PRETEND THAT A LEGISLATIVE BODY, I.E., CONGRESS, PASSES A LAW THAT SAYS:
FOR A PARTY TO FORECLOSE ON PROPERTY, THE PARTY MUST OWN OR HOLD THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE.

NOW, PRETEND THAT AN APPEALS COURT RULES THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE; ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS TO SHOW POSSESSION OF THE NOTE. (THEY MAY EVEN DECIDE IT IS UNNECESSARY TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL MORTGAGE. A COPY WILL DO JUST FINE.

SURELY, FORECLOSING ATTORNEYS ARE GOING TO CITE THIS APPEALS COURT RULING IN THEIR CASES WHEN APPROPRIATE TO DO SO.

MY QUESTIONS ARE: HAS THE APPEALS COURT RULING CHANGED THE LAW?
HOW WOULD I ARGUE IN COURT USING THE ORIGINAL LAW WHEN THE APPEALS COURT HAS EFFECTIVELY DISMANTLED THE LAW BY THEIR RULING? (I HAD A JUDGE TELL ME THAT THE PLAINTIFF ONLY NEEDED TO SHOW THE NOTE, AND THAT THEY DID NOT NEED TO HAVE THE MORTGAGE.)
WOULD I JUST PRESENT THE LAW AND TELL THE JUDGE, THE LAW REQUIRES FORECLOSER TO HAVE BOTH THE NOTE AND THE MORTGAGE?
THANKS,

Found this section by guesswork clicking on the day/time of Richard's posting, and that only after looking around for a while for the "input box". Where is the "input box"?

Richard, that is a wonderful question, and near to what I have asked similar in my own cases. Judges rule contrary to plain law, litigate from the bench--and all this routinely expecting us to bow down and consider that they and attorneys have some marvelous revelation of what the law means that we, the common people who are expected to know and understand the law nevertheless, are not privy to.

I have posted similar question(s), but received no response in the forum.

Thank you for taking the time--IT ALL TAKES TIME IN OUR DILIGENT EFFORTS TO STAND FOR RIGHT UNDER YEHOVAH AND YEHOWSHUA'--to state the situation and ask the question.

I am eager to see how "How To Win In Court" responds to you.

Beryl

Yes. It changes law by updating established rulings or interpretation that doesn't fit circumstances and may give an "updated" view on the laws meaning.

Guys and Gals,

I've noticed this "apparent confusion" before. I don't know if the current discussion is applicable to what I'm about to say, but you need to consider this point.

The person bringing forth the claim, also brings forth the applicable law that's being used in the case. Therefore, if your opponent I bringing forth Negotiable Instruments under the UCC, then you can't argue Legislative Law. You can't mix Laws.

In the same sense that you can't go into a Bankruptcy Law case and argue Tort Law. They won't hear you.

Never assume the Law that's being used against you. You have the Right to have the courts clarify this before you proceed. So if the judge/administrator ask "Do you understand the charges against you?" You better say that you do not!

If you feel that the venue or subject matter jurisdiction is wrong, then you need to bring forth a counter-claim BEFORE the original claim is adjudicated. Once Adjudication begins, you have basically acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the court, and they will proceed against you.

But also remember, Subject Matter Jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime.

Both parties need to clarify their status, have standing, and there must be a controversy before the courts can adjudicate. Most people NEVER clarify their status and standing for the record. Therefore, the courts will presume it for you.

This is why I always use an Affidavit. Within this document, I declare both my status and standing for the record.

And as you should all know by now. An Affidavit MUST be rebutted point by point, or the other side admits to its claim.

Please don't ask me to define status and standing. Get a good Law Dictionary or examine the Corpus Juris Secundum for the definitions. This can be found at your local Federal Depository Libraries on the GPO website.

I have no legal training. What I have learned is through trial and error in my own legal battles and through this course. That's my disclosure here.

Good Luck