU SHOW TITLE, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISTURB ME." American Jurisprudence 2d Volume 25 §19. Strength of own title.

PRECEDENT LAW ON EMINENT DOMAIN

 

REQUISITES FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN:

     1. Expropriation is for a public use

     2. The payment of just compensation to the property owner.

                 a. it must be real, substantial, full, and ample

                 b. should be made within a “reasonable time” from the taking of the property

                 c. any further delay in the payment will result in the imposition of 12% interest per annum.

 

PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGS

42 USC §1983 provides that every person who, under color of any statute. ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

 

18 USC §242 provides that whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance. regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnap ping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

American Jurisprudence 2d § 611 DUE PROCESS applications

However, even when self-help repossession is valid under applicable due process standards, when state law enforcement personnel are present in the course of what began as a self- help repossession, the proceedings become state action and the debtor must be given notice and opportunity to be heard or there is a deprivation of constitutional rights. Waisner v Jones, NM 260, 755 P2d 598, 6 UCCRS2d 1374.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Without Eminent Domain no property is privately owned.

 

The government has been delegated only three powers:

  1. 1.POLICE POWER
  2. 2.EMINENT DOMAIN POWER
  3. 3.TAXATION POWER

 

OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS

 

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."  American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 332, 442 (1950).

 

Prepared by Haywood Jackson Mizell holder of legal title to 285 East Broad Street, Ozark, Alabama. The attorney who orchestrated the property seizure has been sentenced to 15 years in federal prison and must make restitution.

12% per annum interest for Public Occupancy of private Property

 

EMINENT DOMAIN: PRIVATE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY

 

PUBLIC SERVANT’S OATH OF OFFICE

I,                                                                                     , do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof; and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God.

 

According to Marbury v. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

All judges of the lower courts are required to take two Oaths, (one being 28 USC 453, to do equal justice to all) before assuming Office and to file such Oaths in places designated by law and to abide by such Oaths during occupancy of such Offices and failure to take and file such Oaths constitutes de jure vacancies of Offices. All judges of the lower courts are required to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. All judges of the lower courts are required to follow all directives and rules issued by the United States Supreme Court for the conduct and procedures of such lower courts. All judges of the lower courts are required to abide by the Judicial Code of Conduct. All judges of the lower courts are required to abide by precedence law that has been set as the existing law of the land. All judges are directed by the United States Supreme Court that justice is the object and goal of the cases. All judges of the lower courts are required to avoid even the appearance of partiality or favoritism or cronyism.

 

“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”  U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (1977).

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Amendment V

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Maxim of Law

What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by judgment of a competent tribunal.

 

REQUISITES FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN:

     1. Expropriation is for a public use

     2. The payment of just compensation to the property owner.

                 a. it must be real, substantial, full, and ample

                 b. should be made within a “reasonable time” from the taking of the property

                 c. any further delay in the payment will result in the imposition of 12% interest per annum.

 

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error."  American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 332, 442 (1950).

 

42 USC §1983 provides that every person who, under color of any statute. ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

 

18 USC §242 provides that whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance. regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnap ping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

American Jurisprudence 2d § 611 DUE PROCESS applications

However, even when self-help repossession is valid under applicable due process standards, when state law enforcement personnel are present in the course of what began as a self- help repossession, the proceedings become state action and the debtor must be given notice and opportunity to be heard or there is a deprivation of constitutional rights. Waisner v Jones, NM 260, 755 P2d 598, 6 UCCRS2d 1374.

We cannot rely on the representations of counsel alone. Wright v. Emory, 41 So.3d 290, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ("[An] attorney's unsworn, unverified statements do not establish competent evidence.").

CRIMES OF RECORD COMMITTED BY WELLS FARGO:

TITLE 18---CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE §1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant Whoever corruptly-

(1)    alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2)           otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more' than 20 years, or both.

§ 35-10-9 Sales contrary to article null and void.

All sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of this article, shall be null and void, notwithstanding any agreement or stipulation to the contrary.

FAIT ACCOMPLI City of Ozark’s position

a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept it.

 

Fait Accompli is a tactic described by Gerard I. Nierenberg. The phrase is French for “accomplished fact,” and refers to a deed that is already done—and is therefore irreversible. You employ this tactic when you do something without first negotiating it.

 

Clerk of Court Statement

Enclose please find a copy of Wells Fargo Loan/Mortgage # 0128507779. We cannot certify that this is a true copy of the original because the original was not filed in the clerk’s office. (Delores Woodham, Dale County Circuit Clerk, Ozark, Alabama)

 

FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(Rule   1002. Requirement of the Original.)

An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content.

GAMBLE’S ALABAMA RULES OF EVIDENCE

2d Rule 1002 Best Evidence

     The best evidence rule is a legal principle that holds an original copy of a document as superior evidence. The rule specifies that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists and can be obtained. The rule has its roots in 18th-century British law

 

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

The American Bar Association's opinion concerning foreclosures: Standing and subject-matter-jurisdiction.

……………… this Court has the responsibility to assure itself that the foreclosure Plaintiffs have standing and that subject-matter-jurisdiction requirements are met at the time the complaint is filed. Even without the concerns raised by the documents the Plaintiffs have filed, there is reason to question the existence of standing and the jurisdictional amount".

 

MAXIMS OF LAW FROM BOUVIER’S DICTIONARY

It is against equity to deprive freemen of the free disposal of their own property.

 

A CLAIM MUST BE PROVEN IF A DEBTOR DEMANDS PROOF.

What does not appear and what is not is the same; it is not the defect of the law, but the want of proof.

A deed or a bond found with the debtor is presumed to be paid.

It is fraud to conceal a fraud.

Law arises out of fact; that is, its application must be facts.

Ezekiel 18:12-13 for death to those so inclined. God will not be bought off.

12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination, 13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

     Below are the words of J.D. Holman of Ozark from his case before the US Supreme Court, which began the use of ‘situation ethics’ by ignoring the RULE OF LAW.  Today’s “precedent” monster has grown from that seed planted in 1935 by SCOTUS.

“The facts in this case are extremely involved and the questions numerous, necessitating an unfortunately long statement. Because of this situation, we feel that the denial of the writ is due to the fact that we have failed to make clear the inexplicable action of the Courts below in their denial of relief after finding fraud practiced by attorneys upon their clients, and their finding of material and specific facts for which the record lends no support whatever. This is not a situation wherein this Court is asked to invade the province of another Court or to pass upon fact questions. It is a matter of the lower Courts' deciding material issues by introducing facts into the case, which do not appear in the record and could not be inferred from it. If these findings and the resulting conclusions of law are permitted to stand without correction, .then litigants can no longer be assured of fundamental rights. They will be forced to assume the unconscionable risk that the findings of a Court may have no relation to the facts established by the record. For this and other reasons this case is of immeasurable importance, not alone to the petitioners but to the legal profession as a whole and to the public.

      It is inconceivable that having found these attorneys guilty of concealment and failure to disclose vital facts to their clients, the court should condone such conduct. That these conclusions of both courts below are contrary to law and equity is unquestionable, as they are in defiance of the fundamental Maxim that “equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy”, and in conflict with decisions of all state and national courts. If the decisions of the District Court and the circuit Court of Appeals are permitted to stand, they will be an invitation to unscrupulous attorneys to betray their clients. The faithless attorney will be encouraged to profit by his own wrong, the client will be deprived of the protection which the law has always afforded him, and the legal profession will have lost the sanctions of honor and good faith to which it is entitled.”

Ala. Code §7-3-309(a)

A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person.

    

     City of Ozark simulated a wrongful non-judicial foreclosure in the presence of law enforcement, including roof-top snipers, to evade due process and Eminent Domain “just compensation”, upon debt-free property that had all encumbrances been paid in full.

FATAL NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE SOUTHERN STAR NEWSPAPER before the foreclosure auction February 19, 2013

 

   Wells Fargo was NOT THE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE and was due NO funds, including interest. Morality drove a TILA exchange, but WF refused to even live up to the exchange bargain by refusing to surrender the paid in full legal tender. Wells Fargo’s “deadbeat” act rendered the MORTGAGE CONTRACT NULL AND VOID BY SELLING THE NOTE AND FILING NO ASSIGNMENT OF RECORD.

