"It has been said, that for evil men to accomplish their purpose, it is only necessary that good men should do nothing. That is all that the criminal wants of the law...to be let alone."
Multiple Attributions
CONTINUE: "THE MORTGAGE CRISIS IS NOT GETTING BETTER!"
Self enacted laws followed by self enforcement of those laws by those without authority are sure to cross the line of law as it becomes obscured. If justice is not applied according to law, then the insidious encroachment of the Constitution will eventually erode its' power and the reverence of its' people.
On September 10th, 2015 the Belton MO police department headed by police chief James Persons and city attorney Megan McGuire looked the other way as two rogue police officers (Officer S. Bechtel and Officer Johnathan Doe) acting on their own, while proudly admitting that they had no authorization from anyone but themselves, they then evicted local resident Danny Hammond and his family without due process as is required by ancient and unchanged laws.
The officers had no writ; no warrant; no judgment or even a Sonic receipt. They had no paperwork which they casually admitted and then verbally attributed their presence to a damning conversational accusation by a lightly regarded real estate sales person by the name of Ryan Rader of Keller Williams Real Estate of Lees Summit a self proclaimed "agent" of Fannie Mae.
Strangely, the police each had tiny note pads and tiny pencils, but did not write any tiny notes.
This very heavy handed police action was more astonishing as this police department is currently under investigation for workplace sexual harassment. Don't quote me just because I wrote it here, but I kind of believe that Chief Persons is a prime suspect.
With Mr. Hammond at the time of the occupant "smack down" was only one other person, his 19 month old grandson. The two jackbooted officers in full regalia with flack jackets and guns told Mr. Hammond that he was “going to jail and seemed quite agitated when Hammond asked these lawmen, under which statutes were they operating. Mr. Hammond tried to give them a short seminar on foreclosure and eviction law, but it seemed that the arrest of a desperado was more thrilling and they cut off the discussion, but then added, "and you better get someone over here fast to get that baby or we are going to turn him over to family services" seemingly intent on jailing the whole gang.
"Standing in my living room feeling the noose around my neck and here, under control of these mental midgets who were authorized to use guns to arrest babies and were railroading me to the big house with verbal testimony from a "real property law" expert witness who's single credential is a real estate sales person license.
I was going to the big house over the verbal testimony of a fellow with a house tour guide license. I resolved then and there that if the Belton, MO jail had a law library, that I was going to look up both state and Federal rules of evidence in case I had missed something. I read more than anyone and I have never read any of this.
Lastly, in the most intimidating of tones, Mr. Hammond received his sentencing and
additional threats, ending with, "You are going to come with us right now and we are taking you to jail and when you get out you are not to come back to this house".
"Personal property or not" shouted Officer Jonathon Doe, "if you come back we will throw you in jail again!". "As many times as we have to."
Inside the illegally raided home was all of the personal property owned by the Hammond family , including all of Mr. Hammond and his family’s: clothes; furniture; toys; appliances; office computers and printers; business files; including 7 file boxes detailing Mr. Hammond's current Federal Court lawsuit against FNMA marked "Fannie Mae Lawsuit"; family photos, and medication that needed to be taken daily by his wife and himself. This self-eviction is against the law and almost unheard of, except by Imposter foreclosing parties such as Fannie Mae, the largest of the unlawful foreclosure entities.
Hammond continued; "The Belton Police officers who did not have a plan to bring the situation to a lawful conclusion, since there is no law allowing municipality police officers to pursue such an irresponsible and unlawful remedy, then left the real property and the personal property in the possession of Ryan Rader a lowly real estate salesperson who is supervised only by Real Estate Broker Doug Morris of Keller Williams Real Estate Lees Summit, MO and had no rights of ownership of the home. Are they trying to emulate Jamie Dimon of JpMorgan Chase, whose only redeeming quality is contempt for the law (?)".
The emotional and physical suffering of the family came about because two gullible and uninformed cops with no jurisdiction or discretion saw fit to usurp the authority of the Missouri Circuit courts and the Cass County Missouri Sheriff’s Department and form a vigilante community militia in conflict with the statutes of Missouri and US law.
