Posted by Satori
(here)
I've read the Idaho court documents in
post #75 very thoroughly. My vocation requires me to not only read, but understand legal documents such as these.
What I can tell you without any hesitation or doubt is that the documents establish that the property was the subject of a more or less routine foreclosure and ejectment action originally filed by Bank of America.
The real estate that was foreclosed upon was owned by one Michelle Mims, who died in 2010. Peterson apparently lived there and had personal property there. Peterson claimed that he was in a common law marriage with Mims and that he had certain rights to the real state. That claim did not hold up to analysis under Idaho law.
In short, after some legal wrangling, BoA successfully foreclosed. The property sold at a sheriff's auction. First Nat'l Mtg was the successful bidder and is the owner. First Nat'l had to get not 1, not 2 but 5 writs of ejectment.
5 writs of ejectment were issued by the judge in this case. That is an unusually high number of such writs. Typically, a writ of ejectment is issued after a foreclosure only when there is a person or persons, and/or personal property, at the real estate and they will not voluntarily leave the premises and remove the personal property after the foreclosure is over. To have 5 writs issued is very unusual and informs us that whoever was at the property and/or who had personal property there, would not voluntarily leave and remove the personal property.
If this is Peterson's property as reported by David Wilcock, then for whatever reason Peterson would not comply with the court's order and writs. He would not do so even after after having the full range of due process and legal remedies afforded to him
The claim that the "Dark Alliance" through Gestapo-style police tactics were taking millions of dollars of personal property, throwing it into a pit and bulldozing it, under orders by the judge no less, is demonstrably false and not borne out by the documents. To the contrary.
At least two of the writs instruct the sheriff not to take certain personal property and that any property actually removed should be placed in storage for safe keeping. So, rather than being ordered to take, destroy and bulldoze millions of dollars of personal property, as has been falsely claimed, the judge ordered that any personal property either be left in place or safely and properly stored.
It is my best guess that the personal property that the writs instruct be left alone is Peterson's personal property. This is likely, because upon a close reading of the documents it is clear that Peterson did not own the house and real estate and he was not a borrower on the loan to Mims from BoA. Thus, BoA's foreclosure judgment was not a judgment against Peterson and any money still owed to BoA was not recoverable from Peterson, only Mims' estate. Therefore, it is likely the judge ordered that Peterson's personal property be set aside from any personal property that was subject to the judgment. In short, it appears that far from having his personal property stolen it is, or at least was for a very long time, left available for him to come and get.
Although I may weigh in again later, I want to close by making one important point:
To reasonable minds it is clear from the Idaho foreclosure/ejectment documents alone that Peterson received all due process under law, and then some. The claims being made to the contrary are rooted in pure fiction, not fact. Cui Bono?
Re: The Truth about 'Pete' Peterson, David Wilcock, the foreclosure, the dead cats, and GoFundMe
Reply With Quote
I trust you have very good reason to say the stuff about the dead cats and so forth. I don't doubt that in the least, but it would be nice to know how you found out. If we can't google it, and we can't fly to Boise, then short of a blue avian sphere taking us there............
Bookmarks