Words from the Rising Republics

November 12, 2020

 

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 14^th, 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.

< Prev		Next >