Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:33 pm by globalturboRemove this section
What you will read is no longer theory; I and 16 witnesses saw it happen in court. It’s not based on "paythe-idiot" concepts, it’s all basic American juris prudence and stare decisis. But you MUST stay on track, if you can’t do this in open court it will not work. There is ONLY one element to this concept. If you can stay with that they are screwed, if you can’t you, are screwed. It is that simple.
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED A WORK PRODUCT AND IS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHTED. THE AUTHOR RELINQUISHES NO RIGHTS TO SAID PRODUCT, YET ALLOWS THE DOCUMENT AND CONCEPT TO BE ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR ALL TO USE; EXCEPT SAID PRODUCT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATIONS, THE CONCEPT IN WHOLE OR PART, MAY NOT BE SOLD AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON, IN WHOLE AND/OR IN PART AND/OR AS PART OF ANY AND ALL OTHER CONCEPTS, DOCUMENTS, PLEADINGS, AND/OR THE LIKE.
The "legal concept" defined herein shall hereby forever in all matters of law; civil, criminal, equity, chancery, admiralty, maritime, law merchant, ecclesiastical, et al, be known in perpetuity by all; jurisdictions, fictions, peoples, courts, parties, et al, as:
The Mobius Nemsis Doctrine
The foundational principles are derived specifically from, and for, the original foundational doctrine of all American jurisprudence; the 1611 version of the Holy Scriptures; known as the King James version of the Bible., specifically, pursuant to, in accordance with, and in the nature of:
Proverbs 23:23, "Buy the truth, and sell it not."
If you are the Plaintiff, call the Defendant a "Fictitious Payee"
If you are the Defendant call the Plaintiff a "Fictitious Plaintiff"
The Mobius Nemsis Doctrine defined:
In matters of debt and/or debt collection, foreclosure,
Deed of Trust transfer and/or sale, and/or the like:
1. The bank and/or its entities, subsidiaries, and/or the like shall be queried in court and/or correspondence when they are the Defendant accordingly:
The Bank is not the CREDITOR and is therefore a Fictitious Payee.
2. The bank and/or its entities, subsidiaries, and/or the like shall be queried in court and/or correspondence when they are the Plaintiff accordingly:
The Bank is not the CREDITOR and is therefore a Fictitious Plaintiff.
3. Any and all institution's employees making statements to any and all parties concerning Promissory Notes shall hereby be considered by any and all courts in any and all actions to have adequately survived the Decker Test.
DEFINITIONS:
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 624
Fictitious payee. Negotiable instrument is drawn to fictitious payee whenever payee named in it has no right to it, and its maker does not intend that such payee shall take anything by it; whether name of payee used by maker is that of person living or dead or one who never existed is immaterial. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of California v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., 1 Cal.App.2d 694, 37 P.2d 483. The test is not whether the named payee is "fictitious" but whether the signer intends that he shall have no interest in the instrument. U.C.C. § 3-405.
Fictitious plaintiff. A person appearing in the writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 407
Decker test. Under the "Decker test," an employee of a corporation, though not a member of its control group, is sufficiently identified with the corporation so that his communication to the corporation's lawyer is privileged where the employee made the communication at the direction of his supervisors and where the subject matter on which the lawyer's advice was sought by the corporation and dealt with in the communication was with the performance by the employee of the duties of his employment. Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., D.C.Va., 68 F.R.D. 397, 401.
If you are in USDC instead of a local court, change the Rules listed in the document. Arizona accepted the Federal Rules almost verbatim, but check each and every rule. PLOL.org is a great source for doing that.
1. Go to the bank with 3 notary publics, a tape recorder and a document to schedule a meeting to tender payment for the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE. Speak to an "officer" of the bank. If they refuse to set the appointment or supply the NOTE, get notaries to write affidavits to what they heard "officer" state. If you do get a meeting and the bank brings a "copy" of the NOTE, contact the FBI, they call that counterfeiting. The "officer" will probably somehow admit there is no NOTE. This will be evidence and the notaries will be witnesses as they cannot be denied under hearsay.
2. Now its time to file the COMPLAINT. I prefer Superior Court, but USDC is fine.
a. If your house has already been stolen and you are gone, the case will be based on "fraud" and you will be suing them for fraudulent conversion of real property. You can make a deal for money or return of property.
3. I think its best to go after a civilian, not a corporation, that is why the caption set is done the way it is.
4. CONCEPT SIMPLIFIED:
The BANK is NOT the CREDITOR, you are, but if you don’t already know this I won’t explain why here, just go with that.
