I https://i-uv.com

  • Home
    • “Meetups” and Connecting with Your Soul Groups
      • Contact Sister Sites
  • OPPT Absolute
    • OPPT Tools
      • OPPT FAQ
      • The Foreclosure Flyer
      • OPPT Courtesy Notice
      • OPPT CN Guidelines
      • Which Courtesy Notice?
      • Cover Letters for CNs
      • Translations of Courtesy Notice
      • Public Interest Courtesy Notice: Monsanto
        • Public Interest Courtesy Notice: IRS
        • Public Interest Courtesy Notice: Chemtrails
        • FREEdom Flyer
    • OPPT Tool Complete
    • OPPT Goes Public
      • OPPT Definitions
      • OPPT Press Releases
      • Conversation with Heather & Brian
    • OPPT Initial Investigation
      • Original OPPT UCC Filings
      • OPPT Financing Statement July 25 2012
      • OPPT True Bill UCC Filing
      • OPPT Commercial Bill UCC Filing
      • Declaration of Facts
      • OPPT UCC Filings in CNs
      • The One People’s Public Trust (OPPT): Your Frequently Asked Questions…ANSWERED
      • E_Call Supporting Documents
  • I UV
    • HATJ: Trust ~ ALL ON!!!
      • Documents for Proof of Ownership for Funds
      • TDDA : Testing spread sheet
    • I and the UV Exchange
    • Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf : I AM WITHOUT PREJUDICE
    • The Will and The Word of I
    • I UV GIFT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED
  • Media and News
    • Nova Earth News
    • Radio Shows
      • The One People Radio Show
      • The Collective Imagination
      • The Transitioning Radio Show
    • Show Transcripts
    • Radio Interviews
  • Freedom Stories
    • Share Your Freedom Story With The World
    • Checklist for Some BEing and DOing
  • Removing The Veil
    • Banking Industry Quarterly Reports
    • Our Cosmic Community
      • Friends in ‘High’ Places
      • Share Your Stories of Friends in ‘High’ Places
  • I UV Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Gold Meditations

BIAS IN THE COURTS: UCC and TILA REVIEW

by BZ ⒾAM Riger / Sunday, 04 October 2015 / Published in Absolute Data

liesincourt

 

BIAS IN THE COURTS: UCC and TILA REVIEW

by Neil Garfield, published on Living Lies, on October 2, 2015

 

 

 

Our legal history has many examples of enormous errors committed by the Courts that were obvious to some but justified by many. The result is usually mayhem. The cause is a bias toward some underlying fact that was untrue at the time. Some examples include

    1.  the infamous Dred Scott decision where the Supreme Court ruled that a black man is not a person within the meaning of the constitution and therefore could not sue to protect his rights because he was not a citizen by virtue of the FACT that his ancestors had been brought to America as slaves. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that “negroes” were fundamentally subhuman. It took a civil war that took 500,000 casualties and a constitutional amendment to change the results of that decision. We are still dealing with lingering thoughts about whether the color of one’s skin is in any way related to our status as humans, persons and citizens.

 

    1. the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on the basis of national security. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that people of Japanese descent would have loyalty to the Empire of Japan and not the United States. People of German descent were not interred, probably because they looked more like other Americans. As the war progressed and the military realized that people of Japanese descent were resources rather than enemies, the government came to realize that acknowledging these people as citizens with civil rights was more important than the perception of a nonexistent threat to national security. Americans of Japanese descent proved invaluable in the war effort against Japan.

 

    1. the Citizens United decision in which the Supreme Court gave the management of corporations a “Second vote” in the court of public opinion. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that entities created on paper were no less important than the rights of real people as citizens. The additional underlying bias was that corporations are better than people.

 

    1. the hundreds of thousands of decisions from thousands of courts that relied on the fictitious power of the court to rewrite legislation that Judge(s) didn’t like. A current perfect example was reading common law (inferior, legally speaking) precedent to override express statutory procedures for the exercise and effect of statutory rescission under the Federal Truth in Lending Act. Over many years and many courts at the trial and appellate level the Judges didn’t like TILA rescission so they changed the wording of the statute to mean that common law procedures and principles apply — thus requiring the homeowner to file suit in order to make rescission effective, and requiring the tender of money or property to even have standing to rescind. This was contrary to the express provisions of the TILA rescission statute. Approximately 8 million+ people were displaced from their homes because of those decisions and the property records of thousands of counties have been forever debauched, likely requiring some legislative action to clear title on some 80+ million transactions involving tens of trillions of dollars. The underlying bias was considered axiomatically true: that the legislature could not have meant that individuals have as much power as big corporation and they should not have such power. Then the short Supreme Court decision from a unanimous court in Jesinoski v Countrywide made the correction, effectively overturning hundreds of thousands of incorrect decisions. A court may not interpret a statute that is clear on its face. A court may not MAKE the law.

