Source: http://ourlemon.com/Congress/NBOA.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 10:13:39
Document Index: 711863426

Matched Legal Cases: ['§192', '§192', '§ 192', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 51', '§ 192', '§ 51', '§ 51']

﻿ No Bills of Attainder!
Bills of Attainder, Ex Post Facto Law, Impairment of contracts
[This is a work in progress page]
Tangible then, tangible now
Ponder this; [Source: Bills of Attainder: The Constitutional Implications of Congress Legislating Narrowly]
Excerpt: The two main criteria that the courts use to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder are (1) whether “specific” individuals, groups, or entities are affected by the statute, and (2) whether the legislation inflicts a “punishment” on those individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court has also identified three types of legislation that would fulfill the “punishment” prong of the test: (1) where the burden is such as has “traditionally” been found to be punitive (historical test); (2) where the type and severity of burdens imposed are the “functional equivalent” of punishment because they cannot reasonably be said to further “non-punitive legislative purposes” (functional
test); and (3) where the legislative record evinces a “congressional intent to punish (motivational test).”
Break it down; in Texas
The two main criteria that the courts use to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder are
(1) whether “specific” individuals, groups, or entities are affected by the statute, and
(2) whether the legislation inflicts a “punishment” on those individuals.
(1) "specific" individuals, groups, or entities affected by the statute -
(a)Potential homeowners; and
(b)Local state subdivisions; and
(c)State divisions
(2) "punishment" inflicted by legislation -
(a) Loss of substantial due process rights;
(b) Loss of real property;
(c) Loss of revenue
(d) Contract impairment
The U.S. Supreme Court has also identified three types of legislation that would fulfill the “punishment” prong of the test:
(1) where the burden is such as has “traditionally” been found to be punitive (historical test);
(2) where the type and severity of burdens imposed are the “functional equivalent” of punishment because they cannot reasonably be said to further “non-punitive legislative purposes” (functional test); and
(3) where the legislative record evinces a “congressional intent to punish (motivational test).”
(1) “traditionally” been found to be punitive -
(a)non-judicial foreclosure; and
(b)Judicial foreclosure; and
(c)Forceable detainer
(3) Where the legislative record evinces a “congressional intent to punish (motivational test)"
(a) Section 51.0001(4)(C)
Reasoning; Or logic?
Since "securitization is the picture, this unconstitutional section does not provide as to whether the alleged instrument is a bona fide instrument, or an instrument of fraud, that is to be recorded, and given the full effect of law. It alludes to the "last" person of record. What record? If the "assignment" is fraudulent, the only purported instrument that is recognized would be the deed of trust, or possibly a warranty type deed. If the security interest has been assigned of record, it would be recognized by a UCC-1 financing statment filed of record with the Secretary of State. Assignments of "security interests" are governed by the Texas Business and Commercial code, of which, the secretary of state has authority, not the county clerk. This is the reasoning in the Nueces v. MERS by the honorable judge whom wrote that the "re-filing" of an instrument was required as stated in Texas Local Government code, chapter 192, section 007(a). What MERS members are doing is violating §192.007(b) by the creation of a new action. And of course the judge did touch on fraudulent filings scenario?
§192.007(b)
(b) An entry, including a marginal entry, may not be made on a previously made record or index to indicate the new action.
Although it is not just residential, but also commercial, real estate transactions are affected by the unconstitutional statute section, it seemingly appears that the homeowner is the one most discriminated, and punished, by the amendments in 78(R) H.B. 1493, as I have witnessed this discrimination myself in Williamson County, Texas. This is a portion of the "test".
Next, the political subdivision, such a the local government, in specific, the county clerk, and the laws it abides by. The re-filing of the instrument to be recorded is governed by § 192.007(a). This a portion of the revenue for the services of the county clerks's duties in filing the instrument, or something to that effect. However, the county clerk is only governed by how the law is enacted, whether constitutional or not. It is not the duty of the clerk to challenge an instrument for eligibility unless there is a clear suspicion of the instrument possibly being a fraudulent document. That "suspicion" of certain documents was taken care of before the house bill was enacted by actors known in the state, whom deceived the state of Texas into believing a different type of "instrumnet" would be realted to real property, so it would be easier for the document to be eligible for filing.
Because a certain House Bill, 78(R) 1493, was written as it was, § 51.00001(1) must be consdidered as the intentional portion of Section § 51.0001(4)(C). This is recognized by Section § 51.0001(4)(B).
Section 51.0001(4)(C) basically states this; We don't need to file anything in-between, so forget § 192.007(a) and let us conduct secret equity transactions like this "A, sells to B, sells to C, sells to D, sells to E, sells to F, sells to G.....", then Oh, I'm "H", I filed last, I'm the last person of record. I was the lst one assigned a "security interest" of record.
If the alleged § 51.00001(1) a system for tracking servicing, and/or beneficial rights, and the "mortgage servicer" is the agent per a pooling and servicing agreement, who is tracking the note? How is the "tracking system" bona fide evidence? How is the "tracking system" not evidence of hearsay? According to the Texas courts, there is only a few instances that are not considered hearsay when it comes to computer data. So, is it not true that the members of the private "rights" group were given "standing" to enter into courts with nothing but hearsay? It is all made possible by Section 51.0001(4)(C).
There are many articles written on this website that explain the "securitization" process, and how many steps were bypassed in order to speed up the paperless process of instangibles for the secondary market. With that stated, Section 51.0001(4)(C) allows for those laws, both U.S. and state to be bypassed in order to satisfy private "interest", private customs, while bypassing public interests.
How much more does it take to get the world, or even Texas, to understand that crime is a bliss for the certain class of "foreign" "person's", while all the other classes of people, citizens, living breathing in Texas are deprived? Yet, also the fictitious "person's" created by the corporate state are being deprived of rights guaranteed by the Constitutions?
If anyone wants to make something out of the "foreign" "person's" and take it out of context, go away!
It is so stated that corporations are "persons", yet regarding constitutional rights these are different from citizen rights when corporations are "persons". The "foreign" person is the corporation created under the laws of another state it was created under. This is not a "domestic" person which is a corporation governed by the laws of Texas because the corporation was created using the laws in Texas. Thus domestic rights v. foreign rights.
It is all about "Rights"!
Does not anyone realize "rights" were created for private interest, and these "private interest rights" trample upon public interest in Texas.
Attention Texas Legislature; Change the law, make amens, save accountibility while you can. Repeal.
To be continued.......?
February 8, 2017....... Challenge the constitutionality of the Texas Statute
WILL BE POSTED WHEN FILED IN PUBLIC RECORDS.
Since section § 51.0001(4)(C) allows mystery persons to file for record, with no indications of intervening "assignments", what kind of perjury information was provided by the obligor to satisfy the requirements of 15 USC 77nnn? Sure that has nothing to do with the tangible "borrower" of the real estate loan, but it does have something to do with the investors, such as government agencies, or GSE's. It has something to do with the Securities and Exchange commission!