QUIET TITLE: How, When, Where and Why

Comment from dcbreidenbach
Time April 8, 2012 at 6:34 pm

What if an atty claims a special power under Civli Rule 11 to represent a client without proof of authority?–thereby denying the homeowner of knowledge of the identity of his accuser in a complaint????

“The traditional definition of acting under the color of state law requires that the defendant have exercised power “possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law,”[18] and such actions may result in liability even if the defendant abuses the position given to him by the state

A private actor may also act under color of state law under certain circumstances.[20] For example, it has been held that a physician who contracts with the state to provide medical care to inmates acts under the color of state law.[21] For all practical purposes, the “color of state law” requirement is identical to the “state action” prerequisite to constitutional liability.[22] ”

http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 10:04 am

dcbreichenbach. All judges and lawyers are officers of the court. Look under fruad upon the court statutes. I beleive you will find this definition under those statutes or case law for those statutes. I have use both the 42USC1983 statutes Bill of Rights and several Amendments and the case law for all judges and lawyers are officers of the court. They are all mandated by 18UCC2,3, &4. Look up all the 18USC2 on laws. These statutes are suppose to protect us like the 42USC 1983, which includes policy making fruad by government officials. Seems like the Constitution is road kill in the lower courts and means nothing to judges wearing blinders and juging by bank law and not the rule of law. That is why I believe going on the the higher courts is usually our best hope. To many cases thrown under the table in less than fifteen minutes, without our constitutional rights to discovery or the rule of law followed.

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 10:18 am

While trying to look up the judges and lawyers being officers of th court I came by these for all of you.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986
It is a felony for anyone who knows of a violation of another person’s civil rights that fails to prevent the violations. This would include federal judges, California judges, Department of Justice employees, members of Congress, and others. Making those violations even more serious, the civil rights violations were involved in obstructing justice. And worse, the obstructing justice tactics enabled to continue the aviation disasters and the harm from other criminal activities that affected the American people and the United States’ security.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Action for neglect to prevent conspiracy
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [42 USCS § 1985], are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses to do so, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case;
And any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action, and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding five thousand dollars damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:18pm
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigation.
(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
This criminal statute occurred as federal judges refused to receive the evidence that Stich and his group of government insiders sought to report. Federal judges refused to receive the evidence, retaliated against Stich for seeking to make the reports, and then rendered orders barrin________________________________________g Stich for the remainder of his life from court access. In this way, Stich was unable to report the federal crimes (and also unable to use federal defenses against the judicial violations of federally protected rights that were inflicting great harm upon Stich.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to–
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to–
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(c) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from–
(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense … (3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or

(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation preceding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
(e) For the purposes of this section–
(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:18pm
Title 18 U.S.C. § 2. Principals. (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Note: The legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States. Case law decisions: Rothenburg v. United States, 1918, 38 S.Ct. 18, 245 U.S. 480, 62 L.Ed. 414, and United States v. Giles, 1937, 57 S.Ct. 340, 300 U.S. 41, 81 L.Ed. 493.

LOOK AT BOTTOM DIRECTIONS FOR POST MOTION.
The million dollar question does the rule of law stand in Washington Courts?Fraud Upon the Court and 18USC 2,3, &4
The Seventh Amendment, provides in pertinent part that “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved…” This language does not include a single reference to “manipulation” of a jury by the Court in a conspiracy
with lawyers to design a verdict suitable to the Court through the use of lawyer rules, judicial rules, court rules, or otherwise trumped-up legal technicalities and instructions which effectively “handcuffs” the jury. All of these activities are no more or less than a denial of the right to a jury
of peers with the constitutional authority to judge both the facts and law in a case
Comment by Shelley Erickson on January 18, 2012 at 3:38pm
In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.” SEE AT BOTTOM
1. @Steve
let me add the foreclosure judgments were void ab initio.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1574:
Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a “void judgment” if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 10:22 am

1821)The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge actsafter he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction,and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engagedin extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
http://www.scribd.com/DrLindaShelton/d/24841191-Judicial-Treason-Continuing-Case-Despite-No-Probable-Cause-2009-Cook-County

Persuant 13.ELC 7.1; The petition for suspension may be filed before the formal complaint. If the crime is a felony, the Court must enter an order immediately suspending the respondent from the practice of law. When a Lawyer is convicted of a felony, disciplinary counsel must file a formal complaint regarding the conviction. Disciplinary counsel must also petition the Supreme Court for an order suspending the respondent lawyer during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. In re of case no. 06-2-40691-5KNT:

Comment from dcbreidenbach
Time April 9, 2012 at 11:02 am

@ SAE

A judge is entitled to immunity under 42-1983—however if she is not entitled to that immunity then she is individually liable for damages for a siezure assuming all the other stuff is proven—you keep saying the following “automatically disqualified by law” please provide the basis for that statement–if she is automatically disqualified then there would be no immunity—but would have to KNOW that a siezure is unlawful etc—i cannot see where the automaric suspension comes from or proof needed to get there—–im not interested in hearing about the treason stuff frankly–it detracts from rational discussion and sounds lunatic fringe–you do yorself a disservice with that stuff as well as others

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 10:25 am

HERE WE GO!

“Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court”
And “Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal”
1. Who is an “officer of the court”?
2. What is “fraud on the court”?
3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

——————————————————————————–

1. Who is an “officer of the court”?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is “fraud on the court”?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”

3. What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?

“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

Comment from dcbreidenbach
Time April 9, 2012 at 1:09 pm

@SAE
This material is objective—thank you it is interesting—although i would caution people to be very hestitant to accuse people of such things—and be very certain you have substantial certain facts before even thinking about it

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 10:34 am

Dcbrecenbauch, The 18USC2,3,&4 statutes also state all officers of that court include judges and the bankster lawyers are to be first loyal to the courts and second to their clients, when fraud is recognized. “MADATED BY THIS LAW” to report fraud to an authority not engaged in fraud. I applied this law to my Appeal. And all the laws I have given this post.

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 10:45 am

Donna, I agree and it has been quoted in some of the cases on the web, that this is money laundering and RICO crime. which I have included on my case. Any fraud affidavits threw the mail or wire(phones) faxes and computers, LOOK UP RICO and wire fraud and mail fraud statutes. This is the hugest organized crime in history. Propria persona not an attorney so check with your counse.

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 10:52 am

Donna, I am not an attorney so check this out with counsel, however I dont believe you wanted to give HSBC permission to be striken from the QT. You need to object to all claims by HSBC to have any authority to represent what so ever. Deny you owe them any alleged debt.ASAP! SEND THE FDCPA LETTER [letter of dept dispute ASAP.]

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 10:55 am

Donna, these crooks dont ask permisson without a plan to decieve.
Number 6 ASAP and a letter of objection to any alleged debt you do not owe them.
1.letter-of-objection-to-trustee-in-non-judicial-sale-states
2.help-on-hud-claims
3.Three different rescission Letters: 3 Day, 3 Year and General rescission Letters
4.demand-letters-claiming-damages-for-errors-and-omissions-negligence-and-malpractice
5.generic-attorney-demand-letter
6.initial-debt-collection-dispute-letter
7.Qualified Written Request
8.NOTICE OF DEFAULT DISCHARGE OF OBLIGATION AND DEMAND FOR RECONVEYANCE OREGON FORM APPLICABLE IN MOST STATES
9.Letter of Tacit Procuration
10.oh-yeah-here-is-what-you-say-when-they-are-dismissive-of-your-claims
11.title-carriers-hit-the-fan-their-solvency-in-question
12.unnamed-defendants-in-mortgage-meltdown-accountants-for-banks-and-investment-bankers

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 11:01 am

http://www.housingwire.com/news/bill-aims-end-gse-affiliation-mers

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 11:53 am

Debreidenbach, I disagree with you. This crime stealth of property in the millions against Americans is treason, by false affidavits for the purpose of stealing property, and the judges know it and blantantly judge by unconstitutional law. I have a lot to do on my cases so I wont spend anymore time here trying to pull up the law that spells this out for you. When I come across it in my information, I will post it. Judges are not immune to treason either.

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 9, 2012 at 11:55 am

Changed my mind. Here ya go!
If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

TREASON BY A JUDGE

The entire article.
http://prosechicago.wordpress.com/tag/judge-kathleen-pantle/

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 10, 2012 at 8:22 pm

where are the laws or rules that if they take the house they can not keep the note too. It is the house or the note. You can not cash the check for cash or a house and keept the check to negotiate for more money later. A cashed check has to be releases back to the homeowner that gave up the house to pay the debt. How do we find this law or rule? Everyone must demand the note after they steal the house. Am I wrong?

Comment from dcbreidenbach
Time April 10, 2012 at 8:59 pm

@SAE
or an indemnity from a deep pocket that is iron clad–think about surety bond

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 16, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Neil your firm sent two jpg of the title report but not the securitization report. See if they can send the second to me Thanks so much.

Comment from Shelley A. Erickson
Time April 16, 2012 at 4:32 pm

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/countrywide-never-sent-mortgages-to-trust-now-with-helpful-chart/

Comment from Kalifornia
Time February 19, 2013 at 12:45 am

MUST READ for California:
PAY ATTENTION TO DISSENTING OPINION

Quiet Title Ruling Filed 2/14/13 Maconick v. Chase Home Finance

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B239093.PDF

Comment from http://buybreastenhancement.wordpress.com/
Time April 25, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I truly
enjoyed reading it, you may be a great author.

I will make certain to bookmark your blog and will eventually
come back down the road. I want to encourage yourself to
continue your great posts, have a nice day!