Local Geneva News



     Tomorrow's news used today. This is Headlines with a Voice.

     Our old friends at Wells Fargo, they’re involved in yet another banking scandal. This latest one, it's really bad, but before we get into the details let's take a look at Wells Fargo's recent history.

     Back in April, Wells Fargo was fined $1 billion for selling 570,000 clients auto insurance that they didn't need. Then charging mortgage borrowers erroneous fees.

   By the bank's own estimates as many as 20,000 of those clients may have had their cars repossessed. As a result of their inability to pay for the insurance that Wells Fargo illegally sold them.

     While I'm on the subject of repossessing vehicles, last November, Wells Fargo came under scrutiny for repossessing vehicles owned by members of the military.

   Then in October. Wells Fargo was grilled by federal regulators, after Wells Fargo recommended investment products that were highly likely to lose value.

     Wells Fargo also pushed tons of customers into higher fee retirement accounts that were bad for the customers but more lucrative for the bank. That same month, Wells Fargo confessed to erroneously charging late fees to more than 100,000 borrowers even though the delays with the bank's fault.

     In 2016 employees at some of Wells Fargo's California branches were caught selling lucrative customer information like Social Security numbers to identity thieves in late 2016 and throughout 2017.

     Wells Fargo had its notorious fake account scandal. Remember that Wells Fargo employees were opening up extra accounts for millions of customers so that they could hit their sales goals and earn a bonus.

     But this latest Wells Fargo scandal is really staggering this week. Wells Fargo said that a computer glitch caused 545 of its customers to lose their homes. The glitch, according to papers filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, caused Wells Fargo to incorrectly deny 870 loan modifications, around 60% of which went into foreclosure. Basically, people asked Wells Fargo to change their mortgage to make it more affordable. Requests that should have been approved were not. The process took months before the borrower got the final NO, I'm serious. “Oh sorry about that”. Sorry you lost your home, your family, and your job resulting from a bad computer glitch. You know how it goes, real sorry.

     CBS interviewed one of the victims. A man named José Aguilar fell behind on his mortgage payments after trying to fix a mold problem in his home. Jose’ asked Wells Fargo to change the mortgage to lower his payments. While waiting for Wells to process his request, he fell further behind until the house ultimately went into foreclosure. He and his wife split up. He had to move into a friend's basement with his son and then three years later he gets a letter from Wells Fargo saying, wait for it.

“Dear José, we made a mistake. We are sorry”.

     I'm sure Aguilar was relieved that Wells Fargo was sorry after literally ruining his life. They did give him a $25,000 check which obviously doesn't come close to making up for their glitch.

     So, my question is why would anyone want to do business with Wells Fargo?

     It's not just Wells Fargo. Every major bank on the planet has been found guilty, at some point of fraud. People still trust these criminals with their money.

   The public has been institutionalized to believe that they have to hold their money with the BIG BANK. The reality is that we have many choices with just a little effort. You can take control of your retirement and take your money out of the hands of the major financial institutions.

From Headlines With The Voice. This has been Nancy Morgan Heart.




Haywood Jackson Mizell                                                            October 30, 2018

Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Atlanta, GA 30362-1501

RE: 0741170904 Oct 17, 2018 LTR 96C 201712030 0000767 BODC: SB

Dear Nancy Stevens Kelley, Dept. Manager, Accounts Management,

     In your correspondence of October 17, 2018, you acknowledge receipt of correspondence received on July 31, 2018, which was presumably about my “inquiry” dated May 23, 2018. On Oct 01, 2018 the IRS asked for more detailed information. On October 05, 2018 mailed to the IRS (ATTN Laurie Kelley, Kansas City, MO) was enclosed many requested documents and correspondences that confirm in detail, without dispute, that the refund owed me by the IRS is due and has not been paid.

     The central issue is that the IRS was given the “presumption of correctness” by the court, with the understanding as expressed in the unsworn testimony by the IRS representative attorney, that no order by the court would be needed because the IRS actions would always be governed by the factual numbers. However, the fulfilment of that promise remains undone. The transcript documentation establishes the needed action contrary to “determined no action is necessary on your account.” as was stated in your correspondence. The audit numbers determined by the Treasury has been continually ignored. The refund remains unpaid.

       Permit me to give my opinion in that the IRS will always dispute what is undeniable. My conviction is that the LORD is unlike the IRS, His statements are sure and certain. “19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Wrath being defined as retributory punishment for an offense or a crime: divine chastisement as remedy.

   My patience is rooted in the commandment, “30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him (the IRS) that taketh away thy goods ask them (IRS) not again.” The IRS stated that it would locate what is mine and exercise the duty to return to the rightful owner what is his. To do otherwise is stated, “That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

     If I am wrong, show me the error of my ways. Each of us is accountable, Romans 14:12 “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

     All involved, originally in the “defraud” conducted as employees of the IRS, are now dead and are no longer able to ignore doing what is right. It’s up to you.

     All that remains is courage.

Yours truly, Haywood Jackson Mizell, Copy; Mr. Donald J. Trump, President, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500


2012 Example of Two Different Governments:

Republic Constitution or Democratic Congress Election of President

 1. Republic Constitution:

     The Electoral College has one vote per Congressional District plus two more votes the same in number as the two senators that represents the respective states. The majority vote in each congressional district gets that one vote. Mitt Romney gathered the most Electoral votes under the Constitution of the united States of America.

 2.Democratic Congress (acting independently of the Constitution) Election of the Corporate CEO:

     Barrack Obama gathered the majority of the Electoral College votes under the un-constitutional system where each state of the fifty states united gets all the number of eligible Electoral College votes when determined by the majority number of ballots cast in the statewide election for president. Under this method, Mr. Obama is elected president of the Corporation called THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Mr. Obama needs no birth certificate or any requirement other than to satisfy the corporation policies. A corporation exists so long as it is profitable.

Again, SCOTUS ruled two governments in Downes v. Bidwell

      Constitutional Republic President elect:   Mitt Romney

      THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC Democratic President elect:   Barack Obama

Congress always elects as the "DEEP STATE CORPORATE FUNDS" decide except when overruled by Divine Intervention.


Mr. John Merrill, Secretary of State

105 Dexter Ave.

Montgomery, AL 36109

RE: Public Official Bonds guarantee taxpayers that the official will do what the law requires.

Dear Mr. Merrill,

Your office personnel have been of great assistance to me. Thank You. The problem is that I have been unable to obtain a copy of the bond for a public official that coverage extends to the “faithful performance” of the duties of his office. All employees who receive a check from the State of Alabama has coverage from a blanket bond for honest dealings in the handling of money with the beneficiary of the bond being exclusively the State of Alabama.

It is my understanding that a Public Official in Alabama is immune from complaints by anyone on his faithful performances of his office duties that are lawful. Should the official perform an act that is done under the “color of law” or outside the demands of the law, bonds cover such actions for benefit of the taxpayer who registers the complaint that can be authenticated. In other words, lawful behavior by an official is immune for any complaint. Behavior outside the law is covered, as protection for the injured party, by a bond.

The official bond of every state official, agent, or employee, except the bond of the Secretary of State, must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State. Oath of offices that are required are available. Most oaths are on file with your office. Few bonds are on file. No “faithful performance of duty” bonds (other than fiduciary) are on file. Correct my misinformation if needed.

Thirty-two requests have been made individually to elected officials or judges or sheriffs, and circuit clerks with all having been refused or ignored.

Direct me to all the bond locations both fiduciary and faithful performance bonds for my review.

Certainly, there are bonds because all offices can be manned only by those who post a bond. Refusal to post bond means vacating of office and replacement appointment.

I am an architect familiar with construction bonds, which rarely, if ever, enlist court assistance.

Bond claims are quickly settled with remedy application.

Is the Secretary of State Office the regulator of bonds? What happens to officials who refuse to identify the surety company licensed to issue a bond for them?

Finally, the law declares personal responsibility for the individual that chose to bond themselves to the same measure of a bond requirement.

Your office has issued a statement as follows: “I, John H. Merrill, Secretary of State of the State of Alabama, having custody of the Great and Principal Seal of said State, do hereby certify that a search of the records of the Alabama Secretary of State has failed to show that any official bond(s) have been filed and recorded in the office of the Alabama Secretary of State, for Wally Olson, Dale County Sheriff and Delores P. Woodham, Dale County Circuit Clerk.

Alabama Code Title 36. Public Officers and Employees § 36-5-1 is easily understood.

Why? Who protects the taxpayer?

“When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.


Alabama is a non-judicial state making bonds even more important as a method of oversight. Has the bond requirement been ignored?

Thank you for your faithfulness.

Yours truly,

Haywood Jackson Mizell


What is a Mortgage Banker Bond?

Mortgage bankers or lenders are professionals who originate mortgages. They can also service mortgages or sell these to investors or other financial institutions. In order to get licensed, mortgage bankers need to obtain a bond.

Mortgage Banker Bonds, or Mortgage Lender Bonds, guarantee that a mortgage banker will comply with the terms and conditions of the state in which they are operating. Though many states use the same bond form for mortgage brokers and mortgage bankers, some states require a larger bond for the lenders.

As such, mortgage banker bonds function like a three-party agreement between the principal (the mortgage banker), the obligee (consumers) and the surety bond company underwriting the bond. In the case of a legitimate claim against a mortgage banker by an obligee, the surety can step in and resolve the claim by compensating the obligee for any losses suffered due to the banker’s actions.


The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet the Press." From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008, 11:48:04 EST, televised "Meet the Press," THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.

General Bill Gann, USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.  The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...

During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart, or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It."

Senator Obama replied:

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides. There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression... The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."

Obama continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It’s my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails, perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments."

"When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flags burning ceremonies in the past".

"Of course, now, I have found myself about to become The President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation and offer the people a new path.  My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

Yes, you read it right.



 CREDIT SCORES: I believe you first need to understand the purpose behind Credit Scores. The Credit Scoring System is another slave driving program that was devised by the Federal Reserve System with the blessing of the high contracting powers. Its purpose is to squeeze more cash out of borrowers and to force the public into becoming loyal conditioned slaves!

 First of all, when you apply for a mortgage, you are requesting a loan of their valueless currency, to purchase a home or automobile, which you can never own and upon which you pay a penalty, called interest and costs. Those who are approved for a loan are watched closely to see if they have swallowed the fraud, “hook, line and sinker” and follow the repayment instructions fully!

 Those who can’t follow their directions, lost a job or financially over extended themselves are rated badly (credit scores) and are penalized severely then and whenever they apply again, via points.

 The personal information you provide to them when applying is also sold to other financial institutions and collection agencies. They tell you no, but unless you take the time to read all the fine print, they bluffed you again!

Some merchandizing companies have or perform a type of collection process first as a courtesy and when you fail to bring your payments up to date, they discharge the debt and sell the discharged debt to collection agencies for pennies on the dollar!

 These collection agencies are all owned by law firms who hire people to contact you and attempt to collect the original debt plus penalties for them. They do not represent the merchandizing company. They represent their own business and probably paid $25.00 for a $300.00 discharged debt. If they can persuade you to begin making payments to them, that creates a contract between you and the collection agency, regarding a debt that no longer exists! When a debt is discharged it means that your agreement with that company is cancelled for good! Those lawyers really are pretty clever! If you are a compliant slave, your credit rating will be high and yet there really isn’t a difference between the borrower who has perfect credit and the borrower who has poor credit, as I will discuss next under Home Mortgages! It is all a corporate fraud to increase their wealth and deplete yours!


Very informative Court Case about the true Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac Policies


Undisputed evidence reveals Plaintiffs finally received a dollar amount to stop the foreclosure from Kozeny & McCubbin and Defendant Wells Fargo. Plaintiffs procured the necessary funds per the agreement. Regardless, on August 15, 2008, Kozeny & McCubbin proceeded to foreclosure, selling the property to Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Freddie Mac) for the sum of $141,792.30. Plaintiffs' efforts to set aside the foreclosure and/or reinstate the loan were in vain.


In Count I, Plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful foreclosure of their property by Defendant Wells Fargo. Based upon the facts presented at trial, including, but not limited to, the facts set forth herein, the Court finds the foreclosure sale of the subject property on August 15, 2008, was wrongful.

The evidence further established Plaintiffs suffered considerable emotional distress and mental and physical anxiety attributable to, or as a direct result of, Defendant Wells Fargo's actions. Plaintiff David Holm suffered panic attacks, heart problems requiring a heart monitor, high blood pressure, and daily anxiety due to the circumstances relating to the wrongful foreclosure. Plaintiff Crystal Holm testified regarding her "fear" of losing her family's .home, and the impact of such a loss on her 12-year-old daughter, Liberty, and family. Mrs. Holm recounted her loss of optimism regarding a property that she hoped would be populated by horses and other animals. Both Plaintiffs testified about the substantial stress on their marriage resulting from the Defendants' predatory and extreme and outrageous conduct.


The evidence established that Wells Fargo's intentional choice to foreclose arose from its own financial incentives. Dr. Kurt Krueger testified that Wells Fargo had financial incentives to seek reimbursement of its fees at a foreclosure sale. This economic motivation collided with the well-being of David and Crystal Holm, and was clearly contrary to the interests of Freddie Mac. In other words, in this case, a powerful financial company exerted its will over a financially distressed family in Clinton County, Missouri. The result is predictable, Plaintiffs were severely damaged; Wells Fargo took its money and moved on, with complete disregard to the human damage left in its wake,

Defendant Wells Fargo is an experienced servicer of home loans. Wells Fargo knew that its decision to foreclose after reinstatement was accepted would inflict a devastating injury on the Holm family. Wells Fargo's actions were knowing, intentional, and injurious.


Defendant Wells Fargo operated from a position of superiority provided by its enormous wealth. Wells Fargo's decision took advantage of an obviously financially vulnerable family, and there is no evidence of remorse for the harm caused to David and Crystal Holm. In fact, the Court recalls the lack of remorse and humanity illustrated by a Wells Fargo's corporate representative who testified, "I'm not here as a human being. I'm here as a representative of Wells Fargo."

Based upon the facts presented at trial, and including, but not limited to, the facts set forth hereinabove, the Court finds Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED FIFTY- NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE DOLLARS ($2,959,123.00). Based upon the record, the Court finds this sum to be fair and reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence adduced at trial.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment is entered for damages in favor of Plaintiffs David and Crystal Holm, husband and wife, and against Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., in the amount of TWO HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWELVE DOLLARS AND THIRTY CENTS ($295,912.30). Based upon the record, the Court finds this sum to be fair and reasonable and supported by the evidence adduced at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment is entered for punitive damages in favor of Plaintiffs David and Crystal Holm, husband and wife, and against Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. in the amount of TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE DOLLARS ($2,959,123.00). Based upon the record, the Court finds this sum to be fair and reasonable and supported by clear and convincing evidence adduced at trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs David and Crystal Holm, husband and wife, and against Defendant Federal Home Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) on the claim for quiet title relief. Title to the property is quieted in the name of Plaintiffs David and Crystal Hahn, husband and wife, who are hereby vested with fee simple title in and to the property commonly known a

and legally described as follows:


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that costs are assessed against Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., and Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.


Dated this 26th day of January, 2015

R. Brent Elliott

Circuit Judge Division II

43rd Judicial Circuit, Missouri





Plaintiff, HAYWOOD JACKSON MIZELL, pro se moves the Court to RESCIND FORECLOSURE SALE AND CANCEL FORECLOSURE DEED for LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION under authority of Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.140(b)(1) and shows:

1.       This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. Subject matter jurisdiction has never been established on the record. The jurisdictional question can be raised at any time and can never be time-barred. "A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction is known to the judge, no excuse is permissible." Bradley v. Fisher,13 Wall 335, 351, 352. A deed or a bond found with the debtor is presumed to be paid.

2.       The Court should dismiss this action pursuant to Rules 1.210(a) and 1.140(7) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure because the record is clear from the promissory note submitted as evidence that a person other than Defendant is the true owner of the claim sued upon and that Defendant is not the real party in interest and is not shown to be authorized to maintain this foreclosure action.

3.       In Alabama, the prosecution of a foreclosure action is by the owner and holder of the mortgage and the note. Defendant is not entitled to maintain this action in which it seeks to foreclose on a note which Defendant does not own. ALABAMA UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT

Evidence of indebtedness secured by a mortgage must be sold as a unit. pg 46 Paragraph 11(a).          Instruments are separated and recorded falsely showing Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. who waives a worthless mortgage security document to possess no instrument that can be enforced.

FHLMC is the actual owner of the enforceable instrument that is now an unenforceable unsecured check.

         “When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 2d 697.

4.       Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., alleges that it owns and holds the subject note and mortgage with no assignment. There is no evidence or testimony supporting an assignment. In fact, all evidence and testimony specifically and conclusively demonstrates the opposite. “WITHOUT RECOURSE” stamp confirmed the sale signed by a vice-president. However, for there to be a valid assignment, there must be more than just assignment of the deed alone; the note must also be assigned. "[t]he note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident"; adding that "[a]n assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity". Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274, 21 L. Ed. 313 (1872).

5.       Rule 1.210(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

Every action may be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, but a personal representative, administrator, guardian, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a party expressly authorized by statute may sue in that person’s own name without joining the party for whose benefit the action is brought. Defendant in this action meets none of these criteria.

6.       Standing requires that the party prosecuting the action have a sufficient stake in the outcome and that the party bringing the claim be recognized in the law as being a real party in interest entitled to bring the claim. This entitlement to prosecute a claim in Alabama courts rests exclusively in those persons granted by substantive law, the power to enforce the claim. ‘[t]he mortgage becomes useless in the hands of one who does not also hold the obligation because only the holder of the obligation can foreclose.’ Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. Diane GRAY v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION. 2120087. Decided: January 10, 2014.

Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. (7Cranch) 481 (1813) Merits of case settled by courts of one state must be recognized by the courts of other states. In Re: “A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to hold, ” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Also, Kumar Corp. v Nopal Lines, Ltd, et al, 462 So. 2d 1178, (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)

7.       No Alabama case holds that a separate entity can maintain suit on a note payable to another entity unless the requirements of Rule 1.210(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Alabama law are met. § 7-3-305c An obligor is not obliged to pay the instrument if the person seeking enforcement of the instrument does not have rights of a holder in due course.

8.        For clarity, the wording in Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.130(a) requires a Defendant to attach copies of all bonds, notes, bills of exchange, contracts, accounts, or documents upon which action may be brought to its complaint. Plaintiff has failed to attach any debt instrument that supports its pleadings or the claim advanced by its filed false mortgage document.

9.       As a result, although Defendant names WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. as the owner of the promissory note, the promissory note submitted as evidence conflicts with this allegation, as when the Plaintiff checked the court file, there was no evidence of such instruments.

10.     When exhibits are inconsistent with Defendant’s allegations of material fact as to who the real party in interest is, such allegations cancel each other out. Fladell v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 772 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 2000); Greenwald v. Triple D Properties, Inc., 424 So. 2d 185, 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Costa Bella Development Corp. v. Costa Development Corp., 441 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983).

11.     Defendant is not the real party in interest and is not shown to be authorized to bring this action. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.’s 1099A filing with the IRS confirms that FHMLC is the real party of interest. Some Florida cases describes better the issue surrounding standing and subject matter jurisdiction.

In re: Shelter Development Group, Inc., 50 B.R. 588 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1985) [It is axiomatic that a suit cannot be prosecuted to foreclose a mortgage which secures the payment of a promissory note, unless the Defendant actually holds the original note, citing Downing v. First National Bank of Lake City, 81 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1955)]; Your Construction Center, Inc. v. Gross, 316 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), See also 37 Fla. Jur. Mortgages and Deeds of Trust ’240 (One who does not have the ownership, possession, or the right to possession of the mortgage and the obligation secured by it, may not foreclose the mortgage)

           Other cases with similar opinions draw the same conclusion. “A party lacks standing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court unless he has, in an individual or a representative capacity, some real interest in the subject matter of an action.” Wells Fargo Bank, v. Byrd, 178 Ohio App.3d 285, 2008-Ohio-4603, 897 N.E.2d 722 (2008). It went on to hold,” If plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed, it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

             Wells Fargo v. Reyes, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Dismissed with prejudice, Fraud on Court & Sanctions. Wells Fargo never owned the Mortgage.

12.     Defendant’s pleadings fail to contain sufficient facts to establish who the actual Defendant is and its relationship to Plaintiff and to the claim for foreclosure of the subject promissory note. The record also fails to sufficiently identify who Defendant is and fails to allege facts sufficient to determine the standing of Defendant.  

13.     The record does not show that WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. has standing to maintain an action in the State of Alabama. At the alleged time of the contract closing date WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. was not registered to do business in the state. In order for a Court to have in personam jurisdiction over the parties, the record, if challenged, must show that the challenged party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to bestow in personam jurisdiction on the Court. Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 1.120(A).

           The American Bar Association's opinion concerning foreclosures: Standing and subject-matter-jurisdiction. “…… this Court has the responsibility to assure itself that the foreclosure Plaintiffs have standing and that subject-matter-jurisdiction requirements are met at the time the complaint is filed. Even without the concerns raised by the documents the Plaintiffs have filed, there is reason to question the existence of standing and the jurisdictional amount".

14.     The record does not show that WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. is authorized as an entity to own the promissory note. It claims to be a mortgage servicer not a lender. Defendant appears to be operating ultra vires in this action.

15.     Neither WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A. nor its attorneys, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C., have validated the alleged debt as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They refuse to identify, even with the court clerk, the owner of the alleged debt and refuse the actual debt owner to provide an accurate accounting of the alleged debt. Such lack of validation prohibits these debt collectors from taking any action to collect on the alleged debt.

16.     There is no evidence that Defendant has forwarded any payments to the actual owner of the note, who the evidence suggests may have been defrauded by Defendant.

17.     The record is replete with Defendant and its attorneys committing numerous frauds upon the Court. The evidence specifying these frauds remain entirely unrefuted. Based on the record, the Court should conclude that this action amounts to nothing less than criminal extortion and attempted grand theft by Defendant against Plaintiff. The Court cannot be in a position of enabling Defendant and its attorneys to commit felony crimes.

         WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Wrongful Foreclosure is due to be rescinded and the Foreclosure Deed canceled for Defendant’s lack of standing and the court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All business actions by the Defendant are governed by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as required by and under license with the US Treasury.

With no authenticated instrument on record with the Clerk even now, and in the absence of an authenticated instrument to surrender if full payment is made, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A’s actions worked to block the Plaintiff’s 2008 sale of the mortgaged property. Price accompanied with earnest money was more than double the sale price secured at the auction conducted in 1913. The 1913 auction was conducted in the presence of Law Enforcement denying Plaintiff due process rights. There was no Judge’s order.

Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. refused full payment because it forever had in its possession NO debt instrument demanding payment. The absent promissory note was transferred without assignment recordation. Separation of note from the mortgage security made both instruments worthless by alteration and unenforceable. Defendant’s refusal of contractually allowed prepayment was non-compliance with GAAP, TILA, Ala. R. Civ. P. Rule 56(3) and other said prevailing law.

           The required instrument filing with the court clerk is emphatically stated in Johnston v. Hudlett, 32 So. 3d 700 (Fla 4d DCA 2010) “Moreover, in the case of original mortgages and promissory notes, they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment. The judgment takes the place of the promissory note. Surrendering the note is essential so that it cannot thereafter be negotiated. See Perry v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The judgment cancels the note. The clerk cannot return these instruments to the parties.”

           Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274, 21 L. Ed. 313 (1872) However, for there to be a valid assignment, there must be more than just assignment of the deed alone; the note must also be assigned. "[t]he note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident"; adding that "[a]n assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity".

             Wells Fargo Bank, BN. A. did not surrender the evidence of debt, even after a wrongful foreclosure debt satisfaction, simply because it cannot surrender what it does not have, especially when examination by an independent document laboratory is demanded. To counterfeit is to commit a crime most serious.

               Recognizing that the Plaintiff is pro se, the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel. See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see also Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d 20, 21 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam). In order to justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be " 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).

Considering these principles regarding standing and subject matter jurisdiction, we think that the Dale County Circuit Court should not have dismissed with prejudice Mizell’s complaints without affording him leave to plead again; specifically: to file a new legal pleading appropriate under the circumstances to determine if the foreclosure is legally insufficient.

In summary, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1002 and Gamble’s Alabama Rules of Evidence 2d Rule 1002 Best Evidence were Rules that both the federal and the state courts, including the Dale County Circuit Court, ignored.

What do other state and Federal Courts do?(The following court case was unpublished and hidden from the public) Wells Fargo v. Reyes, 867 N.Y.S.2d 21 (2008). Dismissed with prejudice, Fraud on Court & Sanctions. Wells Fargo never owned the Mortgage.

Again, Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. (7Cranch) 481 (1813) Merits of case settled by courts of one state must be recognized by the courts of other states. EVEN ALABAMA. Funds denied or stolen: $560,000.00.

Profits from greed was the what and why for the retention of the note by Wells Fargo, and the reason for the unsworn and unverified attorney statements so that the “simple minded” Dale County Circuit Judges could be deceived.


Great return on ZERO investment

$289,000 for “accounting control fraud” on the investment banking side.

$231,000 from insurance claim in the event of “default”.

$289,000 from sale of instrument to FHLMC without a filed assignment.

$809,000 unlawful enrichment by Wells Fargo.

Costs for enabler services are unknown.


Haywood Jackson Mizell

Standing can be gained only when the authenticated original promissory note is in the possession of the party seeking foreclosure action.

A judgment entered in an action commenced by a party lacking standing is a nullity. Vann v. Cook, 989 So.2d 556, 559 (Ala.Civ.App.2008); see also Blevins v. Hillwood Office Ctr. Owners' Ass'n, 51 So.3d 317, 321 (Ala.2010) (same). Because BAC lacked standing to bring the ejectment action, the trial court never acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute. Accordingly, the summary judgment is void and is hereby vacated.




