CNBC predicts Congress will retroactively legalize foreclosure fraud, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times


reply posted on 22-10-2010 @ 02:30 AM by jdub297
reply to post by dawnstar
if I paid my mortgage off tomorrow, would they be able to give me a clean deed, or would their failure to obey the laws the past few years have clouded the issue of ownership to the point where the title companies would refuse to insure it if I went to sell the house???


MERS in and of itself does NOT eliminate the tender of a deed at closing, you still get one. A paid mortgage entitles you to ask for a release or you get to sue to clear title. You can't stop paying just because you are afraid. The reality is that most foreclosures are the result of inability or unwillingness to pay, not lack of a clear title. Look into it. Get real.


reply posted on 22-10-2010 @ 03:55 AM by dawnstar
reply to post by jdub297

no, mers just eliminated any legally verifiable chain of ownership of the note....which well, before I get a clear title, that note has to be satisfied. if they have to resort to fraud to foreclose on someone because that chain of ownership has been broken, I'm sorry, but I find myself wondering if they will have to resort to fraud to release that title to me. as far as suing for a clear title....sorry, I presume the title was clear when I bought the house, or else the issue of title insurance would have been an issue....if it is now, then well....I have those banks, and the players on wall street to blame for it. and, I shouldn't have to pay some lawyer (who probably will give a kickback to the banks and wall street players for all the business that they have produced for him!!) to get it!! not to mention loss of time at work, ect.... nope, sorry, that kind of headache wasn't in any of the papers I signed when I bought the house!
imagine that you went and bought a car from a company that offered you financing, and well, you signed the papers and made arrangements to pick up the car that weekend... well, that friday, the owner of the company went on a drunken rampage and played demolition derby with the cars on his lot, including the one you just bought.
would you feel that you owed the guy any money for a car that he totaled??

and, I have been looking into it, and have found a few instances where people have not been getting the proper paperwork at time of settlement!

edit on 22-10-2010 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 22-10-2010 @ 07:39 AM by loam
reply to post by jdub297


Originally posted by jdub297
A contract is a promise for a promise.

...

Get your facts straight.


Yet you conveniently assume away any possible infirmity from one side of the promise, including enforcement of that promise through illegal means.

M'kay. That makes sense.

Opine upon the immorality of the consumer for exercising a legal right by legal means and overlook the fraudulent means of enforcement deployed by the lender. That makes sense. Such views always lead to favorable outcomes for the long term health of free societies governed by the rule of law.



reply posted on 22-10-2010 @ 07:51 AM by loam
reply to post by Edrick


This is not always true in the context of civil or administrative laws or regulations. In fact, laws applied retroactively occur frequently in the United States. Just think of some tax laws or regulations as an example.

The ex post facto provision found in the Constitution has not been generally held to mean a restriction in these areas.


reply posted on 22-10-2010 @ 08:02 AM by Edrick
reply to post by loam


The ex post facto provision found in the Constitution has not been generally held to mean a restriction in these areas.


It is still Illeigal.

The Constitution makes this quite clear.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


-Edrick (Not reading the Constitution is no Excuse for Abusing it)


reply posted on 31-10-2010 @ 10:38 AM by awakentired
reply to post by Edrick


Come on! Do you really think Congress will "knowingly" ignore a law while making another. The will simply have their attorney read the bill and stamp it as good.
Then after 4 or 5 years if the uproar didn't stop the Supreme Court will have to decide the legalities.

Then end justifies the means. They get the law that their benefactors wanted and are let off the hook legally.

Win Win for them.


reply posted on 7-11-2010 @ 10:42 AM by soficrow
reply to post by loam


S&F as usual.

Absolutely predictable of course. Any updates?

...the death of the rule of law indeed. But the entrenchment of international trade law aka global corporate government.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^