Insurance and Hedge Proceeds Applied to Loan Balances

One of the more controversial statements I have made is that certain types of payments from third party sources should be applied, pro rata, against loan balances. Some have stated that the collateral source rule bars using third party payments as offset to the debt. But that rule is used in tort cases and contract cases are different. There are certain types of payments, like guarantees from Fannie and Freddie that might not be susceptible to use as offset because they are caused by the default of the debtor and because they are not paid until the foreclosure is complete.

But the insurance, credit default swaps and other hedge products that caused the banks to receive payment are a different story. Those are not paid because of a default by any particular borrower but rather are caused by a unilateral declaration of a “credit event” declared by the Master Servicer and are paid to the holder of the mortgage bonds. The mortgage bonds are issued by a trust based upon the advance of money by investors who wish to pool their money into an asset pool and receive income with what was thought to be a minimum of risk.

Since the broker-dealers (investment banks) were acting as agents for the trust and the bond holders, any money received by them should have first been allocated to the trust, then pro rata to the bond holders. Whether or not this money was actually forwarded to the bond holders is irrelevant if the investment banks were the agents of the investment vehicle and thus owed a duty to the investors to whom they sold the mortgage bonds.

Logic dictates that if the money was paid to the banks as “holders” of the bond (because they were issued in street name as nominee securities) that the balance owed by the trust to the investors was correspondingly reduced — reflecting the devaluation of the bonds declared by the master servicer based upon such criteria as the lack of liquidity of the bonds that had been trading freely on a weekly basis, or because of the severe drop in real estate prices down to their actual values, or because of other factors.

It should be noted that the declaration of the banks is unilateral and in their sole discretion and not subject to challenge by anyone because the declaration creates an irrefutable presumption that the content of the declaration is true. Thus the insurance company must pay, the credit default swap counterparty must pay and other hedge partners must pay as a result of an act by the bank, not the investor nor the borrower.

All the loans contained in the asset pool subject to the declared credit event are affected. And since the reason for the declaration has little relationship to defaults, and plenty of other more important reasons, the amount owed to investors is reduced by the receipt of the payments by their agent, the bank. That means the account receivable of the lender is reduced, regardless of which bank account the money happens to be deposited.

If the account receivable is reduced before, during or after a delinquency of the borrower (assuming the loan is actually in existence) then the borrowers’ balances should be reduced, pro rata for each loan in the asset pool that was the subject of the declaration of a credit event. It is therefore my opinion that the homeowner could and probably should file an affirmative defense for offset for the pro rata share of insurance, credit default swaps etc.

There is one more source that should be considered for offset. Several investors have made claims against the banks claiming that their money was misused and that the terms of the loan were not followed including, bad underwriting and unenforceable documents created at closing. Many of them have already settled those claims and received payment, thus reducing their account receivable from the trust (and by pure logic reducing, dollar for dollar the account payable from the trust). Since the sole source of payment on the bond is the payment of the mortgages, it follows that by utilizing the most simple of accounting standards, the balance owed by the homeowner would be correspondingly be reduced, pro rata, dollar for dollar.

The fact that the underwriting was bad, the loans were not viable or enforceable and based upon inflated appraisals and lies about the income of the borrower, is not something caused by the borrower. The fact that the money was paid to all of the investors in that particular asset pool means that each investor should get a share equal to the amount of money they invested compared to all the money that was invested in that pool.

As to figuring out how much of the offset goes to the borrower’s account payable, it should be calculated in the same way. The amount of the borrower’s debt should be compared with the total amount of loans in the asset pool. This percentage should be applied against all third party payments that did not arise out of the default by the borrowers. In fact, it should be applied against all borrowers whose loans were claimed by that asset pool, whether they were in default or not. This would be grounds for a claim by people who are “current” in their payments for a credit or refund of the amount received from insurance, credit default swaps, or payments by the banks in settlement of investors’ claims of fraud.

This approach should be brought up very early in litigation so that there is plenty of time to pursue the discovery required to determine the amount received and the proper calculation of pro rata shares. If you do it at trial, the best you can hope for is that the judge will take notice of the fact that the foreclosing party only brought part of the documents relating to the loan instead of all of them, which should be the subject of a subpoena for the designated witness of the bank to bring with her or him all of the documents relating to the subject loan or any instrument deriving its value in whole or in part from the subject loan’s existence.

Thus at trial you can have a two pronged attack, getting them coming and going. The first is of course the fact that the originator did not fund the loan and that the break between the money trail (actual transactions) and the paper trail (fictitious transactions) occurred at the closing table. In most cases that is true, but it can be replaced or buttressed by the fact that the same argument holds true for acquired loans that were previously originated. The endorsement of the note or assignment of mortgage is a fictitious instrument if there was no sale of the loan. The important thing is to talk about the money first and then use that to show that the documents are fabricated relating to no real transaction.

Then you also have the argument of offset which hopefully by then you will have set up by discovery.

Practice Note: Many lawyers are accepting fee retainers far below the level that would support properly litigating these cases. Now that the marketplace has matured, lawyers should reconsider their pricing and their prosecution of the defenses, affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Even clients who announce a goal of just staying as long as possible without paying rent or mortgage are probably saying that because they think they owe more money than is actually the case.

20 Responses

  1. Below is a really bad scan of my Deed of Trust From Citi Mortgage. Have a couple of questions that someone may be able to answer. 1. You can clearly see that MERS is the Assignor. Question I thought that was illegal. 2. You see a stamp on there that says Certified True Copy. Actually you cant see the stamp, on here but its on the document all by itself and nothing else. The notary on here is part of the original deed. Question shouldn’t this be notarized I requested a certified copy through a QWR? 3. Can someone tell me how to find out if this loan was securitized? As you can see some the stuff did not scan very well such as the signature.

    When Recorded Return To:
    CT LIEN SOLUTIONS
    PO BOX 29071
    GLENDALE, CA 91209-9071

    ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST
    MERS SIS # 868-679-6377 MIN: 100052550053155353
    Assignor: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Financial Corp., its
    successors and assigns
    Assignee: CitiMortgage, Inc.
    For Valuable Consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Assignor hereby assigns
    and transfers the following described Deed of Trust unto. the Assignee:
    That certain Deed of Trust executed by James A Smith and Rhonda E Smith, dated
    021:2212005 recorded in the land Records of Baltimore County, Maryland in liber: 0021536 Folio: 333 ,
    securing a note executed of even date therewith in the original principal amount ot $295,000.00, and
    granting a securing interest in the property commonly known as 9411 Lyonswood Drive, Owings Mills,
    MO, 21117, which property is more particularly described on: Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
    herein by reference.
    Description/Additional information: See Exhibit A
    Original Beneficiary Name: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity
    FinanCial Corp. its successors and assigns
    Original Beneficiary Address: P.O. Box 2026. Flint, MI, 48501-2026
    Current Beneficiary Address: P.O. Box 2026, Flint, MI, 4650′-2026
    Witness my hand this -:–+-’-::-L……:::.~—
    Mortgage Electronic Registr ion Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Financial Corp. its successors
    and assigns

    ~me Geraldine Ann Belinski
    Title: Vice President
    Page. 1 39147374 2~49 MDOO~ 8a~rmo,e County Inlernal

    STATE OF MISSOURI, ST. CHARLES COUNTY
    On 1- Z &-20 t.3 before me, Ihe undersigned, a nolary public in and for said
    state. personally appeared Geraldine Ann Belinskl, Vice PreSident of Mortgage Electronic
    Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for New Equity Flnilnclal Corp. Its successors and
    assigns personally known 10 me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
    individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she
    executed the same in his/her capacity. and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual, or
    the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument

    Page’ 2 391″7374 2«49 1.10005 Banimore COunly Internal

  2. My Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust’s Date of Assignment was September 9, 2011. As you can see below the cutoff date was January 1, 2006. Based on this information Beth says that the document is void. I don’t understand all of this. What does that mean to me? What do I do with this information? Who do I address this with, the Servicer? MERS? the Lender? or the Assignee? Is this enough information that I can negotiate with whomever, without having to hire an attorney?

    @ James Smith – here is the info regarding the claimed trust your loan is supposed to be “pooled” in. If the Assignment you have is after the cut off date 1/2006, then you have an argument that your loan is not in the pool. Also it is the depositor, not MERS, that is to assign the loan to the pool.

    http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrn.vA9.htm#ed0

    Residential Funding Corporation
    (Master Servicer and Sponsor)

    —————————————————————
    |
    | sale of mortgage loans
    |
    |
    —————————————————————

    Residential Asset Securities Corporation
    (Depositor)

    —————————————————————
    |
    | sale of mortgage loans
    |
    |
    —————————————————————
    U.S. Bank National Association
    (Trustee)
    (owner of mortgage loans on behalf of issuing entity
    for the benefit of holders of certificates)

    SUMMARY

    The following summary provides a brief description of material aspects of the offering and does not contain all of the information that you should consider in making your investment decision. To understand the terms of the offeredcertificates, you should read carefully this entire document and the prospectus.

