Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Texas

In the United States, The United States federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of Article I, section 10.

Would retroactive action on civil law undo a criminal act?

Quote 0 0
Brindy
No.
Quote 0 0
Moose
Texas wrote:

In the United States, The United States federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of Article I, section 10.

Would retroactive action on civil law undo a criminal act?




You need to clarify your question. What do you mean by "retroactive action on a civil law?"

If you mean could congress pass a civil law that would make some past criminal act non-criminal, the answer is no - they would have to change the criminal statutes.

Moose




Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Without other reply or commentary, I would recommend to you and others the Cornell LII Annotated version of the U.S. Constitutionhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/index.html ) and particularly the annotation on the sections which you cite to be of interest.

I think that the LII analysis with references primarily to authoritative U.S. Supreme Court decisions tends to rather clearly describe the dimensions and contours of the restraints which have captured your interest:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 Annotations

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag89_user.html

 

Article I, Section 10 Annotations

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag93_user.html et seq.

 

(Make sure you follow the link to the Next page in respect of the latter link!)

 

I do not have the time to carefully read the analysis and decisions right now, but believe that this would be a trustworthy means of obtaining an understanding of the questions of interest to you.  Hopefully, these will inform your inquiry and give you a basis to advise us of your own conclusions!

Quote 0 0
Texas
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=88140

5. Invalidity of Defendant‘s Claim. The Deed of Trust under which the Defendant or the Lender or Lender‘s assigns asserts an interest that interferes with Plaintiff‘s title, although appearing valid on its face, is in fact invalid and of no force or effect. The Plaintiff will show that Defendant nor the Lender‘s assigns is not the holder of the original Real Estate Lien note that is secured by the Deed of Trust.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
Quote:
Texas said:
 
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=88140

5. Invalidity of Defendant‘s Claim. The Deed of Trust under which the Defendant or the Lender or Lender‘s assigns asserts an interest that interferes with Plaintiff‘s title, although appearing valid on its face, is in fact invalid and of no force or effect. The Plaintiff will show that Defendant nor the Lender‘s assigns is not the holder of the original Real Estate Lien note that is secured by the Deed of Trust.



Texas:

We previously discussed the Groves decision within another thread:

 

"MERS Loses Quiet Title Appeal in Texas: MERS v. Groves"

http://ssgoldstar.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=5200583


While an interesting decision, a central problem in that case was MERS' default.

I am unsure what you think the relevance and applicability of Groves is to this thread regarding Constitutional restraints, but it is your thread and I raise relevance solely because I do not understand the point you are seeking to make.

The quoted material you posted from the Groves case is the Court quoting Groves' petition, NOT the essential holding of the Court in that case.

*

So my questions would be:
  • What is the point you are seeking to make?
  • How does an allegation in Groves' petition inform the discussion about Constitutional restraints to the alteration of laws?
Quote 0 0
Texas
The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the relevance of today's post.
Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
Texas said:

The Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the relevance of today's post.

 
Why not then post an updated citation with writ history in the other thread?
 
But also verify your facts.  I believe that the appellant filed both a motion for rehearing and a motion for rehearing en banc, both of which were overruled TODAY.  I do NOT believe that a petition for review by the Texas Supreme Court was ever filed in this case.  It is my impression that any such petition was due no later than May 27, 2011.  But I haven't checked the Texas Appellate Rules.
 
I would recommend to you:
 

http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/case.asp?FilingID=92409

 
My impression is that the matter is going to be described as "rehearing denied, no pet".
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...