From: George Daniel (georgearies77@hotmail.

com)
Sent: Thu 3/07/13 3:12 AM
Subject: In Court, How does one respond to the following question from a judge? -To:
FYI -- This is from John Stuart.
He has some very interesting ideas,
but I have seen no evidence of their validity
or sample pleadings that have won cases.
THEREFORE -- do your own research!
By: George ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In Court, How does one respond to the following question from a judge? -1-Why are you in Default?
2-Are you making payments?
3-Did you get a loan?
4-why are you in foreclosure??
This may be of interest to you. See below. Learn this info and stand strong in court.
Thanks to John Stuart
From: John Stuart
I AM ANSWERING THIS EMAIL PUBLICLY BECAUSE DANIEL IS A FRIEND AND HAS ASKED IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS. HE DONATED FOR THESE ANSWERS AND IF YOU LIKE THEM YOU SHOULD TOO.
THESE ARE JUST MY OPINION, NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IF THE ANSWERS DO NOT MAKE SENSE IT IS
BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT REALLY OCCURRED IN THE PROCESS
SEE BELOW Q AND A FOR FULL EMAIL.
What does "he who seeks equity must do equity mean"?
More simply stated, if you want an honest deal you must be honest OR: you can't expect the contract to hold the other party to all aspects of the deal if you violated some
aspect of the same deal
How does one respond to the following question from a judge?
1-Why are you in Default?
I am not in default, the mortgage is paid in full, the party attempting to foreclose is NOT the real party in
interest and have used false and/or forged documents to make it appear as they are the RPII - they have not
been paid in full because they were NEVER supposed to be paid at all. They "sold and/or transferred" their
right to be paid as part of their other dealings and for being nothing more than a broker for the money
claimed to be loaned. Their claims are fraudulent and cannot be established factually with any real and true
evidence; and can and are disproved by their filings with the IRS and SEC.
2-Are you making payments?
The mortgage is paid in full as evidenced by the PSA and the REMIC. If the adverse party claims otherwise
please order them to provide the PSA and REMIC filing with the IRS to this Court as said filings shall
establish factually that they are making inconsistent and contradictory claims to the IRS and this Court.
3-Did you get a loan?

At one point, it appears money was transferred between parties, but the purported "Loan" was
in actuality brokered and not supplied by the adverse party, again, I refer the court to the PSA and REMIC
filings with the IRS to evidence my claims and disprove all claims by the adverse party. If the adverse party
claims to this Court to have supplied a loan then let them bring forth evidence of such as reported to the IRS
and SEC.
4-why are you in foreclosure??
I am NOT in foreclosure. The adverse party in actuality is in foreclosure and committing fraud upon this
Court to make it appear as though it is me being foreclosed upon, when in actuality, I, as beneficiary to the
PSA for the adverse party's fraud, am the only entity with rights to said property.
For clarification, there was a "deal". The deal may appear legit due to the false and/or forged documents
provided to this Court by the adverse party, but in actuality the ONLY "valid and lawful deal" this Court
should recognize by law is the deal that is inclusive of the "securitization process and the relevant
PSA". Since the adverse party failed to adhere to the requirements of the PSA, the purported "loan" was
paid in full by numerous insurance policies relative to the purported "loan" and myself. Ergo, the purported
"loan" was paid for me. In law, there is no requirement for me to pay and no restriction on who pays. The
ONLY requirement is that a debt, if valid, be paid. The purported debt was paid, as evidenced by the adverse
party's filings with IRS and SEC that they are purposely concealing from this Court in violation of state
and/or federal law.
If the adverse party wishes to deny my allegations, then pursuant to the rules of discovery and best
evidence, I move this Court to COMPEL the adverse party to present the ORIGINAL PSA; and NOTE; and the
REMIC filings with the IRS and SEC, which will evidence factually my claims are true.
This Court should note that the adverse party is making contradictory claims to the IRS, the SEC and this
Court. The PSA and REMIC filings contain conclusive presumptions that contradict the adverse party's
claims in this Court.
In short, I am NOT trying to get a house for free! The house was paid for through other entities of which I am
a lawful beneficiary of and/or party to; in actuality the adverse party is unlawfully defrauding this Court, the
IRS, the SEC and insurance companies and investor groups to get a house for free and be paid numerous
times on a "bad" investment that the adverse party itself caused to be bad.
I could keep going but hopefully you get the gist of it.
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: daniel
Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Subject: John, couple of questions for you. Thanks in advance.
To: John Stuart
John,
Hope you are health is improving. I made a little donation. Can you enlighten me on some questions I have below.
Thanks for all you do.
Daniel from Vegas
I was reading the paragraph below and one of the Causes of Action by the plaintiff was Quiet Title. (SEE MY
QUESTION AT THE BOTTOM)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?
case=6000256902958856584&hl=en&lr=lang_en&as_sdt=2,29&as_vis=1&oi=scholaralrt
G. Quiet Title
Plaintiffs' claim to quiet title must also be dismissed. In Nevada, a quiet title action may be brought "by any person
against another who claims an . . . interest in real property, adverse to the person bringing the action, for the purpose
of determining such adverse claim." N.R.S. 40.010. In a claim for quiet title "the burden of proof rests with the
plaintiff to prove a good title in himself." Velazquez v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., No. 2:11-CV576, slip op., 2011 WL 1599595, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 27, 2011) (quoting Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 918 P.2d
314, 318 (Nev.1996)). Additionally, an action to quiet title requires a plaintiff to allege that he has paid any
debt owed on the property. See Ferguson v. Avelo Mortgage, LLC. No. B223447, 2011 WL 2139143, at *2 (Cal.
App. 2d June 1, 2011). Essentially, "he who seeks equity must do equity." McQuiddy v. Ware, 87 U.S. 14 (1873).

QUESTIONS FOR JOHN

How do you overcome the statement in red bold above in a quiet title suit where the court claims
"Additionally, an action to quiet title requires a plaintiff to allege that he has paid any debt owed on the
property."
What does "he who seeks equity must do equity mean"?
How does one respond to the following question from a judge?
1-Why are you in Default?
2-Are you making payments?
3-Did you get a loan?
4-why are you in foreclosure??