"They enacted a law and enforced it with guns and bulletproof vests in front of the baby." Mr. Hammond reported. He added, "There has been no Unlawful Detainer filed on this property in Cass County Circuit Courts, much less a judgment. The removal of any occupants was not an option that was available to them. The grievous confiscation of personal property also was not available to these rogue police officers. The violation of state and constitutional law is of very grave concern. If this example is allowed to stand uncontested, then what are our fellow citizens to think about law enforcement? It is a short distance from these acts to a general disregard of citizens for the U.S. Constitution. I promise I will be filing a lawsuit this month against all of the cooperating parties."
"The Belton Missouri City Attorney Megan McGuire has not answered calls for a meeting", stated Hammond.
Explaining on the phone, Ms McGuire claimed to Hammond that she had done an investigation and that Fannie Mae was the true owner of the property. She did not seem to realize that her attorney's license gave this determination of hers no effect whatsoever to rule on an equity court matter. Which is relevant material for additional damage and suffering claims because only those equity courts can determine alloidial title facts.
Mr. Hammond reports that Ms. McGuire has ignored emails detailing Missouri law that do not condone any of these racketeering enterprise actions and has refused to discuss the situation further.
Missouri law is well settled on the taking of property by force by an evicting party.
The Missouri statutes on Unlawful Detainer and Eviction read in part:
* No Self-Eviction allowed
* No landlord may evict a tenant without a court order. Self-eviction includes such acts as turning off utilities, padlocking the doors or changing the locks, removing the tenant’s personal belongings, threatening the occupant with violence or any other action designed to force the tenant to vacate the premises.
* A landlord may be liable for to up to twice the damages incurred by a prevailing tenant who proves the landlord committed such acts.
Missouri law is well settled on the matter of “self eviction” and for the need for the courts to “hear” the party(s) before any act of possession can take place. This truth is exhibited in Article III of the United States Constitution with nearly the same words in the statutes of every state.
That the following case law forms the base of Missouri law on self-help evictions:
From: Steinke v Leicht 235 S.W.2d 115 (MO. App. 1950) and Sackett v Hall 478 S.W.2d 381 (MO 1972),
"There is plenty of precedent determining that self-help eviction is not an available remedy under Missouri law. It also well settled that no person involved in any eviction may separate an occupant from his PERSONAL BELONGINGS for any reason."
Actual Missouri state statute is very clear:
Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 534 Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
←534.010Section 534.020.1 534.030→
August 28, 2014
Forcible entry and detainer defined.
534.020. If any person shall enter upon or into any lands, tenements or other possessions, with force or strong hand, or with weapons, or by breaking open the doors or windows or other parts of a house, whether any person be in it or not, or by threatening to kill, maim or beat the party in possession, or by such words or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, or by putting out of doors or carrying away the goods of the party in possession, or by entering peaceably and then turning out by force, or frightening, by threats or other circumstances of terror, the party out of possession, and detain and hold the same in every such case, the person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a "forcible entry and detainer" within the meaning of this chapter.
(RSMo 1939 § 2832)
Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 441 Landlord and Tenant
←441.230Section 441.233.1 441.234→ August 28, 2014
Landlord's unlawful removal or exclusion of tenant, liability--interruption of services, landlord's liability:
441.233.
1. Except as provided in section 441.065, a landlord or its agent who removes or excludes a tenant or the tenant's personal property from the premises without judicial process and court order, or causes such removal or exclusion, or causes the removal of the doors or locks to such premises, shall be deemed guilty of forcible entry and detainer as described in chapter 534.
2. Any landlord or its agent who willfully diminishes services to a tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption of essential services, including but not limited to electric, gas, water, or sewer service, to the tenant or to the premises shall be deemed guilty of forcible entry and detainer as described in chapter 534; provided however, this section shall not be applicable if a landlord or its agent takes such action for health or safety reasons.
(L. 1997 H.B. 361 § 441.223)
“Self help” evictions are not allowed. §535.010 provides that a landlord may dispossess a tenant for non-payment only "in the manner herein provided." Phillips v. Ockel, 609 S.W.2d 228 (Mo. App. 1980).
A landlord (Fannie Mae improbably in this case) is himself guilty of a forcible entry and detainer (§534.020) if he “removes or excludes a tenant or the tenant’s personal property from the premises without judicial process and court order, or causes such removal or exclusion, or causes the removal of the doors or locks to such premises,” or if he “willfully diminishes services to a tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption of essential services, including but not limited to electric, gas, water, or sewer service ..” §441.233.
