RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS FROM A JUDGE

1-Why are you in Default? I am not in default, the mortgage is paid in full, the party attempting to foreclose is NOT the real party in interest and has used false and/or forged documents to make it appear as they are the RPII - they have not been paid in full because they were NEVER supposed to be paid at all. They "sold and/or transferred" their right to be paid as part of their other dealings and for being nothing more than a broker for the money claimed to be loaned. Their claims are fraudulent and cannot be established factually with any real and true evidence; and can and are disproved by their filings with the IRS and SEC. 2-Are you making payments? The mortgage is paid in full as evidenced by the PSA and the REMIC. If the adverse party claims otherwise please order them to provide the PSA and REMIC filing with the IRS to this Court as said filings shall establish factually that they are making inconsistent and contradictory claims to the IRS and this Court. 3-Did you get a loan? At one point, it appears money was transferred between parties, but the purported "Loan" was in actuality brokered and not supplied by the adverse party. Again, I refer the court to the PSA and REMIC filings with the IRS to evidence my claims and disprove all claims by the adverse party. If the adverse party claims to this Court to have supplied a loan then let them bring forth evidence of such as reported to the IRS and SEC. 4-why are you in foreclosure? I am NOT in foreclosure. The adverse is the one in foreclosure and committing fraud upon this Court to make it appear as though it is me being foreclosed upon when in actuality, I, as beneficiary to the PSA for the adverse party's fraud, am the only entity with rights to said property. For clarification, there was a "deal;" the deal may appear legit due to the false and/or forged documents provided to this Court by the adverse party, but in actuality the ONLY "valid and lawful deal" this Court should recognize by law is the deal that is inclusive of the "securitization process and the relevant PSA" wherein since the adverse party failed to adhere to the requirements of the PSA the purported "loan" was paid in full by numerous insurance policies relative to the purported "loan" and myself, ergo the purported "loan" was paid for me. In law, there is no requirement for me to pay and no restriction on who pays, the ONLY requirement is that a debt, if valid, be paid. The purported debt was paid, as evidenced by the adverse party's filings with IRS and SEC that they are purposefully concealing from this Court in violation of state and/or federal law. If the adverse party wishes to deny my allegations then pursuant to the rules of discovery and best evidence I move this Court to COMPEL the adverse party to present the ORIGINAL PSA; and NOTE; and the REMIC filings with the IRS and SEC which will evidence factually my claims are true. This Court should note that the adverse party is making contradicting claims to the IRS, the SEC and this Court. The PSA and REMIC filings contain conclusive presumptions that contradict the adverse party's claims in this Court.

In short, I am NOT trying to get a house for free, the house was paid for through other entities of which I am a lawful beneficiary of and/or party to; in actuality the adverse party is unlawfully defrauding this Court, the IRS, the SEC and insurance companies and investor groups to get a house for free and be paid numerous times on a "bad" investment the adverse party caused to be bad. 5. "Did you stop making payments"? And I am going to swear you in. A. Are you going to swear in opposing counsel? B. Let the record reflect that the only admissible evidence will be coming from me, today. C. NO, I stopped being defrauded by the misrepresentation of alleged loan payments D. I never received any loan and there has been no proof offered to the court to prove that I did receive one. E. NO. Based on the fact I never made any "loan" payments because I never received a loan. So I'm not sure what to call them, extortion payments, fraud payments, whatever they were, they were not payments on a loan. F. I was making payments towards a mortgage on a loan that I never received. And now I'm just waiting on the loan. G. Show me the loan. The wire transfer, a cancelled check, an ACH a cashiers cancelled check. A receipt. H. 'That's a really good question, your honor. I've been trying to find out how much is owed, by whom, and to whom for nearly four years." (insert 'if any' and 'if anyone') if you like. I. It's a rhetorical trick used by politicians and public officials.. answer their question with 'good question' and then answer the question you wanted them to ask. J. Who was I supposed to be paying, your honor? My opponent is an interloper trying to steal my property. They are not the party entitled to enforce my note and no evidence has been presented by my opponent to prove they are the party entitled to enforce my PN. K. Don’t let the Judge swear you in. It is a trick as this is not a trial, nor is this an evidentiary hearing. These questions are inappropriate at this time. And, your Honor are you trying to prosecute my opponents case from the bench? L. If the Judge says; “Did you stop making payments? Answer “yes” or “no”! I cannot answer yes or no as I am not willing to commit perjury and for you (the judge, counsel, etc.) to instruct me to answer so is not only tampering with a witness, but also suborning perjury. As in the proverbial “Answer yes or no – have you stopped beating your wife?” question, either answer produces the same admittance that you have beaten your wife as the question has that presumption if you do not rebut it as well as the presumption that you even have a wife. As we know in the law, if you do not rebut a statement, through your silence, you acquiesce/confirm it as true. So I cannot simply answer the question yes or no as it would be perjury. The real question is, have I stopped making payments to whom and for what debt. The question has the presumptions that a lawful debt exists, that consideration was given for it, and that opposing counsel’s client is a person entitled to enforce it. Not addressing those presumptions by simply answering yes or no admits the presumptions to be true. The mortgage was executed through fraud as there was never anything loaned. Furthermore, full payment was made at closing and any monies tendered since were misrepresented as loan payments and suborned through extortion and fraud. 6. Judge asks, “then why is your note not reflecting these transactions, and why is the mortgage improperly assigned? All it means is that the Note was stripped of it's value and THAT is what they securitized... not the note. A. Alternate answer: Ask the court: where's the signed documents, where's the schedule of loans showing homeowner's loan in trust, and where's the MLPA (Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement)