Additional material for Script for Holder in Due Course Pursuant to A.R.S. Title 47 [UCC 3-302] Section 3302 Paragraph d, e, and g, the only parties that can foreclose are the Holder in Due Course. And Pursuant to the In re Weisband Decision, March 29th, 2010, Honorable Judge Hallowell’s decision proves conclusively that the Banks are not the Holder in Due Course and they, along with their attorneys are committing fraud by commencing a non-judicial foreclosure. Judge Hallowell has defined very succinctly what [The Mortgager] GMAC was doing to the homeowner was fraud, which is exactly what these Plaintiffs are doing to me! Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ attorney(s) have incontrovertibly violated, inter alia, A.R.S. § 47-3302(d),(e) and (g), and, inter alia, A.R.S. Sup. Ct. Rules 42 E.R. 3.3 and 8.4 by knowingly, intelligently, and willfully convening a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding for a party that is NOT the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. Important cases and laws to get a grasp of: See: In re Weisband, March 29, 1010, Judge Hallowell JUDUCIAL NOTICE: Plaintiff hereby notices this Court of U.S.D.C., District of Arizona, the Honorable Judge Eilleen Hallowell’s Memorandum Decision for: See: In re Weisband, March 29, 1010, wherein Judge Hallowell described succinctly the fraud that the Banks are committing against the body politic and homeowners in the Country by unlawfully foreclosing on Real Property when the Banks are NOT the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. Accordingly, and pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-3302 [UCC 3-302] (d), (e) and(g), the Defendants in this instant matter, with the assistance of Defendants’ attorneys, have unlawfully commenced a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding without being the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. To bring a fraudulent action, knowingly, intelligently, and willfully, into court is a contempt of court. Defendant’s own acts of fraud upon this court, Plaintiff, and the public in general are the single cause of this paradox and absent Defendant “stating the claim” they are the CREDITOR and HOLDER IN DUE COURSE in this matter, this court cannot hear from Defendant. Defendants and/or Defendants’ attorney(s) have incontrovertibly violated, inter alia, A.R.S. § 47-3302 [UCC 3-302] (d),(e) and (g), and, inter alia, A.R.S. Sup. Ct. Rules 42 E.R. 3.3 and 8.4 by knowingly, intelligently, and willfully convening a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding for a party that is NOT the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. A.R.S. § 47-3302. [UCC 3-302] Holder in due course; D. If, under section 47-3303 [UCC 3-303], subsection A, paragraph 1, the promise of performance that is the consideration for an instrument has been partially performed, the holder may assert rights as a holder in due course of the instrument only to the fraction of the amount payable under the instrument equal to the value of the partial performance divided by the value of the promised performance. E. If the person entitled to enforce an instrument has only a security interest in the instrument and the person obliged to pay the instrument has a defense, claim in recoupment or claim to the instrument that may be asserted against the person who granted the security interest, the person entitled to enforce the instrument may assert rights as a holder in due course only to an amount payable under the instrument which, at the time of enforcement of the instrument, does not exceed the amount of the unpaid obligation secured. G. This section is subject to any law limiting status as a holder in due course in particular classes of transactions. 17A A.R.S. Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 42, Rules of Prof.Conduct, Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona [find Your rules that correlate] V. Regulation of the Practice of Law D. Lawyer Obligations Rule 42. Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession ER 3.3. Candor Toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client or a witness called by the lawyer has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. ER 8.4. Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; Defendants’ attorneys are assisting Defendants in committing fraud: upon the Court, the State of ______, and the body politic of the state. Defendant’s appearance on the deed of trust renders the mortgage deed or deed of trust VOID. See: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. LISA MARIE CHONG, LENARD E. SCHWARTZER, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE. Defendants have claimed “Perfected Title” through the action of non- judicial foreclosure, yet, cannot, under any circumstances, be the lawful CREDITOR and/or HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of the alleged debt as evidenced by the Note they claim to be Trustee for the Holders. see: Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 21 L.Ed. 313 (1872). “The note and mortgage are inseparable, the former as essential, the latter as an incident”; adding that “an assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” Pursuant to: In Re Leisure Time Sports, Inc. 194 B.R. 859, 861 (9th Circuit 1996) stating that “[a] security interest cannot exist, much less be transferred, independent from the obligation which it secures and that, if the debt is not transferred, neither is the security interest.” Defendants have not, and cannot ever, evidence to this Court that it has acted in good faith and has “Clean Hands” in this Court. The security interest cannot vest in Defendants due to fatal process as well as lack of standing to act as CREDITOR and/or HOLDER IN DUE COURSE when, in fact, it is not. See: Kelly v. Upshaw, 39 Cal. 2d 179, 192, 246 P 2d 23 (1952) “assigning only the Deed without a transfer of the Note is completely ineffective; see also: Restatement (3d) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4 stating: “A mortgage may be enforced only by, or in behalf of, a person who is entitled to enforce the OBLIGATION that the mortgage secures”. As Kelly establishes, this is true under California laws and therefore applies here. See: SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., ET. AL., PLAINTIFFS V. RUTHIE B. HILLER, DEFENDANTS. No. C-08-4357 EMC, (Docket No. 7), United States District Court for the Northern Dist. Of California, 2008 US Dist. Lexis 100056. Defendants cannot be the CREDITOR and/or the HOLDER IN DUE COURSE as one or more of the Defendants was and/or is the DEBTOR pursuant to A.R.S. § 47-9102 [UCC 9-102]: A.R.S. § 47-9102. Definitions and index of definitions A. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 28. "Debtor" means: (b) A seller of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles or promissory notes; or (c) A consignee.
Pages to are hidden for
"Additional material for Script for Brice Coleman"Please download to view full document