 

    1. the millions of foreclosures that have been allowed on the premise that the “holder” of a note should get the same treatment as a “holder in due course.” More than 16 million people have been displaced from their homes as a result of an underlying bias that was and often remains axiomatically true: decisions in favor of homeowners would give them a free house and decisions that allow foreclosure protect legitimate creditors. Both “axioms” are as completely wrong as the decisions about TILA Rescission.

 

It is the last item that I address in this article. A holder in due course is allowed to both plead and prove only the elements of Article 3 of the UCC. Article 3 of the UCC states that a party who purchases negotiable paper in good faith without knowledge of the maker’s defenses and before the terms are breached is presumed to be entitled to relief upon making their prima facie case — which are the elements already listed here. Even if there were irregularities or even fraud at the time of the origination of the loan or at a later time but before the HDC purchased the paper, the HDC will get judgment for the relief demanded. A “holder” (on the other hand) comes in many flavors under Article 3 but they all have one thing in common: they are not holders in due course.

The fundamental error of the courts has been to treat the “holder” as a “holder in due course” at the time of trial. It is true that the holder may survive a motion to dismiss merely by alleging that it is a holder — but fundamental error is being committed at trial where the holder must prove its underlying prima facie case. It should be noted that the requirement of consideration is repeated in Article 9 where it states that a security instrument must be purchased by a successor not merely transferred. So regardless of whether one is proceeding under Article 3 or Article 9, no foreclosure can be allowed without paying real money to a party who actually owned the mortgage. The Courts universally have ignored these provisions under the bias that it is axiomatically true that the party seeking to enforce the paper is so sophisticated and trustworthy that their mere request for relief should result in the relief demanded. This bias is “supported” by an additional bias: that failure to enforce such documents would undermine the entire economy of the country — a policy decision that is not within the province of the courts. And deeper still the bias is that it is axiomatically true that the paper would not exist without the actual existence of monetary transactions for origination and transfer of the paper. These “axioms” are not true.

As a result, courts have regularly rubber-stamped the extreme equitable remedy of foreclosure in favor of a party who has no financial interest in the alleged paper, nor any risk of loss or actual loss. The foreclosures are part of a scheme to make money at the expense of the actual people who are losing money. If this was not true, there would have been thousands of instances in which the “holder” presented the money trail that supposedly was the foundation for the paper that was executed and delivered, destroyed or lost. They never do. If they did, the volume of litigated foreclosure cases would drop to a drizzle. And these parties fight successfully to avoid not only the burden of proof but even the ability of the homeowner to inquire (discovery) about the “transactions” about which the paper is referring — either at origination or in purported transfers. Backdating assignments and endorsements would be unnecessary. “Robo-signing” would also be unnecessary. And the constant flux of new servicer and new trustees would also be unnecessary. Many of these events consist of illegal acts that are routinely ignored by the courts for reasons of bias rather than judicial interpretation.
A holder in due course proves their prima facie case by

a) proffering a witness with personal knowledge
b) proffering testimony that allows the commercial paper to be admitted as evidence (the note). This evidence need only be to the effect that the witness, or his company, physically has possession of the original note and presents it in court.
c) proffering testimony and records showing that the paper (the note) was purchased for good and valuable consideration by the party seeking to enforce it. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
d) proffering testimony and records showing that the mortgage, which is not a negotiable instrument, was purchased withe the note.
e) proffering testimony and records that the transactions were real and in good faith
f) proffering testimony that the purchaser of the paper had no knowledge of the maker’s defenses
g) proffering testimony that no default existed at the time of purchase of the paper.

Because of bias, the Courts, just as they did with TILA rescission, have mostly committed fundamental error by allowing to alleged “holders” a lesser standard of proof than the party who is legitimately in a superior position of being a holder in due course. It starts with a correct decision denying the homeowner’s motion to dismiss but ends up in fundamental error when the court “forgets” that the enforcing party has a factual case to prove beyond mere possession of an instrument they say is the original note.
The holder, in contrast to the holder in due course, is not entitled to any such presumptions at trial, except that they hold with rights to enforce. They don’t hold with automatic rights to win the case however.
A holder proves its prima facie case by>

a) proffering a witness with personal knowledge
b) proffering testimony and records that allow the commercial paper to be admitted as evidence (the note). This evidence need only be to the effect that the witness, or his company, physically has possession of the original note and presents it in court.
c) proffering testimony and evidence as to the chain of custody of the paper the party seeks to enforce.
d) proffering testimony and records together with proof of payment of the original transaction (a requirement generally ignored by the courts). This means proof that the original party in the “chain” relied upon by the party seeking to enforce actually funded the alleged “loan” with funds of its own or for which it is responsible (e.g., a real warehouse credit arrangements where the originator bears the risk of loss).
e) proffering testimony and records showing that the paper (note) was purchased for good and valuable consideration by the creditor on whose behalf the party is seeking to enforce it. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
f) proffering testimony and records showing that the mortgage was also purchased by the creditor for good and valuable consideration. This means showing proof of payment for the paper like a wire transfer receipt or a cancelled check.
g) proffering testimony and records that the transactions was real and in good faith
h) proffering testimony that no default existed at the time of purchase of the paper. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be commercial paper and the party seeking to enforce would need to allege and prove  its standing and its prima facie case without benefit of the note or mortgage.

It should be added here that the non-judicial foreclosure states essentially make it even easier for an unrelated party to force the sale of property. Those statutory procedures are wrongly applied leaving the burden of proof as to UCC rights to enforce squarely on the homeowner who in most cases is not even a “borrower” in the technical sense. Such states are allowing parties to obtain a forced sale of property in cases where they would not or should not prevail in a judicial foreclosure. The reason is simple: the procedure for realignment of the parties has been ignored. When a homeowner files an action against the “new trustee” (substituted by virtue of the self proclaimed and unverified status of a third party beneficiary under the note and mortgage), the homeowner is somehow seen as the party who must prove that the prima facie case is untrue (giving the holder the rights of a holder in due course); the homeowner is being required to defend a case that was never filed or alleged. Instead of immediately shifting the burden of proof to the only party that says it has the rights and paperwork to justify the forced sale. This is an unconstitutional aberration of the rights of due process. The analogy would be that a defendant accused of murder must prove he did not commit the crime before the State had any burden to accuse the defendant or put on evidence. Realignment of the parties would comply with the constitution without changing the non-judicial statutes. It would require the challenged party to prove it should be allowed to enforce the forced sale of the property. Any other interpretation requires the the homeowner to disprove a case not yet alleged, much less proven in a prima facie case.

Spread the word

Share
  • Tweet

About BZ ⒾAM Riger

What you can read next

U.S. Attorney Durham Announces Departure from Office
General Flynn EXCLUSIVE: We the People, POWER of the Grassroots!
Simon Parkes 24th February Update Current News

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow ~ I UV Blog
enter Primary email:
Must confirm email for Success

Delivered by FeedBurner

Share What You See

Share
Thank you for your exchange of value with us
If you find value in the I UV website & blog , enjoy the content , and appreciate the energy put into it for you, please consider returning some energy by making a donation.~ BZ

Updates

  • #UNIVERSALCLEANUP: HATJ & RKB Alleged Trial Transcripts w RKB Closing Statements
  • #UniversalCleanUp: EO 13818 & Letter from the President to the Congress of the United States
    • Quantum Playground: #HATJ #POTUS : “Universal Clean Up” & “Universal Backdoor”
  • Current Updates HATJ & RKB
    • Eastern District TN Court updates
    • Knox County Sheriffs Office Inmate Manual 2018
  • IRS Secret Manual for Agents 1982
  • Court Registry Investment System- CRIS
  • I and the UV Exchange

Recent Comments

  • myaraine on police stop-travel without license, registration, insurance, or tags….right to travel success
  • josef on police stop-travel without license, registration, insurance, or tags….right to travel success
  • Karl Koch on police stop-travel without license, registration, insurance, or tags….right to travel success
  • Karl Koch on police stop-travel without license, registration, insurance, or tags….right to travel success
  • Aidan Walsh on Statement on the Continuing Political Persecution of President Donald J. Trump
  • Aidan Walsh on Statement on the Continuing Political Persecution of President Donald J. Trump
  • Kim F on Freedom Stories

Recent BEing & DOing

  • Quantum Playground
  • Expansion Meme
  • HATJ
  • Absolute Data
  • Abilities
  • Eternal Essence Embodied
  • Disclosure
  • Creative Arts
  • Freedom Stories
  • Removing the Veil
  • China Virus Unmasked
  • Deep State-Illuminati
  • Satanic Ritual Abuse SRA
  • Sex trafficking

Removing The Veil

  • HATJ: Trust ~ ALL ON!!!
  • OPPT Absolute
  • The Slavery System
  • Banking
  • Chemtrails
  • #UniversalCleanUp :History of Banking
  • Modern Money Mechanics
  • Top Secret Banker’s Manual
  • #UniversalCleanUp : Money & Banking Dallas
  • I Bet You Thought
  • Your Strawman
  • Clinton Body Count List Infographic

Archives

www.i-uv.com all content © Eternal Essence Embodied ©2020

TOP