File a False Lien - Go To Jail (Ronald Hoodenpyle)

[Thule]

I tried to present is slowly for the slower and uniniterested. What people don't seem to get is that they held his foreclosure hearing early, in secret!

Still no need to repost the entire thing for minor edits.

[wserra]

Moderator comment: David posted the same thing (with minor edits) five times, requesting that the first four be deleted. While I did that, it leaves several posters above commenting on a post which actually appears later.

David, I saw all of the posts. To make the changes you did, it was hardly necessary to repost the entirety. Moreover, a couple of the changes were due to bad BBCode syntax. To avoid that, perhaps you could use the "Preview" function. Or are you trying to make yourself a PITA?

[wserra]

he missed the very important foreclosure hearing held in secret on the 16th

Bullshit. Your buddy Hoodie has played games with court dates before. See my posts earlier in the thread. And if we all know whose documents you posted, why all the redactions? I understand DOBs and SS#s, but somebody redacted what presumably was Hoodie's name - and the docket number. Wonder why? It is likely the proofs of service of the dates would be in the docket, but I don't have access to CO state court records - if they're on line in that sort of detail at all.

Poor Ronald Roy! You might wonder what would drive a man to negative averment and maritime liens – and putting liens on IRS agents and such!

Greed, malice and stupidity would seem to account for it.

To better comprehend though, you should look at that Doc 70; I mean the real one from PACER of course (you got that Wesley?).

Yep. The govt's exhibit list. What's that supposed to tell us?

Bringing the Hoodie saga up to date: after getting his final break (see my post above) and being permitted to self-surrender, Hoodie failed to show at FCI Big Spring (TX) as directed. The judge issued a warrant for his arrest on November 3. Once they catch up with him, this latest piece of stupidity will likely cost "Poor Ronald Roy" a couple more years of his life.

[webhick]

Some of you simply lack the attention span to get this so I am going slow.

If someone lacks the attention span to watch paint dry, having it dry slower isn't going to increase the odds that they'll stand around that much longer to watch it dry.

[Cathulhu]

David, David. Can't you fix all that with your time machine?

[David Merrill]

To better comprehend though, you should look at that Doc 70; I mean the real one from PACER of course (you got that Wesley?).

Yep. The govt's exhibit list. What's that supposed to tell us?

Juxtaposition cases? And you call me on bullshit?

he missed the very important foreclosure hearing held in secret on the 16th

Bullshit. Your buddy Hoodie has played games with court dates before. See my posts earlier in the thread. And if we all know whose documents you posted, why all the redactions? I understand DOBs and SS#s, but somebody redacted what presumably was Hoodie's name - and the docket number. Wonder why? It is likely the proofs of service of the dates would be in the docket, but I don't have access to CO state court records - if they're on line in that sort of detail at all.

Poor Ronald Roy! You might wonder what would drive a man to negative averment and maritime liens – and putting liens on IRS agents and such!

Greed, malice and stupidity would seem to account for it.

To better comprehend though, you should look at that Doc 70; I mean the real one from PACER of course (you got that Wesley?).

Yep. The govt's exhibit list. What's that supposed to tell us?

Bringing the Hoodie saga up to date: after getting his final break (see my post above) and being permitted to self-surrender, Hoodie failed to show at FCI Big Spring (TX) as directed. The judge issued a warrant for his arrest on November 3. Once they catch up with him, this latest piece of stupidity will likely cost "Poor Ronald Roy" a couple more years of his life.

No Bullshit Wesley;

You are ignoring the dates. This happened in early 2008. What is not redacted is plainly that the hearing was to happen on the 22nd and the resale order is dated on the 16th; like I am showing people, in secret. When Ronald Roy showed up on the 22nd, expecting his home released from a fraudulent mortgage, he found that the foreclosure hearing had been held ex parte on the same day he served the Subpoena in Denver. People can look at it there on my post and decide for themselves.

Closer to home is Doc 70. You evaded my point altogether because you found that the Document has been scrubbed. [To verify, bring up the earlier docket and click on Doc 70 and note that Doc 70 has been scrubbed.] Not only that, the docket has been dissected to evade the findings of fact on its face. Notice the two dates on the docket – two dockets for one case file!

The point I am making for anybody who is interested is that courts are scrubbing out the fact that the original notes are being sold into another marketplace, enriching the bankers, while they still pretend to have a claim on the home. Take a look at these two opinions. If you sell the note for pennies on the dollar, or into a marketplace to enrich yourself as an investment, then you lose claim to the property because the note is the evidence of ownership.

The homeowner is notified that asset-based feed-through certificates will suffice for the original note here on this foreclosure notice:

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9277 ... notice.jpg

Doc 70 was filed in response to Deutsche Bank calling witnesses to assert that notice had been given the homeowner and therefore stood grounds for foreclosure, being that the homeowner had been notified he had no right to demand the original note as evidence of ownership.

I want you to pay attention to the day that the docket was dissected – August 13th. That is the third anniversary of the onset of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis (Global Financial Crisis).

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/4712/beijing.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/992/beijing2.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2369/beijing3.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/2386 ... tivity.jpg

and the day of the Great Judgment and Transaction (30 days prior to 9/11):


http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE1.gif
http://ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/BOE2.gif



What I was saying about the Witness List, just so that people reading do not get thrown by Wserra’s protectionist obfuscation is to look at Page 9 of the document called Witness List in this .zip file.



Thank you for cleaning up the thread Wesley. Ever since you Quatlosers tried to flame my computer it is a little difficult to get the formatting correct on my little phone screen.




At least the first time. But like you say the best solution is to activate my ability to edit my posts like normal members here.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[webhick]

Ever since you Quatlosers tried to flame my computer it is a little difficult to get the formatting correct on my little phone screen.

No one tried to "flame" your computer. This website along with many others hosted by GoDaddy was infected with a virus multiple times, which took the webmaster several hours to clean up each time.

It is not our fault that you surf the internet unprotected from viruses and therefore may have been affected by a virus that went after many websites hosted by GoDaddy. It is not our fault that you still haven't cleaned up the virus properly. It is not our fault that you insist on posting from your little phone screen. It is not our fault that you are not using the preview button. It is not our fault that you abused the ability to edit your posts and therefore lost the ability to edit your posts.

The best solution is for you to deal with the consequences of your actions.

[JamesVincent]

There you go again web, thinking he can see that it was his fault that things are the way they are, when obviously it is much easier to blame everyone else, especially the ones that disagree with him. Hell, Ive been here only a month or so and am not an attorney, and I can see through a lot of the crap that hes posted. As far as viruses affecting your computer, they sure can. And they are usually fixable, with a little knowledge. And if worse came to worse theres always reformatting the hard drive. As was pointed out, a little protection can go a long way. Theres several good anti-viruses available for free out there and which are what I use and havent had a problem for years. And some of them can fix the problems on your computer after the virus has affected it. Malwarebytes is one of them. You can run that and then use CCleaner from Piriform to fix the registry errors most viruses cause. Both of them are free to download and use and Malwarebytes only costs money if you want to use it actively as an always running anti-virus.

[wserra]

Y'know, David, over the years I have always thought I kinda, sorta got what you were saying. Not that you were right - you were probably right less than five percent of the time. But I always had an idea what you were talking about. From time to time I and others questioned my sanity due to that, but I persevered.

I now have no idea what you're talking about.

To better comprehend though, you should look at that Doc 70; I mean the real one from PACER of course (you got that Wesley?).

Yep. The govt's exhibit list. What's that supposed to tell us?

Juxtaposition cases? And you call me on bullshit?

You asked me for document 70 from PACER. I linked to document 70 from PACER. Look at it - it says so right on top. After all these years, I'm sure you know that PACER is a federal database. If you want Colorado state court stuff, it won't be on PACER. So I have no idea what you want. And I have no idea what "juxtaposition cases" are.

You are ignoring the dates. This happened in early 2008. What is not redacted is plainly that the hearing was to happen on the 22nd and the resale order is dated on the 16th;

Wrong. Do you know how subpoenas work, David? The court clerk doesn't fill them out - the court clerk doesn't know what you want. You fill them out. In the case of a pro se litigant, s/he then takes the subpoena to the court clerk to be signed (a lawyer at least in New York can sign subpoenas without the clerk). That is a ministerial act. The court clerk probably checks no further than to see that the subpoena is being issued in a real case. If it is, it's signed and sealed, then given back to the pro se to serve. Hoodenpyle put the "January 22, 2008" on that subpoena, not the court clerk. If that wasn't the right date, then he was the one who got it wrong, perhaps intentionally. Let's not forget that there is a warrant for his arrest as we speak. Was that another secret date that he missed?

Moreover, your docket capture isn't necessarily even from Hoodenpyle's case. It could be from any one of the probably thousands of Deutsche Bank cases pending in that court.

You evaded my point altogether because you found that the Document has been scrubbed. [To verify, bring up the earlier docket and click on Doc 70 and note that Doc 70 has been scrubbed.] Not only that, the docket has been dissected to evade the findings of fact on its face. Notice the two dates on the docket – two dockets for one case file!

I have no idea what you are talking about. webhick answered you regarding the GoDaddy trojan.

[wserra]

I just checked PACER again. Hoodenpyle was picked up on the warrant three days ago, and is now in jail. As predicted, he is also charged with a new offense - failure to appear, 18 USC 3146(a)(2). In Hoodie's case, it carries a max of five years, mandatory consecutive to the previous sentence.

What a numbnuts. I hope the week was worth it.

[fortinbras]

Wait until Dave tells you that
(1) he built a time machine,
(2) he ruined the career of the county attorney who successfully prosecuted him for passing bad paper (that man is now the Colorado State Attorney-General --- I've begged David to ruin me the same way, but he stubbornly refuses),
(3) the Sept 11th attacks on the WTC were deliberately staged by the govt to cheat him, personally, because on that date he was due to collect ....
(4) his entitlement to nearly all the money in the world - really, he's got a pdf of a document he claims is a Bill of Exchange or something that says he will paid all the money in the world. It's got an "anti-zionist algorithm" and everything. The only thing it doesn't have is a clear statement of who is supposed to pay him, the sum of money, and anyone's signature but his own. But surely you wouldn't doubt the word of someone who's already spent time in the slammer for passing fake checks; especially if he got revenge by making the prosecuting attorney the State Atty-Gen. Yep, the mean old govt blew up the WTC rather than pay him, and even now, some 9 years later, he hasn't gotten around to collecting, not that he's in any hurry to stop living in squalor. Yet, if I were in his shoes, I'd have used my time machine to collect the money before the jet hit the building. I might even use the time machine to avoid going to jail.

[notorial dissent]

The best solution is for you to deal with the consequences of your actions.

And therein lies the basis for all the grief in our poor Merrill's tragi-comic life. It's never his fault, it is always SOMEONE or SOMETHING else conspiring against him. Motor bikes jump immediately to mind, I can't imagine why.

[David Merrill]

To better comprehend though, you should look at that Doc 70; I mean the real one from PACER of course (you got that Wesley?).

Yep. The govt's exhibit list. What's that supposed to tell us?

Juxtaposition cases? And you call me on bullshit?

U.S. Bankruptcy Court
District of Arizona (Tucson)
Bankruptcy Petition #: 4:09-bk-09703-EWH

You wear intentionally thick like a real live attorney Wserra! That is okay though, the non-attorneys are who I am really speaking with. Because of Doc 70 the docket on this case has been dissected. Even on the pre-dissection docket (dated 8/11/10), you cannot access Doc 70 attached. I have included Doc 70 though, even though nobody is supposed to read it according to the Arizona District clerk of court.

You are ignoring the dates. This happened in early 2008. What is not redacted is plainly that the hearing was to happen on the 22nd and the resale order is dated on the 16th;

Wrong. Do you know how subpoenas work, David? The court clerk doesn't fill them out - the court clerk doesn't know what you want. You fill them out. In the case of a pro se litigant, s/he then takes the subpoena to the court clerk to be signed (a lawyer at least in New York can sign subpoenas without the clerk). That is a ministerial act. The court clerk probably checks no further than to see that the subpoena is being issued in a real case. If it is, it's signed and sealed, then given back to the pro se to serve. Hoodenpyle put the "January 22, 2008" on that subpoena, not the court clerk. If that wasn't the right date, then he was the one who got it wrong, perhaps intentionally. Let's not forget that there is a warrant for his arrest as we speak. Was that another secret date that he missed?

I waited a few hours for an attorney to correct you on two important points. For one thing if an attorney even in NY were to intentionally or even accidentally put the wrong date on a subpoena and serve it, he would be reprimanded for causing the party to miss a presumed important hearing. For another thing, when a clerk signs a subpoena he or she is careful not to just verify the case exists, but that the date of the hearing is correct on the subpoena!

You also wear intentional misdirection like a true attorney at law too!


Regards,

David Merrill.

[grixit]

I just checked PACER again. Hoodenpyle was picked up on the warrant three days ago, and is now in jail. As predicted, he is also charged with a new offense - failure to appear, 18 USC 3146(a)(2). In Hoodie's case, it carries a max of five years, mandatory consecutive to the previous sentence.

What a numbnuts. I hope the week was worth it.

Perhaps while he's in jail, David can wear his hoodie. It's cold under that bridge.

[Paul]

waited a few hours for an attorney to correct you on two important points. For one thing if an attorney even in NY were to intentionally or even accidentally put the wrong date on a subpoena and serve it, he would be reprimanded for causing the party to miss a presumed important hearing.

The subpoena you posted above was issued by Ronald Roy. So did he intentionally mislead himself?

[Joey Smith]

when a clerk signs a subpoena he or she is careful not to just verify the case exists, but that the date of the hearing is correct on the subpoena!

Completely false. Clerks do NOT check the accuracy of any information on a subpoena, summons, or any other document that is filled out by one party for issuance against another party or a witness. Clerks simply issue such documents with a date stamp to show when it was issued (so that later it can be determined if it was timely or became stale), and then later note the return when delivered to them by the process server.

So we can safely chalk this up as just another in a long line of your lies. How is that time machine coming? Are you going to be able to go back in time and destroy Quatloos! before it utterly destroyed what little reputation you had left?

[Nikki]

Please remember that David (at least mentally) lives on a different planet and interprets everything in the light most favorable to his predetermined conclusions.

There's no point arguing with him or attempting to point out what you percieve as his errors because he will just ignore you.

David has determined -- many years ago -- the logical framework in which he lives. Nothing anyone can say can rattle that framework, cause him to change his mind about anything, or make him admit that he is wrong about anything.

Let him post whatever he wishes. Just clean up the garbage and rebut his most egregious lies.

[David Merrill]

Garbage!

The clerk of court carefully checks the date and time of the hearing on the subpoena before authorizing it. That is part of what authorizing means.

You are the liars and I don't think you can actually be so stupid. You must be lying to annoy me.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Nikki]

The clerk of court carefully checks the date and time of the hearing on the subpoena before authorizing it.

And you have proof of this because ... ?

Or is this just another one of your hallucinations?

[JamesVincent]

I have never seen a clerk really look at a subpoena when Ive had them done. You fill out the paperwork, they doublecheck that youve put everything on there, sign it, make a copy for the file and hand it back unless the sheriff is serving it. Then they send it to the sheriffs office.