Ala. Code § 7-3-305. Defenses and CLAIMS IN RECOUPMENT.

§7-3-305c 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.

 

Note: H. J. Mizell paid Wells Fargo $92,000 more than amount due.

 

PRIOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE NOTICE

 

DEMAND FOR AUTHORITY    

  

NOTICE OF FATAL DEFECT AND DEMAND FOR

CANCELLATION OF ALLEGED FORECLOSURE SALE

 

     Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. possessed no contract to surrender as law requires.  Corruption personified. Instead executed will of incompetent or juvenile without authority in probate hearing or notice. This notice published in Southern Star newspaper.

     This is a response notice to a fatally defective LEGAL NOTICE published in the Southern Star January 9, 16, 23, 2013 numbered AL-90001116-12 by William G. Berry, Esq. for WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.

 

     COMES NOW, Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell, the affiants, after first being duly sworn who are of lawful age competent to handle all our private affairs, and of sound minds, living, well, breathing, natural born, a free man and a free woman living on the soil, two of the People Sui Juris having no legal disability, with and claiming all of his and her unlimited, inherent, unalienable, God given Rights and who are competent to testify to the facts set forth below and are voluntarily relating the following first-hand knowledge of such facts, hereby states that such facts are true, correct, and complete and are not intended to mislead and are telling the truth signed under the penalty of perjury.

     Demand is hereby made for cancellation of an illegal foreclosure. Notice is hereby given of intent to convene a grand jury with full investigative powers under a writ of inquiry for criminal matters including but not limited to uttering of forged documents and simulation of legal process.

No venue and jurisdiction have been alleged by William G. Berry. Said notice contains no constitutional or statutory authority cited. Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell have never knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally consented to any equitable conversion of persons, property, papers, or effects, or knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally granted license for use of such to Probate Judge Sharon Michalic, Sheriff Wally Olson or attorney William G. Berry.

                                              

No venue or jurisdiction has been identified either in common law or in civil law in said notice, nor is there a statement or averment regarding the office of the probate and whether it is operating in a constitutional capacity as judge under general law powers or whether the office is acting as Chancellor under statutory commission.

Notice is hereby given of the definition of INSINUATION. In the civil law, THE TRANSCRIPTION OF AN ACT ON THE PUBLIC REGISTRY LIKE OUR RECORDING OF DEEDS. IT WAS NOT NECESSARY IN ANY OTHER ALIENATION BUT THAT APPROPIATED TO THE PURPOSE OF DONATION. Inst. 2,7,2.

NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE CONTINUATION OF A WILL. In the civil law, the first production of a will, or leaving it with the registrar, in order to its probate. Cowell; Blount. Black’s law dictionary2nd.

     Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell hereby declare that we never intended to register a will in probate under civil law and never have we alienated ourselves from the property and given the property as a donation. Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell have never knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, or intentionally donated our property to or for the use of a third party.

We do not allow any further action. The foreclosure must be cancelled until you inform us as to how a mortgage document can be converted to a will. Never at any time in our life did we intend to create a will to be registered in the public domain in the probate office.

     Haywood Jackson Mizell and Alice Faye Mizell have never knowingly, willingly, voluntarily or intentionally domiciled our person, property, papers or effects in any foreign third-party jurisdiction or granted permission for our private signatures to be placed into commercial trade or for the use by any third party. There is no record of such action in the granting of such consent. You are hereby noticed that such activity constitutes civil and criminal trespass, civil and criminal theft, forgery, breach of peace which all are foundational grounds for contempt of the duties of public officials giving rise to summary process and attachment of trespassers private property.

                                                    

The said notice did not identify the venue and the jurisdiction, and we do not allow said action to proceed any further until we obtain the source of authority.

     We do not stipulate to any statements made in the said notice and do not acquiesce by silence. No reasonable response can be generated from a fatally defective publication and insufficient notice.   We do not agree to any statements made in the said notice. Furthermore, we do not consent to any attempt to obtain our acquiescence, consent, or our ratification of commencement through said notice.

