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.
Sign the petition to remove the "national book entry system" in Texas. MERS
impairs contract obligations
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to
thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."
Closed minds lose thought? Only the open mind understands
How stupid are judges? Or should the question be;
"How corrupt are judges?"
There is One who knows the hearts of men, and it is not me.
Texas gets D- grade in 2015 State Integrity Investigation
Accountability? You judges should really be shamed of yourself. In the
public integrity investigation you receive an "F"? 49 points? You rank
41st? What happened to this great state? I would imagine the grade for
2016 is not much better, huh? No wonder the sate civil service
management 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 you are. How do you sleep at night? How can you live with
yourselves? You are going to lose your jobs. We elect you.
Was the "Note"
even "negotiable "Do the Texas Courtss take the
note into account before they violated the Constitutions?
("No judge in the United States enjoys the luxury of
applying his or her own interpretation of the U.S. Constitution with
respect to an issue which the United States Supreme Court has previously
decided. No judge in the United States can overrule [a Supreme Court
decision]; only the Supreme Court can do so."). -
SWEPI, LP v. MORA COUNTY, Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2015
Proof of Fraud
upon the Court! OR how the judges screwed pro-se because they are
You guys are going to love this. Wells Fargo screwed
Ginnie Mae, a.k.a U.S. Taxpayers, investors, and homeowners using a
fraudulent court system. I am compiling, or
maybe even creating a page to show the world just how prejudice, thus
corrupt, judges can be, Of course I'm speaking of certain alleged
judges, we have stood before. I will show you how, according to court
logs, and public records, I fought Wells Fargo Bank in the court system
prior to September 10, 2010, and then after September 10, 2010, when
according to a recent publicly recorded filing in Williamson County,
Texas, The Department of Housing and Urban Development should have been
the party since September 10, 2010. So, why did Wells Fargo ever motion
to dismiss the case because Wells Fargo Bank was not the proper party?
Or how about MERS, or even the Barrett Daffin bunch, nor the john doe
1-100? And we were was declared a "vexatious litigants"? It is too
strange that Mark D. Hopkins, a lawyer in Austin, Texas risked his
career to defeat the Campbell's with fraud upon the court. And let's not
forget the bunch in Addison, Texas. And maybe this should help the world
realize that the credit card debacle with Wells Fargo is only the tip of
the iceberg. Mortgages? Here is the link
Did any representing attorney have a Power of
Probably not, because nobody was looking? Learn more
Find it in the
Texas Estates Code, as it used to be in the Texas Probate Code. The
law has been in effect for decades.
SUBCHAPTER D. RECORDING DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
Sec. 751.151. RECORDING FOR
REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS REQUIRING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF
INSTRUMENTS. A durable power of attorney for a real property transaction
requiring the execution and delivery of an instrument that is to be
recorded, including a release, assignment, satisfaction, mortgage,
security agreement, deed of trust, encumbrance, deed of conveyance, oil,
gas, or other mineral lease, memorandum of a lease, lien, or other claim
or right to real property, must be recorded in the office of the county
clerk of the county in which the property is located not later than the
30th day after the date the instrument is filed for recording.
Added by Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 823 (H.B. 2759), Sec. 1.01,
eff. January 1, 2014.
Amended by: Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 808 (H.B. 3316), Sec. 1,
eff. September 1, 2015.
Compare § 751.151 to § 192.007(a)?
Sec. 192.007. RECORDS OF RELEASES AND OTHER ACTIONS. (a) To release,
transfer, assign, or take another action relating to an instrument that
is filed, registered, or recorded in the office of the county clerk, a
person must file, register, or record another instrument relating to the
action in the same manner as the original instrument was required to be
filed, registered, or recorded.
Negligent Scrolling, or Turning a Blind Eye?
Before we go much farther, I'd like to ask the reader
to ponder the ongoing confusion of the secured debt, and ask why the
justices only utilize a "partial" for the statement; "Where a debt
is `secured by a note, which is, in turn, secured by a lien,
the lien and the note constitute separate
obligations.'" and then state "The magistrate judge
erred in finding that Deutsche Bank did not possess the right to
foreclose under the Burkes' deed of trust." Why didn't the Court(s)
tell Duetsche they did not have jurisdiction? Did the court
mention Deutsche providing a previous order on personal judgment? All
Duetche would then need is a "Writ of Possession" if Deutsche
won the case on the note, the suit to obtain personal judgment. Of
course, to confuse people, they take you to JP court instead.
Nonetheless, that in in regards to
Deutsche v. Burke, 2016. Yes, recent. So, who was correct? this
cause is referencing Texas court cases. Here is why I believe the
magistrate judge most likely did not err.
In a 1993 case,
Whittington v. Whittington, in Beaumont, the court had this to say;
"The purpose of the promissory Note was
to secure the real estate mortgage loan borrowers equity in the
property. Where there is a debt secured by a note, in turn secured
by a lien,
the note and the lien constitute separate
obligations so that suit may be had on the note to
obtain a personal judgment, and later suit may be had on
the lien if the personal judgment is not
So, what makes a court disregard the "suit may be
had on the note to obtain personal judgment,", and only use the
deed of trust part? Because of MERS? It does not matter if MERS is
involved, the suit on personal property, before suit on real property,
has always been there.
Next, read the last paragraph before the conclusion.
It goes like the; "The fourth reason—that the assignment was
backdated, listed as (D) above—is not supported by Texas law. At least
two Texas Courts of Appeals have considered this very question, and both
have held that an assignment may have a retroactive "effective date."
What happened to the courts looking at UCC 9 for the filing requirements
for a secured debt? Doesn't the alleged lender's attorney claim UCC 9 is
involved? But, only for guidance though, as liens are not governed by
So, could this be a perfect example of how things get
screwed up? " The court state "At least two
Texas Courts of Appeals have considered this very question". You do
remember it goes back to the originating court, that man, in the robe
who didn't do his job. Isn't determining standing the first thing? So, I
supposed if you were to shepardize the briefs to see whom misquoted, or
possibly "word crafted" an existing opinion to get this result, you
could see the mistake? Here is why. People do this, and usually it is a
lawyer if you look at their briefs. These misfits make the good ones
look bad, just like they are making you look bad. Here is an example; 5
years after a property is allegedly foreclosed, a conveyance appears in
public records, and
backdated to 2010. Now 5 years earlier, another party was
claiming the foreclosure, and won in court to have the homeowner
forcibly evicted? What happened to the party that the real property was
conveyed too, according to "backdated" public records? If you look at
the back dated conveyance, how is it possible the party claiming did not
know it transferred real property? Of course the party allegedly
foreclosing, if it proffered proof of possession, may conduct a "sale",
but when the alleged foreclosing party conveys the real property within
7 days, of alleged foreclosure sale, what right does that party have to
invoke the jurisdiction of the court? What right did that party have to
invoke the jurisdiction of the court? Even when the opposing side is
screaming "the party lacks standing, the party lacks standing" all the
way? I really do believe you judges should rethink your ways.
Somebody taught you to ignore the law and go with their teachings. Some
call this policies and procedures? Some call them rules? Some call them
previous case law? Some call it MERS "rights"? Have you ever read my
memorandum in support pointing out how an attorney in Austin, Texas adds
words to previous opinions? Maybe you should? After all, he does work
both state and federal courts.
So, isn't it something, we know within 20 days perfects an appeal, but
within 20 days to perfect a secured debt is un heard of? Is this not
mentioned in the UCC filing requirements? Just asking?
It does not matter how unconstitutional the additions to Chapter 51,
Texas Property code, the Mortgage follows the Note, just as it has always
been. Adding the "book entry system", mortgage servicer", and many
court opinions, the deed of trust was split from the note, thus
bifurcation. When will the world realize this? The courts, as in Burke,
clearly state the deed of trust was split away from the note, and all the
MERS members needs is a deed of trust, without the hassle of suit on
Blind, leading the blind?
Are judges not reading previous opinions? Leaving
it up to the "junior"? Turning a blind eye? How much trouble do you
think yo are in relying upon a junior whom knows nothing about MERS
either? I would suspect that, and
many previous lawyers "word crafting" as Mark D. Hopkins did, re-write a
few options to gain favor of the court for MERS? Surely you've read that
in public domain? If, not go look. That man added as much as 30 words to
a previous Texas court opinion.
Ignorance is not offensive, unless it is an
Let me help you out with your ignorance. Look, this
article was written back in 2011. I suppose you are not much of a
reader? It is called "False
Security: How Securitization Failed to Protect Arrangers and
Investors from Borrower Claims." written by a bunch of law folks as
Suffolk University, law school. Maybe it's time that you should take
time to read things?
If that one is not enough, get a load of this
statement; "At the Bond Market Association’s annual meeting in New
York in April, the moderator of a panel on asset-backed securitization
(ABS) joked that this enormously popular form of structured financing
has “proven to be bankruptcy remote — except perhaps in the event of
bankruptcy.” " Or, how about this part? "For CFOs, that’s no
joke. ABS is popular precisely because transferring illiquid corporate
assets (such as receivables) to a bankruptcy-remote entity allows them
to be repackaged and sold as securities. Once the underlying assets are
legally separated from the company’s fortunes — and its creditors —
those securities typically carry higher ratings than the company’s own
Any idea when that statement was made? Did you guess
2003? What a coincidence? That was the time around MERS, the bankruptcy
remote for all the alleged real estate mortgages going into the
stock market. Oh, and that was around the time when "Mortgage
Servicer" went into the books of law in Texas, right? All with the
help of a corrupt firm in Addison, Texas called Barrett Daffin Frappier
Turner and Engel? Go look. While you are at it have the sponsor of that
bill effective Jan. 1, 2004, arrested for taking bribes. Again, go look.
I have. Or maybe you should read the
Moody's article, demystifying Securitization, explaining why MERS
was put into the deed of trust? To give the lender the appearance that
MERS was a beneficiary, and the homeowner agreed allow MERS to be the
bankruptcy remote for securitization? Again, read the
article to see how they tried to change legislation, but a bunch of
smart people realized it was the wrong thing to do because it would
screw up the bankruptcy court, that is, except for Texas. You guys
really are stupid, don't you think? OR, are you covering this crap up?
Trying to save your pension is not going to help you by covering it up.
You can read this article from the CFO website, its called "False
Security". Of course, it will probably move around once the owners
catch wind of people reading it. one thing about it, they did tell the
world before they began to do it whether it was legal or not.
In 2002, this article came out called "Sarbanes-Oxley
Act Certifications of Asset-Backed Securities Issuers", describing
penalties for false statements. And the mortgage servicer say they own
the loan for the "lender"? You might refresh you memory, the term "Mortgage
servicer" didn't begin to appear until 2004, right? At least in
A new page, just for
You do understand MERS deals in "payment
Regardless of the hierarchy
of ownership of the Payment Intangible, Mortgage, Mortgage Note or
**** the terms contained within the Security Instrument must be complied
with, and this author has not seen a Security Instrument that does not
itself require compliance with federal, state or local laws.****
Failure to comply with the laws of local jurisdiction that govern the
terms within the Security Instrument would render the Security
Instrument a nullity and the Mortgage Note would then be reduced to
“Unsecured” and the Mortgage (Payment Intangible) would then be left
without a valid perfected lien to allow foreclosure of the Real
Additionally, if the Security Instrument was rendered a nullity by
failure to comply with the laws or the terms contained within the
Security Instrument, the secondary market has not purchased a “Secured”
indebtedness and any claim made by a subsequent purchaser including
Trusts are without rights to enforce the “Power of Sale Clause” and no
foreclosure is possible. This failure to provide a complete Mortgage to
the secondary market is the real fraud that the financial institutions
are trying to conceal. -
"A government official
performing discretionary functions is entitled to qualified immunity
unless his conduct violates clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Bush v. Strain, 513 F. 3d 492 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
Section 1983 Litigation
Did you know actions taken by state
governmental officials, even if contrary to state law, were
nevertheless actions taken “under color of law.”? Or, that injured
individuals have a federal remedy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 even if the
officials’ actions also violated state law? Go read
Monroe v. Pape
In reading a past
opinion, it became clear that judges are turning a blind eye. Of
course the excuse was "the government was required, but failed, to
prove that defendants’ intent at the time of contracting was not to
comply with their contractual obligations." Has nobody picked on
the verbiage in a deed of trust? If you don't understand the adhesion
contract that all homeowners are forced to sign allows the banks to
violate the law, what does it take to show "intent"? Or even "breach of
contract obligations? Of course the deed of trust also states the
"Lender" will comply with all applicable law, both state and federal.
Did that happen? That case should have been appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court? I'd imagine the evidence is in the records already, and
the so-called justices forgot to review?
Was this the only judge who knew
MERS could not do what it s members claim it does? Why are judges so
"When violations of law slip uncorrected through
the cracks of judicial review (as when a case is dismissed as moot), it
may seem that the beneficiaries of such violations receive a free pass...
"The pass is not free. It comes at the expense of the Rule of Law. Here,
the Legislature’s notice mandate is unsubtle and unequivocal, as was the
trial court’s failure to follow it. "
- SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO.
15-0139 IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, RELATOR
"Although this Court stayed the TRO, a clear
statement is necessary so that all judges within Texas understand that
this Court or the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality
of Texas law" - No. 15-0139 In the Supreme Court of Texas IN RE STATE OF
EXCESS UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S v. FRANK'S CASING CREW & RENTAL TOOLS,
"Contracts implied in law, or more properly quasi
or constructive contracts, are a class of obligations which are imposed
or created by law without regard to the assent of the party bound, on
the ground that they are dictated by reason and justice, and which are
allowed to be enforced by an action ex contractu. . . . Such contracts
rest on the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to
enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another, and on the principle
that whatsoever it is certain that a man ought to do, that the law
supposes him to have promised to do." - citing 332 S.W.2d
310, 312 (Tex. 1960) (citations omitted).
"This settled law is a part of every contract and
governs the transaction." citing
Wessely Energy Corp. v. Jennings, 736 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1987)
("The laws existing at the time a contract is made becomes a part of the
contract and governs the transaction.
Langever v. Miller, 124 Tex. 80, 76 S.W.2d 1025, 1026-27 (1934).").
Can it not get any clearer to you
Texas Constitution, Article
1, Section 15
Sec. 15. RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY.
The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall
pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain
its purity and efficiency. Provided, that the Legislature may provide
for the temporary commitment, for observation and/or treatment, of
mentally ill persons not charged with a criminal offense, for a period
of time not to exceed ninety (90) days, by order of the County Court
without the necessity of a trial by jury.
Texas Constitution, Article
5, Section 10
Sec. 10. TRIAL BY JURY. In
the trial of all causes in the District Courts, the plaintiff or
defendant shall, upon application made in open court, have the right of
trial by jury; but no jury shall be empaneled in any civil case unless
demanded by a party to the case, and a jury fee be paid by the party
demanding a jury, for such sum, and with such exceptions as may be
prescribed by the Legislature.
IN RE EXPUNCTION ; In The Court of Appeals For The First District of
“The constitution of Texas is
the fundamental law of the state; ‘the supreme law of the law.’” Byers
v. Patterson, 219 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2007, no pet.)
(quoting Oakley v. State, 830 S.W.2d 107, 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)).
We must presume the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature.
Texas Pub. Bldg. Auth. v. Mattox, 686 S.W.2d 924, 927 (Tex. 1985);
Salomon v. Lesay, 369 S.W.3d 540, 556–57 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2012, no pet.). However, when the proposed application of a state
statute would abridge the Texas Constitution, the statute must yield.
See Weiner v. Wasson, 900 S.W.2d 316, 318–19 (Tex.1995); Salomon, 369
S.W.3d at 556–57
“In enacting a statute, it is
presumed that compliance with the constitutions of this state and the
United States is intended.” TEX.GOV’T CODE § 311.021(1) (West 2013).
The Code Construction Act also
requires that we consider the public interest over any private interest.
See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.021(5) (“In enacting a statute, it is
presumed that . . . public interest is favored over any private
PUBLIC, JUDICIAL NOTICE:
question(s) to you; [other states may apply]
(1) Is MERS
a public interest, or a private interest? (2) Is Texas Property Code,
Chapter 51, section; 51.0001(1), Constitutionally Correct? Is this
subsection created for private interest, or public interest?
(2) Are Texas Property Code,
Chapter 51, sections; 51.0001(3), (4), Constitutionally Correct? Are
these subsections created for private interest, or public interest?
(3) Why do the
courts of Texas violate the Texas Constitution?
(4) Why did
the judges suspend the Supreme Law of Texas? Why did the
5. Why you you uphold
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. [MERS]
Non-Constitutional laws are
being used to steal real property in Texas.
The Deed is gone; The Note
"The thing most borrowers
fail to realize about conduit loans is that once a loan has been
securitized, they are not working with a "lender" anymore. The loans are
pooled into a securitization called a Real Estate Mortgage Investment
Conduit (REMIC). The REMIC is a trust and it has no lenders, only
fiduciaries of the "certificate holders." Once the loans have been
pooled and securitized, the players are as follows:" See Well Fargo,
Conduit loan servicing: Who’s who and what’s what? Backup
MERS was not the mortgagee of record in 1998. In 1998
MERS was not named on the deed of trust. If it were, MERS was acting as
an electronic agent prior to E-SIGN. If MERS was not named in the deed of
trust, how was the homeowners mortgage or note transferred to MERS as a
beneficiary? eNotes baby! Illegal and criminal as it gets. Source One
sold its interests in the intangible to MERS, because Source One was an
account debtor, and the 3rd
court of appeals in Texas explained it, yet seemingly turns a blind eye
to Texas law.
To the men in robes, consider this; your "cause" will only burden your
work load. You should realize that because of "actual fraud", there is
no statute of limitations? And you might want to brush up on
understanding what a transferable record is. Don't be stupid, and turn a
blind eye, MERS member use them. That is what is registered in the MERS
system. Some call them eNotes. It is evidenced by a MIN revealed on an
unconscionable contract called a deed of trust.
You do know MERS and its members are governed by that certain Article 2,