* bet com

* bet com

Before the eyes of the American people, you are guilty of treason. You have used laws to deprive the children of this land, you are guilty.  

If you read, or hear the words in the New Testament where Jesus told the lawyer, "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." would you, lawyer, recognize this today as a lawyer? If you disagree, then you are still thinking equity, aren't you? Did you enter into common law, or equity law? Do you believe your fiction? Do enjoy to prosper from other fictions? Do you hinder those who entering into the common law court, instead of the equity court of your fiction? Is this a mythical beast you worship? Ponder that.


In a common court, a man, a living soul, has a complaint against another man, another living soul. In a court of equity, a corporation has a complaint against another corporation. Only humans, living souls, contract in common law, and corporations have agreements in equity. Living souls cannot contract with dead souls in common law, but the humans fiction, a (corpse) can contract with the corporation because those are both a particular class of persons, dead souls, and different from the class of humans, living souls. Living souls can only give their souls to the fiction of the corporation (beast) because they cannot be forced to give their souls, only deceived into to freely giving unknowingly, through fear of punishment. 

I suppose you may begin to ponder the thought of what would be punishment in common when each living soul complains against the lawyer, a living soul, for violating given right by the Almighty God that man be equal, but the lawyer, a living soul, protected the corporation, a dead soul, a corpse, instead? Again, the crime is comitted by the lawyer, a living soul, who can be complained of in common law by another living soul for refuting his God given rights, even his man-made rights written in the Texas Constitution. Harm does not have to be physical, you know that right?

Only man can come back to his living God who dwells within him, and his God within him will return to him. It is written.


Did you ever make or read this statement? "As a lawyer, I must strive to make our system of justice work fairly and efficiently. In order to carry out that responsibility, not only will I comply with the letter and spirit of the disciplinary standards applicable to all lawyers, but I will also conduct myself in accordance with the following Creed of Professionalism when dealing with my client, opposing parties, their counsel, the courts and the general public."

Have you looked the Legislator page?

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."

Was the "Note" even "negotiable"? Do the Texas Lawyers take the note into account before they violate the Constitutions?

And you studied for this coming?

I suppose you understand what chum is right? Do you think is means a close "friend", or maybe "be friendly to or form a friendship with someone"? You do know that chumming is the practice of luring various animals, usually fish such as sharks, by throwing "chum" into the water. And you know Chum is bait consisting of fish parts, bone and blood, which attract fish, particularly sharks owing to their keen sense of smell?  

In essence, you, mr. lawyer, are the bait. You consist of man parts, bone and blood. Yet, you forgot the other animals of the kingdom. These animals are lured to you, by your words, deeds, and actions. They have smelled the stench of your iniquities in the public domain.  Woe to you!

You know the chums you work for. They control Congress, they change the law for the benefit of their transgressions, and leave you out to dry. Yet, they too will reap their reward. The Justice department will Apprehend the "individuals", committing these crimes.

A sea of people will rise against the beast you worship. Your days are near. Receive your reward.

Your time has come. Lie no more!  Your oath is worthless! Your words were in vain!

Isn't perjury defined by Blackstone as 鈥?/span>a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered?

* bet com

Woe to you. I will return to remind you of your iniquities. In the meantime, read the following.

He whom has walked a path of righteousness worries his conscious not when the warnings to the wicked are near. He whom has walked not in iniquity knows the Lord.

* bet com

* bet com

Secured promissory note is payable to X, a private company. X receives a loan from Y, a bank, and executes an Allonge stating "Pay to the order of Y" as security for the loan from Y to X. The Allonge is attached to the promissory note. The loan from Y to X is paid in full, but Y neither endorses the promissory note in favor of X nor executes an Allonge in favor of X. The Allonge stating "Pay to the order of Y" remains pristinely attached to the promissory note, and no action is taken under 3-207 to cancel, strike or detach the Allonge. After the loan from Y to X is paid in full, Y fails and is closed by the FDIC. Y's assets are subsequently sold by the FDIC to another bank. X subsequently executes an 锟紸ssignment of Loans锟?in favor of Z selling, granting, assigning and transferring to Z, without recourse, all of X锟絪 right, title and interest to the promissory note and related documents (including, by specific reference, the Allonge from X to Y which is still pristinely attached to the promissory note). The promissory note subsequently goes into default and Z wants to foreclose on the collateral and/or sue the maker of the promissory note. Is Z the holder of the promissory note for purposes of exercising the rights and remedies available under the promissory note and against the security? If not, what can be done to make Z the holder of the promissory note? Thanks in advance for your input.

There really are serious problems with the justice system and ignorant lawyers.

* bet com

I suppose you will need to know that if you claim you represent MERS? How do you provide instructions to the electronic agent? And I suppose you'll need to explain how you interpreted the bits & bytes the electronic agent sent to you? Are you a software programmer or an IT type person that could understand the instructions? How does an electronic agent agree to a contract?

* bet com

For clarification; This explain is not speaking of "local bank" deed of trust. The are mortgage loans usually not involving a "national" bank. In essence, a non-MERS bank. Tracing a chain of title of a "locally owned" bank "grantee" would usually reflect the "proper parties". Chasing a chain of title of a GSE deed of trust provides securitization information. Don't waste your money buying books about "chain of title", that has been explained for free many times in articles within this website. But, it's your choice if you want to spend your money.

