IF YOU ONLY RETAIN THREE WORDS FROM THIS POST YOU WILL NOT HAVE WASTED YOUR TIME. THE WORDS ARE: “INJURY IN FACT”
Article III in the Constitution with the United States as defined with the U.S. Supreme Court has sometime ago established a constitutional, irreducible, minimum pair of requirements for any party in a very genuine dispute to create that it contains the Standing to redress a claimed “Injury In Fact” before it may bring a dispute before any court.
Without the presence of Standing all courts within the land must acknowledge how the court doesn’t have subject matter jurisdiction to listen for any merits of your case and it has no choice whatsoever but to dismiss this issue action. In Borrower’s cases, this subject action would be the claim that this foreclosing party could be the party in interest that gets the “right” to foreclose on a Borrower’s property and who’s is claiming and proving who’s has been injured from the Borrower enabling its straight away to foreclose
The three requirements to prove Standing in the case involving Judicial Foreclosure state foreclosure actions the location where the foreclosing party would be the Plaintiff and also the Borrower will be the defendant
1. The foreclosing party may be the Plaintiff and it also must claim and prove in their lawsuit resistant to the Borrower, who may be the defendant, it has sustained an “Injury in Fact” a result of the actions with the Borrower and which it is demonstrating what has evidence is “concrete and particularized”.
The Borrower Defendant’s “only burden” is he must deny ever being previously in default on this Plaintiff in such a case. This will probably be true in practically every case.
2. This injury should be have been proven because of the foreclosing party with “concrete and particularized” evidence for being fairly traceable to your foreclosed party with concrete and particularized evidence.
The Defendant Borrower is hoping to void and hang aside the foreclosure sale which the foreclosing party claims were legal and who’s has already happened properly although it’s got never yet been presented in every court.
I don’t use the words lender or bank because I haven’t ever seen any party in the foreclosure trial ever even try and prove a Lender’s status. So, whenever reading my writings you’ll see me utilize term “foreclosing party” as opposed to giving this entity any higher status prior to a judge.
Your foreclosing party only has one possible injury it may claim. That the foreclosing party used its’ own money to advance the closing from the loan, or used its’ own money to acquire the alleged subject Promissory Note and didn’t get paid back you, the mortgagor.
I have not seen the foreclosing party ever claim or state which it had suffered an “Injury in Fact”, nor ever described one. I have not seen the foreclosing party claim being the Holder in Due Course.
The United States Constitution guarantees the issue of standing could possibly be raised without notice, even though appeal.
(Article III from the U.S. Constitution) (Lacey v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 480 B.R. 13 (2012), United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Bankruptcy No. 10-19903-JNF, Adversary No. 12-1249) (Ibanez, 458 Mass. At 651, 941 N.E.2d 40) (Bailey v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (In re Bailey), 468 B.R. 464 (Bankr. D.Mass. 2012)) (Ball v. Bank of New York, No. 4:12-CV-0144-NKL, 2012 WL 6645695, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 20, 2012) (Williams v. Kimes, 996 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. 1999))
Standing is usually a jurisdictional issue antecedent to the directly to relief. Missouri Courts and Federal Courts are settled on the problem. There is no court discretion. If Standing hasn’t been proved from the offending party, next the court doesn’t have a jurisdiction to see the merits in the case.
Article III Standing: Standing can be a requirement in most state and federal courts inside the United States. This requirement provides for a party the “to certainly make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of your duty or right. Standing requirements with the federal courts are uniform and in relation to constitutional requirements. For a lender to foreclose on a debtor’s property, the lending company must meet certain substantive constitutional requirements established with the doctrine of standing and prudential limitations essental to rules of civil procedure. Courts have stated that “[T]he reasoning behind standing subsumes a blend of constitutional requirements and prudential considerations.” Importantly, courts have recognized that failure to meet up with all standing requirements could be dispositive within the involving foreclosures. (dispositive: are not able to win)
The law of standing have their own roots in Article III’s case and controversy requirement. The U.S. Supreme Court has produced a three-part test for standing. The “irreducible constitutional minimum requirements of standing” necessitates plaintiff to ascertain:
First… an “injury the truth is”-an invasion of the legally protected interest which can be a concrete and particularized, and (b) “actual or imminent,” not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.”
Second, there have to be a causal outcomes of the injury as well as the conduct complained of-the injury has to become “fairly traceable for the challenged action from the foreclosing party rather than… the result from the independent action of some 3rd party not prior to the court”.
Third, it have to be “likely,” instead of merely “speculative,” the injury is going to be “redressed by way of a favorable decision” on the court. (Made whole. Get the house along with perhaps deficiency)
Because standing can be a “threshold question,” (Think with the groom carrying your beloved partner across the threshold begins the wedding) courts have stated that “a defect in standing is not waived; it need to be raised, either with the parties or from the court, sua sponte, (Sua Sponte means that this court needs to do it whenever it gets apparent). Standing is really a threshold question depending on the “case or controversy” element Article III and are not waived. Without standing, an event is not properly prior to court to advance a source of action. (The Borrowers need to make them prove the had the to collect from your Borrower since the foreclosing party had money inside Borrower’s loan). This should be true and might have before 1999, however today I believe it really is never true.
(“That in “United States v. AVX Corp., 962 F.2d 108, 116 n.7 (1st Cir. 1992) (emphasis added); see also Pershing Park Villas Homeowners Assn’ n v United Pac. Ins Co., 219 F.3d 895, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that standing is really a threshold question depending on the “case or controversy’ element Article III” from the Constitution and are not waived.).
See Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Ark. V Running M Farms, Inc. 237 S.W.3d 32, 36 (Ark. 2006) (” It is fundamental in American jurisprudence that as a way to bring case against an opposing party, you have to have the standing for this. Without standing, an event is not properly prior to a court to advance a factor in action”) see also Robert T. Mowrey et al., Issues Arising in Connection with the Foreclosure or Other Enforcement on the Securitized Loan, in MORTGAGE AND ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES LITIGATION HANDBOOK, supra note 45, § 5:99, § 5:110 (providing a standard overview of standing pertaining to securitization litigation).
That “without evidence demonstrating instances under which it received an interest inside the note and mortgage, a Foreclosing Party cannot establish itself as being the holder.” Today the idea of is Holder in Due Course whether some old judge that never reads anything thinks so you aren’t)
(Everhome Mortg. Co. v. Rowland 10th Dist. No. 07AP-615, 2008-Ohio-1282, at ¶15)
This whole issue is just not about the to foreclose, but, it really is about the to collect money.
The Borrowers must contend these are rightful owners in the Property and this they haven’t been in default on this Foreclosing Party in cases like this.
If the Plaintiff or any one its vendors have collected money in the Borrowers now cannot prove standing then it may be the Borrowers that are the ones who are already injured in truth. It will be the Borrowers given that they were deceived into paying money for the Imposter foreclosing party and yes it’s collections agents. Violations with the Federal Debt Collections Act (FDCPA), and also the UCC code regulating fraudulent contracts probably have already been committed.
(JESINOSKI ET UX. v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; SUP. CT. US., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE US Ct. APP. EIGHTH CIRC. No. 13-684. Argued November 4, 2014-Decided January 13, 2015)
There has become no ruling that any party from the theft with this home has voluntarily proven Standing nor has become ordered because of the court to take action, which means court failed to yet have subject material jurisdiction, proving the foreclosure was void at its onset and have to be dismissed.
The Borrowers have properly pleaded they were not in default on any Promissory Notes to your entity mentioned herein and specifically not to your foreclosing party and other 3rd party Strangers towards the contact.
The same glaring deficiencies apply to your alleged REMIC TRUST and it is alleged beneficiaries without which a Trustee cannot even exist. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that either the Trustee nor the REMIC Trust aside from assertions from attorneys including sly and misleading assertions.
(In RE: MERS; United States Appeals Court Ninth Circuit)(See Fed. R. CIV. P. 12(h) (3): “If the legal court determines at any time so it lacks subject material jurisdiction on the foreclosure, legal court must dismiss the action” (of foreclosure).
If Consideration will not be proven to attended from a foreclosing party, next the question is “where achieved it come from?”. Without a money trail demonstrating the foreclosing party paid to acquire ownership from the loan, the Borrower has a directly to challenge in which the funding got their start in. The Borrower must demand to find out, the place that the purchase and sale contracts are, the place that the copies of wires or cashier’s checks are, in which the Proof of Delivery is, the location where the original, unaltered, and safely kept alleged Promissory Note is.
Regarding Defendants rights to challenge assignments:
In re Walter W. Lacey v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, (2012).: stated:
“This Court concludes how the Debtor gets the standing to challenge the validity in the foreclosure sale to your extent that there’s an issue whether the entity conducting the foreclosure sale was the specific holder from the mortgage by using assignment with the time on the notice and sale. See Ibanez, 458 Mass. At 651, 941 N.E.2d 40. (“there should be proof which the foreclosure was carried out with a party that itself held the mortgage… the foreclosing entity must support the mortgage with the time from the notice and sale as a way accurately to recognize itself as being the present holder from the notice and so as to have authority to foreclose underneath the power of sale… “). (See also Bailey v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (In re Bailey), 468 B.R. 464 (Bankr. D.Mass. 2012) (holding that this debtor had standing because her argument was not in accordance with the breach of your underlying contract which she was not an event; instead, her argument was targeted at the ownership on the mortgage during the time it was purportedly assigned).
However, “the question of whether [a mortgagor has] (BORROWER) standing to challenge [an] assignment is different from your question of whether [he’s] standing to challenge the foreclosure on the basis that [the foreclosing entity] would not properly secure the mortgage for the time from the foreclosure.” Wenzel, 841 F.Supp.2d at 479 n. 16. A number of decisions have held that mortgagors possess the standing to challenge foreclosures sale as void as a result of an allegedly invalid claim of legal ownership and possession on the alleged Promissory Note. See in re Lacey, Bankr.No. 10-19903-JNF, 2012 WL 2872050, at *16-17 (Bankr.D.Mass. July 12, 2012); Rosa v. Mortg. Elec. Sys. Inc., 821 F.Supp.2d 423, 429 n. 5 (D.Mass.2011).
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that “[a]ny effort to foreclose by way of a party lacking ‘jurisdiction and authority’ to carry out foreclosed… is void.” Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d at 50. A wrongful foreclosure action could be brought to schedule a void foreclosure. See Rogers, 47 N.E. at 604 (allowing mortgagor in tort action who had previously been foreclosed upon in the void foreclosure to elect between full damages or recovering the home). Consequently, a mortgagor should bring a wrongful foreclosure action to create aside foreclosed conducted by an entity which was never someone entitled to enforce.
Mortgagors challenging foreclosure sales which are void as a result of invalid claims have standing to take action because they have demonstrated “a concrete and particularized injury actually, a causal connection which allows tracing the claimed injury to your defendants’ actions, and also a likelihood that prevailing inside the action will afford some redress for your injury.” Antilles Cement Corp. v. Fortuno, 670 F.3d 310, 317 (1st Cir.2012) (quoting Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC v. R.I. Coastal Res. Mgmt. Council, 589 F.3d 458, 467 (1st Cir.2009)). In In re Bailey, Bankruptcy judge Boroff succinctly stated why mortgagors for example Butler fulfill the standing requirements:
“The injury towards the [mortgagor] could be the purported termination of her equity of redemption within the Property with a party who had no authority to foreclose that equity of redemption. If [the foreclosure entity], as will be the allegedly invalid foreclosure by [the foreclosing entity] that constitutes the [mortgagor’s] claimed injury. Should the Court determine how the Foreclosure Sale is void, the [mortgagor] will keep the equity of redemption -an interest from the property that is not lightly disregarded.”
In re Bailey, 468 B.R. at 475-76. “To reject any argument which is applicable to “the validity of claims” beyond control would eviscerate the holding of Ibanez and deprive mortgagors with the most valuable remedy weather resistant protect their equity of redemption.
(See Tenney v The Certificateholders of Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust et al., APP. Ct. Kansas: Case No. 110.359; holding that Standing can be challenged anytime.)
That the directly to a tribunal free of bias and prejudice is using the Due Process Clause. Should a judge issue a purchase order after he continues to be disqualified for legal reasons, of course, if the party continues to be denied of all of his/her property, then your judge has engaged inside the crime of interference with interstate commerce; the judge has acted in his/her personal capacity and not inside judge’s judicial capacity.
The party foreclosing in your case has not claimed an injury in reality. They haven’t claimed how they lost money because you failed to pay them money you borrowed from their website. You didn’t receives a commission from this party and I can be that for you. But, even if you had, this party must claim it in words. They never claim an “Injury in Fact”. They never claim to own given serious cash. That is simply because didn’t give you cash. Someone did, but it truly is not the party threatening to foreclose on you. We can help you using this type of.
You must raise this matter to win. If you don’t your court cannot rule in your favor available for you. It is called disputing the claim. You must dispute all claims. It is vital that you simply object. You know like on TV, “Objection your honor”.
My name is Danny Hammond and I am a “Consumer Finance Protection Advocate. My emphasis and strengths are usually in dealing with mortgage fraud. However, as a result of similarities I am often a part of credit card and Student Loan debt issues. I didn’t end up in this line because I thought I would have fun with this or riches. I am a period of time real estate broker/owner and also a mortgage broker.
When I saw the enormity from the consumer fraud, especially mortgage fraud happening, I was mostly struck for the near total deficiency of protection and help for Borrowers because the Repeal on the 66 year-old Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.