From "The Pro Se Series by Danny Hammond: CONTINUE: NOT XXXXXXX MORTGAGE FRAUD PRO SE PRIMER 101 #4--THE CONSTITUTIONAL, IRREDUCIBLE, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE III STANDING
CONTINUE
If you had seen judges simply ignore proof when it is presented as much as I have, then what I am now really trying to say is that this whole thing is only about Standing and nothing else. The initial burden of determining if the foreclosing party is a party with Standing is the review of the concrete and particularized evidence and the review of that evidence of the burden of proof is on the judge.
It is only the Supreme Court that has original jurisdiction over all issues of
Constitutional rights.
No state judge or local judge can claim that they have superior jurisdiction to the Supreme Court and its decisions.
The way it has been practiced for the last 15 to 20 years has been exactly the opposite. The judges have been sitting up there on their hands on the bench and waiting for the Borrowers to describe what the foreclosing party was up to and forcing the Borrower to prove it. These cases always begin with the judge placing the burden on the Borrower to prove what the Foreclosing Party has tried very hard to hide. That is a ridiculous premise. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest thought so too.
If an act of fraud is working here, then by definition the act was meant to be kept hidden. How would a Borrower prove or disprove something he was not allowed to see or know about? It is the foreclosing party who must claim that he has been wronged by the borrower and it is this same foreclosing party that must prove it (not claim it) with evidence which is "concrete and particularized", these are legal terms that can be found in a billionth of a second on Google search.
It is truly unbelievable!
Not untrue, just unbelievable. (There have been many beautiful and sane rulings also, but it is nowhere near "Due Process for all" yet.)
It would be very difficult for me to show you how Challenging Standing is supposed to be working because no one is doing what the framers prescribed, so it is still, in essence, only in my head. There are hundreds of citations concerning case rulings on the subject, but most are contract law cases from other industries. Home Loans funded with a Promissory Note and secured with collateral are all contract law, but no one is enforcing them in the correct way as required by the United States Constitution, the basis of all American law.
Borrower contract law is being treated as it on little category and the judges are butchering the civil rights of every Borrower who tries to take his case to court. This "shall not stand" (credit Jeff Lebowski aka "The Dude")
That doesn't change how it should work with your home loan, because contract law is what governs home loans.
So, since it is the judge's burden to know whether he or she has subject matter jurisdiction, which he needs to even begin the case, he must identify the proof of standing of the Foreclosing
Party which needs to have been written and proved with "concrete and particularized" evidence by the defense counsel at the beginning of any and every wrongful foreclosure court case.
Borrowers, before anything else, you must first understand the proof that is required to accompany claims of rights in order to establish Standing. If a claim of injury has not been made or if a claim of injury has been made and the proof has not been presented and the judge rules without Standing, and therefore without subject matter jurisdiction, then he has broken the law. This is the only situation where a judge loses his or her "absolute immunity" from lawsuits.
There was no legitimate court for any foreclosure case that I have ever seen. I have seen as many as anybody.
So, first things first. Review, slowly and carefully what the US Supreme Court has determined is the constitutional minimum requirements for Standing. The words they use are the strategic offense you will use to keep your house safe from anyone that you do not owe the money to.
Let me know if you can see how those words fit your situation. If not, we will go over them again before moving on, as to how and when we would apply them.
I have just realized that I have just written a blog post that a lot of people need to read, by giving a Borrower who called me for advice the answers that are still in the process of unveiling themselves to me. So, I will probably post this today. The blog post will be on our website at THE FORECLOSURE SOLUTIONS GROUP
THE CONSTITUTIONAL, IRREDUCIBLE, MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF
STANDING AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BEGINS BELOW:
Below is an actual excerpt from my own motion to vacate a void judgment of foreclosure.
Plaintiffs have filed to Invoke their Rights to Challenge the Standing of the Defendants at any Time Under Article III of the United States Constitution earlier into this court case, yet this court failed to even mention or give any recognition that the court had even read the Borrower/Plaintiffs' invocation of this fundamental constitutional civil right, which was foremost the responsibility of this court.
Plaintiffs state as follows and the court ignores at its own peril:
1.) Article III of the Constitution of the United States as defined by the Supreme Court has established a constitutional irreducible minimum set of requirements for a party in a genuine dispute to establish Standing. Without Standing of the Foreclosing Party, all courts in the land must acknowledge that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear any merits of a case and must dismiss the subject action, in this case, the void and fraudulent foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ property.
1a.) That only the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over constitutional 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 an Injury in Fact.
2. This Injury must be fairly traceable to the mortgagor party with concrete and substantive 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.
Jacqueline Gray; Windhover, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. City of Valley Park, Missouri, Defendant-Appellee, United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, No. 08-1681, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Submitted: December 10, 2008, Filed: June 5, 2009 (Corrected: 06/11/2009)
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 an injury, plaintiffs must 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 is "concrete and particularized," and
(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 Interests
The Supreme Court has had no difficulty determining that economic interests are legally protected interests. More difficult is determining when an economic injury that has yet to occur is sufficiently imminent and likely to confer standing. The Court has been relatively forgiving in this regard. The economic injury need not have already occurred but can result from policies that, for example, are likely to deprive the plaintiff of competitive advantage or a bargaining chip. In Clinton v. New York, for instance, the Court held that New York had the 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 re; 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.
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 chokeholds indiscriminately. The Court conceded that Lyons had the 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.
5.) In my personal case GMAC Mortgage, LLC has only one possible injury it can claim. That this defendant used its’ own money to fund the closing of the loan, or it used its’ money to provide the agreed-upon consideration to purchase the alleged subject Promissory Note from a Holder in Due Course. GMAC Mortgage, LLC has never stated or claimed an “Injury in Fact”, nor described one. GMAC Mortgage, LLC has never claimed to be the Holder in Due Course.
Combatants understand that many, many judges prefer the common-law term of “holder” of a Note, but the Uniform Commercial Code which is the statute adopted by all of the states, including the State of Missouri regulating these matters defines both holder and Holder in Due Course and the definitions are quite different. In Missouri, we are a judicial foreclosure state. Here the Borrower is the Plaintiff and the foreclosing party is the Defendant. In the Judicial States, it is the opposite. Because it is confusing for me to go back and forth with different clients you will see me use Borrower and Foreclosing Party instead of Plaintiff and Defendant. Other than the fact that there is much more urgency created by the Non-Judicial foreclosure, the strategies remain the same.
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).
Return to the beginning of this article