There is no agument for what you are about to read if it is in your Deed of Trust.
While you're at it, think about sending the old dog a bone. I am not spending my money on naughty women and strong drink, I have to waste it all on food and fuel.
www.showmetheloan.net
Plaintiff hereby informs this Court of newly discovered material facts relevant to this matter.
A. Deceptive Business Act, Invalid Substitution Of Trustee –
A class action lawsuit is being initiated in California and possibly Arizona and other states against Mortgage Electronic Systems Inc.'s ("MERS") unlawful appointment of Successor of Trustee in violation of the Deed of Trust. This violation invalidates any appointment by MERS and therefore causes the foreclosure process to be VOID, not just voidable, but VOID, ab initio, if a Successor Trustee was appointed by MERS, which in this instant case did occur.
Defendants have no argument against this concept as Defendants are the ones that wrote the Deed of Trust, yet Defendants defense is inclusive of claiming MERS can appoint a Successor Trustee.
Defendants claim in this case contradicts Defendants requirement in the Deed Of Trust, therefore Defendants' claim is now moot.
Since it is a material fact that the foreclosure was initiated by an incorrect party that did not have the lawful right to initiate the foreclosure, all of Defendants claims, statements, attestations, and the like in this matter are also void ab initio.
See: From forensic examiner Charles J. Horner concerning the Forensic examination completed on 9/20/10; Deed of Trust: Page 13 paragraph 24:
Deed Of Trust under "Substitute Trustee", the language clearly states that the Lender may, for any reason or cause, from time to time, remove Trustee and appoint a successor Trustee to any Trustee appoint hereunder. The Lender as defined on page 1 of the Deed of Trust is Homecomings Financial Network Incorporated. This paragraph does not state that successors, assigns, or nominees may appoint a Successor Trustee. Therefore, The Substitution Of Trustee is invalid as it was executed by an officer of Recontrust and not the Lender.
B. Defendants are withholding relevant evidence –
Defendants state in the Deed Of Trust, on page 2 paragraph H:
"a debt evidenced by a note." Therefore, the "Note" is relevant and material evidence in this matter. Since Defendants claim the debt is evidenced by a note, and this Court is not in possession of said evidence, this Court may only conclude that the debt does not exist since the evidence does not exist in this Court.
There is nothing in American jurisprudence that would allow this Court to conclude facts not in evidence are still facts and use evidence that does not exist to this Court as evidence in Defendants favor.
Until such a time as this Court has the evidence that Defendants claim establishes the debt does exist, the debt does not exist to this Court.
Absent a debt, the loan does not exist, absent the loan, the Deed OF Trust does not exist, absent a valid Deed Of Trust; therefore the foreclosure documents are nothing more than prima facie evidence of Defendants felonious act of attempting to steal Plaintiff's real property by filing false and/or forged documents into a public office in Arizona; a felony under A.R.S. § 39-161.
