TRY ME!
Refining Appeal Brief Effectively
Summary
In Massachusetts, refining an appeal brief involves addressing constitutional violations and fraudulent claims in bankruptcy proceedings. Ensure compliance with FRBP rules and consider framing issues as questions to highlight potential court errors. Seek a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 for a comprehensive appeal. Contracts involving illegal activities are generally unenforceable, and actions violating federal statutes like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Truth in Lending Act may lack jurisdiction. Consult a bankruptcy attorney for personalized guidance.Full Conversation
AI, please refine an appeal brief to the DC of MA; NOW COMES the Plaintiff, **** King Jr., requesting investigation highlighting ongoing conspiracy of Constitutional violations pursuant to FRBP Rule * ( c) , Rule *(b)(*), Rule *(b)(*), in the bankruptcy court adversary proceedings as the claimant, a debt collector claiming to be a creditor, never filed a proof of claim, never establish Article * standing, does not have a verified assignment, has not provided an endorsement of the promissory note, has not provided the chain of title, a negotiated purchase of the note or a claim of injury, ignoring that the debt was time-barred, not to mention fraud upon the court, altered documents and lack of jurisdiction, and no approval from the bankruptcy court as the judge erred by violated my constitutional rights sending the case back to the lower courts instead of to the District Court.
Sure, ****! Here’s a refined version of your appeal brief:
---
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, **** King Jr., requesting an investigation into the ongoing conspiracy of Constitutional violations pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*). In the bankruptcy court adversary proceedings:
- The claimant, a debt collector claiming to be a creditor, never filed a proof of claim.
- The claimant failed to establish Article III standing.
- There is no verified assignment of the debt.
- The claimant has not provided an endorsement of the promissory note.
- The chain of title for the note is missing.
- There is no evidence of a negotiated purchase of the note or a claim of injury.
- The debt in question is time-barred.
- There are allegations of fraud upon the court, including altered documents.
- The bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction.
- There was no approval from the bankruptcy court, and the judge erred by violating my constitutional rights by sending the case back to the lower courts instead of to the District Court.
---
Does this look good to you, or would you like any modifications?
---
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, **** King Jr., requesting an investigation into the ongoing conspiracy of Constitutional violations pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*). In the bankruptcy court adversary proceedings:
- The claimant, a debt collector claiming to be a creditor, never filed a proof of claim.
- The claimant failed to establish Article III standing.
- There is no verified assignment of the debt.
- The claimant has not provided an endorsement of the promissory note.
- The chain of title for the note is missing.
- There is no evidence of a negotiated purchase of the note or a claim of injury.
- The debt in question is time-barred.
- There are allegations of fraud upon the court, including altered documents.
- The bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction.
- There was no approval from the bankruptcy court, and the judge erred by violating my constitutional rights by sending the case back to the lower courts instead of to the District Court.
---
Does this look good to you, or would you like any modifications?
yes ; Should I also inject; .-King also moves the court to enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *.
And as this is an appeal to the bankruptcy court decision should I make each statement a question asking “ did the court err” on each one of these concerns?
Certainly! Here's the refined version with the requested injection and questions for the appeal brief:
---
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, **** King Jr., requesting an investigation into the ongoing conspiracy of Constitutional violations pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*). In the bankruptcy court adversary proceedings:
- Did the court err by allowing the claimant, a debt collector claiming to be a creditor, to proceed without filing a proof of claim?
- Did the court err by not requiring the claimant to establish Article III standing?
- Did the court err by not verifying the assignment of the debt?
- Did the court err by not requiring the claimant to provide an endorsement of the promissory note?
- Did the court err by not ensuring the chain of title for the note?
- Did the court err by not demanding evidence of a negotiated purchase of the note or a claim of injury?
- Did the court err by ignoring that the debt in question is time-barred?
- Did the court err by overlooking allegations of fraud upon the court, including altered documents?
- Did the court err by proceeding despite the bankruptcy court's lack of jurisdiction?
- Did the court err by not obtaining approval from the bankruptcy court and by violating my constitutional rights by sending the case back to the lower courts instead of to the District Court?
King also moves the court to enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *.
---
Does this look good to you, or would you like any further modifications?
---
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, **** King Jr., requesting an investigation into the ongoing conspiracy of Constitutional violations pursuant to FRBP Rule *(c), Rule *(b)(*), and Rule *(b)(*). In the bankruptcy court adversary proceedings:
- Did the court err by allowing the claimant, a debt collector claiming to be a creditor, to proceed without filing a proof of claim?
- Did the court err by not requiring the claimant to establish Article III standing?
- Did the court err by not verifying the assignment of the debt?
- Did the court err by not requiring the claimant to provide an endorsement of the promissory note?
- Did the court err by not ensuring the chain of title for the note?
- Did the court err by not demanding evidence of a negotiated purchase of the note or a claim of injury?
- Did the court err by ignoring that the debt in question is time-barred?
- Did the court err by overlooking allegations of fraud upon the court, including altered documents?
- Did the court err by proceeding despite the bankruptcy court's lack of jurisdiction?
- Did the court err by not obtaining approval from the bankruptcy court and by violating my constitutional rights by sending the case back to the lower courts instead of to the District Court?
King also moves the court to enter a discharge under * U.S.C. § *.
---
Does this look good to you, or would you like any further modifications?
love it
Case Rating: *
This seems like a well-prepared appeal for a bankruptcy case. If you need specific legal advice or representation, it might be beneficial to consult with a lawyer who specializes in bankruptcy law.
Would you like some more information or assistance regarding the appeal process?
This seems like a well-prepared appeal for a bankruptcy case. If you need specific legal advice or representation, it might be beneficial to consult with a lawyer who specializes in bankruptcy law.
Would you like some more information or assistance regarding the appeal process?
please refine;These ongoing actions involving multiple federal statutes and conspiracy elements, including conspiracy to potentially offset any statute of limitations, fall under the following federal statutes:
- * U.S.C. § *: Federal Trade Commission Act (unfair or deceptive acts)
- * U.S.C. § *: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- * U.S.C. § * et seq.: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
- * U.S.C. § *: Mail fraud
- * U.S.C. § *: Wire fraud
- * U.S.C. § *: Conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States–
- These factors alone evidence the Lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud upon the court.
Federal law under the common law principle, under the Restatement of Contracts, sections * and * contracts involving illegal activities are generally unenforceable.
Case Rating: *
Here’s the refined version of the statement:
---
These ongoing actions involving multiple federal statutes and conspiracy elements, including conspiracy to potentially offset any statute of limitations, fall under the following federal statutes:
- * U.S.C. § *: Federal Trade Commission Act (unfair or deceptive acts)
- * U.S.C. § *: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- * U.S.C. § * et seq.: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
- * U.S.C. § *: Mail fraud
- * U.S.C. § *: Wire fraud
- * U.S.C. § *: Conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States
These factors alone evidence the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud upon the court. Under the common law principle, as stated in the Restatement of Contracts sections * and *, contracts involving illegal activities are generally unenforceable.
---
Would you like to refine this further or need additional assistance?
Here’s the refined version of the statement:
---
These ongoing actions involving multiple federal statutes and conspiracy elements, including conspiracy to potentially offset any statute of limitations, fall under the following federal statutes:
- * U.S.C. § *: Federal Trade Commission Act (unfair or deceptive acts)
- * U.S.C. § *: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- * U.S.C. § * et seq.: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)
- * U.S.C. § *: Mail fraud
- * U.S.C. § *: Wire fraud
- * U.S.C. § *: Conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States
These factors alone evidence the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud upon the court. Under the common law principle, as stated in the Restatement of Contracts sections * and *, contracts involving illegal activities are generally unenforceable.
---
Would you like to refine this further or need additional assistance?
please refine; On August *, *, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI) implemented a bifurcated pair of loans, recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds. The first loan was for $*,* and the second for $*,*,*. This total package of $*,*,* greatly exceeded the legal lending limit based on the town of Longmeadow's appraisal of $*,*,* and any other appraisal within * miles. Additionally, the loan amounts exceeded the Kings' qualification. The teaser rate of $*,*, which escalated to $*,*, further violated lending laws, making the loans "doomed to fail." The original refinance loan was non-conforming and was bifurcated to conceal it being *% above the legal lending limit. This action was prohibited by the Dodd-Frank Act as it was against public policy.
These are also potential violations of King’s Constitutional Rights, the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. All contracts from an Illegitimate origination our void.