Judgment and Writ of Execution
“After the judgement is issued , the tenant (owner) has 10-days to file an appeal. The court will issue a Writ of Execution if requested by the landlord after the 10-day period. The writ is given to the sheriff’s office, which schedules an eviction date. The writ does have an expiration date and the landlord must contact the sheriff’s office at least 7 days before the expiration of the date.
Side Bar:
(However, there has never even been an Unlawful Detainer case filed in the 17th Circuit Missouri State Court of Cass County against Overton Plaza Court, LC or Danny Hammond the "owners of record" on the subject property 305 Canal, there is no possibility of a Judges Writ of Execution existing)
The question of rights and ownership does not arise in this action of forcible entry and detainer and the defendants cannot set up their supposed right as a defense for their forcible entry. In the action of forcible entry and detainer the question to be determined, is merely whether there has been a forcible entry upon plaintiffs' possession by one who detains the possession from him. The rule has been clearly declared by our courts as follows:
"It is immaterial in what capacity or relation a plaintiff is in possession, whether as owner, tenant, agent, or otherwise. If he is in fact in peaceful possession, then, no matter what may be the defendant's right to possession, the law does not permit the latter to indicate his right or redress his grievance by force; and, if he does so, the law will restore the original status and compel the defendant to assert his right by legal proceedings".
The purpose of the forcible entry and detainer statute is to preserve peace and prevent the use of force and violence in asserting one's supposed right to the possession of real property.
See Craig v. Donnelly, 28 Mo.App. 342; Sitton v. Sapp, 62 Mo.App. 197; Purcell v. Merrick, 172 Mo.App. 412, 158 S.W. 478." (Emphasis ours.) Fink v. Schmidt, Mo. App., 245 S.W. 566, 567.”
From Kingfisher v Ben Behamani No. SD30446 MO App. SD Division ONE 1-27, 2011:
“Nevertheless, Appellant argues that regardless of the terms and rights granted by the Contract to Respondent, that Missouri Law is clear that “self-help repossession is not an available option in this circumstance”. In support of this assertion, the Appellant cites to Steinke v Leicht 235 S.W.2d 115 (MO. App. 1950) and Sackett v Hall 478 S.W.2d 381 (MO 1972).
In Steinke citing several reasons for finding the defendants liable for “forcible entry and detainer" as charged in the complaint, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to restitution of the premises described”. In affirming the decisions of the trial court, the reviewing court set out the following discussion in relation to the forcible entry and detainer issue:
“there is another reason which compels us to hold against the defendants on this point. The procedure of the defendants in forcibly entering the premises in August 1946, and removing therefrom the property belonging to the plaintiffs was clearly erroneous and wrongful.
As was held in Beeler v. Cardwell, [33 Mo. 84 86 (Mo. 1862)], the plaintiffs, in actual, peaceable possession, could not be legally ejected by force. If the defendants had superior right to possession, the law provides ample means for enforcing it, and the defendants were clearly wrong in taking the law into their own hands."
However, the question of right does not arise in this action of forcible entry and detainer and the defendants cannot set up their supposed right as a defense for their forcible entry. In the action of forcible entry and detainer the question to be determined is merely whether there has been a forcible entry upon the plaintiffs’ possession by one who detains the possession from him."
Accordingly the reviewing court held in favor of the plaintiffs.
There goes respect for the law. There goes the Constitution of the United States of America. This craziness must stop. Ten million American families displaced from their home homes by liars, criminals, and thieves. Are you kidding me?
Well if someone must step into the breach let it be me. I hope to see others there, but if not I will be there until our children and our children's children can live in a sane and logical America where good people can trust their banker and their policeman to obey the law. D.
Case Law Citations for this section of my post.
[i] Litzinger v. Estate of Litzinger (In re Litzinger), 340 B.R 897 (RAP. 8th Gir. 2006)
[ii] Garver v. Quality Inspection & Testing, 946 P.2d 450 (Alaska 1997)
[iii] Stevenson v . Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442 (Pa. 1964)
[iv] Kasdan, Simonds, Mcintyre, Epstein &; Martin v. World Say. &; Loan Ass'n (In re Emery), 317 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. Gal. 2003)
[v] Baram V. Farugia, 606 F.2d 42 (3d Gir. Pa. 1979)
[vi] Litzinger v. Estate of Litzinger (In re Litzinger), 340 B.R 897 (RAP. 8th Cir. 2006)
[vii] Vaughn v. Vaughn, 146 Md. App. 264 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002) [viii] Id
fix] Chem-Age Indus. v. Glover, 2002 SO 122 (S.D. 2002)
Taylor V. Forte Hotels Inri, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1119 (Gal. App. 4th Dist. 1991)
[xi] Yaeger v. Magna Corp. (In re Magna Corp.), 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 1114 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2005)
xii] Chemical Sales CO. V. Diamond Chemical Co., 766 F.2d 364 (8th Cir. Mo. 1985)
[xiii] DeChristofaro v. Machala, 685 A.2d 258 (R.!. 1996)[xiv] Id
[xv] Baram v. Farugia, 606 F.2d 42 (3d Cir. Pa. 1979)
[xvi] Vaughn v. Vaughn, 146 Md. App. 264 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2002)
[xvii] Wallander V. Barnes, 341 Md. 553 (Md. 1996)
[xviii] Spates v. Dameron Hospital Assn., 114 Cal. App. 4th 208 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2003)
BACK TO BEGINNING OF THIS FACEBOOK POST
BACK TO BEGINNING OF THIS POST
QUESTIONS ABOUT REPRESENTING YOURSELF AS "PRO SE"? CLICK HERE
BACK TO THE TOP OF BLOG WEBSITE
BACK TO BEGINNING OF THIS FACEBOOK POST
BACK TO BEGINNING OF THIS POST
QUESTIONS ABOUT REPRESENTING YOURSELF AS "PRO SE"? CLICK HERE
BACK TO THE TOP OF BLOG WEBSITE
Tags: Keywords Tags, filed as:Danny Hammond,subject matter jurisdiction,Article III,Article III of the United States of America,Challenging Standing under FRCP Rule 12 (b)(1) in wrongful foreclosure,Injury in Fact requirement for standing to foreclose,challenge standing,injury in fact,wrongful eviction,self-help eviction,stop eviction,challenge standing, challenge subject matter jurisdiction, foreclosure attorneys, saving my family's home, affordable fraud defenses, pro se, learn what pro se means, fighting foreclosure, consultants,stopping foreclosure, I can represent myself against my lender,save my house,save my home,help me save my home;can't find a foreclosure fraud attorney.Ocwen,Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,Fannie Mae, Federal National Mortgage Association,Green Tree, Nationstar,LITTON LOAN SERVICING,RESIDENTIAL CREDIT,RESCAP LIQUIDATION TRUST,COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,ARGENT MORTGAGE CORPORATION,AMERIQUEST,AMERICA'SWHOLESALELENDERS,FREEMONTMORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION,FREEMONT INVESTMENT LOAN,CITIMORTGAGE,HSBC MORTGAGE CORP,TAYLOR BEANE & WHITAKERMORTGAGE CORP,FANNIE MAE,FREDDIE MAC,GINNIE MAE,WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION,BANK OF AMERICA,ADVANCE MORTGAGE CORPORATION,JP MORGAN CHASE,CHASE MORTGAGE CORPORATION,INDYMAC BANK FSB,AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE,PEOPLES BANK,SUNTRUST BANK,FINANCE AMERICA, LLC,INTERBAY FUNDING, LLC,PULASKI BANK,UNITED FIDELITY FUNDING CORPORATION,WORLD SAVINGS BANK,WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,GMAC MORTGAGE,GMAC Mortgage, LLC,DHI MORTGAGE COMPANY LTD,CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST,Carrington Mortgage,FRANKLINBANKSSB,BANK OF AMERICA,NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE,MORTGAGE ONECORP,MORTGAGE LENDER'S NETWORK USA, INC.,AEGIS FUNDING CORP,WILMINGTON FINANCE,a division of AIG Federal Savings Bank,Caliber Mortgage,US BANK N.A.,RESCAP GMAC MORTGAGE LLC FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY FRAUD, Deutsche Bank,Deutsch Bank National Trust Company as Trustee,Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee,US Bank N.A. as Trustee,Bank of New York as Trustee