  1. Promissory Note signed by you.

Your signature under the words “promise to pay” allows a single piece of paper to generate three to four times the face value of the note ; not for you, of course, but not even necessarily for the entity that called itself your “lender” in the first place. At any rate, no “lender” ever risked or spent its own money in the course of this “loan.”

  1. Note is endorsed to a bank (or to a similar financial entity).

Endorsed note becomes a “negotiable instrument,” that is, a check from you to the bank which can be signed over to other parties multiple times, indebting you to parties unknown to you, without your explicit consent.

  1. Note is deposited.

Bank deposits note in an account because the note is now equivalent to a check from you. To the bank it is free money.

  1. Note becomes “Funding” check.

Your deposited, endorsed note/check is simply passed on to a seller as a “funding Check,” thereby balancing the bank’s books. There was no loan; the bank is not out any money.

  1. Note is sold to investors on “Secondary Market.”

Note sold for face value and then some, then “pooled” with similar loans into a trust out of which certificates (that is mortgage backed securities) are sold to investors. This step is the entire point of the whole “promise to pay” dance. Profit is created simply by your signature, and all risks are ultimately taken by everyone but the “lenders.”

  1. You pay monthly installments for thirty years.

You slave away to create insane profits for the bank or the investors who own your note, none of whom loaned you a dime. In fact, it is you who made a loan to them while they told you the exact opposite!

  1. That how your signature cleans you out. The banks rake in the money/profit.

I didn’t know all that. It strikes me as kind of screwed up. This is how the system works, so what are you going to do?

     8.   Welcome to post 1933 America.  

No citizen owns anything in the UNITED STATES, the government owns it all. Everything is now by contract. There is no law. If you join an association you must follow the association rules. You may use the government’s property as long as you pay the rent (property tax). You can contract the use of it if you wish, but a default in that contract will transfer the use right to someone else. The use of the property is assigned to you as long as you don’t contract its use subject to loss. The government enforces its statues and policies even when immoral or not lawful. One can be imprisoned (or lose the use of all government property) just by spitting on the sidewalk against a statue or policy (no injured party).


DIG OR BEG, Chapter 3

Present day Alabama. Forces of the present day use the same methods used over 2900 hundred years ago by Jezebel and Ahab. The object was to take Naboth’s property located near the King’s summer palace in Jezreel. Bearing false witness achieved the goal of killing Naboth for his property. Later the dogs licked the blood of Ahab and ate Jezebel.

Today as before, theft uses unsworn and unverified statements of barred attorneys accepted, not as false, but true. So effective is the method that murder is rarely necessary. See 1 Kings 21 & 2 Kings 9. Sometimes when digging to please the King fails, begging is all that remains, and, without mercy, death is certain.



      On September 2, 2014 at approximately 9 AM, the plaintiff, Haywood Jackson Mizell appeared at a pretrial conference, which had been ordered continue as had been requested by the Wells Fargo Defendants. Mizell had not been served the motion that requested continuation, because Wells Fargo had sent a copy of the motion to an address that was not the address of record for Mizell. The Order Granting the continuance was in a stack of letters un-mailed in the Clerk’s Office. Judge Quattlebaum stated in open court that an objection to the granted continuance would be considered. This motion is to object to continuance by moving for an immediate trial. Lien theory law should be applied for the trial. Requested is the reversal of all the actions by the defendants in the wrongful foreclosure prosecuted under the color of Title Theory Law which demands one-hundred percent consent.


       This case has been remanded to state court for action under its jurisdiction. Civil rights complaints were address by the UNITED STATES MIDDLE DISTRICT and ruled that the Civil Right Complaints be dismissed with prejudice. Obviously, this court is to apply due process rights that were allegedly denied.


     Well Fargo Bank, N. A. has a manual of instruction for representing attorneys to follow. The instructions involve simply procedures when Title Theory Law govern non-judicial foreclosures. The requirements of Title Theory and Lien Theory Law are the same except in Lien Theory the courts execute the contract demands in a mortgage or Deed of Trust foreclosure. A Judges order dictates the actions to be taken, and only a Judge can determine default.

         The manual outlines the conditions under which the lenders actions can enjoy the protection for Legal Plunder. First, is un-wavering dedication to the objectives of the manual and that is to make illegal plunder appear legal.

Proverbs 4:13 (KJV), “Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life.”


          Control of the following three elements must first be secured; control of the Media, the Judicial System, and Law Enforcement. Delay is the tactic to be followed until these three elements are securely in place.

           The Defendant’s attorneys have successfully employed such tactics to date; not amenable to Service of Process, removal to federal court, seeking dismissal for an ambiguous claim that relief cannot be granted, changing attorneys in the same firm to buy time, changing servicers, selling of the note without recording of the assignment, separation of the note from mortgage, placement of sliced note into several Purchasing and Servicing agreements, and foreclosing in their name stating that they are the holder of the note rather than identifying the real “holder-in-due course, all to avoid the negative publicity that involves foreclosure, and collection on an insurance policy funds for payment of a claim payable in the event of foreclosure, and the foreclosure even when the documents have been stolen and the investment written off as a “bad debt.” These are but a few of the efforts taken in secret to give the appearance that their illegal plunder has been transformed into legal plunder. No one is to take personal responsibility.


       Why? Human greed. Below was overheard at a local Portland watering hole from an obviously intoxicated bank employee in the foreclosure department, responding to the frequently asked question: “How do you live with yourself?”

“The great thing about working at ________________Bank is that no one has to take responsibility for the institutionalized immorality of our industry. We get up in the morning, go to work, and check our soul at the door. When we come home at night to our families, we can become human again, without feeling any regret for the havoc our foreclosures have wrecked on so many lives. We’re the zombies in zombie banks. It’s no wonder our industry has no code of ethics…”


       Wells Fargo has a record to maintain. In open court, Attorney Stephen Pudner declared the Plaintiff’s situation worthy of the Defendant’s sympathy. Wells Fargo had repulsed an attempt by James B. Graham to recover their illegal plunder of his substantive assets which were also transformed into “legal plunder”. The Plaintiff, having fallen under the sway of James B. Graham, should be a victim of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s seasoned illegal plunder attacks as well.

           Do not be deceived. Mr. James B. Graham has exercised numerous “Good Samaritan” acts that accrued to the benefit of the Plaintiff. Mr. Graham supports the work ethic. Mr. Graham provided the job that enabled the Plaintiff’s to earn needed funds for a college degree.

           After a sale of the property failed because Wells Fargo’s “clouding” the title, Mr. Graham sought to double his interest income by funding the refinancing of the Plaintiff’s homestead. Wells Fargo would not accept Mr. Graham’s refinance because Wells Fargo could not surrender the note when the note was paid in full because the note had been stolen.

       Wells Fargo had also failed in its appearing to apply refinance laws, but could not do so because the note would have to be surrendered when the refinance bought the note.

         As a personal testimony, the Plaintiff delights in being identified with such a man of character, integrity, and truth as distinguishes Mr. James B. Graham. Unlike what can be said about Wells Fargo, below are two verses that come to mind that all should personifies.

Proverbs 3:27 (KJV), “Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it.”

James 4:17 (KJV), “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”


      The Law that is applicable to this instant case has already been invoked in the Dale County Circuit Court resolving a similar complaint. See Case No: CV-2012-900095.00 CITIMORTGAGE, INC, Plaintiff, v. RUTLEDGE, CHARLES AND SHARON RUTLEDGE, Defendants.

           Several issues are beyond legal dispute being agreed to by the admission of the Defendant or by the silence of the Defendants. See the removal of the case to the UNITED STATES MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT CIVIL ACT.NO.1:14-CV-13-WHA. The Defendants admitted all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as true stating that even though all the evidence were true, no relief could be granted by law. Certainly, the Civil Rights issues that are subject to federal jurisdiction were decided without recourse. The Supreme Court of Alabama alone reserves the exclusive jurisdiction over property in Alabama.


       The following is a list of germane issues that are now beyond dispute that are left for the application of Alabama law:

  1. 1.The Promissory Note and Mortgage have been separated in exact fashion as described in the “Cow and Tail” Alabama Civil Court of Appeals ruling. (See case documentation on file.)
  2. 2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is not the holder-in-due course of record.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. does not disperse original documents, even when subpoenaed.
  5. 5.The alleged mortgage has been completely paid in full, and the note not yet surrendered.

3343 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS. § 1408 essential: Time may be essential. It is so whenever the intention of the parties is clear that the performance of its terms shall be accomplished exactly at the stipulated day. The intention must then govern. A delay cannot be excused. A performance at this time is essential; any default will defeat the right to a specific enforcement. Brassell v. McLemore, 50 Ala. 476. One of the most important being that the delay must not be willful and intentional, and must not have worked harm to the other party. (See 7 CFR 1951-RETURN OF PAID-IN-FULL OR SATISFACTION NOTES TO BORROWER.)

(See American Jurisprudence 2d §68 Complaint-Allegation of damages: prayer for relief. ‘Damages need not be alleged in a quiet title action; it is sufficient if the plaintiff alleges an interest in property and adverse claims against which it seeks determination. A complaint setting up the facts out of which the equities in favor of the complainant arise, and containing a prayer for general relief, is sufficient to enable the court to award a decree in accordance with the law and facts, notwithstanding the absence of specific requests in the prayer. A demand that the defendant set forth and specify his or her title, claim, interest, or encumbrance may be sufficiently and properly made in the prayer of the bill. Slosson v McNulty, 125 Ala.124, 29 So. 183 (1900).

 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. made the property Title unmarketable. The value of the property is now zero, for all intents and purposes. Marketable Title cannot be granted because of identity theft of a signed document that evidences any interest Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. might have in the property. The identity of the signer has been monetized over and over for the unjust enrichment of the defendant.   1-055 “No judgment by default shall be entered against the state or an officer or agency thereof or against a party in any case based upon a negotiable instrument, unless the original negotiable instrument is filed with the court and merged with the judgment, or where the damages claimed are unliquidated unless the claimant establishes the claimant’s claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.”

 6.Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed false documents declaring by them that the property had been abandoned contrary to a newspaper publication that the property had not been abandoned.

  1. 7. The attorneys for the defendants spoke and filed false documents.

       Code of Alabama – Title 13 A: Criminal Code

Section 13A – 4 – 2 – Attempt.

  1. 1.(a). A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with the intent to commit a specific offense, he does any overt act towards the commission of such offense.
  2. 2. (b) It is no defense under this section that the offense charged to have been attempted was, under the attending circumstances, factually or legally impossible of commission, if such offense could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be.

 8.Morris, Hardwick and Schneider, LLC, hearsay foreclosure attorney firm attempted to evade service of process by denying address of record for the firm and refusal of service, but was later served by certified mail. Prior to foreclosure, certified delivery of written request to satisfy the debt that was address to the firm remain unanswered.

  1. 9.Again, even recently, Defense attorneys used false addresses so that the Plaintiff could not receive timely notices, seeking Plaintiff submission through use of all available harassment methods.
  2. 10. Defense attorneys are practicing representation of the Defendants in this case without authorizing contracts granting such authority by the respective Boards of Directors. Hence the Corporations have no essential representation in this instant case. Defendant’s default continues.
  3. 11. Corporations are dead legal entities and must be represented by an attorney in good standing.

For a party to prove its claim, it must produce the documents through which it acquired its interest in the property, and demonstrate by at least one of the subscribing witnesses the due execution of the documents.” “The defendant may not have title quieted with respect to property other than that which the complainant claims.” Ex Parte Arrington, 259 Ala. 243, 66 So. 2d 96 (1953).

       The Plaintiff demands equal protection of the law as guaranteed in Amendment XIV Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Equal Protection of the Laws. See sample order below:





                                                                          )       Case No. CV-2013 000006.00

                                            Plaintiff,                )      


Vs.                                                                     )


WILLIAM G. BERRY, Attorney at law         )      

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.                        )    

SIGLER DAVID,                                               )    


WELLS FARGO BANK et al                           )                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           )        

                                       Defendants                )              SAMPLE EXAMPLE




 The matter having come before the Court on a Motion to Rescind Foreclosure Sale, Cancel Foreclosure Deed, and Reinstate Mortgage. Based upon the representations of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), successor by merger with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. ("WFHM, INC"), through counsel and the record before this Court, this Court finds as follows:

  1. 1.Alice Faye Mizell and Haywood Jackson Mizell (collectively, "the Mizell’s") executed a mortgage, on the 9th day of June 2003, recorded in the Probate Office of Dale County, Alabama, in Mortgage Book 392, Page 345 (hereinafter referred to as Mortgage), with said Mortgage securing an indebtedness, evidenced by a promissory note to WFHM (hereinafter referred to as the Note), with real property more particularly described in the legal description as follows:

House and lot on East Broad Street in the City of Ozark, Alabama, known as the JD. Holman Residence property, and being more particularly described as follows: Bounded on the south by East Broad Street, on the east by house and lot known as the L.W. Kolb property recently purchased by Dr. William E. Chesser and wife, on the north by property formerly known as the Charlie Stokes lot and now assessed to Mike Sollie, Sr., estate, and on the West by a narrow street or alleyway called Rye Street and currently called Mutual Street The property conveyed herein comprises in the aggregate two and one-half acres, more or less, and it is the intent to convey all the property acquired by the said JD. Holman for his said home site, including the parcel in the northwest corner of the total tract acquired from Saphronia Smith, the one-half acre, more or less, in the southwest corner of the total tract acquired from S.B. Brown and wife, in 1912 and the one and one-half acres comprising the east portion of the total tract acquired from CA. Stokes in 1907, together with any other parcels acquired by W. Holman and used by him in connection with the said home-place conveyed herein.

