> Date: Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM
> Subject: RE: Family Update
>
>
> Blessings and Hello;
>
> I'll try to keep this short, however, if I do not succeed, you
> may one to print out
>
> Tomorrow, Monday, 9th, we will have our Hearing and I'll
> briefly go into what we will be standing on and the expected
> outcome.
>
> But, first to update thus far, in an effort to obtain
> documentation to support our claim that the Court has a
> conflict of interest "PRESIDING" a matter involving a bank.
> These docs, which we could have obtain for ourselves from the
> Secretary of STate's office, but would have more of an impact
> from sworn witness....just so happens these witnesses would
> have been the Clerk of the Court, herself, a Superior Court
> Judge & a County Manager.
>
> The Clerk of the Court, denied issuing our subpoenas and said
> that she would take them to the Sr. Resident Superior Court
> Judge....which he denied our right to subpoena for evidence.
> Stating that we were trying to delay the hearing, when in fact
> the deposition would have been almost 2 weeks prior to the
> hearing, so that wasn't his "real" excuse. The real reason is
> the docs we were asking would have shown that there is
> billions of dollars, within the state budget, allocated
> towards judges retirement by and vested with banks.
>
> We also were trying to request their campaign contribution
> statement (all are public records if you can get them) which
> will also show financial conflict of interest for a judge to
> hear issues coming before them when banks are a party.
>
> I like how a dear friend pointed out the term "preside", that
> judges have already "pre-sided" their judgment and to whom
> they are truly representing the best interest of.
>
> By the court not issuing our subpoenas, thereby violating our
> rights to obtain evidence in an open case, we have submitted a
> letter to the judge stating numerous case laws where the
> supreme court has ruled in favor of cases like these.
>
> We've also, submitted claims against both the Clerk of Court
> and Judge's bond with the state's insurance company.
>
> Now, what the first hearing will be about (there will be two
> with Wells Fargo 2nd team who's handling the Complaint against
> them):
>
> Hearing 1: *_Motion to Vacate Orders Or For Recusal
> And Withdrawal From The Case_* - here Don will state several
> arguments and I will state the rebuttals, basically its when
> the Judge cuts Don off I will question whether the judge is
> moving forward with its' jurisdiction challenged, or whatever
> the issue maybe.
> Issue #1 - refusal of the Court to allow subpoenas
> for itself concerning the facts we have found suggesting that
> conflict of interest do exist obviously are issues very
> sensitive and potentially damaging to the Court and County
> Government)
> #2 - that there is prima facie evidence
> from the pleadings (of the opposing attorneys) that the style
> of the name of the state in their Service of Process is not
> that designated as the legal name of the state found in the
> preamble to the North Carolina constitution and numerous
> other constitutional references, and which is legally required
> for Service of Process necessary to carry the authority of
> the Constitutional government of North Carolina to hear our case
> #3 - we also found that the North
> Carolina general statues cited in the Court's Summon and in
> the opposing attorneys' pleadings (Notice of Foreclosure and
> other foreclosure documents) as state law had either no
> enacting clauses or enabling acts, or lack the necessary
> promulgating and implementing regulations passed by the
> legislature and the Certification documents required to be
> filed with the Secretary of STate to be enforced as law of the
> STate of North Carolina upon which a Court sitting under the
> authority of the judicial branch of the Constitutional
> government may make judicial determinations in our case.
>
> #4 - we also find that the Court itself is
> identified on Dunn and Bradstreet as a Private Company branch
> location of Judiciary Courts Of the State Of North Carolina,
> were as the Clerk herself is "doing business as" under her
> name engaging in commerce, commercially trading and
> financially interconnected as pseudo government entities.
> Evidencing that the judges are NOT an unbiased judicial court
> of government the voters believed they have elected through
> the sovereign electors on North Carolina to protect their rights.
>
> #5 - and more importantly we ask that the
> Court establishes, on the record, what jurisdiction of
> government the Court's oath is to. Which is either North
> Carolina, the state of the republic, and the constitutional
> republic, united States of America OR to some other entity of
> the same name that is not the government directly created
> through the sovereign electors on the land, on North Carolina.
>
> It has been determined by the Supreme Court that "There has
> been created a *_fictional federal 'State_* Of North Carolina'
> *_within a state_*." And in other federal law (which we will
> give copies to the opposing attorney of the laws cited) that
> Congress defines various places of exclusive federal
> jurisdiction as "States". These places are _*not "state of the
> Union".*_
>
> My rebuttals are to make sure it is stated, in the record,
> that the Court's is proceeding with its
> jurisdiction challenged and unestablished and we will ask the
> Court to vacate its Orders, dismiss this case from its Court
> or we will move to subpoena the documents and persons to
> testify on these issues in future action and jurisdiction.
>
>
> And if after that, we are allowed to proceed, we will argue
> that we have sent non-cash payment and the bank has not
> returned to us any dishonoring of our payment had they
> negotiated it for recovery and settlement.
>
> Also, lets not mention our oral argument on whether the
> opposing attorney's oath is to uphold the Constitution created
> through the sovereign electors on North Carolina or is his
> oath to the federal area STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and the
> federal [corporation] UNITED STATES created by Congress
> functioning under the Emergency War Powers Acts of 1861 and
> after, whose protections are not unalienable rights.
>
> By law we have a right to require and know these things before
> we have to face opposing counsel in our defense.
>
> And another issue we'll be bring up will be the attorney's
> licensed to practice law. Under numerous statues of the Code
> regulating attorneys, attorneys needing and having a license
> to practice law and take the prescribed oath. We will ask that
> the opposing counsel produce any evidence for the Court of a
> copy of the oath he has taken and any evidence he as such a
> license required to practice law in this state court. A Bar
> Card is not a license...we have yet failed to see a "REAL"
> license. Now, he if tries to produce a bar card as license and
> of course the court will except it, our question will be "What
> jurisdiction of government is it issued under?" That makes a
> difference folks!!!
>
> Okay, in a nutshell these are the issues we will try to be
> heard on...of course we do expect the judge to trample right
> over us, evading every issue on jurisdiction (the most
> important one) and granting the opposing attorney the right to
> foreclose.
>
> Actually, the more the judge violates our rights the better.
> Because we will take this to a higher court (if the Lord so
> move us).
>
> This isn't about the house, its about light exposing darkness
> and deception..its about learning to Stand without Fear, a
> characteristic, I believe will be necessary for what is to
> come...But, there must be wisdom/knowledge which can only come
> from the Father.
>
> Well, hope that wasn't too long!
>
> Will keep you updated.
>
> Thank you for listening, your prayers and your
> wisdom/knowledge some have offered.
>
> Love In Christ,
> the family; rascento
