This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA ) ) Case No.: CV-2010-000000 JOHN AND JANE DOE ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, a Delaware ) PRESENTED BY AFFIDAVIT OF corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a ) John and Jane Doe Delaware, and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10 , ) CORPORATIONS I THROUGH XX, ) inclusive. ) ) NO VALUE Defendants ) ) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED ) ) ) Plaintiff John and Jane Doe, in pro per, most respectfully oppose Defendant’s October 14, 2011 Motion for Summary Judgment as follows. Plaintiff accepts the Courts direction to file this opposition without better opportunity to research the authorities cited by defendants and conduct research to find countervailing authority and ask the Court to consider those circumstances when assessing its content. This Motion is supported by the Affidavit of John and Jane Doe below. SUBMITTED this 31st day of October, 2011. John and Jane Doe
Page 1 of 11
Plaintiff is aware that the presentment of these issues and facts are not up to Defendants’ standard. are not the holder in due course and are not the real party in interest and that it is not incumbent upon Plaintiff to prove the negative. Browning. they have extorted from Plaintiff Life.2d 528.” Defendants appear to be reluctant to address the critical issues and disputed facts of plaintiff’s amended complaint. however. Defendants have neglected their fiduciary responsibilities as trustees and or as officers. we did give judicial notice and will now clarify the fallacies in the Defendants’ position. firing our Attorney was the most eye opening and educational thing Plaintiff could have done and now. The facts upon which Defendants based their motion is Defendants’ wish for this Court to “consider Plaintiffs’ original sworn verified complaint filed by their nowwithdrawn counsel. Roberts v. fee simple titled property from Plaintiff.INTRODUCTION Disputed Facts. Defendants would prefer to use statements made by Plaintiff as fact and admittance of guilt when the truth of the situation is that when Plaintiff was a child. Liberty and Property and have demanded that Plaintiff continue to be a party to their fraud or they will take Plaintiff’s free and clear. Additionally. 531 (8th Cir. Page 2 of 11 . as an adult we shall speak as an adult and exclaim from the highest mountain tops that Defendants have lied to Plaintiff. 1979). 610 F. Equity regards the substance and intent. but Defendants’ to show by what AUTHORITY they presume to have a contract with Plaintiff let alone the authority to steal property without due process. Plaintiff declares unequivocally from first hand knowledge of all of the events that Defendants are not the creditor. not the form SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS Summary judgment is not appropriate when there are genuine issues of material fact. not just on several occasions but on every single occasion. they have misrepresented who they are and what they really do. we spoke as a child. however. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating there are no genuine issues of material fact.
and in this case.2d 759 (Colo. 784 P.” The issue is clear and irrefutable. 301. Co. 1447 (W. 1439. capacity and status is proof of consideration within a bona fide contract in the form of United States Constitutional dollars which is defined as. the entry of summary judgment is inappropriate. The lack of evidence of this bona fide contract is a genuine issue and is not the Plaintiff’s responsibility to prove. LEGAL STANDARD Defendant in their LEGAL STANDARD referenced Orme School v. real woman of the land. CHARACTER. Moreover. 309. a summary judgment denies a litigant the right to trial of his case and should therefore not be granted where there appears any controversy concerning material facts. Page 3 of 11 . The issues of fact must be submitted to a jury. CAPACITY AND STATUS to proceed in a non-judicial foreclosure action against Plaintiff’s free and clear property. genuine issues of fact exist rendering summary judgment inapplicable. American Hardware Mut. and their adjudication not denied to the parties. Supp. Kral v. The only proof that is acceptable to be holder in due course and to have standing. it is the Defendants’ who are acting outside of their authority in order to receive additional unjust enrichment and it is now time to put up or shut up. No one can be denied their right to due process in Law. Summary judgment should be cautiously invoked so that no person will be improperly deprived of a trial. The legal standards are stringent. 1992). Nat'l Grape Co-op Ass'n.. one dollar is one once of silver or some other mutually agreed form of substance equal to the Plaintiff as a flesh and blood. 166 Ariz. BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO PRESUME STANDING. When the record is not adequate to permit a conclusion that no material fact dispute exists. Ripplemeyer v.2d 1000.. 1008 (1990) to state that “there is no genuine issue of material fact.summary judgment is a drastic remedy. character. 807 F.D. 1989). Ark. Reeves. Ins. 802 P. Possession of a promissory note is not proof of standing.
Additionally. or in this case. put up or leave the field of battle. It is easy. Plaintiff is stating that there are only three pieces of evidence that exists regarding this instant mater.SHOW ME THE MONEY. Defendants want to make an issues of unsubstantiated accusations. mortgages and foreclosure. lack of contract controversy and so Plaintiff’s contention is that Plaintiff is the Creditor and in possession of real property and title by Right. Plaintiff’s legal premises is that the issue upon which this instant matter is based is not a “mortgage” issue. character. Defendant and Defendant’s partners have lied and perjured themselves. Plaintiff has diligently and with every last ounce of Plaintiff’s ability tried to understand. 3) Plaintiff’s first hand eyewitness affidavit incorporated herein. Unequivocally all other documents other than the three declared here are fraud on their face and are void from the very inception. capacity and or status. BACKGROUND First and foremost. There is no provable binding relationship or agency nor any authority that can be presumed. 2) The warranty deed assigning fee simple free and clear real property to Plaintiff. 2) Defendant Page 4 of 11 . by asking specific questions which required answers and by reading and studying information available on banking. but a contract issue. a large number of Defendants are to be added to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Based on this obvious lack of standing. 1) The autograph on the note agreement. here are the stated claims Plaintiff has with these Defendants and through newly acquired information. NONE. the inability to show any proof of any consideration is prima facie evidence Defendants are guilty of all civil and criminal charges made in the Amended Complaint and herein. Second. allow Plaintiff’s team of auditors and accountants at your expense to review all “banking” files regarding this account or stand as being deficient and you must immediately CEASE and DESIST. by what authority does Defendant believe that they have any business have with Plaintiff. 1) From day one. through Administrative Process.
3) Defendant and Defendant’s partners intentional made errors and omissions and had secrete deals and undisclosed agendas in order to flip the presumption of authority and to hide the truth of and taking advantage of a non-existent contract in the nature of fraud in the inducement. 6) Upon becoming aware of the fraud perpetrated by Defendants and Defendants partners. which is attempted grand larceny. 8) Defendants and Defendants partners have interference with enjoyment and use of private free and clear property. Page 5 of 11 . and hereby asseverate understanding the liabilities presented in Briscoe v LaHue 460 US 325. and I am over the age of majority and have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein. and 9) Defendants and Defendants partners have interference with contract rights to sell real property. 7) and thereupon.and Defendants partners conspired to deceive Plaintiff in order to steal private property in the form of the autograph on the promissory note for unjust gain and is grand larceny. sweat and tears in order to make regular unnecessary extortion payments. 4) Defendant and Defendants partners filed false and malicious documents slandering title to Plaintiff’s free and clear property. am a sentient woman of the land. 5) Defendant and Defendants partners without proper authority required Plaintiff to go to work and earn equity from Plaintiff’s own time. sui juris. Defendant and/or Defendants partners threatened Plaintiff with loss of personal real property through a non-judicial foreclosure. AFFIDAVIT OF John and Jane Doe STATE OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY ) ) I. duress and coercion to enticed Plaintiff to participate in immoral activities and committing known fraud. Plaintiff distanced themselves from Defendants partners’ only to be further harassed through threat. John and Jane Doe.
Glendale. Steele & Co. and burden of proof is on one asserting its existence.” FACTS In commerce truth is sovereign He who comes to equity must come with clean hands No action arises on a naked contract without a consideration. Page 6 of 11 . A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration. anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority… And this is so even though. 380 at 384. 332 U. I. Plaintiff. upon information and belief.I. John and Jane Doe. 25 SW 2d 156 (Tex Civ Appl 1930) Principal and Agent – “Agency is never presumed. the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. am the Creditor in this instant matter and therefore the holder in due course of 100% possession. 1. as here. Arizona 85310 and as evidenced by the documents attached herein. John and Jane Doe. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth. hereby and herein make my challenge to authority pursuant to Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v Merrrill.S. v Pendleton Gin Co. is null. or against good morals.” As further supported by Tarver. lawful title and interest in the property commonly known as 6403 West Robin Lane. “Whatever the form in which the Government function.
Plaintiff believes Defendants. but were in fact lying and Plaintiff believes the true objective was to get possession and unlawful control of Plaintiff’s private property. INC. Plaintiff believes when Plaintiff purchased the property using the services of CHAMBERS MORTGAGE GROUP. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth. Plaintiff is the only True Claimant by Right as evidence by first hand witness affidavits file in to the public records and filed at the Pinal County Recorders Office. 3. Page 7 of 11 . who were advertising that they lend money.. Upon information and belief. 4. Plaintiffs Claim of Right preempts anything and is supported by: ● In the nature of “Squatters” Rights ● In the nature of Adverse Possession ● In the nature of Homesteading ● In the nature of Land Patent ● In the nature of Allodial Title If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth. Plaintiff believes the subsequent transfer of presumed agency between Plaintiff and Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators was done in secrete and with no benefits for Plaintiff and unjust enrichment for all other parties constituting multiple civil and criminal actions as well as multiple RICO violations. Upon information and belief. Defendants’ partner. Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators all had unjust enrichment through the theft of Plaintiff’s private property and therefore have come into this court of controversy with unclean hands. Upon information and belief.2. namely Plaintiff’s autograph.
which is the premise of Plaintiff’s legal argument. Liberty and Property from Plaintiff and notifying Defendant’s Partners and Co-conspirators repeatedly that Plaintiff did not understand and requested “Validation of Debts” per 18 USC 1692(g) which states: § 809. Upon information and belief. or the depositors money or lend the “lenders” credit. Defendants’ partners SERVICED Plaintiff’s private property called PLAINTIFF’S CREDIT. that it is clearly stated that the only True Holder in Due Course in the servicing of Credit. all the real Money. therefore. 6. Plaintiff did send Defendants a Qualified Written Request. as Exhibit A. Upon information and belief. one of them being Modern Money Mechanics (5th edition 1992) published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. blood sweat and tears of a real flesh and blood man or woman. asking by what authority do they have to demand the extortion of Life. Plaintiff believes after doing a diligent study into the Federal Reserve Act.5. herein. requested by Defendant’s Partners and Co-conspirators. is the Creditor who’s signature is being used to access that Credit. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] Page 8 of 11 . If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth. Plaintiff believes when Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators offered to “lend me their money” that Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators where lying and Plaintiff believes that “lenders” are not chartered to lend the “lenders” money. and through education from reading various publications of the Federal Reserve Bank. money created by the labor. leaving only one option left. is extortion. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth 7.
Plaintiff did record on August 00. This makes Plaintiff uncertain of Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators motivation and Plaintiff is concerned that fairness. 9. it was to tell Plaintiff in writing that it was none of your business. believes that this violation alone null and voids any all actions on the part of the Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators. herein Exhibits B and C. including but not limited to the non-judicial foreclosure action. Plaintiff. equity and or justice are not being addressed equally for both sides of this controversy.(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt. a debt collector shall. by standing and authority and having United States Constitutionally guaranteed Page 9 of 11 . “VERIFIED BONDED DURABLE NOTICE OF INTEREST” which. Plaintiff accepted their silence as agreement with Plaintiff and with Defendants’ permission filed the appropriate documents to resolve the issue. at the Pinal County Recorders Office. Upon information and belief. #2011-0000000. Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators. In fact when an answer came from Defendants’ Partners and Coconspirators. 2011. 8. 10. send the consumer a written notice containing -Plaintiff did not receive a proper response and to this day still cannot understand what relationship John and Jane Doe has with Defendants. upon information and belief. Upon this belief and the information provided by Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators. unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt. “GRANTOR’S AFFIDAVIT OF CANCELLATION” and supporting document Recorded #2011000000.
does John and Jane Doe.A. 953 f. 12.S. 519-421 and Platsky v.. C. 13. 26. Defendants’ Partners and Co-conspirators and believes that the issues in this instant matter are about the Rights of men and women upon which everything that America stands for. Plaintiff is giving notice to the Court and to Defendants that Plaintiff will motion for and will file a second amended complaint to include additional civil and criminal charges against Defendants and will be adding Defendants who in their acts in collusion with existing Defendants are necessary parties to this controversy. 11. Plaintiff further Motions the Court to Order the Plaintiff’s personal property in form of Plaintiff’s autograph on a note currently in possession of Defendants’ attorneys to be immediately returned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff at this time Motions the Court to Order Defendants and all of Defendants partners to cease and desist in any and all actions to administratively make any claim on Plaintiff’s free and clear real property. own her property through physical labor or do the corporate fictions that will not or cannot tell Plaintiff where and how they got the money and why there is no consideration? If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth.2d. Kerner. Plaintiff believes that justice has not been observed by Defendants. 404 U. And most critically. I am not an expert in the law however I do know 14. a flesh and blood woman. Upon information and belief.unalienable granted Rights to cancel all “clouds” on Claimant’s Lawful Title to free and clear real property.I. In the nature of United States Supreme Court Haines v. Page 10 of 11 .
If the parties given notice by means of this document have information that would controvert and overcome this Affidavit. 2011 John and Jane Doe. Your silence stands as consent to. and tacit approval of. Ever. that this Affidavit Statement is substantially and materially false sufficiently to change materially my status and factual declarations. Reserving ALL Natural Unalienable Birthrights. DATED October 31. I hereby and herein reserve the right to amend and make amendment to this document as necessary in order that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined. if he will inform me by facts I will sincerely make every effort to amend my ways. proving with particularity by stating all requisite actual evidentiary fact and all requisite actual law. and not merely the ultimate facts or conclusions of law. Plaintiff ________________________________ Page 11 of 11 . please advise me IN WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT FORM within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof providing me with your counter-affidavit. If there is any human being damaged by any statements herein. Waiving None.right from wrong. the factual declarations herein being established as fact as a matter of law.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?