Posted 9:42 AM by Creditwrench

There are 7 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. RE: standing to sue
From: "JT" <jt.questions.authority@gmail.com>
2. Re: Re: non-judicial foreclosure law... MISTAKES SELF CURED
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
3. re: non judicial foreclosure act upheld
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
4. Re: re: non judicial foreclosure act upheld
From: "rs" <rickard@adelphia.net>
5. Re: re: non judicial foreclosure act upheld
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
6. RE: Re: .................................. Forum and Calendar CHANGES on Richard Cornforth's website
From: "Scotsman" <scotsman@695online.com>
7. husband intervention
From: "The Handyman" <ebob@bellsouth.net>

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 15:13:13 -0600
From: "JT" <jt.questions.authority@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: standing to sue

A Credit Card Co. that is a National Association does not(as a general rule)
have register in a state as foreign corporation in order to have standing to
sue.

However every state is different. Check your state statutes.

Citibank NA

MBNA Bank NA

Bank of America NA

Household Bank NA

American Express NA

You get the idea.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of the_2_5_cents
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:16 PM
To: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Cornforth-Strategies] standing to sue

can anyone explain to me what is required for a credit card company to

have standing to sue in a state? If they have branch offices in your

state does that give them standing to sue?

Thanks.

Message: 2

Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 16:17:50 -0500
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Re: non-judicial foreclosure law... MISTAKES SELF CURED

Mr. Bauer or anyone who can help me:

Is there anyone on this list who will have any hope/remedy for this situation?

I have just learned from two attorneys that the non-judicial foreclosure law (mine was non-judicially
foreclosed on over a year ago) SELF CURES any mistakes the foreclosing party makes.

I am in a quandry now that the hearing is less than 10 days away, August. 15th.

I have got to look up the act that they are talking about.
If anyone using Richard's methodology has any knowledge or experience regarding
this, please let me know asap.

These two attorneys ABSOLUTELY agreed with me that the non-judicial foreclosure
law absolutely GUTS THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF PEOPLE, but they are powerless
to do anything about it at present.

What to do?
Charlene/Hot Springs, Arkansas

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bauer
To: Cornforth-Strategies@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:00 PM
Subject: [Cornforth-Strategies] Re:

As most here are now well aware of, I am an old friend and supporter
of Richard and his work. I see and talk to him at all of our J-accuse
meetings so if I have something to discuss with him I will do so at
any time I choose to do so. Whether he agrees with me or not may aor
may not be another matter entirely. He does not always agree with me
and I do not always agree with everything he says or does either. That
fact does not change our mutual regard for each other.

I can assure everyone that when I see posts here attempting to
convince readers of this group that John Gliha and his theories about
modern money mechanics, the two faces of debt, and the rest of his
junk legal theories are viable and they should go to his website or
others that also teach such garbage instead of talking about Richard
Cornforth and his strategies and teachings I will be most unhappy
about that kind of conduct. Attempting to promote the theories of
others in Richard's forum is most unkind and unethical.

Another thing that needs to be understood is that nothing posted in
any Yahoo groups is likely to ever get any listings in any search
engine unless it it ported to the web somehow. Messages posted in
forums such as the one that is about to be or has been abandoned do
get a few listings in Google from time to time if the forum is active
and has good content but even those are few and far between unless the
forum has an active RSS feed and a few API keys to help promote it.

Getting publicity on the web is a very tough proposition and requires
someone with an intimate and working knowledge of search engines and
how they work. I am doing all I can to support this group by porting
it's messages to the official J-accuse Blog at
http://j-accuse.blogspot.com but messages that are posted attempting
to lure people to other groups that teach theories and ideas that are
completely against those that Richard teaches will do nothing but harm
the public image of Richard Cornforth and his J-accuse movement.

Keeping this forum on topic and talking only about Richard and his
teachings and seminars is what is important. If that isn't happening
then Richard does need to be informed since as has been pointed out by
the moderator, Richard don't have time to personally monitor this
group and he asked me to do that and keep him informed this last
Thursday night. I'll do just that.

[This message contained attachments]

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 16:24:03 -0500
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: re: non judicial foreclosure act upheld

http://imis.usfn.org/eUPDATE/UpClose-AR-statutory_foreclosure_act_.htm

Statutory Foreclosure Act
Constitutionality is Upheld

by Charles Ward
Wilson and Associates, PLLC � USFN Member (AR, TN)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1987, Arkansas enacted The Statutory Foreclosure Act. At the time, the exclusive method of foreclosure in Arkansas was by judicial action. Even after passage of the Act, statutory or non-judicial foreclosures were slow to gain acceptance. Many of the state�s real estate lawyers and title agents questioned both the constitutionality of the statute and the insurability of the title produced by a non-judicial foreclosure.