Is it not easy to see how ignorance runs amuck? Or is it greed? Maybe denial of the truth? Many people have learned how to milk a situation, and it is not just lawyers. Look around, what do you see? Websites, or books claiming "buy my book", or join our website and learn about chain of title. Not to mention "let me help you defend your home" type people, or lawyers. Look at your fruits. Public domain reflects failure, not success. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You were misled, and you are misleading others. Anyone of you reading this, read, learn and understand yourself, the Father gave you ability. Don't be lazy in your mind. And I suppose when the world does figure this out, those of you taking money for nothing, I suppose you will not be as popular as you think you are. Here is why;

When the deed of trust, the mortgage, or what ever you want to call it, is recognized as an adhesion contract, which would make the contract unconscionable, the court will allegedly uphold many court cites that recognize that a contract as such, is void, the "purchaser", or "member" of  your book or website will be asking you to explain why you went to such length to explain something that does not matter anymore. And you charged them for it? Sure, once upon a time, the chain of title was of importance, but since you go on about MERS so much, why did you not recognize what MERS was? I suppose it was because you were only parroting other parrots?

Two things to consider;

1. The provider of the deed of trust; [GSE deed of trust]

 A certain covenant in a deed of trust stating the note could be sold in partial "interests in", together with the deed of trust. How does the deed of trusts follow multiple "interest in" the note? This covenant is asking the borrower, or grantor in the deed of trust, to agree that Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, does not apply to the note the Lender is providing. In essence, the law of negotiability does not apply, according to such covenant. They need to use Article 7 or 8, not 3, or 9.

2. The provider of the deed of trust [GSE deed of trust]

A certain "nominee", or "beneficiary" is recognized by the providers deed of trust. Each deed of trust in which the words MERS, or Mortgage Registration Systems, Inc. are crafted into, reflect the "nominee", or "beneficiary" as something similar to the past when actual people called agents were conducting business. With MERS that is not the case. Everything about MERS is electronic. There are not officers in MERS. There are no vice presidents. MERS members are the very bandits whom conjured up this scheme many years back, possibly before you were born. In the 1990's computers were a way of business. MERS is misrepresented to the public. It is known within its private membership though. When the "corporation" of MERS was created before an electronic commerce law, but well after computer laws were placed into effect in the 1980's, like the computer fraud and abuse act, 1986. E-SIGN was not enacted when MERS was formed, so the illusion is easy to confusion people like yourself. But, through the MERS "officer" , whether Hultman, or Arnold, MERS was originally created a Delaware corporation, then after a bit, these "members" needed to fit the computer program into the corporate name. But the computer system was not enough to satisfy E-SIGN, so another MERS was created. The "members" needed a "trusted agent" that dealt specifically with the transactions which would take place in the computer system, to satisfy the requirements of E-SIGN. So, you have a corporation, MERCORP Holdings, Inc., the electronic agent, which satisfies E-SIGN, then you have MERS, the computer system, that meets the requirements of E-SIGN, and then you have MERS, the shell corporation for it all.  According to Fannie Mae deed of trust, you are choosing to use MERS whether you agree or not, else no deed of trust. A one-sided contract, don't you see?

There is no chain of title. How can you have a chain of title to a void contract? Stop chasing your tail.

* bet com

Four conditions must be fulfilled for the appearance being a source of obligation: x

1. The apparent situation must not correspond with the real situation.

2. The reliance by the third party that the appearance corresponds to the reality must be legitimate. The condition will only be considered as fulfilled if the third party acts in good faith, which means that he must not be aware of the real situation. Once he knows the real situation, he is no longer authorized to invoke the theory of appearance. The legitimate exigency means that the third party must reasonably not know the real situation. The third party has a reasonable duty to inform himself. The extent of such a duty will be determined according to the factual conditions.

3. The creation of the false appearance must be attributable to the party against whom the theory is invoked. This supposes that the party could control the functioning of the electronic agent and avoid any mistake.

4. There must be damage to the third party if no effect is given to the apparent situation.

x. P.-A. Foriers, L'apparence, source autonome d'obligations, ou application du principe gdndral de bonne foi. Apropos de l'Arrt de la Cour de Cassation du 20 juin 1988, Journal des Tribunaux, 543 and f (1989).

Maybe you should go read the article by John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law called "The Use of Electronic Agents Questioned Under Contractual Law: Suggested Solutions on a European American Level, 18 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 403 (2000)," ?

Truly I say to you, I love you, but you should be ashamed of yourself. Your ignorance will be revealed. It is written.

All the national banks needed to do was continue to follow the same laws related to real estate mortgages, and they could still have used the MERS type system for purchasing and selling in the secondary market, but the "real property" laws governing the underlying secured debt were circumnavigated causing the secured real property mortgage debt, to become an non-secured personal property debt of an alleged promissory note, without an attached "mortgage" due to lack of following the governing laws of the real estate mortgage loan. 

So, you were warned, you continue to manipulate the court before the eyes of the Lord? Behold, your day is near.

"You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. "You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice;

There are no legal online betting sites or retail sportsbooks. There have been attempts to authorize sports馃挵 betting but none have been successful. As of January 2024, it's unclear when sports betting will be legal in California.馃挵 The earliest progress could be made on California sports betting is 2024.
Indian Casinos\n\n The only Vegas-style casinos馃挵 allowed in California are located on Tribal Land. This type of gambling uses banking/percentage collection. In other words, it takes馃挵 money from the losers of the game and uses that money to pay the winners while taking a cut馃挵  for the house (or casino).

For you men who work in right, you should see a great opportunity to help these people. You would know you could do the case on contingency because the evidence shows the truth. Truth prevails.

Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

* bet com  Don't think you can't learn. I did, you can.


"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."