This problem is one of the first impressions. Since the Supreme Court of the United States has not voiced hearing since the Federal Charter's bank corporation that was founded under Congressional act to provide important public and national purposes violated Article 5 amendment Right. However, taking into account the nature of these legal entities, the court made a number of decisions related to judging whether non-judicial proceedings are applicable. Several appellate courts got the opportunity to judge the constitutionality of non-judicial proceedings in the form of trust selling provisions, but nobody has reviewed the companies seeking this remedy. This problem goes to the heart of the essence of a federal corporation created under special law for public and national purposes. This problem deals with whether these companies deal with the right to contract such a provision and whether the act of foreclosure is a government action or an exclusive act. In the context of the current economic crisis and massive foreclosure, it is a matter of expanding the spread of this nation to something like a plague that destroys families and communities, and replacing the homeless population later. This problem is accompanied by constitutional rights that affect the lives of millions of families in this country.
This will allow home owners to have a place of equal competition to negotiate loans with banks. If a bank has to take to the court, the homeowner can raise the right of positive defense and jury trial. I look forward to the discussion you presented in this letter, make your decision and wish for you to act immediately.
Argument
I. Bank informal court usage
It is not within the legislation of Congress
In order to solve the problem of the constitutionality of trust sales by the National Bank and the Federal Savings Association, it is necessary to first identify the nature of the company. State Banks and the Federal Savings Association are legal entities of the Federal Charter that were created under the activities of Congress (Housing Loan Act (HOLA) and State Bank Act (NBA)) for public and domestic purposes (Alan L. Stein et al. 604 F.2 d 1256 (Ninth Circuit Court) (1979), the court related the history of HOLA and its creation reasons:
Home owner & # 39; Law of 1933, 12 USC § 1461 Et seq. (HOLA) was the result of Congressional dissatisfaction with state laws and practices in financing housing construction.
..... The Federal Home Loan Banking Committee (Banking Committee) was created with a very broad authority to promulgate rules and regulations. 12 USC § 1464 (a)
... [T] The Council is authorized under the rules and regulations stipulated in order to establish the organization, establishment, review, operation and regulation of the organization called "Federal Savings and Loan Association". * * * And a charter to consider the local best practices of local frugality and domestic financial institutions in the United States. "[bold added]
A. Banks can become governments
The person responsible for the 5th revision violation
The National Bank and the Federal Savings Association are US organizations created to promote fiscal policy. The State Bank and the Federal Savings Association benefit by avoiding state looting laws by the notion of federal priority, exporting high interest to credit cards and by avoiding state loan law, without paying state taxes . The Federal Savings Association also has the same benefits than the National Bank, which aims to promote fiscal policy, and the Federal government has little financial resources. Alexander Hamilton argued that the central bank is necessary for the state in the event of an emergency such as financing war. Hamilton believes that there is a symbiotic relationship between agriculture, commerce and manufacturing, it is necessary for economic development in the United States. (Credit II report, December 1790)
B. The parties must state the facts
Sufficiently in either state
The fifth or the 14th revised corporate litigation
Non-judicial foreclosures are currently existing Apao v. San Diego Home Loans, Inc., 324 F 3 d 1091, California state corporation Ninth Circuit (2002). Margaret Apoos lost his house to foreclosure and sale under Hawai'i illegitimate child foreclosure law. The Federal District Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complaint could not be filed and the sale was purely private relief. Apoo appeared on the 9th circuit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supported the district court's decision based on the grounds that the appellate court's previous ruling supported the constitutionality of similar non-judicial proceedings. The 9th Circuit appealed that Apao's consumers tried to distinguish it, but Charmicor v. The case of Deaner, 572 F 2 nd 694 was claimed by Apao as "controlling". At Charmicor, consumers claimed that violating the Civil Code and Equal Protection provisions by committing the procedure by laws not offering a pre-selling hearing and discriminating against the shareholders of appellant blacks. The Court of Charmicor said, "The appellate court did not raise a civil law remedy suit under the civil rights law because there is no record of any facts or allegations that could support claims under the Equality Protection Clause" . The courts of these cases investigate the nature of companies created under the acts of Congress and are pleased with the notice that Congress may adopt local customs on debtor claims relationship without further analysis There is no quotation of the Supreme Court ruling. The fact of the problem is that this problem should be determined under federal law.
C. state-owned banks are public
Private company
Easton v. In Iowa, 188 US 220 (1903), the court talks about state banks:
... [W] The State Bank can not agree with the suggestion that, with respect to the authority granted, it should be considered to be organized and operated for private interests.
Easton's court, at 188 US dollars 220, the principles emphasized in 230 McCullough v Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819), and Osborn v Bank of United States, 22 US 738 (1824) were directly incorporated by Congress action Although expressed about banks, the current system after the national bank. The court approved the approval by President Martial's assertion that the bank was a public rather than a private enterprise and was a federal securities created for public and national purposes. The Osbourne court, in other words, that the company that claims to have to do even under the agreement that must be done under the authority of the Federal Charter and the law that created that corporation, in other words, "Federal law color" is. This is the theme recorded by the Supreme Court's other sentences.
Judge Marshall, the judge of Oba Bow, said that the bank was not a public and private bank company but was made for public and national purposes and the Supreme Court was created directly by Congress Why, in Easton, now do we need to consider state-owned banks private enterprises? And why do not you think?
Are they "federal agencies" mentioned in Easton? Why is not the same inference applied to the Federal Savings Association?
Runyan v. Borrower of Costee, 39 US 122, p. 129 (1840) Court said:
... a corporation needs to show that the law of creation has authority to enter such a contract. "
Does the foundation law (Landlord Borrower Act or State Bank Act) give this provision and the State Bank and the Federal Savings Association the right to conclude this contract?
Can you say that the Federal Charter recognizes the mortgage contract provisions required by mortgage holders to transfer rights to trusts that have the right to sell against outstanding mortgages? Is not it right to omit it to the owner without depending on judicial proceedings or hearing? Is not this the right to deprive people of legitimate procedural procedures? Next, it is an act of a national savings group or federal savings group that forecloses non-judicial within the law of Congress, or the government through the Federal Charter does what the bank is prohibited from doing on its own Can you admit rights? It is fundamentally clear that the government can not exercise great power through a charter rather than own ownership. The authority to refuse procedural legitimate processes is rejected by the government under Article 5 amendment and is normally denied by the bank. As John Locke said about 300 years ago, "No one can transfer another person's power to others than himself." [John Locke, TWO TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT, BOOK II] The Supreme Court ruling shows that the acts of banks pursuing non-judicial foreclosure must be conducted under the authority of the Federal Charter "federal law" which is a "law of the United States". Thus, the mortgage loans of the National Bank and the Federal Savings Association, as well as the provisions of the First Circuit Court of Gerena v Puerto Rico Legal Services, Inc., 697 F. 2d 447 (1st Cir.1983)
D. Congress can not approve.
Delegate right or its authority
It can not be done on its own
If all the acts, rights and obligations of a corporation with the Federal Charter must be made under the Federal Charter and the American law including the rights created in the contract, Congress can not exercise itself Can I approve clauses? This provision can only be verified by what it represents and the constitutional influence that it may bring.
In the United States, Grimaud, 220 US 506 (1911) The Supreme Court judged that there was a problem and that the court cited 220 USpg Justice Marshall. 517 said.
The court insisted that Congress could delegate authority.
The authority of the corporation is explicit and accidental. Rung Yang, p. 129 above. If Congress can not legally give the authority to informally give mortgages to national banks or federal savings associations, the provision is very useful.
II. Lending function
Kookmin Bank and the Federal Savings Association are governments
Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck, St. Paul, 314
US 95 (1941) The court was facing a verdict
Whether the lending function is proprietary or by the government, the court stated that the lending function of the land banks was created under the actions of the parliament that the government acted legitimately, so it is not government monopoly I insisted. It included foreclosures as part of general lending functions. As part of the general financing function, land banks can foreclose mortgages and purchase real estate on the resulting sale. They are "federal means of engaging in the execution of important government functions". (Quote)
A. The government can not fulfill its most self-sacred duty by easily accessing the corporate form
In order to enable companies to use procedures that are not permitted hearing, Congress can create their own identities themselves and divide it from companies that participated in public purposes? The question was asked and answered by Lebron v National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Despite the court's judgment that Amtrak was founded under the act of Congress to achieve the Government's objective and that Amtrak's licensing law is "not an agency or establishment of the US Government" 513 US pgs 374, it was still held as an agent or instrument for the purpose of determining the rights of citizens affected by the act. Therefore, Amtrak was found to be in violation of the constitutional rights of Article 1 Lebron. Judge Scalia proved that not only government praise, but also for corporations, as well as government obligations are created.
Like Amtrak, state-owned banks and federal savings associations are federal securities exchanges of banking systems, created for public purposes and governed by the supervision of the Depositary Supervision Bureau and the supervision of currency supervisors. As with Amtrak, Congress can not finalize the position of these companies as a government agency with the aim of determining the constitutional rights of citizens affected by that action. Consumers are citizens whose constitutional rights are affected when non-judicial foreclosures are exercised by federal charter corporations such as state banks or federal savings bodies.
B. The power to predict
The accidental power of the National Bank
Like the Federal Savings Bank
The history of the State Bank Law states that "a grant to national banks of both enumerative forces and accidental forces, [which include savings banks]. Bank of America et al v City of San Francisco 309 F.3 d 551 (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) (2002) We will examine this hypothesis. The California State Parliament will enact the law that the primary owner's primary residence will not allow any kind of foreclosure as a matter of public policy foreclosure. The OTS is under the supervision of the mortgage law, like the NCNA's v Nations Bank v Variable Annuity Life Ins, the office of the currency management office is "under the supervision of the National Bank Law". The OTS and the OCC promulgated a regulation prohibiting the bank from excluding defaulted houses and claimed that the power to exercise mortgages, as opposed to banks, is the ancillary power of the state bank, Therefore, the federal savings banks prioritize state law. The state appeals to that ruling in the court. Both actions are silent about the necessity of bank foreclosures to secure residential real estate in case of default. But the law gives the bank the authority to exercise the board of directors or all authorized officers or agents on all contingent powers necessary to operate the banking business ... "12 USC § Section does not specify the limit of "accidental authority", either either the NBA or HOLA may not have been granted the possession of Grimaud, 220 US 506 (1911) in the US would have been applied to NBA or HOLA, the former is not the latter, as the government was unable to exercise the authority to seize itself in a non-judicial manner.
C. National Bank and Federal Savings Agreement FSB possible savings
It is regarded as "government institution"
The court to judge whether the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) was "an agency" says, "After reviewing all the relevant code sections, the court held that the government's control over the company was custody or contingency Because it was more than a thing, the company concluded that it is "agency" based on 28 USC 451.
Under the unique test of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, national banks and federal savings associations are "agents". In Fidelity Fed, there is doubt that the government will manage "operation" as "custody" or "accidental". S. & L. V. De la Cuesta, 458 US 141 (1982) p. When the court ruled that the court stated that "the explicit delegation of the parliamentary protocol on" management "of these agencies has to delegate the authority to issue rules regulating mortgage products
With respect to National Banks, the possession of Easton applies as the court has determined that Congress has the sole powers to regulate and control the exercise of their work.
Conclusion
The cited target company shares a common heritage with the National Bank and the Federal Savings Association. The Federal Court is a federal court that the Federal Court has filed with the Federal Court for important public and national purposes that the Federal Court ruled that the act would be harmful to a number of cases that it is government. . Therefore, in Bismarck, the court found that the lending function was not the property of the government and that foreclosure was part of the general lending function. In Leblon, the court judged that the corporation is part of the government with the aim of determining constitutional obligations on the rights of the citizens affected by the act.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other appellate courts have not yet applied the settled principles indicated by these Supreme Court precedents. This is because the act of sale (non-judicial seizure) of trustees by national banks and federal savings association is an administrative act and must be a violation of the fifth amendment revision.
Constitutional powers given to businesses should not be used to produce unusual outcomes. That mistake is a state law that can not determine the method of foreclosure, but it is a federal law for companies founded under Congressional activities. Federal law can not admit non-judicial foreclosures or be accepted by constitution.
EmoticonEmoticon