Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

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 doesnt.
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 movants 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 persons legally protected
property right will result in irreparable harm. In this instant case,
the Defendants wrongful conduct has severally invaded Plaintiffs
legally protected property rights. Moreover, the harm resulting
from defendants wrongful conduct is continuing, making any
assessment of monetary damages even more uncertain and
difficult. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs
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 Plaintiffs 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.
Defendants 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 defendants 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 Defendants 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.