Carteret Title
DRN Title Search
Register
Log In
Forget your Password?

Home
Directory
Bulletins
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Links
Classifieds
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise
FAQ
Privacy Policy


Source of Title Blog

Understanding The Incomprehensible
by Robert Franco | 2008/08/10 |

After the Source of Title article about the former county recorder, Bonnie M. Scott, who challenged the validity of her mortgage in her foreclosure proceedings, I was intent to try to understand her logic.  I reviewed many of the pleadings, if they can be called such, and I tried to find any legal basis for her arguments.  My conclusion was that the plaintiff's claim was correct - that the defendant's filings contained "voluminous text not relevant to this action and essentially incomprehensible."  I have to believe that if an attorney had filed these documents on her behalf, he would have been subject to sanctions.  But, she represented herself... how does that old saying go?  A woman who represents herself has a fool for a client.

Source of Title Blog ::

There were several very odd things about all of Scott's filings.  They were all captioned "In Admiralty," each page had a two-cent U.S. postage stamp on the back with her signature through it, and they all referenced the "Republic," rather than the United States of America. 

As an example of the "voluminous text," her "Notice: Affidavit of Truth" filing contains the following first paragraph:

1. THAT, on this day of June 7, 2008, personally come and appears, special not general, Sui Juris, alleged accused, Bonnie Mae of the Scott Family, a flesh and blood woman created by the Almighty Supreme Creator, in propria persona [as herself for herself], NOT pro se [as representing herself], a free female follower of Jesus [Yahshua (Yehoshu'a)], the Spirit of the Truth (John 15:26), Conscience (1 Peter 3:16), the Christ within (Colossians 1:27, John 14:20), The Law (Hebrews 8:10), Art. I, Constitution of Ohio, Amend. I, Constitution of the united States of America, pursuant Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12, that my yea be yea and my nay be ye nay (see also Ferguson v. Internal Revenue Service 921 F2d 588, 5th Cir. (1991)) a native born, Sovereign, Chisolm v. Ga., 2 Dall. 419, 1 L.Ed. 440, American Inhabitant, I Kent, Comm. 292, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627; 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 15, United States v. Morris et al., 125 Federal Reporter, p. 322, 325, 09/10/03, of one of the several States united by the Constitution for the united States of America, in the ordinary course of life, being first duly sworn, pursuant laws and Constitution of this State, Ohio, and the united States of America, conscience of his duty to testify truthfully, gives Notice the proceedings in now a Judicial, and not an administrative proceeding, and FURTHER NOTICED said alleged accused is an Inhabitant, Sui Juris, one who retains full Creator endowed Constitutionally protected Rights and enjoys the benefits thereof, and FURTHER NOTICED, FAIR WARNING, NOT AS A THREAT, NOTICE pursuant to Untied States v. Lanier on certiorari No. 95-1717, 520 U.S. 259 (1997), is hereby given each member of the prosecuting and swears to tell the truth, affirms the first hand personal knowledge of the following evidential, material, probative, and controlling facts, that they are true, correct, complete, certain, competent, relevant, and not deceptive, and says he is of legal age, qualified, not a ward nor conserved, and competent to testify to the truth of these facts if called as a witness, Constitution for the united States of America, Art. II, Sec. 1, Art. VI., Evid. Code § 451, 452; Fed. R. Civ. P. 44, 44.1, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 603.

I really can't make much sense out of this, but I think that Scott attempted to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.  First, she specifically states that she is making a "special appearance," not a "general appearance."  A special appearance is generally made for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court claiming that they are not amenable to process issued by the courts of the State.  Second, she doesn't seem to recognize the United States of America as is evidenced by her continued use of the united States of America (notice the lower case "u" in "united") and the references to the "Republic." 

Our nation's founders arguably created a republic form of government, not a democracy.  Many of them believed that a democratic government was dangerous and unworkable.  So what is the difference between a republic and democracy?  It is really a difference of degree.  In a true democracy, the government is ruled by the majority.  However, to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of the individuals that comprise the minority, the framers believed that the elite should rule the country because only the virtuous could be trusted to act in the best interest of the nation and not become corrupted by their own selfish motives.  The most virtuous of citizens were believed to be land owners. 

As further evidence of Scott's jurisdictional challenge, each caption contains the words "In Admiralty."  Admiralty law is specifically reserved to the federal courts; a county court hearing a foreclosure case would have no jurisdiction over an admiralty case.  However, absent a great flood, I do not understand the relevancy of imposing any admiralty law into these proceedings.

The two-cent stamps Scott placed on the back of each page of her filed documents are even more puzzling.  Perhaps, realizing that her arguments weren't worth the paper they were printed on, she decided to add two-cents of value to bolster her frivolous contentions. 

One of the arguments in Scott's documents is that in order to have a contract there must be "a meeting of the minds and therefore must have affixed upon it at least two signatures."  Because, she states, the note only contains one signature, hers, the bank is not a party to any contract with her and "the alleged debt/mortgage is not valid."  We all know that the bank never signs the borrower's note - so can we all just stop making our monthly payments?  Of course not.

Scott is partly right... a contract does require a meeting of the minds.  Presumably, there was a meeting of the minds when the bank loaned Scott money and she signed the note and mortgage agreeing to repay it.  However, many contracts aren't even required to be in writing, let alone signed.  Though the Statute of Frauds does require a contract to be written in certain circumstances, such as when the contract is for the transfer of an interest in land, or, cannot be completed in one year, it only needs to be signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought.

Really, that makes sense.  What the argument here actually says is: "Yeah, I signed the note and mortgage... I agreed to pay back the loan.  However, the bank never agreed to collect it, so I don't have to make the payments."  Hmmm... I don't think that the bank would deny that they assented to the contract. 

This case gets even more bizarre!  Scott also sent the U.S. Department of Treasury a "Certified Deposit Order" which instructs them to deposit $171,152.98 from her "Pre-paid Exemption Account, No. 494449 71 8."  (I sure hope those 9 digits aren't her Social Security Number). There is also a "Certified Promissory Note Registered Negotiable Instrument," in the same amount, payable to LaSalle Bank.

This process is extremely confusing, but after some research on the fringe of the World Wide Web, I think I get the gist of it.  Basically, the argument is that the Federal Reserve is no longer backed by gold - it is backed by the "debt of the people."  Therefore, Scott can simply ask that the Federal Reserve take her portion of that debt and place it in a separate pre-paid exemption account.  Then, she sends a note to the bank and tells them to submit it to the Department of the Treasury for payment as settlement of her debt.  Essentially, the bank gets their money from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve uses the peoples' debt to fund the banking system... so, just ask the Fed to pay a little of your debt back and apply it to what you owe on your mortgage. It's so simple, I don't know why we aren't all trying this!

Here are the instructions at the bottom of the note:

ORDER:
Authorized persons indorse below, Print name and official title when presenting this instrument [to the U.S. Department of the Treasury/Treasurer of the United States or the U.S. Alien Property Custodian] for discharge through the back office for settlement via the pass through window under Public Policy for discharge of debts in accordance with HJR 192 June 5th, 1933; 73rd Congress 1st Session and all associated policies, Charging Exempt Account CUSIP# 49449 71 8 Government-issued ID with photograph required, i.e. only the following types of ID accepted: state-issued Drivers License; state-issued Identification Card; Passport.

If you are interested in an extremely wacky Power Point presentation explaining how this all (supposedly) works, visit CommercialRedemption.com

Just because I find the gibberish fascinating, here is another paragraph from Scott's "Notice to Principal and Agent and Demand to Comply with the Law, U.C.C. 3-501, (SR Fed. Civ. P.) E2a." I'm not even sure what this document is supposed to be, but it is entertaining.

6. Verification of facts, probative and evidential, of law that controvert each and every one of public officer's alleged claims, a disproval, a full statement of the items constituting plea to jurisdiction, confession and avoidance, challenge, exception, Verified Bill of Particulars, well settled law capable of being known to a veritable certainty by consulting sources of indisputable accuracy thereby relieving the burden of producing evidence to prove these facts, 187 N.W. 2d 845, 847, common knowledge to a judicial professional or an average well-informed Citizen, are contained herein that show conduct complained of no insufficient or violative of statutes charged, a constitutionally safeguarded right, and lawful, and , Bonnie Mae of the Scott family did appear, in writing, Special, Rule E(5)(a); E(8), involuntarily, by threat of force, solely to squarely challenge alleged plaintiff's, ability to properly invoke special jurisdiction, pursuant to law, court authority enforcing penalty of fine, loss of property judicial in nature, Cox v. State, 214 P 204. 33 Oak Cr 436; State v. Rose, 97 P 784, 78 Kan 600, (SR Fed Civ P) E2a, commercial presentment tantamount to arrest and physical appearance voluntary submission to jurisdiction challenged, there is no affidavit submitted upon oath of an injured material-man, woman, or property, nor is there a bona fide signature produced, pursuant Constitution of the United States, Amendment 1 and Constitution of Ohio, that requires alleged plaintiffs/Libelants furnishing contrary in the same manner to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, join indispensable party, commence an action, and avoid discharge, involuntary dismissal, nonsuit and damages.

This document goes on to ask several questions and demand answers from the bank.  Here a few of the 17 questions:

1.  Was not the entire taxing and monetary system placed under Uniform Commercial Code [U.C.C.], Fed. Tax Lien Act, 1966, P.L. 89-719, Leg. His. 3722, U.S. V. Conrad Pub. Co., 589 F.2d 949 (1978), being commercial in nature of admiralty Jurisdiction?

5. Does not the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Consumer Credit Protection, Debt Collection Practices, in pertinent part, clearly state an authenticated bona fide signature is required to be produced as evidence of a contract and valid collectable debt?

13.  Did not HJR-192, June 5, 1933, make against public policy to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby?

I guess you can see the direction these are heading.  Not only are the questions ridiculous, but the document also purports to penalize the bank rather harshly for failing to answer them.

8. If, before a reasonable amount of time, ten [10] days, April 24, 2008, I do not receive the required answer, i.e. bona fide signature, evidence of authority, genuine issue of material fact sufficient to put myself upon defense, UCC 2-501, a non-answer to one question is a non-answer to all, U.C.C. 1-201(3), agency of estoppel will apply, by representation of fact, in pais, and instrument, invalidated, is refused, U.C.C 3-501, for cause, UCC 3-115, incomplete, invalid, and basis for further action precluded, fraud, U.C.C. 3-305(2)(B), (C), that warrants clerk in execution of duty enter nihil dicit judgment, Lender is liable to Borrower in an amount not less than $200.00 and up to $2,000.00, for each and every violation, clear title to property with fixtures, in fee simple as a result of the aforementioned all with damages, the credit transaction rescindable, nominal, compensatory, punitive and any other damages that the court deem Just and Proper, inclusive of reasonable compensation for "time" necessarily expended to prosecute this action, $2,500.00, punitive damages are in order due to Respondents frivolous and non-responsive answer to Petitioner's submissions; failure to answer is an obstruction and cause of undue hardship."

There is no doubt that the plaintiff's "Motion to Strike" was correct - this is just "voluminous text not relevant to this action and essentially incomprehensible."  There are many big legal sounding words thrown in to make it appear to be substantive.  Unfortunately, there is little substance here. 

If you search the Internet, you will find sample forms very similar to the ones filed by Scott in this action.  There are many Web sites dedicated to explaining how you can elimate your debt, screw your bank, or avoid foreclosure.  Most are based on similar screwball theories.  I, personally, find these theories interesting and amusing, but I realize that they are quite frivolous.  It takes a very "special person" to believe that they can walk away from a substantial debt because of some "technicality" with the structure of our banking system.  Seriously, if it were that easy, someone would have figured it out years ago.  And... someone else would have fixed it.

Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE




Rating: 

Categories: Foreclosures, Huh?

3374 words | 6526 views | 0 comments | log in or register to post a comment

Source of Title Blog

Robert A. FrancoThe focus of this blog will be on sharing my thoughts and concerns related to the small title agents and abstractors. The industry has changed dramatically over the past ten years and I believe that we are just seeing the beginning. As the evolution continues, what will become of the many small independent title professionals who have long been the cornerstone of the industry?

Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE

 

Links

Recommended Blogs Recommended Posts Source of Title Services
Recent Comments

 Thank you for the reminder to check for that notation about homestead exemption ending on the ...
by stephen willard
Pat was one of the sweetest men I've ever had the pleasure of knowing.  At every conference he ...
by Douglas Gallant
Pat was a good friend and a critical part of NALTEA.  So many memories from the NALTEA conferen...
by Jay Duncan
Pat was a good friend.  I have many wonderful memories, having known him. for 13 years,  ...
by Wanda Steudel
I have done Richland and Lexington Counties many times and I agree.  My gripe is I have seen ou...
by Naomi Backes
You're a good man, my friend.  I have worked for many lawyers in the past and it is too easy to...
by Alix Ott
I concur with the general sentiment that the advancement in information technology will likely make ...
by Don (Chunshen) Li
Posting from personal experience... The title company I work for has had 2 instances within th...
by Richard Palen
Categories

 
© 2007, Source of Title.