Why Standing is Important

It’s easy to get lost in the weeds. Lots of people bring up the issue of standing without realizing that they are invoking constitutional rights and required processes. But beyond that they are invoking common sense, to wit: simply stated, no person should be deprived of their property without due process of law by a person who has the right to do so.

While it seems that nobody is arguing with that simple proposition, the banks are dead set against it. They seek to take property from a homeowner and sell it for the purpose of obtaining revenue — not to pay down any debt. They do so without one penny of value invested in the debt and they are successful because they have convinced most judges that foreclosure is proper even if the creditor is unknown.

Since the proceeds of foreclosure are received as revenue, the question is why should anyone receive that revenue under the disguise of collecting a debt?

Foreclosure is the civil equivalent of capital punishment recognized for centuries as a drastic draconian remedy. Why would you let that happen simply because someone wants to make more money than they already did off of a transaction in which the homeowner received no disclosure of the true nature of the deal?

And why is the quest for revenue an acceptable substitute for debt repayment? The law says it isn’t. That should end the argument; but for millions of homeowners, the intentional ignorance of the courts as to ownership of the debt has ended their right to own and possess the largest investment of their lives together with their lifestyle and reputation. It wasn’t always so.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM. The key to victory lies in understanding your own case.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 954-451-1230. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).

The 2008 crisis was caused and created by a very long-running plan of political influence in which the financial tools of mass destruction were deregulated and the legal tools to institutionalize fraud were passed starting with local, state and even federal laws, rules and regulations.

One such example is the law in some jurisdictions that says that if you don’t raise jurisdiction (standing) as an issue you have waived it.

Such laws unconstitutionally allow a court to confer jurisdiction upon itself when there is none. In a nutshell there is no doctrine, law or Supreme Court decision that agrees, but legislators, under the heavy influence of bank money, have nonetheless passed bills that have no justification in law, in fact, in public policy or even debate.

Now some jurisdictions are seeking to protect homeowners from further legal atrocities like a foreclosure conducted by a party who conducts a void foreclosure and pockets the money as revenue because no debt was owed to them.

The new bills, hotly contested by the banks, merely removes a power that never existed in the first place. Standing, subject matter jurisdiction and due process are not requirements and processes that can be waived. They are required for an orderly society and in ours, the US Constitution is quite clear that we are all subject to its laws.

Standing is a jurisdictional issue. The new bills merely correct a legislative error.

If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then it has only one limited power — to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a technical issue.

If the party claiming a right to pursue the foreclosure in fact is not the proper party then there is no assertion, much less assurance, that the foreclosure will result in actually paying down the debt.

When the property is supposedly sold without jurisdiction the sale is void, thus clouding title forever.

When the proceeds received from the void sale are used to pay parties who receive it as revenue instead of debt payment then the debt remains (and the liability to pay it) or the debt was not as claimed from the beginning.

UCC Article 9 §203 has a special provision to prevent just this sort of problem: the would-be enforcer must have paid value for the debt, not merely possess the note. That provision is adopted as state law in all jurisdictions.

The concept of waiver of jurisdiction is a legal fiction devised by the banks. No party has the right to “waive” the constitutional requirement of subject matter jurisdiction. No court may hear issues or cases just because the parties want an advisory or binding decision if the court lacks the power to hear it. That power comes from the US Constitution which cannot be changed except by amendment to the constitution.

If the party seeking foreclosure has no legal right to do so, they should not be allowed to do so anyway. If the court has no power to consider or hear an issue or claim, then it should not be permitted to do so anyway. The banks  have succeeded in both ignoring the law and institutionalizing those changes as though that made it right. They didn’t amend the U.S. Constitution, thankfully, so it remains wrong.

3 Responses

  1. […] Source: Why Standing is Important […]

  2. No law apply to banks, none.

    Because most Judges care about their investments and pensions invested in funds like Lone Star and BlackRock who pays over 50% returns to pension funds, so they don’t see no evil, don’t hear no evil.

    IL teachers pension fund invested $600 mil. in Lone Star; MI pension fund invested $400 mil in both. OR pension funds invested about $1 billion in Lone Star….

    The average mortgage rate in USA is about 5%.

    Lone Star or BlackkRock do not have any legitimate source of income to pay over 50% interest on investments to pension funds.

    All these money are coming from Ponzi scheme where investors with longer maturity term MBS/CDOs pay to investors with shorter terms MBS/CDOs. And all this scam is known by judges and politicians.

    The Government needs to shot people down while judges cover for banks fraud in order to receive huge returns on their pensions and investments from Ponzi Scam which is a controlled destruction of US economy

  3. Having made this argument to the Independent Foreclosure Review Board and receiving $6,000 because Wells Fargo Bank refused to underwrite for the VA HAMP, however the issue of “No Standing” that I made was not address when the Fed Gov stop the processing of the Review Board and eliminating the “No Standing” payout category. Wells did not originate or purchase my Washington Mutual Bank VA loan that was attached to the WAMU Ginnie Mae using the UCC3 procedure.

    Wells who was the servicer through what I believe could not take place because it exposed that there could never be a situation where WAMU could ever regain physical possession of the blank endorsed Notes that physically were transferred to Ginnie Mae with Wells as the custodian of records.

    I have just gone through my US Senator to make the Dept of VA answer how they could purchase the property from Wells who not the “holder in due course” and only got into title by the outside attorney in Kozeny & McCubbin LC the same firm that lost in the 2016 Holm v Wells & Freddie Mac.

    They filed a Notice of Default and Assignment of Deed of Trust as if Wells purchased the debt. Wells has admitted in letter that they did not purchased the debt, but says that Ginnie Mae is the owner, when in fact this can never occur because the US Congress does not authorize Ginnie to purchase loans or sell them and invest in MBS!

    Ginnie is working in concert with Wells receiving most of the proceeds of the foreclosure and VA Guaranty Fund claim that also false as the lender stop existing. The Fed Gov cannot OK this illegal act to have our properties illegally seized to satisfy the debt of the bank in a post home loan closing that we are not a party too.

    Like a construction loan the lenders draw monies from investors and this is what owed not the mortgage loan debt. Two separate loans, which WAMU breached the contract between the home owner on Sept 25, 2008, when it was seized and was declared a “failed bank” by the FDIC. The best hope Ginnie had was claiming through the bankruptcy court a debt owed. Never Wells or Ginnie as in the Holm case can under UCC9 provide proof of purchase!

    The other agency should ensure that who is selling them properties actual own the debts. The Note are in fact owned by the Fed Gov because of UCC3, so you can simply review the endorsement on the Note and see that neither Wells or Ginnie have been endorsed on the contract and have no legal claims to the debt!

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: