Ponder this; "Your honor, I rest on my pleadings, besides that, If I argue here at this bench trial, I waive my perfected Jury demand, so let's go to trial."

A party who properly perfected his right to a jury trial can waive that right by failing to object when the trial court proceeds with a bench trial.  Puntarelli v. Peterson , 405 S.W.3d 131, 134 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); Rodriguez v. Tex. Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 942 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no writ) - Hector E. Mendez and all other occupants v. Remanente LLC, Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Texas, 2017

Is that not a a crock of chit? The Texas Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury. Once the jury demand is perfected, the court has notice.  How in the name of Texas does a person waive his rights because he is forced into a bench trial for a summary judgment utilizing section § 51.0001(4)(C) of the Texas Property code? Nonetheless, it does help clear up why the summary judgment is the tool of the trade for those committing fraud in the real property arena. To distract!  To keep you from realzing your constitutional rights of substantial due process are being violated? And the judge [turn a blind eye] ignorantly ignores the litigants perfected right to trial by jury? Is this not discrimination against a class of citizens? Another constitutional violation?

America would not been found if it was not discovered by somebody.

Sign the petition  "Texas Legislature: Remove "51.0001(1) "book entry system" in Texas Property code" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.


NEW - Was the "Note" even "negotiable"? Do Texas Litigants take the note into account before they are violated of thier substantial due process rights guaraneed by the Constitutions?

Discover this; NEW - Yale Law Review; Read it because maybe you listen to law professors?

Homeowner's Rights under Foreclosure


Dire warning; Do not try to argue Article 3 for an eNote. It does not work. You are only helping spineless worms get away with the crime more easily. The courts are too ignorant to know the difference!

"Are you also stupid? Do you not know that nothing entering from outside a man can defile him?"

ALL information on this website is for educational purposes ONLY! I do not take claim to the work of others. They deserve the credit. I use their information to help you understand. Do not attempt to think it is legal advice, you would be wrong, it is from personal research and knowledge. It is not for monetary purposes, It is not substitution for legal advice, nor a lawyer, so don't think it is. Grasp at some other straw. That dog don't hunt!

Ponder this?

Hypothetical characters to think of; <John Doe> v. U.S. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-1  <name changed to protect the innocent> 

The following excerpt is from an intercepted email from a group of law people. Although it may appear on its face that this does not apply, but if you understand MERS, you will pick up on how the MERS members accomplish what they do. I like these professors, and don't know them guys, and not against them either, but thought I would pass this along "unidentified". If you want to know the identity go look to the UCC lawlist server, that's where it came from.

Part I

Say you have an entity where there is a strict prohibition (contained in a valid shareholders agreement and conspicuously marked on the certificates) on “transfers of stock without consent of the other shareholders, including by operation of law.”

One of the shareholders has shares held in the name of “X Trust Co. as trustee of the Y Trust for the benefit of Z.” X Trust Co., under state law, is the “owner” in trust of the shares. X Trust Co. seeks to resign as trustee for reasons unrelated to this stock. W Trust Co., duly authorized by law to serve as trustee and to hold the shares, is to be appointed to replace X Trust Co., as authorized by the trust instrument and approved by a court to the extent necessary under state law. Neither the trust instrument nor the beneficiaries is changing at all.

As I read Articles 1 and 8, W Trust Co. is a purchaser and must go through the hoops necessary under Article 8 to get its transfer registered, which would seem to include the need for consent of all the other shareholders.

But somehow, that doesn’t seem all that satisfying. X Trust Co. might have gone out of business, been taken over by the FDIC or lost its trust powers, making the need to transfer to a new trustee mandatory, and W. Trust Co. could even have all the same trust officers administering the trust as X Trust Co. did before.

Part II

I think the answer to your issue will be found under corporate law (and possibly contract law) but not under the UCC.

First, I question whether W Trust is a “purchaser”. In order to be one, it must acquire an “interest in property” (i.e., in the shares). See 9-102(29). It looks like W Trust has assumed an obligation but I wonder whether it has acquired an independent interest as such, unless under applicable trust law the “legal ownership” of a trustee equates to an “interest in property” under Article 8.

Second, even if W Trust is a purchaser, and if you assume the restriction was imposed by the issuer (which seems unlikely because of the shareholder vote requirement), 8-204 does not apply to prevent the transfer because that section defers to other law (in your case corporate and contract law) regarding the validity of the restriction (see Cmts. 1 and 5). Article 8 only applies to restrictions on transfer imposed by the issuer itself. (8-204). What I think this means is that for Article 8 purposes, the restriction may be effective (if issuer-imposed), but only if it is legally enforceable.

Under MBCA section 6.27 (which section, or something like it, has been adopted in most state corporate codes), restrictions on transfer are generally enforceable if imposed for one of the purposes set forth in that section:

(c) A restriction on the transfer or registration of transfer of shares is authorized: * * * (3) for any other reasonable purpose.

(d) A restriction on the transfer or registration of transfer of shares may: * * *

(3) require the corporation, the holders of any class of its shares, or another person to approve the transfer of the restricted shares, if the requirement is not manifestly unreasonable; or

The only purpose in that section that appears to apply to your facts is subs. (d)(3), but in all events, the restriction must be reasonable. I would argue that a restriction on the transfer from X Trust to W Trust is unreasonable because the other shareholders should have no interest in imposing such a restriction (they are not harmed in any way by the transfer) and, if they had thought about the issue, would have permitted it in the shareholders agreement. You might also fall back on the common law rule against unreasonable restraints on alienation.

Bet you probably never though about looking into "corporate law" have you? Whether you've come to realize the MERS emachine, or not, you won't win fighting the traditional way. MERS member use Article 8, not 3, nor 9 for their actions, under the guise of 3 or 9. That's what happens when the courts or others ass/u/me. Oh, and in Texas, corporate law is found in Business Organizations Code. It can be found in other states also. So, how does an "electronic agent" conduct fiduciary business acts? It can't in a material world. Only in the world of electronics could it accomplish a task. Ask a software programmer that writes "bots" code?

Really, there is no way to know who is not involved until this MERS thing busts wide open.


my test pdf file


Think about it

Whether people in "non-judicial" foreclosure states realize this or not, they might want to think about it? A notice of trustee sale is similar to a summary judgment. Your constitutional right to due process of law is being violated. Most lawyers who represent clients whom are MERS members "record" their assignment of choice in public records most times, prior to a "notice of trustee sale". If these lawyers are not challenged, the homeowner will abandon your real property, and that is it. Why do you abandon it? An abandoned property makes it easy for the thieves to flip a house.

We hold that Cashmere cannot claim the deduction because its investments in REMICs and CMOs were not "primarily secured" by first mortgages or trust deeds. Cashmere's investments in REMICs and CMOs gave it the right to receive defined income streams from a pool of mortgages, trust deeds, and mortgage-backed securities, held in trust for investors. The ultimate source of cash flow was mortgage payments. However, Cashmere's investments were not backed by any encumbrance on property nor did Cashmere have any legal recourse to the underlying trust assets in the event of default. Thus, Cashmere's investments were not "primarily secured" by mortgages or trust deeds.  See Cashmere Valley Bank v. STATE, DEPT. OF REV, 334 P. 3d 1100 - Wash: Supreme Court 2014

For those few brave souls whom take on the challenge against the MERS members, you best be ready for the war. They don't care. They will change your life. You must be warned that if you take them on, it is a 50 to 1; sometimes 100 to 1. In other words; the bank has many lawyers and there is only one of you. You will be papered to the point it will scare the fecal matter out of you. They will make you fear them because they know how to whoop your underworld, with rules & procedures. I've walked the path from the JP, all the way up to the highest court in the state of Texas. My petitions are in public domain. Never in my life was I ever that fearful falling from the sky. Today, praise my Father, I know why.

One thing a pro se should think about is; look at cases lost. If you understand, you will see how the courts seemingly tell the litigant what they did wrong. Learn from the wrongs to help you make right.

I've found that by the MERS members moving of the case from state court to federal court only provides a greater opportunity for a litigant opposing such a claimant who can not prevail by using rules and procedures to avoid using law to prove its "interest in". It only causes more harm to the "pretender lender", if the man in the robe allows a full disclosure and discovery process before allowing a summary judgment to be utilized in an unconstitutional manner. Otherwise, the man in the robe violates his oath?

When you understand the MERS debacle, you will find the business affidavits used by MERS members are referencing Article 7, & 8 "business records" while you conclude they are old school "business records". You do know what homonym means right? I think the courts in Florida realize the MERS member, SunTrust, business records "exceptions" thing more, even though the intangible was not noticed? If it were, the court would have seen fraud upon the court perpetrated by SunTrust.

You do know documents are "just made up out of thin air", right? Michael Barrett, of Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner and Engel, in Addison Texas, said his firm does that in a task force meeting for the Texas Supreme Court. Read it.

Get get those meetings started though, it took another "new republic of Texas" person, like the Tommy G. Bastian letter to the Tex. Sup. Ct.

Fabricated "assignments" of Stephen C. Porter?

Understand lawyers do use "Rambo" tactics at time.

Understand how to make the plaintiff pay for evasive discovery tactics. If the link does not work, here is the pdf

Let the lawyers teach you discovery tactics: The Good, the Bad and the outrageous it is their arena. Pdf

Evidence, what is and what is not admitted? Read Business Affidavits, Admissible or inadmissible?

"Intangible" discovery

Request for Admissions

Request for Interrogatories

Request for Production

There is much more to provide here. I will work to update as time is possible. I lost my first battle, but the war is not over. I've learned I didn't know they relied so heavily on the rules & procedures, and an individual in a robe, to defeat me, and know how their tactics caused harm to the man in the robe for going along with them, not to mention my family. I know the judges who turn a blind eye to justice. Pity them. Their acts are accomplished.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

For the year 2015, I've only seen two cases referring to the term "transferable record"? In both instances, it is easy to see that the courts do not understand MERS, eNote's, transferable records, the securitization process, nor the illegality of the intangible party using the court's ignorance to prevail in a civil case. Or is the court turning a blind eye to law. Or is it the man in the robe acting outside his authority?

1. Andrews v. COUNTRYWIDE BANK, NA, Dist. Court, WD Washington 2015

[6] For example, the Andrews claim that "Defendant [DBSP] by bifurcating the payment stream intangible obligation as a(transferable record) [sic] pursuant to RCW 62A.8-102 negotiating — selling (conveying) outside of negotiation — selling (conveying) the Andrews Note to Defendant [DAAS], Defendant [DBSP] became the account debtor for the payment stream (transferable record) intangible obligation sold to the Defendant [DAAS]." (Compl. ¶ 72.)

2. Allen v. Washington Mutual Bank, Dist. Court, WD Texas 2015

Because Plaintiff has failed to state any underlying claim for which declaratory relief can be granted, id., the undersigned RECOMMENDS the District Court GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #6] on this issue and DISMISS Plaintiff's claims for declaratory judgment.

Whether the litigants presented enough evidence or facts to the court for a valid determination is not exactly known without reading the pleadings, but the question still arises; Is the court system invaded by corrupt men? Are the men in robes that ignorant? Surely these "authority" figures hold an education? Another question is; Are they willing to throw it all away for chump change from a criminal supporter? Only their conscious will know.

If you would like to see how a court seemingly explains a crime, yet nobody questioned, or caught it, look at this opinion and see if you find the problem? Good v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, 18 NE 3d 618 - Ind: Court of Appeals 2014. Wells Fargo claims to be a "holder", yet also claims to be a "servicer" for Fannie Mae, the "holder" of an electronic promissory note. A simple opinion explaining a crime out the wazoo and yet the court is too ignorant to see the admittance of a crime in the Banks pleadings? Then hold those lies by the bank to be the truth? Even the court seems to think the federal government can be defrauded? These are unknowing acts of treason. Nevertheless, the court did see that there was an issue of the "note" claim, and reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court. Now, if Good understands the "laws that govern", can a crime be proven?

Did you know federal civil rules of procedure changed a bit this month? Read this article; "An End to the Kitchen Sink Approach to Discovery Objections" Looks like "general denial" won't cut the mustard?

Fear of the unknown is the cause. Therefore you receive the effect.  Fear not!

Read a rescission case out of Oregon. Rescission is something to think about?

Foreclosure (excerpts from U.S Bank v. George - Ohio)

A foreclosure proceeding is the enforcement of a debt obligation. Wilborn v. Bank One Corp., 121 Ohio St.3d 546, 2009-Ohio-306, 906 N.E.2d 396. As a result, foreclosure in Ohio is a two-step process. First Knox Natl. Bank v. Peterson, 5th Dist. Knox No. 08CA28, 2009-Ohio-5096, 2009 WL 3086583, ¶ 18. Only after the court determines liability on the underlying obligation can it proceed to the foreclosure analysis under the mortgage. Id. Thus, a determination of liability under the note is a prerequisite to enforcement of the mortgage itself because a mortgage is but an incident to the debt it secures. Kernohan v. Manss, 53 Ohio St. 118, 133, 41 N.E. 258 (1895). As stated by the United States Supreme Court, "[t]he note and the mortgage are inseparable; the former essential, the latter incident." Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274, 16 Wall. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872).  -  US BANK NATL. ASSN. v. George, 2015 Ohio 4957 - Ohio: Court of Appeals, 10th Appellate Dist.

Once it has been determined as a matter of law that a default on the obligation secured by the mortgage has occurred, the court must then consider the equities to determine if foreclosure is the appropriate remedy. See First Knox Natl. Bank v. Peterson, 5th Dist. No. 08CA28, 2009-Ohio-5096, 2009 WL 3086583, ¶ 18, citing Rosselot v. Heimbrock (1988), 54 Ohio App.3d 103, 105-106, 561 N.E.2d 555. Moreover, because foreclosure is equitable relief, "the simple assertion of the elements of foreclosure does not require, as a matter of law, the remedy of foreclosure." See First Natl. Bank of Am. v. Pendergrass, 6th Dist. No. E-08-048, 2009-Ohio-3208, 2009 WL 1865127,¶ 22.

{¶ 14} Here, appellee claims to be the holder and person entitled to enforce both the note and the mortgage executed by appellants upon the purchase of their home. As such, appellee must prove both of its claims whether in a single action or in a series of actions. If appellee achieves satisfaction of its claim under the note, that is, in law, a court may proceed in equity as against the property that secures that repayment of the note. Barker. In the matter under review, the trial court granted summary judgment in both law and equity, ostensibly permitting foreclosure to occur by denying appellants' challenge to appellee's legal standing to enforce the note.

{¶ 22} Because it is the note that creates the debt, and not the mortgage, unless and until the right to enforce the original note has been established, there is no basis for foreclosure. "Under Ohio common law, where a promissory note is secured by a mortgage, the note is evidence of the debt and the mortgage is a mere incident of the debt." U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Gray, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-953, 2013-Ohio-3340, ¶ 32, citing Edgar v. Haines, 109 Ohio St. 159, 164 (1923), and Kernohan v. Manss, 53 Ohio St. 118, 133 (1895); Pasqualone at ¶ 38.

{¶ 26} "`"Where the party does not rely on any specific statute authorizing invocation of the judicial process, the question of standing depends on whether the party has alleged * * * a `personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.'"'" Schwartzwald at ¶ 21, quoting Cleveland v. Shaker Hts., 30 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 (1987), quoting Middletown v. Ferguson, 25 Ohio St.3d 71, 75 (1986), quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731-32 (1972), quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962). The maker of a note or mortgagor who is facing enforcement at law on the note or enforcement in equity on the mortgage has a personal stake in challenging whether a person claiming to be entitled to enforce such a note or a mortgage has been duly transferred or assigned rights under either or both instruments, regardless of whether or not the challenger is in privity with the person claiming the right to enforce.

Appellants argue that different copies of the note—the first attached to the complaint and amended complaint, and the second attached to the motion for summary judgment—present genuine issues of material fact to preclude summary judgment. We find this point to be well-taken, and we depart from the conclusion of the trial court.

We thus extend our holding in Pasqualone to clarify that standing broadly exists for persons to challenge the validity of the transfer of a note or assignment of the mortgage, whether or not in privity with the person entitled to enforce the note or mortgage, regardless of whether or not the note has been negotiated and transferred under R.C. Chapter 13, Ohio's codification of the Uniform Commercial Code.


{¶ 35} We sustain appellants' sole assignment of error for the reasons stated in this decision and reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, thereby denying appellee's motion for summary judgment and remand this case to the trial court with instructions to proceed in accordance with this decision.


"For from within the heart of the children of men proceed evil ideas, adultery, fornication, theft, murder, greed, wickedness, deceit, harlotry, an evil eye, blasphemy, boasting, senselessness. All these evils proceed from within and defile a man."

Blessed are you poor ones, because yours is the Kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you, whenever men shall hate you and shall separate you and shall insult you and shall cast out your name as evil for The Son of Man's sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for your reward is great in Heaven, for so were their fathers doing to The Prophets.

But woe to you rich men, for you have received your comfort! Woe to you satisfied ones, for you shall hunger! Woe to you who are laughing now, for you shall weep and you shall wail. Woe to you when men shall say wonderful things about you, for so were their fathers doing to the false Prophets!

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and it will be given to you in good measure, pressed down and overflowing; they shall cast into your lap. For with what measure you measure it will be measured to you.

Think about it?

For what its worth

Don't go getting any ideas that anything on this website is considered as legal advice, legal opinion, or substitute for legal counsel. I speak from my life experience, therefore I provide my knowledge and understanding to those whom are interested.

The world have been deceived. What was hidden is being revealed.