VA Court Finally Recognizes Circular Reasoning of the Banks

“Because I said so” or “because I already did it” is not a recognizable legal ground for possession of property even after the forced sale of the property. In an action for possession of property, the taker must establish that it is the legal owner and that the ownership was obtained lawfully and properly. The fact that a prior judgment was entered allowing the foreclosure sale is not dispositive.

The “presumed facts” are directly contrary to the actual facts. Or, as I have stated it in other circumstances, the money trail does not match the paper trail. There are no real transactions in most instances.





For ten years — about the same amount of time that I said the rescission is valid upon mailing and did not require lawsuit or tender — I have advocated and encouraged lawyers for homeowners faced with eviction, writ of possession, or unlawful detainer to adopt a simple logic. Eviction is proper when the owner and possessor merely leases the property or grants some sort of title that has expired. That is certain and it is final and nobody disagrees with it.

The problem in the Courts is that judges have routinely ignored one simple basic fact: the current occupier of the property had legal title and the total right to possession of the property before this new party came into the picture and claimed the right to title and now claims the right to possession. Final Judgments entered in the Court records are not dispositive as pointed out by this Virginia court and as pointed out by the Supreme Court of the State of California in Yvanova.

It is the second part of the “formula” that came up in a Virginia Court, which has been one of the most difficult states in the nation for homeowners contesting the baseless actions of foreclosing parties. The logic is simple. Where the homeowner was clearly the owner of record and the possessor, the party seeking foreclosure must assert (nearly always absent) and prove that it came into title ownership lawfully and properly.

The interesting thing about this is that if the homeowner contests the eviction or unlawful detainer and does so with sufficient grounds as to create doubt as to whether the party seeking eviction lawfully acquired title, THEN the burden shifts to the party seeking eviction to prove that everything that happened before was lawful and proper. And we all know that without legal presumptions being improperly applied practically none of the evictions were or could be proper.

Like other things this is not a magic bullet. But it provides some daylight. The Virginia court held that as long as the homeowner successfully raises a question about title, the court hearing the eviction claim must dismiss the claim immediately because it has no right or jurisdiction actually try a case based upon title claims. I think you would find similar laws in other states where, for example, if County court the jurisdiction is far more limited than it is in Circuit Court. The County Court may hear and decide and eviction but as soon as the Court sees a bona fide question about title, it must dismiss the case leaving the parties to sort out their differences elsewhere. That might be in state Circuit Court or Federal District Court.

The party seeking eviction would need to go to a court of competent jurisdiction and plead that (a) they are the lawful title owner (b) they are entitled to possession and (3) the current occupants have lost their right to possession even though they had both title and possession before the foreclosure. Any allegation based in actual fact must be proven by actual facts and legal presumptions clearly should not apply once the lower court has already determined that there is doubt as to whether the documents for title were validly issued. This might prevent the party seeking to confirm title and seeking the eviction from using any legal presumptions since the documents themselves have already been determined by a lower court to lack trustworthiness or authenticity or legal effect.

One thing to keep in mind is that without legal presumptions none of the foreclosures could go forward because there is no proof in existence, in most cases, of the existence of an executed loan contract between the homeowner and the “originator.” The “presumed facts” are directly contrary to the actual facts. Or, as I have stated it in other circumstances, the money trail does not match the paper trail. There are no real transactions in most instances. The paper trail creates legal presumptions but as soon as a court orders that the foreclosing party open its books to determine whether there were actual transactions, actual loans by the parties upon whom the forecloser relies, the bank case falls to pieces.

… a conundrum because some actions for unlawful detainer necessarily turn on the question of title. Unlawful detainer is an action against a defendant who lawfully entered into possession of real property but whose right to lawful possession has since expired. It is brought by a plaintiff lawfully entitled to possession at the time of suit, which the defendant is then unlawfully withholding. Allen v. Gibson, 25 Va. (4 Rand.) 468, 473 (1826). The validity of the plaintiff’s right of possession is an issue that, when disputed, must be determined in the adjudication of the unlawful detainer action. Id. at 474. The plaintiff must show either (1) prior actual possession, which was then yielded to the defendant under some temporary or defeasible estate that has ended, or (2) a right of possession acquired after the defendant’s entry. Id. at 474-76.

Whether the plaintiff has a right of possession will not always present a question of title. Such a question will never arise in the first class of cases, where the plaintiff’s right is based on prior actual possession. For example, a landlord may bring an action for unlawful detainer against a tenant who holds possession of the leased premises in violation of the lease or after it has expired. In such cases, the defendant’s possession is derivative of the plaintiff’s title, and the defendant is not permitted to challenge it. [e.s.]

Emerick v. Tavener, 50 Va. (9 Gratt.) 220, 223 (1852). However, a plaintiff in the second class of cases, who claims a right of possession acquired after the defendant’s original, lawful entry, must show the validity of that right. When the plaintiff’s after-acquired right of possession is based on a claim of title, the plaintiff may be required to establish the validity of that title. Corbett v. Nutt, 59 Va. (18 Gratt.) 624, 648 (1868).2 Actions for unlawful detainer in the foreclosure context generally fall into this category. [e.s.]

Where the right of possession depends solely upon a claim of title, the question of whether that title is valid is a threshold question in an unlawful detainer action. While a court’s resolution of that question in an unlawful detainer action may not, by statute, be preclusive in actions for ejectment or to quiet title, the court trying the unlawful detainer action nevertheless must weigh the parties’ competing arguments about validity to determine whether a plaintiff’s prima facie right of possession evidenced by a trustee’s deed has been rebutted by the defendant. [e.s.]

In most foreclosure cases, a trustee’s deed will satisfy the foreclosure purchaser’s burden to establish that it acquired a right of possession after the homeowner’s original, lawful entry, and the homeowner will have no good-faith basis to contest it. However, in limited circumstances, the homeowner could allege facts sufficient to place the validity of the trustee’s deed in doubt. In such cases, the general district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction to try title supersedes its subject matter jurisdiction to try unlawful detainer and the court must dismiss the case without prejudice. Warwick, 56 Va. (15 Gratt.) at 542 (“[O]n being convinced that the case involves a bona fide claim of title to real estate,” a court not of record “is bound to dismiss [the proceeding] immediately.”).

Schedule A Consult Now!

5 Responses

  1. Final Judgments entered in the Court records are not dispositive as pointed out by this Virginia court and as pointed out by the Supreme Court of the State of California in Yvanova.

    Dispositive Fact —

    Information or evidence that unqualifiedly brings a conclusion to a legal controversy.

    Dispositive facts clearly settle an issue. The fact that the defendant in a personal injury case ran a red light and hit the plaintiff with his or her car settles the question of the defendant’s negligence and is, therefore, a dispositive fact.

    dispossess —

    v. to eject someone from real property, either legally or by self help.


    We decide when our cases have conclusion.
    The above is good evidence the courts didn’t have SMJ or were the wrong venue which also deprives the court of SMJ.

    Emerick v. Tavener, 50 Va. (9 Gratt.) 220, 223 (1852).

    That’s 1852 folks. Even back then they knew.

    a plaintiff in the second class of cases, who claims a right of possession acquired after the defendant’s original, lawful entry, must show the validity of that right.

    After our original, lawful entry into the property.
    they claim right to our property
    they must show the validity of that right.

    Have they?
    The Pope’s Motu Proprio was supposed to give the attorney’s notice to ‘stop’, the 49 state AG exposure and lawsuit was supposed to give attorney’s pause, the Mortgage Settlement should have given attorney’s insight, the cease and desist orders should have given attorney’s awareness, and so many other things were supposed to at least put Sauron’s eye on the use of judges and attorneys in this planned theft of real property.

    Now we see they hid from the IRS, they hid from the investors, and they robbed the people they were supposed to ‘service’, with papers we were supposed to ‘trust’.

    W-under-land, under-world, there is nothing of the light, transparency, visibility, could be seen; it is all under handed, dark, shady, hidden, deceptive, miss represent-ed/ative/ation of facts and fake con- clue – shun of law.

    In 10,000 B.C., the movie, these supposedly wise men served an entity of some kind because it could forsee or fortell the future, and that entity needed their help to control everyone else.
    So the purported wise men, controlled people who were officers of authority, and the officers of authority controlled the guards, and the guards controlled the people, and the people were enslaved.

    One man stood before this entity and was offered one thing that he came for and he could go, just leave the rest of the people in slavery but take his property and go.

    The one man stood before this entity and brought it down, showing the people and all that controlled everyone for it, that it had no more power than the power people believed it had.

    The banks are not powerful, they use lawyers to make documents of confusion, the courts are not powerful, they use judges that do not perform judicial acts, but are interested in their own property rights that they would destroy another’s to keep what they have, they use sheriffs to take orders from judges to put their hands on our bodies in assault to make us leave our property we labored for, for years, and they use real estate agents that wait until we are forced to leave and not return except we risk spending nights in the gray bar hotel for a lack of meaner terms, so they can claim the property abandoned and put their pending signs on it, and they use the IRS to force us to not try to reclaim it, because the one that claimed it has forced the taxing agent to think we benefitted from years of working to obtain the property, and have it stolen, and that we owe taxes for the value of the property we obtained, all the years we used the property while they waited to steal it from us like cattle rustlers in the wild west.

    All these layers because someone thought the bank entity had control, their fake monopoloy money where they use false alchemy to turn ink and fabric paper into something that would be traded instead of gold and silver. Their false alchemy is their false God, and they forced it on us, make us work for it to eat, work for it for clothing, work for it for shelter, work for it to be free when they kidnap us and hold us and tell us the only way to be free again is to work for it, obtain it, and give it back to them.

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life, Free, People, Independent, State, In Jure Proprio, Jure Divino.

  2. Try US Attorneys Office…Eastern District of Virginia. Melissa O’Boyle.
    Tell her you have not heard back. She is extremely knowledgable of what is going on. All she prosecuted are serving prison terms.

  3. Spoke with money laundering unit. They spoke with fbi. No word from them in 2 months.

  4. I have to figure out how to proceed from here….but this invalidates what the state court did to me.

  5. Oh boy….I have to wonder how my notice of intent to sue the Supreme court of VA has prompted them to finally write a detailed opinion about foreclosures….I have still to file the rico case in federal court ….their 30 days to respond has now expired it is interesting to read the dissents ……. oh boy

Contribute to the discussion!