The Borrower Can Challenge The Assignments Of The Security Instruments Pursuant To The Rulings In "Slorp": The United States Court Of Appeals 6th Circuit

They're leaving you nothing and nowhere to go
Just put you in the corner like an old banjo
The strings are breakin' but you can't say no
You're runnin' with the devil and it's touch and go

                                               Emerson Lake and Powel (Running with the Devil)

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

   The Foreclosure Solutions Group

   mtgfrd.info@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.  

When it did not, that's Fraud.  No matter what claims your foreclosing party makes if there is fraud present it changes the rules.  It is impossible to commit a legal act using fraudulent means or tactics.  So, this argument that the Borrower is a 3rd party to the sale of the loan and cannot challenge its validity is nonsense.  There are two reasons why I have never seen a good foreclosure (a legal one).

I really gained an understanding of how Borrowers were being railroaded and how real property laws were being broken many times every day by judges when I first read the case known as "Slorp". The attorneys we see as our adversaries could not operate as they do without the judge's inactions.  Like little kids, who without supervision, the attorneys will run amuck.  A judge is constitutionally bound to be this supervision.  It is the judge who is your adversary.  Continue reading this post and I have included the full case of Rick Slorp v Bank of America et. al.  This may be the best information you will ever read concerning your own case.

READ MORE OF FULL RULING IN THE SLORP CASE: