We reserve the right to edit, classify or refuse to publish any material submitted by a comment and/or information provider. While we take every precautionary measure to prevent inappropriate, inflammatory material we cannot rule-out such stray incidents. We request all the users to maintain proper decorum and let us continue and excel in providing this interaction service to our community.
We are a consortium of legal professionals, paralegals and journalists. We are not all attorneys. We do not play one on TV. Nothing in this entire blog should be construed as legal advice. If you need legal advice you should consult an attorney.
PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: In order for us to support the blogging activities, we may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
DeadlyClear advocates for transparency and accountability in an effort to preserve the rights guaranteed to the press under the First Amendment and strengthen the public’s right to know.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate and HarvestRight™ Affiliate we earn from qualifying purchases. If you purchase a product or service with the links we provide, we may receive a small commission. There is no additional charge to you for those associate links and your support helps us to provide free content on our websites.
DeadlyClear® is a product of Project Maui, Inc., a Hawaii corporation. Copyright 2012-2026. All rights reserved.
What is the 1003?
On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:42 PM, Deadly Clear wrote:
WordPress.com Deadly Clear posted: “And now we are learning through the patents the banks filed in the USTPO, that it was actually the 1003 loan application that began the securitization process, BEFORE the borrower signed the documents – as it was pledged/committed/sold to the investment b”
The loan application that all the originators used was a Fannie patent and the form was called a 1003 loan application. The patent is posted on DC. See https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/behind-the-securitization-curtain-21st-century-mortgage-casino/
A paralegal in California tells me the Glaski case has been snubbed by Cal Federal judges just like the Bains V MERS case is snubbed by federal judges in WA. Does treason sound familiar?
Two of the judges recusing themselves sounds like the judges are aware of the importance of the public knowledge and the financial disclosures of the judges being part of the trust, that they needed to recuse themselves or are decent judges knowing they had to recuse themselves. Guessing of course. Hopefully recusing themselves due to they have integrity and are honest judges. Would like to think this is true for some of our judges. I dont have much faith in the federal judges in most states. Very disappointed in our over all judicial system. But glimmers of hope are coming out of the higher courts and some of the lower courts.