Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,939 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 698,205
Pageviews Today: 1,875,546Threads Today: 1,005Posts Today: 17,102
10:15 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK

 
mothra
User ID: 722115
United States
07/21/2009 08:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
Hopefully the banks will never make another loan in joisey.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 590330
United States
07/21/2009 08:25 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
Meh.

We had the very same situation, but in Ohio and with WF.
Held 'em at bay for a year and a half.
Ultimately the judge ruled against us and for the bank.

sigh.

Now we are in bankruptcy over this. The bank isn't.
It is just like the 1930's with Snidely Whiplash...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 730934
United States
07/21/2009 08:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
And this all stems from contract law, the same myself and many others have tried to teach the retards here but most just ignore it.

I've told people here countless times, signing WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 saves you a world of hurt when dealing with these color of law criminals.

WAKEY WAKEY NOW!!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 729086
United States
07/21/2009 08:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
Damn, this makes me wish I'd bought a really nice, expensive house that I could now be squatting in...Oh well, I'll probably still get the chance.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 727538
United States
07/21/2009 09:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
Excellent post! Thanks, GREY LENSMAN! Let's hope people in need of this information are able to access it.
Bean There
User ID: 727856
United States
07/21/2009 09:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
20 years we been working on this situation and things are finally coming to fruition .

Good for Our Side .
a passing cloud

User ID: 616505
United States
07/21/2009 09:45 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
how long until the supreme court overturns this decision?
"that's not a knife. THIS is a knife..."
Bean There
User ID: 727856
United States
07/21/2009 09:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
how long until the supreme court overturns this decision?
 Quoting: a passing cloud

Not likely to get there . No NEXUS I can determine for SC to hear the matter .

Could be wrong will Stand Corrected .
Prof_Rabbit

User ID: 148352
Australia
07/21/2009 09:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
That's what you need to do if foreclosed on... ASK FOR THE REAL DOCUMENTS OF WHO OWNS THE MORTAGE.

Most likely they don't even have the document so you will be able to stay in your house.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 730817


No, you need to do this before any hint of foreclosure. Quietly start asking now, when (not if) the SHTF and the groups such as Deutsche Bank and the like begin to try to cut losses and/or gouge the system you will need to know where your paper trail is.

Without the proper documentation they may not be entitled to your payments, you could end up with your home free of debt. You won't be able to sell your home but at the same time no one will be asking for mortgage payments either.
"Anger is a wind that blows out the lamp of your mind"
GREY LENSMAN (OP)
User ID: 730172
Malaysia
07/21/2009 10:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
ITS NOT CONTRACT LAW, ITS COMMON LAW.

HOW CAN THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURN THE BASIC NEED FOR PROOF AND EVIDENCE. FUNDAMENTAL OF LAW.

SAME WAY BANKS CANNOT CLAIM A LOSS YET RECOUP THE FULL VALUE ON AN INSURANCE POLICY.

SO IF THEY TRY TO CHANGE THE LAW THEY OPEN THE FLOODGATES.

SIMILARLY IF A JUDGE THROWS OUT YOUR REQUEST FOR PROOF, YOU HAVE AN OPEN AND SHUT APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW.

GL
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 727846
United States
07/21/2009 10:31 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
I have read several interesting documents regarding Home Foreclosures. One particular
document is recent court history; the other is a court decision from 40 years ago.
The first is about a Federal Judge in Ohio, Christopher A. Boyko, who recently ruled in a
foreclosure case brought before his court, that the bank/lender failed to prove their
ownership of the properties on which they wanted to foreclose. He went on and wrote;
mortgage notes put in securitization pools typically appear as data transfers rather than
actual legal transfers, a move intended to speed the process. However, if the mortgage note in
question has not been legally transferred and assigned to the securitization trust, the trust
has no legal standing to foreclose.
You may see and read his decision at this location on the web.
[link to commercialforeclosureblog.typepad.com]
Bob Chapman of the International Forecaster had this to say, "This court ruling in Ohio
means that the securitized trusts own nothing. The investors in these securities might have
assumed — wrongly, it turns out — that they actually owned some real estate in these deals.
The problem is, they own nothing."
The other document I want to share with you, I will share in its entirety.
Credit River Decision
A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID;
holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the
First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the
foreclosure and the sheriff’s sale, to be VOID. This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of
declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the
Federal Reserve, National and State Banks to be null and VOID. This amounts to an emancipation of
this nation from personal, national and State debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every
True American owes it to himself/herself, to his or her country, and to the people of the world for that
matter, to study this decision very carefully and to understand it, for upon it hangs the question of
freedom or slavery.
A WORD FROM AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WHO KNEW AND WORKED WITH JUSTICE
MARTIN V. MAHONEY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, ABOUT THE CASE.
The “Credit River Decision” handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit
River Township Hall, was an experience that I’ll never forget. The Chief Justice of the Minnesota
Supreme Court had phoned me a week before the trial and asked me if I would be an associate justice
in assisting Justice Martin V. Mahoney since he had never handled a jury trial before. I accepted, and
it took me two hours to get my car running in the 22 below zero weather. I got to the court room about
30 minutes before trial, and helped get the wood stove going, since the trial was being held in an
unheated store room of a general store. This was the first time I met Justice Mahoney, and I was
impressed with his no nonsense manner of handling matters before him. My OB was to help pick the
jury, and to keep Jerome Daly and the attorney representing the Bank of Montgomery from engaging
in a fistfight. The courtroom was highly charged, and the Jury was all business.
The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross-examined the
banker about the creating of money “out of thin air,” and the banker admitted that this was standard
banking practice. When Justice Mahoney heard the banker testify that he could “create money out of
thin air,” Mahoney said, “It sounds like fraud to me.” I looked at the faces of the jurors, and they were
all agreeing with Mahoney by shaking their heads and by the looks on their faces. I must admit that
up until that point, I really didn’t believe Jerome’s theory, and thought he was making this up. After I
heard the testimony of the banker, my mouth had dropped open in shock, and I was in complete
disbelief. There was no doubt in my mind that the Jury would find for Daly.
Jerome Daly had taken on the banks, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the moneylenders,
and had won.
It is now forty years since this “Landmark Decision,” and Justice Mahoney is quoted more often than
any Supreme Court justice ever was. The money boys that run the “private Federal Reserve Bank”
soon got back at Mahoney by poisoning him in what appeared to have been a fishing boat accident
(but with his body pumped full of poison) in June of 1969, less than 6 months later.
Both Jerome Daly and Justice Martin V. Mahoney are truly the greatest men that I have ever had the
pleasure to meet. The Credit River Decision was and still is the most important
legal decision ever decided by a Jury.
Bill Drexler
IN THE JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY
First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above-entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00
am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R.
Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf. A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn
to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and
Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview
Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a
Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time
foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books
by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged
failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to
plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant
had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created
upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination
with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no
United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed
that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage
waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was stopped from doing
so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant. Now
therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of
the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County,
Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2. That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null
and void.
3. That the Sheriff’s sale of the above-described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of
no effect.
4. That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above
described.
5. That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the
jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of
Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to
render complete Justice in this Cause.
The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in
support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.
BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota
MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of
Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices,
and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law
to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its
own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was
the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The
money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United
States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and
be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn.
318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree.
Only God can create something of value out of nothing. Even if Defendant could be charged with
waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers
where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd “Actions” on page 584 - “no action will
lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in
any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which
Plaintiff was a party.” Plaintiff’s act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of
the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a
lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be
built.
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of
original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota
cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any
provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the
Constitution of the United States and void.
No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties
were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.
No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made
by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably
been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay,
freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.
BY THE COURT
December 9, 1968
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota.
Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is
void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an
enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the
purpose of private gain is not warranted by the
Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court
can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M. JEROME DALY had his own
information to reveal about this case, which establishes that between his own revealed information
and the fact that Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River
Decision on the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be.
JEROME DALY’S OWN ENTRY
REGARDING JUSTICE MAHONEY’S
MEMORANDUM
FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there was
simple - Nothing in the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank filed a
Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed; otherwise the District
Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit $2.00
with the Clerk within.
10 days for payment to the Justice when he made his return to the District Court. The Bank deposited
two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and refused to allow the Appeal upon
the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose. The Decision is addressed to the
legality of these Notes and the Federal
Reserve System. The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig vs Missouri set out in the decision
should be studied very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the Crux of the
whole issue.
Jerome Daly.
SPECIAL NOTATION
Justice Mahoney denied the use of Federal Reserve Notes, since they represent debt instruments, not
true money, from being used to pay for the appeal process itself. In order to get this overturned, since
the bank’s appeal without the payment being recognized was out of time, it would have required that
the Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota bring a Title 42, Section 1983 action against the judicial act of
Justice
Mahoney for a violation of the Constitution of the United States under color of law or authority, and if
successful, have the case remanded back to him to either retry the case or allow the appeal to go
through. But the corrupt individuals behind the bank(s) were unable to ever elicit such a decision from
any federal court due to the fact that because of their vile hatred for him and what he had done to
them and their little Queen’s Scheme, had him murdered (same as them murdering him) just about 6
months later. And so, the case stands, just as it was.
Amazingly, if they hadn’t been so arrogant about the value of their federal reserve notes and paid the
Justice just 2 measly silver dollars, or else 4 measly half dollars, or else 8 measly quarters, or else 20
measly dimes, or else 40 measly nickels, or else 200 measly pennies, they could have had their appeal
and would not have had to get blood on their hands.
As it is, they are now known for their bloody ways, and the day will come when the American people
will reap vengeance upon them for such a heinous and villainous act.
Amen
Since it appears to me that you are not listed as lien holder on my title, and since there now
seems to be a basis for my questioning the ORIGIN of the funds involving my property, I
need answers…
1. What was the origin of the funds involving my property?
2. Did my signature on the mortgage agreement allow the funds for this transaction to be
“created out of thin air” in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Federal Reserve
Banking system and the U.C.C.?
3. Are you legal lien holder on my property? If you are, please send me all documentation
that will support you are legal lien holder on title.
4. If you acquired my mortgage from another bank/lender, was the transfer of lien holder
position properly and legally completed?
Before you proceed further with any action regarding the above information I
have shared with you, please furnish me:
An affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury with the implementing regulation(s) that gives
the statutes you are relying on, and the force of law that applies to me.
Include a copy of the Delegation of Authority Order that gives you assessment, lien, and
levy authority.
Provide me with proof of your claim that you maintain a security interest.
U.C.C. 1-201 (37) (A).
And in addition to the above, I need the name and identity of the man certifying under the
penalty of perjury that I owe you a debt, the date of the assessment, the authority of the
man that made the assessment.
YOU HAVE TEN (10) DAYS WITH WHICH TO COMPLY, FROM RECEIPT OF THIS
CERTIFIED MAIL, U.C.C. 1-204, UNLESS YOU REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF TIME.
A lack of response on your part means a default, U.C.C. 1-103 creating fraud through
material misrepresentation, which vitiates all forms, contracts, agreements, etc., expressed
or implied, from the beginning, U.C.C. 1-103.
I will not allow a fraud to be perpetrated against my person.
I will not surrender my property without due process and the truth.
I am anxiously waiting your quick response to these issues, in order to resolve any
ambiguity regarding our mutual duties and obligations.
God Bless America
Kat Mama

User ID: 502623
United States
07/21/2009 10:37 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
Sadly, this alternative comes too late to save my family home of 87 years. By the time this alternative hit Lame Stream News, I had already been served by a sheriff and gone to court. My bankruptcy lawyer didn't even want to pursue anything for me since back then, producing the note was a "new-fangled" thing to do with no precedent of the little guy winning. But I am thrilled for all the people who will win because of this. It is about freakin' time!
CONDEMNATION without INVESTIGATION is the HIGHEST form of IGNORANCE
GREY LENSMAN  (OP)

User ID: 730172
Malaysia
07/21/2009 10:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
KAT

OF IT WAS LESS THAN THREE YEARS AGO, COULD YOU NOT LODGE AN APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT AWARDED TO NO LEGAL STANDING. AT LEAST WORTH LOOKING AT. WILL NOT GET THE HOME BACK BUT MIGHT LINE THE POCKET WITH FIAT DOLLARS

GL
not
bill shitters

User ID: 730883
United Kingdom
07/21/2009 10:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
just dont get to carried away with this
if they get caught out too often likr this tehy will bite you back hard as tehy can engineer another we fallen on bad times story or just plain old dont lend no bugger any money and watch them fall
The retired thread killer


Still the killa of threads

we come in peace shoot to kill
[link to au.youtube.com]

I can not talk TO aliens but do listen to the anally probed
GREY LENSMAN  (OP)

User ID: 730172
Malaysia
07/21/2009 10:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
BUT BILL

THEY ARE DOING THAT ALREADY, TO NO AVAIL

THEY REALLY ARE BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.

GL
not
bill shitters

User ID: 730883
United Kingdom
07/21/2009 10:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
BUT BILL

THEY ARE DOING THAT ALREADY, TO NO AVAIL

THEY REALLY ARE BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.

GL
 Quoting: GREY LENSMAN

i feel they are just playing with us when the really turn of the cash flow what you pay bills with and what you get payed with as it is all stored in a bank and with no paying bills some one can steel the house from under you
The retired thread killer


Still the killa of threads

we come in peace shoot to kill
[link to au.youtube.com]

I can not talk TO aliens but do listen to the anally probed
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 571008
United States
07/21/2009 11:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
A "mortgage" is a death pledge .. and Deaustch bank owns most mortgages (including yours)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 571008
United States
07/21/2009 11:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
Your power company operates the same way ..

You think they really paid for that power?
Lapis

User ID: 667932
United States
07/21/2009 11:27 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
ha! I've got a great idea!

How about instead of waiting around for them to come foreclose on your house, we take the fight to them!

We sue the banks for every dollar we paid in our mortgage payments! We insist that they show us actual ownership of the house or they repay us all of the money we gave them. That has firm legal basis!

Fuck this shit!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 727846
United States
07/21/2009 11:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
ha! I've got a great idea!

How about instead of waiting around for them to come foreclose on your house, we take the fight to them!

We sue the banks for every dollar we paid in our mortgage payments! We insist that they show us actual ownership of the house or they repay us all of the money we gave them. That has firm legal basis!

Fuck this shit!
 Quoting: Lapis

spock
free man
User ID: 700647
United States
07/21/2009 11:39 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
ITS NOT CONTRACT LAW, ITS COMMON LAW.

HOW CAN THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURN THE BASIC NEED FOR PROOF AND EVIDENCE. FUNDAMENTAL OF LAW.

SAME WAY BANKS CANNOT CLAIM A LOSS YET RECOUP THE FULL VALUE ON AN INSURANCE POLICY.

SO IF THEY TRY TO CHANGE THE LAW THEY OPEN THE FLOODGATES.

SIMILARLY IF A JUDGE THROWS OUT YOUR REQUEST FOR PROOF, YOU HAVE AN OPEN AND SHUT APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW.

GL
 Quoting: GREY LENSMAN 730172


No, it is not Common Law, it is ALL contract. These are not courts of common law. Who cares if you have an appeal? You will run out of money before the banks do. They will win because in case you have not seen it for yourself-

THE BANKS OWN THIS NATION!

Common Law is where the Sovereign MAKES the law for the case. As a Sovereign, there is no appeal, because the PEOPLE end the case with the ruleing. No court thereafter can even hear the case, it is over.

The Judges are bought and paid for. You grant them jurisdiction and they own you.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 655996
United States
07/21/2009 11:42 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
I wouldn't piss off a Nazi bank since they are running the country.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 684422

Whoa!!! Wait, what??? I thought the jews were running the country? This week it's the Nazis? I'm so confused... scratching
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 727846
United States
07/21/2009 11:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
ITS NOT CONTRACT LAW, ITS COMMON LAW.

HOW CAN THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURN THE BASIC NEED FOR PROOF AND EVIDENCE. FUNDAMENTAL OF LAW.

SAME WAY BANKS CANNOT CLAIM A LOSS YET RECOUP THE FULL VALUE ON AN INSURANCE POLICY.

SO IF THEY TRY TO CHANGE THE LAW THEY OPEN THE FLOODGATES.

SIMILARLY IF A JUDGE THROWS OUT YOUR REQUEST FOR PROOF, YOU HAVE AN OPEN AND SHUT APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW.

GL


No, it is not Common Law, it is ALL contract. These are not courts of common law. Who cares if you have an appeal? You will run out of money before the banks do. They will win because in case you have not seen it for yourself-

THE BANKS OWN THIS NATION!

Common Law is where the Sovereign MAKES the law for the case. As a Sovereign, there is no appeal, because the PEOPLE end the case with the ruleing. No court thereafter can even hear the case, it is over.

The Judges are bought and paid for. You grant them jurisdiction and they own you.
 Quoting: free man 700647

Your right. Most people do not realize this.
GREY LENSMAN  (OP)

User ID: 730172
Malaysia
07/21/2009 11:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, NO MATTER KOW MUCH THE BANKS WANT TOO.

TO HAVE A CONTRACT, YOU NEED EVIDENCE OF SUCH A CONTRACT.
TOUCHE.

GL
not
bill shitters

User ID: 730883
United Kingdom
07/21/2009 11:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
now we getting close to how much power the banks have money is only worth what it is by your faith (belief )
The retired thread killer


Still the killa of threads

we come in peace shoot to kill
[link to au.youtube.com]

I can not talk TO aliens but do listen to the anally probed
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 571008
United States
07/21/2009 11:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
ITS NOT CONTRACT LAW, ITS COMMON LAW.

HOW CAN THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURN THE BASIC NEED FOR PROOF AND EVIDENCE. FUNDAMENTAL OF LAW.

SAME WAY BANKS CANNOT CLAIM A LOSS YET RECOUP THE FULL VALUE ON AN INSURANCE POLICY.

SO IF THEY TRY TO CHANGE THE LAW THEY OPEN THE FLOODGATES.

SIMILARLY IF A JUDGE THROWS OUT YOUR REQUEST FOR PROOF, YOU HAVE AN OPEN AND SHUT APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW.

GL


No, it is not Common Law, it is ALL contract. These are not courts of common law. Who cares if you have an appeal? You will run out of money before the banks do. They will win because in case you have not seen it for yourself-

THE BANKS OWN THIS NATION!

Common Law is where the Sovereign MAKES the law for the case. As a Sovereign, there is no appeal, because the PEOPLE end the case with the ruleing. No court thereafter can even hear the case, it is over.

The Judges are bought and paid for. You grant them jurisdiction and they own you.
 Quoting: free man 700647


I hear what your saying ..

But remember Contract is a part of common law ..

A "Court" is a republican institution where affairs are administered ..

There are no "judges" in america ..

You can recuse any of them by getting teir BAR registration number..

You can also recuse the Clerk very easily .. making you the COURT.

Its not a wooden room in the middle of the city .. those are administrative...

If you can prove you have a birth right to the original estate ... than you are the court ..

You are the power which all the Government were created ... and never gave up your own
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 571008
United States
07/21/2009 12:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
See... when oyu sign a contract in a name registered with the govenrment you are now the surety for that name ..

If you want common law you must operate under your common law name..

That would be First-Midlle ... family of "XXXXX" ..

Real men (women) can't be numbered, don't have addresses, or DOBs ... etc..

ONLY CORPORATIONS have Addresses, and DOBs ....

Those things can't be proven in reality, unless you say you have them.. (who's gonna argue if you say you do, i'm sure the IMF (international Monetary Fund) won't ... they need all the new slaves they can get)

Joining your "last name" with your "First-middle" ... creates a agreement that you are the surety for that govenrment name (which is traded on the market to run the country)

This is what backs all money in the US .. your promise to be the value behind it ..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 571008
United States
07/21/2009 12:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
When you sign a mortgage (death pledge) agreement you create the fund for the loan right there.

The bank sells the document as a security on the market ..

You must pay the interest on it every month (your mortgage paymet) .

The Lender ... never lent a dime , you simply extened credit to them ...

You are the creator of all credit .. not the FEd, or the SU GOv't ..

The US National Debt is owed to the people who can prove they are the heirs to the original govenrment ...

USCitizens are not these people, those are foreigners technically who benefit from the IMF in Switzerland..
SHRModerator
Forum Administrator

07/21/2009 12:07 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
LOTS OF GOOD STUFF DEVELOPING HERE. PINNED UNDER DURESS AND BY REPEATED REQUESTS.

CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT, HUH.

GL
 Quoting: GREY LENSMAN

ROFLMAO
____________________________________________________
E-mail anytime [email protected]
Inquiring about a ban?, include the IP address found here. [link to www.showmemyip.com]

Ooooh, see the fire is sweepin' Our very streets today...
Burns like a red coal carpet, Mad bulls lost the way...
War, children, it's just a shot away...it's just a shot away....
RR
User ID: 665548
United States
07/21/2009 12:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE BY DEUTSCHE BANK
Used to be a website called Bankhonesty.com that has been scrubbed...

They had so much info about these topics that was incendiary...

They explained why the "lender" actually is supposed to
PAY YOU EVERY MONTH
for the use of your credit, not the other way around.

And how the lawyers made the fine print appear to say that You pay THEM!

Did you get that?? This is how crooked the whole scheme is.





GLP