One Heaven Supreme Court | Mortgage Contract Fraud

you are here: > Home >Contracts-Mortgages

	NOTE: The following article has been prepared for the benefit of judges, clerks and other officers of inferior military and civilian courts to immediately cease the error of law in rendering findings in the favour of mortgage providers—usually the plaintiff—when the plaintiff (mortgage provider) has failed to produce the originally signed promissory note, representing the primary contract.
	As this article will explain, such continued breach of fundamental contract law and failure of due process may expose officers of the court, including judges who are found guilty upon appeal to the One Heaven Supreme Court to both prison sentences as well as substantial personal financial penalties.
	The fundamental principles of contract law
	Contracts and contract Law represents a key pillar of any civilized society and commerce just as it has been since the time of the ancient Bronze-Age Syrian and Mesopotamian Civilizations over six thousand (6,000) years ago when the first the essential rules of contract Law were transcribed.
	A contract is essentially an agreement of wills according to a standard form, by which one or several men or women obligate themselves by consent to one or several other men or women to perform a thing. While some may embellish or depreciate essential elements, there is generally accepted to be eight (8) essential elements for any contract to be valid being: primary or original form, mutual consent, consideration, competence, authority, lawful purpose, right to remedy and mutual obligation to perform.
	Just as these most basic elements of a valid contract are self evident, history demonstrates the immutable fact that the wealth, influence and success of civilizations has depended as much on consistent honor of the rule of law and contract of law as the destruction of civilizations, empires and nations have been partly heralded by the corruption of these same essential principles.
	Therefore, any alleged evidence of the deliberate or unwitting corruption of the principles of contract law by the judiciary of any inferior courts within the regions of the Americas Union is a cause for concern as unchecked and unaddressed will almost certainly lead to an increase in corruption and a decrease in the wealth and happiness of the community.
	The accepted and essential principles of bringing a cause of action on contract non-performance
	While the clauses and conditions of individual types of contracts vary widely, often in greater favor of one or other party, there exists a minimum set of generally accepted essential principles concerning any cause of action brought before any court concerning non-performance of a contract.
	The first principle is that the existence of a contract may be demonstrated. The proof of this first, obvious and most important principle has always rested first upon the production of the original contract by the person bringing the controversy (plaintiff), not in tricking the respondent/defendant into verifying its existence or producing a copy.
	In ancient times, the Greeks used such devices as the smashing of ornate plates as a method of demonstrating a unique contract, with the imperfect pieces representing “keys” to re-assemble the original parties to the agreement. However, since the days of the Roman Empire, paper documents, duly signed, dated and witnessed by all parties in original form have sufficed for evidence of the original contract.
	Reproductions, verbal agreement, new contracts and other legal devices do not and must never count for the non-production of an original contract, as “original form” has remained from the beginning of civilization an essential element of any valid contract.
	All subsequent principles of a cause of action on non-performance of contract --such as reference to particular clauses failed to be honored--rest on this first principle.
	Mortgages- valuable original contracts
	A mortgage is arguably one of the most valuable standard forms of original contracts within a modern society. The amount in consideration for some of these contracts can amount into millions of dollars of currency and frequently hundreds of thousands of dollars.
	Therefore, any dispute concerning the non-performance of such a contract potentially involving hundreds of thousands of dollars must be considered with the utmost of care and respect of due process of law.
	The alleged non-performance by a mortgagee (mortgage holder) is a potentially very serious breach of obligation of any original contract as witnessed, signed and sealed by the original promissory note by the mortgagee and the mortgage provider.
	It is not the role of the court to arbitrate on the non-contract specific conditions leading to a mortgage holder failing to honor a key obligation of their contract, usually in the form of failing to make one or more repayments by the agreed period. It is up to the mortgage provider to consider what temporary measures of remediation are or are not acceptable.
	It is however the role of the court to investigate the evidence that may or may not exist for any breaches of contract and render a decision upon any matter brought by the plaintiff concerning the alleged breach of contract, according to due process and the most ancient maxims of contract law.
	Non-production of original Mortgage promissory note must be grounds for dismissal
	Upon due process and performance by the plaintiff, usually the mortgage provider in presenting to the court the original signed contract by the respondent(s)/defendant(s), the court usually has no option other than to find in favor of the plaintiff for a fundamental breach of contract and foreclose upon the man, woman, or family unable to pay their mortgage.
	Whilst such rulings will necessarily render great hardship upon otherwise honest and upstanding citizens, again the court must uphold the rule of law, particular the most ancient and important laws of contracts if the law itself is to remain effective.
	Therefore, if banks and other mortgage providers and owners followed proper process and produced the necessary original signed promissory note representing the one true original contract, then in almost all cases, there is no doubt the court would usually find in their favor.
	Yet this is not what has been happening. Due process has not and is not being followed. Instead, inferior courts in many jurisdictions are permitting and sometimes even encouraging deliberate corruption of due process concerning the fundamental principles of contract law when related to mortgage foreclosures—simply, the courts are refusing to request the original signed promissory note (contract) to be presented and sighted and banks, mortgage providers and owners are refusing to present them.
	It has been argued many times both by the courts and by counsel representing mortgage owners, providers and owners that sighting the original promissory note is immaterial to the cause of action of breach of contract when almost all defendants admit to such breaches and other documents, including other agreements can be produced as evidence.
	Yet this is not the argument at hand. An original contract was executed, represented by the promissory note. The failure or refusal to produce this original contract on the part of the plaintiff is by all rules of law immediate ground for dismissal of the case and finding in favor of the defendants.
	Any other decision other than immediate dismissal of every case of foreclosure where a bank, mortgage provider and any other mortgage owner fails to produce the original contract in the form of the promissory note is an affront and injury to the very principles of contract law and therefore due process and the rule of law.
	Convoluted legal constructs that argue such injury does not in effect occur, only add insult to the very real injury that inferior courts are permitting—the suspension of the rule of law in favor of a few, against the many—a clear example of the decay of law, usually associated throughout history with the downfall of one society before the emergence of another.
	Such action is made manifestly worse, not only because judges, clerical staff and officers of the inferior courts are fully aware that what they are doing is unlawful against their own rules, but is also criminal because these same court officials of inferior military and civilian courts are profiting from such unlawful action in the form of hidden bonds and other financial instruments, whilst actively seeking to conceal evidence of further injury to not just contract law, but the very fabric of modern financial law- the deliberate defacing and alteration of a negotiable instrument without consent by the mortgage owner.
	The reason why Mortgage owners do not produce original Mortgage promissory notes to court
	On the face of it, it would seem inconceivable that a mortgage owner would deliberately risk losing a case within an inferior court by refusing to present the original promissory note if not for one very good reason—the deliberate, unlawful and hidden defacing of a negotiable financial instrument.
	It is common knowledge amongst all mortgage providers and public domain information that upon a party applying their signature to a promissory note, the note is deliberately altered soon after without the mortgage holders knowledge—in the form of a monetization stamp usually being affixed upon the instrument and later a bond number.
	It is a fundamental principle of the present global financial system that original negotiable financial instruments are not permitted to be altered in anyway without knowledge of the original parties that formed the instrument. This is to protect against fraud—a serious criminal act.
	However, what mortgage holders do, in addition to earning interest upon the loan secured through the promissory note is that they frequently sell not only the promissory note but any associated insurance—as assets to third parties.
	It is not for any court to intervene in the conduct of business of a financial institution conducting lawful business and an owner of an asset has every right to sell that asset. But that does not include the right to deface or deliberately alter the terms of an original contract without fair notice and consent by the other party.
	This does not happen, is not happening and inferior military and civilian courts are willing accomplices in a massive criminal conspiracy worth multiple billions of dollars involving fraud perpetrated to literally millions of unsuspecting men, women and families- many of whom have lost everything to these same banks and financial institutions.
	The One Heaven Supreme Court in 2010 shall not permit this alleged fraud to continue
	If the highest inferior courts in nations such as the United States, Canada, Mexico and Brazil are not prepared to end this massive collusion and criminal conspiracy perverting the most ancient principles of contract law as well as financial law, then the One Heaven Supreme Court shall take steps from February 2010 to begin hearing active foreclosure matters as well as appeals on previous foreclosure matters for penalties against both the courts that rendered unlawful and contemptuous judgments as well as the financial institutions complicit such alleged criminal conspiracy.
	Based on the lack of respect for the law currently displayed by many inferior courts within these and other nations, it is improbable that any action will be taken to restore rule of law instead of corrupt anarchy until sufficient numbers of individuals have been provided legal remedy by the One Heaven Supreme Court.
	If you have suffered such an injury of law by corrupt and unlawful behaviour by inferior courts, then please email the One Heaven Supreme Court and we will provide you with the valid forms and procedures to have your matter listed for hearing.


Home