Are you Pro Se and looking for help with your Litigation
U.S. Equity Website
They are a Private Member Association and can work with you.
Do you fear the Lord?
If anyone sins because they do not speak up
when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have
seen or learned about, they will be held responsible.
I speak to you. Why did you violate the
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance
to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."
"The legislation is to be tested
not by whether its effect upon contracts is direct or is merely
incidental, but upon whether the end is legitimate, and the means
reasonable and appropriate to the end."
P. 438.- Home Building & Loan
Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Public interest became overshadowed by private interest. Private
inerest is not a benefit for public interest. Private interest is not in
the best interest of public interest.
Texas gets D- grade in 2015 State Integrity Investigation
Accountability? You Legislators should really be shamed of
yourself. In the public integrity investigation you receive an "F"? 59
points? You rank 36th? What happened to this great state? I would
imagine the grade for 2016 is not much better? No wonder the Judicial
accountabiliy is no better? It received an "F" also. According to the
accountability investigation, all three branches [executive,
legislative, judicial] received an "F"? What an embarrasment to
the state you are. How do you sleep at night? How can you live with
yourselves? You are going to lose your jobs. We elect you.
NO BILLS OF ATTAINDER!
Does the Texas Legislature realize they must make changes or
repeal Texas Property Code 51.0001? If not, they violate a few federal
18 U.S.C. §242,
18 U.S.C. §245,
42 U.S.C. §1985,
42 U.S.C. §1986, or
18 U.S. Code § 1621?
How about the
"First off, enforcing
an illegal statute under “color of law” is a $10,000 fine *per officer
present* according to
U.S.C. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law;
because officers don’t make the laws (usually its congress, city
councils, or county board of directors), each officer pays into
something called a “bond” *just in case* they accidentally trample over
someone’s rights by enforcing an illegal statute. Officers pay into
their bonds just like people pay into insurance-
they pay a fixed price- & then if it gets “dinged” (they violate
someone’s rights & that person goes after the officer’s
bond), their bond (insurance) goes up. This
helps put officers in check because they don’t want to be “high
liability officers”, & this helps provide damaged parties with a sizable
chunk that the city, county, etc. has to pay out because they were
*supposed* to not pass unconstitutional ordinances in the first place
according to the 14th Amendment."
The previous statement made by someone else should be
an eye opener? According to the 14th Amendment U.S. public officials are
not legally able to violate any citizens rights. Most do realize that
does include state public officials also. And they post bonds in case of
an accident. Just like accidents happen and people pay insurance, so do
public officials pay for insurance if they have an accident. If
accidents are claimed, the insurance goes up, right? Is it not wiser to
prevent the accident from happening instead of causing a non necessary
insurance claim to take place? Isn't it good to know that some things
are controllable when other things become uncontrollable?
Do you know what a
Tort claim is? It is referenced in the Texas civil practices and
remedies code in section
Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 1224 - Supreme Court 2014
As a general matter, equitable tolling pauses
the running of, or "tolls," a statute of limitations when a litigant has
his rights diligently but some extraordinary circumstance prevents him
from bringing a timely action. See, e.g.,
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161
L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). Because the doctrine effectively extends an
otherwise discrete limitations period set by Congress, whether equitable
tolling is available is fundamentally a question of statutory intent.
Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95, 111
S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990);
Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 479-480, 106 S.Ct. 2022,
90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986);
Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484, 501, 87 S.Ct. 1188, 18 L.Ed.2d 244
A Remedy for the Violation of Constitutional Rights
Is this snake-oil salesman's statement true?
Generally, the PSA is the written agreement between the
servicer and mortgagee
referred to in Tex. Prop. Code § 51.0025, that allows a mortgage
servicer to administer the foreclosure process so long as the name of
the mortgagee is disclosed in the notice of foreclosure sale. Tex. Prop.
Code § 51.002(b)....
