You are on page 1of 2

Unconscionable Contract

Lest set aside unviable arguments and attorney arrogance and get
to the merit(s). In reviewing the Mortgage (Deed of Trust) or whatever
you want to call the Security Instrument, forget not it is not a Security
Interest but can be proven within its own wording that the Security
Instrument is unconscionable written by learned people. Federal law
1635 allows for recession of a financial obligation and herewith in some
circumstances the recession request is made upon the detection that the
Security Instrument is unconscionable.
First question presents, how is it determined that the Security
Instrument is not valid and enforceable by its own written wording
under Contract Law. Review the Covenant that states the agreement is
to follow all applicable law then advance to another Covenant that
states the verbatim reads The Note or a Partial Interest in the Note
[intangible] together with the Security Instrument can be sold, such
having the Security Instrument to follow the intangible obligation goes
opposite of SCOTUS opinion in Carpenter versus Logan, such the
Security Instrument to follow the securitized intangible obligation
result in bifurcation, thus could it be seen that the author of the
unconscionable contract would only follow law as long as it suited the
authors need(s). Would it be true that once statutory law gets in the
way of legally making money, attempts are made to not follow any law
such as common law (prudential)? Would writing of a contract to
include the method and means to avoid statutory and common law be
unconscionable?
Clearly it should be seen that the originating lender ceased being
the Tangible Obligee and became an Intangible Account Debtor who
sold an intangible obligation secured by personal property contract(s) to
the Intangible Obligee and thus the Intangible Obligee has not

prudential standing to invoke a court jurisdiction in opposition to a


Tangible common law contract.
Consider that signing a Mortgage Note in conjunction with the
signing of the Security Instrument constitutes a singular common law
contract, would it not be correct that if one violates either Mortgage
Note or Security Instrument common law contract the other contract is
to be considered violated?, regardless if statutory law also applies.

In allowing the Tangible Mortgage Note as the sole instrument


under common law to establish prudential standing should not be
allowed in bearer form as a subsequent Payee is unidentified and thus
there is not a Secured Party identified under statutory law, this
author understands that UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) Article 9 has
a legal and justified place in the world to allow a Note to be secured by
Personal Property pledged as an alternate means to collect value,
however the statutory application of UCC 9 applies not to tangible or
intangible Financial Obligations secured by real property.

You might also like