    Issuing Entity……………………………… RASC Series 2006-EMX1 Trust.

    Title of the offered certificates…………….. Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1.

    Depositor………………………………….. Residential Asset Securities Corporation, an affiliate of Residential Funding Corporation.

    Master Servicer and Sponsor………………….. Residential Funding Corporation.

    Originator and Subservicer…………………… Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.

    Trustee……………………………………. U.S. Bank National Association.

    Cut-off date……………………………….. January 1, 2006.

    Closing date……………………………….. On or about January 20, 2006.

  3. My original Lender on the Deed of Trust was Mortgage Lenders Network. I have a Corporate Deed of Assignment that MERS assigned to US Bank, National Association, as trustee for RASC 2006-EMX1 at 4801 Frederica Street, Owensboro, KY 42301. The recording was requested by Wells Fargo and they are also listed as the default assignment. Wells Fargo recently sent me a document which listed Ocwen Loan Servicing as the investor. If that is the case, shouldn’t there be a document assigning the loan to Ocwen Loan Servicing? Im so confused with this stuff. Something is truly wrong with this loan, but I cant afford to hire an attorney to get to the bottom of this. jsmith5915@msn.com. James Smith

  4. Has anyone ever dealt with Ocwen Loan Servicing out of Fort Washington, PA. Wells Fargo is telling me that Ocwen Loan Servicing is the Investor for my 2nd Mortgage which America Servicing Co/Wells Fargo is the servicer. What I need to know is what is the best way to go about finding out if they are the actual investors and if they even have any records of my loan. My guess is that I am going to get the run around and probably will find out that they know nothing about the loan.

  5. Below under “Fighting MERs in CA” someone stated.
    3) Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
    I live in Maryland and I have a Deed of Trust that MER’s assigned to successor. Can someone tell me if this is a true statement.? Do I now have a fraudulent document. Would someone be willing to send me their email address so I could scan and send to them, so they can let me know in fact this is a fraudulent document. My email address is jsmith5915@msn.com 443 677 2799. James

  6. Cease and Desist Order against Citi and Wells Fargo.
    There is currently a Cease and Desist Order against Citi Mortgage. Below is the complaint that I sent to Office of Comptroller and Currency.

    There is currently a Cease and Desist Order by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency against Mortgage Electronic Registration System. I am writing because I want something done about the Banks and MERS, because they continue to perform illegal transactions. I recently had a document that was posted to County Public Records by Citi Mortgage and MERS. It was a Deed of Trust for a transaction that was done back in 2005. Something was not right about them just now posting this document after so many years. I goggled the person that signed the document, Geraldine Ann Belinksi, Vice President. I found another Deed of Trust online that had the same person’s name on it, but this time it stated that she is the Assistant Secretary. I immediately got on the phone and called the office that was listed on the document, Citi Mortgage, 1000 Technology Drive, O’Fallon, Mo. I located the office where this individual worked and discovered that she is a mere processor. This has gotten out of hand and I am very skeptical that any of the transactions and documents that I have through Citi Mortgage are legal and binding. Why are they allowed to continue Robo Signing documents? I can be reached at 443-677-2799. Thanks James A. Smith

    I did not call MERS to verify that she worked there. I call Citi and they stated that she was a processor. This is response that I received from Citi regarding the complaint

    “Our records indicate Geraldine A. Belinski is a Certified Appointed signor for Mortgage Electroic Registration Systems Inc.”

    My question is, does MERS have employees that work in Citi facilities? I do not believe this. I called and verified that she worked there and they stated she was a processor. How can I verify that they are lying, because Im sure that OCC will believe what Citi’s response was.
    James Smith 443-677-2799.

  7. One more thing Venu, beneficiary payment on the policy for personal property is payable to you NOT the Buttwipe!

  8. Venu, all mortgages and dots are different. I can tell you that a dot and a mortgagee can not both exist at the same time. Thus the reason every year upon the annual policy renewal they send fraud doc to Ins Co adding themselves as mortgagee of record and loss payee on the policy, and every year I kick them off … me and Ins Co demanding proof of claim as to the mortgagee of record and entitled to be loss payee. They don’t/cant and get booted. I wouldn’t want to end up in the situation you are in.

    Make the demand for proof of claim yourself or have an attorney do it for you.

    Buttwipes!! Forcing families to live in deplorable conditions my means of fraudulent extortion!

    Venu, … request ins ck be cancelled and payment made directly to contractor doing the repairs.

  9. I need some clarification in this context. We had a fire outbreak in our house last year and Bank of America refused to endorse the insurance proceeds check to repair the house. It’s been almost one year the house remained as unrepaired condition on account of the refusal by B of A to endorse the check. If the bank really has any true interest in their alleged mortgaged property they should have co-operated with the owners to repair and restore the house from the damages by endorsing it.

    Insurance proceeds check is to repair the damages caused by the incident. It can’t be applied to backed up mortgage payments unless the owner buys insurance protection to pay off mortgage in the event of job loss or unexpected events. Does anyone use health insurance money to pay off credit cards debts or doctors use such money to pay off for expanding their waiting rooms? No.

    Can someone advise me on this matter as Bof A is asking for 6 months for mortgage payments as ransom to endorse an insurance proceeds check.

    Kindly advice me on this matter.

  10. “Estopped and Barred from maintaining their liens on subject property under Latches and Waiver”

    “Poke”

  11. RE:

    …..the deed of trust encumbers the subject title.

    but the deed of trust reads
    …the property is warranted free of all liens and encumbrances……

    Judge say’s what’s going on here?

    KC; Why didn’t I think of that?

    ~~ Grins~~

    P.S. MS take it easy on Neil now Ok? Behave, .. Do you want Coal in you Stocking ? Santa is watching you!

  12. Most of these theories mean nothing in a court if a court finds 1) the guy in alleged poss of a bearer note may enforce it** and 2) by his mere possession, he is the appropriate party to be the assignee of the collateral instrument, the latter which is aided by the banksters’ arguments that the homeowner has no right to argue that assignment
    (unless the argument is the assgt is void as in at least Culhane and Glaski). That’s all that’s going on here, all banksters stand on – with court approval. Under that prescription, it could be 1) the attorney 2) the servicer, 3) the master servicer 4) some trust, 5) MERS, 6) FNMA, 7) a custodian, 8) a party with a security interest, 9) the man in the moon, and Lord knows who else who could claim and a court would find entitled to enforce a note, because ANYone of them may claim it’s THEIR possession when (allegedly) held by any of the others. The note’s not a ‘hot’ potato – it’s a ‘come to papa potato’, and anyone of these actors can claim. The banksters want us to believe that possession is the one and only bar.
    Anyone of them could claim it’s the party the attorney represents (and could be), if the attorney doesn’t claim enforcement rights himself, which why couldn’t he if he is a crook and mere possession is the bar? Under the alleged law being relied on in court rooms, the attorney has a right to enforce the note himself; he has possession (even tho if he does we know it’s for someone else) And under that same allegedly applicable law, possession, an assgt to him would be entirely appropriate if he claims possession. Some will say nah, he can’t claim. Well, yeah, he can, thief status and all, as long as no one who might want to fight about it gets wind. Let’s say some no good attorney gets your note and for whatever reason, no one notices it “missing”. If he comes after you, according to that current prescription, you have no defense.
    The only thing which might raise an eyebrow is the court’s
    perception that someone else should be trying to enforce. But under the one and only bar being applied in courts, poss of a bearer note, the court’s perception is of no consequence and your stmt that he’s a thief won’t matter and which allegation doesn’t warrant dismissal or SJ.
    Which one of that cast is chosen to make the claim is likely the one whose claim of poss and entitlement is likely to ruffle the least feathers / the path of least resistance, and just now, at least prior to Culhane and Glaski, that’s allegedly a trust, who was supposed to get the note. I still maintain juris requires injury, the claimant’s own and caused by the defendant, and I certainly don’t believe a guy who has poss of a note which isn’t lawfully his is entitled to an asst of the coll instrument, without which, because of “security first”, he would not be able to enforce (an unsecured note is not a claim where security first is in play imo).

