I am new here! I am Pro Se against a foreclosure sale in a nonjudicial state, CO. Working my best for default judgement in Federal court. I have gone through the administrative process and the plaintiffs were found in default. I have submitted a conditional acceptance for value letter, that they did not respond to. I know that the note has been securitized and can provide the proof. Is there anything else I should include to ensure the win? Your assistance is appreciated.

Greetings swoop group! I need to file three motions in yhe 12th District Court of Sarasota Florida. They're extremely pick. iAnyone have a.template to share they will accept.? their state constitution has articles that prohibit me, in their courtroom as special friend representation. I'm going to challenge Then nd breaks off them. God's love rain Supreme over any construction of men. They're either going to be in heaven or put themselves in Hell by the time I'm finished! See my client on IG@Josegilberti2024 /@water.4.life.USA Sarasota City let's play games with me. The only time I played is if I know I'm going to win! Hopefully you all check it out and as soon as a podcast that are out covering his story that his wife is told. Any assistance will be greatly appreciate you I have all the details I need! Yes PS the judge sentenced into 15 years today. His due process has been violated so obviously that the entire case will be thrown out strictly on that alone. However I'm filing a motion 'lack of personal jurisdiction' and failure to provide a living man or woman for him to face as an accuser. The state for any living person lying as the corporation state is going to get fined and put in jail accordingly. Buckle up buttercups follow along if you care. Most of Chicago, Jen burner 💛💙💛💙

Equity vs. Common Law — Why the Forum and the Framing Matter (And why nearly every commercial dispute can be reframed as a trust matter) Many legal minds know the rules of common law and the vast statutory overlay that has replaced much of it in modern courts. Fewer truly grasp equity — yet equity remains the highest form of jurisprudence in our system when properly invoked. If you don’t know the differences, you will keep fighting in the wrong arena. 1. The Three Realms of Our Legal System 1. Common Law – The original “law of the land” in England and early America. Deals with legal rights, legal title, and damages. Remedy is money or possession. 2. Statutory Law – Legislative overlay; codifies and modifies common law. Enforced in public courts of law, primarily on the legal side. 3. Equity – Administered in the court of chancery, dealing with trusts, fiduciary duties, conscience, and fairness. Acts in personam (on the person) rather than in rem (on the thing). Key Principle: Where law and equity conflict, equity prevails. - Case Law: United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 160 U.S. 1, 50–51 (1895) — “Whenever a conflict arises between the principles of law and equity, the rules of equity will prevail.” - Doctrinal Source: 1 Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 64 — “Equity acts upon the person, compelling him to perform according to the dictates of conscience.” 2. The Nature of Equity Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 157: “An equitable estate or interest is the right in property recognized and enforced by courts of equity… Legal estate is the shadow; equitable the substance.” Equity recognizes two simultaneous estates in the same res (thing): - Legal title – held by the trustee or nominal owner. - Equitable title – held by the beneficiary, giving them the right to use and enjoy the property. Case Law: Payne v. Hook, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 425, 430 (1868) — “A court of equity acts upon the person… the absence of a complete and adequate remedy at law is the criterion which determines whether equity will interfere.”

Characteristically the Court has defined these elements by identifying the circumstances in which qualified immunity would not be available. Referring both to the objective and subjective elements, we have held that qualified immunity would be defeated if an official “knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the [plaintiff], or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury . . . .” https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/110763/harlow-v-fitzgerald/

I need advice. I am trying to aquire evidence for a traffic stop for my case. I have filed several motion for discovery with both the courts and the police. I have also asked the secretary of state and local county clerks. I have been denied etc for all attempts.