Action to Quiet Title vs to Private Allodial Property



Download 202.43 Kb.
Page1/4
Date conversion17.05.2016
Size202.43 Kb.
  1   2   3   4

1

2



3

4

5



6

7

8



9

10

11



12

13

14



15

16

17



18

19

20



21

22

23



24

25

26



27

28


Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford

In-Care-Of



9847A Witter Springs Road

Witter Springs, California-state [95493]
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY


)

Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford , Dana E. )

Wofford, Mark-Evan: Bennett ) Case NO.: INC.

Plaintiffs, )

) Action to Quiet Title

vs. ) to Private Allodial Property

)

)


M & T BANK, National Association and )

LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF ) The Constitution for the

Defendants ) united States of

) America,

) Article Three and

) The Northwest Ordinance

) of 1787

) Trial by the Jury Demanded



____________________________________)

TO ALL PARTIES OF INTEREST:



I, Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford, Dana E. Wofford and Mark-Evan: Bennett, rely upon Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972), pursuant to the limitations imposed upon me as Plaintiff and this Tribunal by the Constitution of the State of California and the Fifth, and Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. We purchased the land and buildings, which are the subject of this lawsuit, from Anthony W. Trevellick, who accepted a down payment and executed an original promissory note and deed of trust, which was executed by the Plaintiffs and Darrel Wofford and Karen Wofford with the original lender. Darrell and Karen Wofford have since privately agreed in principal to disclaim any right, title and interest in the property and are currently in negotiations with the Plaintiffs to dissolve a long standing partnership and partition the remaining interests in said partnership. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC subsequently purchased the note and deed of trust from Anthony W. Trevellick. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC then sold the note and deed of trust to M & T BANK. We, Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford, Dana E. Wofford and Mark-Evan: Bennett have authority and unalienable right to demand that the Defendants; 1.) show how and when they came to have a security interest in my private property described in Exhibit A, 2.) show how when and by what means they have filed a claim against the original land grant petitioned for and granted for the said private property described in Exhibit A, 3.) provide evidence that there is valuable consideration for the alleged bank loan, 4.) provide evidence that the Defendant M & T BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION has the right to lend credit and 5.) provide evidence that the right to subrogation exists, and provide evidence that the mortgage debt complies with all requirements of the Federal and State Constitution or; 6.) forever abandon any claim of interest in our property and stop the fraudulent and scandalous action to foreclose on their fraudulent chattel paper, for which no valuable consideration was ever provided in the original mortgage.
We have named LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF as a Defendant to ensure that said Sheriff refrains from any and all unlawful activities at the direction of M & T BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION that will be inconsistent with our ownership and lawful control of the private property, which is the subject of this action to quiet title. We fully understand that the courts in California routinely allow banks to circumvent California Civil Code Section 2924, requiring any sale of property in foreclosure to be preceded by a court order from a Superior Court judge, and that the Sheriff would be called upon to carry out an unlawful act in violation of our property rights. In furtherance of that goal we have asked the court, as part of the relief sought herein, for an order of cease and desist, commanding the Defendants to cease and desist from any actions to foreclose on the note and deed of trust in light of the lack of the right of subrogation and the failure of consideration, which is discussed below. We are not asking for financial compensation from the LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF in this action to quiet title.
ALL PARTIES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

We, Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford, Dana E. Wofford and Mark-Evan: Bennett purchased the land and buildings located at 642 Main Street, Lakeport, California from Anthony W. Trevellick, expecting that we would be doing business with Anthony W. Trevellick as the lender and holder of the note, by paying him the monthly payments due on the note. I, Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford, am one of the people of California for which the California Constitution was created in this court of record, and I Dana E. Wofford am one of the people of California for which the California Constitution was created in this court of record, and I, Mark-Evan: Bennett am one of the people of California for which the California Constitution was created in this court of record, complain of the fraudulent acts and deceptive banking practices of the Defendant, M & T BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION who has purchased a note created and executed by Anthony W. Trevellick. The Defendant, M & T BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION purchased the note from BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, who had previously purchased the note from Anthony W. Trevellick. The note was purchased without any valuable consideration and without the Defendant M & T BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION pledging any pre-existing money or any of their own assets in the transaction and without the Defendant, M & T BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION incurring any financial cost in the transactions associated with the alleged loans of public currency otherwise known as Federal Reserve Notes. It is well understood by bank accountants and CPAs that a promissory note, when deposited, is treated by the banks as the same as the deposit of cash or a paycheck by the customer. In this context the Plaintiff’s are the banks customer. The alleged loan was funded by the creation of a demand deposit account by both BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC and later by M & T BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, which was derived by depositing the promissory note into said demand deposit account and the converting the funds created by that promissory note, WHICH WAS THE BORROWERS MONEY, into a source of funding for the public currency loaned, MAKING THE LOAN TRANSACTION A MUTUAL LOAN BETWEEN THE LENDER AND THE BORROWER. This will be well documented by the use of a CPA or retired bank accountant as a witness, who will describe, in detail, the accounting practices that banks use when they create public currency. Neither BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC nor the Defendant, M & T BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, hereinafter M & T BANK, used or pledged any of their own pre-existing money, pre-existing assets or depositor’s money in the transaction. The Defendant, M & T BANK, has not and will not incur any financial loss or damages by our failure to pay the note. Furthermore, the Defendant, M & T BANK, does not have the right of subrogation as a stranger to the transaction, and as someone who has not paid the entire mortgage debt in full, see 73 AM JUR Second, Section 90.


California courts are courts of record, pursuant to Article Six of the California Constitution, and it is, therefore, is important to understand the characteristics of a court of record as follows: Please see Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition pages 425 and 426 for further discussion of the court of record as follows; “Courts of record are those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled or recorded for a perpetual memory and testimony and which have the power to fine and imprison for contempt........ A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the Magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of the common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones; 188 Mo. App.220 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex Parte Gladhill, 8 Metc., Mass. 171, per Shaw, C. J. See also Ledwith v Rosalski; 244 N.Y. 406,155 N.E.688, 689.” (emphasis mine).
JURISDICTION
Our court of record is convened in this matter pursuant to Article Three of our Constitution for the united States of America, as a Judicial court of Law in our Judicial Branch of government, while in session under the rules of the Common Law as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, in Article Two. See Callan v. Wilson, 127 US 540 (1888) for authority that Article Three of the United States Constitution provides for and mandates common law jurisdiction and venue.
Our one supreme court, which is now styled as Superior court was created by constitutional convention on the seventeenth day of the ninth month in the year of our Lord one -thousand -seven -hundred and eighty -seven, and is not to be confused with the United States Supreme Court which was created by congress in the year of our Lord one thousand -seven -hundred and eighty -nine as an inferior court to our one supreme court. Any reference back to the original Judiciary Acts of Congress or other historical documents will confirm that this is what was described by the phrase “one supreme court” in Article Three of the original Constitution for the United States of America.
Under the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America, I am entitled to a common law trial by the jury. On dry land, any action must be adjudicated under common law pursuant to the Seventh Amendment; 443 Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States of America; 226 US 172 (1912). The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 also mandates judicial proceedings under the course of the common law; under Article Two, and places an absolute requirement on the new states upon admission to the union to be admitted into the union on an equal footing with all other states and to agree to the terms of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The act of Congress admitting California into the union also invoked the equal footing doctrine, which makes California, and their government, a state which is bound by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. California is on an equal footing with all other states such as Illinois and Indiana, which are formed from the Northwest Territory. Requirements cannot be placed on some states and not others under the equal footing doctrine. Additionally, a court of record is a court which exercises jurisdiction under the course of the common law, please see Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, pages 425 and 426.
Common law jurisdiction and venue is mandated by California statute. As a matter of law, the foundation of the jurisdiction of this case, is established by Stats. 1850, ch. 95 which expressly states:
"The common law of England so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or law of the State of California, shall be the rule of decision in all the Courts of this State."
It is settled as a matter of law that when the rules of common law are not repugnant to organic or state law, the court cannot ".....adopt a rule other than that established by the common law." Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal 255, at 261.
Under the ruling in Lux v Haggin, supra...as a prerequisite for the court to apply any rule of decision other than that of the common law, the court would necessarily be required to establish and prove that the rules of the common law which would ordinarily apply in the instant case are repugnant to the organic or state law. Since repugnant means extremely distasteful or in direct conflict with, if an actual repugnance were in existence it could be clearly shown and established. It should be further noted that because California became one of the several states on an equal footing with all other states as mandated in the Act of Admission of California into the union, which is further echoed by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which mandates that first; all states are admitted to the union on an equal footing with all existing states and second; that as a matter of compact new states, which includes all states under the equal footing doctrine, must guarantee "judicial proceedings in accordance with the course of the common law". Since admission into the union of states was a stated objective of the California Constitution of 1849, the original delegates to the California Constitutional Convention either knew or should have known about the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America, and they either knew or should have known about the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 both of which mandates common law jurisdiction and venue.
Therefore, the act of admission into the union is a compact by the people of California agreeing to common law jurisdiction and venue, establishing through the Act of Admission into the union and the State Constitution, the organic law of California.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that " .....where the code is silent, the common law governs." Estate of Apple, 66 Cal. 432.
We, Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford, Dana E. Wofford and Mark-Evan: Bennett, the Plaintiff, hereby declare, as a matter of law, that all twenty -nine (29) divisions of the California code are silent. This is an indisputable fact in that the original four divisions of the code were never assigned chapter numbers and were never published as part of the Statutes of California 1871 -2. Additionally, there are no enacting clauses in front of each statute, making them void for failure to declare, from whence they came. Also these Codes were adopted by the legislature en-masse as a series of code sections, which were made a part of a single statute which embraces more than a single subject, meaning that the validity and force and effect of all of the California Codes are called into question.

VENUE
Lakeport in Lake -county, California republic, under the rules of the Common Law, is the proper venue for this matter to be heard by consent of all parties on the following grounds:

The location of the court will be the most convenient forum for all parties, and since any issue in controversy allegedly and originally arose in that same geographic area.




STATEMENT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE
First; As property owners in Lake-county, we, Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford, Dana E. Wofford and Mark-Evan: Bennett, recorded the deed, to said property described in Exhibit A in the united States of America venue, We have a common undivided interest in the property. Please see Exhibit A for evidence of the deed recorded in allodial title under the venue of the united States of America It is no longer in the venue of the UNITED STATES. This land is now our private property to which we have allodial title, which means absolute ownership. we own the property in allodium and in Dominium Directum Et Utile”, please see Fairfax v. Hunter; 7 Cranch 603, 3 L. Ed. 453. We have complete and absolute dominion in our property; which is the union of the title and the exclusive use of it. We became aware, after careful study and analysis, that the original note and deed of trust that we executed claims a security interest in the subject property based upon the transfer of Federal Reserve notes, which is commercial paper, as described in Clearfield Trust Company v US; 318 US 363; which states; “the United States as a drawee of commercial paper [federal reserve notes] stands in no different light than any other drawee” (bracketed portion ours).
The Defendant, M & T BANK, has begun to demand payment for flood insurance, which is not called for or required in the original note and deed of trust. The Defendant, M & T BANK, is preparing to foreclose, based upon their attempt to collect the insurance. After reviewing the legal issues surrounding the request for payment of the insurance we discovered that the US Supreme Court has stated that the right of subrogation does not exist for a stranger to the transaction, Aetna L. Ins. Co. v. Middleport, 124 US 534. We also realized, after careful study and analysis, that the Federal Reserve System never provides anything of substance or intrinsic value when they create the credit, which is only a bookkeeping entry for the loan which is created by completing a ledger entry in the records of the bankers who wrote the original note and deed of trust, Please See Exhibit B. The Defendant, M & T BANK, in this matter will not incur a financial cost or damages by our failure, to pay the alleged balance due on the note in this matter. When the Defendant creates money it does not cost them anything to create said money.
We base our statement of fact upon pages 9,10, 11, 22, 23, and 24 of the House Banking and Currency Committee Report called “Money Facts” published in 1964, which states on page 23 the following; “The business of banks is to lend money. The profit comes from the difference between the cost of creating money and the price they charge borrowers for that money. Now the cost of creating money is negligible. Congress has delegated the power to create money to the banking system without a charge. The banks do not pay a license fee or a payment charge for their reserves. Thus the raw materials the banks use cost them nothing.” (Emphasis added). My statement is derived from the technical descriptions of banking practices found in Money Facts, published in 1964 by the house banking committee, which is hereby incorporated by reference in this action to quiet title as Exhibit B. The organic law of this nation requires that “no state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”, Constitution for the united states of America, Article One, Section Ten. The current Federal Reserve Banking Scheme is based upon the deliberate and planned raising of interest rates by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in October of 1929, and the subsequent deliberate crash of the stock market in 1929, called black Monday. The Bankers, stockholders in the Federal Reserve Bank, then with their proxies and agents in the government, the criminal element in government, hereinafter CEG, forced the UNITED STATES into a permanent state of declared national emergency on March 9, 1933, in the Emergency Banking Bill, 48 Stat.1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent in Several Executive Orders No. 6073, 6102, No. 6101, No. 6260 and was later seconded by Congress on June 5, 1933 with the passage of HJR 192, making all Americans the ‘enemy’ in paragraph 5(b) of the Trading with Enemies Act. Please see Senate Report 93- 549, dated 1973, for confirmation of the above. Said Bankers then placed the UNITED STATES into receivership based upon the Bankruptcy filed by an Act of Congress, HJR 192, dated June 5, 1933.
The real party in interest for the bankruptcy was never stated, but is clearly the British Royal Family, based upon the Treaty of Peace of 1783, and Jays Treaty 1791. These two documents created a fraudulent reversal of the State of Independence won by a long and bloody battle with the British during the Revolutionary War, by stating that King George is the Prince of the United States of America in the Treaty of Peace of 1783, and the subsequent paying of reparations in Jay’s treaty. Neither treaty appears to have been ratified by Congress and specifically contravened direct orders by Congress to the treaty negotiators, John Jay, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. As a result, these treaties were not executed under the authority of the body politic and are without force and effect in law.
Through the above described actions by the bankers and American government officials who committed acts of treason against the American people, the bankers, through their manipulation of Congress and President Roosevelt in 1933, and earlier, in the eighteenth Century, the treaty negotiators, the Bankers obtained control over our currency system, forced us into bankruptcy and created a new government under the bankruptcy, with new emergency powers for the reconstituted government.
The new currency, after the bankruptcy in 1933, became a debt instrument, which the American people have to pay with no backing by gold and silver, as required under Article One, Section Ten of our Federal Constitution. All bank loans in the continental United States are fraudulent in their very nature because the Federal Reserve Notes they are based on are only based upon book keeping entries by the bankers and represent no value, and no valuable consideration. The original mortgage is therefore chattel paper with no valuable consideration and therefore the whole mortgage contract is based upon fraud and a lack of valuable consideration since Federal Reserve Notes have no intrinsic value whatsoever, and are just bookkeeping entries under the 1933 bankruptcy. If said currency, Federal Reserve Notes, were backed by something of intrinsic value, then the currency could be considered to be valuable consideration, because the currency, could be exchanged for something of recognized value, and the lender of the Federal Reserve Notes, would then be pledging their own assets in the transaction. We, Gail-Joy-Bennett: Wofford, Dana E. Wofford and Mark-Evan: Bennett, the Plaintiffs, are not a surety for this fraudulent national debt. We are not a subject of the British Royal Family, we are not US Citizens under the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., and we are not co-bankrupt debtors for this fraudulent debt, and we are not part of the fraudulent Federal Reserve Banking Scheme.
The banks involved in this matter, are committing fraud and fraudulent conversion by attempting to transform the mortgage backed by no valuable consideration, into a security device which can be used to obtain a lien and subsequent ownership of our property, all without lawful money which is mandated by Article One, Section Ten as stated above and without due process of law; a trial by the jury of our peers, as required by the Fifth and Seventh Amendments respectively.
The Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest did not loan anything of substance or intrinsic value, but they loaned their own credit in the transaction. Federal Reserve notes are bank credit and as such are not backed by gold or silver coin as required under Article One, Section ten of the US Constitution. This is an absolute requirement pursuant to the ruling by the US Supreme Court in Woodruff v. Mississippi, see Woodruff v. Mississippi; 162 US 291;16 S. Ct. 820; 40 L. Ed. 973. We quote Woodruff v. Mississippi, supra, as follows; “the power to borrow money, simply, meant the power to borrow whatever was money according to the Constitution of the United States and the laws passed in pursuance thereof, and the power to issue negotiable bonds included the power to make that payable in such money. This the law presumed, and to proceed on an implication to the contrary was to deny the holders of these bonds, subsequent to their purchase, a right arising from the Constitution and laws of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) Furthermore the common law does not recognize a contract to be valid where there is no valuable consideration, such as this case, where nothing of substance or value was loaned in the transaction. The “money” loaned was bank credit, created by a series of bookkeeping entries created by BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, which was derived from the sale of the promissory note to BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC and subsequently, sale of the note to the Defendant.
This fraudulent mortgage can, under this fraudulent banking scheme, thus be converted into a fraudulent lien based upon no valuable consideration, obtained by establishing a banking system of bookkeeping entries for commercial federal reserve ‘credit’ with no backing by gold or silver, as required by Article One, Section Ten of our Federal Constitution, or anything of substance or intrinsic value and then placing a fraudulent lien or security device on our land and using this fraudulent devise and claiming to be the holder in due course on the deed to our land. The bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES under HJR 192 removed gold backing from the currency as of June 5, 1933, under said Act of Congress, and set up the fraudulent and pernicious Federal Reserve bankruptcy system. The defendants, as a result, operate under a presumptive claim of ownership, which is ultimately based upon no valuable consideration and upon the Bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES declared by Congress on June 5, 1933, under House Joint Resolution 192, dated June 5, 1933 and the State of Declared National Emergency declared by Congress on March 9, 1933.
Both of these events forever altered the structure and fabric of American government as it was established by the founding fathers during and after the period of the revolutionary war from 1775 until about 1792 and gave, through sedition, a financial stronghold to the international bankers who hold a stockholders position in the Federal Reserve Bank/System, and who, are belligerent foreign principals in a dramatically altered American Government/ Federal Reserve Banking scheme that is operating without the authority of the American people.
Full disclosure was never given to the American people of the names of the creditors or the nature of the obligation the American people have been forced to take on under the Federal Reserve Banking Scheme and the bankruptcy of the United States and state governments as accommodation parties. See also Senate report 93-549. Nowhere in the blueprint for the federal and state governments, our American Constitution, is there a provision for foreign or domestic financiers and industrialists to take over the reins of government through a perpetual state of bankruptcy, with no named creditors, no financial reorganization plan and no accountability by elected officials for having paid the Federal Reserve trillions of dollars and billions of dollars worth of gold, for their service of “loaning money into circulation” and thereby bankrupting the federal and state governments.
Please see Exhibit B, Money Facts, a report by the House Banking Committee, published in 1964, page 9 for a discussion of how banks get money and how their Reserves are created. The British Royal Family appears to be the real party in interest based upon the Treaty of Peace of 1783 and Jays Treaty, which appears to give The British Royal Family a fraudulent dominion over the United States of America, as The ‘Prince of the United States of America’ in the First paragraph of the Treaty of Peace. This was contrary to the explicit instructions given to the Treaty delegation of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay by the Congress of the United States prior to their trip to Paris to negotiate the Treaty.
The above provision of the Treaty of Peace is therefore not a lawful provision. In addition, the original mortgage is void, unenforceable and without force and effect, because of a lack of valuable consideration, and breach of contract.
  1   2   3   4


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page