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, November 2, 2020

THE CONSTITUTIONAL, IRREDUCIBLE, MINIMUM, REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTICLE III STANDING AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT- From "The Pro Se Series" by Danny Hammond: MORTGAGE FRAUD PRO SE PRIMER 101 #4:

“All power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.”

The United States Constitution


by Danny Hammond

The judge promised when he took the job that he, or she, would enforce and protect the laws that come from the constitution and that they would defend the court ferociously from losing the public trust in the integrity of the court.

Maybe that was too much to ask from some pompous asses. Why did we all expect more of judges and 
attorneys anyway? If I am any part of the public, then I can tell you for sure, the courts have already lost some of MY public trust.

It is difficult for me to pull Borrowers back from their searches for Promissory Notes, and the Assignments of Mortgage, MERS, PSA, etc., etc., thinking like Dick Tracy and Perry Mason, as well as Captain Kirk looking for a way to "prove" that the party trying to foreclose on them does not have the authority, or, STANDING, to do so.

But, if what I say is true and the judges are letting the attorneys run amuck like the 2nd graders in my description, who can blame the attorneys for running amuck. "Amuck" is quickly becoming synonymous with the "actions of the courts". To me.

If you had seen judges simply ignore proof when it is presented as much as I have, then what I am now really trying to say is that this whole thing is only about Standing and nothing else. The initial burden of determining if the foreclosing party is a party with Standing is the review of the concrete and particularized evidence and the review of that evidence of the burden of proof is on the judge, NOT ON THE BORROWER. 


2 comments:

  1. Danny,can you also apply this concept to a Judicial Foreclosure and also in Bankruptcy court? Thanks in advance for your response.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is in essence, no difference between non-judicial and judicial foreclosure. Non-judicial foreclosure is much more unfair and is, in my opinion, unconstitutional, but all of the pieces are the same. One confusing issue is that in a non-judicial foreclosure if the sale has already happened, it has not been adjudicated in a court. Therefore, these states allow that the Borrower has not yet been given due process to go to court and overturn the foreclosure. Therefore the Borrower must initiate the lawsuit to claim his civil rights. That makes him a "Plaintiff" in his lawsuit and the fraudulent foreclosing party is the "Defendant". That is not the reality of this lawsuit. The claim of the Borrower is that his lawsuit concerns the non-judicial foreclosure and the Trustee's Deed (foreclosure deed, Deed of Foreclosure etc.) which has been issued by a "successor trustee" in most cases. Most non-judicial states treat a trustees' deed as a mechanism for "eviction" and not binding title. In my state, Missouri, the trustee's deed is not allowed to contain any warranties of legal foreclosure sale, rights to ownership, proof of interest in the debt. But, judges think it is absolute, they are wrong. You can find these statutes easily by googling the laws in your state. Once the sale has occurred the best way to stay in the house is to initiate the lawsuit before eviction court. It is not foolproof, but I have done it for clients dozens of times and never had anyone moved out while the court is going on.

    Bankruptcy is a completely different problem. There are two truths here that are not covered in law. 1. The foreclosing party (Bank of America was notorious for this) will just foreclose anyway right through the stay and the judge will ignore it. Or the judge will allow it. 2. The Trustee for the Debtor in bankruptcy court is a federal employee of the US Dept of Justice (all bankruptcies are handled by federal courts) and is paid (get this) a percentage of whatever he sells of your and pays to the creditors. Your house normally represents the most expensive thing you own and the trustee will get a bigger commission for selling it. So, the trustee has no incentive to protect your house. There is as much mortgage fraud (or more) in bankruptcy courts as there is in any other forum. So, I see Bk as a good place to stall while you get organized, but it is uncontrollable by the Borrower. It is very dangerous to put your home's protection into the hands of a federal bankruptcy judge and the trustee who is an employee of the Department of Justice. DOJ used to have great credibility, but we, the people, have tolerated DOJ dilution of the constitution for so long that there just is no accountability of its actions. So, I can't say that the things I talk about don't apply to BK court, I can just say that those judges don't seem to know much about constitutional civil rights and I have made it clear how I feel about Borrowers trusting any kind of attorney to actually "protect" their clients. I wish that were not true. But, you have heard elsewhere too. Thanks for commenting. Maybe we can get a good debate going here. I can be wrong you know. Danny Hammond

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS HERE