.titlewrapper {text-align: center; } #header-inner img {width: 900px; margin: 0 auto;} #header-inner {text-align: center;}
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!

Thursday, July 2, 2020

A Simple Question. I Hope I Provided a Simple Answer. I Think I Wrote a Post: WHEN I SAY YOU SHOULD SUE YOUR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE CASE JUDGE, THAT IS FOR SIMPLIFICATION; YOU WILL ACTUALLY SUE A CITIZEN WHO IS A JUDGE WHENEVER HE IS NOT DEPRIVING OTHER CITIZENS OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS JOB IS

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."  -Tzun Tzu 4000 BC give or take



AXJ NEW YORK: Danny Hammond we at Actions for Justice ( AXJ ) go as far as stating that housing is a human right and in the case of homeowners would prevail over any repayment of a debt. Your opinion?

 · Reply · 21h

Danny Hammond  Well, it is a step too far without clarification. It is bad enough to have to consider a suing a judge, which is how I say it for simplification, you actually are suing a citizen who is a judge whenever he is not depriving citizens of constitutional "civil" rights.


But, when he moves a case forward without reviewing the pleadings of the foreclosing party for the claim of injury and the "concrete and particularized" evidence at the very BEGINNING of a contract law case, he and his court (one and the same) do not have the absolutely required "Subject Matter Jurisdiction". The court has no choice but to dismiss the case, or in non-judicial states vacate and set aside the illegal non-judicial foreclosure.

To move the case forward is to commit the most heinous of crimes possible.  Deprivation of Civil Rights, under color of law. This cannot be done and everything that happens after this is void ab initio. "Void at the beginning". Never not "void". 

A judge can be proven to have taken a bribe and when his ruling injures you, he still maintains his immunity from a party to sue him for damages. The difference is that the bribed judge may be in a "judicial setting" and therefore is still a judge. Continue Reading

No comments:

Post a Comment

COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS HERE