--- Henry Bunbury <lration@...
> The foreclosure that is moved under the mortgage
> contract is moved by a DEBT COLLECTOR.
No, the attorney is the debt collector. The
complainant bills itself as the "holder in due course"
> There is no statutory provision in the rules of
> court that substantiate this foolishness promoted in
> the paytriot community proclaimed as a "special
Special appearance is not a statutory ploy. It used
to be a way to avoid jurisdiction. Statutes have
since done away with them in a prima facie manner.
> The carrying of one flag, or another flag does not
> prove a point in law, though it shows that character
> sitting upon the dais dressed in black, how ignorant
> to the law the flag waving litigant surely shall be.
Mat be you are not familiar with what various flags
> The proper way to move against the debt collector is
> to enunciate its fraud loud and clear for the
> character all dressed in black to hear.
No. That puts the burden of proof on me. The proper
way, IMO, is to keep the burden of proof where it
> Moving against a debt collector is a matter of fact,
> and the substantiation of that fact in law, which
> legally exposes the Petitioner's fraud being moved
> upon the Court and the Respondent.
I need clarification on that.
> Toss the flag foolishness, and bury that so called
> Citizen of Illinois foolishness. Of is a possessive
> discripture. Who endowed you with your unalienable
> rights, The State, or God?
I am not looking for foolishness, so will consider
> The hearing is all about facts, as they shall be
> substantiated (empowered) with the law.
At least it should be, and that is my agenda.
> Fact is that you are litigating a debt collector.
that fact has yet to be determined, but for sure, the
complainant ain't a debt collector.
Thanks for your input.
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.