From "The Pro Se Series" by Danny Hammond: WHAT IF YOUR FORECLOSURE IS ALREADY VOID, BUT YOU DON’T KNOW IT?

PART 2: WHAT IF YOUR FORECLOSURE IS ALREADY VOID?

Chuck, I have been exactly where you are, but maybe worse. I have had as many as 14 families depending on me at one time. Plus my own family.

I want you to think about something. What if nothing in your case has ever really happened? I am not joking. Using the most basic of all laws. What if, right in the beginning, the right answer was the right law, but your judge didn't know how he was to conduct the case, or he just flat refused to implement the laws because he believed the laws in his head were superior to the laws in the constitution.

The Constitutution is a near flawless set of laws, but the judicial system has kind of amended the laws and chucked them over a cliff, in slow motion, and over a very long period of time because average attorneys become average judges with no oversight. They believe that they were brilliant and omnipotent because they were randomly picked because they go to parties with the right people. Today the federal judges are all politically appointed by Presidents and stuff to be,..... well, judges.

(Insert here Judge for life with a high, high salary and no oversight, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samual Alito, and sadly Chief Justice John Roberts.)

You, as the Borrower, never had the burden of proof Chuck.

Whoever the hell your foreclosing party is/was/or were, they had to claim: 

1. that they had suffered an injury in fact and provide "concrete and particularized" evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the injury had actually occurred. 

2. They had to detail how the Borrower caused the injury, if, in fact, there even was an injury. I have looked at more than 2,000 cases where the borrow lost. The words that I am telling you has to be in the foreclosing parties writings at the very beginning of the case. At the time there words were filed.

I have never seen even one where the judge even reviewed the claims of the right to foreclose.
3.  That means that the foreclosing party had to show that this alleged injury was caused by the hands of the Borrower and that if the court rules in favor of the foreclosing party that the injury can be made all better. 

All of this had to be filed into the case right at the beginning, in their Answer (Complaint, Petition, let's just say lawsuit, they are all used) The Borrower NEVER had the burden of proof. We have all tried to prove they committed fraud. The Borrower's only burden was to deny they were in default with these knuckleheads.

What if the Borrower's ONLY responsibility was to say "Huh uh, I have never been in default with any party herein"?  That is the correct answer, Chuck.  If you actually were in default, it was not to this foreclosing party.

That would be some other judge's subject matter jurisdiction at some other place and time.  This court in order to avoid the subject matter jurisdiction problem has only two moves to make.  He must dismiss this case and shut up.

Chuck, what if none of our cases has ever happened? What if 30 million final judgments were void ab initio? That means as of the moment each was ruled on. These rulings and judgments never had any effect or relevance to this case. No, the judgments are void, but not because they were made. The judgments are void, because the case is void.

These 30 million cases really didn't happen. The final judgments, all of them, are void ab initio. Each case is a nullity.

We all have been beating ourselves to death by letting the courts browbeat us into trying to prove that the RICO enterprise schemes have "done us wrong". Who can do that?

Aren't con schemes and scams all based upon lies and deceit? Isn’t the definition of a con man, “a big fat liar who is hiding something from us"? The framers were never really in agreement about hardly anything. But, they knew that if the evidence is hidden it is because it isn't legal.

It is only the Foreclosing party's burden to show it had been done wrong. Only the Foreclosing has to demonstrate in detail that it gave you money and that you haven't paid it back.

There was money funded for your loan, but there is almost 0% chance that your foreclosing party is the party that actually funded your loan. They have to prove before their case against you even has a number, that they are "the party in interest" who delivered their own money to fund your loan.

But, they didn't. In most cases their name is not on the note or deed of trust (mortagage).

This sounds illogical. It should be. But, They can not and will not do that. We have all been trying over and over to take something smart and tell it to someone stupid.  Bam! Summary Judgment against us.

If I am smarter than 85% of the people in any room, what if the room was filled with judges? Then 15% of those judges are smarter than me. The 15% probably get it. The rest? Apparently, no, they don’t.

Chuck, what if your whole case is void ab initio? That your judge let the case go forward without reviewing what the foreclosing party wrote to prove they had Standing to bring a case against you.

I have never seen them claim it is the Borrower that Injured them.You cannot convince these judges that they are doing it wrong. You must shove back on the judge. You must use root law.  If they cannot understand just and righteous constitutional reasoning, we honestly have no choice left to us but to show them some personal danger liability. The judge is the only one who is not afraid in the court case. He can't lose.

Unless he defies the oath he took to protect the constitution and the citizens' faith in the courts.

Your civil rights have not been protected. That is our reply. The judge has comitted the crime of Deprivation of Constitutional civil rights. A judge cannot do that and be a judge. He was an imposter acting like a judge.

That is why the founding fathers demanded if the system was to start going screwy the citizens had to interfere and straighten it out.. Doesn't it seem screwy to you yet?

No attorney will help me or you. I have talked to over 141 of them in nine different states. Most of them explained that even if I was right, the judge will take vengeance against them next time that the attorney is in the judge's court. The rest of them just wanted a $2500 to $10,000 retainer although they did not understand the issues.

Let us not even get started until later discussing how much the positions of Judges and Attorneys wreck the definition of "DUE PROCESS". (A civil right from the 5th and the 14th amendments.)

This is why I believe a Pro Se (I am representing myself) Borrower or even a Borrower with an attorney will lose.

But, I am convinced that an "informed" Pro Se Borrower who doesn't plan on playing golf and having drinks with the judge next Saturday, or ever, has a very good chance of winning. The informed Pro Se needs to be armed with nothing more than the constitution of the United States of America.

Don't you see Chuck, what if your judge had reviewed your foreclosing party's case and found that it lacked Standing at the beginning?  He had to write down why and file it into the case and provide it to the parties. Why the case could never even have had a number. Filing a lawsuit does not start the case. A review finding that the case that the foreclosing party has filed does reach the minimum requirements of standing starts the case. But, it still can't begin if you challenge the court's Subject Matter Jurisdiction. That is supposed to stop the case. It won't but now you have an absolute right to sue the citizen the judge is when he is not a judge. A judge cannot deprive a citizen of his or her civil rights. Moving a case forward without Standing existing is an action of Deprivation of Civil Rights. It is not possible. So, the guy up there in his tall bench is not a judge when he does it. He is an imposter with such action. He is (you can look it up) at "war with the constitution."

What if your judge had protected you, the Borrower, just as The United States Constitution clearly and absolutely directed him to do.

What if Chuck?


Return to the Top of this Article