by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 court press.
My sister uh, Mary, that's right Mary, the attorney, who would not want her name associated with unlaw. (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 do it 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 his own self, and make it stick.
Mary came up with a Motion For Reconsideration (which I had actually begun to believe 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.
She kind of agreed. But, neither of us could explain that notion in "earth terms".
(You see most attorneys don't ever deal with unlaw all that much. Except sewer court rat attorneys like ambulance chasers and Borrower representation in foreclosure)
Borrowers have been treated differently than other contract law all along. That is why we do not have contract law directly associated with our cases, which no one seems to care if this is true.
That is why Blue Planet's attorney (Blue Planet in this case is the Foreclosing Party in this case and improbably changes from Plaintiff to Defendant at will) when asked nearly screams out hearsay information like, "the reason we have the right to foreclose, is because we are the ABSOLUTE owner of the Note by Assignment of the Mortgage on Jan. 25th, Stardate 26785.
He is not making even nominal good sense. But, the bad guys have been doing it for 22 years and very, very rarely do they get caught. Their attorney doesn't remember what hearsay, or selfsay even mean.
I had not been doing any of this for 5 years or so.
Now, I have done 5 others since starting back up and getting my first Borrower to try our new plan about 90 days ago, I have been mixing them up. In fact, I can't remember which ones have what in them, until I began applying the last piece of this puzzle I have been looking for since 2010.
Here is an incredible fact, it is working as designed and we are winning. It is not a real streak yet, but 4 in a row and the basket case this set of my notes you are currently reading, who knows why, is going to make it 5. This is a real humdinger. Stupidest moves in the history of illegal activity.
It hit me in 2017. I had just run myself into the ground and it was a hard road to walk back through.
You see, I could see that we were right but we were running into the problem of judges not enforcing the known laws. They are enforcing something, but it is difficult to get a good look through smoke and mirrors.
I have decided that we just keep using the best information we can and figure out how to make the judge as miserable and afraid as the Borrower. Fair is fair, after all.
Now on this case I thought we would need to make a move to keep him from overstating his denying he did not have jurisdiction to Review for Standing (which he absolutely did have nearly 10 months ago)
What is he thinking? I don't know. If you try to get in their minds the outcome is not known.
QUESTION: HAD THE NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE ACTUALLY TAKEN PLACE BEFORE THEADOSIA AND BILL FILED THE COMPLAINT?)
I don't want this clown to dilute everything in the dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment by trying to make it look like a case that had just run off. Gone man gone.
They seem to be saying they can remove a Void Case to somewhere else. But, the new judge has no more authority that the old judge to remove a Void case to remove the case to to anywhere. I can't let them get away with that.
The case is VOID.
Unless the judge would have, during his review, come up with an actual Claim, from whatever character that the foreclosing party was now playing, of Injury in Fact. Then writing down his findings and filing the review into the docket at the beginning of the Defendant Foreclosing Party's first Answer, which was never even offered.
I have read the Defendant who through the magic of an Amended Complaint (which was so amended it changed the Plaintiff into the Defendant and the Defendant into the Plaintiff).
I agree with your conclusion the Foreclosing Party never mentioned a claim of having suffered an Injury in Fact.
That doesn't work. In fact, at this point no one had standing as the Plaintiff, although the Borrower as a Plaintiff is analogous to a Defendant in the fraudulent non-judicial foreclosure litigation. This is due to the fact that 26 state legislatures have concluded letting a foreclosing party foreclose in a non-judicial setting without showing anything to anybody was not unconstitutional because even though they have kicked you out of you house without telling why or how, because you have the right to sue them to get your house back even though, they ruined your credit and left you homeless before you even started to get your house back.
Back to this case. The amended Complaint maybe could have been a counter-claim if somehow the players were carefully and strictly defined, but the Foreclosing Party as the Defendants at that time did not Answer that Complaint by the Borrower Plaintiffs.
(which is the same Complaint by the Plaintiff Borrowers before the amended Complaint by the Foreclosing Parties Defendants which shifted the Borrowers from Plaintiffs to Defendants and the Foreclosing Parties from Defendants to the Plaintiffs.)
And in that Answer by Defendant foreclosing party they never bothered to Answer and give detail of their meritorious defenses to the accusations of the fraudulent non-judicial foreclosure Complaint filed by the Borrower Plaintiffs Bud and Theadosia. While still defendants the foreclosing party(s) did not present any meritorious defenses other than their hearsay declaration kind of mentioned in passing up above somewhere.
I am still so puzzled by this mysterious question, "How do you remove VOID?"
Next: VOID Notes by Danny Hammond
(1) "At p. 1573, Black’s Law Dictionary Sixth Edition Centennial Edition (1891- 1991).
"Void" means null, ineffectual, nugatory, having no legal force or binding effect, unable in law to support the purpose for which it was intended.
The word "void" in its strictest sense, means that which has no force and effect, is without legal efficacy is incapable of being enforced by law, or has no legal or binding force.
But, as Black goes on, frequently, the word is used and construed as having the more liberal meaning of "voidable."
The word "void" is used in statutes, in the sense of utterly void as to be incapable of ratification and also in the sense of voidable and recourse, must be had to the rules of construction in many cases to determine in which sense the legislature intended to use it." - Per Onalaja, J.C.A., in Buraimoh v. Karimu Suit No. CA/I/137/93; (1999) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 618) 310 at 323 - 324.
more notes on VOID by Danny Hammond:
Black's Law Dictionary defines "void" as having no legal force or binding effect, or being unable to support the purpose for which it was intended.
In other words, something that is void is null, ineffectual, or nugatory.
Here are some examples of things that can be void:
A contract that involves illegal activities or violates public policy
A contract signed by a minor, someone with mental incapacity, or someone under the influence of drugs or alcohol
A law or judgment found by an appeals court to be unconstitutional
A rescinded (mutually canceled) contract
A marriage that has been annulled by court judgment
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 avoided.
The significance of this usually lies in the possibility of third party rights being acquired in good faith.
For example, in Cundy v Lindsay (1878), a fraudster using the name Blenkarn ( I once knew this man) posed as a retailer and induced Lindsay & Co to deliver 250 dozen linen handkerchiefs to him.
Blenkarn then sold the handkerchiefs on to an innocent third party, Cundy, but Lindsay was never paid.
Lindsay, claiming ownership of the handkerchiefs, sued Cundy for their return. If the contract of sale to Blenkarn was held to be voidable for fraud, then Lindsay & Co would only have recourse against the insolvent Blenkarn.
However, if (as was held) the contract of sale was void ab initio, then the title did not pass from Lindsay to Blenkarn in the first place, and Lindsay could claim back the handkerchiefs from Cundy as their property. Cundy was left with only a claim against the insolvent Blenkarn.
In every case, third parties involved with bad faith in void or voidable contracts not only are affected by nullity, but may also be liable for statutory damages.
However, the right to avoid a voidable transaction can be lost (usually lost by delay). These are sometimes referred to as "bars to rescission".
Such considerations do not apply to matters affected by absolute nullity, or void ab initio.
Just about all of my cases since 2010 were removed to Federal Court pursuant to the rules of Diversity. But, you can't move void and you can't remove void to anywhere in the universe. or even somewhere more remote.
