READ MORE:
%201.00.jpg)
Who is it that is allowing the foreclosing partys to foreclose without proof? Does the Constitution allow that?
No.
You must look at your judge. Who is controlling the whole show but has no interest in the outcome?
The judge.
You must consider making the judge as uncomfortable as everyone else in the room. Or it isn't a fair game at all.
If you have been in your case for very long, you must be frustrated that the Attorneys for your Servicer, Lender, foreclosing party, etc. are not presenting the evidence that their clients must present to prove that the forecloing party has the right to collect money from you because they gave you money and you didn't pay them back.
The chance that they do have money at stake is very, very close to 0%. They won't ever say why.
They will only claim that you are "in default" and that gives them the "right to foreclose" on you.
They never will claim that you are in default with them. That would be a lie and that is perjury.
Number 1. There is no such thing as a "right to foreclose". What they must prove is that they have the right to "collect money" from you. Even if you owe money and are in default or have been from time to time, that is not what the judge must decide or determine.
What your case is about is do you owe the foreclosing party money. You can't prove you do. They will not attempt to prove it.
Before 1999, the answer in the real world would have nearly always been yes you owe the foreclosing party. In that world there would also have been less than 4% of the total cases that we see today.
Anyone can vet me at their local county recorder's office. In fact, don't trust anyone right now. I have checked the recorder's office in seven states. Your Security Instrument is recorded right there.
Your Promissory Note will not surface. The don't have it. The have never had it.
If you are interested in how to win and not just complain, then consider if our Borrower cases are about civil rights and especially the Due Process clauses in the Constitution concerning Due Process.
Unitl I got into this mess I had no idea so many people take such small mundane cases to court on a regular basis. Constitutional question lawsuits. Like the guy who had threatened to kill his neihbors and was still acting eratically when the cops got there and wouldn't settle down so they shot him in the face (I was hoping that would end the sentence) with pepper spray.
He sued that his constitutional rights to Due Process had been violated in the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri. He took to the Federal Court in Kansas City and lost. Then he took to the 8th Federal Court of appeals which is the last resort court that decides for 9 midwestern states. The court ruled that under the circumstances the cops had not violated his Constitutional Civil Rights to Due Process of Law. They thought he should have just calmed down.
This guy took it the last stop before the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
We Borrowers don't know that we can use our Civil Right to Due Process. Due process means a fair lawful trial equal to what everyone has a right to.
You should make a mental note that your court must do this. You court must protect your due process rights and they can't use there state law mumbo jumbo they must follow federal law. (State Court judges much of the time believe their state laws supersede federal laws.)
They don't.
Even if you have been pepper sprayed by cops.
I now use all federal laws which state court judges can review for proof your foreclosing party has proven you owe them money.
Federal judges are not smarter, but they generally understand just fine, the premise that there must be a claim of "injury" that is accompanied by "Concrete and Particularized evidence" (beyond reasonable doubt see: Perry Mason) to rise to "Injury In Fact".
This is the very basis of American Civil Law. The Federal judge may still try to black ball you, but it give you the right to sue him. Once they realize it, they are beginning to straighten up, but if we all start using it. It will make them as uncomfortable as you are. That is my goal in telling you this.
My premise is that Borrowers are complaining of contract law issues and that still is as important as ever, but "rights" are an additional part of the Borrowers issue. The court is treating us differently then all other contract issues. Civil Rights include contract law and we must use them.
This is not revolutionary, it is Due Process. Which includes us. Our cases are contract law. The Promissory Note is the contract betwee you and your lender. You foreclosing party does not have the original Promissory Note you signed at closing, which if it has been sold (which is legal) it must have all of the proper endorsements transferring it to the new owner who paid for it.
Your mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, etc. are all Security Instruments. They are going to state that the Security Instrument cannot be sold or assigned. It can only go where the Promissory Note goes. That is absolute.
If you bring a Promissory Note up. They might produce a copy. That is not proof.
If they do and your judge says that is good enough he has comitted the Crime of Deprivation of Civil Rights. It is in the news a lot, but not for Borrowers because they don't use their civil rights in foreclosure cases. I do in mine and those I help.
I have had a problem since the very beginning with "Borrowers" cases being segregated to an entirely different "class" of defendants (Plaintiffs in the 26 non-judicial foreclosure states). This is contract law, but is it?
How is the kid's right to carry any book without the school taking it away? That is not contract law, it is a civil right and a kid took it up to the 8 Circuit Court of Appeals. (which ruled that the school's actions had not risen to having a future effect and the kid won.) Borrowers can use contract and civil law, see what I mean?
So, in your own case, now notate in your brain that along with contract law and the prejudice taking place against Borrowers, the issue of rights to Due Process is even more mundane and the courts deal with it every day without the enormous damage they have caused in families in ever state, town and county.
I think contract law and civil rights should clearly be used as two separate issues and that the Borrower has every right to use both arrows as weapons in his quiver and use both at the beginning and neither should have a chilling effect on the way his case is decided.
