To the Men in robes                                                  

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.

READ THIS

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.

Counter-Terrorism

NEW - Was the "Note" even "negotiable "Do the Texas Courtss take the note into account before they violated the Constitutions?

No Judge

("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 corrupt?

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 Attorney?

Probably not, because nobody was looking? Learn more about POA's?

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 satisfied
"

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 the UCC. 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?

Bottom Line

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 personal jurisdiction.

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 excuse

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 debt issues."

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 Texas anyway.

                                Click Here

A new page, just for you

Regardless

You do understand MERS deals in "payment intangible""rights", right?

Regardless of the hierarchy of ownership of the Payment Intangible, Mortgage, Mortgage Note or Security Instrument,

**** 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 Property.

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.
- James McGuire.

Qualified immunity?

"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 2008

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

INTENT

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 ignorant?

"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 TEXAS, 

EXCESS UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S v. FRANK'S CASING CREW & RENTAL TOOLS, INC., Tex:

"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 people?

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.

NEW - IN RE EXPUNCTION ; In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

“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 interest.”).

PUBLIC, JUDICIAL NOTICE:

My public question(s) to you; [other states may apply]

(1)    Is MERS[1] 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 Legislators?

5. Why you you uphold VOID law?

[1] Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. [MERS]

Non-Constitutional laws are being used to steal real property in Texas.

The Deed is gone; The Note disappeared?

"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 here

Did you take an oath? To what?

Again you have heard that it was said to the ancients, "Do not lie in your oath, but you will fulfill to THE LORD JEHOVAH your oath."

Where is Justice?

Isn't perjury defined by Blackstone as “a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered?

Why would you "Act" outside your authority?

Isn't treason is a criminal offense? May you should look at the Legislator page?

Know that you can be secret, but your secret will be revealed

Know that you can be oppressive, but oppression will overcome you

Do you fear the Lord?

Turning a blind eye?

BACKGROUND In 1998, Standiford signed a deed of trust and promissory note payable to Amerigroup Mortgage Corporation a division of Mortgage Investors Corporation (Amerigroup) to purchase residential property. Amerigroup assigned the note and deed of trust to Source One Mortgage Services Corporation (Source One), and Source One assigned the beneficial interest in 2000 to Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of MERSCORP. 1 MERS subsequently assigned the note and deed of trust to CMI in May 2010. Standiford thereafter began making payments to CMI.

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.

Woe to those judges who turn a blind eye to justice!

Woe to those associated with Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel 

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals." This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century.

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, right?

Only actual fraud tolls the statute of limitations. Shipman v. Horizon Corporation, 245 Ga. 808, 267 S.E.2d 244 (1980). In Shipman the court set out the pertinent law.

"Actual fraud which tolls the statue arises in two entirely different circumstances. These circumstances must be distinguished in order to properly apply the rules as to silence and the duty to disclose".  

Why do you allow commercial customs, procedures, or industry standards to override U.S. Laws?

“Commercial custom does not apply where the U.C.C. provides otherwise. See U.C.C. Sec. 1 103; also U.C.C. Sec. 3 104, Official Comment 2 ("[A] writing cannot be made a negotiable instrument within this Article by contract or by conduct". - US v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 841 F. 2d 592 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1988

COMMON PRACTICE

 

[ my test pdf file


                                                                                      ..And to those who constantly record unjust decisions


my test pdf file

Holder v Owner
my test pdf file


Part 2
my test pdf file

All I can suggest is that you get this straightened out before you lose your pensions. You've already screwed yourselves, by screwing others out of what is rightfully theirs. That is a violation of civil rights.

Want to read about credit card? Read the fed bulletin. You credit card was securitized too. Yep, cars, and anything else they could make a buck on. They just didn't tell may about it, its called "non-disclosure".

"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."