The document discusses the application of the Carpenter v. Longan Supreme Court ruling regarding secured notes and mortgages. It states that under this ruling, a security instrument is temporarily perfected to the note as long as it is enforceable under state property law, but becomes unenforceable if not recorded as required. It argues that subsequently assigning the unrecorded security instrument and filing it could violate state criminal laws and require law enforcement intervention to protect constitutional rights. It also notes that the leveraging in secondary markets relies on intangible value greater than the actual tangible value being pursued illegally.
The document discusses the application of the Carpenter v. Longan Supreme Court ruling regarding secured notes and mortgages. It states that under this ruling, a security instrument is temporarily perfected to the note as long as it is enforceable under state property law, but becomes unenforceable if not recorded as required. It argues that subsequently assigning the unrecorded security instrument and filing it could violate state criminal laws and require law enforcement intervention to protect constitutional rights. It also notes that the leveraging in secondary markets relies on intangible value greater than the actual tangible value being pursued illegally.
The document discusses the application of the Carpenter v. Longan Supreme Court ruling regarding secured notes and mortgages. It states that under this ruling, a security instrument is temporarily perfected to the note as long as it is enforceable under state property law, but becomes unenforceable if not recorded as required. It argues that subsequently assigning the unrecorded security instrument and filing it could violate state criminal laws and require law enforcement intervention to protect constitutional rights. It also notes that the leveraging in secondary markets relies on intangible value greater than the actual tangible value being pursued illegally.
The document discusses the application of the Carpenter v. Longan Supreme Court ruling regarding secured notes and mortgages. It states that under this ruling, a security instrument is temporarily perfected to the note as long as it is enforceable under state property law, but becomes unenforceable if not recorded as required. It argues that subsequently assigning the unrecorded security instrument and filing it could violate state criminal laws and require law enforcement intervention to protect constitutional rights. It also notes that the leveraging in secondary markets relies on intangible value greater than the actual tangible value being pursued illegally.
Just amazing that common law Carpenter versus Longan does
apply to prove a criminal act was executed in certain circumstances. First step in explaining, why is it that a securitized trust requires the Security Instrument be assigned in recordable form but not recorded as states statutory real property law requires? In applying United States of America Supreme Courts opinion of Carpenter versus Longan, the Mortgage Notes Security Instrument will follow for the duration that such Security Instrument is enforceable under a states statutory real property law, thus there is in fact a secured note attached and temporarily perfected to the note, however non compliance with a states statutory real property law once there is non-compliance with a states statutory real property law the Security Instrument ceases to be enforceable under states statutory real property law, however the unenforceable Security Instrument remains attached to the Note (Real Property-Tangible-Mortgage Note). Second step in explaining, after a duration of time has elapsed and in disregard to common law (lacking a prudential right) Carpenter versus Longan; a second assignment of the Security Instrument is drafted and routinely (without legal tangible eligible rights) filed in real property records. The act of ineligible filing itself may itself require that many states criminal law(s) become applicable to a point where law enforcement requires stepping up to protect the Constitutional Rights of the people. Third step in explaining, the leveraging executed in the secondary market has an intangible fictitious value many times greater that the tangible value being illegally pursued. As grand pappy once stated, it aint against the law (common or statutory) until one is caught. As fictional character television Gomer Pyle to has been heard on television saying to Sergeant Carter, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise, an as noted by Abraham Lincoln, you can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, you cannot fool all the people all the time, true that certain aspect of the secondary markets procedures are legal, however these same acts are not sustainable, not enough tangible disposable wealth exists. 1
Segovia Development Corporation and Federal Insurance Co. v. Constructora Maza, Inc., Jorge M. Guillermety, Banco de Ponce, 628 F.2d 724, 1st Cir. (1980)