..A party has capacity when it has the legal right to act,
regardless of whether it has a justiciable interest in the controversy
and should not be confused with the question of whether a party has an
enforceable right or interest....
..So in the final analysis, a borrower’s delaying tactic
founded on a PSA
violation causing a standing issue is in reality a capacity issue
borrower is not a party or privity to the PSA contract....
..A review of the PSA is important because when a loan is
securitized - which is the case for almost all residential loans – to
eliminate needless hassle and the risk of litigation, the foreclosure
professional should make every attempt to ensure the mortgagee
initiating foreclosure is properly named or identified. In a typical
private label securitization, this entity is a “special person entity”
[a word of art in securitization lingo] that is a bankruptcy remote
trust and can be usually
recognized with a name like Bank of New York Mellon fka Bank of New York
as Trustee for HEL Series 2005....
.. In 2004, the Texas legislature changed the foreclosure
statutes to allow the
mortgage servicer – which was the only entity that had any contact or
loan levelinformation related to the borrower’s loan - to administer the
process instead of the traditional “owner of the note”.
.. A servicer can administer a Texas foreclosure if: (a)
there is a written agreement - generally the PSA - between the servicer
and the “mortgagee” and (b) the name and address of the mortgagee is
disclosed in the Tex. Prop. Code §51.00(2) notice of foreclosure sale
sent to the borrower. By definition, interestingly enough, a “mortgagee”
can be six different entities at the same time, i.e. the grantee,
beneficiary of the deed of trust, owner or holder of the note, a book
entry system [MERS], or even the mortgage servicer.
The legislature probably intended the term “mortgagee” to mean the
who ultimate receives the money from a borrower’s mortgage payment (“the
investor”) or the holder of the note as defined in Tex. Bus. & Com. Code
§3.301, but the ambiguity has allowed a
certain amount of flexibility in
FORECLOSURE UPDATE WITH A TWIST - page 10 of 49
Loan servicer's have been around since the 1980's, if not before
then. It is good to show ambiguity within the code? If this is the
"referred" 51.0025 code, why do courts deny a borrowers "rights" to
disclosure of such agreement? Especially when a private "special
person enitiy" was created in 51.0001(1) out of vague, undefined
words. Did the Texas Legislaure intend for this to be the legal
process? Provide greater rights to private policy, than a public policy?
Was it the intent to create a class of private persons with greater
rights than the state's own political persons [counties], not to mention
the rights of Texas citizens? Was the intent of the Texas legislature to
change the roles of the loan servicer of a real estate loan
morgage loan to be converted to a secondary market servicer of a pool of
mortgage loans in the intangible realm of the secondary market between
an account debtor and creditor? Was it the intent of the Texas
legislators to upset centuries of past Texas lien theory case law?
Somebody has the answer.
UPDATE: PUBLIC NOTICE [
According to "Who Represents Me" using the following
zip code  , notice was provided to the following Texas
representatives the week of 12/05/2016;
Senator Charles Schwertner ;
Senator Kirk Watson;
Representative Marsha Farney,
Representative Celia Israel; and
Representative Larry Gonzales with the following message;
Greetings. I am attempting to contact my representatives to voice my
concern about a Texas Statute I believe to be unconstitutional. I have
attempted to contact Larry Gonzales but no response. So, each of you are
next on my list.
The statute on its face, or as applied is unconstitutional because it
deprives not only human person of rights, but also politic persons, such
a local government law. I honestly do not believe the Texas Legislature
intended to create a private person and give such private person rights
greater than the states own subdivisions. In essence, the certain
section allows for violations of Texas and U.S. law to be protected by
that certain section. Nonetheless, this constitutional violation has
continued to run from 2004, to the present. I ask for your assistance in
resolving this violation of rights guaranteed by both Constitutions.
Today is 12/12/2016 and no response from any of my state representatives
12/12/2016, received email from Senator Schwertner, sent response
12/13/2016, received phone message from person asserting to be from
Senator Schwertner office. Returned call and provided phone number.
12/16/2016, no contact from any of my representatives in Texas.
12/18/2016, email pdf's of
Legal Duty Statutes to Senator Schwertner's office email contact to
show various laws being affected by this Constitutional violation. Those
two are serious reads to disregard?
12/27/2016, no response from my represntatives via phone, mail, or
01/30/2017, Yawn, no sincere response from Texas Legislature. It appears
they either do not know because of the pion I communicate with, or they
just don't get it. Would it surprise you?
I'm sure they are busy people, but if "legal" criminal acts are
continuing to be allowed, why are so many other class of "criminals"
locked up in jails, or prisons? Why are these representatives still in
office? If there is no constitution, there is no office for them? It is
a serious matter, yet many have not recognized it?
GOVERNMENT CODE, TITLE 3. LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, SUBTITLE B. LEGISLATION,
CODE CONSTRUCTION ACT
SUBCHAPTER B. CONSTRUCTION OF WORDS AND PHRASES
Sec. 311.011. COMMON AND TECHNICAL USAGE OF WORDS.
(a) Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according
to the rules of grammar and common usage.
(b) Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular
meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be
Sec. 311.016. "MAY," "SHALL," "MUST," ETC.
The following constructions apply unless the context in which the word
or phrase appears necessarily requires a different construction or
unless a different construction is expressly provided by statute:
(1) "May" creates discretionary authority or grants
permission or a power.
(2) "Shall" imposes a duty.
(3) "Must" creates or recognizes a condition precedent.
(4) "Is entitled to" creates or recognizes a right.
(5) "May not" imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with
(6) "Is not entitled to" negates a right.
(7) "Is not required to" negates a duty or condition
SUBCHAPTER C. CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES
Sec. 311.021. INTENTION IN ENACTMENT OF STATUTES.
In enacting a statute, it is presumed that:
(1) compliance with the constitutions of this state and the United
States is intended;
(2) the entire statute is intended to be effective;
(3) a just and reasonable result is intended;
(4) a result feasible of execution is intended; and
(5) public interest is favored over any private interest.
Sec. 311.023. STATUTE CONSTRUCTION AIDS. In
construing a statute, whether or not the statute is considered ambiguous
on its face, a court may consider among other matters the:
(1) object sought to be attained;
(2) circumstances under which the statute was enacted;
(3) legislative history;
(4) common law or former statutory provisions, including laws on the
same or similar subjects;
(5) consequences of a particular construction;
(6) administrative construction of the statute; and
(7) title (caption), preamble, and emergency provision.
Sec. 311.024. HEADINGS. The heading of a
title, subtitle, chapter, subchapter, or section does not limit or
expand the meaning of a statute
It may be a good idea for the Texas Legislature to let the local
government court system know that section § 51.0001(4)(C)
does not trump § 192.007, and maybe the courts should stop
overlooking the fact?
Sec. 311.026. SPECIAL OR LOCAL PROVISION PREVAILS
OVER GENERAL. (a) If a general provision conflicts with a special
or local provision, the provisions shall be construed, if possible, so
that effect is given to both.
(b) If the conflict between the general provision and the special or
local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local provision
prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general
provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the
general provision prevail.
BAM! Property code v. Local government code
According to Texas Government code, section 311, demonstrates that §
192.007 does not conflict with § 51.0001(4)(C), but § 51.0001(4)(C)
conflicts with § 192.007. § 51.0001(4)(C) allows for secret
transactions, while § 192.007 allows for public transactions. Hence
secret v public.
A question to ponder; Was the "Note"
even "negotiable "Did the Texas Legislature
take the note into account before they violated the Constitutions?
Sign the petition. Signed the petition
"Texas Legislature: Remove "51.0001(1) "book entry system" in Texas
Property code" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.