If the Bank claims to be the CREDITOR their REMIC TRUST is immediately collapsed. That’s a bigger deal then it sounds as such would pertain to ALL of their properties, and they have stolen a lot of them.
See: TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter M, PART II, §§ 850-862
If the Bank does not claim to be the CREDITOR, they have no rights, no standing, and can’t do anything but comply with your demands. Lawyers know this, and it scares the hell out of them.
5. Your mantra in court will ALWAYS be, no matter what they ask or say:
When you are Plaintiff:
The Bank is not the CREDITOR and is therefore a Fictitious Payee.
When you are Defendant:
The Bank is not the CREDITOR and is therefore a Fictitious Plaintiff.
6. If you don’t go off subject and always object to any and all questions until "status" is determined and/or stipulated to by the BANK, they are toast. Everything that will happen in court will be to prevent the BANK from saying whether or not they are the CREDITOR.
7. Do not try to act smart in court, smart doesn’t work, Rules and Laws work. A lot of "smart people" right now are homeless. Court is a war of attrition, and in war as many smart people die as stupid people, experienced people survive.
8. You don not "understand" anything, ever, under any reason, it is a death sentence in court.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1526
Understand. To know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as, to understand the nature and effect of an act. International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Pence, Tex. Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 206, 210. To have a full and clear knowledge of; to comprehend. Thus, to invalidate a deed on the ground that the grantor did not understand the nature of the act, the grantor must be incapable of comprehending that the effect of the act would divest him of the title to the land set forth in the deed. As used in connection with the execution of wills and other instruments, the term includes the realization of the practical effects and consequences of the proposed act. See Capacity.
Understanding. In the law of contracts, an agreement. An implied agreement resulting from the express terms of another agreement, whether written or oral. An informal agreement, or a concurrence as to its terms. A valid contract engagement of a somewhat informal character. This is a loose and ambiguous term, unless it be accompanied by some expression to show that it constituted a meeting of the minds of parties upon something respecting which they intended to be bound. See Agreement; Contract.
9. You are pro per/pro se/sui juris, learn why that protects you from "form" and that you can ONLY be held to function. More cases are won and lost over "form" than everything else combined.
10. We do "mock trials" every week to prepare for court. Do not go into court thinking you will be able to handle it. It is intimidating and you will spend your time thinking about being intimidated instead of the issues. Practice, practice, practice. Start objecting to everything everyone says until they can "cite" the reason for their belief.
11. There are 26 valid objections, if you don’t know them, learn them. It’s better to state the reason when objecting with a quick bite. If you don’t you will probably asked to explain the reason, which is almost impossible to accomplish.
12. DO NOT SELL THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS BLESSED AND IT IS CURSED, act accordingly. This document was written to educate people and help them be free. It was not intended to be used by "paythe-idiots" to do to innocent civilians what the bankers and lawyers are already doing. You can use it to help others, and your labor is valuable, but don’t be greedy.
13. This document was done in collaboration with numerous civilians, all of which deserve credit. The primary author is doing so at his own peril and in grave risk of his life and liberty. There are powerful evil forces and people that would rather the author be caged or dead. Take a moment and say a prayer for his safety and freedom so he can continue on with his work.
14. The highlighted portions are what gets changed. You must adapt the document according to your needs.
15. There are typos, oh well. It’s been edited several times but it is very comprehensive and is meant to be an extensive diatribe. It’s the claims and your mantra that matter.
16. VERY IMPORTANT. Plaintiff and Defendant may need to be reversed. The document is written for a Plaintiff, if you are being sued by the BANK, you are the Defendant. Sometimes it will be Petitioner/Respondent, know what it is in the jurisdiction and court you will be operating in.
17. Civil Rights are for civilians, the 14th Amendment is a good thing if you are a civilian, but not if you are an enemy of the state. The "paythe-idiots" are lost on this simple fact, it is why their stuff does not work.
Now, for MY OPINION on why I think everything else is failing. I am telling you this so you will understand what happens in court and why the document is written the way it is.
We are the CREDITORs, the BANK is the DEBTOR. When we start telling them to follow RESPA, TILE, Title 15, etc we are "stating the claim" they are the CREDITOR because those items ONLY regard CREDITORS. As the CREDITOR we are then voluntarily forsaking our status and giving it to them. CREDITORS do not have to produce NOTEs if we already stipulate they are the CREDITOR. If we claim they are not the CREDITOR, then they have to prove they are the CREDITOR, which requires them to produce the NOTE. They can’t claim they are the CREDITOR because their REMIC prohibits from from being the CREDITOR. Catch 22, Heads we win, tails they lose.
