case

<TITLE>

 

<Name of Complainant> Complainant, vs. <Name of Respondent> Respondent(s).

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

To the Honorable Chancellor of the Chancery Court in Exclusive American/English Equity. No.

 

<HEADING>

 

COMES NOW Complainant seeks an exclusive American/English equitable venue that would provide relief for the following: i) Breach of Contract, ii) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, iii) Fraud in the Factum, iv) Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violations, v) Negligent Misrepresentation, vi) Gross Negligence, vii) Contributory Negligence, and viii) Unjust Enrichment. Said causes of action involve a negotiable instrument in the form of a promissory note, hereinafter “Note”. Complainant provides the following in support:

PETITION TO SEAL

Complainant petitions your Excellency to proceed with these matters as private and sealed, in Chambers or otherwise, without the public, without publication, and without spectators so the public may not be alarmed or harmed by comprehending: i) the impact of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 that was amended by the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933, which confirmed and approved presidential proclamation 2039 on March 6, 1933 and presidential proclamation 2040 on March 9, 1933. These acts and proclamations reduced the rights of the once sovereign “We The People” to privileges of “persons within the United States” who are statutorily defined as enemies, belligerents, and rebels of the incorporated United States of America as stated in the original wording of the Emergency Banking Relief Act, and for such purposes of “…control[ling] the lives of all American citizens…” as stated in Senate Report No. 93-549 entitled the Emergency War Powers Statutes. Such diminishing of rights to privileges has caused Complainant’s pre-1933 civilian due process rights to be not cognizable in courts of law, federal and state, that are sitting in a temporary emergency war powers jurisdiction, and
ii) how banks create money with little to no risk due to their refusal to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). Refusing to follow said principles and standards have the same economic effect similar to stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling the public.

If such is comprehended by the public, it would cause irreparable alarm or harm to the same. Therefore, Complainant petitions this matter to be private and sealed.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION, AND

THE EXISTENCE OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY / EQUITY 

1. Complainant seeks an exclusive American/English equitable jurisdiction whereby Complainant could receive both actual and exemplary damages as well as equitable remedies;
2. “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases … between citizens of different states; … and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.” — Article III, § 2, Subdivision 1 of the Constitution for The United States of America, (emphasis added);
3. “The judicial power of the State, as to matters of law and equity … shall be vested in a Supreme Court, the St. Louis Court of Appeals, Circuit Courts, Criminal Courts, Probate Courts, County Courts, and Municipal Corporation Courts.” — Article VI, § 1 of the 1875 Constitution of the State of Missouri (as ratified without subsequent amendments), (emphasis added);
4. “The Court held that federal courts have the equity jurisdiction that was exercised by the English Court of Chancery ‘at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the enactment of the original Judiciary Act, 1789…[quoting 1928 Rules]…. The Court further noted that regardless of the merger of the formerly separate courts of law and equity by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ‘the substantive principles of Courts of Chancery remain unaffected’…. Some of the earliest writings on the equity jurisdiction of English courts emphasize the exclusive role of the equity courts over suits arising out of a breach of a fiduciary duty.” — Newby v Enron (2002), (emphasis added);
5. Respondents are “statutory persons” within the incorporated United States of America in the State of Missouri;
6. Complainant, in esse, sui juris, is foreign to the incorporated United States of America, its agencies, instrumentalities, and divisions;
7. Complainant privately resides and privately domiciles within a non-military occupied private estate, outside a federal district, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and without the United States;
8. Complainant’s citizenship status, herein incorporated by reference, is a matter of public record, duly filed and recorded …;
9. Complainant is a Non-enemy, Non-belligerent, Non-rebel, and Peaceful Inhabitant with constitutionally protected rights that cannot commingle with the constitutionally unprotected benefits and privileges of belligerents, enemies, and rebels per the wording and force of the Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933, which amended the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917;
10. Therefore a diversity of citizenship exists between the parties;
11. Complainant cites “A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence” (1905) by John Norton Pomeroy, hereinafter “Pomeroy”, as to the existence of the Chancery Court, and its Exclusive Equity jurisdiction, under American/English jurisprudence:

“To sum up this result in one brief statement, all equitable estates, interests, and primary rights, and all the principles, doctrines, and rules of the equity jurisprudence by which they are defined, determined, and regulated, remain absolutely untouched, in their full force and extent, as much as though a separate court of chancery were still preserved”

Pomeroy § 354 (emphasis added);

 

“It is easy to say that the distinctive modes of equity procedure are alone abrogated by the legislature, while the principles, doctrines and rules of the equity jurisprudence and jurisdiction are wholly unaffected.”

Pomeroy § 355 (emphasis added);

 

1. Complainant cites “A Treatise on Suits in Chancery” (2nd ed. 1907) by Henry R. Gibson, hereinafter “Gibson”, as to the authority of the Maxims that govern the Chancery Court, and further affirmation of the existence of its Exclusive Equity jurisdiction, under American/English jurisprudence:

“The Equitable, or Inherent, to include all of those matters, whether purely equitable in their nature or having characteristics both equitable and legal, jurisdiction over which is derived exclusively or chiefly from their inherent powers as Courts of Equity;”

 Gibson § 22;

 

“The equitable or inherent jurisdiction of the Chancery Court includes all cases of an equitable nature, where the debt or demand exceeds fifty dollars. These cases include the following: 1) All suits resulting from accidents or mistakes, … 3) All suits resulting from trusts, express, constructive, and resulting, … 5) All suits for reformation, re-execution, rescission, and surrender of written instruments, …
8) All suits for the administration and marshaling of assets, …”

 Gibson § 25 (relevant parts included);

 

“So fundamental are these maxims that he who disputes their authority is regarded as beyond the reach of reason…. They are the fountains of justice from which flow all civil laws.” 

Gibson § 31 footnote 2 (emphasis added);

 

“Where a Court of Equity has obtained jurisdiction over some portion or feature of a controversy, it may, and will in general, proceed to decide the whole issues, and to award complete relief, although the rights of the parties are strictly legal, and the final remedy granted is of the kind which might be conferred by a Court of law.”

Gibson § 36 (emphasis added);

 

“Courts of Chancery have exclusive jurisdiction of all matters arising out of trusts of all kinds, express, resulting and constructive.” 

Gibson § 925 (emphasis added);

 

1. Complainant is completely within his full right to bring this suit before the Honorable Chancellor, and hereby grants in personam personal and subject matter jurisdiction to a Chancery Court authorized under Article III, § 2, Subdivision 1 of the Constitution for The United States of America pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1873 (as amended in 1875), and the Act of August 23, 1842, or Article VI, § 1 of the 1875 Constitution of the State of Missouri (as ratified without subsequent amendments); said jurisdiction shall be governed by Exclusive American/English Equity, the Maxims of Equity, and Gibson §§ 1 – 64, namely, except where otherwise cited or applicable herein;

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 13 as though fully set forth herein;

~ The Parties ~

1. Complainant, in esse, sui juris, and foreign to the incorporated United States of America, its agencies, instrumentalities, and divisions, privately resides and privately domiciles within a non-military occupied private estate, outside a federal district, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and without the United States is the alleged Borrower on the Note;
2. Respondent, <Name of Business>, a <State of Business> Limited Liability Company, dba <Name of Fictitious Name> and located at <Address of Business>, <Name of Business> engages in the servicing of loans secured by residential real property, which includes debt collection activities;
3. Respondent, <Name of Business>, a <State of Business> Limited Liability Company, dba <Name of Fictitious Name> and located at <Address of Business>, <Name of Business> engages in the servicing of loans secured by residential real property, which includes debt collection activities;
4. Respondent, <Name of CFO>, a living soul, located at <Address of CFO>, <Name of CFO> engages in the servicing of loans secured by residential real property, which includes debt collection activities;

~ Background ~

1. On or about April 2004, by mistake, error, and accident, Complainant entered into a mortgage loan agreement with <name of original creditor> and executed a Note in the amount of <amount>;
2. Since April 2004, said Note has been transferred to, at least, four different loan servicers: CUNA, PHH Mortgage, and NewRez. Complainant is unable to recall the details of each servicer. Although not verified, the Note currently appears to be somehow linked to the Respondent.
3. On or about February 2020, Complainant began consulting with his CPA and researching the United States Code, the corresponding Code of Federal Regulations, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Internal Revenue Code, and certain Federal Reserve Bank Publications. Complainant discovered the following regarding banking practices as it relates to providing “loans” to the public:
   1. Lenders claim they have loan papers with the Borrower’s name on it as evidence of a debt. However, the bookkeeping entries show the opposite—the Borrower was the true lender and the Lender was the true borrower;

 

1. Lenders know an exchange is not a loan;

 

1. Lenders and Financial Institutions involved in the loan transaction never lent one cent to the Borrower as adequate consideration to purchase the Borrower’s Note;

 

1. The Borrower first became the true lender to the alleged Lender and the alleged Lender is the true borrower;

 

1. According to GAAP, the Lender recorded the Note as a bank asset offset by a bank liability;

 

1. The Note was recorded as a bank asset in exchange for credits in the Borrower’s transaction account or to give value to a check or similar instrument;

 

1. The matching principle in GAAP requires that there be a matching liability offsetting the Note recorded as an asset and that the liability shows that the Lender owes the Borrower money for the Note that was lent to the Lender;

 

1. The Note was deposited in a similar manner as cash is deposited into a checking account;

 

1. Depositing cash or a Note into a checking account or a transaction account is the same or similar to loaning the Lender the cash or Note;

 

1. According to GAAP, the Note was deposited as a bank asset offset by a bank liability with the bank liability showing that the Lender owed the Borrower money for the Note that was received from the Borrower and deposited;

 

1. When the Lender deposited the Note and credited the Borrower’s transaction account, the Lender, the one who claims they own the Note, recorded a loan from the Borrower to the Lender. Instead, depositing the Note and crediting the Borrower’s transaction account makes the Borrower the true lender and the Lender the true borrower;

 

1. The Lender returned the equivalent in equal value of the loan to the Borrower, the true lender per GAAP. When the money was repaid to the Borrower, the true lender per GAAP, the Lender claimed that the repaid money was a loan to the Borrower and ignored the bookkeeping entries. However, the bookkeeping entries will prove the money trail of who actually lent what to whom;

 

1. The Lender is using a Note to claim that they lent money to the Borrower, but GAAP shows the opposite occurred;

 

1. The Lender did the opposite of what the Borrower understood and believed was to happen, creating an economic effect similar to stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling, which damaged the Borrower;

 

1. The cost and risk of the loan transaction unfairly favors the Lender.

 

To summarize what the Complainant discovered, the heart of this dispute is that the original creditor stole the Complainant’s financial asset that was in the form of a promissory note, treated as a draft and later converted to a security when the financial asset was securitized. Thus, the original lender and each transferee thereafter violated various Internal Revenue Codes as well as other state and federal laws.

The primary issue is not that the Borrower “signed” a loan agreement or received a check from the bank, but i) the source of the funds—what or who funded the check, ii) did the bank provide any consideration, iii) did the bank simply return the Borrower’s consideration back to the Borrower in the form of a “loan”, iv) did the bank operate with clean hands, v) was the Borrower aware, vi) did the Borrower agree to any of this.

Banks mistakenly and conveniently claim that a bank liability is money. Pursuant to GAAP and GAAS, it is without controversy that money is an asset. Therefore, it is impossible for money to be both a liability and asset. To imply or directly state such is an admission to making false statements, false representation, false pretense, fraudulent concealment, and fraudulent conversion just to name a few. Furthermore, “…if an instrument falls within the definition of both ‘note’ and ‘draft’ [check], a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either [not both]…”, (see U.C.C. § 3-104). Therefore, when banks choose to treat the promissory note as a draft, i) they cannot treat the same as a note, and ii) GAAP and GAAS require the bank’s bookkeeping entries to be the same as when a bank customer deposits a check—a liability owed to the bank customer and not a loan owed to the bank. Most importantly, treating the promissory note as a draft means the Borrower mistakenly, erroneously, and accidentally gave the bank a financial asset;

1. On September 17, 2020, Respondent sent a correspondence entitled Validation of Debt Notice (see Exhibit “A”), which appears to be a document similar to an invoice or billing statement. This correspondence stated, it would validate and verify the debt with the name and address of the original creditor upon dispute by the Complainant;
2. On October 14, 2020, Complainant made his first attempt to receive validation and verification of the debt, and contact information for the original creditor, (see Exhibit “B”). Complainant also enclosed an affidavit as a notice of trust between the parties with the loan account and all attachments therefrom being granted as trust property (see Exhibit “C”), paragraphs 21 through 28);
3. On October 24, 2020, Complainant receives a Mortgage Statement, which appears to be nothing more than a billing statement (see Exhibit “D”). Respondent did not validate or verify the debt;
4. On November 14, 2020, Complainant made his second attempt to receive validation and verification of the debt, and contact information for the original creditor by requesting to validate and verify the debt with documentary evidence as defined in 15 U.S.C.
   § 44, (see Exhibit “E”). Complainant further stated that “…a billing statement does not offer any verification or proof to any of the requested information…”. Proper verification is performed by oath or affidavit;
5. Complainant is willing to satisfy the debt in full once Respondent, pursuant to U.C.C. § 2-609, provides evidence of Adequate Assurance of Due Performance by proving that the original lender has performed according to the loan agreement primarily as follows: i) the original lender used their own money or depositor’s money to purchase the Note, ii) the original lender did not accept the Note as money or like money to fund the check or similar instrument that then was lent to the Complainant. Such would have an economic effect similar to stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling, and iii) the original lender has followed GAAP and GAAS concerning the loan, (see 12 U.S.C. § 1831n (a)(2)(A) and/or 12 C.F.R. 741.6(b));
6. On or about November 18, 2020, Complainant receives a Mortgage Statement (see Exhibit “D”). Respondent did not validate or verify the debt;
7. On or about December 18, 2020, Complainant receives a Mortgage Statement (see Exhibit “D”). Respondent did not validate or verify the debt;
8. On December 28, 2020, Complainant made his third attempt to receive validation and verification of the debt, and contact information for the original creditor by responding with a “Notice and Demand for Full Disclosure”, (see Exhibit “F”). Complainant also enclosed the following: i) a “Notice of Trust and Entitlement Order” for the purpose of notifying Respondent, a second time, that trust exists between the parties as well as to provide Entitlement Orders to the Securities Intermediary regarding he financial asset in the form of a Note that was lent to the original lender, ii) an “Affidavit of Alleged Borrower” that details Complainant’s understanding of the loan agreement at the time of the transaction, and iii) an “Affidavit of Lender” that details the statements Respondent is relying upon to support their claims, which is Respondent provided a loan to Complainant. However, Respondent refuses to sign and return said affidavit;
9. On or around the beginning of January 2021, Complainant receives a notice of default from Respondent. Said default would occur on January 22, 2021;
10. On January 15, 2021, Complainant made his fourth attempt to receive validation and verification of the debt, and contact information for the original creditor by responding with a “Notice of Default” with an opportunity to cure default, (see Exhibit “G”). Once again, Complainant enclosed the following: i) a “Notice of Trust and Entitlement Order” for the purpose of notifying Respondent, a third time, that trust exists between the parties as well as to provide Entitlement Orders to the Securities Intermediary regarding the financial asset, in the form of a Note, that was lent to the original lender and ii) an “Affidavit of Lender” that details the statements Respondent is relying upon to support their claims, which is Respondent provided a loan to Complainant. However, for a second time, Respondent refuses to sign and return said affidavit. Complainant also enclosed a Billing Statement, detailing penalties for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and proceeds for claims, defenses, and recoupment regarding the financial asset, in the form of a Note, that was lent to the original lender, (see Exhibit “H”). The Billing Statement will be adjusted upon receipt of a verified full accounting;
11. Add On XXXX, Complainant sent Entitlement Order, Notice of Revocation of Signatures, and Notice of Revocation of Power of Attorney …
12. Add On XXXX, Complainant sent Notice of Affidavit …
13. The Respondent, or Respondent’s principal(s) or agent(s) are not the Holder or Holder in Due Course of said Note because title to property does not pass when fraud, misrepresentation, or otherwise is involved; therefore, a breach of the loan agreement has occurred;
14. Respondent took Complainant’s instrument(s) subject to all claims and defenses Complainant could assert against the original lender, (see 16 C.F.R. § 433.2);

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 35 as though fully set forth herein;
2. Respondent did not provide consideration, (see Gibson §§ 43, 56, 74, 75, 932),5;
3. Respondent did not give full disclosure as it relates to the loan agreement,
   (see Gibson § 932) ;
4. …

 COUNT II – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. Notwithstanding the “Notice of Trust and Entitlement Order”, a constructive trust, by operation of law and equity, governs all property transfers where title to property is obtained by fraud, duress, without consideration, or other inequitable means, (see Gibson § 931). Said constructive trust appoints the party who has a fiduciary duty to another as the trustee, and the party who expressly or impliedly confides or trusts his property, business, or affairs to another as the beneficiary, (see Gibson § 46);
3. By operation of law and equity, Respondent is Fiduciary Trustee and Securities Intermediary over the property, which is the loan account and all assets therefrom;
4. By operation of law and equity, Complainant is Settlor/Beneficiary and Entitlement Holder of the property, which is the loan account and all assets therefrom;
5. On October 14, 2020, December 28, 2020, and January 15, 2021, Complainant provides notice of trust, entitlement orders, and demands performance of trust via a “Notice of Trust & Entitlement Order”;
6. Respondent has not complied with Complainant’s demand for performance of trust. Therefore, a breach of fiduciary duty has occurred;
7. Complainant has been damaged due to said breach of fiduciary duty. Respondent has directly or indirectly acquired some personal interest or title in or to trust property and is profiting from such proceeds and profits out of the trust, (see Gibson § 46) whereby said proceeds and profits rightfully belongs to Complainant, (see Gibson § 44);
8. …

 COUNT III – FRAUD IN THE FACTUM

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. There was knowledge or notice of an adverse claim to the instrument at closing of escrow (see U.C.C. § 8-105);
3. …

 COUNT IV – MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. There was knowledge or notice of an adverse claim to the instrument at closing of escrow (see U.C.C. § 8-105);
3. …

 COUNT V – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. There was knowledge or notice of an adverse claim to the instrument at closing of escrow (see U.C.C. § 8-105);
3. …

 COUNT VI – GROSS NEGLIGENCE 

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. There was knowledge or notice of an adverse claim to the instrument at closing of escrow (see U.C.C. § 8-105);
3. …

 COUNT VII – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. There was knowledge or notice of an adverse claim to the instrument at closing of escrow (see U.C.C. § 8-105);
3. …

 COUNT VIII – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. …

 COUNT IX – FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT VIOLATIONS

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692, Respondent failed to validate and verify debt. Failure to do so is a $1,000 penalty for each occurrence. Respondent failed to validate and verify the debt after four requests to do so, which is a $4,000 fine;
3. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692, Respondent failed to communicate to consumer reporting agencies that a disputed debt is disputed. Failure to do so is a $1,000 penalty for each occurrence. Respondent failed to communicate the required information four times, which is a $4,000 fine;
4. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692, Respondent failed to validate and verify debt yet Respondent continued pursuing normal collection activities. Failure to do so is a $1,000 penalty for each occurrence. Respondent failed to validate and verify debt yet continued to pursue collection activities on four different occasions, which is a $4,000 fine;
5. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692, Respondent failed to avoid false or misleading representation of the character and amount of the debt. The Complainant is the true lender and the original lender is the true borrower. Failure to do so is a $1,000 penalty for each occurrence. Respondent failed to avoid false or misleading representation of the debt, which is a $1,000 fine;
6. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s, Respondent failed to report accurate information to consumer reporting agencies. Failure to do so is a $1,000 penalty for each occurrence. Respondent failed to report accurate information to consumer reporting agencies, which is a $1,000 fine;
7. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s, Respondent failed to report accurate information to consumer reporting agencies after being notified of errors. Failure to do so is a $1,000 penalty for each occurrence. Respondent failed to report accurate information to consumer reporting agencies after being notified of errors, which is a $1,000 fine;
8. Pursuant to Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp 233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000), Respondent failed to avoid being both purchaser and assignee. Failure to do so is a $1,000 penalty for each occurrence. Respondent failed to avoid being both purchaser and assignee, which is a $1,000 fine;

 COUNT X – INTERNAL REVENUE CODE VIOLATIONS

1. Complainant incorporates herein Complainant’s allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through XX as though fully set forth herein;
2. Complainant, as Settlor/Beneficiary, has a duty to preserve the trust property by preventing any actions that could bring harm to the same;
3. Respondent, as Fiduciary Trustee, is violating Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code in the following manner:

1. Respondent did not pay Capital Transfer Taxes to the IRS for the default that was engineered by original lender at closing;

 

1. Respondent is attempting to evade or defeat taxes by treating the instrument as a note instead of a draft, (see 26 U.S.C. § 7201, PENALTY: $500,000 for corporations, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both);

 

1. Respondent does not file a fiduciary income tax return;

 

1. Respondent did not file FinCen Forms 105, 112, and 8300 with the IRS showing the receipt of a cash or cash equivalent transaction of over $10,000 (PENALTY: $500,000 for corporations, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both);

 

1. Respondent did not file a 1066 REMIC tax return or the necessary documents to maintain the proper REMIC status;

 

1. Respondent did not transfer loan documents to the REMIC within § 4975 of the Safe Harbor Provisions Act (PENALTY: $50,000);

 

1. Respondent is engaged in laundering monetary instruments, (see 18 U.S.C.
   § 1956, PENALTY: $500,000 for corporations, imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both);

 

1. Respondent is engaged in fraud for making false statements (see 26 U.S.C. § 7206, PENALTY: $500,000 for corporations, imprisonment for up to 3 years, or both);

 

1. Respondent has failed to collect or truthfully account for and pay over taxes (see 26 U.S.C. § 7202, PENALTY: $10,000, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both);

 

1. …

PRAYERS TO SEAL

THE FACTS CONSIDERED, Complainant prays this Court issues an order to seal this matter from the public.

PRAYERS RELIEF

THE FACTS CONSIDERED, Complainant prays this Chancery Court for relief involving actual and exemplary damages, and equitable remedies. Such relief would include, but is not limited to, debt extinguishment; settlement and closure of account(s); release of collateral for right in possession, use, and enjoyment; a full accounting regarding trust property, recoupment of proceeds from the securitization of the Note; payment of any and all outstanding taxes by the Respondent (Fiduciary Trustee); and for any other relief this Chancery Court deems right, just, and appropriate.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

		<Name of Complainant> c/o <Address of Complainant> <Phone of Complainant>

VERIFICATION

I, <Name of Complainant>, a Non-enemy, Non-belligerent, Non-rebel, and Peaceful Inhabitant with constitutionally protected rights, privately residing and privately domiciling within a non-military occupied private estate, outside a “Federal District”, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, make oath that the statements herein, made as of his own knowledge, are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and those made on information and belief, he also believes to be true.

Respectfully submitted,

 

		<Name of Complainant> c/o <Address of Complainant> <Phone of Complainant>

 

Use of Public Notary is for signature identification and acknowledgment only and does not imply or grant any jurisdiction or traversal into the public venue; the living man who has applied her autograph as her living seal hereinabove has done so in her private capacity and not in any way as an adhesion to unrevealed contracts or compelled benefits. Use of Public Notary is strictly by special, restricted, ministerial visitation with preservation of all Rights and Equitable Interests within the Maxims of Equity and Exclusive to American/English Jurisprudence. State of Missouri ) ) JURAT County of Saint Louis ) Subscribed and affirmed before me on this ______ day of ________________ 2016 by <Name of Complainant> proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the living man (person) who appeared before me. Notary Public My commission expires on

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This Certificate of Service is made pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 43.01(e) for the purpose of showing that this filing has been served in one of the manners required under Supreme Court Rule 43.01(c).

This pleading was served upon the following registered agent of record and/or parties on the 28th day of June, 2016:

Registered Agent:

…

 

This filing was served by serving a copy in the manner provided for in Supreme Court Rule 54.13, which governs service of summonses (service on parties only).

 

____________________________

<Name of Complainant>

c/o <Address of Complainant>

<Phone of Complainant>.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.