Dale County, Alabama.

Said property is commonly referred to as 285 East Broad Street, Ozark, AL 36360 (the Property).

  1. 2.On or about February 20, 2013, a foreclosure deed was recorded in the Probate Office of Dale County, Alabama in Deed Book 277, Page 656 (hereinafter the, Foreclosure Deed) in connection with the foreclosure of the Mortgage, and said Foreclosure Deed indicated that City of Ozark, Municipal Corporation, was the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale and that

W. Barrington King, Jr. as auctioneer conducting the sale, and David Sigler did transfer all of Wells Fargo's right, title, and interest in and to the Property.


  1. A.Good cause exists for granting the requested relief
  2. B.The foreclosure sale, as evidenced by the foreclosure deed recorded in Deed Book 277, Page 656 in the Probate Records of Dale County, Alabama, is due to be rescinded.
  3. C.The foreclosure deed recorded in Deed Book 277, Page 656 in the Probate Records of Dale County, Alabama is hereby canceled;
  4. D.The mortgage dated June 09, 2003, executed by the Mizells to WFHM, INC. and recorded on June 25, 2003, in Mortgage Book 392, Page 345 in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Dale County, Alabama, shall be revived with the same full force and effect and be entitled to the same priority and dignity that existed immediately prior to the foreclosure, is hereby reinstated, and remains a valid first lien on the Property;
  5. E.The Mizells are hereby declared the owners of the Property, subject to WFHM INC’s successor by merger with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.;
  6. F.The Mizells remain bound by the obligations of the Note and Mortgage.

DONE this ___ day of __________, 2014.




       Should the above proposed order be granted, the State of Alabama Mortgage law will be governed by Lien Theory Law transformed from Title Theory Law.

       The movement to the now governing Lien Theory Law benefits neither party, the Plaintiff or Defendants. Title theory is governed by one hundred percent consent and is a private contract between two private parties. Lien Theory moves the dispute between the parties to court for an impartial due process jury trial settlement by the court. Default by either party moves the case from consent to contract dispute resolution by court action. (Example: Un-contested divorce as opposed to a court granted divorce.)

       The Defendants defaulted by omission in refusing prepayment of the note, and for refusing to surrender the note when full payment is made. “Wells Fargo does not disperse original documents.”

       Under Title Theory Law the Title to the property is conveyed by the mortgage to the lender until the note is satisfied and then both the legal and equity title resides with the borrower.

       Lien Theory Law allows the lender to return to the court seeking satisfaction of the note. The lender must prove his legal standing to be in court (Rule 17). The lender must prove his claim in order to gain satisfaction of the proven promise to pay. Once proven, then after default by the borrower, the lender may foreclose, adopting legal foreclosure procedures when order by a Judge.


     Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has attempted to apply legal cosmetics to its illegal plunder. It wishes to give the appearance of legality by taking from the Mizells what belongs to them, and give it to other persons to whom it does not belong. If the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime, it is legal plunder. Any promissory note, when satisfied, must be taken out of circulation. The signature identity of the signer of the promissory note must not be used as chips at the Wall Street casino. It was a congressman from Ozark, Alabama that co-sponsored a bill that made it illegal to gamble with depositor’s money. The Glass-Steagall act was repealed in 1999. The effect of the repeal has damaged the entire nation, as well as other nations. The results can be seen. God’s wrath has evidently been intensified. The average person knows that things are not right, even though he cannot identify the root cause of this legal plunder.


       Legal plunder has two roots: one of them is human greed; the other is in misconceived philanthropy.

     In 400 BC Socrates drank hemlock because his expressed philosophy, when brought to life, resulted then in force being the instrument of legality. In 1894 lynching was used to gain property without any legal consequences. Today, force takes property by using the monopoly of force holder, the state, to destroy the private property foundation.


       What has this Legal Plunder produced? The last decade has seen one third of the nation’s assets moved into the hands of the select few beneficiaries of the legal plunder. Today, there is no movement to eliminate legal plunder. Instead, there are multitudes of movements dedicated to receiving the benefits of legal plunder.

                    Frederic Bastiat in 1850 made this observation in The Law.

“When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated, that plunder is perpetrated. I say that this is exactly what the law ought to repress always and everywhere. If the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, I say that plunder is still perpetrated, and even, in a social point of view, under aggravated circumstances. In this case however, he who profits from the plunder is not responsible for it; it is the lawgiver, society itself, and this is where the political danger lies. I declare that I do not mean to impugn the intentions nor the morality of anybody. I am attacking an idea that I believe to be false-a system that appears to me to be unjust; and this is so independent of intentions, that each of us profits by it without wishing it, and suffers from it without being aware of the cause.”  


Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.


It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus, we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.


Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus, it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.


Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisdiction answers the prevailing issues in question.

Vendor's failure of title. — It is therefore a familiar rule that the vendor cannot force performance upon the purchaser, unless he is able to give a good title to the subject-matter: King v. Knapp, 59 N. Y. 462; Hepburn v. Auld, 5 CranCh. 262; Hoover v. Calhoun, 16 Gratt. 109; Jackson v. Ligon, 3 Leigh, 160 ; Bryan v. Read, 1 Dev. & B. Eq.78; Cunningham v. Sharp, 11 Humph. 116, 121; Jeffries v. Jeffries, 117 Mass. 184; Dobbs v. Norcross, 24 N. J. Eq. 327; Vreeland v. Blauvelt,23 N. J. Eq. 483; Cornell v. Andrews, 35 N. J. Eq. 7; Jenkins v. Fahey,73 N. Y. 355; Bensel v. Gray, 80 N. Y. 517; Swepson v. Johnston, 84 N. C. 449; Hancock v. Bramlett, 85 N. C. 393; Lyles v. Kirkpatrick, 9


Tender, when necessary. — In general, the rules of equity concerning the necessity of an actual tender are not so stringent as those of the law. The following special rules seem to be settled: 1. An actual tender by the plaintiff is unnecessary when, from the acts of the defendant or from the situation of the property it would be wholly nugatory. Thus, if defendant has openly refused to perform, the plaintiff need not make a tender or demand; it is enough that he is ready and willing, and offers to perform in his pleading: Hunter v. Daniel, 4 Hare, 420, 433; Mattocks v. Young, 66 Me. 459, 467; Crary v. Smith, 2 N. Y. 60, 65; Kerr V. Purdy, 50 Barb. 24; Maxwell v. Pittenger, 3 N. J. Eq. 156; White V. Dobson, 17 Gratt. 262; Brock V. Hidy, 13 Ohio St. 306, 310; Brown V. Eaton, 21 Minn. 409, 411; Gill v. Newell, 13 Minn. 462, 472 ; Deichmann v. Deichmann, 49 Mo. 107; Gray v. Dougherty, 25 Cal. 266, 280,281. Also, if at the time fixed the vendor is unable to convey, by reason of a defect in his title, etc.: Karker v. Haverly, 50 Barb. 79; Delavan v, Duncan, 49 N. Y. 485, 487; Hall v. Whittier, 10 R. I. 530;

Young V. Daniels, 2 Iowa, 126, 63 Am. Dec. 477; Gray v. Dougherty,

25 Cal. 266, 280; unless time was made essential: Kimball v. Tooke, 70 111. 553. 2. Where the stipulations are mutual and dependent, — that is, where the deed is to be delivered upon payment of the price, — an actual


American Jurisprudence § 618. Liability for wrongful repossession

Furthermore, it has been said that where the creditor improperly refuses to accept payment of the debt, the creditor is estopped from repossessing the collateral on the basis that the debtor is in default, a conversion action is especially appropriate where wrongful repossession is at issue. (See Chesterton State Bank v Coffey (Ind App) 454 NE2d 1233.)

       What is the sum of the matter?


“BORROWER COVENANTS that Borrower is lawfully seised of the estate hereby conveyed and has the right to mortgage, grant and convey the property and that the Property is unencumbered, except for the encumbrance of record. Borrower warrants and will defend generally the title to the property against all claims and demands, subject to any encumbrances of record.”


“Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale, the following property….”

WHEREAS, in and by said mortgage, the Mortgagee was authorized and empowered in case of default in the payment of the indebtedness secured thereby, according to the terms thereof, to sell said property before the Courthouse door in the City of Ozark, Dale County, Alabama,


       The truth would have used different words, “The Mortgagee, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., now terminated, was not authorized or empowered to seize and sell, since there was no default in the payment as signified by the offer of prepayment in full. Nevertheless, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. enlisted the color of law and seized the property, converted it to cash, then stated the property to be abandoned thus making title appear clear. NO WARRANTY OF TITLE CAN BE GRANTED BY WFHM.


       Words do have consequences. If one adds up the words in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, one would find that in World War II, 125 lives were lost for every word Hitler wrote, 4,700 people were killed for every page in the book, and 1,200,000 people died for every chapter. Compare Hitler’s words with the words of another well-known Author, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Great is the difference between lies and the truth.


       No willful felon should be allowed to be a barred attorney, a position held in trust. A practicing attorney who enables a felony should be disbarred. Felons are fugitives who evade Service of Process and honor no oath of office.


       This remanded case is now under Lien Theory Law. The previous foreclosure was wrongful making the replevin bond applicable. The foreclosure sale must be rescinded, and the foreclosure deed is due to be canceled. The mortgage with WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC. must be reinstated.

       An immediate jury trial should be ordered. The defense has had five or more years to complete discovery.

                                                       This motion is and respectfully submitted by:



                                                         By: Haywood Jackson Mizell, Plaintiff, pro per

                                                                 4518 Woodledge Drive

                                                                 Montgomery, Alabama 36109

                                                                 334-498-4187                    Date: 09/18/2014


The Declaration of Independence canceled any notion that kings ruled by Divine Right. The Prince of this World could only offer bondage. God gave each of his creation the opportunity to be free simply by accepting His plea, a free gift or remedy provided the remedy was accepted, from the heart, within a specified length of time. After death, one who refused the free remedy has an eternal hell to pay.

The Constitution granted freedom governed through “public Law”. Since 1933, all Americans are today governed by “public policy”. Rid yourself of “default thinking” and embrace “future based thinking” where freedom alone prevails.


Harvey Weinstein is an American film producer and former film studio executive accused of sexual harassment. He and his brother Bob Weinstein co-founded Miramax, which produced several popular independent films.

The first thing that comes to mind, “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

Obviously, were he a believer, he could bear in mind that if believers are dead to the law, believers are dead to this present evil world also, and linked with a risen, ascended and glorified Christ, Hence, believers of death, burial, and resurrection are not of the world, even as Christ is not of the world. A believer should not contend for position in the world to do so is to deny that believers are dead to the law; for a believer cannot be alive to the one and dead to the other. The death of Christ has delivered as from the law, from the power of sin, from this present evil world, and from the fear of death. But then all these things hang together, and a believer cannot go delivered from one without being delivered from all. To assert our freedom from the law, while pursuing a course of carnality, self-indulgence and worldliness, is one of the darkest and deadliest evils of the last days.

The believer is called to prove, in his daily life, that grace can produce results that law could never reach. It is one of the moral glories of Christianity to enable a man to surrender self and live for others. Law never could do this. It occupied a man with himself. Under the rule of law, every man had to do the best he could for himself. If he tried to love his neighbor, it was to work out a righteousness for himself. Under grace, all is blessedly and gloriously reversed. Self is set aside as a thing crucified, dead and buried. The old "I" is gone, and the new "I" is before God in all the acceptability and preciousness of Christ. He is our life, our righteousness, our holiness, our object, our model, our all. He is in us as believers and are in Him; and our daily practical life is to be simply Christ reproduced in us, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Hence, we believers are not only called to love our neighbor, but our enemy; and this, not to work out a righteousness, for we have become the righteousness of God in Christ; it is simply the outflow of the life which we possess, which is in us; and this life is Christ. A believer is a man who should live Christ. He is neither a Jew, "under law;" nor a Gentile "without law;" but "a man in Christ," standing in grace, called to the same character of obedience as that which was rendered by the Lord Jesus Himself.


Private Mortgage Agreement Default

No State or Federal law can impair the obligations of the parties to the agreement.


Borrower default:

  1. 1.Failure to pay as agreed.
  2. 2.Omission of maintenance
  3. 3.Lapse in insurance coverage
  4. 4.Deficient in tax obligations

Lender default:

  1. 1.Failure to file on public record the mortgage or its assignment.
  2. 2.Separation of promissory note and mortgage that must remain one unit
  3. 3.Refuse equitable right of prepayment
  4. 4.It is against equity to deprive freeman of the free disposal of their own property.
  5. 5.Law enforcement personnel cannot be present at auction in a non-judicial state.

Judicial aid is limited to enforcement of the agreement. No attorney is needed.

The agreement is private with no need of public involvement.

The FBI has determined that 80% of all mortgage fraud is done by the lender not the borrower.


  1. 1.Original are scanned and made into an electronic copy to avoid transfer assignments at the courthouse.
  2. 2.Instruments are shredded so that millions of copies can be made when desired.
  3. 3.Accounting control fraud permits mortgages to be accounted as assets on the Investment Banking Books as non-performing.
  4. 4.Claiming title to property by declaring the property to be abandoned after foreclosure
  5. 5.Refusing to surrender the instrument if full payment is made.
  6. 6.Foreclosing without rights of the holder-in-due-course.


Unsworn and unverified statements by Barred Attorneys are unlawfully considered competent evidence in both Judicial and Non-Judicial courts.

It is politically correct to classify all default to be by the borrower.

Federal courts have no jurisdiction over property inside a state unless due process rights are denied. Courts proclaim judgments with subject matter jurisdiction in both State and Federal courts.

Equal justice of the law is ignored for the borrower.

Moreover, in the case of original mortgages and promissory notes, they are not merely exhibits but instruments which must be surrendered prior to the issuance of a judgment. The judgment takes the place of the promissory note. Surrendering the note is essential so that it cannot thereafter be negotiated.


Whistleblower facing foreclosure wins $18 million

When we first met Lynn Szymoniak on 60 Minutes, she was losing her home. She blew the whistle on bank fraud, and now she's walking away with $18 million

(CBS News) When we first met Lynn Szymoniak on 60 Minutes last year, she was an angry homeowner facing foreclosure. Now, Szymoniak is walking away with an $18 million settlement after blowing the whistle on a "robo-signing" fraud that she says was perpetrated by some of the nation's largest mortgage companies.

Szymoniak described her win as "a little surreal," speaking by phone to 60 Minutes yesterday.

"Robo-signing" is the illegal practice of forging mortgage documents. As 60 Minutes learned in its investigation last year (video below), the documents underpinning homeowners' mortgages are sometimes missing or nonexistent. Banks need such documents to foreclose on a homeowner, so some banks have resorted to fraud: creating phony or "robo-signed" paperwork to throw people out of their homes.

Szymoniak uncovered the "robo-signing" fraud while fighting to save her Florida home from foreclosure. After receiving what she considered to be fake paperwork from her bank, Szymoniak -- a lawyer and fraud investigator -- began investigating tens of thousands of documents in other foreclosure cases that appeared to be falsified.

She blew the whistle, claiming that the country's four largest mortgage services had defrauded the federal government by creating fake documents to replace lost or nonexistent ones in order to receive government-funded payments. The government joined Syzmoniak's complaint, and it was announced this week that those banks -- Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co, and Citigroup Inc. -- settled the case for $95 million. Under law, the whistleblower is entitled to a share of the money recovered by the U.S. government, in this case $18 million.

Scott Pelley explains a bizarre aftershock of the U.S. financial collapse: An epidemic of forged and missing mortgage documents

Although the $95 million settlement seems like a major win against the nation's banks, Neil Barofsky, law professor at NYU and former special inspector general for TARP, calls it a "drop in the bucket."

While some of those recovered funds will be dispersed to a group of homeowners, Barofsky estimates that those checks will be relatively small, around $2,000 per homeowner.

"It's not big enough to deal with the overarching problem of underwater mortgages that plague this country," Barofsky says. "But to see Lynn, someone who has been such a strong and vocal advocate against these practices, get this settlement is the lone bright spot."

Meanwhile, Szymoniak's own case against the bank that holds her mortgage continues. And, oddly enough, she still faces foreclosure.

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Haywood Jackson Mizell                                                                   June 19, 2017

4518 Woodledge Drive                                         CERTIFIED MAIL 7013 1710 0002 1101 7668

Montgomery, AL 36109                                             RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED


Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

P.O. Box 10335

Des Moines, IA 50306-0335

ATTN: Derek Martin

Executive Resolution Specialist

Customer Care and Recovery Group


Subject: Request for instrument surrender Account 708-0128507779


Mr. Derek Martin,


Your letter dated June 12, 2017 stated that your research would continue focusing on Debt validation.


Perhaps this will assist you. The instrument will be authenticated buy either the Alabama Secretary of State or by an independent document laboratory such as Drexler Document Laboratory in Pelham, Alabama.


Mr. Andress, WF attorney said the instrument was in his hands. After visual examination, it can be easily seen that he spoke carelessly and that an examination by a document laboratory must be used to determine the validity of the instrument. Mr. Andress steadfastly refused to file it with the court for authentication. The court judgments are null and void since no instrument was placed on file for subject matter jurisdiction.


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has consented to an OPERATION OF LAW verified by the rescind/cancel notice procedure as ruled by SCOTUS.


Should WF persist in research with no conclusion, courts are free to impose unlimited punitive damages. Maybe it only right for the courts of competent jurisdiction to decide the authenticity of the instrument that Mr. Andress claims to possess and that he refuses to surrender.


In April 2008, WF first refused to remove “cloud” from the title thereby refusing to allow a sale of the property. The interest by law stopped then. WF ignored that law again in 2012 refusing to accept full payment even with legal tender already on deposit in the Birmingham branch.


Obviously, these facts have dramatically slowed your research. The foreclosure was wrongful as the unavoidable factual conclusion.


You may wish to consult with the Alabama Bar Disciplinary Commission for copies of the correspondence between them and the barred attorneys who conducted this non-judicial foreclosure in the presence of law enforcement complete with snipers on the courthouse roof.


Research time extensions are also of record. Both state and federal court discovery records cannot be changed and are available to you. In the end, no state or federal law can impair you agreed compliance. The dimension of your non-compliance does not bode well for Wells Fargo Bank, N. A.


The 1099A filed with the IRS addresses the debt validation issue. FHLMC is the lender of record and is the only entity that can foreclose. The web grows larger and larger with each passing day. Can I help minimize the impact?


Yours truly,


Haywood Jackson Mizell


Haywood Jackson Mizell



I have repeatedly seen the breakdown of the cost of
raising a child, but this is the first time I have
seen the rewards listed this way.  It's nice, really
nice!  The government recently calculated the cost of
raising a child from birth to 18 and came up with
$160,140 for a middle income family. Talk about
sticker shock!  That doesn't even touch college

But $160,140 isn't so bad if you break it down.  It
translates into:
* $8,896.66 a year,
* $741.38 a month, or
* $171.08 a week.
* That's a mere $24.24 a day!
*Just over a dollar an hour.

Still, you might think the best financial advice is
don't have children if you want to be "rich."
Actually, it is just the opposite.  What do you get
for your $160,140?

* Naming rights.  First, middle, and last!
* Glimpses of God every day.
* Giggles under the covers every night.
* More love than your heart can hold.
* Butterfly kisses and Velcro hugs.
* Endless wonder over rocks, ants, clouds, and warm
* A hand to hold, usually covered with jelly or
* A partner for blowing bubbles, flying kites,
building sand castles, and skipping down the sidewalk
in the pouring rain.
* Someone to laugh yourself silly with, no matter what
the boss said or how your stocks performed that day.

For $160,140, you never have to grow up.  You get to:
* finger-paint,
* carve pumpkins,
* play hide-and-seek,
* catch lightning bugs, and
* never stop believing in Santa Claus

You have an excuse to:
* keep reading the Adventures of Piglet and Pooh,
* watch Saturday morning cartoons,
* go to Disney movies, and
* wish on stars.

You get to:
* frame rainbows, hearts, and flowers under
refrigerator magnets and
* collect spray painted noodle wreaths for Christmas,
* hand prints set in clay for Mother's Day, and
* cards with backward letters for Father's Day.

  For $160,140, there is no greater bang for your buck.
You get to be a hero just for:
* retrieving a Frisbee off the garage roof,
* taking the training wheels off a bike,
* removing a splinter,
* filling a wading pool,
* coaxing a wad of gum out of bangs, and
* coaching a baseball team that never wins but always
gets treated to ice cream regardless.

You get a front row seat to history to witness the:
* first step,
* first word,
* first bra,
* first date, and
* first time behind the wheel.

You get to be immortal.  You get another branch added
to your family tree, and if you're lucky, a long list
of limbs in your obituary called Grandchildren and
great grandchildren.

You get an education in psychology, nursing, criminal
justice, communications, and human sexuality that no
college can match.

In the eyes of a child, you rank right up there under
God.  You have all the power to heal a boo-boo, scare
away the monsters under the bed, patch a broken heart,
police a slumber party, ground them forever, and love
them without limits, so one day they will, like you,
love without counting the cost.

That is quite a deal for the price!

Love and enjoy your children and grandchildren. What a
bargain! !

“Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” PSALMS 127:3. Who cares what the world thinks? I love the children the LORD gave me.


Payday Someday by Robert G. Lee

“Go down to meet Ahab, king of Israel,

thou shalt speak unto him, saying in the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.”

(I Kings 21:18,19)

“The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.”

(I Kings 21:23)

I introduce to you Naboth, a devout Israelite, who lived in the foothill village of Jezreel. From his home on the hillside he could look far down the valley of Esdraelon. He was a good man-a man who “abhorred that which is evil and clave to that which is good.” He would not exchange his heavenly principles for loose expediencies. He would not dilute the stringency of personal righteousness for questionable compromises.

Now Naboth had a vineyard surrounding his home. This vineyard, fragrant with blossoms in the days of the budding branch and freighted with fruit in the days of the vintage, was a cherished inheritance of the family. This vineyard was near to the summer palace of Ahab, situated about twenty miles from Samaria.

I introduce to you Ahab. Ahab had command of a nation’s wealth and commanded the armies of Israel, but he had no command of his lusts and appetites. Ahab wore rich robes, but had a sinning, wicked, and troubled heart beneath them. Ahab ate the riches food the world could supply, and this food was served him on fine dishes and by servants obedient to his every beck and nod, yet he had a starved soul. Ahab lived in palaces, sumptuous within and without, yet tormented himself for one bit of land more. Ahab was king, with a crown and scepter and a throne, yet he was under the thumb of a wicked woman.

Ahab is pilloried in contempt of all right-living, God-fearing men through history as a mean rascal, the curse of his country. The Bible gives us a better and more apt introduction in these words: “There was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up!” (I Kings 21:25)

I introduce to you Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, King of Tyre. (I Kings16:31) A woman infinitely more daring and reckless than her husband. A devout worshipper of Baal, she hated any and all who spoke against her false and helpless god. She was as blunt in her wickedness and as brazen in her lewdness, doubtless, as Cleopatra, fair sorceress of the Nile. She had something of the subtle and successful scheming of a Lady Macbeth, something of the genius of a Mary Queen of Scots, something of the beauty of a Marie Antoinette. Much of that which is bad in the worst of women foundexpression through this painted viper of Israel. She had all that fascinating endowment of nature, which a good woman ought always to dedicate to the service of her generation. But, alas, she became the evil genius, which wrought wreck and blight and death.

I introduce to you Elijah, prophet of God. Heir to the infinite riches of God, he! Attended by the hosts of heaven, he! Almost always alone, he, but never lonely, for God was with him. He wore a rough sheepskin cloak, but there was a peaceful, confident heart beneath it. He ate bird’s food and widow’s fare, but was a physical and spiritual athlete. He had no lease of office or authority, yet everyone obeyed him. He grieved only when God’s cause seemed tottering. He passed from earth without dying -into celestial glory. Everywhere where courage is admired and manhood honored and service appreciated he is honored as one of earth’s heroes and one of heaven’s saints. He was “a seer, and saw clearly; a hero, and dared valiantly; a great heart, and felt deeply.” And now with these four persons introduced we want to turn to God’s Word and see the tragedy of payday some day! We will see “the corn they put into the hopper” and then behold “the grist that came out the spout.”

A Real Estate Request

“Give me thy vineyard.”

And it came to pass after these things that Naboth, the Jezreelite, had a vineyard which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab, king of Samaria. And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, “Give me thy vineyard that I may have it for garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house; and I will give thee for it a better vineyard that it; or, if it seem good unto thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money.” (I Kings 21:1-2)

Thus far, Ahab was quite within his rights! Perfectly fair was Ahab in this request, and, under circumstances ordinary, one would have expected Naboth to put away any more sentimental attachment for the pleasure of the king, especially when the king’s aim was not to cheat him or to defraud him.

Ahab had not, however, counted upon the reluctance of all Jews to part with their inheritance of land. By peculiar tenure every Israelite held his land, and to all land-holding transactions there was another party, even God, “who made heavens and earth.”

So, though he was Ahab’s nearest neighbor, Naboth stood firmly on his rights, and with an expression of horror on his face and in his words, refused to sell his vineyard to the king. Feeling that he must prefer the duty he owed to God to any danger that might arise from man, he made firm refusal. Fearing God most and man least, and obeying the one whom he feared the most and loved the most, he said: “The Lord forbid it me that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.” (I Kings 21:3)

True to the religious teachings of his father, with “real-hearted loyalty to the covenant God of Israel” he believed that he held the land in fee simple from God. His father and grandfather had owned the land before him. All the memories of childhood were tangled in its grapevines. His father’s hands, folded now in the dust of death, had used the pruning blade among the branches, and because of this every branch and vine was dear.

His mother’s hands, now doubtless wrapped in dust-stained shroud, had gathered purple clusters from those bunch-laden boughs, and for this reason, he loved every spot in his vineyard and every branch on his vines.

He felt that his little plot of ground, so rich in prayer and fellowship, so sanctified with sweet and holy memories, would be tainted and befouled and cursed forever if it came into the hands of Jezebel. So, with “the courage of a bird that dares the wild sea,” he took his stand against the king’s proposal.

The Pouting Potentate

“He came to his house heavy and displeased.”

Naboth’s quick and firm and final and courteous refusal “took all the spokes from the wheels” of Ahab’s plan and desires. The stream of his desire ran against a barrier that turned it aside and changed it into a foiled and foaming whirlpool of sullen sulks.

“And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezeelite had spoken to him, for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread.” (I Kings 21:4)

What a ridiculous picture! A king acting like a spoiled child, impotent in disappointment and ugly in petty rage. A king whining like a sick hound. A king pouting like a spoiled and sullen child. He went to bed in the middle of the day, and “turned his face to the wall,” his lips swollen with his mulish moping, his eyes full of cheap anger fire, his heart stubborn in its petty rebellion.



“but Jezebel, his wife!”

When Ahab would “eat no bread” his servants doubtless went and told Jezebel. What she said to them we know not. What she said to Ahab we do know.

Puzzled at the news that her husband would not eat and that he had gone to bed when it was not bedtime, Jezebel sought him out in his room. She found him moaning and peevishly petulant, having refused to eat or to cheer up in the least. At first, in a voice of sweet concern, she sought the reason of his choler. In sweet and anxious concern, she asked “Why is thy spirit so sad that thou eatest no bread?” (I Kings 25:5).

And then, as the manner of women is unto this day, her hand sought his brow to see if he had “temperature” or if some other ailment other than a “sad spirit” had laid hold upon him. Then he told her, every word full of petulance and mopish peevishness as he spoke: “Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money, or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it; and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard!” (I Kings 21:6)

“Are you not the King of this country?”, she chides bitingly, her tongue sharp like a butcher’s blade. “Cannot you command and have it done?”, she scolds as a common village hog who has more noise than wisdom on her words. “Can you not seize and keep?”, she cries with reproach. “I thought you told me you were king in these parts! And here you are crying like a baby and will not eat anything because you do not have courage to take a bit of land. You! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! You the King of Israel, and allow yourself to be disobeyed and defied by a common clodhopper from the country. You have been more courteous and considerate of him than you have of your queen! Shame on you! But you leave it to me, old dear! I will get the vineyard for you, and all that I require is that you ask no questions. Leave it to me, Bo!”

“And Jezebel, his wife, said unto him, dost thou not now govern the kingdom of Israel? Arise and eat bread, and let thine hear be marry, I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth, the Jezreelite!” (I Kings 21:7)

Ahab knew Jezebel well enough to know assuredly that she would do what she said she would do. So he came out of his sulks, slowly, as a turtle drags itself from the slime, and asked her how she was going to do it. She tickled him under the chin or pecked him on the cheeks kissingly with lips screwed into a tight knot, and said “That’s my secret just now; just leave it to me, Honey!”

Now, let us ask who can so inspire a man to noble purposes as a noble woman? And who can so thoroughly degrade a man as a wife of unworthy tendencies? Back of the statement “And Ahab the son of Ormi did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him” (I Kings 16:30) and back of what Elijah spoke, “Thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the Lord” (I Kings 21:25) is the statement explaining both the other statements: “Whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.”

She was the polluted reservoir from which the streams of his iniquity found mighty increase. She was the poisonous pocket from which his cruel fangs fed. She was the burning pit wherein his sulphurous cruelties were born, I suppose that Ahab considered himself the master of his wife, but it was her mastery over him that stirred him up to more and mightier wickedness than his own heart was capable of executing.

Let us come to the next terrible scene in this tragedy of sin.

A Message Meaning Murder

“She wrote letters.”

Jezebel wrote letters to the elders of Jezreel. And in these letters she made definite and subtle declaration that some terrible sin had been committed in their city, for which it was needful that a fast should be proclaimed in order to avert the wrath of Heaven.

“She wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth. And she wrote in the letters, saying, “Proclaim fast, and set Naboth on high among the people, and set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying Thou didst blaspheme God and the king; and then carry him out and stone him, that he may die.” (I Kings 21:8-10)

The letters being written, they must be sealed; and the sealing was done, as all those matter of letter writing and sealing were done, by rubbing ink on the seal, moistening the paper, and pressing the seal thereon. And when Jezebel had finished with her iniquitous pen, she asked Ahab for his signet ring; with that ring she affixed the royal seal. “She sealed them with Ahab’s ring!” When Ahab gave it to her, he knew it meant crime of some sort, but he asked no questions.

Moreover, Jezebel’s deeds showed that when she went down to market, as it were, she would have in his basket a nice vineyard for his husband when she returned. She said to herself” “This man Naboth has refused my honorable lord on religious grounds, and by all the gods of Baal, I will get him yet on these very same grounds.” She understood perfectly the passion of a devout Jew for a public fast; and she knew that nothing would keep Naboth away. He and every member of his household would be there.

“Proclaim a fast!” Fasting has ever been a sign of humiliation before God, of humbling one’s self in the dust before the “high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity.” The idea in calling for a fast was clearly to declare that the community was under the anger of God on account of a grave crime committed by one of its members, which crime is the be exposed and punished. Then, too, the fast involved a cessation of work, a holiday, so that the citizens would have time to attend the public gathering.

“Set Naboth on high!” “On high” meant before the bar of justice, not in the seat of honor. “On high” meant in the seat of the accused, and not in the seat to be desired. “On high” meant that Naboth was put where every eye could watch him closely and keenly observe his bearing under the accusation. “And set two men, base fellows, before him.” How illegal she was in bringing about his death in a legal way! For the law required two witnesses in all cases where the punishment was death. “At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall he be put to death” (Deut.17:6). the witnesses required by Jezebel were men of no character, men who would take bribes and swear to any lie for gain.

“And let them bear witness against him!” in other words, put him out of the way by judicial murder, not by private assassination. “And then carry him out and stone him that he may die!”

A criminal was not to be executed within a city, as that would defile it. Thus, Christ was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem! We see that Jezebel took it for granted that Naboth would be condemned. And so one day while Naboth worked in his vineyard the letters came down to Jezreel.

And one evening while Naboth talked at his cot-tage door with his children, the message of murder was known to the elders of the city. And that night while he slept with the wife of his bosom, the shadow of death was creeping toward him every hour. The message meaning murder was known to many but not to him until they came and told him that a fast had been pro-claimed–proclaimed because God had been offended at some crime and that his wrath must be appeased and the threatening anger turned away, and he him-self, all unconscious of any offense toward God or the king, set in the place of the accused, even “on high!”

The Fatal Feast

“They proclaimed a fast.”

And what concern that must have created in the household of Naboth–when they knew that Naboth was to be “set on high,” even in the “seat of the accused,” even “before the bar of ‘justice’!” And what excitement there was in the city. Curious throngs hurried to the fast the see him who had been accused of the crime which made necessary the appeasing of threatening wrath of an angered God.

Yes, the rulers of Jezreel, “either in dread of offending one whose revenge they knew was terrible, or eager to do a service to whom in temporal matters they were so largely indebted, or moved with envy against their own iniquity, carried out her instructions to the letter.”

They were ready and efficient tools in her hands. No doubt, she had tested their character as her “butcher boys” in the slaughter of the prophets of the Lord. (I Kings18:4,13)

Endicott, in his comment on this tragic scene, says: “The programme, which may have been a familiar one in those wicked days, was carried out exactly as planned. The charge was made, a double charge, of treason and blasphemy, and this double charge was “substantiated” by false witnesses. With a great show of zeal for God and the king a band of hired ruffians seized the ill-fated Naboth, carried him out of the city, and, using the cruel, old punishment for his alleged crime, stoned him to death!”

And then, to make sure that his heirs would not and might not lay claim to the inheritance, his sons also were stained. (II Kings 9:26) Even had this not been so, the property of executed traitors would naturally fall to the king, although no enactment to this effect is found in the law.

Jezebel had planned that, when the fast was at its height and the religious frenzy, or enthusiasm, of the Jew had been fanned to a white heat, she would have two men rise up and accuse Naboth. And they did! Vulture mouths testifying, that the eagle’s talons might hold unto death! Swine snouts grunting out complaint that the swine tusks might be strong unto fatal wounding. “And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him; and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. (I Kings 21:13)

Thus, it came the pass that in an orderly fashion, in the name of religion and in the name of the king, they stoned Naboth and his kin to death. And Naboth really fell, not by the king’s hand, but by the condemnation of his fellow citizens. Yes, the old-fashioned conservatism of Naboth was, in the judgment of many, sorely out of place in that “progressive” state of society.

No doubt, Naboth’s righteous austerity had made him extremely unpopular in many ways in “progressive Jezreel.” And since Jezebel carried out her purpose in a perfectly legal and orderly way and in a “wonderfully” democratic manner, we see a fine picture of autocracy working by democratic methods.

And when these “loyally patriotic citizens” of Jezreel had left the bodies of Naboth and his sons to be devoured by the wild dogs which prowled after nightfall in and around the city, they sent and told Queen Jezebel that her bloody orders had been bloodily and completely obeyed! “Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned and is dead.” (I Kings 21:14)

She received the news gladly, even with no attempt to hide her satisfaction. What was it to her that outside the city walls was the body of a good man whose bones the dogs would gnaw? What was it to her that, with the strength of youth still on their brows, there were the faces of his sons stone-bruised and torn by the fangs of hungry scavengers? What was it to her that God’s holy name had been profaned? What was it to her that religious had been dishonored? What did she care if justice had been outraged just so she had gotten the little plot of land close by their summer palace of ivory? What pang did it give her heart that innocent blood had been shed? Nothing!

Trippingly, as a gay dancer, she hurried in to where Ahab sat. With profuse caresses and words glib with joy she told him the “good news.” She had about her the triumphant manner of one who has accomplished successfully what others had not dared attempt. Her “tryout” in getting the vineyard was a decided “triumph.” She had “pulled the stunt.” She had been “brave” and “wise”–and because of this her husband now could arise and hie him down to the vineyard and call it his own.

“And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead!” (I Kings 21:15) And it was the plot hatched in her own mind and it was her hand, her lily white hand, her queen’s hand, that wrote the letters that made this tragic statement true.

The Visit to the Vineyard

“Ahabarose up to go down to the vineyard.”

How Jezebel must have “strutted her stuff” before Ahab when she went with tidings that the vineyard which he wanted to buy was now his for nothing! How keen must have been the sarcasm of her attitude when she made it known by word and manner that she had succeeded where he failed — and at less cost.

How gloatingly victorious were the remarks, which she made, which kept him warmly reminded that she had kept her “sacred” promise! What a lovely fabric, stained and dyed red with Naboth’s blood, she spread before him for his “comfort” from the loom of her evil machinations.

“And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth the Jezreelite, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it!” (I Kings 21:16)

Yes, Naboth, the good man who “feared the Lord,” is dead; and Ahab expresses no condemnation of this awful conspiracy, culminating in such a tragic horror. Though afraid or restrained by his conscience from committing murder himself, he had no scruple in availing himself of the results of such crime when perpetrated by another. He flattered himself that, by the splendid genius of his queen in bloody matters, he, though, having no part in the crime which did Naboth to death, he might, as well as another, “receive the benefit of his dying.”

And now Jehu and Bidcar, the royal charioteers, are called for. They are given orders to prepare the royal chariot. The gilded chariot is drawn forth. And soon, Jehu and Bidcar, furious charioteers in the service of the king, are directing the brief journey of the gilded chariot to Jezreel, just twenty miles away.

Ahab rode in something of military state. His outriders drive down with him as he goes, proudly and gratefully, to take possession of the desired vineyard, a gift of the queen to him. All the way from Samaria he congratulates himself, doubtless, that he has such a woman for a wife, so talented she was and successful in “putting things over!”

As he goes the voice of Jehu, as he restrains the fiery horses or the lash of his whip as he urges them on, attracts the attention of the grazing cattle in adjacent pastureland. The sound of clanking hoofs of cantering horses resounds in every glen by the roadway.

The gilded chariot catches the light of the sun and reflects it brightly, but he who rides therein is unmindful of the bloodstains on the ground where Naboth died. Dust clouds arise from the chariot’s wheels and wild winds blow them across the fields where the plowman or the reaper wonders who goes so swiftly along the highway. The neighing steeds announce to all that Ahab’s royal horses tire not in carrying him down from Samaria to Jezreel. And soon many know that the chariot carried the king who was going down to possess what had reverted to the crown, even the vineyard of Naboth which Naboth refused to sell to him. Would the “game” be worth the “candle?” Would Ahab learn that sin buys pleasure at the price of peace? We shall see — and that right soon!

An Alarming Appearance

“The word of the Lord came to Elijah.”

The brief journey from Samaria to Jezreel is over. The restlessly prancing and easily panting horses are brought to a stop outside the gate to the vineyard. Strong hands of ready servants hold the fiery horses by the bits; the hands of servants open the gates; the bodies of the obedient servants bow courteously as Ahab enters the vineyard. Naboth is dead, and the coveted vineyard is now Ahab’s through the “gentle scheming” of the queen of his house.

Perhaps Ahab, as he walks through the garden, sees Naboth’s footprints in the soil. Or he sees Naboth’s pruning hook among the vines. Perhaps in a corner of the vineyard is a seat where Naboth and his sons rested after the day’s toil, or a well where sparkling water for the vines in time of drought.

And even then, out yonder somewhere God is talking to Elijah, his prophet whom we introduced to you a bit ago. And this is the record: “And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which is in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it. And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD!” (I Kings 21:17-19)

And while Ahab strolls among the vines that Naboth tended, what is it that appears? Snarling wild beasts? No! Black clouds full of threatening storm? No, not that. Flaming lightning which dazzled him? No! War chariots of his ancient enemies rumbling along the road? No! An oncoming flood sweeping things before it? No, not a flood. A tornado goring the earth? No. A huge serpent threatening to encircle him and crush his bones in its deadly coils? No, not a serpent. What then? What alarmed Ahab so? Let us follow him and see.

As Ahab went walking through the rows of vines, he begins to plan how he will have that vineyard arranged by his royal gardener–how flowers will be here and vegetables yonder and herbs there. As he converses with himself, suddenly a shadow falls across his path.

Quick as a flash Ahab whirls on his heels, and there, before him, stands Elijah, prophet of the living God. Elijah’s cheeks are swarthy; his eye is keen and piercing; like coals of fire, his eyes burn with righteous indignation in their sockets; his bosom heaves; his head is held high. His only weapon is a staff; his only robe a sheepskin and a leather girdle about his loins.

To Ahab there is an eternity of agony in the few moments they stand thus, face to face, eye to eye, soul to soul! “And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?” (I Kings 21:20) His voice is hoarse, like the cry of a hunted animal. He trembles like a hunted stag before the mouths of fierce hounds. Suddenly his face goes white. His lips quiver.

And Elijah, without a tremor in his voice, his eyes burning their way into Ahab’s guilty soul, answered, “I have found thee, because thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the Lord.” Then, with every word a thunderbolt, and every sentence a withering denunciation Elijah continued: “God told me to ask you this, Hast thou killed and also taken possession? Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs lick thy blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine. Behold I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity…. And will make thine house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, for the provocation wherewith thou hast provoked me to anger and made Israel to sin!”

And then, plying other words mercilessly like a terrible scourge to the cringing Ahab, Elijah said “And of Jezebel also spake the Lord, saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel! Him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat; and him that dieth in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat.”

And with these words making Ahab to cower as one cowers and recoils from a hissing adder, Elijah went his way.

Payday Someday

Yes, the evil spoken by Elijah did come. Payday came as certainly as the night followed the day. Let us note how it came, and when.

Consider how it came to Ahab! God spoke, and God said that the king’s life was forfeited, and the lives of all that could succeed him on the throne, whatever their age. The destruction that had fallen on the preceding dynasties of Jeroboam and Baasha would fall upon Ahab’s. They were not even to have decent burial, God said. Those that died in the city the dogs should eat, God said. Those that died in the field, the buzzards should eat, God said. Queen Jezebel herself, sometime, somewhere was to be a feast for dogs, God said.

Ahab entered into league with Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah. In disguise, Ahab entered the battle against his old Syrian enemies. At Ramoth-Gilead a random arrow mortally wounded him, so that his chariot was filled with blood. (I Kings 22:34-35) And they took his body to Samaria; and the dogs licked up his blood; and they washed his armor, according unto the word of the Lord which he spake (I King 22:38) God said it–and it was done.

So did Ahaziah, Ahab’s son, and Joram meet violent deaths. We know. Now consider Jezebel, and when her payday came. We learn as we think of her death that “the stag followed by hungry hounds with open mouths is far more happy than the woman who is pursued by her sins, that the bird taken in the fowler’s net and laboring to escape is far more happy than she who has woven about herself a web of deception, that yon eagle beating against brass bars is far happier than the woman whose sin stares at her from dark rooms at midnight, and that the wild animal caught and suffering in the jaws of a steel trap is far happier than he who carries a guilty conscience in his bosom!”

“And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it.” Pause. Who is Jehu? He is the one who, twenty years before the events of this chapter from which we quote, rode down with Ahab to take Naboth’s vineyard, the one who throughout those twenty years never forgot those withering words of terrible denunciation, which Elijah spoke.

And who is Jezebel? Oh! The very same one who wrote the letters and had Naboth put to death. And what is Jezreel? The place where Naboth had his vineyard and where Naboth died, his life pounded out by stones in the hands of ruffians.

“And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window. And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace who slew his master?”

Pause again just here. “Had Zimri peace who slew his master?” No, “there is no peace saith my God to the wicked.” “And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? Who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs. And he said, “Throw her down.” So they threw her down, and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses; and he trode her under foot.

And when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and said, Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury her, for she is a king’s daughter. And they went to bury, but they found no more than her skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands. Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spoke by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel!” (I Kings 9:30-36)


“This is the word of the Lord which he spake by his servant Elijah!” Yes, and from this we learn the power and certainty of God in carrying out his own retributive providence that men might know that His justice slumbereth not. Even though the mill of God grinds slowly, it grinds to powder; “and though his judgments have leaden heels, they have iron hands.”

When I see Ahab fall in his chariot and when I see the dogs eating Jezebel by the walls of Jezreel, I say, as the Scripture saith, “O, that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments; then had thy peace been like a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea!” And as I remember that the gains of ungodliness are weighted with the curse of God, I ask you, “Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread?” And your labor for that which satisfieth not?”



No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken (taken to mean arrested or deprived of liberty by the state), nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.


42 U.S. Code § 1994 - Peonage abolished. The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.


Does what sown determine what is reaped?

Will “Impeachable” Gov. Robert Bentley, “Zipper problem” Clinton and “Delusional” Obama and “Swamp drainer” Trump reap in the sunlight?

The sword of man "devours one as well as another"; but the sword of God falls on the head of the offender.

Things must be made manifest; the stream may flow for a time underground, but sooner or later it will break out. We may go on for years in a course of secret evil, in the cultivation of some unholy principle, in the indulgence of some unholy lust, in the gratification of some unholy temper or feeling, but the smoldering flame must ultimately break forth, and show us the real character of our actings. This is a truly solemnizing reflection.

We cannot hide things from God, nor cause Him to think that our wrong ways are all right. We may try to reason ourselves into such a thought; we may persuade our hearts by plausible arguments that such and such things are right, good, or lawful; but

"God is not mocked: whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."


The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended. US Constitution Article 1 Section 9.

The official who is the respondent must prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

Wells Fargo is the perfect example of the corrosive nature that describes the financial industry, the bankers. Wells Fargo’s written policy is to “not disburse original documents”. SCOTUS has declared a banking transaction to be private, not public. When courts are called upon, courts can only enforce the contract. Wells Fargo resists the private contract by moving the contract from one that is private to one that is public or property owned by everyone.

Since the original instrument of the contract has not been filed into public record, it is not subject to law that demands its surrender if full payment is made. See 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

To satisfy habeas corpus demands to that authority to act must be identified, the banking industry has resorted to the use of counterfeits to replace originals to gain legitimacy. First it was “rob signing” that eventually resulted in a $25 billion penalty and a promise to cease such activity. Then workshops were established to provide foreclosure attorneys with a manual on how to deceive the court by saying that the original was in a case collateral file sent to the attorney. Now attorney statements are used to satisfy Habeas Corpus even since courts have determined an unsworn statement by a barred attorney is not competent evidence. Exposure of wrongdoing on the part of Wells Fargo is rare. The State of California has declared Wells Fargo to be a “Criminal Enterprise” and has ceased all business with the state and WF.

Street protests are not effective. Universal stoppage of the use of Wells Fargo and the other five major banks will be the first step in the erosion of private property. Today 46% of the nation’s assets are in the hands of the few. In 2007 the 46% was then only 9%.

Maybe the stoppage has already begun. See the article below:

Wells Fargo will close more than 400 of its branches by the end of 2018, the latest apparent fallout from the bank's fake account scandal.

The locations of the branches set for closure were not announced; Wells Fargo operates 138 banks in Alabama.

The closures were included in fourth quarter financial statements released last week. The statements showed the number of checking accounts opened at the bank in December fell 30 percent from the same period of time the previous year, after falling 44 percent in November. Applications for Wells Fargo credit cards have also dropped precipitously, falling 43 percent from December 2015 to December 2016.

The banking giant said the closures will take place nationwide.

The financial disclosures are the first reported since bank employees were caught opening millions of fake accounts in an effort to meet sales quotas. The bank recently announced it was eliminating bonuses and sales goals for retail bankers at its branches, incentives it said drove the account scandal.

Another victim of “illegal plunder” by Wells Fargo are court judges who lose their judicial immunity because of their favorable judgments to Wells Fargo, done without habeas corpus demands of record authority.

The real problem is that Wells Fargo acts as a loan originator then sells the instrument and then functions as only the loan servicer. Another problem is that the instrument is “money changed” into a counterfeit and sold as a part of many mortgages in bundles of Mortgage Backed Securities.

Plus, WF purchases an insurance policy and collects on a claim when a borrower defaults. An average of 5 times is the amount of profit Wells Fargo make for every foreclosure, even on the clear majority that are “wrongful” because of the “righteous” posture of WF. Employees of WF have declared in court that they testify only as WF representatives and not as human beings.

Assignment of mortgages are to be promptly recorded in the public record for deeds. The banking industry created a method to avoid this requirement of law saving nearly $4 billion in filing fees.

All of this happened after a Bill Clinton sponsored repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act. Now vanilla banks can also serve as Investment Banker, that is, the banks can legally gamble with their depositor’s money.

In the past banks, would have you believe that entering a bank building was like unto the entrance into a church. Not so today, the public is beginning to have their truthful voices heard. Death by the number reduction of the customer’s lists is death by natural causes. A customer should be free to select the product he purchases per the value he places on it. As for me a thief’s product has zero value.

Why is it important for WF to switch to a public venue? Public is under municipal control, which can be controlled by Wells Fargo because of its vast financial means. Also, the customer is unwittingly made a banker, an insurance agent, and a transporter in the commercial stream. Why? He is fully “informed” and is declared one who knows his actions and is alone responsible for the consequences. Unfortunately for Wells Fargo a writ of habeas corpus requires the presentation of the certificate that makes the customer one who can now act with the authority of an “expert”. We must stop the election of uninformed judges or give elected judges proper training so that the private citizen can enjoy that freemen can freely dispose of their own property. Peonage prohibition must be enforced. Would that Sheriffs were not made peons themselves?

The writers of the US Constitution knew that one simple sentence could not be suspended.

Again, the need for an authenticated instrument, the original, not a copy as in a copy of a ten dollar bill.

The official who is the respondent must prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party.



Arden Moe lives.

   Arden Moe was my friend. I heard of his death yesterday. I had thought that I would go to the long home first and be there to welcome him. Instead he has gone first and I look forward to his welcome.

Arden disciplined his passions. Isaiah 41:13 “For I the Lord thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not, I will help thee.” With God’s help, Arden believed he could do anything. He considered not the obstacles along the path, arriving at the destination was all that mattered. Determination wore the garments of unwavering calmness and assurance with his face set to achieve.

Arden focused on the Lord Jesus Christ, he recognizes that Jesus is the Lord from heaven and is the Christ, the savior of the world. Arden believed in his heart that God, the Father raised Jesus, the son from the dead acknowledging that Jesus was without sin and as such was the Lord from Heaven. Arden believed and was immediately given life, which heretofore had not existed in the now-believer, Arden. “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” Life so generated by God makes Him the Father, and the believer, the son by adoption. One so generated is obligated in a father-son relationship as well as the social slave-master relationship. “For ye are bought with a price;” The question now is, “Will the son be a highly-esteemed son, or otherwise?” The highly-esteemed Arden with God’s help believed all thing were possible.

Love is denying oneself for the good of others. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.” God has commanded that we love one another. Arden followed.    

     Arden practiced intimate love by the targeting of that love exclusively toward one person for bearing fruit for God. Psalm 127:3 “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord; and the fruit of the womb is his reward.” Arden focused on the real, the counterfeit became even more worthless.

     Arden believed every human saved or unsaved has the freedom to chose, but does not have the freedom of altering the consequences after he has made his choice. Nothing in the physical body, be it hormones or chromosomes remove this freedom of choice, and in turn, the lack of freedom in altering the choice’s consequences.

     God permits all the first choice, but he alone makes the consequences sure and certain. One could hardly decide at a crossroads if the destination was not certain when the choice direction was taken. For example, “The wages of sin is death.” We have nothing in the body that makes us chose sin, but if we sin we die. All have sinned, therefore death is universal. What is sin but rebellion against God? One reaches the age of accountability when the doer commits an act he knows is a sin against God. Why is any act a sin? Because God said it was. God knows the consequences of every action or choice. “Fear not; I will help thee.” Choosing God to help is wise because the consequences are sure and good. (See Romans 8:28).

       Arden must have had faults, but I didn’t see them. God’s rewards at the judgment seat of Christ is given without error. Arden’s must be numerous.

       It is truly a delight to be a member of the same body with Arden, and to think both of us are joint-heirs with Christ. See you later face to face.


It matters not what I say. Contempt for the actions of another is not my prerogative. What one reduces to writing in describing his motions is what has driven the conclusion of the difference between what is real and what is just imagined as outlined below. Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap in due time. The track record is confirmed.

The Mortgage Process We Were Taught

We are led, by all involved, to believe that we are, in fact, borrowing money from the “lender” which is then paid to the current owner of the property as compensation for them relinquishing any “claim of ownership” to the property and transferring that “claim of ownership” to us as the purchaser. 

After the “closing” everyone is all smiles and you believe you have a new home and must repay the “lender”, over a period of years, the money which you believe you have “borrowed”. 

The “borrower” is led to believe that the “Mortgage Note” that he signs is a document that binds him to make repayment of “money” that the “lender” is loaning him to purchase the property he is acquiring.

Why do we need a Deed of Trust? What exactly IS a Deed of Trust or other similar “Security Instrument”? It spells out all the details of the contract that you are signing at the “closing”, including such things as insurance requirements, preservation and maintenance and all the financial details of how, when, where and why you are going to make payments to the “lender” for years and years.

                                              The Real Mortgage Process

Unknown to almost everyone, there is something VERY different that happens with your “Mortgage Note” immediately after closing.

Your “Mortgage Note” is endorsed and deposited in the bank as a check and becomes “MONEY”.   The document that you just gave the bank with your signature on it, that you believe is a promise to pay them for money loaned to you, has just been converted to money in THEIR ACCOUNT. You just gave the “lender” the exact dollar value of what they said they just loaned you! 

You just paid for your own home with your promissory “Mortgage Note” that you gave the bank and the bank gave you what in return? NOTHING! 

For any contract to be valid there must be consideration given by both parties. But don’t they tell you that you must now pay back the “Loan” that they have made to you? 

Is there disclosure to the “borrower” to the effect that the “lender” is not really loaning any of their money to the “borrower” and therefore is taking no risk whatsoever in the transaction?

 [It is not] disclosed to the “borrower” that per FEDERAL LAW, banks are not allowed to loan credit and are also not allowed to loan their own or their depositor’s money. 

Why is it that when you tender your “Note” at the closing that they don’t tell you that your home is paid for right on the spot? 

We have already found out that the “Note” doesn’t go into the vault for safe keeping but instead is deposited into an account at the bank and becomes money. 

Your “Mortgage Note” is then used to access your Treasury Account (that you know nothing about) and get credit in the amount of your “Mortgage Note” from your “Prepaid Treasury Account”.

They then turn around and bundle the “Note” and sell it to investors on Wall Street and get paid again! 

The “Deed of Trust” or similar “Security Instrument” after you have signed it. You may be quite surprised to know that not only does it not go into “safekeeping” it is immediately SOLD as an INVESTMENT SECURITY.

What happens is the “Deed of Trust” or other similar “Security Instrument” is bundled and SOLD to a buyer and the BANK GETS PAID FOR THE VALUE OF THE MORTGAGE AGAIN!! 

[It is fraud to photocopy obligations and securities for the intent to defraud.]

[But what they are doing is selling several "originals" of your signed documents fraudulently.]

Could this be the reason that MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) was formed in the 1990’s to supposedly “transfer ownership of a mortgage” without having to have the “original documents” that would be required to be presented to the various county recorders? Could it be they KNEW THEY WOULDN’T HAVE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING and had to devise a system to get around that requirement? 

[Perhaps MERS was created to conceal the fraud.  This might explain the sudden loss of original signed documents]


 “Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct.”  Source:  Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987 

It is well established law that Fraud makes void any contract that arises from it.

To foreclose they must have BOTH the “Mortgage Note” and “Deed of Trust” or other similar “Security Instrument” ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in their possession at the time the foreclosure action is initiated. 

They have, instead, submitted a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court as their “proof of claim” to attempt to unjustly enrich themselves through a blatantly fraudulent foreclosure action. 

Could it be that this whole entire process could be “studied concealment or misrepresentation?


We don't owe the banks; the banks owe millions of dollars to each of us.

The banker's manual contains more positions than the number of the sands of the sea. 

The problem is that we are the unwitting victims.

 [Currently, 140 countries have joined together to end the central banks stranglehold on us.  We are now in an unseen global war for humanity's freedom.] Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 by Bill Clinton. Donald Trump promised to restore it in 2016. A start.




The Perfected Fraud, A National Disgrace

Solution to a problem begins by identifying the problem.

Can and Will Trump solve the problem?

“Eating out the substance of the people” continues. (Declaration of Independence)

            A group of large Banking Corporations have acquired money indirectly from the Investors to create Mortgage Loans by using Homeowner’s identities from the Homeowner’s Promissory Notes (without consent from the Homeowners) to create (Unregistered and Unregulated) Certificates and Bonds and indirectly sold the Certificates and Bonds to unnamed Investors for the money acquired above.

            These large Banking Corporations have placed default insurance (100 cents on the dollar) on each Note and designed the loans to fail for the sole purpose to collect immediate insurance claim (payment) on the Notes. These large Banking Corporations received the insurance funds from the AIG Bailout on the Notes that defaulted and were not obligated to give those funds to the Investors, because the Investors invested in the Certificates and Bonds (not the Notes), thus the Investors are filing suit against these large Banking Corporations because the Corporations are not giving them a return. Also the Corporations did not credit the Homeowner’s accounts, with intent to acquire Homeowner’s properties to sell for an undeserved profit.

            The large Banking Corporations kept the money coming in from the Homeowners’ monthly installments and kept the money that came in from the AIG Bailout. They also kept the Money from the “Make Home Affordable Plan” because they do not hold the Notes. Make Home Affordable Plan is a refinance program, the old Notes have to be returned to the Homeowner when the new Notes pay off the old Notes. If the Corporations do not hold the old Notes, they cannot give a Home loan modification. Which begs the question; was it lawful for them to receive the funds from “Make Home Affordable Plan” in the 1st place? Which of course begs another question; what did they do with these funds?

            Will these large Banking Corporations return to the taxpayer again seeking another Insurance Company Bailout to pay the Investors on the (Unregistered and Unregulated) Certificates and Bonds? Which begs the question; will the Investors get paid this time around? However, did these Investors know about the scheme at the beginning and wish to keep anonymous? Since these Certificates and Bonds were not Registered and not Regulated, should the (unnamed) Investors be given any respect?

            Only two more Parties need to be involved to make this Ponzi Scheme complete;

1) a Court ruling in favor of the Scheme (without forcing the Corporations to prove to be the Holder In Due Course) and

2) a Sheriff’s department to enforce it. Once the property is sold and the Homeowners walk away, the fraud is covered up. OR is it?

     “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Federic Bastiat 1850





The borrower couple’s “lender” wished to purchase a promissory note for resale, but wished to mislead the borrowers into thinking that they have received a mortgage loan with the real property to be purchased to become security for the mortgage loan in the event that the borrower defaults.

The “lender”, before the assignment transfer to a buyer investor, the actual lender, wishes to keep its dealings with the promissory note a secret, the usual legal term is fraudulent concealment. Why? Once the promissory note and mortgage is executed and delivered to “loan originator” it can be made into an electronic file after it has been scanned and then, to avoid duplication, the original can be shredded. The promissory note in electronic form can be delivered to buyer after buyer who actually came forward with funds to purchase the promissory note.

Freddie Mac’s procedural manual required physical delivery of the note and mortgage complete with the original signor signatures.  The promissory note sold to Freddie Mac is stamped “WITHOUT RECOURSE PAY TO THE ORDER OF________________” and signed by a corporate official. The promissory note has been changed into a check separated from the mortgage and distributed into commercial trade. No mortgage loan has ever been made, which establishes that false instruments were filed. The “loan originator” is no longer the holder in due course and cannot foreclose with just a check.

Please note that to collect on a check which has no attached “power of sale” for specific property must publish four successive weeks of legal notice in a local newspaper. See Ala. Code § 35-10-3. What bank was the check drawn?

Again, when the “lender” defaults by refusing prepayment in full, re-conveyance is made without publishing notice. The lender cannot refuse payment in full.

Since the borrowers were made to believe that they were making a mortgage loan, they were not asked for consent that the promissory note be transformed into a check for distribution into commercial trade. Therefore, the check is circulated without consent. A false instrument is a “document”, a photocopy bearing no original negotiable instrument signature granting consent.

How the determination is made as to the “lender's” treatment of the promissory note is simple. Once sold a promissory note is not required to be returned to the borrower after the promissory note has been made into a check and put into commercial trade. A promissory note secured by a mortgage must be returned to the borrower if full payment is made. The return of the promissory note defines its being a check or a mortgage.

Central to the understanding of this conflict of intentions between the “borrower” and the “lender” is knowing that the signature on a piece of paper is the property of the signer and is of great value. The signature on a piece of paper constituting a promissory note, the instrument, which becomes tangible property and cannot be destroyed by anyone other than the signer. The signer can destroy the note once it has been paid in full.

The “loan Originator” destroyed the note after it was scanned and transferred to a silent buyer, identified as the investor, and before the false instrument paraded as a mortgage was filed in the courthouse records. No subsequent assignments are on record as checks require no recordation. Having been separated from the mortgage with no recorded assignment, the note is null and void making the mortgage unenforceable.

§ 7-3-305c implies that an investor having bought a check that is separated from the mortgage (a mortgage must be assigned and recorded), is without rights of a holder-in-due-course that is connected with a mortgage. Separation of the note and mortgage renders the note and mortgage null and void. Only the one entitled to the money secured is entitled to foreclose or the ownership of the debt. The holder in due course by assignment or the holder or bearer of the note at the time of foreclosure can foreclose. Ownership of the mortgage does not pass though indorsed in blank. Property cannot be transferred when the foreclosure deed is invalid because of lack of authority to foreclose.  The assignment by an agent to a mortgage cannot be valid other than by possession from delivery of the instrument which consents to “power of sale”.

The couple first learns that something is amiss when a refinance to lower the interest rate is denied. A refinance notes and mortgage made to satisfy the first note and mortgage, would require that the first mortgage, when paid, be returned to the borrower. This cannot be done because the original has been shredded after made into electronic file. An electronic file cannot be stamped paid in full. The separated mortgage on file at the courthouse is a false instrument.


Should the couple elect to sell the homestead, no title can be conveyed because the electronic file and the false instrument recorded at the courthouse places a “cloud” over the title. Any potential purchaser requires clear title to the property purchased.

When the borrower wishes to make a prepayment that would result in the surrender of the instrument by the lender if full payment is made. The lender can only refuse to accept prepayment because there is no legitimate evidence of debt.


Once the payment in full is refused, a simulated foreclosure allows the lender to cover his fraud by taking possession of the homestead. When the couple refuses to abandon the property to the lender, the lender then seeks a judge’s order for eviction carried out by the sheriff.


Now the lender has shown himself to be above the law and secured law enforcement to beckon to his command. An IRS 1099A form is filed that identifies the true lender who then places the electronic file as an asset in an off the books accounting to be used in the Wall Street casino.

In summary, the “loan originator” lender sold its interest to several investors, but had failed to record the assignment of the transfer on public record. The “loan originator” lender used the separated mortgage on file with the County Probate Office as authority to foreclose claiming the check as a valid loan and lien. Publication was made for three consecutive weeks wanting all to believe that the false instruments were a mortgage loan, not a check.

No mention is ever made of the “loan originator’s” improper refusal of prepayment. After all, the financial industry states that they only foreclosed on those who do not deserve to remain in their homes.

Law enforcement presence at a non-judicial foreclosure auction is a state action eliminating a non-judicial foreclosure.

A judge is needed to deny trial by jury and to keep secret the determination of the true lender, the true holder-in-due-course, and the determination of the validity after the separation of the note from the mortgage, or if the mortgage is dead. These are but a few of the issues at controversy-- creditor default by improperly refusing payment, Slander of Title, and Default Judgment.

It is time for the voter to speak. Jesus cast out all of the money changers.   The peons may do the same. Can you feel the anger?

True Bondage Relief

Every adult on earth is either “in Adam” or “in Christ.” The first man leads to eternal death; the second man leads to eternal life.

“Ye be born again.” The New Birth is accomplished by the word of God ( 1 Peter 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.) and carried out by the Holy Spirit (John 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”) The part of man that is “born again” is his spirit, not his soul (Ephesians 2: 1-9 “ And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”)

Merely “believing in Christ” does nothing for the sinner. The Devil believes every word written in the bible and is not “reconciled.” The fact that God charged the world’s sins and those trespasses were paid in full at Calvary doesn’t do anything for you (or anyone else) if you do not personally take Jesus Christ as your “payment” ( John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”) Until then, your sins are still charged to you.

Romans 5:12-19King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

center drugs                   wiregrass medical center