Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Real Party of Interest

Discuss court cases, citation, ordinance, foreclosures, Bankruptcy, and family laws etc.

Real Party of Interest

Postby Pumpkin » Mon May 28, 2012 3:52 pm

The rules of civil procedure states:

Rule 17. Parties plaintiff and defendant--Capacity

(A) Real party in interest. Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.


I used Indiana rules, but as most know, they are all the same. I have noticed that the words that were chosen and used are vital to the meaning. After all, the meaning of the words define the meaning of the rules. They didn't use the word correct, or appropriate. They used the word real. Do the parties have to be real? Can they be a fiction, like the state? Marc Stevens has pointed this out in his own way by illustrating that the state must have two separate definitions in a case in which the state is the plaintiff. The state must be a geographical area (so the statute applies) and it must have the capacity to sue (which a geographical area can not have). Now if the state is the plaintiff and there is an actual victim, like some one was robbed, then the state just needs to name the victim, the injury and the cause. But in a victimless crime, the state is not real. There is no real party of interest. Just a fiction asking for remedy for a fictional injury. How important is the word real within the rules?
The created serves the Creator.
Pumpkin
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2849
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:42 am
Has thanked: 58 time
Have thanks: 204 time

 

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby Steve_Lujack » Mon May 28, 2012 4:02 pm

You are really delving into important concepts, Pumpkin ...

now ..the reason for the concept of the "real party in interest" is to protect the basic principle of separation of powers, by preventing people from randomly suing on behalf of other persons or things they have no connection to.

thusly ...the person or entity who will benefit from a lawsuit or petition even though the plaintiff (the person filing the suit) is someone else, often called a "nominal" plaintiff.
Example: a trustee files a suit against a person who damaged a building owned by the trust; the real party in interest is the beneficiary of the trust.
Last edited by Steve_Lujack on Mon May 28, 2012 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Steve_Lujack
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:59 pm
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 513 time
Have thanks: 191 time

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby quasimodo » Mon May 28, 2012 4:02 pm

That's a real party "in" interest not of interest. There is a difference. I argued this issue with a district judge here in Austin (Texas). I claimed that the defendant party was not a real party in interest because the defendant (foreclosing party) had sold their interest the day after we signed the papers. She argued that they were a real party "OF" interest because I had named them as defendants in my suit. I corrected her vocabulary by saying that in part she was correct to the limit of the context in which she used the term, however the correct term was "real party in interest". I then cited rule 17(a) of the Fed R Civ P. To which she said that the federal rules did not apply at the state level. I responded that I was well aware but that I was making my record for the appellate court should she err. I think that got her attention and she accepted my argument. That, I believe, is the only reason I am still in this house.
Ignorance is not only suffered by the ignorant, but sufferable by another whom might possess the intellect or intuition to recognize it as the obstacle it truly is. Therefore, of all the infirmities that mankind was born to suffer it is ignorance that I find the least tolerable, because ignorance is often the easiest to cure, and the most difficult to convince a man that it is he who suffers from it.

Me
quasimodo
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Austin township, Republic of Texas
Has thanked: 115 time
Have thanks: 198 time

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby David Merrill » Tue May 29, 2012 5:13 am

Take a closer look into this distinction between party of interest and party in interest. Particularly Item 6 of the memorandum.

I have drawn that item out of the modern rendition of the Libel of Review. I do not recall doing that because it was so long ago. I believe that my reasoning was that through the unliquidated assets found on the CAFR the United States does indeed hold over 51% of the UN Combinatorial (Bank and Fund) wealth. Ergo this is why Arnold will not use the funds available to balance the California budget. He would not just start a roll (bank run) the US would quickly lose that position in world power - Party in Interest.

Nomenclature only.

I now understand why I drew it out of the LoR. Thank you so much!

It is completely overridden by the Bill of Exchange mentioned at the end of the LoR that cured judgment as you see by the file stampings (30 Day Judgment) on September 11th, 2001. However you want to look at paragraph 3 of the LoR instructions at the end of the document too.


Regards,

David Merrill.
David Merrill
Freeman
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:15 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 18 time

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby David Merrill » Tue May 29, 2012 5:21 am

David Merrill
Freeman
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:15 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 18 time

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby Pumpkin » Tue May 29, 2012 8:46 am

The rules also allows for an objection for lack of ratification of commencement, to allow the real party of interest to ratify the action. Who in the state can ratify anything for the state, other than the legislature? If an amendment to the constitution needs to be ratified, it requires the legislature, not some district attorney. I can't find anything in the state code that refers to who can ratify.

