Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

John and Jane Doe, 1103 W East Lane City, State 00000 Telephone: (000) 306-0000 Propria Persona

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 Defendants 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

INTRODUCTION Disputed Facts. 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. Defendants appear to be reluctant to address the critical issues and disputed facts of plaintiffs amended complaint. 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, we spoke as a child, however, firing our Attorney was the most eye opening and educational thing Plaintiff could have done and now, as an adult we shall speak as an adult and exclaim from the highest mountain tops that Defendants have lied to Plaintiff, not just on several occasions but on every single occasion. Defendants have neglected their fiduciary responsibilities as trustees and or as officers, they have misrepresented who they are and what they really do, they have extorted from Plaintiff Life, Liberty and Property and have demanded that Plaintiff continue to be a party to their fraud or they will take Plaintiffs free and clear, fee simple titled property from Plaintiff. Plaintiff declares unequivocally from first hand knowledge of all of the events that Defendants are not the creditor, 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, 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 is aware that the presentment of these issues and facts are not up to Defendants standard, however, we did give judicial notice and will now clarify the fallacies in the Defendants position. Equity regards the substance and intent, not the form SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS Summary judgment is not appropriate when there are genuine issues of material fact. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating there are no genuine issues of material fact. Roberts v. Browning, 610 F.2d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 1979). Additionally,

Page 2 of 11

summary judgment is a drastic remedy, and in this case, genuine issues of fact exist rendering summary judgment inapplicable. Summary judgment should be cautiously invoked so that no person will be improperly deprived of a trial. Ripplemeyer v. Nat'l Grape Co-op Ass'n., 807 F. Supp. 1439, 1447 (W.D. Ark. 1992). The issues of fact must be submitted to a jury, and their adjudication not denied to the parties. The legal standards are stringent. When the record is not adequate to permit a conclusion that no material fact dispute exists, the entry of summary judgment is inappropriate. Kral v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 784 P.2d 759 (Colo. 1989). Moreover, 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. No one can be denied their right to due process in Law. LEGAL STANDARD Defendant in their LEGAL STANDARD referenced Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990) to state that there is no genuine issue of material fact. The issue is clear and irrefutable, BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO PRESUME STANDING, CHARACTER, CAPACITY AND STATUS to proceed in a non-judicial foreclosure action against Plaintiffs free and clear property. Possession of a promissory note is not proof of standing. The only proof that is acceptable to be holder in due course and to have standing, character, capacity and status is proof of consideration within a bona fide contract in the form of United States Constitutional dollars which is defined as, one dollar is one once of silver or some other mutually agreed form of substance equal to the Plaintiff as a flesh and blood, real woman of the land. The lack of evidence of this bona fide contract is a genuine issue and is not the Plaintiffs responsibility to prove, 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,
Page 3 of 11

SHOW ME THE MONEY. It is easy, allow Plaintiffs 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. Additionally, 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. Defendants want to make an issues of unsubstantiated accusations, put up or leave the field of battle. BACKGROUND First and foremost, Plaintiffs legal premises is that the issue upon which this instant matter is based is not a mortgage issue, but a contract issue, or in this case, lack of contract controversy and so Plaintiffs contention is that Plaintiff is the Creditor and in possession of real property and title by Right. Plaintiff is stating that there are only three pieces of evidence that exists regarding this instant mater, 1) The autograph on the note agreement. 2) The warranty deed assigning fee simple free and clear real property to Plaintiff. 3) Plaintiffs 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. Second, Plaintiff has diligently and with every last ounce of Plaintiffs ability tried to understand, through Administrative Process, by asking specific questions which required answers and by reading and studying information available on banking, mortgages and foreclosure, by what authority does Defendant believe that they have any business have with Plaintiff. There is no provable binding relationship or agency nor any authority that can be presumed. NONE. Based on this obvious lack of standing, character, capacity and or status, here are the stated claims Plaintiff has with these Defendants and through newly acquired information, a large number of Defendants are to be added to Plaintiffs second amended complaint. 1) From day one, Defendant and Defendants partners have lied and perjured themselves. 2) Defendant
Page 4 of 11

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. 3) Defendant and Defendants 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. 4) Defendant and Defendants partners filed false and malicious documents slandering title to Plaintiffs free and clear property. 5) Defendant and Defendants partners without proper authority required Plaintiff to go to work and earn equity from Plaintiffs own time, sweat and tears in order to make regular unnecessary extortion payments. 6) Upon becoming aware of the fraud perpetrated by Defendants and Defendants partners, Plaintiff distanced themselves from Defendants partners only to be further harassed through threat, duress and coercion to enticed Plaintiff to participate in immoral activities and committing known fraud. 7) and thereupon, Defendant and/or Defendants partners threatened Plaintiff with loss of personal real property through a non-judicial foreclosure, which is attempted grand larceny. 8) Defendants and Defendants partners have interference with enjoyment and use of private free and clear property, and 9) Defendants and Defendants partners have interference with contract rights to sell real property. AFFIDAVIT OF John and Jane Doe STATE OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY ) )

I, John and Jane Doe, am a sentient woman of the land, sui juris, and I am over the age of majority and have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein, and hereby asseverate understanding the liabilities presented in Briscoe v LaHue 460 US 325.

Page 5 of 11

I, John and Jane Doe, Plaintiff, hereby and herein make my challenge to authority pursuant to Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v Merrrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384. Whatever the form in which the Government function, 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, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. As further supported by Tarver, Steele & Co. v Pendleton Gin Co. 25 SW 2d 156 (Tex Civ Appl 1930) Principal and Agent Agency is never presumed, 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. A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null.


I, John and Jane Doe, upon information and belief, am the Creditor in this instant matter and therefore the holder in due course of 100% possession, lawful title and interest in the property commonly known as 6403 West Robin Lane, Glendale, Arizona 85310 and as evidenced by the documents attached herein. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth.

Page 6 of 11


Upon information and belief, 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. 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.


Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes when Plaintiff purchased the property using the services of CHAMBERS MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., Defendants partner, who were advertising that they lend money, but were in fact lying and Plaintiff believes the true objective was to get possession and unlawful control of Plaintiffs private property, namely Plaintiffs autograph. Plaintiff believes Defendants, Defendants Partners and Co-conspirators all had unjust enrichment through the theft of Plaintiffs private property and therefore have come into this court of controversy with unclean hands. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth.


Upon information and belief, 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. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth.

Page 7 of 11


Upon information and belief, and through education from reading various publications of the Federal Reserve Bank, one of them being Modern Money Mechanics (5th edition 1992) published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 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, or the depositors money or lend the lenders credit, leaving only one option left, which is the premise of Plaintiffs legal argument, Defendants partners SERVICED Plaintiffs private property called PLAINTIFFS CREDIT. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth.


Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes after doing a diligent study into the Federal Reserve Act, that it is clearly stated that the only True Holder in Due Course in the servicing of Credit, is the Creditor whos signature is being used to access that Credit, therefore, all the real Money, money created by the labor, blood sweat and tears of a real flesh and blood man or woman, requested by Defendants Partners and Co-conspirators, is extortion. If any one has proof contrary to this please provide the proof or this stands as Truth


Plaintiff did send Defendants a Qualified Written Request, herein, as Exhibit A, asking by what authority do they have to demand the extortion of Life, Liberty and Property from Plaintiff and notifying Defendants Partners and Co-conspirators repeatedly that Plaintiff did not understand and requested Validation of Debts per 18 USC 1692(g) which states:

809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

Page 8 of 11

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, 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, Defendants Partners and Co-conspirators. In fact when an answer came from Defendants Partners and Coconspirators, it was to tell Plaintiff in writing that it was none of your business. This makes Plaintiff uncertain of Defendants Partners and Co-conspirators motivation and Plaintiff is concerned that fairness, equity and or justice are not being addressed equally for both sides of this controversy.



Plaintiff, upon information and belief, believes that this violation alone null and voids any all actions on the part of the Defendants Partners and Co-conspirators, including but not limited to the non-judicial foreclosure action. Upon this belief and the information provided by Defendants Partners and Co-conspirators, Plaintiff accepted their silence as agreement with Plaintiff and with Defendants permission filed the appropriate documents to resolve the issue.


Upon information and belief, Plaintiff did record on August 00, 2011, at the Pinal County Recorders Office, herein Exhibits B and C, #2011-0000000, GRANTORS AFFIDAVIT OF CANCELLATION and supporting document Recorded #2011000000, VERIFIED BONDED DURABLE NOTICE OF INTEREST which, by standing and authority and having United States Constitutionally guaranteed

Page 9 of 11

unalienable granted Rights to cancel all clouds on Claimants Lawful Title to free and clear real property.


Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that justice has not been observed by Defendants, 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. And most critically, does John and Jane Doe, a flesh and blood woman, 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.


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 Plaintiffs free and clear real property. Plaintiff further Motions the Court to Order the Plaintiffs personal property in form of Plaintiffs autograph on a note currently in possession of Defendants attorneys to be immediately returned to Plaintiff.


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. In the nature of United States Supreme Court Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421 and Platsky v. C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 26, I am not an expert in the law however I do know


Page 10 of 11

right from wrong. If there is any human being damaged by any statements herein, if he will inform me by facts I will sincerely make every effort to amend my ways. 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 the parties given notice by means of this document have information that would controvert and overcome this Affidavit, please advise me IN WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT FORM within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof providing me with your counter-affidavit, 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, that this Affidavit Statement is substantially and materially false sufficiently to change materially my status and factual declarations. Your silence stands as consent to, and tacit approval of, the factual declarations herein being established as fact as a matter of law. Reserving ALL Natural Unalienable Birthrights, Waiving None, Ever. DATED October 31, 2011 John and Jane Doe, Plaintiff


Page 11 of 11