1a.) That only the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over constitution
question issues.
The decisions of the United States Supreme Court, whether right or wrong, are supreme: they are binding on all courts of this land, Hoover v. Holston Valley Community Hospital, 545 F. Supp. 8, 13 (E. D. Tenn. 1981)
(quoting Jordan V. Gilligan, 500 2 F.3d 701, 707(6th Cir. 1974).
(The lower courts are bound by Supreme Court precedent, Adams v. Department of Juvenile Justice of New York City, 143 F.3d, 61, 65 (2nd Cir. 1998) (Walker v. Quality Loan Service Corp. of Washington et al., No. 65975-8-1) (Washington State Supreme Court, Bain v. Metro. Mortg. Group, Inc., et al.175 Wn.2d 83, 285 P.3d 34 (2012))
2.) That the requirements in a case of Non-Judicial Foreclosure actions are:
1. The foreclosing party must claim and prove with concrete and particularized evidence that it has sustained and Injury in Fact.
2. This Injury must be fairly traceable to the foreclosed party with concrete and particularized evidence.
3. The court must be able to redress the injury with a ruling in favor of the injured party.
3.) That if it is the alleged foreclosed party that is the claimant party then it must also
1. claim and prove an injury in fact.
2. Its’ injury must be fairly traceable to the foreclosing party.
3. Its’ injury must be able to be redressed by the court.
4.) That the United States Supreme Court defines the requirements of Standing as:
3.1.B. The Constitutional and Prudential Requirements of Standing Inherent in the constitutional limitation of judicial power on cases and controversies is the requirement of “concrete adverseness” between the parties to a lawsuit. The rise of public interest law litigation involving claims of non-economic loss has forced the Supreme Court to craft an analytical framework for determining whether the requisite adversity is present.
The Court requires that plaintiffs establish that the challenged conduct caused or threatens to cause them an injury in fact to judicially cognizable interests. By establishing that they personally suffered injury, plaintiffs demonstrate that
they are sufficiently associated with the controversy to be permitted to litigate it.
The question of injury raises two questions –
(1) what kinds of injuries count for purposes of standing and
(2) how certain the injury must be if it has not yet occurred.
3.1.B.1. Injury in Fact
The Supreme Court has held that, to satisfy the injury in fact requirement, a party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court must show three things:
(1) “an invasion of a legally protected interest,”
(2) that proven at the filing by “concrete and particularized,” evidence and is
fairly traceable to the acts of the Defendant 88888888
(3) “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. The following section
discusses several types of injuries considered by the Supreme Court in
determining whether there is a legally protected interest.
3.1.B.1.a. Economic Interest
The Supreme Court has had no difficultly determining that economic interests
are legally protected interests. More difficult is determining when economic
injury that has yet to occur is sufficiently imminent and likely to confer standing.
The Court has been relatively forgiving in this regard. Economic injury need not have already occurred but can result from policies that, for example, are likely to deprive the plaintiff of a competitive advantage or a bargaining chip.
In Clinton v. New York, for instance, the Court held that New York had standing to challenge the veto of legislation permitting the state to keep disputed Medicaid funds.
The veto left the state’s ability to retain the funds uncertain, subject to the outcome of a request for a waiver. Despite this uncertainty, the Court regarded the “revival of a substantial contingent liability” sufficient to confer standing.
3.1.B.5. Injury Fairly Traceable to the Challenged Conduct
In addition to alleging injury in fact, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s unlawful conduct. In cases in which the government acts against the plaintiff, causation is simple.
3.1.B.6. Relief Sought to Redress Injury
A corollary to the Supreme Court’s requirement for standing, that the injury alleged be fairly traceable to the challenged conduct is the separate requirement that the relief sought must redress the injury. In the great majority of cases the inquiry into causation and redressability are indistinguishable.
Thus, in Warth, the Court held that there was no reason to suppose that the elimination of exclusionary zoning would enable the plaintiffs to obtain housing in Penfield. In Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, the Court held that there was no reason to think that revoking the IRS Revenue Ruling at issue would assure that the next ill or injured poor person would be admitted to a hospital.
Furthermore, in Allen, the Court held it was entirely speculative that revoking tax-exempt status for allegedly discriminatory private schools would serve to foster public school integration. What is peculiar about the Court’s concern for redressability is the elevation of the question of remedial efficacy to constitutional status.
While the scope of equitable relief to redress unlawful governmental action has long been a matter of controversy, not until City of Los Angeles v. Lyons did the Court clearly articulate the requirement of remedial efficacy as a constitutional component of standing.
The plaintiff in Lyons sought damages and injunctive relief after being choked by city police officers. He alleged that the city permitted the police department to use unnecessary choke holds indiscriminately. The Court conceded that Lyons had standing to sue for damages.
However, the Court held that he lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, as an
injunction would not redress his injury because it was unlikely that he would be arrested and choked again.
HOW DOES THIS CHANGE YOUR STRATEGIES?
You really aren’t trying to outsmart attorneys or that joke of an entity the
foreclosing party. What you really want to do is to place the judge in as
much of a pickle as you are in. (jeopardy). DLH
