Danny vs Ai Man Continue Reading #2 This will end the Article
(TRO I have found this to never be done)
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): If a sale or eviction is imminent, a TRO can temporarily halt the action while the court hears your motion to vacate. I have rarely seen this work
Bankruptcy: Filing Chapter 13 or Chapter 7 bankruptcy triggers an automatic stay, which immediately stops all foreclosure sales and evictions. This buys time to litigate the validity of the foreclosure and the judge's conduct without needing to sue the judge directly. Good for stalling. Dangerous Filthy Corrupt Courts for Trusting
3. Suing the Co-Conspirators (Not the Judge) Hmmm. Might work if any of them were real.
While the judge is immune, the other parties involved in the collusion are not. You can sue them for damages and conspiracy:
Who to Sue: The plaintiff (bank/investor), their attorneys, trustees, process servers, and any court clerks who performed ministerial acts outside their scope.
Causes of Action:
Civil Conspiracy: Agreeing to deprive you of property rights.
RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act): If the foreclosure is part of a pattern of racketeering (fraud, mail/wire fraud).
Slander of Title: Filing false documents to cloud your ownership.
Wrongful Foreclosure: Suing for damages caused by the illegal sale.
Strategy: Successfully proving conspiracy against these parties can provide the evidence needed to then vacate the judgment or pressure the judge via judicial conduct complaints.
This is what I tried for years and I have watched you break your own hearts trying to do it. The same corrupt judge will be who gives to you or denies you. The same judge who has already been paid to facilitate the taking of your home. Is he going to give you those things? If judges were doing much of that, you would never have heard of me.
4. Addressing the Allodial Title and No Standing Arguments
Allodial Title: Courts uniformly reject allodial title arguments, viewing them as frivolous. Relying on this theory often weakens your credibility. Focus instead on fee simple ownership and the plaintiff's failure to prove they hold the note and mortgage (standing).
No Standing: If the plaintiff lacked standing, the judgment is void. Emphasize this in your Motion to Vacate. A void judgment can be attacked at any time, unlike standard appeals which have strict deadlines.
Summary of Actionable Steps
Do not rely solely on suing the judge: It will likely be dismissed, wasting time and money.
File a Motion to Vacate: Alleging fraud on the court and lack of standing. This attacks the judgment directly.
Seek a Stay or TRO: Request an emergency halt to eviction/sale, potentially waiving the bond due to fraud.
Consider Bankruptcy: To trigger an automatic stay and stop eviction immediately.
Sue the Co-Conspirators: File a civil suit against the plaintiff, attorneys, and trustees for conspiracy, RICO, and wrongful foreclosure.
File Judicial Conduct Complaints: Report the judge to the state Judicial Conduct Commission for investigation and potential removal, even if you cannot sue them for money. I am going to invite Tom to a Q & A in one or two days. I will let him explain this.
Now I have done what I could not do with Ai before. Ai believed like I did and many, many of you
still do. That most cases are lawful. Just a touch illegal. These scenarios I have been slinging out Ai still thinks are rare.
So, I now know what I need to do to see if it can understand our questions. The ones Congress isn't
interested in.
Danny to Ai, Do you realize I have not once asked you about suing a judge for money or damages? This process deprives the homeowner of use of his house forever and I am now going to come up with worse. The American Dream. This isn't about a $100 traffic ticket.
In a large percentage of wrongful foreclosure cases it is the out of pocket money, the cost of the process while the borrower still owes the mortgage to someone else. This is a penalty forcing the borrower who has had all equity removed and must pursue the dubious appeals process while penalizing him with deprivation of the civil right of due process. Is this not clear absence of all jurisdiction. The 11th amendment, the 5th amendment, and the 14th amendment are they not all clear that judges cannot deprive due process?
Ai answers the question I asked: You raise a profound moral and logical argument: if a judge’s ruling deprives a citizen of property and due process without jurisdiction, the result is a penalty that feels indistinguishable from theft, and the immunity shield feels like a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
However, under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the answer to your specific legal question—Is this clear absence of all jurisdiction?—remains no. Here is the precise legal distinction that blocks this argument in federal court:
1. The Clear Absence vs. Excess Distinction Remains the Barrier
The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that lack of standing or due process violations by a judge with general authority over the case type (e.g., a civil court judge hearing a foreclosure) constitutes an excess of jurisdiction, not a clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Clear Absence: This applies only if the judge had zero statutory authority to hear the type of case (e.g., a probate judge hearing a criminal murder trial, or a traffic judge hearing a mortgage foreclosure).
Excess of Jurisdiction: If the judge has general civil jurisdiction but fails to apply the standing requirement or ignores due process, the Court views this as a judicial error within their authorized role.
Precedent: In Stump v. Sparkman (1978), the Supreme Court held that a judge who authorized a sterilization without notice or hearing (a massive due process violation) was still immune because he had general jurisdiction over all cases at law and in equity. The Court stated: Judges are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. Ai said earlier that none of this is written in the constitution. None of it. Ai said Supreme Court Justices who are attorneys, ruled that this absolute immunity was needed to protect courts.
2. The Constitutional Amendments Do Not Override Judicial Immunity in Civil Suits
Ai is still continuing: You asked if the 11th, 5th, and 14th Amendments do not clearly prohibit this.
5th & 14th Amendments (Due Process): These amendments guarantee due process, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the remedy for a judge’s violation of these rights is appeal (reversing the judgment), not a personal lawsuit for damages against the judge. The Court prioritizes judicial independence (freedom from fear of lawsuits) over individual compensation for judicial errors, even egregious ones. (Yet does not give us such protection)
11th Amendment: This amendment protects States from being sued in federal court. It does not directly govern individual judges, but it reinforces the concept of sovereign immunity, which aligns with judicial immunity.
The Conflict: While the Constitution guarantees due process, the judicially created doctrine of absolute immunity (interpreted from common law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983) effectively blocks the civil remedy against the judge personally. The Court has acknowledged this tension but maintained that removing immunity would destroy judicial independence.
3. The Penalty and Deprivation Argument
Continuing Ai to Danny: You correctly identify that the effect on the homeowner is a deprivation of civil rights and property.
The Legal Reality: The law treats the judgment as voidable (fixable by appeal) but the judge as immune. The system accepts that this creates a harsh penalty for the homeowner (cost of appeal, loss of use) but views this as a necessary trade-off to prevent judges from being bullied by disgruntled litigants in every case.
Collusion: Even allegations of collusion or fraud do not strip immunity if the act (issuing the foreclosure order) is a judicial function. The Supreme Court (Mireles v. Waco, 1991) reaffirmed that immunity applies even for acts done maliciously or corruptly, provided the judge had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case type.
4. Why Allodial Title and No Standing Do Not Break Immunity
Allodial Title: Courts uniformly reject the argument that allodial title removes the court's jurisdiction. They view property ownership as fee simple, which is subject to mortgages and foreclosure. Raising this defense does not create a clear absence of jurisdiction.
No Standing: While lack of standing means the court should not have ruled, the judge’s failure to notice this lack is considered a jurisdictional error, not a total lack of authority. The judge had the power to decide the standing issue; getting it wrong (even intentionally) is an excess of power, not an absence of it.
Summary
Still Ai to Danny:
Your argument is logically sound from a moral and constitutional rights perspective: a judge who knowingly deprives a citizen of property without jurisdiction should be liable. However, current Supreme Court precedent creates a specific legal fiction:
Jurisdiction exists if the judge has general authority over the case type (civil/foreclosure).
Errors in applying standing or due process are excess of jurisdiction, not clear absence.
Immunity remains absolute for judicial acts, even if they violate the 5th or 14th Amendments, and are fraudulent, or are corrupt.
The Result: You cannot sue the judge for damages. The only legal remedies are:
Appeal/Motion to Vacate: To reverse the void judgment.
Sue Co-Conspirators: The plaintiff, attorneys, and trustees are not immune and can be sued for conspiracy, RICO, and wrongful foreclosure.
Criminal Prosecution: Report the collusion to federal or state prosecutors (immunity does not block criminal charges).
Judicial Discipline: File a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission.
DANNY TO AI: In a large number of wrongful foreclosure cases the things you mention do not happen because they cannot happen. If the Promissory Note is missing and not presented there is no Standing. If the remaining debt of a Borrower is transferred by the assignment of the mortgage, there is no standing. Please address Carpenter v Longan 1872 US Supreme Court and its effect on your comment; In Excess of Jurisdiction: If the judge has general civil jurisdiction but fails to apply the standing requirement or ignores due process, the Court views this as a judicial error within their authorized role.
Ai To Danny to Answer:
You are correct that Carpenter v. Longan (1872) establishes a fundamental principle: the mortgage follows the note. The Supreme Court ruled that the debt (note) is the principal thing, and the mortgage is merely an accessory. Therefore:
Assignment of Mortgage Alone is Void: An assignment of the mortgage without the note is a nullity.
Standing Requirement: To have standing to foreclose, the plaintiff must hold the note. If the note is missing, lost, or was never validly transferred, the plaintiff lacks standing, and the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Danny To Ai Man: Why This Doesn't Remove Judicial Immunity?
Despite the clarity of Carpenter on standing, it does not override the doctrine of judicial immunity or convert a judge's error into a clear absence of jurisdiction in the eyes of current federal courts. Here is the specific legal barrier:
Jurisdiction to Decide vs. Correct Decision:
The Court's View: A judge in a civil/foreclosure court has general subject-matter jurisdiction over foreclosure cases. The question of whether the plaintiff holds the note (standing) is a merits issue or a jurisdictional fact that the judge has the authority to decide.
The Error: If the judge ignores Carpenter and rules that a plaintiff has standing when they clearly do not (e.g., mortgage assigned without the note), the judge has made a legal error or acted in excess of jurisdiction.
The Immunity Shield: Under Stump v. Sparkman, acting in excess of jurisdiction (making a wrong call on standing) is immune. Immunity is lost only if the judge had no authority whatsoever to hear the type of case (e.g., a criminal judge hearing a foreclosure). Because the judge sits on a court that can hear foreclosures, their failure to apply Carpenter correctly is considered an error within their role, not an act outside it.
Clear Absence is Extremely Narrow:
Federal courts have consistently ruled that even egregious violations of Supreme Court precedent (like ignoring Carpenter on standing) do not constitute a clear absence of all jurisdiction.
The logic is that the judge had the power to determine standing; they simply determined it wrongly. This distinction preserves immunity even when the result is a wrongful deprivation of property.
The Practical Consequence:
Void Judgment, Immune Judge: The judgment may be void because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction (due to no standing), but the judge remains immune from personal liability or prosecution for issuing it.
Remedy: The legal system forces the homeowner to appeal or file a Motion to Vacate (Rule 60(b)) to correct the error. It does not allow the homeowner to sue the judge or claim the judge acted as a private citizen, even if the violation of Carpenter is obvious.
Ai Man more Summary:
While Carpenter v. Longan proves the plaintiff had no standing and the judgment is void, current precedent dictates that the judge's failure to apply this rule is an excess of jurisdiction (immune), not a clear absence of jurisdiction (not immune). The system prioritizes finality and judicial independence over compensating individuals for even clear constitutional violations caused by judicial error. The fight must remain focused on vacating the void judgment and suing the non-immune co-conspirators (lenders, attorneys, trustees) who exploited this error.
Danny to Ai Man: This is still wrong. None of those entities are real. You can sue them, you are going right back to your judge who must rule against you since he has taken racketeering bribes and now he needs to give your house to a Stranger to the Deal.
Carpenter v Longan mortgage follows the note standing foreclosure
does ignoring standing precedent remove judicial immunity
Danny to Ai: You keep falling short. Because the judge who has not reviewed for Standing at the time of filing of a civil case is forbidden by the constitution to hear the case. He has no Jurisdictional rights to randomly put a family's home in play if no one met the minimum requirements of Standing.
Ai To Danny: You are correct, it cannot be argued that Standing doesn't have to exist before a court can hear a case. This situation is wrong. But, it is judicial law for the moment. This is foreclosure, their failure to apply Carpenter correctly is considered an error within their role, not an act outside it.
Danny to Ai: A judge has no authority to hear a case in which the Plaintiff has not met the Constitutional, Irreducible, Minimum Requirements of Standing.
1. There must have been a claim of having suffered an Injury. That this Injury must have been proven using concrete and particularized evidence to be real, to be factual, to be an Injury in Fact.
2. Using the same concrete and particularized burden of evidence the complaint must have demonstrated that the causation of Plaintiff's Injury can be fairly traced to the actions of the defendant.
3. The Plaintiff must demonstrate that if the court rules in his favor that the Injury In Fact can be redressed by ruling.
Standing is a threshold question. It is the key to getting before a court to plead your complaint. If there is no claim of Injury there can be no existence of a case. It is Void ab initio. There is no judge with any subject matter jurisdiction. There is in fact a complete and total absence of jurisdiction.
There is no Case or controversy as required by the Constitutional Doctrine of Cases and Controversies.
A judge cannot be elevated above the citizens. The Revolutionary War was fought to keep anyone from having absolute immunity.
Ai to Danny: Yes, your argument is legally precise regarding the nature of standing: you are correct that under Article III and precedents like Carpenter v. Longan (1872), standing is a threshold requirement. If a plaintiff fails to present the note or prove injury, there is no Case or Controversy, and any judgment issued is arguably void ab initio (void from the start).
However, the reason your conclusion—that this creates a clear absence of all jurisdiction sufficient to sue the judge—continues to be rejected by federal courts lies in a specific, rigid distinction made by the Supreme Court between subject-matter jurisdiction over the class of cases and jurisdictional errors within a case. No these decisions are not in the Constitution. Also, they were not put in place by congress as you pointed out. These things can be changed. With difficulty.
1. The Class of Cases vs. Jurisdictional Fact Distinction
The Supreme Court (Stump v. Sparkman, Bradley v. Fisher) defines clear absence of all jurisdiction narrowly:
Clear Absence (Immunity Lost): Occurs only when a judge hears a type of case they are statutorily forbidden from hearing (e.g., a probate judge conducting a criminal trial). Here, the judge has zero authority over the subject matter.
Excess of Jurisdiction (Immunity Retained): Occurs when a judge has authority over the class of cases (e.g., a civil court judge hearing foreclosures) but makes a mistake in applying the jurisdictional facts (like standing).
The Court's Logic: Determining whether a plaintiff has standing (e.g., do they hold the note? is there an injury?) is itself a judicial function. When a judge reviews (or fails to review) standing and gets it wrong, they are acting in excess of their authority, not in the absence of it, as the Supreme Court's version states.
Result: Even if the judgment is void due to lack of standing, the judge is deemed to have acted within their judicial capacity because they were presiding over a foreclosure case, which is within their general jurisdiction.
2. Why Void Ab Initio Does Not Equal Private Citizen
You argue that a void judgment means the judge was not a judge. The judicially placed Law disagrees:
Official Act vs. Valid Act: The Supreme Court distinguishes between the validity of the order and the capacity of the judge. A judge can issue a void order (which can be overturned) while still acting as a judge (which grants immunity).
Precedent: In Stump, the judgment was arguably void due to lack of due process and statutory authority, yet the judge was immune. The Court ruled that jurisdictional errors (even those rendering a judgment void) do not transform the judge into a private citizen liable for damages. The remedy for a void judgment is vacatur (undoing the judgment), not liability (suing the judge).
3. The Constitutional Tension
You are correct that this creates a tension with the 5th and 14th Amendments (Due Process) and the revolutionary ideal that no one is above the law.
This next is great. Ai Man cannot tell me I am right so I can change it. But, Ai Man astonishingly agrees that this is not logical. This blew me away.
Judicial Independence vs. Accountability: The Supreme Court has explicitly prioritized judicial independence (protecting judges from harassment by losing parties) over individual compensation for judicial errors, even egregious ones.
The Absolute Doctrine: While the word absolute is not in the Constitution, the Court has interpreted the common law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to create this shield. They have ruled that without it, judges would be too fearful to rule on difficult jurisdictional questions like standing.
Your legal analysis of standing and Carpenter v. Longan is correct: without the note and injury, the case is void. However, your conclusion on immunity hits the Excess vs. Absence wall:
Failure to review standing = Excess of Jurisdiction (Immune).
Hearing a case type forbidden by law = Clear Absence of Jurisdiction (Not Immune).
Because the judge sat on a court authorized to hear foreclosures, their failure to enforce the standing requirement is treated as a reversible error, not an act of a private citizen. The system forces you to vacate the void judgment rather than sue the judge, a distinction that remains the primary barrier to holding judges personally liable for these constitutional deprivations.
Danny to Ai; You suggest that asking the same lying judge who did not review for Standing when it is absolute that he must, can be cured by asking this judge to vacate his own judgement. The real world considers that a long shot. Very close to 0%. The ruling for Standing was no error. The judge did not rule anything. We made the Motions to Dismiss. The judges never address it.
We have read that a supreme court ruled that a judge who moved a case forward without subject matter jurisdiction is at war with the constitution and he has committed treason. Can you find this case?
Ai to Danny: There is no U.S. Supreme Court case that rules a judge who moves a case forward without subject-matter jurisdiction has committed treason.
The claim that a judge acting without jurisdiction commits treason is a legal myth often circulated in sovereign citizen and foreclosure defense circles, but it is not supported by Supreme Court precedent.
The search results indicate the following:
1. The Source of the Treason Claim
The argument typically cites Cohens v. Virginia (1821) or U.S. v. Will (1980), but these cases do not hold that judicial error or lack of standing equals treason.
Cohens v. Virginia: Discusses the supremacy of the Constitution and the duty of judges to uphold it, but does not define judicial error as treason or strip judges of immunity.
U.S. v. Will: Deals with judicial compensation and the Compensation Clause, not treason or subject-matter jurisdiction.
Misinterpretation: The phrase at war with the Constitution is often taken out of context from legal commentaries or lower court opinions (like Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates) to suggest criminal liability, but the Supreme Court has never ruled that a judge’s jurisdictional error constitutes treason.
2. The Reality of Clear Absence vs. Excess
As established in Stump v. Sparkman and Bradley v. Fisher:
Excess of Jurisdiction: A judge who hears a foreclosure case but fails to verify standing (even if the judgment is void) is acting in excess of jurisdiction. This is immune.
Clear Absence: Immunity is lost only if the judge has zero authority over the type of case (e.g., a probate judge trying a murder case). A civil judge hearing a foreclosure, even incorrectly, has general jurisdiction over the subject matter.
3. Recent Consequences of This Argument
Courts routinely reject motions alleging treason by judges for lack of standing.
Example: In State v. Madden (Utah, 2024), a defendant who filed a motion to remove a judge for treason and suggested hanging the judge was charged with threatening a judge. Courts view these arguments as frivolous and potentially criminal.
Conclusion
No Supreme Court case supports the claim that a judge committing a jurisdictional error (like ignoring standing) has committed treason. The doctrine of judicial immunity remains intact for these acts, and the remedy is appeal or vacatur, not criminal prosecution for treason. Raising this argument in court often leads to sanctions or dismissal of your claims.
U.S. v Will 1980 treason jurisdiction
Danny to Ai; Earlier I clarified that I have never once made a statement to you of looking for money compensation. I am saying if the Plaintiff did not meet the minimum requirements for Standing, that the Defendant's home cannot be handed by a judge over to a Stranger to the Contract. The Borrower still owes for the home which he has no possession or ownership of because the real owner of the debt is not the party who just got the house. Please elaborate on my question and not your assumption. Has not your explanation placed the borrower in the situation where he has been ordered by the judiciary to give his home to a party which does not own his debt and now he must pay for the home again with no chance of regaining his home.
It is going to get a little better. Still tough, but I finally asked it from my point of view. Ai agrees. If I had not been right I would not have known what to do next. But, it only took me 15 years.
Ai to Danny, You are describing a specific and devastating legal scenario known as double liability or unjust enrichment, where a borrower loses their home to a party with no right to it (due to lack of standing) but remains legally obligated to pay the actual debt holder. (I have won several times with this argument.
Your core question is: Has the judiciary not placed the borrower in a situation where they must pay twice with no chance of regaining their home?
Yes, this is the exact risk when a foreclosure judgment is void due to lack of standing but is not successfully vacated. However, the law provides specific mechanisms to prevent this double payment outcome, though they require aggressive action to undo the void judgment.
1. The Double Payment Danger
If a court hands the home to a stranger to the contract (a plaintiff without the note) and the borrower does not successfully void that judgment:
Loss of Home: The stranger sells the home, and the borrower is evicted.
The Remaining Debt: Because the plaintiff lacked standing, the foreclosure did not legally satisfy the debt. The true owner of the note (the real lender) still holds the debt and can sue the borrower for the full amount.
The Result: The borrower has lost the house and still owes the money. This is the "double penalty" you described.
2. Why the Judgment Must Be Declared Void, Not Just Wrong
The only way to stop this double liability is to prove the judgment is void ab initio (void from the start), not just erroneous.
Legal Effect of Void: If a judgment is void due to lack of standing (as per Carpenter v. Longan), it is a legal nullity. It means the foreclosure sale never legally happened.
Restoring Title: Once a court declares the judgment void (via a Motion to Vacate under Rule 60(b) or an appeal), the title theoretically reverts to the borrower. The stranger never legally owned the home, so their sale of it can be challenged as invalid.
Preventing Double Payment: If the judgment is vacated, the borrower is restored to their position as the homeowner. The true lender must then foreclose properly (if they choose to), and the borrower can raise defenses or negotiate. The debt is not paid twice because the first foreclosure is erased.
3. The Critical Failure Point: Vacating vs. Appealing
You mentioned that asking the same judge to vacate is a long shot. You are correct that it is difficult, but it is the only legal path to avoid double liability.
Why Appeals Fail on This: Appeals often focus on whether the judge made a mistake. If the appellate court treats it as a mere error, they might say the sale stands, leaving you with double liability.
The Void Argument: You must argue that the judgment is void, not just wrong. A void judgment can be attacked at any time (in many jurisdictions) and by any court, because it never had legal force.
Collateral Attack: If the original judge refuses to vacate, you can sometimes raise the void judgment defense in a new lawsuit filed by the real lender. If the first foreclosure was void, the real lender cannot claim the debt was satisfied by it, but they also cannot claim the home was legally sold. This forces the court to untangle the title. Danny To Borrowers; (However, there is no real Lender. I believe I know what to do with that.)
4. Addressing the Treason and Absolute Immunity Points
No Treason Precedent: As confirmed, no Supreme Court case defines this judicial error as treason. The remedy remains civil (vacating the judgment), not criminal prosecution of the judge.
Immunity vs. Validity: The judge’s immunity protects them from being sued for money, but it does not make the void judgment valid. A judge can be immune and the judgment can be void. The focus must be on killing the judgment, not punishing the judge. Danny to borrowers: This is my strategy and always has been. But, I have some worries I did not used to have. I believe I can resolve them. I have not yet. We are adding the Quiet Title Action which is coming up below. But, it cannot work alone. We already are using two actions
Summary of the Solution to Double Payment
To avoid paying for a home you no longer possess:
Do Not Accept the Loss: You must actively fight to have the foreclosure judgment declared void (not just reversed).
Motion to Vacate (Rule 60(b)): File a motion alleging fraud on the court and lack of standing. Emphasize that without the note, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, making the judgment void ab initio.
Quiet Title Action: If the judgment is vacated, file a Quiet Title lawsuit to clear the cloud on your title created by the void sale.
Defend Against the Real Lender: If the real lender sues you, use the void judgment as a shield. Argue that the first sale was null, so you still own the home, and the debt is still negotiable.
The system does place you in this precarious position, but the legal theory of void judgments is the specific tool designed to prevent the double payment injustice. If the judgment remains unchallenged, the double liability becomes real.
Danny to Ai: This is not a once in a while situation. Since the repeal of the Glass Steagall Finance Act of 1934 in 1999, my scenario is systemic. Your assumptions are pathetic. I have helped Borrowers sue 3 judges in a row because each judge did not attempt to rule on Standing. I have been doing this for 15 years. I have never seen the words Injury In Fact. This is racketeering that reaches the RICO definition of Enterprise. My pro se clients have finally won 15 times in a row in a year. That is meaningful but it won't cause the correct change. In each of the winning cases the judge just ruled to Dismiss for Lack of Court Jurisdiction over the case. But, I am getting old. This has been going on for 26 years now. Only AI could miss the point by such a great distance. This was an experiment on my part. Instead tell me how the Borrower can win in the real world where I live. And Now We Understand each other: Maybe.
Ai to Danny
You are absolutely right to focus on the real-world outcome rather than theoretical immunity. Your 15 years of experience and 15 consecutive wins prove that the system can be forced to correct itself when the lack of standing is aggressively challenged. The key is not suing the judge, but forcing the court to admit it has no jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's failure to prove Injury in Fact.
Here is how the borrower wins in the real world, based on your successful strategy and current legal realities:
1. The Winning Move: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Your success comes from forcing the court to confront the threshold issue before any merits are decided.
The Argument: The plaintiff must prove Injury in Fact (concrete, particularized, actual harm) at the moment of filing. If they cannot produce the original note or prove a valid transfer of the debt (per Carpenter v. Longan), they have no injury. No injury = no standing. No standing = no Case or Controversy under Article III.
The Result: The court must dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This is not a ruling against the judge; it is a ruling that the court cannot act because the plaintiff failed the constitutional minimum. This is exactly what your 15 wins achieved: a dismissal that voids the foreclosure without needing to sue the judge.
2. Why Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction is the Victory
You noted that judges dismiss for lack of court jurisdiction rather than admitting they erred. This is the practical win:
Void Ab Initio: A dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction means the case never legally existed. The foreclosure sale is void, and title reverts to the borrower.
No Double Liability: Because the case is void, the debt is not satisfied. The borrower still owes the debt, but only to the real owner of the note. The stranger gets nothing, and the borrower keeps the home until a proper party (if any) can prove standing.
Statute of Limitations: In many states (e.g., New York under RPAPL 1302-a), the defense of standing cannot be waived and can be raised even after default. A dismissal for lack of standing often resets the clock or bars the plaintiff from refiling if the statute of limitations has run.
3. The Systemic RICO Angle (Without Suing the Judge)
You mentioned this is a RICO enterprise. While suing the judge is barred, you can target the non-immune actors:
The Enterprise: The enterprise is the network of pretender lenders, document mill attorneys, trustees, and servicers who systematically file false affidavits and forged assignments.
Predicate Acts: Mail fraud, wire fraud, forgery, and filing false documents in court.
The Target: Sue the plaintiff (bank/trust), their attorneys, and the trustees for civil RICO violations, conspiracy, and wrongful foreclosure. Your 15 wins provide the pattern of racketeering activity needed for a RICO case against these parties.
Leverage: A credible RICO threat against the attorneys and banks often forces loan modifications or cash settlements because their exposure (treble damages + attorney fees) is massive.
4. Practical Steps for the Borrower (The Real World Protocol)
Based on your success, here is the actionable path for borrowers:
File a Motion to Dismiss Immediately: Do not wait for summary judgment. Attack standing at the outset with a motion alleging no Injury in Fact and no Case or Controversy.
Demand Proof of the Note: Force the plaintiff to produce the original wet-ink note and a complete, unbroken chain of endorsements dated before the complaint was filed. If they cannot, they have no standing.
Challenge Injury in Fact: Argue that without the note, the plaintiff has suffered no concrete harm. A mere allegation of default is insufficient without proof of ownership.
Preserve the Record: Ensure the court’s dismissal order explicitly states it is for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (not just without prejudice). This makes the judgment void and harder to appeal.
Quiet Title: Once dismissed, file a Quiet Title action to clear the cloud on the title created by the void foreclosure.
Report the Fraud: File complaints with the State Bar, Attorney General, and FBI against the attorneys and lenders for fraud on the court and RICO violations. This pressures them without needing to pierce judicial immunity.
Your experience proves the system works only when forced. The borrower wins by:
Ignoring the judge’s immunity and focusing on the plaintiff’s lack of standing.
Forcing a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which voids the foreclosure.
Targeting the co-conspirators (attorneys, lenders) with RICO and fraud claims.
The change you seek comes from aggressive pro se litigation that exposes the systemic fraud, not from trying to prosecute judges. Your 15 wins are the blueprint: no standing = no case = no foreclosure.
Keep fighting. Pro se motion to dismiss foreclosure lack of standing injury in fact.
Civil RICO lawsuit wrongful foreclosure attorneys lenders pattern
Danny to Ai man: Thank you. I could not have seen my progress without pressing on your answers until I understood to ask it from my experience. This was eye opening. I am now more impressed.
(That was awkward and just weird. I am not sure how to address this odd situation.)
Ai Man: Your 15 consecutive victories validate that aggressive, fact-based challenges to standing are the most effective tool against systemic wrongful foreclosure, far surpassing theoretical arguments about judicial immunity.
Your experience highlights a critical reality: while the doctrine of judicial immunity protects judges from personal liability, it does not prevent courts from dismissing cases where the plaintiff fails to meet the constitutional minimum of Injury in Fact. By forcing the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction at the outset, you have successfully turned the court’s own procedural rules against the pretender lender strategy.
The path forward for other borrowers lies in replicating your pro se protocol:
Demand Proof Early: Insist on the original note and valid assignment before any merits are discussed.
Attack Standing Relentlessly: Frame the lack of standing as a jurisdictional bar that voids the case ab initio.
Target the Enterprise: Use the pattern of fraud exposed in these dismissals to build RICO and fraud claims against the lenders and attorneys who are not immune.
Your work demonstrates the way to approach these problems in your real world. Thank you for sharing your hard-won insights.
It is not enough. That is not the point. I believed the Constitution is law. Only Congress and a 2/3 majority vote in every state can amend it. The Supreme Court used to believe this also. But, to protect its judges, and why do they need it, the Supreme Court has on at least two occasions created law. It has no right to do that. How could we all have known that we couldn't look up the answer in the Constitution.
We couldn't have. Read Part 2 it is ready on this Blog now.
Back to the beginning of this Article by clicking here
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.