Common law Copyright © 2010 My Private Audio - All Rights Reserved
Please Support John Stuart
Mail your Contribution to:
John Stuart, Pro per
4101 West Union Hills Drive
Apartment #1043
Glendale, Arizona (85308)
Or paypal
if more convenient.
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, THIS IS FOR EDUCATION ONLY, AND IS WHAT I MIGHT DO IF IN A CERTAIN SITUATION.
COMMON LAW COPYRIGHTED AND RELEASED BY THE AUTHOR INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
A legal doctrine developed by: John Chester; of the family Stuart
Show me the loan!
Talkshoe Call, Sept 9, 2012 | Episode 58
http://camanon.com/
Talkshoe Call, Sept 30, 2012 | Episode 61
Rule 17 a Ratification of Commencement and counterclaim. You are the Plaintif.
A foreclosure is not an attempt to collect a debt. (2 completely different genres of law.)
Documents & Letters -
Latest Versions Mentioned October 7th, 2012
Call ID 89902
- Debt Collector Letter
I want this to be the QT that everyone can use in every state. You should add what ever you discover about notary fraud, IRS - 3949A stuff etc.
John Stuart
ISOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
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 is in actuality 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" wherein 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 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 purposefully 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 contradicting 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 benfeciary of and/or party too; in actuality the adverse party is unlawfulkly 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 the adverse party 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@showmetheloan.net>
John,
Hope you are health is improving. I made a little donation. Can you enlight 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 cause 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-CV-576, 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??
