If Your Finances Have Been Hit Hard By Your Fight Against Foreclosure, Here's a Less Expensive Program That Could Help: 2 1/2 Hours Of Phone Sessions With Danny H.

I have to spend less time per person.  I am unable to bring in enough money to stabilize my monthly costs. I have to change something.

2 1/2 Hours Of Phone Work Sessions With Danny Hammond.  

During which we will use Google Drive "Share" to put your Lawsuit (Complaint) together while viewing the document and both editing at the same time.

I have tried several ways to make this work for us each.  I am out of cash and I have put my core business back together.  I either have to quit helping those in foreclosure for a year to 18 months, or I need to at least break even while helping to put Complaints together and making sure you understand yours.  I have been using this strategy with several clients successfully and I can make it work for you and I also.  Your investment is much smaller.

Foreclosures are the highest they have been since the 2008-2012 period.  I can't make a dent in the numbers.  I am going to find a way to make a bigger case to the world with a group of Borrowers, or after 15 years I am going to stop and take some time to put my own life back together.

 

For those on a Tighter Budget.  Present your Foreclosure problem to Danny Hammond on private 2 and a half hours of phone calls with Danny Hammond meeting only on your Complaint, or whatever is needed.

$300 for 2 and a half hours of private call sessions to get the answers you are looking for at bargain price.

Recommended:

1st call -  30 Minute Session - to go over your case and to hear Danny's early thoughts.  Decide what would make call number two the most valuable information and planning possible.

2nd Call - 1 Hour Session - to clear up as much misinformation as possible and get the best possible strategies for your situation

3rd Call - 1 Hour Session -  to agree on the best strategies you can apply towards saving your home.

I am about to take my website down to modernize it and to make e-copies of all of my nearly 300 articles and including them in the $300 price.  For groups of 4 or more, each will pay $200 each for the same benefits.  You don't have to know them well, but I have noticed that there are a lot of small groups working together.

For more information click on the link below.

Phone Sessions With Danny Hammond

A Letter From One Who Was Uniquely Qualified To Point Out The Chronic and Permanent Deficiencies In Setting Up The Constitutional Judiciary

In The Constitution, It is stated that it is the citizens who must defend the 

Constitution from defects or intentional changes when it is absolutely 

imperative.

Below is a letter considering whether the founders had made a grave error in establishing the parity of the 3 branches of government.  It is a fundamental problem today.

It is singularly responsible for the foreclosure crisis today.

The different Supreme Courts over decades and centuries have slowly created laws (which only Congress can do) covering the total ass of every judge by giving all judges (including their asses) Absolute Immunity. 

No matter what intentional or unintentional unlawful every judge has Absolute Immunity from being sued by the Parties in court case. Again. Absolute Immunity if your house is taken in a crime in which a judge was a co-conspirator.  My strategy will still work, but it may be harder.  My problem with this is that the Constitution is clear that no citizen can be raised higher than any other citizen.  This is especially covered the 5th,11th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.  These Common Law abominations are just made up by multiple Supreme Courts.  They are inventions of convenience and not real laws.  They  didn't try to amend the constitution.  They just buried all of the self-invented self interest changes in common law backwater.

They made law.  They made every judge, not matter what he has done, untouchable and irresponsible for any act or crime they commit.  They can't do that, so those changes they made to protect their asses, but not ours, are unconstitutional.

There is no change in any of the words of those Amendments in the Constitution.  They changed constitutional law and buried these laws they made up which could only done following:

Only a majority vote in both houses in Congress and a vote of yes, by the citizens of 2/3 of the all of the states can amend the constitution.  There were ten amendments added immediately which make up the original Bill of Civil Rights.  This process makes changing the constitution so difficult that in 250 years there have been only 17 amendments since the enactment of the United States Constitution.

Today's King Robert's Supreme Court is the worst offender of all of the Supreme Court's over the entire 250 years of the Citizens created Judiciary.

Danny Hammond of the 3/4 Court Press

The Letter From a United States Citizen Complaining About The Lack of Any Oversite of Judges Starts Below:

"With us all the branches of the government are elective by the people themselves, except 

the Judiciary, of whose science and qualifications they are not competent judges." 

Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous;
that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and
irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only,
pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become 

law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and 

working its change by construction, before anyone has been busily employed in consuming its substance.

In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.

             

Thomas Jefferson: letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

Adamantios Coray (also spelled Koraes) did respond to Jefferson, though 
The exchange was limited due to Jefferson's death shortly after their final
letter.

Coray's Follow-Up Letter (January 30, 1825)

Coray sent a letter dated January 30, 1825, which Jefferson received
shortly before his death on July 4, 1826. In this response: Acknowledgment 

of Advice: Coray explicitly stated that in his new publication of Plutarch’s

political pamphlets, he had "not failed to take advantage of your advice" 

regarding the formation of a government.

Political Urging: He urged the United States to officially recognize Greek
independence sooner rather than later, warning that Great Britain would
otherwise be the first to do so and gain undue influence
over the new nation.

Anonymity: Interestingly, Coray requested that this specific letter be
treated as anonymous, likely to protect himself or the Greek cause
from diplomatic repercussions while pressing for official U.S. action.

Limitations of the Exchange

No Further Reply: There is no record of Jefferson replying to this 1825 letter.
Jefferson was in declining health and died less than two years later.

Silence on Trade: While Coray had originally requested U.S. trade
representative

In his 1823 letter, Jefferson had remained silent on that specific point in his 

1823 response, adhering strictly to the U.S. policy of non-entanglement in

European conflicts.

Coray’s 1825 letter attempted to revisit the need for a formal relationship 

but could not elicit a further response.

There Are Situations That I Have Learned While Trying To Help Borrowers, That I Just Can't Fix, And We Now Need To Avoid In Order To Solve Your Foreclosure Problems. I Will Describe The Problems With You. That May Not Be Enough

 I have been kind of silent and I apologize.  

I ran into some things I didn't know and I wasn't sure if I could overcome them.  I can, but I have to be able to explain them to any clients I have, and to anyone who follows me on YouTube.

My YouTube Channel can easily be found.  YouTube Search and type in @mtgfrd.   Then click search.

I posted this on YouTube on Saturday 6/6/2026.  If you are reading this then you must have seen the video.  I have a series of posts following this one that I hope will explain.  Tom Kibler and myself are going to put on a Q & A to explain what follows here and answer some questions and discuss how this may affect you.  Whether I am working with you at this time or not. You need to read all of this to understand.

The Q & A will run between 3 pm and 5 pm today (Sunday 6-8-2026)  Neither of us can go any longer so it will be a strict 2 hours.  Depending on what the turnout of Borrowers becomes and how the discussions go, we may do several sessions this week.  

Any following sessions will be part of a more limited payment relationship.  Tom and I have both been working on foreclosures for a very long time.  We neither one can afford to do anything that doesn't bring in more cash than it costs us to complete any work.  The price will be much less than it is now.  But, we will need to know who, if there is anyone, is interested in our combined help.  

New Developments:  

There has been a new problem which is adding to existing problems which is requiring too much time getting Borrowers to accept.  There is only one way to turn in a Complaint with a chance of winning, in our opinion.  

Criminal interference in our right to Due Process is so rampant that there are things that just leave no time to argue about.  It was all argued through a decade before you began to have your foreclosure experience.  Tom and I are both going to start on our own home foreclosures from a long time ago.  We hope to help you with yours at the same time.  

This whole foreclosure subject is unfamiliar to a large number of you and this is starkly unfair to all of us. 

However, this is a condition that will not change.  There is no fair or unfair.  It is all based on eat or be eaten

There is no one protecting any of us, except us.  This is why many of you have heard me many times ask my main question of you.  "Is a Law, a Law, if it is not enforced?"

The practical answer is "No."  Accept this.  Supreme Court judges have been slowly changing the constitutional law to  protect their cult.  They have absolute immunity by just declaring it.  Like Trump.  These Supreme Courts did not change the constitution as is required.  They literally hid the facts so you can't find these changes of laws inside there.  They are unconstitutional changes.  Now what?  See what I mean.  If you are going to study your way out of this, it will take you more than 15 years.  I know.

The constitution can only be changed by Congress and then it takes a 2/3  majority vote in all 50 states.  That is why there have only been 17 amendments since the first 10 were included originally in 1797.

