So, after 6 years of using my advice and then using an attorney's advice and continuing in that hellish loop, he is about to be evicted from his $500,000 home. Three years ago using my one plan at the time, he basically won in a state appeals court. The simple, but absolute rule that standing may be challenged at any time. The appeals court agreed and remanded it back to the trial court for a hearing on standing. He waited for two years and then here came the attorneys Southlaw (or originally South and Associates) the local foreclosure mill criminals who brought every stupid argument to swirl the judges head, none of which the Appeals court had allowed.
If you are guessing that the judge ruled for US Bank again...yep your right.
Another two years and they are about to take the house. He wants to understand what I have been saying since the beginning. So, below is my attempt to break down as simply as I can.
I have changed the judge's name. I can't disclose the homeowner. I disclosed South attorneys because they have illegally foreclosed on tens of thousands of homes. Heck they probably won't recognize who I'm talking about themselves.
Dear My Friend,
1. Judge Knucklehead made all of his decisions in the trial court from inside his head. He ruled on how he thought it should be.
2. In the remand for hearing stage you just fought little fire fights. South would file something that was not even allowed and you answered. By answering instead of objecting Judge Knucklehead by law had to rule that since you didn't object, then what they did was accepted by you because you had waived your rights to objection.
Even then Judge Knucklhead had never determined standing until he declared they had standing in his final ruling against you. Now, you have sent in a reply that answers questions and asks questions and tried to convince the judge he was wrong which muddled the issue.
Standing had to be determined by what the Foreclosing party said in its' original lawsuit. Standing had to exist at the time they filed the lawsuit. So, Knucklehead forced you into a game of "The Borrower has the burden to prove that the Plaintiffs don't have standing." But, it doesn't work that way.
"The burden of proof lies with the party bringing the lawsuit" Knucklehead has never determined Standing and You have never told him he must do it. He can't rule from his own opinion of what he thinks happened. His job is to read what was written by the Foreclosing party in the lawsuit and what You wrote in your answer.
The Appeals Court ruled that they did not see evidence of Standing and in their ruling they chastised Judge Knucklehead for deciding the outcome before determining if the parties had any merit in what they had WRITTEN. The only way to determine Standing is just below:
There is no such thing as your states' statute for standing. It is exactly the same as all other courts in the land. It is the definition that comes from the Supreme Court of the United Sates.
Standing as determined by the United State Supreme Court is easy to understand,
The Supreme Court is simply the highest court in the land and all courts are bound by its' rulings and determinations as law.
The Irreducible Constitutional minimum requirements of Standing as defined by the Supreme Court:
Here is the simple version most used by attorneys if they ever talk about it. Both versions have 3 requirements:
1.) The attacking party must claim to have suffered an actual Injury in fact, and proved its' claim with concrete and particularized evidence.
2.) This concrete and particularized evidence must be fairly traceable to the party that they are accusing. You.
3.) That if the court finds for the attacking party, that action will that redress the attacking party for its Injury in Fact.
But, no one in your case has even claimed why they think you owe them money and didn't pay them back. All they ever claim is that they have the Promissory Note.
But, it either is stolen or it is a forgery because they have also never claimed that they paid money for the Note. They just claim that have been assigned the mortgage, which is a nullity. The mortgage follows the note by default. MERS or anyone else could assign the mortgage 100 times, but unless the Promissory Note has already been purchased with money and delivered, the 100 assignments of the mortgage gave the assignee nothing.
Proof of possession of a Promissory Note is nothing. There must be proof of all of the transactions involving the Note until US Bank NA paid for it and received delivery of it.
Your attorney, Mr. Giveme$5000, admitted the Promissory Note was not controverted on your behalf. So, you admitted that the Note was real. Neither of your attorneys have any understanding that, even if it was real, the foreclosing party never showed any actual transaction contracts and wires etc. The foreclosing party is falsely claiming that they have the right to collect money. If they have the real note, but they won't or can't prove the transaction involved in investing in that Promissory Note, they have know right to it. In 2012 this was confusing and borrowers, including me, just kept looking for more and more sophisticated proof. But, now we know that it is stolen. But, not by taking it. Instead they just made up the claim and your judge was not smart enough to see or hear the facts.
You should have objected to the Promissory Note and your Default to US Bank or the Trust. It is impossible that you were in default, with either of them and you need to say that. Judge Knucklehead needed to get to that at the beginning "sua Sponte" (because he had to).
He didn't. But, you can't stop him by arguing over the points that your attorneys put in their little summation of what you should do.
Why did this all happen like I am saying?
Because the attorneys have nothing to do with what the court does. But, if a judge let's them run wild, why wouldn't they? This isn't about you and your attorneys or the bad guy's attorneys. Because they won't do the best that they can. This all comes down to you versus the court.
If attorneys would use:
*Article III of the Constitution governing all of the above; and/or the
*Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Number 17.A; and/or
*The Due Process Clause found in the 5th and 14th Amendments; and/or
*Rule 12 (b)(1)
none of this would happen. Because if your defense was Deprivation of Constitutional Civil Rights and His Highness Judge Knucklehead ruled like he did above, your case is not loseable, because there never was a case and Knucklehead's judgment is VOID. He has ruled without determining Standing of the attacking party.
Without two parties with a genuine dispute he had no subject matter jurisdiction. Without Subject matter jurisdiction he has to dismiss the case for that reason.
Above Article III: is the basis for the Supreme Court to understand standing as the framers wanted. The court can only take in genuine cases and controversies. The definition of Standing has the only requirements for standing that anyone can use. No judge can trifle with Constitutional Standing issues.
FRCP 17A; No one can be sued by a party who has no connection to the issues. It clearly states. No one can bring a case before the court except someone who is a beneficiary of the outcome.
The Due Process Clause: You must be heard by a court with jurisdiction before you can lose a case.
Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the case because of lack of standing of the attacking party which leaves the court without subject matter jurisdiction.
Why don't judges do what they are supposed to do:
Because all of the attorneys are in agreement that they will not sue a judge because it will ruin them socially and professionally. In other words they believe the judge will take vengeance. Even though that would be illegal against everything I have written above.
If your judge is a thug or an idiot and decides you should lose just because, then you can't win with arguments about notes, and trusts, etc. etc. you will lose.
What can you do? Well, Standing may be challenged at any time. That was what the appeals court was agreeing with you on. But, they sent you back to Judge Knucklehead, the dirty rat that got you into this predicament in the first place.
Attorneys won't do it. So, will you lose if you can't find an attorney? No, your chances are better if you do it yourself and do it smarter and more simply.
No. Instead you present to Knucklehead that he has broken two laws 1. Deprivation of Civil Rights and 2. Interference with Interstate Commerce.
You do this in a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b) (1). The foreclosing party never claimed rights to standing, but the court went forward. You add Deprivation of your Constitutional Civil Rights which is sent to the Supreme Court to monitor because The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of all Constitutional injury questions.
Give it one week for your judge to decide how to get out of it. Then you file a suit against the citizen he is, not the judge who didn't have jurisdiction. This is the only issue in which judges lose their absolute immunity.
There. That really is all that there is. Questions anyone?
RETURN TO: "EARLIER RELEVANT ARTICLES, POSTS, AND VIDEOS CONCERNING MORTGAGE FRAUD By Danny Hammond
EMAIL: info@blvdre.consulting
