Continue: A SIMPLE QUESTION

In my example, the judge has deprived the Borrower of FRCP 17(a)(1) paraphrased- "every citizen has the right to be sued ONLY by a party who has proven that he has the right to sue”, or Due Process.

That is what Standing is all about. There is a 3 part set of the Constitutional, Irreducible, Minimum Requirements of Standing. They are very simple and cannot be misconstrued.

Without the presence of Standing, there are not at least two parties in a genuine argument. Without a genuine dispute, there is nothing for a judge to do.

He is not needed and his moving the case forward prejudices the Borrower. The Borrower is being deprived of his civil right of only facing an accuser with a genuine dispute (a civil right).

The Borrower is also being exposed to the problem of paying twice for the house which he has the civil right to never be exposed to. This would be true when a judge who knows there was no claim of injury and knows there was no concrete and particularized evidence in the foreclosing party's first filing and he still gives your home to the lying low-lives we have all been dealing with.

Then you walk out of the courtroom and are confronted with what I call the "Belgian in the bushes" or a true holder in due course who can prove every transaction concerning your legal description and the debt.

This true owner of the debt has the right to sue you for the money. But, the judge has mishandled the collateral home and left the Borrower with no way to pay the true owner of the debt. I have found that this most simple example of logic is never considered by judges.

After a year of researching cases because I wanted to quit fighting such a large scam, scheme, or artifice or at least pause until I could determine why cases seemed so illogically immune to reaching a conclusion.

As I looked at hundreds of cases I realized that I had never seen the foreclosing party claim to have suffered an injury, much less produced evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If I'm right there are no good loans in America. Even if I see one, I will not admit it. If I see one hundred I will grudgingly admit that there, "might be a few".

I think this does rise to the defense of human rights. But, you have to have a forum. Our intended laws do recognize and protect human rights but through written laws. That is to say, if these laws are obeyed by judges we trust to uphold the constitution they are as good as humans can make.

In each of our cases, there is only one party who is responsible for every detail of what happened in the case. We have all worried about Imposters and Fictitious Payees (real legal terms in UCC-3) but it was the judge that let all the monkeys run amuck. (Which is not a legal term, but it should be). It took me 12 years and $300,000 to get around to telling you that.

Danny Hammond: Like Dennis Miller says, "That is just my opinion, I could be wrong". However, I will say it like "Monk". "I could be wrong. But I'm not".

Danny Hammond: Or to simplify. I no longer have a beef with the monkeys. But, the monkey keeper has a problem with me.

RETURN TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS ARTICLE