My Private Audio
Eddie Haskel, pro se
Bebe Haskel, pro se
555 East Merry Lane
Phoenix, Arizona 85777
(623) 555-7777
IN THE UNITED STATES DITRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
|Eddie Haskel, pro se and |) |Case no: CV-10-01000 GMS |
|Bebe Haskel, pro se |) | |
| |) | |
|Plaintiff, |) | |
|Vs. |) |JUDICIAL NOTICE |
| |) |PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 4 |
|BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his successor, individually, and in his |) |NOTICE No. 7 |
|official capacity as PRES/CEO OF BAC HOME LOANS SERVICNG, LP, an ens| | |
|legis being used to conceal fraud, | | |
|JAMES F. TAYLOR and/or his successor, individually, and in his | | |
|official capacity as PRES. OF FIN.& ADMIN. OF RECONTRUST COMPANY, | | |
|N.A., an ens legis being used to conceal fraud, | | |
|BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his successor, individually, and in his | | |
|official capacity as PRES/CEO OF BANK OF AMERICA, an ens legis used | | |
|to conceal fraud, | | |
|ANGELO MAZILO, and/or his successor, individually, and in his | | |
|official capacity as PRES/CEO OF COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., an | | |
|ens legis being used to conceal fraud, | | |
|R.K. ARNOLD and/or his successor, individually, and in his official | | |
|capacity as PRES/CEO OF MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, | | |
|INC., an ens legis being used to conceal fraud, | | |
|JOHN VELLA and/or his successor, individually, and in his official | |(Assigned to Hon. G More Snow) |
|capacity as PRES/CEO EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, an ens legis being | | |
|used to conceal fraud, | | |
|BEAR STERNS and/or its successor, an ens legis being used to conceal| | |
|fraud, | | |
|AND JOHN DOES (Investors) 1-10,000, | | |
|Et al, Defendant. | | |
COMES NOW, Eddie Haskel, pro se Bebe Haskel, pro se, (Hereafter “Plaintiff”), hereby submits the following JUDICIAL NOTICE.
SEVENTH JUDICIAL NOTICE:
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE FOUR SECTION, THIS COURT MUST ADHERE TO THE DECISION IN THE UTAH COURTS BARRING BANK OF AMERICA FROM FORECLOSING.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Full Faith and Credit Clause, the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, addresses the duties that states, within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of other states. According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states. 28 U.S.C. § 1738: Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
The first section requires/ states to give "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. Congress may regulate the manner in which proof of such acts, records or proceedings may be admitted.
In Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 481 (1813), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the merits of a case, as settled by courts of one state, must be recognized by the courts of other states; state courts may not reopen cases which have been conclusively decided by the courts of another state. Later, Chief Justice John Marshall suggested that the judgment of one state court must be recognized by other states' courts as final.
June 5, 2010 – A court order issued by Fifth District Court Judge James L. Shumate May 22, 2010 in St. George, Utah has stopped all foreclosure proceedings in the State of Utah by Bank of America Corporation; Recontrust Company, N.A; Home Loans Servicing, LP; Bank of America, FSB; . The Court Order if allowed to become permanent will force Bank of America and other mortgage companies with home loans in Utah to adhere to the Utah laws requiring lenders to register in the state and have offices where home owners can negotiate face-to-face with their lenders as the state lawmakers intended.
Barlow said, “can you imagine the audacity of the Bank of America and other big mortgage lenders that took billions in bailout funds to help resolve the mortgage mess and the financial institutions now are profiting by kicking people out of their homes without due process under the law of the State of Utah.
The law is clear in Utah,” said Barlow, “and Judge Shumate saw it clearly too. Mortgage lenders are required by law to be registered and have offices in the State of Utah to do business, that is unless you’re the Bank of America or one of their subsidiary company’s who are above the law in Utah.”
Barlow said the Bank of America attorneys are working overtime filing motions to overwhelm him and the court. “They simply have no answer for violating the state statutes and they don’t want to incur the wrath of Judge Shumate because of the serious ramifications his finding could have on lenders in Utah and across the nation where Bank of America and other financial institutions, under the guise of a mortgage lender have trampled the rights of citizens,” he said.
“Bank of America took over the bankrupt Countrywide Home Loan portfolio June 3, 2009 in a stock deal that has over 1100 home owners in foreclosure in Utah this month alone, and the numbers keep growing,” Barlow said.
The second part of the motion, Barlow filed, claims that neither the lender, nor MERS*, nor Bank of America, nor any other Defendant, has any remaining interest in the mortgage Promissory Note. The note has been bundled with other notes and sold as mortgage-backed securities or otherwise assigned and split from the Trust Deed. When the note is split from the trust deed, “the note becomes, as a practical matter, unsecured.” Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4 cmt. a (1997). A person or entity only holding the trust deed suffers no default because only the Note holder is entitled to payment. Basically, “[t]he security is worthless in the hands of anyone except a person who has the right to enforce the obligation; it cannot be foreclosed or otherwise enforced.” Real Estate Finance Law (Fourth) § 5.27 (2002).
DATED: This 39th day of June, in the year, of our Lord, 2010.
BY: _____________________________, agent
Eddie Haskel, pro se
Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308
BY: ____________________________, agent
Bebe Haskel, pro se
Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308
(Remainder of page blank)
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.