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.
Deadly Clear 
I’ve been doing ‘paralegal’ work on mortgage fraud cases since 2008 & there’s one big problem judges haven’t thought about, because nobody’s been bold enough to bring it up — if you finished law school more than around 15 years ago you weren’t taught anything about mortgage “securitization” because it didn’t exist.
The vast majority of judges, especially on the higher courts, finished law school @ least 20 years ago, most 30 or more. And they probably bought their own home with a traditional mortgage — that’s all they understand. Trying to explain ‘securitization’ to them is like trying to explain ‘derivatives’ to someone who’s never taken a class in Economics. (And of course mortgage-backed securities are derivatives). There are some judges who have really studied the issues & now understand them, but very few.
Of course older attorneys are in the same boat — they can’t argue the points of securitization in court because they don’t know anything about it themselves. Some are learning & hopefully more will, but it’s hard to get someone set in their ways, who thinks they already know everything about mortgage cases, to realize they aren’t dealing with traditional mortgages anymore — this is a whole different ballgame!
AND let’s not forget Sheila Bair, former FDIC Chair, called them NTMs (non-traditional mortgages) in her book Bull by the Horns. There are no laws on the books for non-traditional mortgages or quasi-securities. Our research indicates that the banks had pre-existing agreements in place for the purpose of procurement of homeowner collateral to securitization – without disclosure to the homeowners that they were unwittingly participating in a securities sale before they even signed a document – the sales were Nemo Dat. Some attorneys are becoming brave enough to argue these issues and taking a lot of heat from judges and the bar.