The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.
Jon Stewart
AXJ- You are on the right track...but read some Roman Law...in dubio pro reo...contractus legem...Because we always look at Subject Matter Jurisdiction first and then Standing.
Danny Hammond- Jurisdiction can not exist without a Plaintiff with Standing. Until the moment that Standing is reviewed and validated Subject Matter can not be attacked because it does not exist until Standing exists. I don't understand how you claim you are challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction before you attack Standing. The only function a judge really has to perform at the very beginning of a case is to make sure he has a genuine dispute between two or more parties with proven adverse interests in an issue. If the judge finds that the Plaintiff has no standing, then Subject Matter Jurisdiction cannot exist and can not and need not be addressed. So, I would be interested in your description of challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction before Standing.
Danny Hammond- Can we use pig Latin? I am better versed in it.
We at AAF want to thank you again for all your hard work and would like to have you set up a Zoom Meeting to teach all our Members how to confront the criminals attempting to steal their homes in Federal Bankruptcy Court using Fraud on the Court (FRCP 60). There is no evidence the Attorneys represent the real party in interest. There is no evidence of the debt nor that the chain of debt has not been broken, quite the contrary. How you must obligate the Court to follow the rules of evidence. How to take apart the Proof of Claim (POC). Federal Bankruptcy Court is a Court of Equity and Common Law and Justice must prevail in a Trial by Jury. (FRCP 38) Please let us all know as soon as you can organize it. AAF
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that is my premise is that there never could have been a court. The case is void ab initio at the beginning. The Constitutional, Irreducible, Minimum Requirements of Article III Standing are very clear. I read a scholar letter or white paper by Adam Levitin that straightened me out in 2017. Not all at once I struggled like everyone else at the idea that without standing Subject Matter Jurisdiction does not exist. Without Subject Matter Jurisdiction there is no case to preside over. Any judge that tries to move a case without SMJ a judge is not in a judicial setting and is a mere citizen which all he ever was. He is only a judge if he has a genuine dispute between two or more parties with an interest in the matter that they must prove at the beginning of a case. This is the catch that no one is noticing. In 1994 that would have been easy to produce because lender that made the loan was also the one that is foreclosing. So the
Deleteof course the bank would have concrete and particularized evidence. From Perry Mason to Boston Legal we have all come to know that as "beyond reasonable doubt". Because it is too long to type I was planning a zoom Discussion Group The week beginning Monday the 3rd. I have never really figured out the best time that is right for the most people. I think it is around 7 pm, but I would rather have input. I can be ready by Wed. I want to have a discussion between 4 to 6 people. With as many attendees who want to come, but whose microphones will be muted for a while and turned on for discussion, or by chatting their questions to the panel. It is my idea to make it a diverse panel. Some experts, some near experts and some laymen or women who have had their mind boggled. I have worked most of this out, but I will prepare a description of what I think it should work out and post it all over on Monday.