2924 unconstitutional ???

11 Jun

2924 unconstitutional  Check out this pro per complaint they raise some interesting issues.


5 Responses to “2924 unconstitutional ???”

  1. John June 12, 2011 at 7:14 am #

    All those words in the Supplemental is all find and dandy however does not have any meaning if the Note was securitized it has no Power to demand payment or contain a promise to pay. The Securitization took all of it power away and that of the Mortgage / Deed of Trust.

    No Judge has any authority to change the rules and somehow spank the butt of the Note and make it come alive. Once the Apple has been turned into apple juice it is always apple juice.

    Stop confusing the courts and get some education to the Judges on securitization.

    Forensic Audits and Foreclosure Defense
    Quiet Title Action
    Student Loan Defenses

  2. Randy Frodsham June 13, 2011 at 8:19 am #

    So Tim, what are your thoughts on the points made in the complaint?

    • timothymccandless June 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

      It does not matter what i or Niel Garfield thinks what matters is what the judge thinks. While i agree that in most states the taking of Real property by way of non-judicial foreclosure has been deemed the taking of property without due process of law others
      have codified there way around “due process”. I also think that for the past 50 years the non-judicial processes worked for those who had equity and the sale of the property was the way to protect that equity. But what we have now is the Government sanctioning the taking of Real property in a system of secuitization that they participated in and profited from now they protect the banks by giving them money to loan to the consumers and they refuse. the banks should have failed but rather than let the normal business process cycle through business failures in the name of protecting the economy and that of the world they wink at the the taking of property without due process in the name of the greater good. Equal protections in the modification process is being violated. i’m obviously not going to solve the constitutionality of the foreclosure process by this reply i just found it interesting that someone thought of the constitutional aspects of foreclosure and supplemented their claims.

  3. Randy Frodsham June 13, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

    I couldn’t agree more. I was just curious what your thoughts were. As long as the bank making the loan took the signed loan docs and stuck them on a shelf in the vault, that loan was an asset of the institution that generated cash flow (interest and the repayment of principal). Now that they no longer own the asste but are allowed by the courts to foreclose on the security anyway, the people get screwed.
    We need to have Glass-Steagle re-instated. Anyone daeling with an investment bank (with knowledge they are dealing with an investment bank) should understand the risks. When a member of the public is dealing with a depository bank, insured by the FDIC, they believ their funds and the institution are not at risk. Investment and depository banks are two different business models and should not be comingled, especially when it is the American people that must backup the FDIC when the bank proncipals get a bit too stupid with other peoples’ money.

  4. Angel June 14, 2011 at 1:27 am #

    I’m curious if anyone has put this together. How many loans exist in transactions that are securitized? I think understanding this is crucial to understanding what’s going on and how to challenge any claims.

    As John stated. You can’t turn apple juice back into an apple.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: