Read More
We claim that it is void. It is. But it is void as a condition of the status of the case. If there is No Standing there is no case. That is clearly and perfectly defined, a judge doesn't decide if there is Standing. A judge only determines if the filing of the foreclosure suit meets the requirements of standing. If it does not the case itself is void. If the judge tries to define Standing his way from his thoughts, he has broken his oath. There are tens of thousands of judges in state and federal court. If they all ruled by what they believe it shoudl be. That is the definition of anarchy.
Well, that is the condition I feel I have been working in for 13 years. How about you.
The case is void, because it did not meet the requirements of Standing. Your judge, my judge, all the judges are not reviewing Standing. No one's foreclosure is valid. It is your house. Not only have you been a victim of the judges Deprivation of your Civil Right. You are experiencing the Injury of Deprivation of Real Property from the owner.
The reason it may seem that I am arguing with you, is that I am.
When you say a judgment is void it implies that the case was ongoing up until the judgment. Then a void judgment was issued. That is not the order it happened in. We are trying to make it simple and kill it when it died, not long after it died. None of us should have ever been in court at all.
That may not be absoutely true. But, I have looked at as many cases as anyone that I know. It was a search for any judge that reviewed the filing document and then filed his summary of his review of whether standing existed into the docket and gave all the parties a copy. Do you remember that happening? I did not find it once. Not once. No judges are following the most important law that they took an oath to uphold. Standing is the basis for American Courts. It was to keep us from becoming a ridiculously litigous society where everyone sues everyone else for anything.
Over 238 years judges have eroded the importance of reviewing standing carefully and I have read that the United States is the most litigious country in the world.
The point that we just arrived at was after all, what we were looking for. You know, about how people think there is a case when attorneys file it and that is not true, or how it is supposed to happen?
The point that we just arrived at was after all, what we were looking for. You know, about how people think there is a case when attorneys file it and that is not true, or how it is supposed to happen?
What all these attorneys are really doing is submitting this lawsuit for the judge to review to see if the lawsuit meets the Constitutional, Irreducible, Minimum Requirements of Standing to determine if the court has the jurisdiction to allow a judge to drag your ass into his court and defend yourself from something you never did and no on has actually claimed that you did.
Judges are taking "Standing" at face value and just moving the case on. They aren't allowed to do that. They have to read it to see if there was any claim of an injury, and proof of that injury in the words in the lawsuit.
Judges are taking "Standing" at face value and just moving the case on. They aren't allowed to do that. They have to read it to see if there was any claim of an injury, and proof of that injury in the words in the lawsuit.
This is the simplicity part. The only Injury in Fact that a lender could suffer from any of us, is that they loaned THEIR money to us to buy the house, or they bought the loan with their money from the lender that paid us the money to buy our houses. But, it didn't happen that way. (See the last 3 or 4 or more posts before this one.)
The court cannot give the case a number. If a filing cannot meet the requirements of a genuine dispute then the filing cannot be a case therefore I say once again it is the case which is actually void ab initio.
This is the first real world event. There is no case, there was no case and there will never be a case. So everything you think happened that has broken your heart, taken all your money, humiliated you, ruined your credit and nearly sapped your will to fight, never happened. You really were robbed by a court judge. You will not win by trying to convince the judge he has made an error.
Any of the proceedings the judge participates in a case that did not meet the requirements of Standing were not legal and simply places him at war with the constitution and he isn't a judge in this instance.
The judgment is a deception performed by the judge to facilitate a crime.
Any of the proceedings the judge participates in a case that did not meet the requirements of Standing were not legal and simply places him at war with the constitution and he isn't a judge in this instance.
The judgment is a deception performed by the judge to facilitate a crime.
Tom we agreed that it doesn’t matter. It doesn't matter if you demanded a jury trial before your judge ruled on your case. You demanded it and you didn't get it and they judge had no right to grant or deny it and he should have said so.
What did the judge say in this ruling on your case? What did the judge say after his review of the lawsuit filed by a party who never claimed any way it was injured? No judge can explain how, without these guys claiming that Danny hurt them somehow, they want Danny's house?
Because they need Danny's house so they can sell it and go buy a boat? (yacht?)
In my cases, and the ones I have worked on, the judge won't address it at all. You can't make them.
So, all of us spent years researching statutes or case law that would convince the judge he was missing the point. He wasn't. The laws are still mostly in place, especially the old laws the whole country are based on.
I think when you say it was void judgment, of course you are right. But, that isn't getting us to the offense we are looking for.
I think when you say it was void judgment, of course you are right. But, that isn't getting us to the offense we are looking for.
We are back to what I have been trying to say. The judgment is irrelevant.
It is the case that is void. There was no case. If all of you talk about all the things that happened in your case, then what you have is this whole bunch of gripes about the attorneys did this and your attorney did that, and the lender forged this. and the last thing on the list that happened is that the judge ruled on the case that he never reviewed for the right to make it a case.
You would claim that the judgment was void. It is. Because the case was void at the beginning and the judge had no authority to have a case or to rule on the case. By bothering to describe all the wrongs suffered in the case, I think you are confessing a belief that there was a case.
The reason it may seem that I am arguing with you, is that I am. When you say a judgment is
void it implies that the case was ongoing right up until the judgment. Then a void judgment
was issued.
Tom we were talking about how people think there is a case when attorneys file a lawsuit in the court clerks office. But all they are really doing is submitting a lawsuit for the judge to review to see if the court has jurisdiction (the right) to drag the Borrower into court to defend himself in a matter in which the attorneys never claim their client gave you money, or paid money and now you owe them.
Judges are even taking Standing at face value. They think they are judging. The Constitution says they are arbitrating genuine disputes. They shouldn't have called them judges in the first place. Arbitraiters would be more correct, and I'm ok with it.
They can't judge an American citizen. They can only facilitate the dispute between two or more citizens and bring it to a just resolution. They can't "judge" Tom Kibler.
In that lawsuit the attorneys submitted to the court if they have made no claim and proof of an injury there can never be Standing.
The court cannot give the case a number. If the document they filed does not rise to the requirements of a justiciable cause (I worked it in, Tom). "Standing must exist at the filing of a case." Standing cannot be repaired if it does not exist at the time of the filing. Judges aren't enforcing this at all.
Standing is the basis of our courts. Standing is the word for the right. All of our judges, and I do mean all of them, deprived you of your civil right to due process as stated in the 5th and 14th amendments.
So, as I have said if a filing cannot be a case, then the case is actually void ab initio. So any proceedings are simply at war with the constitution and are all void ab initio and this includes the judgment. That is why it is a void judgment. There was no right for the judge to make.
So, as I have said if a filing cannot be a case, then the case is actually void ab initio. So any proceedings are simply at war with the constitution and are all void ab initio and this includes the judgment. That is why it is a void judgment. There was no right for the judge to make.
When a judge rules w/o jurisdiction, the judge commits felony perjury and treason-he is impersonating a judge, warring with the people and the constitutions, and violating any charter (county) etc that he works within.
“An officer (includes judges) who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.” 8 “Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone
shall have a remedy for an injury done to his person or property.”
9 When the defendants violated plaintiff’s inalienable rights, they lost their immunity. “An officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office. The liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his individual, not his official capacity.” 10 “There is a general
rule that a ministerial officer who acts wrongfully, although in good faith, is nevertheless
liable in a civil action and cannot claim the immunity of the sovereign.”
11 The United States Supreme Court held that “state officials acting by color of law may be held personally liable for the injuries or torts they cause and that official or sovereign
One of our civil rights is found in Rule 17 (a) FRCP. I will paraphrase. "Every citizen has the right to be sued only by another citizen who has alread proven that he has the right to sue."
Remember the 2016 Florida Supreme case in which the court wrote the only perfect ruling you and I had ever seen?
immunity may not be asserted.”
12“When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct.
The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”
13“Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.”
14 “No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence.” 15 “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Crime is contagious. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law...it invites every man to become a law unto himself...and against that pernicious doctrine, this court should resolutely set its face.” 16 When the defendants violated plaintiff’s inalienable rights, they lost their immunity.
8 Brookfield Co. v Stuart, (1964) 234 F. Supp 94, 99 (U.S.D.C., Wash. D.C.)
9 Fireman Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J. v. Washburn County, 2 Wisc 2d 214 (1957)
10 70 AmJur2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability.
11 Cooper v. O'Conner, 99 F.2d 133
12 Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 US 232 (1974), 94 S. Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)
13 Warnock v Pecos County, Texas, 116 F. 3d 776 No.96-50869 Summary Calendar. July 3, 1997.
14 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)
15 Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859)
One of our civil rights is found in Rule 17 (a) FRCP. I will paraphrase. "Every citizen has the right to be sued only by another citizen who has alread proven that he has the right to sue."
Remember the 2016 Florida Supreme case in which the court wrote the only perfect ruling you and I had ever seen?
The Florida Supreme Court in a case where it appears US Bank made no attempt to prove Standing. The court did not mention this. They don't state at what point in the case they decided US Bank had not made a case that US Bank had met the Constitutional, Irreducible, Minimum, Requirements of Standing. Becuase at that point they could not conduct a case or comment on it. It is void.
The Florida Supreme Court used only three very short sentences to declare there was no case.
"This court has no jurisdiction. This case is dismissed. We will not entertain an appeal."
Not one word too few. Not one word too many.
"This court has no jurisdiction. This case is dismissed. We will not entertain an appeal."
Not one word too few. Not one word too many.