In the 15 years since the passage of the statute, doubts about the quality of non-judicial foreclosure titles have disappeared. Arkansas�s circuit courts and the state�s bankruptcy courts routinely enforce the statute�s provisions on the passing of title to the foreclosing lender and the termination of the borrower�s right of redemption. Over this 15-year period, statutory foreclosure has become the method of foreclosure in Arkansas most preferred by lenders. However, constitutional questions about the statute have lingered � until now, that is.

In an opinion filed February 24, 2003, a federal district court in Arkansas addressed head-on the issue of the constitutionality of the Arkansas Statutory Foreclosure Act and found the statute constitutional on every issue. In Hernandez v. Fleet Mortgage Corp., the federal court rejected a due-process challenge to the statute, holding that no state action exists under the statute, including the provision allowing a purchaser at a foreclosure sale to bring an ejectment suit in state court to obtain possession. Instead, the statute simply provides for the enforcement of private rights by private parties. But the court went on to hold that even if state action were present, no constitutional due-process violation would be found because the statute�s multiple notice provisions � certified mail to the last known address, newspaper publication, courthouse posting, and notice recorded in the county land records � satisfies the constitution (Internet posting has since been added.).

The court rejected the borrowers� argument that actual notice to them was required. Instead, notice under the statute was sufficient because it was reasonably calculated to apprise the borrowers of the pending foreclosure. Of particular significance was the court�s holding that the statute�s requirement of notice by certified mail without also requiring a return receipt is sufficient. By using Postal Form 2877 the foreclosing lender was able to establish that separate notice was mailed to each of the borrowers at the property address when the borrowers admittedly lived there.

As one of the statute's principal drafters, I can attest that much attention was paid in the drafting process to the constitutional principles of state action and due process. It is gratifying (and a great relief) to know 15 years later that the drafters� application of these principles to statutory foreclosures was correct.

� Copyright 2003 USFN

[This message contained attachments]

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 19:51:47 -0400
From: "rs" <rickard@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: re: non judicial foreclosure act upheld

Charliegirl-
I don't know much about these things -but - I notice in the article attached that Mr. Ward states that trhe court sez, that, "(t)he statute simplky provide for the enforcement of private right by private persons." Well, if you are dealing with a national bank (such as Fleet), a National Bank is a instrumentality of the federal government. Look up instrumentality rule. There are many, many Supreme Court cases which state in black and white, that a national bank is an instrumentality of the federal government. It ain't a private person, and so would not have standing as a private person, if that is required under the statute.
RS

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 19:42:24 -0500
From: "charliegirl2005" <charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: re: non judicial foreclosure act upheld

The foreclosing party is Midland Mortgage, which is associated (not sure how exactly yet) with Midfirst Bank, A THRIFT... and as such is regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Would that make it an 'instrumentality' of the federal government? I believe it would.
charliegirl2005@sbcglobal.net

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:37:55 -0400
From: "Scotsman" <scotsman@695online.com>
Subject: RE: Re: .................................. Forum and Calendar CHANGES on www.Richa

Dear Bill

I read your post with interest.

Would you consider to assist me as moderator to Cornforth Strategies eGroup?

I am focusing on Cornforth Seminars and was unaware of another other then
Richard being promoted.

I agree with you.

We can't have that here.

Would you either call me or allow me to call you for dialogue regarding how
better to promote RC?

Also, you mention "Another thing that needs to be understood is that nothing
posted in any Yahoo groups is likely to ever get any listings in any search
engine unless it it ported to the web somehow."

Have I inadvertently injured Richard by opening the eGroup?

If I have, what can I do to correct that other then bringing the subject
back to his Forum?

Regards, I am

Michael-Edward:

386-804-1234

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 03:17:28 -0500
From: "The Handyman" <ebob@bellsouth.net>
Subject: husband intervention

When a wife applies for a credit card and defaults on payment I believe the credit card attorney's are starting to sue only the wife knowing 90% of them can't or won't go into court when the chips are down. As we know the husband cannot represent the wife because of their protective system rules. But the husband will be responsible to pay the debt if reduced to judgment. That is responsibility without representation. That responsibility must give the husband an interest in the outcome of the case and a right to intervene as an indispensable party. At least that is the way I see it. They are in a community property state and ultimately the community will have to pay the judgment so why can't the husband intervene? He is part of the community? Surely this must be a problem elsewhere? Is there a solution?