MORTGAGE FRAUD WAS NOT ONLY NEVER FIXED, BUT IT WAS ALSO NEVER CHANGED AT ALL. FORECLOSING PARTIES ARE STILL ASSIGNING MORTGAGES AND DEEDS OF TRUST TO TRANSFER THE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR DEBT. THE SUPREME COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT AN ASSIGNMENT OF A MORTGAGE HAS NO EFFECT... IN 1872!

Monday, July 27, 2015

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE VERSUS HOLDER OF YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE



"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

   Preamble to the Constitution, September 17,  1787



HOLDER IN DUE COURSE V HOLDER

By Danny Hammond
The Foreclosure Solutions Group




“This is an excerpt from my actual lawsuit against the foreclosing party on my house." 

That some Defendants must be claiming to be a holder for a Holder in Due Course of the alleged Promissory Note, but both claims fail.

That Plaintiff (me) is suggesting that the burden of proof for a Holder in Due Course is very different from the burden of proof for a holder with rights to enforce.

That the burden of proof in any case is to prove the elements of the case that have been alleged. The stated allegations in every case carry presumptions of validity for purposes of a motion to dismiss, but the implied allegations must still be proven if not admitted. In the case of a Holder in Due Course. The defining elements of a Holder in Due Course are that it purchased the note for Value in good faith with no knowledge of defenses of the alleged Borrower.

TO READ THE FULL POST CLICK HERE


No comments:

Post a Comment

COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS HERE