The Deed of Trust and the Note Are Not Together

TRO SCRIPT

Your Honor, for clarification purposes the word Defendants means the Defendants by and through their ens legis jointly and/or separately.

Your Honor,

The Defendants made the claim they did not separate the note from the deed of trust.

The deed of trust and the note are not together.

The Note was stamped “Without Recourse, Pay to the Order of” some 3rd party name.

The bank sent the note somewhere to be cashed. The Defendants send the Deed of Trust to be recorded and or held.

Therefore by the Defendants own confession and behavior, the Defendants has stipulated the Note and the Deed of Trust have never been together and are therefore two separate enjoined deals.

Pursuant to Carpenter v Longan, a Deed of Trust, without the Note, is void Abinitio.

Pursuant to Page 2 Paragraph H of the Deed of Trust the Deed of Trust is only evidenced by the Note, therefore since the Defendants sold the Note, the Deed of Trust is not evidenced.

Simply stated, the Defendants bought the Promissory Note from me. This is where I got the money. That deal is done. Res judicata.

I have been paying the Defendants for a loan and they have still not loaned me the money.

The Defendants are lying to the court. They are committing fraud upon the court. Just as the Defendants are committing fraud against me.

The Defendants own accounting proved conclusively and incontrovertibly the Defendants bought the Note from me, and then resold the Note. The Defendants own accounting proves conclusively and incontrovertibly that I have been paying the Defendants for a loan yet they have never loaned me the money.

Your Honor, I am not saying “Show me the Note” I am saying, “Show me the Loan.” There was never any loan made.

The Defendants have committed Fraud in the Factum by claiming they made a loan when they know they did not. The Defendants have committed Fraud in the Inducement by claiming the Note has something to do with the Deed of Trust when the Defendants know it doesn’t.

I therefore demand the Defendants to specifically perform Pursuant to the Deed of Trust and loan me the amount of $888,000.

Your Honor, the Defendants are attempting to steal my real property using Fraudulent, False, and or Forged documents they Knowingly, Intelligently, and willfully recorded in the county recorders office. Your honor, they have filed 6 fraudulent documents at the county recorders office that I have uncovered so far. I have no idea how many more many be out there! I have listed in my pleadings 18 counts of fraud involving the documents recorded at the county recorders office. This is spelled out as well in my Forensic Examination by Charles J. Horner dated May 19, 2010. They filed two different fraudulent assignments of deed of trust, two fraudulent substitution of Trustee documents, and two fraudulent Notice of trustee documents. These are all considered a criminal act Pursuant to: Arizona Revised Statutes 39-161, 13-2001, 13-1001, 13-301, 13-2301, 13-303, and others.

In fact Your Honor, Pursuant to 13-2301, the Defendants acts are defined in Arizona law as TERRORISM.

All four elements for granting a Temporary Restraining Order and Injunctive Relief have been met by the Defendants numerous and criminal and or Fraudulent acts.

As to the first element, the likelihood of success on the merits of the movant’s claims- Since the Defendants sold the note, and did not keep the note and Deed of Trust together as required by law and Pursuant to Carpenter V Longan; the Deed of Trust is invalid.

Since the Defendant Bruce Paradis by and through his ens legis, Homecomings Financial Network Inc., sold the Note, the new “Holder” of the Note is not a Holder in Due Course as defined in UCC 3-302. Therefore the “Holder” does not have the right to Foreclose or to sell my property at a Trustee sale.

Since pursuant to the law, the Defendants have no right to foreclose on my property, I have a very high likelihood of success with my lawsuit against the Defendants.

With respect to the second element, the denial of injunctive relief will result in irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. It is well settled that that a deprivation of a person’s legally protected property right will result in irreparable harm. In this instant case, the Defendant’s wrongful conduct has severally invaded Plaintiff’s legally protected property rights. Moreover, the harm resulting from defendant’s wrongful conduct is continuing, making any assessment of monetary damages even more uncertain and difficult. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint and Responses and Replies clearly establish that a denial of injunctive relief will result in immediate and continuing irreparable harm to Plaintiff.

The third element necessary for injunctive relief- that granting of injunctive relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party- is also clearly established in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Responses and Replies. No harm will result to Defendants should injunctive relief be granted as Defendants have no lawful interest in property, and Defendants have never loaned Plaintiff any money.

The fourth element necessary for injunctive relief- that the grant of injunctive relief is in the public interest is also clearly established in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Responses, and Replies. Defendants jointly and separately have committed felonious acts, including without limitations, acts considered “Acts of terrorism” and “Acts of War” against the State of Arizona and the United States. In fact, the very documents Defendants have filed into public record are prima facia evidence of Defendants crimes.

Defendant’s criminal and terrorist acts have deprived the state of Arizona in numerous ways. The radical drop in property values caused by defendants criminal acts have caused the state of Arizona to go broke due to the extreme drop in revenues from property taxes and the increase need for “homeless” and other services, which itself is an act of war against the State of Arizona. Pursuant to 13-2301.

It is in the best interest of the public to stop criminals from committing crimes, especially crimes that rob the consuming public of their property and land. And it is especially in the public interest to stop the defendants from heinous crimes like terrorism and acts of war.

Your Honor, I have met all four elements so I therefore move this court to grant the temporary restraining order and injunctive relief I have requested immediately so I can move ahead with exposing these criminals to this court, the State of Arizona, and ultimately the United States before anymore terrorist acts can be committed by these defendants.

It is not worth the risk to the public and the state of Arizona to allow the defendants to continue to commit more terrorist acts while we are still discovering more acts of terrorism by the defendants. It is therefore in the best interest of the public and the state of Arizona to curtail the terrorist activities of the defendants while we are conducting the investigation to discover the defendant’s additional and ongoing terrorist activities. In addition, the government is required by law to hold the terrorists in custody while they investigate the terrorist activities, pursuant to THE USA PATRIOT ACT.

Your Honor, I am hereby informing the court of the criminal acts to evidence the Defendant’s fraud, not as an accusation, but because I am required to inform a judge pursuant to 18 USC section 4 Misprision of felony.

If the Defendants attorneys respond by claiming that the Note is for $448,000 and therefore I owe for the note state the following:

If all 10,000 of the investors in my Note want to sign a proxy or come together and sue me, we can discuss that in another case. That has nothing to do with the Defendants trying to Steal my house by recording Fraudulent, documents based on a Deed of Trust that the Defendants have already stipulated through their claims and actions is void and invalid.