The banksters will invariably misrepresent their STANDING to bring a foreclosure/enforcement action with naked conclusory allegations in their feeble attempt to meet the threshold requirement(s) which must be proved with actual evidence of an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized to invoke the Court’s “particular-case-jurisdiction.”  (“particular-case-jurisdiction” see Hisle, p7-13)

STANDING is a critical issue going to the foundational basis of Constitutional government with respect to the doctrine of separation of powers.   (See Raines v. Byrd (96-1671), 521 U.S. 811 (1997).

  “To meet the standing requirements of Article III,
"[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. "Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0468_0737_ZO.html

“We [The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)] have also stressed that the alleged injury must be legally and judicially cognizable. This requires, among other things, that the plaintiff have suffered "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is . . . concrete and particularized," Lujan, 504 U.S., at 560, and that the dispute is "traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process," Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 97 (1968). See also Allen, 468 U.S., at 752 ("Is the injury too abstract, or otherwise not appropriate, to be considered judicially cognizable?"). Raines v. Byrd (96-1671), 521 U.S. 811 (1997).”

“STANDING” is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit.

“Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements:

“Article III of the Constitution confines the federal courts to adjudicating actual "cases" and "controversies." As the Court explained in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-476 (1982), the "case or controversy" requirement defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded. The several doctrines that have grown up to elaborate that requirement are "founded in concern about the proper -- and properly limited -- role of the courts in a democratic society. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). [emphasis added]

All of the doctrines that cluster about Article III -- not only standing but mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like -- relate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government.

Vander Jagt v. O'Neill, 226 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 26-27, 699 F.2d 1166, 1178-1179 (1983) (Bork, J., concurring). The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government.” [emphasis added]. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0468_0737_ZO.html

 +++++++++++++++

 The banksters and their whores (debt collectors) cannot prove STANDING to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of a court of the judiciary, whether that be in a federal or state venue. Without PROOF of the existence of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, which the banksters seek to enforce, no INJURY IN FACT can be PROVEN.

Virtually every foreclosure judgment in favor of the banksters and their whores is VOIDABLE on the issue of STANDING. If the foreclosure claimant had no STANDING, the court that rendered the judgment for the bankster, or their whore, was without particular-case-jurisdiction, and the judgment rendered is VOIDABLE and can be attacked at ANY TIME on that ground.

When someone makes a claim against you, it is the CLAIMANT’S burden to PROVE, with VALID EVIDENCE, the EXISTENCE of an INJURY IN FACT – STANDING. The foundational basis of the validity of the bankster’s and their whore’s claims rest entirely upon PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.

NEVER admit/confess to ANY ELEMENT OF THE CLAIMS made by a bankster or his whore (debt collector).

The CLAIMANT is required to PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CLAIM AGAINST YOU.

If the bankster or their debt collector whores cannot establish in the record the EXISTENCE of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, they CANNOT PROVE AN INJURY IN FACT.

All “assignments” of the right to enforce an agreement must be traceable in an unbroken chain back to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT which MUST BE PROVEN TO EXIST.

The banksters SOLD the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT as MONEY for cash in their pockets. The bankster profited immediately from the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT. Now, after you have made numerous payments on a PAID debt, the banksters want to confiscate the property and do it all over again.

Going all the way to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT necessitates making the original so-called “creditor,” an indispensable party to the case brought to foreclose/enforce the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.

This pattern of exploitation has got to STOP!

Some critical facts and issues to burn into your mind:

(1) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE AN INJURY IN FACT, a concrete and particularized injury sustained by the party seeking foreclosure/repossession.
The banksters SOLD the original promissory note or “evidence of indebtedness.” The banksters got PAID for the value of the autographed original “evidence of indebtedness.” If the bankster got PAID the face value amount of the note, the bankster cannot prove existence of “AN INJURY IN FACT THAT IS CONCRETE AND PARTICULARIZED” (STANDING) to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of the court.

(2) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE AN ACTUAL INJURY IN FACT TRACEABLE to the alleged conduct of the defendant.
Banksters will invariably present a COPY of the so-called agreement. Without the AUTOGRAPHED ORIGINAL AGREEMENT there is no way to prove that the COPY is NOT PHOTO-SHOPPED, and, it is to be assumed that the criminal banksters actually fabricated the COPY in order to steal property.

(3) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE EXISTENCE of any alleged, valid ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT bearing the original autograph of the defendant.
The ONLY manner in which a COPY of any writing may be CERTIFIED as a TRUE COPY of the ORIGINAL writing is by “SIGHT VERIFICATION” by ACTUAL COMPARISON of the COPY to be certified to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING, and that certification must be SWORN by a person having been in the presence of the ACTUAL ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING, the individual certifying the copy must have “PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE” of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING. (Must have actually conducted the “SIGHT VERIFICATION/COMPARISON” of the COPY to be CERTIFIED with the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING).
Without presentation of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING or a properly CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, the EXISTENCE of the alleged ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT cannot be validated and ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN to have EVER EXISTED.
Banksters are LIARS.
NEVER ACCEPT any allegation of indebtedness as valid if the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT cannot be PROVEN to have ever existed.
UNCERTIFIED COPIES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE.

“EVIDENCES OF DEBT”, (promissory note; mortgage agreement), that have been “bundled,” “pooled,” and “securitized” for manipulation and sale in the stock market, ARE SECURITIES.

A PROMISSORY NOTE IS A SECURITY.

A MORTGAGE AGREEMENT IS A SECURITY.

A COPY OF A SECURITY IS VOID.   A NULLITY.

A COPY OF A SECURITY IS A COUNTERFEIT.

A COPY OF A SECURITY, that cannot be SIGHT VERIFIED BY COMPARISON to the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED WRITING, must be considered to be a COUNTERFEIT, FORGED, PHOTO-SHOPPED, AND FRAUDULENT writing.

Presenting a COPY OF A SECURITY with the intent to force someone into parting with something of value in redemption for such a COUNTERFEIT is a CRIMINAL ACT punishable by fine, 10 years in prison, or both.

See 15 USC § 77b.Definitions; …
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000077---b000-.html
(a)(1) The term “security” means any note, … evidence of indebtedness, …  and

18 USC § 513. Securities of the States and private entities
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000513----000-.html
 (a) Whoever makes, utters or possesses a counterfeited security … of an organization, or whoever makes, utters or possesses a forged security … of an organization, with intent to deceive another person, organization, or government shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.

(4) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE OWNERSHIP of any alleged original agreement autographed by the defendant.
Banksters will commit any act deemed necessary in order to conceal the facts about the sale and profit from the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED EVIDENCE OF DEBT. Once the details and all the facts are disclosed, the banksters CANNOT PROVE AN INJURY IN FACT in order to establish STANDING to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of a court.

(5) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE ANY ALLEGED DEFAULT by DEFENDANT for payment on any alleged valid EXISTING ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.
Without establishment of the existence of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT the banksters cannot establish that the defendant is in fact obligated in any way. Always consider what is claimed to be a COPY of the agreement is a fraud that has been fabricated and “photo-shopped” if it is not PROVED that the COPY has been sight verified by “personal knowledge” comparison to the ACTUAL ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.

(6) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE PRESENT AND ACTUAL HOLDER of the alleged original agreement bearing the autograph of the defendant.
This issue goes to STANDING and the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST and the chain of valid authorization that must be present to qualify the plaintiff’s right to bring a foreclosure/enforcement action. Without valid certified PROOF that the REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, the ACTUAL HOLDER of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT, has authorized the plaintiff to sue in his behalf, the plaintiff has no personal stake in the matter, and therefore cannot establish STANDING to invoke the particular-case-jurisdiction of the court to bring the lawsuit against the defendant.

(7) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE VALIDITY OF THE PRESENT HOLDER’S ALLEGED RIGHT to transfer the alleged agreement enforcement rights.
The right to enforce an “evidence of debt” must be proved all the way to the HOLDER of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT. Without such traceability there can be no STANDING for the plaintiff.

(8) Banksters, and their whores, fail to PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID CHAIN OF ASSIGNMENTS that lawfully establishes the right of the plaintiff to enforce the alleged ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT.
Valid assignments can only be PROVED upon PROOF of the EXISTENCE of the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT. Any COPY that has NOT been certified by “SIGHT VERIFICATION/COMPARISON” with the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHED AGREEMENT can be fabricated and photo-shopped. FRAUD.

AN “AUTOGRAPH” IS NOT THE SAME AS A “SIGNATURE”!

To start with, the word “AUTOGRAPH” begins with an “A,” and the word “SIGNATURE” begins with an “S.”

Autograph:
One’s handwriting; written with one’s own hand. (BLD6-134)(1990).
[This means an original blue-ink/wet-ink autograph].

Signature:
The act of putting one's name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity; [emphasis added] the name thus written. …
… In commercial law, any name, word, or mark used with the intention to authenticate a writing constitutes a signature. UCC §§ 9 1-201(39)[37], 3-401(2)[b]. See also Cross; Sign; Signed. [emphasis added] (BLD6-1381-1382)(1990). [indicates current UCC section]