    Which I guess is all to say the default-law-UCC can’t be the only factor in play here. I can’t argue that (the default law) article III doesn’t mean to say that one in poss of a bearer note may enforce it and to that end, the crafters may have been saying “take care of your notes”. But I’m going to keep arguing fwiw that as default law, if article III is applicable to these particular notes at all, it only gets looked at in the absence of agreements, contracts, etc in determining rights, and even then, it isn’t exclusive. It may be that a thief who finds a note, not one of these which are part of an entire contract, may enforce it, IF he could, if there were no “security first” laws, say. And no where does the relied-on UCC say the party in poss of a note is entitled to an assgt of its collateral instrument that I know of. My only real ref to that issue is 903(g) something, which says a security interest in the note is a sec interest in its collateral. And if that’s all a trust got – a security interest because it didn’t timely demand the note itself, unlike other note buyers, way late now. I’m no authority on REMIC trustee fiduciary to the trust beneficiaries, but I’d hazard that in addn to whatever is in the trust docs, law imposes some, and if so, it’s no wonder they fight tooth, nail, and dirty. And I still say jurisdiction requires injury caused by the other party.

  13. What about a simple claim for unjust enrichment and force the scum to disgorge the money they unlawfully glean in violation of the law to our detriment whereas the scum created and sold securities backed by nothing since the scum never legally acquired the notes and mortgages on behalf of the certificate holders for most trusts?
    This has been the biggest Ponzi scheme in the annals of the world. The scum committed securities fraud and tax fraud on a monumental scale and to date, have done so with impunity. I don’t give a rats ass if the government agencies bring civil complaints against them whereas, nothing will change unless the trillions of dollars that have been siphoned out of our economy by the scum, is returned and the scum goes to prison.
    This is very simple; from the advent of Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999, becoming effective in 2000, a monster was unleashed on our citizens and society as a whole.
    I hear both side of the story, the Banksters side is all propaganda, as in all wars however, our side is right.
    Just a thought to mull over; there was nothing from preventing the banks and hustlers from issuing loans that were sustainably healthy for the borrower, the investor and society as a whole. No that would have been too simple. Instead, software systems created the exotic toxic loans to fill the different tranches in the toxic pool created by the same software systems and the software systems would predict with precise accuracy when all the loans would go into default. Ergo, Goldman and their troubles for selling all the toxic assets and then purchasing all the credit default swaps.

    Stop the Nonsense

    Bob M

  14. NG What song are you singing …..

    Look here’s a gift for all of you. The demurrer I read in court yesterday [Arlante V Duetsche Bank Securities L.A. Superior Court DTLA] opens with

    …..the deed of trust encumbers the subject title.

    but the deed of trust reads
    …the property is warranted free of all liens and encumbrances……

    Judge say’s what’s going on here?

    registerclaims@live.com
    ….23 wins and counting ….

    Dan Edstrom and Neil G own a total of zero hours in the secondary and capital markets …wow great call guys

  15. NS – The MBS buyers are allegedly the beneficiaries of the trusts. But as I’ve said, if there were no funds put in those trusts to buy anything, there is no beneficiary of the trust – wouldn’t that be so?
    Is a trust without beneficiaries a trust at all? Doesn’t seem like it could be. And aren’t you yourself saying the trust has no beneficiaries, among other things, when you say the investors funds never made it to the trusts and instead were used to fund loans at the table: not only is there nothing in them, the ‘trust’ has no beneficiaries?

    You have never explained why you believe the investor funds were used to fund loans. Fwiw, I’m still waiting. I can easily see some of the problems that might have solved for the banksters (though it creates monsters), but that still doesn’t explain why you think this was done.

  16. If the account receivable is reduced before, during or after a delinquency of the borrower (assuming the loan is actually in existence) then the borrowers’ balances should be reduced, pro rata for each loan in the asset pool that was the subject of the declaration of a credit event.

    The account receivable is derecognized to the date of the CDO expiration . Your God Damn guessing again Neil. The CDO Strike price is the market trigger and your guessing again ….Poser !

  17. The wire into settlement was rerouted
    The liens of record were never satisfied
    The title was stripped of all encumbrance’s
    the shares issued in trust are margined against the equity
    the margin account is mark to market to the appraisal
    The margin account financed the trust corpus
    The corpus is charged off and written down to zero in 2008

    Now the mortgage is settled as a novation ……
    but where is the re-conveyance for the 2008 TARP charges ….

    everything else I read on this site is static, noise and celestial honkey tonk gibberoni ……

    registerclaims@live.com

  18. NG ,

    You’re singing my song…

  19. NG:
    “There are certain types of payments, like guarantees from Fannie and Freddie that might not be susceptible to use as offset

    because they are caused by the default of the debtor

    jg: First of all, of course they’re triggered by the borrower’s default. That’s what a guarantee is, right? I take it you are making a distinction between the default of the debtor and a default of the pool being called by the MS. if anything, I would call a payment triggered by an individual debtor’s default more and not less susceptible to “use as an offset” against an amt owing on his note. I guess you’re trying to be artful in using that phrase, but if we’re talking the UCC, and we are, I wouldn’t use that phrase. I’d say it’s a payment, which to me is not synonymous with (any right of) “offset”.

