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!

Friday, November 20, 2020

SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES, WALL STREET IS UP TO SOMETHING CONCERNING OUR HOMES AND I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO LIKE IT: MORTGAGE FRAUD

"I've got to keep in some sort of touch with all the loose ends of this dizzy affair if I'm ever gonna make heads or tails of it."
                                                       Sam Spade



by Danny Hammond

Yes! Something is up in Wall Street Land.  I, and dozens of Mortgage Fraud experts have been expecting a very large spike in foreclosures.  There are a lot of judicial and non-judicial foreclosures going on as I speak.  I haven't tried to confirm if they are mostly non-conforming loans which doesn't mean that the people have a bad loan.  Non-Conforming Loans simply don't conform to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's rules and conditions.  My requests for help from Borrowers are much higher than I have had at any time.   And this is really my point.  We seem to have as many as four vaccines that have completed testing and are ready for approval.  By the end of December mass vaccinations will begin and all hell is going to break loose when all of the frozen foreclosures thaw out at the same time.   If you are one of the millions who have been waiting and hoping for the miracle that government will continue the freeze don't wait any longer.  It is the government's entities that have been held up and nothing is going to stop the tsunami of foreclosures that will follow when they are cut loose.

(Here I think that some confusing terms need clarification.  This is true for home loans in general, the confusing terms come from the old common law which was in place for hundreds of years before being clarified in the Uniform Commercial Code.  For this article let's go through the synonyms that sound different but are actually interchangeable.

[The Borrower is the]                                  [The Lender, Foreclosing Party, Servicer, ]

Mortgagor                                                    Mortgagee
Obligor                                                        Obligee
Issuer                                                           Issuee
Grantor                                                       Grantee

The differences here are minor, but all of them mean it was the Borrower that created the flow of funds to the home loan by signing the original Promissory Note and the collateral instrument (mortgage or Deed of Trust) over to the actual Lender or Holder in Due Course using his or her signature.

FHA, Hud, FHFA, FNMA, and Freddie are all unable to have their servicers or correspondents foreclose on government conforming loans which are the vast majority of loans due to a government moratorium on foreclosures due to the Covid-19 pandemic.  This brings up a lot of bad things for a lot of American citizens.  You are in foreclosure due to fraud that the government could easily fix by making all judges run their courts as directed by Article III of the constitution.  So, the government puts no one in jail and our courts give our homes to funny-sounding parties, such as one I saw today "PLANET MORTGAGE" which has no right to foreclose.  I have never seen a foreclosing party in any state even try to meet the Constitutional, Irreducible, Minimum Requirements of Article III STANDING.

CONTINUE READING                                                        Get Help With Your Case

Tuesday, November 3, 2020

From "The Pro Se Series by Danny Hammond: THE IMPORTANCE OF CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING TO FORECLOSE CONCERNING YOUR FRAUDULENT LENDER AND THE "SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION" OF THE COURT. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME IN BOTH JUDICIAL AND NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURES AND STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS

“Until you guys own your own souls you don't own mine. Until you guys can be trusted every time and always, in all times and conditions, to seek the truth out and find it and let the chips fall where they may—until that time comes, I have the right to listen to my conscience and protect my client the best way I can. Until I'm sure you won't do him more harm than you'll do the truth good. Or until I'm hauled before somebody that can make me talk."      Raymond Chandler "High Window"


IF YOU ONLY RETAIN THREE WORDS FROM THIS POST YOU WILL NOT HAVE WASTED YOUR TIME.


THE WORDS ARE:  "INJURY IN FACT"


Article III of the Constitution of the United States as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court has long ago established a constitutional, irreducible, minimum set of requirements for a party in a genuine dispute to establish that it has the Standing to redress a claimed "Injury In Fact" before it can bring a dispute before any court.

Without the existence of Standing all courts in the land must acknowledge that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear any merits of a case and that it has no choice whatsoever but to dismiss the subject action.

In Borrower's cases, this subject action is the claim that the foreclosing party is the party in interest that has the "right" to foreclose on a Borrower's property and that it is claiming and proving that it has been injured by the Borrower enabling its right to foreclose.
The three requirements to prove Standing in a case involving Judicial Foreclosure state foreclosure actions in which the foreclosing party is the Plaintiff and the Borrower is the defendant.

1.  The foreclosing party is the Plaintiff and it must claim and prove in its lawsuit against the Borrower, who is the defendant, that it has sustained an "Injury in Fact" due to the actions of the Borrower and that it is demonstrating that its evidence is "concrete and particularized".

The Borrower Defendant's "only burden" is that he must deny ever having been in default with this Plaintiff in this case.  This will be true in nearly every case.

2.  This injury must be have been proven by the foreclosing party with "concrete and particularized" evidence to be fairly traceable to the foreclosed party with concrete and particularized evidence.   

The Defendant Borrower is trying to void and set aside the foreclosure sale that the foreclosing party claims were legal and that it has already happened properly although it has never yet been presented in any court.

 I do not use the words lender or bank because I have never seen any party in a foreclosure trial ever even try to prove a Lender's status.  So, whenever reading my writings you will see me use the term "foreclosing party" instead of giving this entity any higher status before the judge.

Your foreclosing party has only one possible injury it can claim.  That the foreclosing party used its’ own money to fund the closing of the loan, or used its’ own money to purchase the alleged subject Promissory Note and did not get paid back you, the mortgagor.

 I have never seen the foreclosing party ever claim or state that it had suffered an “Injury in Fact”, nor ever described one.

CONTINUE READING  VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE


WOULD YOU LIKE A FREE ASSESSMENT OF YOUR FORECLOSURE CASE? 

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.