Make the bank &/or lender produce documents of proof of ownership - a deed - if the bank &/or lender does not have at hand, they cannot foreclose on the property.

The Constitutionality of the currency is not in question. Sorry ...it's true and I can prove it if you would like; being ten years studied in the law.

The correct method to fighting the foreclosure is to get the ,so called , creditor to produce THE ORIGINAL BILL. They cannot because it is wrapped up in a derivatives package somewhere and there is now a lien against it. Once it became collateral for further leverage there had to be a transfer of the holder in due course status and a first right of lien holder status placed upon it. The original producer of the note is now a third party intervenor in the equation and can only produce a copy of the original note. A copy of title is not title. Do not engage a lawyer in the process. they will screw it up for sure.

It appears to me that any political move is useless.Our political system was corrupted almost 100 years ago. Wilson was chosen by the international bankers to be America's president because he would sign the "Federal Reserve Act" which is not a part of our government but who our government answers to and works for.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed with lies and trickery. We American's are the economic slaves to these internationalists. Our lives have become the property of the original families who drafted the Act. All the business cycle crap you hear are lies to hide how the mostly foriegn banking families steal our money and our freedom.
Many offices have been created with power above what used to be our Constitution , the Federal Reserve being one of them. The only way American's can change this robbery is to demand that Congress take back its control of our economy like they are supposed to have. This will never happen because these politicians have sold American's out in order to feather their nest.
Eventually they will suffer under the same system. But with their short sighted vision they see no end to their lives as they are. We will and are suffering at the hands of these bankers because of the system they designed,it's inevitable.
If you read the Ten Planks of Communism it's like looking into a mirror of what has happened to our country and what will continue to happen under their control.Kreuchev said America would be destroyed from within. You don't have to go past the Whore House , the Congress and the Senate to see who your enemies are.
Any politician with the guts to stand up against these people will end up dead , so there will be no change unless we make it. And it won't be made through a corrupt voting system. I think that says it clear enough for everyone to understand.
I have to answer the door , I think Fatherland Security is already here.

That's correct. They have side stepped the Constitution by use of the ancient Law Merchant. The provision which allowed them to sidestep the constitution is actually found within the body of the Constitution itself. part of Art 1 sec 10 states that "we shall pass no law infringing upon the RIGHT TO CONTRACT." By accepting the Fed Res notes we became tied to an Admiralty Maritime legal contract. The US was put into receivership in 1933 and the final blow was the Erie Railroad vs Tompkins case in 1938( overturning Swift vs Tyson)) which blended law and equity jurisdiction. The limited liability of discharging debt instead of paying in substance is construed as a benefit and is a form of insurance. Limited liability insurance always falls under Maritime jurisdiction because that was what it was originally created for.Loss of cargo at sea was a major liability issue. This has allowed Maritime / Admiralty jurisdiction to come on land. It pertains to vessels and limited liability insurance. The human body is a vessel of energy/ labor. Our vessel is pledged as collateral for the debt of the Federal Government to the International Banks. This is some pretty arcane legal stuff but it in fact easily verified with research. Not Jordan Maxwell either. Read the book " Invisible contracts " by George Mercier.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE FORECLOSURE CASES ) CASE NO. NO.1:07CV2282
) 07CV2532
) 07CV2560
) 07CV2602
) 07CV2631
) 07CV2638
) 07CV2681
) 07CV2695
) 07CV2920
) 07CV2930
) 07CV2949
) 07CV2950
) 07CV3000
) 07CV3029
))
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
))))
OPINION AND ORDER
))
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
On October 10, 2007, this Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff-Lenders in a
number of pending foreclosure cases to file a copy of the executed Assignment demonstrating
Plaintiff was the holder and owner of the Note and Mortgage as of the date the Complaint
was filed, or the Court would enter a dismissal. After considering the submissions, along
with all the documents filed of record, the Court dismisses the captioned cases without
prejudice. The Court has reached today’s determination after a thorough review of all the
relevant law and the briefs and arguments recently presented by the parties, including oral
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 6
-2-
arguments heard on Plaintiff Deutsche Bank’s Motion for Reconsideration. The decision,
therefore, is applicable from this date forward, and shall not have retroactive effect.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A party seeking to bring a case into federal court on grounds of diversity carries the
burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction. Coyne v. American Tobacco Company, 183 F.
3d 488 (6th Cir. 1999). Further, the plaintiff “bears the burden of demonstrating standing and
must plead its components with specificity.” Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge Christian
College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982).
The minimum constitutional requirements for standing are: proof of injury in fact, causation,
and redressability. Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472. In addition, “the plaintiff must be a proper
proponent, and the action a proper vehicle, to vindicate the rights asserted.” Coyne, 183 F. 3d
at 494 (quoting Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 926 F. 2d 573, 576 (6th Cir. 1991)). To
satisfy the requirements of Article III of the United States Constitution, the plaintiff must
show he has personally suffered some actual injury as a result of the illegal conduct of the
defendant. (Emphasis added). Coyne, 183 F. 3d at 494; Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 472.
In each of the above-captioned Complaints, the named Plaintiff alleges it is the holder
and owner of the Note and Mortgage. However, the attached Note and Mortgage identify the
mortgagee and promisee as the original lending institution — one other than the named
Plaintiff. Further, the Preliminary Judicial Report attached as an exhibit to the Complaint
makes no reference to the named Plaintiff in the recorded chain of title/interest. The Court’s
Amended General Order No. 2006-16 requires Plaintiff to submit an affidavit along with the
Complaint, which identifies Plaintiff either as the original mortgage holder, or as an assignee,
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 6
-3-
trustee or successor-in-interest. Once again, the affidavits submitted in all these cases recite
the averment that Plaintiff is the owner of the Note and Mortgage, without any mention of an
assignment or trust or successor interest. Consequently, the very filings and submissions of
the Plaintiff create a conflict. In every instance, then, Plaintiff has not satisfied its burden of
demonstrating standing at the time of the filing of the Complaint.
Understandably, the Court requested clarification by requiring each Plaintiff to submit
a copy of the Assignment of the Note and Mortgage, executed as of the date of the
Foreclosure Complaint. In the above-captioned cases, none of the Assignments show the
named Plaintiff to be the owner of the rights, title and interest under the Mortgage at issue as
of the date of the Foreclosure Complaint. The Assignments, in every instance, express a
present intent to convey all rights, title and interest in the Mortgage and the accompanying
Note to the Plaintiff named in the caption of the Foreclosure Complaint upon receipt of
sufficient consideration on the date the Assignment was signed and notarized. Further, the
Assignment documents are all prepared by counsel for the named Plaintiffs. These proffered
documents belie Plaintiffs’ assertion they own the Note and Mortgage by means of a purchase
which pre-dated the Complaint by days, months or years.
Plaintiff-Lenders shall take note, furthermore, that prior to the issuance of its October
10, 2007 Order, the Court considered the principles of “real party in interest,” and examined
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 — “Parties Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity” and its associated
Commentary. The Rule is not apropos to the situation raised by these Foreclosure
Complaints. The Rule’s Commentary offers this explanation: “The provision should not be
misunderstood or distorted. It is intended to prevent forfeiture when determination of the
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 3 of 6
1 Astoundingly, counsel at oral argument stated that his client, the purchaser from the original mortgagee,
acquired complete legal and equitable interest in land when money changed hands, even before the
purchase agreement, let alone a proper assignment, made its way into his client’s possession.
-4-
proper party to sue is difficult or when an understandable mistake has been made. ... It is, in
cases of this sort, intended to insure against forfeiture and injustice ...” Plaintiff-Lenders do
not allege mistake or that a party cannot be identified. Nor will Plaintiff-Lenders suffer
forfeiture or injustice by the dismissal of these defective complaints otherwise than on the
merits.
Moreover, this Court is obligated to carefully scrutinize all filings and pleadings in
foreclosure actions, since the unique nature of real property requires contracts and
transactions concerning real property to be in writing. R.C. § 1335.04. Ohio law holds that
when a mortgage is assigned, moreover, the assignment is subject to the recording
requirements of R.C. § 5301.25. Creager v. Anderson (1934), 16 Ohio Law Abs. 400
(interpreting the former statute, G.C. § 8543). “Thus, with regards to real property, before an
entity assigned an interest in that property would be entitled to receive a distribution from the
sale of the property, their interest therein must have been recorded in accordance with Ohio
law.” In re Ochmanek, 266 B.R. 114, 120 (Bkrtcy.N.D. Ohio 2000) (citing Pinney v.
Merchants’ National Bank of Defiance, 71 Ohio St. 173, 177 (1904).1
This Court acknowledges the right of banks, holding valid mortgages, to receive
timely payments. And, if they do not receive timely payments, banks have the right to
properly file actions on the defaulted notes — seeking foreclosure on the property securing
the notes. Yet, this Court possesses the independent obligations to preserve the judicial
integrity of the federal court and to jealously guard federal jurisdiction. Neither the fluidity of
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 4 of 6
2
Plaintiff’s reliance on Ohio’s “real party in interest rule” (ORCP 17) and on any Ohio case citations is
misplaced. Although Ohio law guides federal courts on substantive issues, state procedural law cannot be
used to explain, modify or contradict a federal rule of procedure, which purpose is clearly spelled out in
the Commentary. “In federal diversity actions, state law governs substantive issues and federal law
governs procedural issues.” Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 63 (1938); Legg v. Chopra, 286 F. 3d
286, 289 (6th Cir. 2002); Gafford v. General Electric Company, 997 F. 2d 150, 165-6 (6th Cir. 1993).
3
Plaintiff’s, “Judge, you just don’t understand how things work,” argument reveals a condescending
mindset and quasi-monopolistic system where financial institutions have traditionally controlled, and still
control, the foreclosure process. Typically, the homeowner who finds himself/herself in financial straits,
fails to make the required mortgage payments and faces a foreclosure suit, is not interested in testing state
or federal jurisdictional requirements, either pro se or through counsel. Their focus is either, “how do I
save my home,” or “if I have to give it up, I’ll simply leave and find somewhere else to live.”
In the meantime, the financial institutions or successors/assignees rush to foreclose, obtain a
default judgment and then sit on the deed, avoiding responsibility for maintaining the property while
reaping the financial benefits of interest running on a judgment. The financial institutions know the law
charges the one with title (still the homeowner) with maintaining the property.
There is no doubt every decision made by a financial institution in the foreclosure process is
driven by money. And the legal work which flows from winning the financial institution’s favor is highly
lucrative. There is nothing improper or wrong with financial institutions or law firms making a profit —
to the contrary , they should be rewarded for sound business and legal practices. However, unchallenged
by underfinanced opponents, the institutions worry less about jurisdictional requirements and more about
maximizing returns. Unlike the focus of financial institutions, the federal courts must act as gatekeepers,
assuring that only those who meet diversity and standing requirements are allowed to pass through.
Counsel for the institutions are not without legal argument to support their position, but their
arguments fall woefully short of justifying their premature filings, and utterly fail to satisfy their standing
-5-
the secondary mortgage market, nor monetary or economic considerations of the parties, nor
the convenience of the litigants supersede those obligations.
Despite Plaintiffs’ counsel’s belief that “there appears to be some level of
disagreement and/or misunderstanding amongst professionals, borrowers, attorneys and
members of the judiciary,” the Court does not require instruction and is not operating under
any misapprehension. The “real party in interest” rule, to which the Plaintiff-Lenders
continually refer in their responses or motions, is clearly comprehended by the Court and is
not intended to assist banks in avoiding traditional federal diversity requirements.2 Unlike
Ohio State law and procedure, as Plaintiffs perceive it, the federal judicial system need not,
and will not, be “forgiving in this regard.”3
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 5 of 6
and jurisdictional burdens. The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this
for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak
legal arguments compel the Court to stop them at the gate.
The Court will illustrate in simple terms its decision: “Fluidity of the market” — “X” dollars,
“contractual arrangements between institutions and counsel” — “X” dollars, “purchasing mortgages in
bulk and securitizing” — “X” dollars, “rush to file, slow to record after judgment” — “X” dollars,
“the jurisdictional integrity of United States District Court” — “Priceless.”
-6-
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the above-captioned Foreclosure Complaints are
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 31, 2007
S/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Case 1:07-cv-02282-CAB Document 11 Filed 10/31/2007 Page 6 of 6

In light of so all of it is true & there might be more than that we must keep in focus & educdate others - even if others must presently deal with the ills of present system, we must show them the light by educating those effected in foreclosures about the only solution that Mike presents. The knowledge alone will give those people a shot in the arm. If we do just that we will succeed in establishing perfect economy. The current system is addicted to consumption. See for oneself how oneself can effect it by not consuming what one does not need. In the first year of business school I learned that human needs are unlimited, well it is only true according to human wants not needs. We need & we want just system that everyone is capable of fulfilling ones creative abilities, where the government is the protector of competing creativity not the punisher of it. Any law, except the natural laws of nature can be changed with a stroke of a pen. With the stroke of a pen all those bankruptcies can be refinanced under mathematically perfected economic principles so we can go back to our productive tasks & start producing wealth. Perect economy ligilizes prosperity of all.