Case Rating: *
Here's the refined version of your statement:
---
On August *, *, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI) implemented a bifurcated pair of loans, recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds. The first loan was for $*,* and the second for $*,*,*. This total package of $*,*,* greatly exceeded the legal lending limit based on the town of Longmeadow's appraisal of $*,*,* and any other appraisal within * miles. Additionally, the loan amounts exceeded the Kings' qualification. The teaser rate of $*,*, which escalated to $*,*, further violated lending laws, making the loans "doomed to fail." The original refinance loan was non-conforming and was bifurcated to conceal it being *% above the legal lending limit. This action was prohibited by the Dodd-Frank Act as it was against public policy.
These are also potential violations of King’s Constitutional Rights, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. All contracts from an illegitimate origination are void.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
Here's the refined version of your statement:
---
On August *, *, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI) implemented a bifurcated pair of loans, recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds. The first loan was for $*,* and the second for $*,*,*. This total package of $*,*,* greatly exceeded the legal lending limit based on the town of Longmeadow's appraisal of $*,*,* and any other appraisal within * miles. Additionally, the loan amounts exceeded the Kings' qualification. The teaser rate of $*,*, which escalated to $*,*, further violated lending laws, making the loans "doomed to fail." The original refinance loan was non-conforming and was bifurcated to conceal it being *% above the legal lending limit. This action was prohibited by the Dodd-Frank Act as it was against public policy.
These are also potential violations of King’s Constitutional Rights, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Truth in Lending Act. All contracts from an illegitimate origination are void.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
please refine; For the record, CLI, the original refinance lender, filed for liquidating bankruptcy, having claimed * DBAs, starting January *, *, and terminating in November *, *. There isn't any record within the bankruptcy records authorizing a sale, a transfer, or an assignment of the mortgage obligation, contrary to the purported assignment December *, *.
Case Rating: *
Here’s the refined version of your statement:
---
For the record, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), the original refinance lender, filed for liquidating bankruptcy, having claimed * DBAs, starting January *, *, and terminating on November *, *. There is no record within the bankruptcy records authorizing a sale, transfer, or assignment of the mortgage obligation, contrary to the purported assignment on December *, *.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
Here’s the refined version of your statement:
---
For the record, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), the original refinance lender, filed for liquidating bankruptcy, having claimed * DBAs, starting January *, *, and terminating on November *, *. There is no record within the bankruptcy records authorizing a sale, transfer, or assignment of the mortgage obligation, contrary to the purported assignment on December *, *.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
please enhance; In addition, there have not been any records presented indicating any payments on the mortgage since that January *, *. According to UCC *-*, an assignment that is not authenticated cannot be considered valid evidence without direct testimony from the signatory. Consequently, payments should be made to the original lender due to the lack of authentication of the transfer. Any payments made otherwise would not fulfill the obligation under the note.
Pursuant to regulation F of the FDCPA and under Massachusetts Statutes Law the note became time-barred as of January *, *.
- These factors alone evidence the Lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud upon the court.
Case Rating: *
Certainly! Here's the enhanced version of your statement:
---
For the record, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), the original refinance lender, filed for liquidating bankruptcy, having claimed * DBAs, starting January *, *, and terminating on November *, *. There is no record within the bankruptcy records authorizing a sale, transfer, or assignment of the mortgage obligation, contrary to the purported assignment on December *, *.
In addition, there have not been any records presented indicating any payments on the mortgage since January *, *. According to UCC *-*, an assignment that is not authenticated cannot be considered valid evidence without direct testimony from the signatory. Consequently, payments should be made to the original lender due to the lack of authentication of the transfer. Any payments made otherwise would not fulfill the obligation under the note.
Pursuant to Regulation F of the FDCPA and under Massachusetts Statutes Law, the note became time-barred as of January *, *.
- These factors alone evidence the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud upon the court.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
Certainly! Here's the enhanced version of your statement:
---
For the record, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), the original refinance lender, filed for liquidating bankruptcy, having claimed * DBAs, starting January *, *, and terminating on November *, *. There is no record within the bankruptcy records authorizing a sale, transfer, or assignment of the mortgage obligation, contrary to the purported assignment on December *, *.
In addition, there have not been any records presented indicating any payments on the mortgage since January *, *. According to UCC *-*, an assignment that is not authenticated cannot be considered valid evidence without direct testimony from the signatory. Consequently, payments should be made to the original lender due to the lack of authentication of the transfer. Any payments made otherwise would not fulfill the obligation under the note.
Pursuant to Regulation F of the FDCPA and under Massachusetts Statutes Law, the note became time-barred as of January *, *.
- These factors alone evidence the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fraud upon the court.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
please refine; On December *, *, an invalid modification purported to amend the original mortgage, even though it omitted the second bifurcated loan and was not executed by the three original parties. Bank of America home loans (BAC) injected themselves into the modification despite not having any recorded interest in the mortgage or promissory note.
Mortgagor **** King Jr. and the original refinance lender, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), were not parties to the BAC Loan Modification Agreement, despite being two of the three original signers of the mortgaged property. Only Terri A. Mayes-King signed the invalid modification on December *, *, while BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, signed on March *, *. The invalid modification mortgage payments ceased on the original note, triggering a second time-barred status six years later on December *, *, again making the note an enforceable.
Case Rating: *
Here's the refined version of your statement:
---
On December *, *, an invalid modification purported to amend the original mortgage, even though it omitted the second bifurcated loan and was not executed by the three original parties. Bank of America home loans (BAC) injected themselves into the modification despite not having any recorded interest in the mortgage or promissory note.
Mortgagor **** King Jr. and the original refinance lender, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), were not parties to the BAC Loan Modification Agreement, despite being two of the three original signers of the mortgaged property. Only Terri A. Mayes-King signed the invalid modification on December *, *, while BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, signed on March *, *. The invalid modification mortgage payments ceased on the original note, triggering a second time-barred status six years later on December *, *, again making the note unenforceable.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
Here's the refined version of your statement:
---
On December *, *, an invalid modification purported to amend the original mortgage, even though it omitted the second bifurcated loan and was not executed by the three original parties. Bank of America home loans (BAC) injected themselves into the modification despite not having any recorded interest in the mortgage or promissory note.
Mortgagor **** King Jr. and the original refinance lender, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), were not parties to the BAC Loan Modification Agreement, despite being two of the three original signers of the mortgaged property. Only Terri A. Mayes-King signed the invalid modification on December *, *, while BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, signed on March *, *. The invalid modification mortgage payments ceased on the original note, triggering a second time-barred status six years later on December *, *, again making the note unenforceable.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
please enhance; These continuing conspiracy actions are evidence of potential violations of King’s Constitutional Rights, the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, and the Truth in Lending Act.
Case Rating: *
Sure, here's an enhanced version of your statement:
---
These continuing conspiracy actions are evidence of potential violations of King’s Constitutional Rights, the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, and the Truth in Lending Act.
- On December *, *, an invalid modification purported to amend the original mortgage, even though it omitted the second bifurcated loan and was not executed by the three original parties. Bank of America Home Loans (BAC) injected themselves into the modification despite not having any recorded interest in the mortgage or promissory note.
- Mortgagor **** King Jr. and the original refinance lender, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), were not parties to the BAC Loan Modification Agreement, despite being two of the three original signers of the mortgaged property. Only Terri A. Mayes-King signed the invalid modification on December *, *, while BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, signed on March *, *.
- The invalid modification mortgage payments ceased on the original note, triggering a second time-barred status six years later on December *, *, again making the note unenforceable.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
Sure, here's an enhanced version of your statement:
---
These continuing conspiracy actions are evidence of potential violations of King’s Constitutional Rights, the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, and the Truth in Lending Act.
- On December *, *, an invalid modification purported to amend the original mortgage, even though it omitted the second bifurcated loan and was not executed by the three original parties. Bank of America Home Loans (BAC) injected themselves into the modification despite not having any recorded interest in the mortgage or promissory note.
- Mortgagor **** King Jr. and the original refinance lender, ComUnity Lending Inc. (CLI), were not parties to the BAC Loan Modification Agreement, despite being two of the three original signers of the mortgaged property. Only Terri A. Mayes-King signed the invalid modification on December *, *, while BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, signed on March *, *.
- The invalid modification mortgage payments ceased on the original note, triggering a second time-barred status six years later on December *, *, again making the note unenforceable.
---
Would you like any further modifications or additional assistance?
Start a new chat