“I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a house in the country. What she had was a coat, a hat, and a gun. I put them on and left the room. .”

Raymond Chandler Goodbye my love

I have people who have contacted me over the years and for one reason or another have not fully utilized my services or have never decided what they want to do or what they can afford. Some have contacted me many times with ideas or simple advice.

I currently have so little time that even though I try to help with what I know, I can only help as long as it’s not time consuming. I actually enjoy these conversations as they are people who have done a lot of research and often come up with something useful.

But in general, 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 lost the point and that the borrower is the interested party. The only conclusion the judge can come to is that the executor never actually had any real interest 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 unfair and illegal. The judges of these courts start from the beginning to place the burden of proof on the borrower and that is contrary to what the constitution says about the burden of proof. It is the plaintiff, in this situation that is the executing party, who must assume the responsibility of demonstrating that they have the right to take the case before any court.

The courts want the borrower who does not move to show that he or she has not caused harm to the foreclosure party. In reality, however, the burden is on the court to review the original pleadings of the foreclosure party and determine whether that party has, in fact, asserted any true and verifiable right to collect money from the borrower. If they have not, they have not met the constitutional minimum requirements to appear in all courts.

Without the right to collect, the executing party should not have collected money and it follows that without the right to collect there can be no right to default, which would certainly nullify any right to execute.

Lately, I’ve been using the strategy of questioning the position (which can be done literally at any time) of the executing party immediately. Without two parties with a proven interest in the issues in the case, the party executing the execution has no right to standing and the court has no subject matter jurisdiction and should not proceed with the case.

This is the constitutional law of the United States. In this position, the court (and the judge, they are interchangeable) only has one move it can make. You must dismiss the case or in a non-judicial foreclosure state you must vacate and vacate the wrongful foreclosure.

You may have noticed that I use the words enforcer and borrower instead of Plaintiff and Defendant. This is because in judicial foreclosure states, the foreclosure party is the Plaintiff and the borrower is the Defendant. But, under the statute and rules in states that use the bizarre and egregious nonjudicial foreclosure, it ends up being the opposite. The borrower is the Plaintiff and the executor is the Defendant.

That’s so confusing that I try to avoid using the words Plaintiff and Defendant when describing “who wronged whom.”

Below is the simplest description of the core mortgage fraud problem I’ve ever written. It’s my answer to my friend’s questions about some kind of blog he found on the internet and sent me to see what he thought.

Dear Kevin,

I’m reading all the case quotes you sent me from the guy on the blog posting videos while driving his car and wearing sunglasses and if I erase that image from my head he’s saying a lot of things that are close to what I am. It was interesting, but he’s in a niche that’s different enough that he just can’t fit in my mind. I don’t think we can find a useful way to use them in the current environment.

The judges I have been dealing with these long seven years are not even recognizing the simplest and most basic of constitutional and statutory civil rights. I can’t even get them to write anything in their orders and rulings to indicate that they even read what I’ve written.

Kevin, you’ve spent the time to keep digging to find the magic bullet that will make the judge jump and exclaim “Oh Kevin, now I get what you mean.”

The judge is on the way. It is an impediment to justice. We must use the remedies that the old men wrote in the constitution to slap the judges. Any reader who has been following me this year knows that this is what I call “The Dick Butkus Mortgage Offense.” from the game immediately. however you can. You don’t really have the luxury of studying your many dark “what ifs” because practice ended yesterday. Now it’s Showtime.

The probably non-existent implementing entity is not your problem, and neither are your lawyers. The only adversary of him is the judge. You are placing the burden of proof on you, the defendant borrower. That is not fundamentally sound logic and it is depriving you of your civil rights. You don’t have to win the case. The case is null. You have to declare and prove that.

You simply follow the laws of the subject matter jurisdiction and have the court enforce them, either peacefully or in a good takedown initiated by the borrower. You are not a victim unless you follow the judges rules. If you fight him and his court style with no rules from him, you will be a victim and a loser.

I meant that in the best and most civilized way. d.