County Cook County 1st District Apellate Courthouse,

160 North LaSalle St. Chicago, IL – Illinois 60601

ZAKARRHEA BEY FKA LISA MAZZARRI CASE NO. 1-23-1013

(RELATED CASE: 2019CH02847)

Appellant,
Trial Judge: Sullivan, William B
Vs.
Chancery Court Division 1
QUICKEN LOANS INC JOHNSON BLUMBERG ASSOCIATES
Chancery Division. 50 West Washington Street. Richard
Appellee J. Daley Center. Office of the Presiding Judge – Suite
2403, Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 603-4181

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

ZAKARRHEA BEY FKA LISA MAZZARRI

Attorneys for Appellant

Zakarrhea Bey FKA Lisa N. Mazzarri
5404 South Seeley Avenue, Chicago
Illinois Republic [60609]

Attorneys for Appellee

JOHNSON BLUMBERG ASSOCIATES
Joseph M. Herbas
Attorney
30 N. LaSalle St, Suite 3650
Chicago, IL 60602
Main: 312-541-9710
Fax: 312-541-9711
jherbas@johnsonblumberg.com

1
 Table of Contents
Statement of Points and Authorities 3
Point I: Jurisdiction Challenge 3
Point II: Disagreement with Magistrate Mr. Sullivan 3
Point III: Invalid Summary Judgment 5
Point IV: Relief Sought 5
Nature of the Case 6
Background of the Foreclosure Case 6
Key legal Issues Raised In The Appeal 6
Jurisdiction Challenge 7
Introduction to the Challenge 7
Transcript reference to jurisdiction challenge (Slide 477) 7
Legal principles regarding challenging jurisdiction 9
Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026 9
Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) 10
Application of Jurisdiction Principles to the Case 10
Arguments and Authority Supporting the Jurisdiction Challenge 10
Statement of Facts 11
Chronological Overview of Events from Trial Court Proceedings 11
Key Hearings, Decisions, and Interactions with Magistrate Mr. Sullivan 11
Relevance of the Denied Motion to Compel and Its Impact on the Appeal 11
First Argument - Disagreement with Magistrate Mr. Sullivan 13
Introduction to the Argument 13
Subpoints and Legal Principles 13
Lack of Loan Proof and Original Note 13
Violation of UCC-2401 and UCC 9-315 14
Denied Request for Internal Revenue Service 2046 Balance Sheet 15
15 USC SUBSECTION 78 and Debt Instrument Modification 16
Violations Related to Notary and Borrower's Right to Reinstate 16
MERS Violation and Potential Federal Court Challenge 16
Supporting Transcript References and Relevant Exhibits 17
Conclusion of the First Argument 17
Second Argument - Invalid Summary Judgment 18
Introduction to the Argument 18
Subpoints And Legal Principles 18
Lack of Valid Contract and Essentials of a Contract 18
No Valid Representation from the Bank in the Contract 19
Constitutional Suspension and Jurisdiction in Question 20
Dissolution and Reorganization of U.S. Corporations 22
Supporting Transcript References and Relevant Exhibits 22
Conclusion of the Second Argument 22
Conclusion 23
Recap of Key Arguments and Jurisdiction Challenge 23
Request for Relief 24
Appropriate Legal Citation for Relief Sought 24
Certificates of Compliance and Proof of Service 24
Certificates of Compliance 25
Proof of Service 25
Appendix 26
Appendix Contents 26

2
 Statement of Points and Authorities

Point I: Jurisdiction Challenge

Authority: Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

"In accord with the matter of Law, once Jurisdiction is challenged, that cannot proceed."

Authority: Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).

"Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is

'without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities."

The jurisdiction challenge is a pivotal issue in this appeal. On February 28, 2023, during proceedings

on slide 477 of the transcript, the Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the court by stating, "You do

not have Jurisdiction over me." The Magistrate's response was, "He don't know." and "Maybe I don't."

This exchange directly brings into question the court's authority to proceed with the case. The

principle established by Melo v. US (505 F2d 1026) emphasizes that once jurisdiction is challenged, a

court lacking jurisdiction should dismiss the action. Furthermore, Elliot v. Piersol (1 Pet. 328, 340, 26

U.S. 328, 340) reinforces that judgments and orders from a court without authority are nullities.

Although a specific Illinois statute may not address this issue, the case law supports the Appellant's

challenge to the court's jurisdiction.

Point II: Disagreement with Magistrate Mr. Sullivan

Subpoint A: Lack of Loan Proof and Original Note

● Authority: UCC-2401

● Authority: UCC 9-315

The Appellant's primary disagreement arises from the denial of the Motion to Compel on May 09,

2023, wherein the Judge labeled it as frivolous. During this hearing, the Appellant sought the original

note with a wet ink jet signature—a crucial element under UCC-2401. This requirement asserts that

3
without possession of the note, foreclosure cannot proceed. Additionally, UCC 9-315 states that with

only one signature present, the party has the right to rescind the contract. This is essential since the

mortgage company failed to disclose a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA Act), which the

Appellant asserts under UCC 15 USC sub 1604. The Appellant's request for the Internal Revenue

Service 2046 Balance Sheet was denied, hindering transparency and possibly indicating ulterior

motives.

Subpoint B: Violation of TILA Act - UCC 15 USC sub 1604

● Authority: TILA Act

Subpoint C: Denied Request for Internal Revenue Service 2046 Balance Sheet

● Authority: Applicable statute or regulation, if available

Subpoint D: 15 USC SUBSECTION 78 and Debt Instrument Modification

● Authority: 15 USC SUBSECTION 78

Subpoint E: Violations Related to Notary and Borrower's Right to Reinstate

● Authority: Relevant legal principles and precedents

Subpoint F: MERS Violation and Potential Federal Court Challenge

● Authority: Relevant legal principles and precedents

The Appellant raises concerns about notary violations, lack of representation from the bank in the

contract, and the removal of the borrower's right to reinstate. These actions raise questions regarding

the validity of the proceedings. Notably, there are references in the transcript that point to violations of

MERS, though not addressed in court. The Appellant is considering a potential challenge in Federal

Court under the subject of "useful," an attachment provided. While further research may be necessary

to determine the exact course of action, the potential for a challenge based on MERS violations

exists.
4
Point III: Invalid Summary Judgment

Subpoint A: Lack of Valid Contract and Essentials of a Contract

● Authority: Relevant legal principles and precedents

Subpoint B: No Valid Representation from the Bank in the Contract

● Authority: Relevant legal principles and precedents

Subpoint C: Constitutional Suspension and Jurisdiction in Question

● Authority: Relevant legal principles and precedents

Subpoint D: Dissolution and Reorganization of U.S. Corporations

● Authority: Relevant legal principles and precedents

The Appellant contests the validity of the Summary Judgment for Foreclosure and various motions

that followed. Notably, the Appellant argues that the contract lacks essentials, such as offer,

consideration, and acceptance. Furthermore, no valid representation from the bank is present in the

contract. The Appellant highlights the constitutional suspension and raises concerns about

jurisdiction. The dissolution and reorganization of U.S. corporations add to the complexity of the case,

with potential implications for jurisdiction and authority. The Appellant questions the legitimacy of the

proceedings and the judgment, pointing to Exhibit 478,479,480,481, and 482 as evidence.

Point IV: Relief Sought

Authority: Relevant legal principles and precedents

The Appellant seeks relief to stop the foreclosure and dismiss the case with prejudice. The Appellant

is also seeking monetary relief of $115,000, which can be provided in Bitcoin, Gold, or a U.S. dollar

cashier's check, payable to Zakarrhea Bey or as otherwise deemed equitable by the Appellate court.

5
 Nature of the Case

The present case emerges against the backdrop of an intricate and highly contested foreclosure

proceeding that holds profound implications for the rights of the Appellant, the integrity of the legal

process, and the principles that underpin property ownership and contractual obligations. Central to

this case are a series of critical legal issues that have been vigorously raised in this appeal,

underscoring the gravity of the matter at hand.

The culmination of these factors has cast a spotlight on the very essence of equitable legal

proceedings, prompting a compelling examination of the balance between individual rights, due

process, and the overarching principles that safeguard the stability of legal transactions in a complex

society.

Background of the Foreclosure Case

The case revolves around the foreclosure of the Appellant's property, initiated by the Plaintiff.

Throughout the proceedings, the Appellant has raised substantial concerns regarding the legitimacy

of the foreclosure process, the adequacy of the evidence presented, and the propriety of the

decisions rendered by the trial court.

At the heart of the Appellant's claims is the assertion that vital procedural and substantive

requirements have been overlooked or disregarded, leading to a severe miscarriage of justice

Key legal Issues Raised In The Appeal

The appeal presents a constellation of legal issues that encompass matters of jurisdiction, contract

validity, due process, and adherence to established legal principles. Chief among these issues is the

jurisdictional challenge posed by the Appellant, who, invoking the fundamental tenets of legal

authority, contests the court's jurisdiction over the case. This challenge derives its significance from

the profound ramifications it carries, potentially invalidating the entire proceedings and the

subsequent judgments if it is found that jurisdiction was indeed lacking.

6
Equally pivotal is the Appellant's resolute disagreement with Magistrate Mr. Sullivan's rulings, which

the Appellant contends have unjustly and erroneously denied them their right to a fair hearing and a

proper presentation of evidence. These points of contention extend to the absence of crucial

documentation, the alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act, and the failure to honor the

Appellant's requests for transparency regarding financial records.

Furthermore, the Appellant challenges the validity of the Summary Judgment for Foreclosure and

accompanying motions, contending that the lack of a valid contract, questionable representation, and

potential constitutional suspensions cast doubt upon the legality of the entire process. The Appellant

raises these issues with a resolute conviction that justice demands a thorough reexamination of the

facts and the application of law.

The present appeal is a call for the appellate court to carefully consider the intricate tapestry of legal

arguments, evidence, and principles that have been presented by the Appellant. The outcome of this

case stands to impact not only the immediate parties involved but also the broader understanding of

property rights, contractual obligations, and the sanctity of due process under the law. It is a clarion

call for the court to affirm the principles of justice and fairness, to uphold the rule of law, and to ensure

that the rights and protections enshrined in the legal framework are upheld without compromise.

7
 Jurisdiction Challenge

Introduction to the Challenge

At the crux of this appeal lies a fundamental challenge to the jurisdiction wielded by the trial court in

the foreclosure case. The very bedrock of the legal system is rooted in the principle that a court's

jurisdiction is the cornerstone upon which all legal proceedings stand. With the weight of

jurisprudence and precedent, this challenge raises questions that transcend the immediate case,

impacting the legitimacy of the proceedings and the subsequent judgments.

Transcript reference to jurisdiction challenge (Slide 477)

The pivotal moment of this challenge is etched into the transcript on slide 477 of the trial proceedings.

In a succinct exchange, the Appellant raised the poignant question of whether the court indeed held

jurisdiction over them, to which the Magistrate responded with an enigmatic "He don't know." and

"Maybe I don't."

At this critical moment, the Appellant voiced their compelling thoughts on the jurisdiction matter,

asserting that the state court's jurisdiction does not extend to them due to their unique standing as a

White Female with indigenous lineage, tracing their roots to the Choctaw and Cayuga heritage. This

assertion reflects a nuanced understanding that the Appellate and Supreme Courts hold jurisdiction

over the matter, thereby affording them the avenue to appeal.

This exchange lays bare the challenge to the court's authority, a challenge that carries profound

implications for the entirety of the case. It is within this candid interchange that the core of the

Appellant's pursuit for justice lies—where the lines of authority blur and where the true essence of

jurisdiction's grasp becomes a subject of intense scrutiny.

8
The Appellant astutely highlights that their appeal itself stands as a testament to the appellate courts'

jurisdiction over the matter, rendering the case's presence in the appellate arena justified.

It's pertinent to acknowledge this unique dimension as it reinforces the Appellant's position that the

jurisdiction challenge is not a mere procedural formality but an inquiry into the very essence of their

legal standing within the complex tapestry of this case. Furthermore, the Appellant's reflections on the

potential dismissal of the case due to the raised jurisdiction challenge underscore the potential

complexities at play, underscoring the need for a meticulous examination of the jurisdiction issue.

The Appellant's insights, grounded in their ancestral lineage and legal understanding, invite a deeper

consideration of the jurisdiction challenge. This challenge, far from a mere legal maneuver, traverses

the realms of identity, ancestral heritage, and the intricate interplay between jurisdictional authority

and the right to appeal. The inclusion of this dimension stands as a reminder that the pursuit of justice

is woven not only from legal precepts but also from the rich tapestry of human experiences and

individual perspectives.

Legal principles regarding challenging jurisdiction

The legal principle that forms the crux of this jurisdiction challenge is succinctly encapsulated in the

maxim "nemo judex in causa sua" – no one should be a judge in their own cause. The challenge to

jurisdiction is more than a mere technicality; it embodies the notion that a court must possess the

lawful authority to preside over a matter and render a decision. In examining this challenge, two

foundational cases emerge as guiding stars in the vast expanse of legal precedent that has shaped

our understanding of jurisdiction and its limits.

1. Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026

The significance of jurisdiction challenges reverberates through the corridors of legal history. In Melo

v. US, a cornerstone of the challenge lies in the very essence of justice—the impartiality of the court.

The court pronounced that once jurisdiction is challenged and it becomes evident that the court lacks

9
authority, the court is stripped of its power to proceed and must dismiss the action. This robust

safeguard ensures that justice is dispensed on a foundation of legal legitimacy and is not tainted by

the specter of partiality.

2. Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

The resonating echoes of Elliot v. Piersol remind us that a court operating without authority produces

judgments and orders that are mere nullities. Within this case, the thread of jurisdiction weaves into

the very fabric of a court's ability to function. The United States Supreme Court, in its wisdom,

affirmed that if a court lacks authority, its decisions hold no sway—its pronouncements fall to the

ground as inconsequential utterances. This case underscores the principle that the challenge to

jurisdiction is not merely a procedural quibble but a matter of profound legal consequence,

safeguarding the sanctity of the legal process itself.

Application of Jurisdiction Principles to the Case

In the context of this foreclosure appeal, the challenge to jurisdiction is no mere theoretical exercise. It

is an exploration of whether the court's authority to preside over this matter stands on solid legal

ground. The questions raised on slide 477 echo beyond that moment, reverberating in every

subsequent action taken in the case.

Arguments and Authority Supporting the Jurisdiction Challenge

The challenge to jurisdiction rests on a twofold assertion: that the court's authority to proceed is

uncertain, and that the proceedings could potentially fall under the shadow of nullity. In this challenge,

the maxim "nemo judex in causa sua" serves as a guiding principle, guiding the assessment of

whether the court is impartial, untainted, and indeed possesses the authority to adjudicate.

As evidenced by Melo v. US and Elliot v. Piersol, the challenge to jurisdiction is no trifling matter; it

lies at the intersection of justice and legitimacy. It is a challenge that calls upon the court to

meticulously evaluate its own authority and to recognize that the power to judge must be founded on

10
a rock-solid foundation of law. This challenge, far from a formality, challenges the very essence of

justice and the integrity of the legal system itself.

Statement of Facts

Chronological Overview of Events from Trial Court Proceedings

The labyrinthine saga of this foreclosure case unfolds through a series of trial court proceedings

marked by complexity and contentiousness. The journey commenced with the initiation of the

foreclosure action by the Plaintiff, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle that would eventually

lead to the doors of the appellate court. The narrative trajectory weaves through a tapestry of motions,

hearings, and decisions, with each twist and turn underscoring the gravity of the matter at hand.

Key Hearings, Decisions, and Interactions with Magistrate Mr. Sullivan

Central to the narrative are the key hearings that punctuated the trial court proceedings, shedding

light on the challenges faced by the Appellant. Magistrate Mr. Sullivan's role emerges as a recurring

character in this legal drama, with his decisions and interactions leaving an indelible mark on the

trajectory of the case. The interactions between the Appellant and Magistrate Mr. Sullivan were often

characterized by a clash of perspectives, bringing forth fundamental disagreements over procedural

matters, evidentiary presentation, and the very essence of justice.

Relevance of the Denied Motion to Compel and Its Impact on the Appeal

The narrative pivots around a pivotal moment—the denial of the Motion to Compel. This motion,

pivotal in nature, sought access to the original note with a wet ink jet signature, a critical element in

establishing the legitimacy of the foreclosure. However, this motion was met with an unexpected

response, as Magistrate Mr. Sullivan dismissed it as frivolous. This decision cast a long shadow over

11
the Appellant's pursuit of justice, raising the specter of procedural barriers and casting doubt on the

court's commitment to a fair and transparent process.

The denial of the Motion to Compel assumes heightened significance in the context of this appeal. It

not only serves as a cornerstone for the Appellant's jurisdiction challenge but also underscores the

profound impact that seemingly procedural decisions can wield on the course of legal proceedings.

This denial, a catalyst for the Appellant's pursuit of justice, brings into stark relief the tension between

the intricacies of legal procedure and the fundamental principles of due process that underpin the very

fabric of the legal system.

In traversing the landscape of trial court proceedings, these factual elements converge to depict a

journey fraught with challenges, marked by the interactions with Magistrate Mr. Sullivan, and

anchored by the denial of the Motion to Compel—a decision that casts its shadow over the

subsequent appeal, encapsulating the heart of the Appellant's quest for justice.

12
 First Argument - Disagreement with Magistrate Mr. Sullivan

Introduction to the Argument

The First Argument in this appellate brief is a powerful disagreement with the rulings of Magistrate Mr.

Sullivan, whose decisions during the trial proceedings have spurred substantial legal contentions.

This argument is an embodiment of the Appellant's resolute pursuit of justice, encapsulating a series

of subpoints that collectively paint a vivid picture of the nuanced complexities surrounding the

Magistrate's decisions and their potential implications.

Subpoints and Legal Principles

1. Lack of Loan Proof and Original Note

The first subpoint of this argument underscores a pivotal concern that reverberates at the core of the

foreclosure proceedings: the absence of concrete loan proof and the crucial original note. The

essence of this contention lies in the foundational principle that the original note is not a mere

administrative detail but an essential document that validates the very foundation of mortgage

proceedings. This notion is deeply enshrined within the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a legal

framework that stands as a testament to the importance of authenticity and validation in financial

transactions.

In the absence of the original note, questions loom large over the legitimacy of the foreclosure

process. The Appellant invokes the power of UCC-2401, a cornerstone of commercial law, to

underscore that the inability to produce the original note casts a shadow of doubt upon the entire

foreclosure procedure. The principle embedded within UCC-2401 resonates like a resounding bell of

13
caution, emphasizing that without possession of the note, the foundation of the foreclosure is

weakened. It raises a poignant query: Can foreclosure proceedings proceed ethically and justly when

the very essence of the transaction remains in question?

This subpoint is not a mere technicality; it is a clarion call for transparency, accountability, and the

adherence to legal fundamentals that underpin the sanctity of property ownership and contractual

obligations. It encapsulates the Appellant's demand for fairness, a demand that is rooted in the

principles of equity and the rightful expectation that legal proceedings should stand upon a solid

bedrock of validation. The original note, much like the foundation of a structure, is not to be

undermined or dismissed; it is to be upheld and respected as a testament to the integrity of the legal

process.

2. Violation of UCC-2401 and UCC 9-315

Building on the preceding subpoint, the Appellant delves into the intricacies of Uniform Commercial

Code (UCC) principles, specifically UCC-2401 and UCC 9-315UCC-2401 and UCC 9-315. They

assert that under UCC 9-315, the presence of only one signature grants the right to rescind a

contract.

In this intricate interplay of codes, the Appellant asserts the powerful notion that the presence of a

single signature, as outlined in UCC 9-315, carries profound implications for the right to rescind a

contract. This subpoint echoes with the spirit of UCC 9-315, a principle embedded within the very

fabric of commerce and contract law to protect the rights of individuals when engaging in financial

agreements. It is a safeguard that crystallizes the belief that unilateral decisions should not undermine

the integrity of contractual undertakings.

The subpoint also draws attention to the alleged violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA Act), which

is aptly framed under UCC 15 USC sub 1604. The TILA Act stands as a guardian of transparency and

consumer protection, ensuring that individuals are informed about the financial implications of their

decisions. The Appellant's assertion here raises a significant question: Did the violation of the TILA
14
Act compromise the inherent rights and protections that are woven into the very fabric of financial

transactions?

By intertwining the principles of UCC-2401, UCC 9-315, and the TILA Act, the Appellant crafts a

compelling narrative that asserts a violation beyond mere legal formalities. This subpoint is an

invitation to contemplate the implications of flouting these principles; it's an exploration into the very

heart of fairness, informed consent, and the profound consequences that violations of these principles

can cascade upon an individual. In essence, this subpoint underscores the duty to uphold not just the

letter but the spirit of these laws, which in turn, contributes to the bedrock of trust upon which financial

transactions are built.

3. Denied Request for Internal Revenue Service 2046 Balance Sheet

The third subpoint delves into the realm of financial transparency, raising a pertinent question about

the implications of a denied request for a document that carries potential insights into the very

financial foundation of the case. This denial does not merely exist as a footnote; it resonates as a

stark reminder of the importance of disclosure, accountability, and the pursuit of truth within the legal

process.

The denied request for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 2046 Balance Sheet beckons an

exploration into the depths of financial documentation, an exploration that carries the weight of

prudence and due diligence. The very essence of a balance sheet is to provide a clear snapshot of

financial affairs, a ledger of assets, liabilities, and equity that enables informed judgments about the

economic status of an entity. In the context of this case, the Appellant's request for the 2046 Balance

Sheet raises a critical question: What hidden narratives could such a document unveil?

By highlighting the denial of this request, the Appellant invokes the principle that transparency is not

just a procedural formality but a linchpin that upholds the integrity of legal proceedings. The refusal to

provide such a document raises the specter of withheld information, prompting concerns about what

might lie beneath the surface. It raises a question not merely about the presence of secrets but about
15
the very nature of justice and the principle that all parties involved deserve an unobstructed view of

the financial landscape.

This subpoint is not a matter of idle curiosity; it embodies the belief that in the pursuit of justice,

openness and disclosure are vital companions. The denial of such a request reverberates with the

essence of accountability, and it underscores the duty of all parties to operate within the boundaries of

truth and candor. In exploring this subpoint, the Appellant casts a spotlight on the need for

transparency in financial matters, recognizing that a denied request does not extinguish the inherent

importance of the information sought—it merely ignites the necessity for an even more thorough

inquiry into the hidden currents that shape the legal proceedings.

4. 15 USC SUBSECTION 78 and Debt Instrument Modification

The fourth subpoint introduces the intriguing concept of debt instrument modification under 15 USC

SUBSECTION 78. The Appellant contends that since they are the sole signatory of the document,

they hold the right to modify the debt instrument. This assertion raises questions about the validity of

the mortgage contract and the ensuing proceedings.

5. Violations Related to Notary and Borrower's Right to Reinstate

In the fifth subpoint, the Appellant directs attention to violations related to the notary and the

borrower's right to reinstate. These violations, if substantiated, could impact the overall fairness and

legality of the foreclosure process, leading to potential complications that warrant judicial scrutiny.

6. MERS Violation and Potential Federal Court Challenge

The sixth subpoint delves into the intriguing realm of Mortgage Electronic Registration System

(MERS) violations and the potential for a federal court challenge. The Appellant acknowledges their

initial lack of knowledge on how to address MERS violations, highlighting their intent to explore this

challenge further.

16
Supporting Transcript References and Relevant Exhibits

The Appellant supports this argument with reference to specific moments in the trial transcript,

particularly numbers 37, 40, and 47, where critical aspects of the subpoints were discussed.

Additionally, they point to attached exhibits, including a Statutory claim, Bonavacante letter, and other

documents relevant to their lineage, aiming to provide context to their unique position and their

perspective on jurisdiction.

Conclusion of the First Argument

The First Argument stands as a testament to the Appellant's dedication to challenging the

Magistrate's rulings and raising compelling legal questions surrounding the foreclosure proceedings. It

is an intricate mosaic of subpoints, legal principles, transcript references, and exhibits that collectively

present a compelling case for a meticulous reevaluation of the Magistrate's decisions.

17
 Second Argument - Invalid Summary Judgment

Introduction to the Argument

The Second Argument within this appellate brief meticulously scrutinizes the validity of the summary

judgment that forms a pivotal point in the foreclosure case. This argument shines a piercing light on

the intricacies surrounding the judgment, seeking to unveil potential irregularities and shortcomings

that cast doubt upon its legitimacy. In a landscape where justice hinges on sound judgment, this

argument invites a reevaluation that delves beyond the surface to reveal the complex layers of the

summary judgment.

Subpoints And Legal Principles

1. Lack of Valid Contract and Essentials of a Contract

In this intricate legal labyrinth, the first subpoint of this second argument penetrates deep into the very

essence of contractual jurisprudence, unraveling the question of whether a valid contract underpins

the summary judgment. The subpoint's exploration is not a mere technical exercise but a voyage into

the heart of what constitutes a binding agreement, invoking the bedrock principles that have governed

contractual relationships for centuries.

The essentials of a contract—those fundamental pillars of offer, consideration, acceptance, capacity,

and legality—are not abstract concepts; they are the building blocks upon which the edifice of

commerce and legal obligation is erected. Each element is a critical piece in a complex puzzle,

forming a cohesive whole that reflects the intentions and responsibilities of the parties involved. The

Appellant's contention that the contract in question might lack one or more of these essentials invites

a meticulous examination that probes the very foundation on which the summary judgment rests.

18
Within this exploration, the subpoint delves into the nuances of offer and acceptance, scrutinizing the

meeting of minds that defines the formation of a contract. It raises queries about the sufficiency of

consideration, the exchange of value that substantiates the promises made. It peers into the concept

of capacity, pondering whether the parties involved possessed the legal competence to enter into

such an agreement. And it assesses the legality of the contractual terms, weighing the harmony

between the agreement and the broader legal landscape.

Moreover, this subpoint's inquiry extends beyond the mere technicalities of contract law; it embodies

the principle that contracts are not just legal documents but expressions of mutual trust, reliance, and

intent. When the essentials of a contract are robustly examined, the layers beneath the surface are

revealed—layers that hold within them the very essence of fair dealings, ethical considerations, and

the commitment to upholding the sanctity of agreements.

In delving into this subpoint, the Appellant embarks upon a journey that traverses the complexities of

contractual intent, the harmonization of obligations, and the very alignment of justice with the intent of

the parties involved. The exploration is not confined to the text on paper but extends to the spirit that

animates these contracts, inviting the court to delve into the very heart of what it means to enter into

binding agreements within the framework of law and ethics.

2. No Valid Representation from the Bank in the Contract

The second subpoint delves into the multifaceted realm of contractual representation, unraveling a

tapestry of legal intricacies that challenge the very equilibrium of bargaining power within an

agreement. Here, the Appellant navigates the landscape of contractual relationships with a focus on

representation—an element that often serves as a linchpin of equitable dealings, ensuring that parties

are adequately empowered to make informed decisions.

The subpoint's inquiry delves into the notion that a valid contract isn't just a result of paper and ink—

it's an embodiment of the balance of power and the symphony of parties' intentions. Representation,

when robust and legitimate, stands as an assurance that both sides are fully cognizant of their
19
responsibilities, risks, and rights. It is the antithesis of one-sided dominance, advocating for the voice

of each party to be heard and respected within the contract's terms.

The absence of valid representation from the bank, as alleged by the Appellant, casts a shadow over

the equilibrium of power within the contractual landscape. It evokes the image of an unequal seesaw,

where one side holds more weight while the other remains suspended in a state of potential

vulnerability. This subpoint invites contemplation about what happens when the foundational principle

of balanced representation is compromised—when one side's voice is seemingly muffled, and the

transaction becomes more of an edict than a mutually consented agreement.

In pondering this subpoint, the Appellant draws the court's attention to the heart of equitable treatment

—a principle that ensures fairness within contractual engagements. It's an exploration that challenges

the very premise of a contract's sanctity, inviting an evaluation of whether the bank's absence as a

representative equitably serves the interests of justice.

As the Appellant raises this concern, the exploration traverses beyond the contours of legal

documents and enters the realm of the philosophical underpinnings of contractual ethics. The

subpoint becomes a conduit for a deeper reflection on the role of contracts in shaping our societies,

emphasizing the need for ethical considerations to underpin the legal framework of contractual

relationships.

3. Constitutional Suspension and Jurisdiction in Question

The third subpoint embarks upon a thought-provoking journey into the realms of constitutional legality

and the intricate fabric of jurisdiction that weaves the tapestry of legal authority. This exploration isn't

confined to the surface of legal proceedings; it delves into the very soul of constitutionalism, raising

flags about the constitution's suspension and the inherent questions about jurisdiction that arise in its

wake.

20
The inquiry into constitutional suspension is more than a mere legal concept; it's an exploration of the

checks and balances that define democratic societies. The Appellant's assertion that the constitution

might be suspended invokes a realm of thought that touches upon the very essence of civil liberties

and the limits of government authority. It raises a question that goes beyond the immediate

foreclosure case: What happens when the foundational principles of a nation's governance seem to

waver?

Moreover, the subpoint's focus on jurisdiction resounds as a symphony of legal complexity. It's not

just about where the court's authority begins and ends; it's about the very bedrock upon which legal

power is founded. The Appellant's contemplation that jurisdiction might be hanging in the balance

invites an exploration of the very limits of judicial authority and the principles that empower courts to

adjudicate matters.

In pondering this subpoint, the Appellant ushers the court into a journey that's not just about the letter

of the law but about the spirit that animates it—a spirit rooted in justice, fairness, and the recognition

that the constitution is not just a legal text but a living embodiment of societal ideals.

The subpoint becomes an invitation to deliberate not just on the immediate case but on the broader

implications of jurisdiction, governance, and the balance between legal power and individual rights.

It's an exploration that propels us beyond the courtroom and into the realm of societal introspection,

prompting us to ask: What is the true extent of authority, and what are the responsibilities that

accompany it?

As the Appellant raises this exploration, they don't merely challenge the technicalities of jurisdiction;

they invite the court to contemplate the ethical underpinnings of justice, the societal expectations that

underlie legal authority, and the delicate dance between governance and individual liberties that

defines the democratic fabric.

21
4. Dissolution and Reorganization of U.S. Corporations

The fourth subpoint ushers in a perspective that extends beyond the immediate legal horizon, inviting

contemplation on the dissolution and reorganization of U.S. corporations. The Appellant explores the

evolution of corporate entities, their shifting identities, and their implications on the broader legal

arena. This subpoint raises intriguing questions about the alignment of interests, responsibilities, and

the legitimacy of actions taken by entities undergoing such transformations.

Supporting Transcript References and Relevant Exhibits

Each subpoint of this second argument is supported by references to specific moments in the trial

transcript that anchor the legal contentions. Additionally, the Appellant points to relevant exhibits,

connecting the legal narrative with tangible documentation that resonates with the subpoints'

essence.

Conclusion of the Second Argument

The Second Argument is an expedition into the depths of the summary judgment, an exploration that

doesn't merely scratch the surface but delves into the multidimensional layers that constitute the legal

terrain. It's an argument that invokes principles of contract law, representation, constitutionality, and

corporate evolution, urging a thorough reconsideration of the summary judgment's validity. In the

pursuit of justice, no stone is left unturned, and the Second Argument stands as a testament to the

Appellant's unwavering dedication to unveil the truth that lies beneath the veneer of judgment.

22
 Conclusion

In this exhaustive appellate brief, we have artfully presented a compelling case that casts profound

doubt upon the validity of the foreclosure proceedings and the summary judgment that underpins

them. Our arguments have meticulously scrutinized critical aspects of this case, resonating with

principles of contractual integrity, equitable representation, constitutional suspension, and the very

foundations of jurisdiction. Now, as we draw this narrative to a close, we emphasize our pursuit of

justice—a pursuit rooted in the bedrock principles of fairness, transparency, and the preservation of

individual rights.

Recap of Key Arguments and Jurisdiction Challenge

We have presented a multi-faceted array of arguments, each resonating with its own legal and ethical

significance:

1. Lack of Valid Contract and Essentials of a Contract: We have illuminated the potential void at

the core of the contractual agreement, raising concerns about the essentials of a contract, from

offer to legality. The question remains whether the contract meets these vital benchmarks.

2. No Valid Representation from the Bank in the Contract: Our second argument has navigated

the complexities of contractual representation, emphasizing the need for balanced power within

the agreement. The absence of valid representation from the bank raises profound questions

about equitable treatment.

23
 3. Constitutional Suspension and Jurisdiction in Question: The third argument delves into

constitutional legality and jurisdictional uncertainties, invoking reflections on the suspension of

constitutional principles and the balance between legal authority and individual rights.

4. Dissolution and Reorganization of U.S. Corporations: Our final argument explores the evolution

of corporate entities and their implications, urging the court to consider the alignment of

interests, responsibilities, and the legitimacy of actions taken by entities undergoing such

transformations.

Our jurisdiction challenge further amplifies these concerns, invoking legal precedents and principles

that emphasize the significance of robust jurisdictional foundations in legal proceedings.

Request for Relief

As we stand at this critical juncture, we seek relief that resonates with the gravity of the issues raised:

1. Stop the Foreclosure: We implore the court to halt the foreclosure proceedings, recognizing the

substantial doubts cast upon their legitimacy.

2. Dismiss with Prejudice: In the spirit of justice and fairness, we request the court to dismiss the

case with prejudice, ensuring that the Appellant is shielded from any future attempts to revive

this dispute.

3. Monetary Relief of $115,000: In recognition of the emotional and financial distress endured by

the Appellant throughout this ordeal, we request monetary relief in the amount of $115,000.

This relief can be provided in Bitcoin, Gold, or a U.S. dollar cashier check

Appropriate Legal Citation for Relief Sought

We ground our request for relief in the principles of equity and justice, recognizing that the court, as

the guardian of these principles, possesses the authority to redress grievances and uphold the

sanctity of contractual, constitutional, and jurisdictional integrity. Our pursuit of relief is guided by

24
these principles and the unwavering belief that justice, when diligently sought, should not remain

elusive but should serve as the guiding star of our legal system.

In conclusion, we place this matter in the capable hands of this honorable court, urging a thorough

consideration of the arguments presented and a resolute commitment to upholding justice, fairness,

and the preservation of individual rights. The decision rendered will not merely shape the outcome of

this case but will reverberate as a testament to the enduring principles upon which our legal system

stands.

Certificates of Compliance and Proof of Service

Certificates of Compliance

In adherence to the legal requirements governing the submission of this appellate brief, we hereby

certify compliance with the applicable rules and regulations governing its content and format. This

certification encompasses all aspects of the brief, from its structure and content to its length and

citation format. We affirm that this brief has been meticulously prepared to meet the high standards

expected within the legal profession.

Proof of Service

We further confirm that copies of this appellate brief, including all exhibits and attachments, have

been duly served upon all relevant parties in accordance with the prevailing rules of service. This

includes the timely delivery of the brief to opposing counsel and all other parties involved in this case.

These Certificates of Compliance and Proof of Service are hereby submitted as a testament to our

commitment to adhering to the highest standards of professionalism and ethics within the legal realm.

25
Appendix

This section contains a comprehensive compilation of documents and exhibits that support the

arguments and contentions presented within this appellate brief. These exhibits are integral to the

complete understanding of the case and serve to substantiate the claims made throughout the brief.

Each exhibit is carefully organized and labeled for easy reference.

Appendix Contents:

1. Exhibit A - Motion to Compel: This exhibit provides a foundational document, illustrating the

Appellant's early attempts to secure critical information related to the case, including the

original note.

2. Exhibit B - IRS 2046 Balance Sheet Request: This exhibit includes the Appellant's request for

the Internal Revenue Service 2046 Balance Sheet, highlighting the significance of financial

documentation within the case.

3. Exhibit C - Transcript Slide 477: The transcript reference to Slide 477 captures the moment

when the Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the court, a pivotal point in the case.

4. Exhibit D - Elliot v. Piersol: This exhibit presents a legal reference, Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328,

340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828), which is cited within the brief to support jurisdictional arguments.

5. Exhibit E - Melo v. US: This exhibit includes a legal reference, Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026,

cited within the brief to reinforce jurisdictional contentions.

26
 6. Exhibit F - Statutory Claim: The Statutory Claim serves as a vital piece of the Appellant's

argument regarding her lineage and indigenous standing.

7. Exhibit G - Bona Vacantia Letter: This exhibit contains the Bona Vacantia Letter, adding depth

to the Appellant's contentions regarding her legal status.

8. Exhibit H - IRS Court Case: This exhibit comprises documentation related to the IRS court

case, providing further context to the Appellant's position.

9. Exhibit I - The Pope's Acknowledgment: Included in this exhibit is documentation referencing

the Pope's acknowledgment of indigenous land rights, which bolsters the Appellant's

arguments.

10. Exhibit J - United States Corporation Dissolution: This exhibit contains information pertaining

to the dissolution and reorganization of U.S. corporations, connecting with arguments made

within the brief.

11. Exhibit K - Appellant's Lineage Documentation: This exhibit features additional documentation

related to the Appellant's lineage and indigenous standing.

12. Exhibit L - Useful Attachment: This exhibit comprises a "Useful Attachment" and materials

related to potential MERS violations and a federal court challenge.

These exhibits collectively serve to fortify the arguments presented in this appellate brief, offering a

comprehensive view of the evidence and legal references that underpin the Appellant's contentions.

They provide essential context and documentation that illuminate the complex issues at the heart of

this case.

27