Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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