We can still win in spite of their efforts.  All of this is included in the next few posts.

There was a recent point, which at first, I didn't even know if I could get around what I thought were new problems.  

That is not so, now.  But, we have both reached the point that we just can't work with anyone who wants to go another way.  We have both tried almost everything that you may find yourselves coming up and you will be damn sure you got 'em now.   Anything you think is truly revealing has been attempted.  Not because we are smarter, but because we have used "Trial and Error" for years before you fell into the same traps.  Take advantage of this fact.

We can't tell you not to believe what you think is new or novel.  We just can't use it to help you and we shouldn't take any money if we can't do it YOUR way.

Tom and I have worked together, yet separately, for a long time.  I have asked him to unite with me now on the entire scope of the situation because he and I don't always agree.  We help each other and we are a great team.  But, we don't always agree how to make the big differences that are needed to end this nightmare.  

We may not agree with each other tomorrow.  We are going to give you our opinions independently of each other.  You can understand the context of the entire subject.

Old man time is creeping up on Tom and myself.  We have both given much more than we should have and for too long.

We both have health issues and cash issues that are now critical.  

We have both been working on our problems.  I may not be able to do any new cases because I have to solve the cash problem.  I put it off too long trying to help people.  Now, I have to address it and I have already started to read what is below and get started now to resolve your case.

We both still want to help, but we both need to address our issues at the same time.

I have a new video on YouTube to explain this to anyone who has been following me on YouTube.  I am also going to explain the fix.  Many of you have heard of or talked to Tom Kibler.  He does not normally help with individual cases and he has referred some of you to me.  He is the best at researching the law.  We work well together because we are not redundant.  We prove and disprove actions that should be taken because we have different ideas.

I want to have YouTube spreading the word to Borrowers early, then I can work with my remaining clients while the video informs you of our intentions.

Tomorrow between 3 & 5 pm we will listen to you explain what you want to know and we will then figure out if we can help anyone.  The code will be on this website https://foreclosurefraudanswers.blogspot.com  And on YouTube Search for @mtgfrd  by this evening.

Peace Out, Danny Hammond

There Are 3 Main Issues That I Am Trying To Get Across Which, If You Can Except Them, Will Allow You To Get Through The Court Systems Quicker And With A Better Chance Of Winning

ISSUE #1: 

MERS IS NOT AN ISSUE TO YOU.  FOLLOWING ARE TWO DEPOSITIONS FROM YEARS AGO IN WHICH J.K. ARNOLD, THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MERSCORP, INC. AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED , AND WILLIAM C HULTMAN, THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE SAME TWO COMPANIES, DESCRIBED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS THAT MERS NEVER GAVE A NICKEL TO BUY ANY PART OF ANY LOAN.  

"MERS" never owned any part of your loan.  MERS never assigned your Security Instrument (a mortgage or a Deed of Trust).  No one owned these instruments.  They are just a small part of the Contract of Your Loan which actually is your Promissory Note.

The mortagage in Judicial Foreclosure States and the Deed of Trust in Non-Judicial Foreclosure States are incidental to the loan contract and can't go anywhere other than to Follow the Promissory Note.

MERS is an Invention used to distract and confuse you.

I don't want to boil Mers down any further in this statement.  That will distract and confuse you also.  The above is just simply true.  MERS has foreclosed in the past.  Because they distracted and confused everyone.  Except the banks and judges who were part of the scheme.  

Following are the two Court Depositions by the two guys who, along with a bunch of banks and criminals (I know.  That was redundant) in order to swindle Borrowers.

The Depositions are long and intentionally boring.  You don't have to read all of both of them.  Just read until you agree with the Title of this post.  MERS is not an Issue.  They did not assign anything to anyone.

Deposition #1 MERS Original President & CEO J. K. Arnold: No Matter How Hard It Is To Suspend Your Disbelief, You Gotta Try. MERS Is Not A Valid Concern To You. It Is An Invention With No Purpose Except To Distract You. The Depositions of The MERS Creators Follow. Prove This Myth To Yourself

 

It ain't what you don't know that get's you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so!"         -Mark Twain

Deposition of J.K. Arnold President and CEO Incorporated Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and MERSCORP Inc. (and some other MERS names)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 2 FOR 3 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

4

5 DEBRA A. HENDERSON,

6 Plaintiff,

7 vs. 