If they don’t stipulate in court to being the CREDITOR, then the judge can ONLY PRESUME we must be the CREDITOR. The judge can ONLY assist the CREDITOR, he cannot help a DEBTOR. He can show mercy to a DEBTOR, but don’t expect it.
This is the whole concept, there is NOTHING more. Everything else is just there to confuse this single issue.
CREDITOR wins, DEBTOR looses, ALWAYS, EVERYTIME. You do not need to prove they are the DEBTOR as a CREDITOR need not prove ANYTHING. All you must do is establish that they will NOT claim to be the CREDITOR.
I like Latin phrases and Maxims of Law. When you read one, learn it and learn why Maxims are good to use.
CHANGES IN DOCUMENT:
1. Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendant/Respondent depending on where and who you are.
2. Rules of Procedure, depends on what court, state, USDC, etc.
3. Caption set, depends on if it’s a TRO, suit for fraud, etc.
4. Laws, the ones listed are for Arizona, each state is different. The actual statutes are not necessary, you can just replace with the concept. You could even just remove the numbers and leave the definition, let them figure it out.
5. Filing procedures can be different for every state. If in USDC you need to look up the judge they assign you and follow his specific guidelines. They suck as each judge has different rules that must be followed. It’s a trick that you need to be aware of. But remember, you are not a BAR attorney, you cannot be punished for form, only function. They must inform you of errors and let you correct them, but don’t push it.
6. If you find an issue, let me know. If you decide just to change it to help yourself you really don’t deserve for anyone to help you.
7. If you are in a judicial state, you can still proceed as Plaintiff. Plaintiff has numerous advantages over Defendant in most cases. Like in this case you can claim they are a Fictitious Payee which is more viral than a Fictitious Plaintiff, but either fictitious entity is hard to defend.
Bottom line, we will all win this or we will all lose this.
United we stand, divided we will probably be enslaved or executed
What you will read is no longer theory; I and 16 witnesses saw it happen in court. It’s not based on "paythe-idiot" concepts, it’s all basic American juris prudence and stare decisis. But you MUST stay on track, if you can’t do this in open court it will not work. There is ONLY one element to this concept. If you can stay with that they are screwed, if you can’t you, are screwed. It is that simple.
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED A WORK PRODUCT AND IS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHTED. THE AUTHOR RELINQUISHES NO RIGHTS TO SAID PRODUCT, YET ALLOWS THE DOCUMENT AND CONCEPT TO BE ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR ALL TO USE; EXCEPT SAID PRODUCT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATIONS, THE CONCEPT IN WHOLE OR PART, MAY NOT BE SOLD AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON, IN WHOLE AND/OR IN PART AND/OR AS PART OF ANY AND ALL OTHER CONCEPTS, DOCUMENTS, PLEADINGS, AND/OR THE LIKE.
The "legal concept" defined herein shall hereby forever in all matters of law; civil, criminal, equity, chancery, admiralty, maritime, law merchant, ecclesiastical, et al, be known in perpetuity by all; jurisdictions, fictions, peoples, courts, parties, et al, as:
The Mobius Nemsis Doctrine
The foundational principles are derived specifically from, and for, the original foundational doctrine of all American jurisprudence; the 1611 version of the Holy Scriptures; known as the King James version of the Bible., specifically, pursuant to, in accordance with, and in the nature of:
Proverbs 23:23, "Buy the truth, and sell it not."
If you are the Plaintiff, call the Defendant a "Fictitious Payee"
If you are the Defendant call the Plaintiff a "Fictitious Plaintiff"
The Mobius Nemsis Doctrine defined:
In matters of debt and/or debt collection, foreclosure,
Deed of Trust transfer and/or sale, and/or the like:
1. The bank and/or its entities, subsidiaries, and/or the like shall be queried in court and/or correspondence when they are the Defendant accordingly:
The Bank is not the CREDITOR and is therefore a Fictitious Payee.
2. The bank and/or its entities, subsidiaries, and/or the like shall be queried in court and/or correspondence when they are the Plaintiff accordingly:
The Bank is not the CREDITOR and is therefore a Fictitious Plaintiff.
3. Any and all institution's employees making statements to any and all parties concerning Promissory Notes shall hereby be considered by any and all courts in any and all actions to have adequately survived the Decker Test.
DEFINITIONS:
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 624
Fictitious payee. Negotiable instrument is drawn to fictitious payee whenever payee named in it has no right to it, and its maker does not intend that such payee shall take anything by it; whether name of payee used by maker is that of person living or dead or one who never existed is immaterial. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of California v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., 1 Cal.App.2d 694, 37 P.2d 483. The test is not whether the named payee is "fictitious" but whether the signer intends that he shall have no interest in the instrument. U.C.C. § 3-405.
Fictitious plaintiff. A person appearing in the writ, complaint, or record as the plaintiff in a suit, but who in reality does not exist, or who is ignorant of the suit and of the use of his name in it. It is a contempt of court to sue in the name of a fictitious party.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 407
Decker test. Under the "Decker test," an employee of a corporation, though not a member of its control group, is sufficiently identified with the corporation so that his communication to the corporation's lawyer is privileged where the employee made the communication at the direction of his supervisors and where the subject matter on which the lawyer's advice was sought by the corporation and dealt with in the communication was with the performance by the employee of the duties of his employment. Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., D.C.Va., 68 F.R.D. 397, 401.
If you are in USDC instead of a local court, change the Rules listed in the document. Arizona accepted the Federal Rules almost verbatim, but check each and every rule. PLOL.org is a great source for doing that.
1. Go to the bank with 3 notary publics, a tape recorder and a document to schedule a meeting to tender payment for the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE. Speak to an "officer" of the bank. If they refuse to set the appointment or supply the NOTE, get notaries to write affidavits to what they heard "officer" state. If you do get a meeting and the bank brings a "copy" of the NOTE, contact the FBI, they call that counterfeiting. The "officer" will probably somehow admit there is no NOTE. This will be evidence and the notaries will be witnesses as they cannot be denied under hearsay.
2. Now its time to file the COMPLAINT. I prefer Superior Court, but USDC is fine.
a. If your house has already been stolen and you are gone, the case will be based on "fraud" and you will be suing them for fraudulent conversion of real property. You can make a deal for money or return of property.
3. I think its best to go after a civilian, not a corporation, that is why the caption set is done the way it is.
4. CONCEPT SIMPLIFIED:
The BANK is NOT the CREDITOR, you are, but if you don’t already know this I won’t explain why here, just go with that.
If the Bank claims to be the CREDITOR their REMIC TRUST is immediately collapsed. That’s a bigger deal then it sounds as such would pertain to ALL of their properties, and they have stolen a lot of them.
See: TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter M, PART II, §§ 850-862
If the Bank does not claim to be the CREDITOR, they have no rights, no standing, and can’t do anything but comply with your demands. Lawyers know this, and it scares the hell out of them.
5. Your mantra in court will ALWAYS be, no matter what they ask or say:
When you are Plaintiff:
The Bank is not the CREDITOR and is therefore a Fictitious Payee.
When you are Defendant:
The Bank is not the CREDITOR and is therefore a Fictitious Plaintiff.
6. If you don’t go off subject and always object to any and all questions until "status" is determined and/or stipulated to by the BANK, they are toast. Everything that will happen in court will be to prevent the BANK from saying whether or not they are the CREDITOR.
7. Do not try to act smart in court, smart doesn’t work, Rules and Laws work. A lot of "smart people" right now are homeless. Court is a war of attrition, and in war as many smart people die as stupid people, experienced people survive.
8. You don not "understand" anything, ever, under any reason, it is a death sentence in court.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1526
Understand. To know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as, to understand the nature and effect of an act. International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Pence, Tex. Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 206, 210. To have a full and clear knowledge of; to comprehend. Thus, to invalidate a deed on the ground that the grantor did not understand the nature of the act, the grantor must be incapable of comprehending that the effect of the act would divest him of the title to the land set forth in the deed. As used in connection with the execution of wills and other instruments, the term includes the realization of the practical effects and consequences of the proposed act. See Capacity.
Understanding. In the law of contracts, an agreement. An implied agreement resulting from the express terms of another agreement, whether written or oral. An informal agreement, or a concurrence as to its terms. A valid contract engagement of a somewhat informal character. This is a loose and ambiguous term, unless it be accompanied by some expression to show that it constituted a meeting of the minds of parties upon something respecting which they intended to be bound. See Agreement; Contract.
9. You are pro per/pro se/sui juris, learn why that protects you from "form" and that you can ONLY be held to function. More cases are won and lost over "form" than everything else combined.
10. We do "mock trials" every week to prepare for court. Do not go into court thinking you will be able to handle it. It is intimidating and you will spend your time thinking about being intimidated instead of the issues. Practice, practice, practice. Start objecting to everything everyone says until they can "cite" the reason for their belief.
11. There are 26 valid objections, if you don’t know them, learn them. It’s better to state the reason when objecting with a quick bite. If you don’t you will probably asked to explain the reason, which is almost impossible to accomplish.
12. DO NOT SELL THIS DOCUMENT. IT IS BLESSED AND IT IS CURSED, act accordingly. This document was written to educate people and help them be free. It was not intended to be used by "paythe-idiots" to do to innocent civilians what the bankers and lawyers are already doing. You can use it to help others, and your labor is valuable, but don’t be greedy.
13. This document was done in collaboration with numerous civilians, all of which deserve credit. The primary author is doing so at his own peril and in grave risk of his life and liberty. There are powerful evil forces and people that would rather the author be caged or dead. Take a moment and say a prayer for his safety and freedom so he can continue on with his work.
14. The highlighted portions are what gets changed. You must adapt the document according to your needs.
15. There are typos, oh well. It’s been edited several times but it is very comprehensive and is meant to be an extensive diatribe. It’s the claims and your mantra that matter.
16. VERY IMPORTANT. Plaintiff and Defendant may need to be reversed. The document is written for a Plaintiff, if you are being sued by the BANK, you are the Defendant. Sometimes it will be Petitioner/Respondent, know what it is in the jurisdiction and court you will be operating in.
17. Civil Rights are for civilians, the 14th Amendment is a good thing if you are a civilian, but not if you are an enemy of the state. The "paythe-idiots" are lost on this simple fact, it is why their stuff does not work.
Now, for MY OPINION on why I think everything else is failing. I am telling you this so you will understand what happens in court and why the document is written the way it is.
We are the CREDITORs, the BANK is the DEBTOR. When we start telling them to follow RESPA, TILE, Title 15, etc we are "stating the claim" they are the CREDITOR because those items ONLY regard CREDITORS. As the CREDITOR we are then voluntarily forsaking our status and giving it to them. CREDITORS do not have to produce NOTEs if we already stipulate they are the CREDITOR. If we claim they are not the CREDITOR, then they have to prove they are the CREDITOR, which requires them to produce the NOTE. They can’t claim they are the CREDITOR because their REMIC prohibits from from being the CREDITOR. Catch 22, Heads we win, tails they lose.
If they don’t stipulate in court to being the CREDITOR, then the judge can ONLY PRESUME we must be the CREDITOR. The judge can ONLY assist the CREDITOR, he cannot help a DEBTOR. He can show mercy to a DEBTOR, but don’t expect it.
This is the whole concept, there is NOTHING more. Everything else is just there to confuse this single issue.
CREDITOR wins, DEBTOR looses, ALWAYS, EVERYTIME. You do not need to prove they are the DEBTOR as a CREDITOR need not prove ANYTHING. All you must do is establish that they will NOT claim to be the CREDITOR.
I like Latin phrases and Maxims of Law. When you read one, learn it and learn why Maxims are good to use.
CHANGES IN DOCUMENT:
1. Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendant/Respondent depending on where and who you are.
2. Rules of Procedure, depends on what court, state, USDC, etc.
3. Caption set, depends on if it’s a TRO, suit for fraud, etc.
4. Laws, the ones listed are for Arizona, each state is different. The actual statutes are not necessary, you can just replace with the concept. You could even just remove the numbers and leave the definition, let them figure it out.
5. Filing procedures can be different for every state. If in USDC you need to look up the judge they assign you and follow his specific guidelines. They suck as each judge has different rules that must be followed. It’s a trick that you need to be aware of. But remember, you are not a BAR attorney, you cannot be punished for form, only function. They must inform you of errors and let you correct them, but don’t push it.
6. If you find an issue, let me know. If you decide just to change it to help yourself you really don’t deserve for anyone to help you.
7. If you are in a judicial state, you can still proceed as Plaintiff. Plaintiff has numerous advantages over Defendant in most cases. Like in this case you can claim they are a Fictitious Payee which is more viral than a Fictitious Plaintiff, but either fictitious entity is hard to defend.
Bottom line, we will all win this or we will all lose this.
United we stand, divided we will probably be enslaved or executed