NOTICE OF FATAL DEFECT AND DEMAND FOR CANCELLATION OF ALLEGED FORECLOSURE SALE was executed this day January 14th, 2013 A.D. at arm’s length and without the United States.

 

The City of Ozark owes H. J. Mizell for the possession of the subject property at an annual rate of 12% until the property is returned to the title holder after payment for the time occupied. All “just compensation” funds are due.

Criminal at large right before your eyes

 

COMMENT: 90% OF ALL MORTGAGES IN AMERICA are GSE loans by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. This is an effort to allow banks to exceed the fractional banking limit of 9 times the bank’s deposits (Bank of America is on record for lending 52 times its deposits).

The GSE is not allowed to directly lend the money and wants everyone to believe it is the kind uncle who holds mortgages but will not foreclose. (See their instructions to all their servicers).

The originator bank gets a fee. The servicer gets a fee for pretending to be the lender and receiver of monthly payments. The servicer gets an even larger fee for foreclosing to make fraud appear legal.

GSE cannot bid in cash. The bid by a GSE can only be a credit bid, (no cash bid) acting in place of the servicing bank if no assignment is of record. 2002 instructions from the GSE to Originators and Servicers instructing them to digitize all documents including the assignment to the GSE and after scanning destroy all original instruments. One cannot be charged for altering an instrument that does not exists. (Title 18 §1512 is a maximum 20-year sentence, if convicted) The same that Roger Stone was charged with.

Most of the time the servicer unlawfully forecloses in its own name and coveys the property first to the GSE and the GSE sells the property for a fraction of its worth. The one percent’s ownership of Americas assets has risen from 9% in 2000 to 46% in 2018 thru use of this fraud.

The only answer as a safety net is a Quiet Title Action which has no statute of limitations. Only an honest judge can review the facts authenticated by the clerk, all without benefit of a jury that cannot alter the fact witness instruments, and in the judge’s chambers not for public hearing. Again, a dishonest judge risks being required to vacate his office and forfeit his “faithful performance” required bond. Most public servant do not post said bond, the keys to the American treasure are handed over to the criminals.

     Do not be deceived, the criminals will not go away voluntarily.

Eminent Domain Tribunal denied City of Ozark clear title

 

Haywood Jackson Mizell, pro per

4518 Woodledge Drive

Montgomery, AL 36109

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DALE COUNTY, ALABAMA

 HAYWOOD JACKSON MIZELL, pro per,

                                                                                    )           Case No. CV-2013 000006.00

                                             Plaintiff,                         )          

vs.                                                                               )

WILLIAM G. BERRY, Attorney at law                   )         August 04, 2014

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.                                 )           Further Proceedings after Case

SIGLER DAVID,                                                      )           Remanded from Federal Court

STUMP JOHN G, INDIVIDUALLY C/O               )          

WELLS FARGO BANK et al                                   )                                                                                                                                                                            Defendants.                                                               )

 FURTHERANCE OF PROCEEDINGS

             COMES NOW, HAYWOOD JACKSON MIZELL, Plaintiffs pro per, seeking again a trial by jury, under common law, as a man on Alabama soil apart from any jurisdiction of any fiction law of a foreign domain, and for substantive relief from theft of property by defendants.

           The record of the proceedings in the MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA established many facts as unrebutted.

           The property at 285 East Broad Street, Ozark, Alabama remains without marketable title, a title that a reasonable buyer would accept because it appears to lack any defect and to cover the entire property that the seller has purported to sell; a title that enable a purchaser to hold property in peace during the period of ownership and to have it accepted by a later purchaser who employs the same standard of acceptability.

One definition of a marketable title which is been put forward repeatedly is one free from all reasonable doubt. Stated another way, a marketable title is one which does not contain any manner of defect or outstanding interest or claim which may conceivably operate to defeat or impair the interest which is bargained for and is intended to be conveyed. This negative concept of marketability has become an implied invitation for courts to declare the titles on the marketable if an examiner has entertained any doubt whatever with respect to them. The digest attest the painful truth that claims of a bygone era playing like barnacles to land tyros encumber them long after they should have been scrapped clean.... We need to replace this negative approach by a positive one which will make it marketability of tyros dependent solely upon their state you in some recent interval of time rather than upon their entire history. And quotation Paul E. Banshee BAS why he clearing land tyros section 371, at 539 (1953).

 

           The defendants procured a signature on a document labeled mortgage and loan which was to be used as purchase money, never disclosing that it was, in reality, a “power of attorney” for the sale of the Homestead. Fictitious acts under customs and usages by merchants allows that a document does not have to be as a labeled.

         The promissory note was securitized. Securitization requires the separation of the note from the mortgage. However, when brought up at an open Federal Hearing, the Magistrate Judge said that he did not want to hear any more about “separation of note and mortgage”. Rulings by the Alabama Supreme Court well documents the position of Alabama State Laws regarding separation note and the mortgage as a contract. The more colorful description of such per curum decision by the Alabama Supreme Court is communicated through the “Cow and the tail” parable. (Alabama law declares the mortgage and promissory note to be forever null and void, which both federal and state courts chose to ignore those laws, instead rule unlawfully without subject matter jurisdiction)

           Written correspondence from Wells Fargo clearly informs everyone that “Wells Fargo does not disperse original documents.”  Wells Fargo had sold the note and could not surrender the note when full payment is made, simply because one cannot surrender what he does not possess. (Judges declare the statements of barred attorneys as true.  Court declared contradictory unrebutted affidavit exhibits from Wells Fargo's vice president as a pack of lies not to believed. Individuals who are not a barred attorneys cannot make belivable and verified truthful statements in court filings . Un-sworn and unverified statements from barred attorneys are considered competent evidence.  Even though the law declares company records as self authenticating, state judges rule instead that unbarred individuals cannot speak truthfully even if the affidavits are sworn statements filed into the court records, filed as sworn true affidavits by company identified vice-president officials.  Partiality reigns in courts when attorneys are present especially when the issues can be made to  benefit a public municipality.)  

           Wells Fargo Bank NA performed a (simulated) foreclosure procedure in the presence of law enforcement, "sold" the property to the City of Ozark all without marketable title. The “clouded title” prevents any grant money from being spent for the improvement of the property by the city who has no clear title. To spend taxpayer’s funds acquired by grant for property improvements where there is no clear title is a criminal act. Wells Fargo Bank NA has assured that the property can no longer be maintained.

           The Plaintiff begged Wells Fargo to allow the Plaintiff to defend the title. The Plaintiff signed a covenant to defend the title. The date April 18, 2012 was established as the day for the exchange of funds needed to settle all remaining indebtedness, in exchange for evidence necessary to insure unquestionable clear and marketable title. The plaintiff was prevented from paying off the promissory note by an act of omission by Wells Fargo Bank NA. Interest accrual was suspended on that date of the official offer. Affidavits testifying to the availability of the funds were not rebutted, and neither was the date set for the exchange. WELL FARGO’s clouding of the title has obstructed the sale of the property years earlier. The then larger offer was accompanied by earnest money, which could not cure the unmarketable title inflicted by the defendants. Substantial funds were denied the Plaintiff.

           American Jurisprudence 2d under Interest and Usury §76 Generally; act or omission of creditor

     In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, when a debtor is ready and willing to pay an obligation, and intends to do so, but is prevented from doing so by the act or omission of the creditor, the accrual of interest on the obligation is suspended. Thus, the running of interest is suspended by the latches or unwarranted delay of a creditor in pressing his claim, but the un-exercised right of a decedent’s creditor to institute probate proceedings for the appointment of administrator does not preclude the accrual of interest on the debt. (The principle balance was about $130,000, which Wells Fargo refused full payment, refused payment by funds already on deposit, because it could present no evidence of debt as needed to assure unclouded marketable title conveyance.) (Adam and Eve also rejected the true, instead elected to embrace the statements made by the original Liar. Use of such patterns produce a "fig leaf" covering. The City of Ozark used law enforcement officers and roof top sniper's presence, plus paying double the alleged balance to make the simulated foreclosure look real and to not appear legal lunder).     

             The defendants prosecuted a foreclosure, in the presence of law enforcement. The defendant acted as an executor of a will as if the plaintiff were dead, incompetent or a juvenile.

         Ten months from April 18, 2012 until February 19, 2013, the defendants added an undisclosed amount of “accrued interest” to be added as their cost and for their benefit, all to come from the proceeds of the wrongful foreclosure. No accounting has been submitted to the plaintiff or to any court to identify this unlawful seizure of funds, which were lawfully belonging to the plaintiff. Even in “the land of OZ”, it is a custom and practice that funds above the amount needed to settle the debt cannot be held by the creditor as unlawful usury.

         Since the note was made a security, the document falls under yet another section of American jurisprudence 2d §110. Maturity of obligations or calls of securities

     In the case of certain debts, such as loans affected by municipalities and corporations of large capital, which are payable at a fixed and known place of payment and at a fixed period, at which place and time the creditor is to present his evidence of debt and receive payment, interest will stop from that moment, regardless of whether the evidence of indebtedness is presented, until the instruments are presented for payment and payment is refused, and it is not necessary, in order to escape after such accruing interest, that the amount along with accumulated interest at the time of the payment be kept separate from other funds the corporation, if it can be shown that the fund sufficient for payment where it all times in hand. The reason for this rule is that the evidence of indebtedness in such cases are usually so largely held in other states and abroad that is impossible in many instances for such corporations to know their creditors or when they are where they reside; hence, to hold that they must find them and tender the amount of the debt to before interest can be stopped would entail great confusion. It has also been held that the running of interest on interest coupons is suspended when the obligor under the principle evidence of indebtedness shows that he is ready or willing to pay.

     A maker of a loan which is payable on or before maturity may, by payment of the principal and accrued interest before maturity, relieves himself from the payment of unearned interest. Similarly the call of securities before maturity, and when probably made has the effect of stopping the running of interest thereafter. In the absence of a statue allowing constructive notice, it seems that, in order to stop interest, a county and municipal corporation desiring to exercise an option to retire bonds before maturity should give actual notice of such intentions to the bondholder, but this rule has been held not to apply to bonds which have many of the qualities of a negotiable instrument, such as those which are payable to bearer, title thereto passing by delivery, and which are not registrable, in which case it county or municipality will be relieved from further interest by the giving of such notice to the bondholders as is reasonable under the circumstances. However, if a municipality or county has actual knowledge that all the bonds of an issue about to be retired are held by unknown person or corporation, only actual notice of the call is reasonable notice.

       Interest on a lost bond will be allowed until the debtor tenders payment.

           Although the defendants pretend ignorance of their practices, their actions show the strict compliance with the manual published by Wells Fargo, published as a guide to be used in the defense of the illegal practices. The next thing on the manual’s agenda, as identified in WELLS FARGO BANK, NA’s manual, is the provision, when court ordered, of documents generated in an effort to deceive the court into believing that these generated “false documents” are in reality genuine.

         The Plaintiff has diligently searched the historic landscape to find the most succinct mental image that descriptive writing can bring to mind. Although the quotes below do not go into detail about the massive crime, the overall picture is palatable.

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Federic Bastiat “The Law” 1850

 

“It can fairly be said that the chain of catastrophic bets made over the past decade by a few hundred bankers may well turn out to be the greatest non-violent crimeagainst humanity in history” Mr. Potter, Vanity Fair Magazine

          The pleadings above are but a fraction of the presentation planned for the jury in their consideration for the determination of the facts in this case. Maybe the spirit of Congressman Henry B. Steagall will guide the exposure of the heretofore undisclosed facts.

         The Plaintiff prays that proper attention by all parties be focused on these national issues especially the issue surrounding peonage and defendant’s default.

                                                         This request is and respectfully submitted by:

                                                 ____________________________________

                                                           By: Haywood Jackson Mizell, Plaintiff, pro se

                                                                 4518 Woodledge Drive

                                                                 Montgomery, Alabama 36109

                                                                 334-498-4187                    Date: 08/04/2014