CONTINUE: WE HAVE FINALLY SIMPLIFIED THE DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL AND THE FOLLOW-UP LAWSUIT AGAINST THE FORECLOSURE JUDGE FOR DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTS INCLUDING MESNE DAMAGES
We have had four Borrowers lined up twice. But, we ended up with philosophical conflicts with each of the chosen four and the amount of time used in explaining over and over about things that were going to be produced in the final draft very soon anyway.
We are now working with none of the original eight. I have nothing bad to say about these participants except they kept coming up with new ideas that conflicted with the strategy that we were using based on 12 years of helping clients defend themselves prose.
I found it too time-consuming as they just kept wandering into discussions concerning strategies in conflict with mine. I had already had no success in using the right laws while working against outlaws. They just really either wanted to dilute my conclusions after my 12 years of research in the court battles themselves. It was because I would tell them a sentence about our strategy and they would come back with a novel of sure-fire laws, decisions, and a lot of myth and legend.
In their defense, the information they brought was right. But, it doesn't matter how brilliant your writing is going to help when you have a judge who is not reading what we write.
The problem is that all regulation of Wall Street and banking, in general, were repealed in 1999 and was called the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. No one replaced it. We have had very little regulation for 21 years. Without regulation, there is no need for regulators. Without regulators who are you going to complain to...Congress. That is who repealed Glass-Steagall in order to DEREGULATE Wall Street.
In our current courts, you have to understand that you cannot use reasonable law not backed by regulation to convince a judge. You are not dealing with law, you are dealing with Outlaws. The constitution is what we have left. It is still very powerful, but if not defended by the citizens of the United States these Kangaroo Courts will render it irrelevant.
The strategy is in the conclusions that Thomas Jefferson came to..."When Tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes civic duty".
and that Abbie Hoffman (one to the Chicago 7) quoted in the Chicago Democratic Convention Trial Closing Statement, "At his inauguration in 1861, President Lincoln said, "When the people shall grow weary of their constitutional rights to amend their government, they shall exert their revolutionary rights to dismember and overthrow that government."
If former president Abraham Lincoln had given that speech in Lincoln Park in Chicago in 1968 during the Democrat Convention he would have been arrested and he would be sitting here with us right now, we would be known as the Chicago 8.
It is my goal to give five clients a better chance to win, we must win over the media by filing five "Borrower Mortgage Lawsuits" based on the strongest possible charge any judge at any level will ever face and we must do it in far-flung locations at state and federal judges. We need the spotlight the bright light sweeping over the violations of our civil rights that were committed in evil darkness.
All of our judges will be facing foremost "DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS". (a) Real Party in Interest.
(1) Designation in General. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.
The framers of the Constitution saw that as the beginning of tyranny taking root in our judicial system. That was an act that no judge could even lawfully be a judge, while he was committing acts violating any citizen's civil rights. Failure to adhere to his oath to protect the constitution and a citizen's civil rights violates "Due Process" which manifests itself in the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. He would return to his true existence, that of an ordinary citizen during the period of the act.
If you are interested fill out the form by clicking this line
The judge is only a citizen that has the power and the right to oversee a case in which he or she has read the very first pleadings of the foreclosing party to see if they have made a claim of having suffered an injury at the hands of you, the borrower. In all Borrower cases (since I have never seen a good case, I assume that is all cases since 1999. If you are a reader of this "blogsite" you know why I use the year 1999) anyway in all Borrower cases the first civil rights you the Borrower have been deprived of are based on your right to be "sued only by someone who has proven with concrete and particularized evidence that he or she or it has the bonafide right to sue you.
What does bonafide mean? adjective. made, done, presented, etc., in good faith; without deception or fraud: a bona fide statement of intent to sell. authentic; true: a bona fide sample of Lincoln's handwriting.
In Borrowers' cases, the issue is not about the Foreclosing Party's right to foreclose! It is about the right to collect the money actually proven to be owed to him after he has proved this ownership of the debt.
At this time we have 22 Borrowers on a waiting list. Several are working on their files and finances. Since we want to prove right now that this constitutional strategy we want to bring the four that best suit the battle at hand we will pick the first four that qualify and exhibit the discipline to finish, without getting flustered or frustrated.
If you are interested fill out the form by clicking this line
I am Danny Hammond and for the first time in my 12 years of doing this, I am very confident in winning all of the cases. But, there is one caveat and it is up to me to mitigate. I don't know just how far the judges and the higher judges in their cult will break the law to help the judges we are attacking. I am still very confident, but the tactic we will use substantially will be "Whack A Mole". We won't speculate. We will see is how they respond to us and what they try and we will instantly attack whatever they were most afraid of.
I have been very good at that for a long time. I am very confident.