“I was playing for time. Just for time. I played the wrong way, of course.”
Raymond Chandler
 |
| "Here cum da Judge" |
by Danny Hammond of the 3/4 Court Press.
Surely no one can truly believe that it is the Borrowers that come up with these bizarre scenarios?
My sister uh, Mary, is an attorney, who is probably the smartest person I have ever known, was home this weekend and I asked about maybe we should be objecting to the new judge in this case who has oddly not committed a crime yet, and he was going to take over to provide cover for the original judge who had committed all of the crimes by removing the case to Federal Court. That is like stealing 3rd base from 1st base. No one would do that. The Constitution is perfectly clear. Not on stealing 3rd, but removing a VOID case to Federal court. You can't do that.
Although, if he says one more sentence, we are gonna pounce hard on him and make him the defendant, not as a judge but as himself, and make it stick.
Mary came up with a Motion For Reconsideration, which startled me because I had actually begun to believe that was a term I made up, because I never had a judge comment on it, even though I tried it over 7 and a half billion times while helping Borrowers understand courts and such.
I told her that I just didn't see how you could remove VOID. It is unthinkable. Void cannot be arranged. It is nothingness. It never was. I can never even be.
She kind of agreed. But, neither of us could explain that notion in "earth terms".
(You see most attorneys don't ever deal with law all that much. Except sewer court rat attorneys like ambulance chasers and Borrower representation in foreclosure)
Borrowers have been treated differently than other contract law cases all along. That is why we do not have contract law directly associated with our cases, which no one seems to care if this is true.
That is why Blue Planet's attorney (Blue Planet in this case is the Foreclosing Party in this case and improbably changes from Plaintiff to Defendant at will) uses bombastic writings designed to wow and scare the defendants by bluffing and using what he says are reasons and truths that are neither.
In the first answered filed in the Complaint (lawsuit he wrote, The reason we have the right to foreclose, is because we are the ABSOLUTE owner of the Note by Assignment of the Mortgage on Jan. 25th, Stardate 26785.
He is not making even nominal good sense. In law, rights must be proven that cannot just be claimed. But, the bad guys have been doing it for 22 years and very, very rarely do they get caught.
If you would like to have us evaluate your situation please fill out this form:
.png)