This is very important to the citizens of Texas to notify our elected
officials of the State of Texas, to what is wrong with the current real
estate mortgage problem in Texas. There is strength in numbers.
Where, or whom came up with "book entry
system means national book entry system"? What is a national
book entry system? Where is the definition of "national book
In a certain publication, "Dodd-Frank
Act, Title VIII: Supervision of Payment, Clearing, and
Settlement Activities ", and on page 6, you will find this
statement; "The Federal Reserve operates a book-entry system
known as the National Book-Entry System,"
As noticed, the illusion called MERS is not a
"national book entry system". The "national book entry system"
name belongs to the Federal Reserve. Texas did not define the
thing called MERS because it is a private electronic registry
for tracking transferable records, not a "national book entry
system". So, why is MERS allowed to conduct business under
chapter 51 when Texas laws states otherwise? MERS does not meet
the definition of "national book entry system" to be a "book
entry system" in Texas.
HOT HOT HOT!
You legislative people make me want to puke. Do you
not realize how you have butchered existing case law to allow a "private
registry system" or its alleged members, to only hold a copy
of a deed of trust
without the debt? And without their name on it? You've actually let criminals run amuck. You
created law to allow private registry parties violate the law, and use
Texas law to support the crime?
provide you with a sample of the debacle you have created. All you did
was allow criminals to withhold evidence to prevent a homeowner from
defending themselves, and their real property. Today, September 14, 2016
I located in Williamson County public records an instrument that was
recorded on March 3, 2015 that reflects a General Warranty Deed from
Wells Fargo Bank, to HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban affairs.
It was allegedly signed by a Stephen C. Porter. In 2015,
Mr. Porter was not an attorney at Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner &
Engel, he was employed as general council at Mortgage Contracting
Services, inc. How could he lawfully record that? The General Warranty Deed reflected that the instrument was created on
September 10, 2010. Then our real property was sold with this bogus
General Warranty Deed for HUD to another unsuspecting homeowner. This
time without MERS. Somebody is covering something up. According to that
General Warranty Deed, Wells Fargo bank, MERS, nor the individuals from
Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel had, or has standing to invoke
the jurisdiction of the courts. The Campbell's lost their real property
to Wells Fargo, MERS and defendants through fraud upon the court, when
HUD was allegedly the owner of the real property according to what is
recorded now in Williamson County public records. Wells Fargo Bank
placed a tremendous burden on the Campbell's, including a lot of
money they did not have to begin with. And if you look there has
been a Lis Penden recorded since 2010. alk about clouded title? You people make me sick. My
family has suffered greatly because of your ill-gotten changes to the
Texas Property Code, and other statutes related to real property for
MERS members benefit. Many other families have lost their homes to
criminals simply because you made it legal for MERS members to conduct
criminal business legally in Texas. What is your excuse for causing all the pain
and suffering to citizens of Texas that was not necessary? Check out the
Fraud Upon the Court to see the instrument that was withheld from
the courts, and recorded 5 years after the alleged transaction took
place. By the same actors, no less. Stephen C. Porter, of Barrett Daffin
Frappier Turner & Engel, Addison, Texas. Where the hell is law
You even gave the most infamous foreclosure mill in
Texas the authority to cause this debacle? WITH [acronym, figure it out]
is wrong with you?
Unconstiutional Summary judgment
And maybe the world will come to see just how
unconstitutional a motion for summary judgment is when used by alleged
MERS members. Yet, even if time for discovery was available, concealment
of evidence, an intervening "assignment", would not be known but to the ones concealing the evidence.
In other words, silence by estoppel.
The document number #2015023447
was not constructive notice until March 27, 2015, almost 5
years later, reflecting an alleged conveyance of a deed type to HUD, in
September 13, 2010. Before the
recordation of that certain document, a document which was considered
actual notice, and not recorded as a constructive notice
in public records. So, in essence,
the the instrument was concealed to gain victory in a fraudulent
presentation to the court system. Isn't that called obstruction of
justice, if nothing else? Read more on it here ->
Fraud Upon The
On a different Note....
Here is an
excerpt used for educational purposes.
In the practice known at
Wells Fargo as "pinning," a Wells Fargo banker obtains a debit card
number, and personally sets the PIN, often to 0000, without customer
authorization. "Pinning" permits a banker to enroll a customer in online
banking, for which the banker would receive a solution (sales credit).
To bypass computer prompts requiring customer contact information,
bankers impersonate the customer online, and input false generic email
addresses such as firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, or
firstname.lastname@example.org to ensure that the transaction is completed, and
that the customer remains unaware of the unauthorized activity....
concluded that its employees submitted applications for 565,443
credit-card accounts that may not have been authorized by using
consumers’ information without their knowledge or consent.
Since the Texas Legislature created law for an
"online" ATM called MERS, and Michael Barrett said in the November 7,
2007 Task force meeting that documents are made up, I would imagine that
statement would fit the scenario of MERS assignments in public records,
like the credit card thing above. And like the scenario above,
MERS already contains the homeowners information. Nobody was paying attention?
So the Texas Legislature wrote laws that allow
for legal criminal activity? Avoid the Texas Constitution? Or was it
"amended" to accommodate? It shall be revealed.
Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 19
Sec. 19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE
COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life,
liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner
disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.
Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 16
Sec. 16. BILLS OF ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO OR RETROACTIVE LAWS;
IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS. No bill of attainder, ex post facto
law, retroactive law, or
any law impairing the obligation of contracts,
shall be made.
Chapter 51 of the Texas Property code seems to contradict the Texas
Constitution? And according to court opinion in Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, certain portions of
Chapter 51, Texas Property code are not as legitimate as thought to be.
Isn't perjury defined by Blackstone as “a
crime committed when a lawful oath is administered?
Do you realize every one of you need to be
replaced? You are guilty by association. You do not deserve to be
elected! You do not deserve to be re-elected. You do not deserve to be
in any office. You who are in office, you do not deserve to be elected
into any position of leadership, more especially, Governor, or President
of the United States! You are Hypocrites! You are self centered! You are
a disgrace! You have only created more hardship upon the American
people, and the world. Your time has come. You did it to yourself. The
people will know. You have placed the peoples in harms way.
Whom gave you authority to cause scandals? Whom
gave you authority to fight amongst yourselves? Whom blinded your eyes?
Who gave you authority to be corrupt? Who gave you authority to lie? Where did you receive your authority? Where in that
authority does it allow you to act outside that authority? Where are you
from? Who gave you authority to act outside the ultimate Authority? You?
You know the truth. You know that most citizens
in this state are lazy and don't care who they vote for. They vote for
you because you have good looks, or, a good advertising agency equipped
with a latest word crafting. You are only clean looking on the outside,
but how clean is your inside? It is not the outer appearance of the man
that makes him good; it is the inside which qualifies him to be the good
man. Are you the inner or the outer? Whether you believe these word are
beneath you, it is not a matter of it being meant for you, it is in hope
that this gospel is understood by the people you believe are beneath
you, me and every other citizen in Texas, and the several states. Your
constituents, the ones whom ignorantly voted you in office. You have
proven your value as a "trusted" official. None of you deserve
being re-elected, or re-appointed into office. Not even Justices. And if
the Governor is associated with such traitors, he too would be guilty by
association. Understand what you have "unknowingly" done. You were
Yale Law Review; Read it because maybe you
listen to law professors?
Prior to 2003. a mortgage servicer was the Lender
whom loaned its earnest money to a potential homeowner for the purchase
of real property. Why was "mortgage servicer" suddenly added into Texas
law in 2003? Did you ever read the transcript from the
MEETING OF THE TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE RULES, November 7,
2007? Did you not know that Tommy Bastian, Stephen C. Porter, were
"helpers" in encouraging H.B. 1493, who were a part of Michael Barrett's
law firm; Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, in Addison, Texas?
A judge in the Dallas area, Bruce Priddy, stated in that transcript that Mr. Barrett
admitted his firm just makes documents up, because 90% of what they need
does not exist? Woe to you! But I suppose you know the
of judge Priddy, right?
Prior to 2003, or at the passage of H.B.
1493; were each individuals within the Legislature knowledgeable of the
Texas Uniform Electronic Transactions Act; and have an understanding
that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. was an electronic
registration system for "electronic" promissory Notes [a.k.a. eNotes]
which are not the homeowners promissory note, but an intangible debt
incurred by the account debtor, not the homeowner? I'm sure the audio
tapes of Stephen C. Porter testimony in H.B. 1493 are located somewhere
on the Texas Legislature's
right? It would be interesting to hear what the deceiver confessed to
get the bill passed?
Did you understand a homeowner was required to
electronically sign if they were agreeing to use MERS as a
Did you understand that the MERS registration
system was for account debtors, and not homeowners?
Did you understand that MERS registration systems
was a "beneficiary" of the personal property mortgage; and not a
"beneficiary" of a real property mortgage before you modified the Texas
Property Code chapter 51? Did you understand MERS was an "electronic
agent" according to UETA?
Did you understand that the potential homeowner
would be required by law to sign an electronic agreement with MERS; and
a paper deed of trust for MERS to be a legal "beneficiary"?
Did you have knowledge of Texas Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act [UETA]
to logically base your "understanding" to modify chapter 51 of Texas
By Law, you have shown the world how you allowed
an "electronic agent" to deprive the people and the agencies of the
state of its rights guaranteed by the Texas Constitution.
Do you not know that the state of Texas is being
utilized in a crime? Do you not realize Texas has lost an enormous
amount of fees owed to counties and the Secretary of State, to mention a
few? Did you realize this would be a cause for an increase in taxes to
the citizens of Texas, because of your ignorance? What were you
thinking? We trusted you?
Are you that compartmentalized within your
Are you lovers of yourselves?
Whence did you receive such Authority to oppress
the people? Whence did you decide to "act" outside your authority? Your
secrets will be revealed.
Do you realize what you have done? Your
ignorance; stupidity; or arrogance is being revealed.
The Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights, art 15,
provides for the power of
The Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights
provides; "That the general, great and essential principles of liberty
and free government may be recognized and established" in this great
The Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights, art 15,
provides a term for those who aid the enemies to deprive Texas citizens;
"No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property,
privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the
due course of the law of the land."
Black's law defines the word "traitor" [traitor]
as "one who, being trusted, betrays; one guilty of treason".[treason]
Do you realize your iniquities?
You have allowed Texas citizens to be deprived of
"due course of law". The courts of Texas allow MERS members to deprive
Texas citizens of "due course of law". Summary judgments in favor
of MERS members violate Texas citizens rights to "due course of law".
Woe to you lawyers, you have dealt yourself and this great state; a
Do you understand the MERS
Surely you've seen that, a Texas County official has used it, or similar
for her presentations in various capacities? You are welcome to the
power point file. [right click; "Save as"] If you have problems,
email me, I will send it to you.
How could you place your own children in
jeopardy? Why did you violate the Texas Constitution? Why did you
seemingly commit acts considered criminal. My ancestors names are on
that wall at the Alamo. Shame on you!
Isn't this sad, that we, your constituents, need
to remind you of the law you created? Read
How could you allow Texas citizens to be
Constitutionally deprived of real property by an electronic agent
governed by Texas UETA; and in the name of a "mortgage servicer" of a
personal property mortgage registered in an electronic registry
governed by Texas UETA; or E-SIGN and nothing else; not even the
Business and Commerce Code?
How could you allow that the Note need not be
produced? Isn't the claim on a "debt"; not real property?
You have allowed for the note to be separated
from the deed of trust and then attached to an electronic promissory
note registered in the "mortgage servicer's" electronic database, called
MERS. Shame on you! This violates the law of negotiation. That is
worldwide, not just in your neck of the woods, my friend.
You have the power to stop the
inevitable, yet you are avoiding it, why? Surely you realize there is an intangible debt larger than the global debt
combined, and Texas is part of it? Why do you turn a blind eye? You know the people are uneasy,
yet you create laws to protect yourself, and an electronic beast, rather than protect the
citizens of Texas? These people placed trust in you, that you would help bring this
state out of oppression. Why have you ignored them? Why do
you want war? It is not a battle of the flesh that we fight, it is the
battle of the spirits, men murder men, spirits battle good & evil in
men. If you are truly righteous men, you should take no offense to what I tell you. I am not an enemy of good acts.
You men, women of this state government hear
this; An audit of government agencies such as Ginnie Mae, FHA, VA, for
unrecorded "assignments" within the collateral file would reveal how
many criminals defrauded the state. An audit of government "mortgage
loans" in Texas alone would provide an idea of how many other fraudulent
"assignments" are across the United States, simply because of Tex. Prop.
51.008. Isn't it called a
subpoena? It's probably more diñero
than the FED has in gold.
CERTAIN LIENS ON REAL PROPERTY. (a) A lien on real
property created under this code or another law of this state in favor
of a governmental entity must be recorded as provided by Chapters 11 and
12 in the real property records of the county in which the property or a
portion of the property is located unless:
(1) the lien is imposed as a result of failure to
pay: (A) ad valorem taxes; or (B) a penalty or interest owed in
connection with those taxes; or
(2) the law establishing the lien expressly states
that recording the lien is not required. (b) Any notice of the lien
required by law must contain a legal description of the property. (c)
This section does not apply to: (1) a lien created under Section 89.083,
Natural Resources Code; (2) a state tax lien under Chapter 113, Tax
Code; or (3) a lien established under Chapter 61 or 213, Labor Code.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th
Leg., ch. 827, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
According to the federal courts
“[t]he statutory scheme is
clear: only the VA may sell property acquired under t he VA Home Loan
Guaranty Program.” Yunis v. United States , 118 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1036
(C.D. Cal. 2000).
Do you realize how many county recording fees were
avoided by MERS members? Why? Do you realize how many fees for the
Secretary of State were avoided by MERS members? Why? Why do you allow
this great state to be railroaded into poverty? For your gain?
Why do you oppress the people? Is it for your gain?
You have no more power than what the Father gives you. You have no
more power than what is provided to you by that certain Texas Constitution. Though your acts of
iniquity shall reward you, you shall reap from your iniquity. I came to warn you. You
have lost your way. Change your path. You've taken from the widow, the poor, you have
downtrodden the people.
Are you that stupid to work all your life for your
career, to throw it away in the latter days because you became a
criminal, a man of iniquity?
Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 26
Sec. 26. PERPETUITIES AND MONOPOLIES; PRIMOGENITURE OR ENTAILMENTS.
Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free
government, and shall never be allowed, nor shall the law of
primogeniture or entailments ever be in force in this State.
Whether you men of iniquity have knowledge of it or
not, MERS is a monopoly, run by MERS members.
DEFINITION of 'Monopoly' A situation in which a single company or
group owns all or nearly all of the
a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is
characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high
prices and inferior products.
Restricting the Freedom of Contract: A Fundamental Prohibition [ A
Woe to those who enact evil statutes And to those
who constantly record unjust decisions
"Accordingly, whatever you have said in the
dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the
inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops."
It is not me whom you should fear, but the One
coming, He, you shall fear.
Those with ears, hear, with eyes, see.
| Judges |
Back to top
Search the Lemon
Copyright 2008 OurLemon.com;