                                                                      CIVIL ACTION NO.  CV-08-900805.00

8

MERSCORP, INC., et al.,

9

Defendants.

10

11 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

12

13 VIDEO DEPOSITION OF R.K. ARNOLD,

14 taken pursuant to stipulation and agreement before

15 Tracye Sadler Blackwell, Certified Court Reporter

16 and Commissioner for the State of Alabama at Large,

17 in the Offices of The American Association for

18 Justice, 777 6th Street, NW, Suite 200, Washington,

19 D.C., on September 25, 2009, commencing at

20 approximately 10:10 a.m.

21

22 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

23

2

1 APPEARANCES 2 3 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: 4 Mr. Nicholas H. Wooten

WOOTEN LAW FIRM

5 Attorneys at Law

P.O. Drawer 3389

6 Auburn, Alabama 36831 7 Mr. Lynn W. Jinks, III

JINKS, CROW & DICKSON

8 Attorneys at Law

219 North Prairie Street

9 P.O. Box 350

Union Springs, Alabama 36089

10

11 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

12 Mr. Robert M. Brochin

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP

13 Counselors at Law

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

14 Suite 5300

Miami, Florida 33131

-2339

15

Mr. Shaun Ramey

16 SIROTE & PERMUTT

Attorneys at Law

17 2311 Highland Avenue

Birmingham, Alabama 35205

18

Ms. Sharon McGann Horstkamp

19 MERS

Vice President & General Counsel

20 1818 Library Street

Suite 300

21 Reston, Virginia 20190

-5619

22

ALSO PRESENT:

23 Mr. Fred Walker, Videographer

3

1 EXAMINATION INDEX

2

BY MR. WOOTEN . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3

4 EXHIBIT INDEX

5

To Find Out If MERS Is A Real Conern In Your Case, Read Further And Learn For Yourself.  But, Sit Down This Is Very Long.  But, It Eliminates MERS.  If You READ Far Enough

Continue Reading click here

Do You Want To Know Why MERS is not a threat to you? This is Deposition #2 It Is The Story Of MERS Through The Court Testimony Of Chief Financial Officer William Hultman. He Says MERS Never Owned Any Loans

 

The Deposition of William C Hultman The Original Chief Financial of MERS

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

Deposition of William C Hultman CFO of MERS & other AKAs

 

CHANCERY DIVISION - ATLANTIC COUNTY  
DOCKET NO. F-10209-08 
 BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR 
 THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS, 
 INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, 
 SERIES 2005-AB3 
 Plaintiff(s),

 
 vs. 

 VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE 
 Defendant(s). 
___________________________________________ 
 VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE 
 Counterclaimants and 
 Third Party Plaintiffs,

 
 vs.

 
 BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR 
 THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS, 
 INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, 
 SERIES 2005-AB3 

 Defendants on the Counterclaim, 
 and 

 AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDER; 
 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; 
 MORGAN FUNDING CORPORATION, 
 ROBERT CHILDERS; COUNTRYWIDE 
 HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, 
 PHELAN, HALLINAN & SCHMIEG, 
 P.C., 

 Third Party Defendants 
 -------------------- 
 April 7, 2010 
Deposition of William Hultman
DEGNAN & BATEMAN 
(856) 232-7400 

Page 2 

1 Oral sworn video/telephone conference deposition of WILLIAM HULTMAN,

taken in the law office 2 of Morgan, Lewis, Bockius, 502 Carnegie Center, Princeton,

New Jersey, before Michelle M. Downes, a

3 Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public of the State of New Jersey, commencing

at 10:55 a.m. on the

4 above date, there being present: 

5 LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. VILLERE, JR.  BY: JAMES F. VILLERE, JR., ESQUIRE 

6 MARK J. MALONE, ESQUIRE 
 Attorneys for Ukpes as Defendants and 

7 Third Party Plaintiffs 

8 SOUTH JERSEY LEGAL SERVICES 
 

BY: ABIGAIL SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE 

9 Attorneys for Ukpes as Defendants and  Third Party Plaintiffs 

10 Via video conference in Washington DC: 

11 GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP  BY: SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH, ESQUIRE 

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bank of New York  as Trustee for the Certificate Holders

 
13 CWABS, Inc. Asset-Backed Certificates,  Series 2005-AB3 and Countrywide

as Third 14 Party Defendants

 
15 MORGAN, LEWIS, BOCKIUS, LLP   BY: ROBERT M. BROCHIN, ESQUIRE 16

Attorneys for MERS 

17 Via telephone:

 
18 WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER 

19 BY: DANIEL S. BERNHEIM, ESQUIRE 

20 Attorneys for Third Party Defendant 21 

22 Also present: 

23 Judy Romano, Esquire (via telephone) 24 John Murphy, Esquire (via video) 

25 Daniel E. Orr, Esquire

CONTINUE READING IF YOU REALLY WANT TO FIGURE OUT MERS. IT IS A LITTLE LONG

PART 1: The Deck Has Been Stacked Against Us. Read What I Have Just Learned Here. Danny Vs Ai And Realizing I Need To Drag Ai Into The Real World Of Foreclosures and Criminal Involvement

Is there a way to save my home, Or is this going to make me cry?

As long as you don't panic while reading, and wait for the ending, I think this justifies my pursuit. 

Watch Me Closely and Don't Look Down!

There is more to this than meets the eye.  What you think is hopeless, has hope.  What gives you hope is hopeless.  

I quit working on foreclosures 3 times while working on all 3 parts below.  In all it was about 8 hours of hoplessness and hope. In the end.  What we need to do is exactly what I have done successfully over the past two years.  

We have lost one great advantage.  However, we never had it.  Several Supreme Courts have been lying to us for a long, long time and they have eroded our constitutional rights.  

In the most heinous and egregious ways they have already given all judges super powers that are not in the constitution.  

The Constitution forbids this.  It does no good to fight it, for now.  We still should win, it is just harder but within reasonable effort.

I have not been much of a fan of Ai Man. But, I never really tried to understand why I found the Answers to be elementary and not of much help if your problems you were trying resolve were not straight up mainstream. Like Crime in Foreclosure. 

I accidentally ran into Ai Man and I just happened to start up a conversation. It lasted 8 hours. Three sessions. I learned how to ask the questions that there was no way Ai Man could answer unless I addressed my questions from my real world perspective. 

Then, "sonofabitch" if I didn't begin to understand what he needed from me to help me.

I gave it up twice. But, just as soon as I walked away, I realized what I wanted to talk about next. It was incredible what I learned by the end of our session.

There is some bad here. Real Bad. But, as I continued this discussion, I found a more limited pathway to saving homes, including mine. But, this pathway is a more solid pathway. If you don't read it all three parts, you won't understand one more thing than you do now.  I won't be able to spend the time trying to explain it to everyone who calls me.  Just read it to the end of the last section.

It all began innocently enough. Neither me or Ai Man suspected the circuitous route it was going to take.


First Question:

 
"Danny to Ai Man: An Interview Between A Man, A Machine and Justice"


Danny to Ai Man: In a civil court case can a defendant sue a Plaintiff for a fully false case?


Ai Man To Danny: Yes, a defendant can sue a plaintiff for a fully false case, though the ability to do so depends on the specific nature of the misconduct and jurisdiction.

Malicious Prosecution: A defendant may sue for malicious prosecution if the plaintif initiated a criminal or civil charge with knowledge that the claims were false and with a wrongful purpose. This typically requires the defendant to have received a favorable ruling on the original charge before filing the counter-suit.

Abuse of Process: Claims can be filed if the plaintiff used legal process for an ulterior motive or purpose not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.

Defamation: If the plaintiff made false statements of fact that harmed the defendant’s reputation, the defendant may sue for defamation (slander or libel). However, statements made in court filings are often shielded from liability on constitutional grounds (such as the right to petition). (This is from the 1st Amendment. Coincidentally We are using this now.)

Sanctions and Frivolous Litigation: Courts may impose sanctions or award attorney’s fees if the plaintiff’s claims were brought in bad faith, solely to harass, or were without any reasonable basis in law. In egregious cases involving repeated frivolous lawsuits defendant may sue for vexatious litigation.

Perjury: Lying under oath constitutes perjury, but this is primarily a criminal matter that prosecutors are less likely to pursue in ordinary civil cases, making it difficult to use as a direct basis for civil damages. Recovering damages is often difficult because plaintiffs have constitutional rights to access the courts, and defendants may face counter- claims (such as Anti-SLAPP motions) if their own counter-lawsuit is deemed meritless or intended to chill the plaintiff’s rights.

Danny To Ai Man;  If a Judge does not review for Standing in a civil case and rules for the party without Standing does not the 1st, 4th, 5th, 11th, and  the 11th Amendments remove the judge's immunity to prosecution by a party?

Ai to Danny; No, the 11th Amendment does not remove a judge's immunity to
prosecution or civil suit for failing to review standing or ruling for a party without standing.

AI Continues:
Distinction Between 11th Amendment and Judicial Immunity

The 11th Amendment provides sovereign immunity to states (and state agencies) from being sued in federal court by citizens of another state or foreign country. It does not govern the personal immunity of individual judges. Instead, judges are protected by judicial immunity, a common law doctrine reinforced by federal statutes (such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 interpretations) and Supreme Court precedents like Stump v. Sparkman (1978).

Judicial Immunity: Judges have absolute immunity (this is where I went off of the rails) from civil liability for judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction, even if those acts are alleged to be erroneous, malicious, or in excess of authority. Failing to properly assess standing or making an incorrect ruling on standing is considered a judicial act. 

11th Amendment Role: This amendment shields the state itself from liability.

While a judge sued in their official capacity might invoke 11th Amendment protections on behalf of the state, the judge's personal protection comes from judicial immunity, not the 4th, 5th, 11th, or the 14th Amendments

Consequences of Ignoring Standing

 
Danny Continues: And If a judge rules without verifying standing?

 
Ai Man Continues; You have Appeal/Reversal: The primary remedy is an appeal.  

(At this point, I was going to tell you that they have just shut you out of your cases, I was astonished. 

But, there is some hope. I learn how to argue with a "thing" later in our debate)

AI Man Continues: An appellate court can reverse the judgment because standing is a threshold requirement for subject-matter jurisdiction. If a party lacks standing, the court arguably lacked the power to hear the case.

No Personal Liability: The losing party generally cannot sue the judge for damages or prosecute them personally for the error. Judicial immunity protects judges from civil suits for their judicial decisions, even if those decisions are legally wrong.    (?)

Exceptions to Immunity: Immunity is lost only for non-judicial actions (administrative or legislative acts) or for actions taken in the clear absence of all jurisdiction (e.g., a probate judge trying a criminal case). Merely misapplying the law of standing while presiding over a civil case does not constitute acting in the "clear absence of all jurisdiction."

Criminal Prosecution, Judicial immunity is a defense against civil lawsuits, not necessarily criminal prosecution. 

However: Misconduct vs. Error: A simple legal error (like over looking standing) is not Corruption: Prosecution would require evidence of criminal conduct such as bribery, fraud, or corruption, not just a mistaken ruling.
Impeachment/Discipline: Judges may face disciplinary action or removal, or impeachment through judicial conduct commissions for gross misconduct or repeated incompetence, but this is an administrative/political process, not a private prosecution by litigant.

Danny to AI: What if the judge is sued in his individual capacity?

Ai To Danny: No, suing a judge in their individual capacity for failing to review standing or ruling incorrectly on standing generally fails due to absolute judicial immunity.
standing or ruling incorrectly on standing generally fails due to absolute judicial immunity.

Continue Reading This Is What You Need To Know

The Term "Void" Is Often Used In Contrast To "Voidable" And "Unenforceable". The Main Difference Is That An Action That Is Voidable Remains Valid Until It Is Voided.

“I was playing for time. Just for time. I played the wrong way, of course.”

Raymond Chandler

"Here cum da Judge"

   by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 Court Press.

  

Surely no one can truly believe that it is the Borrowers that come up with these bizarre scenarios? 

My sister uh, Mary, is an attorney, who is probably the smartest person I have ever known, was home this weekend and I asked about maybe we should be objecting to the new judge in this case who has oddly not committed a crime yet, and he was going to take over to provide cover for the original judge who had committed all of the crimes by removing the case to Federal Court.  That is like stealing 3rd base from 1st base.  No one would do that.  The Constitution is perfectly clear.  Not on stealing 3rd, but removing a VOID case to Federal court.  You can't do that.  

Although, if he says one more sentence, we are gonna pounce hard on him and make him the defendant, not as a judge but as himself, and make it stick.  

Mary came up with a Motion For Reconsideration, which startled me because I had actually begun to believe that was a term I made up, because I never had a judge comment on it, even though I tried it over 7 and a half billion times while helping Borrowers understand courts and such.

I told her that I just didn't see how you could remove VOID.  It is unthinkable.  Void cannot be arranged.  It is nothingness.  It never was.  It can never even be.

She kind of agreed.  But, neither of us could explain that notion in "earth terms". 

(You see, most attorneys don't ever deal with law all that much.  Except sewer court rat attorneys like ambulance chasers and Borrower representation in foreclosure).  Once again, I must speak up.

Read More

If you would like to have us evaluate your situation please fill out this form: Click for Form Here

The 3rd Thing I Want You To Really Understand. In Order To Prove That Any Of Your Characters Has Standing To Foreclosue On You, Only One (1) (Uno) Of Them Can and Must Claim An Injury

The only thing that is worse than no one claiming You injured them is if Two Characters claim you Injured them.

There is only Zero Foreclosing parties or One Foreclosing Party.  The rest of the characters are just dressed up and in your way in order to Confuse, Distract, or Help Lie to you.

Stop trying to prove all of them are committing fraud.

Of course they are.  But, only one can claim the right to Collect Money From You.  None ever do.  Just get ready for the Claim of Injury.  No one else. 

I Am Astonished That Nearly Everyone Knows That What I Say About The Constitution Is Right. Then They Go Back To Obsessing About Their Fight With A Servicer that never collected money Wthin The Case We Are Contending Doesn't Exist

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." "Since when do you have to agree with people to defend them from injustice?" "If it were not for injustice, man would not know justice." "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."   

                                                                                                               Mark Twain

by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 Court Press

A very good way to show the "too complicated" I have been talking about.  Is the dreadful lack of wins in court when the Borrower is trying to use statute and law against mostly nonexistent or organized racketeer entities pushing their limited, wrong, and mostly "made up" strategies that cannot possibly win without the interference and facilitating of a judge.

I see a lot of wrong rulings now, that seem to be reasoned out, unless you read very carefully.  

In the beginning of the Wall Street Meltdown my judges just didn't recognize that I had even filed anything.  Then ruled Denied or Granted without explanation.  The law gave them 30 days to answer my motions or other filings.  I mean to tell you, they never acknowledged anything I wrote.

All laws and statute both state and Federal are still where they were before.  They have not been stolen or destroyed.  Most were written a long time ago.  For me a long time ago means everything written before 1999.  Things made sense before then. 

Our laws are for the most part simple and logical.  The authors of the Constitution, Federal Law, and state law would never know of the internet.  They never dreamed of air travel. None of them ever got to ride in a car or even travel about on paved roads.  They were not as distracted as we are, so they had the time and the schooling to make simple logical law.

There has always been and there will always be a percentage of people who are corrupt, greedy, and have no interest in doing the right thing. 

But nothing in history can come close to the hell we are living with today.  I blame the internet, the very technology I am typing this "article" on.

After 2004-2008  there is little research that you can do that will be effective in saving your home.  This is because the laws that should work, don't.  "Is a law, a law, if it is not enforced. 

When your government along with the judiciary cannot be trusted, researching for the legal answers and protections you are looking for is pretty easy to describe and scope.  

If a court (judge) has been promised cash, gold and a boat, and he must "rule" against you to get those things, he is going to rule against you.  

The laws are still on shelves, in libraries and even on the internet.  They are untouched.  It is easy for you to have the expectation that you can use them in your wrongful foreclosure case and that they will help you prove fraud against everyone involved.

But, if you hang around losing and making "notes to self" long enough, you will figure out which laws won't work and narrow down your choices of which laws will work. 

The Burden Of Proof:  Since 2010 everyone I have talked to has been trying to prove to a court that they have been, or still are, being defrauded.  I started out the same way.  We were not attorneys who worked in the same court every day with all the same judges and having relationships with those judges for years.  

The framers of the constitution knew much more about human nature than we do.  They could see the future.  They did not see this coming.  That the judiciary would rule against law if they were offered enough incentive.   

But they did guess that things would go wrong.   They left room for changes that they didn't try to imagine.  They gave us methods and remedies to correct changes for the worse.  

For instance, the constitution states in one sentence that everyone had civil rights that could never be violated.  (Thus, the often stated heresay that "judges have some leeway" is inaccurate. Because, no, they don't.)

They had some rough spots in the very beginning of the Judiciary.  These brilliant men had not written down or thought through those civil rights.  The first Supreme Court (called "The Court") had its first melt down before the ink dried on the Constitutional Signatures.

It seems many people decided that they should avail themselves of those civil rights in court.  The court had to go to Congress with a very logical question about the ensuing logjam. You have said that we have rights, but the people are asking us if their civil rights in various ways have been violated.  So, Mr. Congress just "What are our civil rights when addressed by a court?"  (Three Stooges slap to the head)

READ More Here: Don't Believe That ALL of What You Need Know Was In The Beginning.  Read it all.

What If Your Wrongful Foreclosure Was Already Void, But You Were Unaware Of This Fact?

There Is A Good Chance That Is True.

If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies.

               Jon Stewart

Republished by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 court press

04-21-2022

I have just read a very long email from a borrower who was trying to tell me how he had proven over and over that the foreclosing party which does not exist, did not have the right to foreclose. He has been in court for years and suffered nearly unimaginable suffering and pain and costs.

But, I can imagine. I can remember. Trying to figure out the courts.

It shouldn't be that hard, should it? The courts seem crazy. But, what if Chuck's court is only incompetent? What if this judge is just a no-talent judge guy.

This judge won't learn anything because the other judge guys will protect him from the Borrower. He will protect his other judge guys also, so.....they won't learn anything either. That's how judges go. They are Knuckleheads. They all used to be attorney guys.

I know this is true. After years of working it out, I know that the majority of judges in these mortgage fraud cases are hopelessly devoid of knowledge of, or experience with, real estate chains of title or real estate law, or finance.

When I reply to him I know what I will say. It has been going around in my head like a song for a year. It will go something like this: CONTINUE READING

The Constitutional, Irreducible, Minimum Requirements of Article III Standing As Defined By the The United States Supreme Court- From "The Pro Se Series" by Danny Hammond: Foreclosure Fraud Primer 101 #4

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

                                                                                        The United States Constitution

by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 Court Press  

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 public perception of the court ferociously in order to keep 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 RIGHT or, STANDING, to do so.

CONTINUE READING

Would you like a free review of your loan and foreclosure documents?

mtgfrd.workshops@gmail.com

The Borrower Can Challenge The Assignments Of The Security Instruments [mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed etc.] Pursuant To The Rulings In "Slorp": The Full Case is Included Here

"WHAT IF THE HANKY PANKY IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT?"

RICK A. SLORP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; SHELLIE HILL; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

ALL OF THE FORECLOSING PARTIES HAVE BEEN USING THE WORN OUT INTERPRETATION  OF LAW,  SAYING "THE BORROWERS CANNOT CHALLENGE ANY ASSIGNMENTS OF THE MORTGAGE".   BUT, MORTGAGE FRAUD CHANGES ALL OF THAT ACCORDING TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT IN "SLORP"!

   Republished by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 Court Press

   The Foreclosure Solutions Group

   mtgfrd.workshops@gmail.com

The Imposter Foreclosing Party almost always claims that the Borrower (as the mortgagor) cannot challenge assignments. You did make your Promissory Note negotiable according to the terms of your Promissory Note that you allegedly signed. That is why the foreclosing parties use this interpretation.

But did the foreclosing party buy it legally? No almost assuredly it was never involved in a purchase and sale transaction which even involved any real purchase of your debt.

                                                                                                             READ MORE Click this link 

Would you like a free review of your loan and foreclosure documents?