    and because they are not paid until the foreclosure is complete.”

    jg: I sure would like it if you had cited your source since that’s not my information at all. The servicer must advance at least four payments on behalf of FNMA and is reimbursed at will by turning in a claim to FNMA – and this is done by the accounts I read before and NOT after foreclosure. Otherwise, the servicer could be an interest-free lender to FNMA for a very long time. In the interim, before the servicer is reimbursed, third party 4, the servicer, has made a payment on behalf of third party 3, FNMA, which should retire the obligation dollar for dollar.
    The only way for FNMA to end the payments initially advanced contractually on its behalf by the servicer is to repurchase the loan.
    Since FNMA would not be repurchasing the loan at a price without regard for the reduction in principle from the servicer’s / FNMA’s payments, you can bet, can’t you, the repurchase price reflects those payments.

  20. This is an opinion. I am not an attorney and do not give legal advice because I do not know legal things.

    The information I’m giving was received in the private.
    Please be in the private when you access or review it.
    The public belongs to ‘them’. The private belongs to ‘us’.
    That’s why we have a right to privacy but can’t expect any privacy in the public.

    There is a difference. Public intoxication, Public lewdness, they take over anything they consider public, and they take over anything they consider legal advice because they claim it as theirs, but they can’t take over an opinion because an opinion is private.

    Keep track of that difference as you deal with them because their crack down is getting tighter. See how they go after journalists in the public who report to the public, but they leave bloggers alone who have private opinions and post disclaimers about their intent being for education or entertainment purposes.

    Anything you learn is opinion and not legal advice. No one can give you legal advice without a license to do so. It’s all opinion and for entertainment or educational purposes. An alternative point of view is a good way to describe this.

    If this doesn’t resonate with you, you have a path to take to gain some comprehension and just leave this where it is. When you gain a foundation of what you need, you may find your path right back at this information.

    There is a guy who has been trying to free himself from the system of control and could not figure out why the courts had not heard him, nor why the courts he wanted to hear him would not listen.

    Courts had not heard him when he was pulled into court against his free will. They would dismiss his case and wouldn’t move forward. When he tried to appeal his own dismissed case to be heard, they would not let him appeal. Even the appeal process was ‘crazy’ because they made it hard for him to reopen what they closed because they didn’t want to deal with it.

    Courts he wanted to hear him when he went to court of his free will would not listen when he would file his own case in court, he’d be caught with failing to state a claim (not exactly that, but his suits were rejected as if the courts could not hear them let alone settle the claim what he was bringing before them).

    So he travels to DC to get some signatures and is approached by their police who insist on searching his car (occurred in June). They see he has weapons (he disclosed that before the search because they demanded he disclose whether he carried or they’d get a subpoena to search the car to see if he carried). He had a license to carry concealed with his state, but guess what, the 10 square miles of DC is considered it’s own country, so they do not recognize state licensing and so they considered he violated their law of their 10 square mile. He ends up in jail. He ends up in court, with a grand jury. He speaks the truth, the grand jury testimony is sealed, and that case dismissed and he is re-arrested and has to appear again and they pursue him for the gun charges.

    Well, they keep having these status hearings I assume to gain jurisdiction, and he’s finally got some docs he’s filing that may ‘you know how the net is’ disappear.

    If there is anything in it that you can use, you may want to get copies of them from dropbox.

    https://www.dropbox.com
    first file:
    /s/7o78f741r5m1ikz/Rod_Class_Nov 2013_DC_Gun_Case_Notice_Of_Felonies.doc
    second file:
    /s/kfpzi5v7b05dbeo/Rod_Class_Nov_2013_DC_Gun_Case_Complaint.doc

    He had been off track for a while. You know you can have so much information it’s hard to see the forest for all the trees.

    episode 786 of AIB Radio in the .com website called talkshoe is 3 hours 44 minutes long but if you have time, he finally can see.

    Neo: Why do my eyes hurt?
    Morpheus: You’ve never used them before.

    The above is opinions. Seek within or seek without and legal advice from a licensed professional if you have to seek legal advice without.

    Trespass Unwanted, Corporeal, Creator, Life, People, Free, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: