Hammond was associated with the named Lender on his Promissory Note and personally participated in putting together his loan paperwork and understood how the loan worked.
"We were never associated with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) which never actually owned any loans. We were not members of the MERS syndicate and never did any business with them".
Yet it was MERS that "assigned" the mortgage to GMAC Mortgage, LLC." Hammond explained. "There are two very basic and absolutely essential issues which were ignored in this process. First of all a mortgage is not a home loan. In fact no document (instrument) is a home loan. Most people just have no idea of that.
The money that came to closing to buy a house is the home loan. But, the lender and borrower both need evidence that they provided the money, or debt. The Promissory Note is the evidence of the debt. The mortgage (in non-judicial states it is called a deed of trust) is an agreement for the security or collateral used to assure the Lender that it will be paid back. A Promissory Note is evidence that money was loaned and a mortgage, or deed of trust is the agreement on what both parties agreed would be the collateral. The mortgage is a description of the house and the agreement of how the house will be used if the borrower cannot pay off the NOTE. Nothing more."
Hammond goes on to say that "the supreme court has concluded that the Promissory Note is the essential instrument to a loan. It represents the money that was loaned. The mortgage is incidental and is not a requirement for a loan to be legal.
The old saying is "The Mortgage (deed of trust) follows the Note, but the Note will never follow the Mortgage".
"Anyone old enough to have been involved in real estate transactions before 1994 is very familiar with the fact that the valuable document is the Promissory Note. Before that, any business person would put all their Notes in fireproof safes or bank boxes. But, no one worried about where the mortgage (or deed of trust) was or if it was lost. It is recorded at the courthouse as public notice that a property had a loan against it. You can get a certified version of it from your County Recorder of Deeds for around $8.00.
The mortgage can't be separated from the Promissory Note. Without the Promissory Note the mortgage has no value whatsoever and it does not determine ownership of property or loans."
Hammond went on to say that every home loan (a mortgage is not a home loan) he has personally seen or read about used the assignment of a mortgage or a deed of trust and that he has never seen anything but a copy of the Promissory Note.
But, just like a copy of a $100 bill you cannot spend a copy of either. Originals only.
He says that he knew that the evidence that he was presenting was correct, but he could not get the courts to come to a conclusion. "We rarely lost a motion, but we could not find the mechanism to prove we were right and get a decision in our favor".
"This is common I understand now. Just ask the 20 million families who were thrown from their homes by the American government and the American courts as American Refugees."
"They will tell you that no one would listen, or help them when they had been told that someone would."
Hammond explained that finally about a year ago he had enough experience and information to understand that all of this concerns constitutional crimes...by the courts. The attorneys are just doing what the courts let them get away with.
"You see, we would be in court for 4 years with no progress either way. That makes no sense. But, what was happening was that the judges were placing the burden of proof upon the borrowers. That is exactly backwards. The courts have morphed to the point where they are holding the Borrower hostage until they tell the court what the lender (actually servicer or Stranger to the Deal) did to commit fraud. But, wouldn't the definition of the word fraud contain "hide the scam from the scamee"?
"The burden was placed by the framers of the constitution square on the party wanting redress. In other words. The burden is on the attacker to prove he was injured. The burden is on the court to determine if the foreclosing party had the right to foreclose. This is done at the beginning, before the court gets into the case. The court must determine this from the lawsuit and the Answer to the lawsuit. If standing can't be determined by the court, then the court has no subject matter jurisdiction and can do nothing but dismiss the foreclosure case and vacate or void the foreclosure sale if it has already happened." Only a party that can prove they have the right to collect can actually collect. That is not what has been happening for over 20 years.
"That's it. It is about civil rights. Just like the 1960s baby. Just like Aug 18, 1920 when belatedly Women received their right to vote in the US. Actually they had it all the time. But, all women were scammed into believing that they had to somehow prove it."
Hammond's version of things is that a party wanting to sue another party must claim to have an injury. It is called an Injury in Fact. This is true in all court cases, not just foreclosures. The Party wanting to take a house must show that it has been injured and then it must prove that injury with "concrete and particularized" evidence. Hammond says that he has spent a year looking at hundreds of cases, if not thousands and the he has never seen the claim of an injury in fact. A whole generation has been brainwashed into forgetting what is in the constitution.
Recently he has invoked these civil rights in Motions in his cases. 5 judges in a row denied his motion invoking "Deprivation of Civil Rights. Yet, he insists that a denial is not possible if the court has no subject matter jurisdiction.
"There is, at this time, no way to win other than to sue the judges personally to show them that their absolute immunity does not protect them if they use their court to rule in a case where the court had no subject matter jurisdiction or if the court has deprived a party of constitutionally protected rights.
I have three of these lawsuits nearly finished", Hammond concluded. "They will be filed before February 21st and I suppose there will be a lot of wailing and threatening. It will probably be chaotic. But, I have looked at this every way I can. This is the largest organized crime enterprise the world will ever know. I know that I am right."
For more information or clarification, or if your organization is interested in an exclusive both in timeline or copies of filings as they are filed, contact Danny Hammond BELOW.
