[MamaTexan]

But I’m still confused about this bill - it seems to me that what it was intended to do was accept as genuine and definitive the endorsements that existed on the documents at the time of the foreclosure, thus resolving the title issues and making it possible to proceed (foreclose, sell, or whatever).

This all revolves around contract law.

If someone says you owe them money and you don't agree, they have to produce the contract upon your request. This must be the original contract that contains your signature that proves you agreed to the debt and its terms.

This whole 'electronic paperwork' mess tries to bypass this legal concept that is over 200 years old by having some notary somewhere say "Yeah, I saw the contract", thereby relieving the party that is supposedly owed from the burden OF ACTUALLY PRODUCING the contract.

It not only flips the 'he who asserts must also prove' concept on its head, it puts the person who is contesting the debt in the impossible position of trying to prove the opposite - that he DOESN'T owe it.

[abb]

But now the law and the veto are being exponentially expanded to stop ALL foreclosures - and thereby attacking the concept of private capital.

I is owed on the grandest scale yet.

[abb]

But now the law and the veto are being exponentially expanded to stop ALL foreclosures - and thereby attacking the concept of private capital.

I is owed on the grandest scale yet.