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.
DeadlyClear® is a product of Project Maui, Inc., a Hawaii corporation. Copyright 2012-2019. All rights reserved.
> Oh, how naive people are. These transactions are not traditional mortgage loans.
Here’s the problem — and the reason for conflicting decisions from different courts — a court can only rule on what’s presented to it. If the point that these mortgages are not “traditional” loans & the Notes are not “negotiable instruments” under UCC Article 3, they’re “investment securities” under Article 8, the court is not going to address those issues. And if they’re raised in one court but not in another, in cases with very similar or even identical facts, you’re going to get 2 very different decisions.
I was talking with an attny. the other day who said he graduated law school in 2000 — after I mentioned that anyone who went to law school before around 2000 was’t taught anything about “securitizatized” mortgages because they didn’t exist. Older attorneys & judges treat mortgages as traditional loans because that’s all they’re familiar with. So when dealing with a newer, securitized mortgage, you have to clearly explain all the aspects of it & show why it’s not a traditional mortgage or it will be assumed that it is. The attorneys will be arguing & the judge ruling on mortgage law from the 1990s & earlier, even though the mortgage wasn’t originated until 2005 or later.