Oh, and the CAFR stuff is absolutely legit. I have a friend who has been elected to a public office and a budget fight has erupted. He is a conservative and the county needs to stop its spending. I asked if he had looked at a CAFR. After I told him what it was, he realized he had one in his car. The county had enough assets to run the entire county for 2 YEARS without taking in one dime. And the county is screaming to raise taxes!!
The created serves the Creator.
Pumpkin
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2849
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:42 am
Has thanked: 58 time
Have thanks: 204 time

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby Pumpkin » Tue May 29, 2012 8:50 am

quasimodo wrote:That's a real party "in" interest not of interest. There is a difference. I argued this issue with a district judge here in Austin (Texas). I claimed that the defendant party was not a real party in interest because the defendant (foreclosing party) had sold their interest the day after we signed the papers. She argued that they were a real party "OF" interest because I had named them as defendants in my suit. I corrected her vocabulary by saying that in part she was correct to the limit of the context in which she used the term, however the correct term was "real party in interest". I then cited rule 17(a) of the Fed R Civ P. To which she said that the federal rules did not apply at the state level. I responded that I was well aware but that I was making my record for the appellate court should she err. I think that got her attention and she accepted my argument. That, I believe, is the only reason I am still in this house.


I am a bit confused. They were foreclosing on you, and THEY were the defendant? And those rules I quoted were adopted by all the states, to a degree, and are the same for the most part. What state was this case in?
The created serves the Creator.
Pumpkin
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2849
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:42 am
Has thanked: 58 time
Have thanks: 204 time

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby David Merrill » Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 am

The rules of the admiralty stipulate that the party in interest must own over 51% of the prize to be a real party in interest. Otherwise it would seem that one can be considered a party in interest just by being named - nomenclature. If Arnold or anybody like your friend starts tapping that CAFR and liquifying the investments then they are no longer a real party in interest. The US holds it's alleged prowess as the reserve currency of the world. What is backing it? SDR's.

Notice where the origins of the law are - Kingston, Jamaica. Look at Pages 3-4. The macroeconomics revolve around Jamaica and France. Katz on SDR's. Special Drawing Rights are a fictional basket of currencies based in the conditioning of people to endorse private credit from the local central bank. In America that is the Fed.

Image
David Merrill
Freeman
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:15 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 18 time

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby quasimodo » Tue May 29, 2012 10:34 am

Pumpkin wrote:I am a bit confused. They were foreclosing on you, and THEY were the defendant? And those rules I quoted were adopted by all the states, to a degree, and are the same for the most part. What state was this case in?


I filed suit in Texas. Texas is a nonjudicial foreclosure state in where all the foreclosing party needs the courthouse for is a place to fence stolen property, unlike Florida which is a judicial foreclosure state in where a foreclosing party must file a foreclosure action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

In a nonjudicial foreclosure state such as Texas in order to make it a judicial issue the homeowner must file suit against the foreclosing party, which I did naming them as the defendant party.

In re rule 17 of the Fed R Civ P there is no such rule on Texas books that I was able to fine and none that the judge in this case was aware of.
Ignorance is not only suffered by the ignorant, but sufferable by another whom might possess the intellect or intuition to recognize it as the obstacle it truly is. Therefore, of all the infirmities that mankind was born to suffer it is ignorance that I find the least tolerable, because ignorance is often the easiest to cure, and the most difficult to convince a man that it is he who suffers from it.

Me
quasimodo
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Austin township, Republic of Texas
Has thanked: 115 time
Have thanks: 198 time

Re: Real Party of Interest

Postby quasimodo » Tue May 29, 2012 10:42 am

David Merrill wrote:The rules of the admiralty stipulate that the party in interest must own over 51% of the prize to be a real party in interest. Otherwise it would seem that one can be considered a party in interest just by being named - nomenclature.


This is correct. In re mortgages the originator will, in most cases, sell all interest to a third party investor thus divesting themselves of any and all interest, but will often retain the servicing rights so as to give the "illusion" that they are an interested party when in fact they are not. This being repugnant to rule 17 R CIv P.

(a) Real Party in Interest.

(1) Designation in General. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. The following may sue in their own names without joining the person for whose benefit the action is brought:

(A) an executor;

(B) an administrator;

(C) a guardian;

(D) a bailee;

(E) a trustee of an express trust;

(F) a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for another's benefit; and

(G) a party authorized by statute.

[Emphasis added]

"An action" such as foreclosure. In my case and the vast majority of cases the "servicer" prosecutes the "action" of foreclosure outside the purview of the court in nonjudicial foreclosure states.
Ignorance is not only suffered by the ignorant, but sufferable by another whom might possess the intellect or intuition to recognize it as the obstacle it truly is. Therefore, of all the infirmities that mankind was born to suffer it is ignorance that I find the least tolerable, because ignorance is often the easiest to cure, and the most difficult to convince a man that it is he who suffers from it.

Me
quasimodo
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:12 pm
Location: Austin township, Republic of Texas
Has thanked: 115 time
Have thanks: 198 time

Next

Return to Court

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred