According to the place of the United States Supreme Court
"Why is the lawyer responsible at all? Hell, most of them do not know the law"
If you enter a second grade elementary class room and see all the boys shaking their ass with a laugh and standing on the desk crying out to a girl in a class running out with a cry After throwing things, and the second grade teacher nothing to stop the confusion When you notice what you are putting on his desk, are you really blaming the children?
No, it is a teacher in charge of the room. If teachers do not enforce classroom behavior rules, children act like wild monkeys. How did they not know?
It is the same as the judge of a court who was requested to control and enforce the accuracy of information and procedures in a trial case.
If a judge does not enforce the Constitution, it is everything that makes this country great.
The judge requests the transfer of ownership of an important promissory note accompanying the transfer of any collateral securities (mortgages or trust certificates) other than to the attorney to prove the claim and / or to post the collateral If not, of course, the lawyers do counterfeiting and counterfeiting and are worse than wild monkeys.
Therefore, the lack of the subject matter jurisdiction is the negligence of the judge of the court. He or she places a burden of evidence standing on the borrower (very often), which is the burden of the court.
The judge enforced and protected the law derived from the Constitution and promised to keep the court fiercely protected from losing public confidence at the same time. Maybe it was heard from too many fancy butt.
Anyway, why did we expect much of the judges and lawyers?
If I am part of the public, the courts can certainly tell you that they are losing public trust.
Looking for ways to prove that the party trying to deprive the mortgage is denying it with the idea like Dick Tracy, the borrower comes back from searching promissory notes, Mortgage, MERS, PSA etc It is difficult to come. Authorities, or STANDING, to do so.
But if what I say is true, attorneys can be responsible for lawyers running amuck like my second grade in my explanation. "Amuck" is familiar with the "acts of the court" at once.
If you saw that a judge just ignored evidence when a judge was presented as much as I have, then what I truly say is that this whole is only about standing and constitutionally a court (The court is a judge and the judge is the court.) Has an initial burden of determining whether a party to foreclosure is a plaintiff of indictment.
It is the Supreme Court that has jurisdiction over all issues of constitutional rights. State courts and district courts should not claim to be superior to the Supreme Court ruling and its decision.
The way in which it has been practiced during the past 15 to 20 years is the opposite.
The judge sat on the bench and sat on the borrower to explain what the seized party was doing and the borrower was waiting for it to prove it. These cases are initiated by a judge that prove that the foreclosure party has made it very difficult to hide, by placing a burden on the borrower. That is a silly promise. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest people thought so.
If fraudulent acts work here, the deed was supposed to be kept hidden by definition.
How will the judge prove or disprove something he is not secret? It is a discriminatory party and the same discriminatory party that we have to prove with "evidence concretely embodied" that he must assert that he is abused by the borrower .
So the real law is that judges can not even rule the case until the court has read aloud the case that the plaintiffs wrote in court in the lawsuit. There is a need to pass the act, they need to sell it and to keep the money. It is disgraceful shame for the majority of our judiciary that this is allowed to happen tens of thousands of times illegally. That is truly incredible. It is not the truth, I just can not believe it. (There were also many beautiful and pure rulings, but it is not yet near "fair").
Because no one is doing what I am doing, it is very difficult to show how Challenging Standing works, so it's essentially only in my head. There are hundreds of quotations related to the judgment of the defendant, but most cases are contract laws of other industries. All mortgages funded with promissory notes are contract laws, but they do not force it. It is the right way as requested by the US Constitution which is the basis of all American law.
It does not change how it works in your mortgage because the contract law dominates the mortgage.
Therefore, since it is essential to know that the accused needs to start the incident, he must see the proof of the foreclosure party charged in the case.
Before anything, the borrower must first understand the evidence necessary to establish the standing. If no evidence is presented and the judge has no jurisdiction of the judge, he is breaking the law, which is the only situation where there is no "absolute exemption" to the judge.
If you do not have "things" jurisdiction and judge whether he is justice or violation against you, if he acts as a "citizen" and deprives you from any of the constitutional citizenship, he Any money or property to you You are suffering the harm. You do not really appeal the judge as a judge but sue for the men and women who acted as judges without the necessary requirements to make a law court with jurisdiction.
There was no legal trial on the foreclosure case I have seen before. I saw many with everyone.
So, the first one is the first. We will carefully consider what the United States Supreme Court will determine that it is the minimum constitutional requirement for candidacy. The word to use is the strategic compensation you use to keep your house safe from those who do not borrow money.
Please let me know how these words fit your situation. If not, we will proceed ahead on how to apply them.
The following is the actual paragraph from my own motivation to withdraw the invalid judgment of foreclosure.
Prior to this case, the plaintiffs appealed the right to challenge the position of the advocate at any time pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States, but the court did not even even read the dispute / Prior to the plaintiff, the court Activation of this basic constitutional citizenship which was the responsibility of.
The plaintiff states as follows and the court ignores the danger of its own.
1.) Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court have set a minimum requirement that is not constitutional irreducible for the parties to genuine conflict to establish their position. Without forming a party to foreclosure, all the courts of the land must recognize that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case, in this case the plaintiff's property.
1a) Only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over constitutional matters.
(The rulings of the US Supreme Court are justifiable even if they are legitimate or mistaken. They are bound by all courts in this land.Hoover v Holston Valley Community Hospital, 545 F. Supp. 8, 13 (ED Tenn 1981) Jordan V. Gilligan, 2 500 F 3 d 701, 707 (6 th Cir. 1974).
(The lower court was detained by the Supreme Court precedent, Adams v. Department of Juvenile Justice of New York City, 143 F.3d, 61, 65 (2nd 1998)
(Walker v. Quality Loan Service Corp., Washington et al., Page 65975-8-1)
(Washington State Supreme Court, Bain v. Metro, Mortg. Group, Inc., 1995 Wd 2 d 83, 285 P 3 d 34 (2012))
2) The requirements for non-judicial foreclosure are as follows.
1. The parties to foreclosure must prove and demonstrate concrete, concrete evidence that it is sustained and de facto injury.
2. This injury must be considerably traceable to the party seized with concrete and substantive evidence.
3. The court must be able to rescue the injury with a favorable judgment on the injured party.
3) If it is a mortgagee who is claimed to be the claimant party, it shall also claim and demonstrate de facto damages. 2. The injury must be considerably traceable to the seized party. 3. The injury must be relieved by the court.
4.) The US Supreme Court has defined the legislative requirements as follows:
3.1.B. Constitutional and prudent requirements of standing
Constitutional restrictions on jurisdiction over cases and controversies have the requirement of "specific conflict" between the parties to the lawsuit. With the rise of public-interest lawsuits, including claims of non-economic losses, the Supreme Court forced to make an analytical framework to judge whether inevitable adversities exist. The court seeks to prove that the plaintiffs pose a threat as to whether the act being challenged actually causes injury to the judicial interests. By proving that they personally suffered injury, the plaintiff proves that it is sufficiently related to the dispute that is allowed to bring the case. The problem of injury,
(1) What kinds of injuries exist for standing
(2) When the injury has not yet occurred, how much should the injury should be?
3.1.B.1. De facto injury
The Supreme Court insisted that a party attempting to raise federal court bills must show three things in order to satisfy the injury of the de facto requirement.
(1) "Infringement of legally protected interests"
(2) "concrete and concrete", and f
The next section discusses several types of injuries that the Supreme Court considers to judge whether there is a legally protected interest.
3.1.B.1.a. Economic interests
It was not difficult for the Supreme Court to judge economic benefits as legally protected benefits. The more difficult thing is to judge that the economic injury that has not yet occurred is sufficiently important and the possibility of running is high. The court shows trustworthy tolerance on this point. Economic injuries do not need to have already occurred, but may arise for example from policies that could potentially capture competitive advantage or plaintiffs of negotiating chips. For example, President Bill Clinton of New York State claimed that the court was trying to challenge the veto to allow New York to compete for Medicaid's funds. Veto rights left the state's ability to maintain the uncertainty of the funds as a result of the request for waiver. Despite this fact, the court considered adequate "substantial contingent debt restoration" to give a position.
3.1.B.5. Injuries considerably hurting difficult behavior
In addition to actually claiming injuries, the nurse must prove that the victim has left a considerable trace in the illegal acts of the defendant. If the government acts against plaintiffs, the causal relationship is simple.
B.3.B.6. Relief to relieve bailout injuries
Injuries alleged to be quite traceable to challenging acts due to the need for the Supreme Court to prove are separate requirements that the rescue team needs to rescue injuries. In the majority of cases, we can not distinguish causal relationships and investigations of relief measures.
Therefore, in Worth, the court argued that there is no reason to assume that plaintiffs are able to acquire residence in Penfield by eliminating exclusive zoning. At the East Kentucky State Welfare Rights Institution, the court claimed that revoking the IRS Revenue Award does not believe that the next sick illness or injured person will be hospitalized in the hospital.
In addition, in Allen, the court asserted that it absolutely guessed that revoking the tax-exempt status of discriminatory private schools would promote the integration of public schools. Procedures concerning concerns of court relief measures are rising problems of efficiency of remediation against constitutional status.
Los Angeles City and Lions City have not clearly stated the necessity of corrective action as a clear constitutional element of the court but the scope of impartial relief to rescue illegal government act has long been controversial Although it was a problem, Lyonsund 's plaintiff claimed damages and injunctive relief after paralyzing a police officer in the city. He insisted that the police allowed indiscriminately to use unnecessary chalk. The court confirmed that Lions had filed a lawsuit for damages. However, the court claimed that the injunction is accidentally arrested and breathed out again, he argued that the attitude towards injunctive relief is lacking in order not to rescue injuries.
You are not really trying to superior to a lawyer. What you really want to do is put the judge on many pickles as you are (risky).
EmoticonEmoticon