“I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun. I put them on and went out of the room.”
Raymond Chandler Farewell, My Lovely
I have people who have contacted me over the years and for one reason or another they have not used my services fully or never decided what they want to do or what they can afford. A few have contacted me many times to run ideas by me or ask for simple advice.
At the present I have so very little time that though I do try to help out with what I know, I can only help as long as it doesn’t consume much time. Actually, I usually enjoy these conversations as these are people who have done a lot of research and they often give me something useful.
But, overall the problem I have with some borrowers is that they are constantly looking for the magic bullet that will finally enlighten the judge. The judge will see that he or she has missed the point and that the borrower is the party in interest. The only conclusion the judge can come to is that the foreclosing party actually never had any true part in the loan at closing or ever. Sounds too much like a TV show doesn’t it?
It is true that the vast majority of foreclosures are wrongful and illegal. The judges in these courts start from the very beginning to place the burden of proof on the borrower and that is adverse to what the constitution says about burden of proof. It is the moving party, in this situation that is the foreclosing party, that must bear the responsibility proving that it has the right to bring the case before any court.
The courts want the nonmovant borrower to prove that he or she have not caused injury to the foreclosing party. However, in actuality, the court has the burden to review the original pleadings of the foreclosing party and determine if that party has, in fact, asserted any true and provable rights to collect money from the borrower. If they have not they have not met the constitutional lrreducible minimum requirements for standing in every court.
Without the right to collect money the foreclosing party should not have collected any money and it follows that with no right collect there can be no right to declare default which certainly would void any right to foreclose.
Lately, I have been using the strategy of challenging the standing (which can be done, literally, at any time) of the foreclosing party immediately. Without two parties with a proven interest in the issues of the case there is no standing for the foreclosing party and the court has no subject matter jurisdiction and must not proceed with the case.
This is US constitutional law. In this position the court (and judge, they are interchangeable) has only one move it can make. It must dismiss the case or in a non-judicial foreclosure state it must vacate and set aside the wrongful foreclosure.
You may have noticed that I use the words foreclosing party and borrower instead of Plaintiff and Defendant. This is because in judicial foreclosure states the foreclosing party is the Plaintiff and the borrower is the Defendant. But, under the statute and rules in states using the bizarre and heinous non-judicial foreclosure it ends up being the opposite. The borrower is the Plaintiff and the foreclosing party is the Defendant.
That is so confusing that I try to avoid using the words Plaintiff and Defendant when describing “who done who wrong”.
Below is the most simple description of the central Mortgage Fraud issue that I have ever written. It is my answer to my friend’s questions about a blog guy he had found on the internet and sent to me to see what I thought.
I am reading all of the case citations you sent me from the blog guy that posts videos while driving in his car and wearing sunglasses and if I drive that image out of my head, he is saying a lot of things that are close to what I am. It was interesting, but he is in a niche that is just enough different that I cannot make it fit in my mind. I don’t think we can find a useful way to use these in the current environment.
The judges I have been dealing with these long seven years aren’t even acknowledging the most simple and basic statute and constitutional civil rights. I can’t even get them to write anything in their orders and rulings that would indicate that they even read what I have written.
Kevin, the time has passed for further researching to come up with the magic bullet that will cause the judge to jump and exclaim “Oh, Kevin, now I see what you mean”.
The judge is in the way. He is an impediment to justice. We must use the remedies that the old guys wrote into the constitution to baby slap the judges. Any reader who has been following me this year knows that this is what I call “The Dick Butkus Mortgage Offense. If Dick Butkus is all that is keeping you from a winning touchdown with one minute left on the clock, then you gotta get him out of the game immediately. Anyway that you can. You really don’t have the luxury of studying your many dark “what ifs” because practice ended yesterday. Now its Showtime.
The probably non-existent foreclosing entity is not your problem, nor are its attorneys. Your only adversary is the judge. He is placing the burden of proof on you, the defendant borrower. That is just not fundamentally sound logic and it is depriving you of your civil rights. You don’t have to win the case. The case is void. You need to declare and prove that.
You just follow the laws of subject matter jurisdiction and make the court enforce them, either peacefully or in a borrower initiated good old knock down drag out. You are not a victim, unless you play by the judges rules. If you fight him and his no rules style of court, you will be a victim and a loser.
I meant that in the nicest and most civil of ways. D.