Search this and affiliated sites

Obitur Dictum

Friday, December 19, 2014

Lawyers enable Sony cave-in

Overlooked in the controversy over the Sony cave-in to a terrorist threat from what is obviously the Kim Jong Un regime in North Korea is the way the effectiveness of this tactic was only made possible by litigators and judges.

The main cause of the decision to suspend the release of the movie The Interview by theaters is not the terrorist threat from the Kim regime. It is the terrorist threat from legions of lawyers who can be expected to sue the theaters or Sony Pictures if a physical threat were carried out, on the thefrivolous ground that they somehow were a contributing cause of any injuries. It should not be possible for anyone to win such a suit, unless the defendant deliberately aided and abetted the criminals. Everyone has gotten the warning. Now they should go see the movie. (I was not planning to go see it before, but I will now.)

An example of the problem are the suits against the theater and movie producers arising from the shooting by a madman in Aurora, Colorado. Such suits should be summarily dismissed, and the plaintiffs should pay the costs of the defendants.

The obvious solution is to establish a jurisdiction in federal courts to remove any such cases in state court to federal court where property owners, or creators, producers, distributors, or sellers of any kind of communication, are shielded from any liability for any injuries from an act of war they have not executed themselves. Moreover, the defendants in any such cases should be entitled to their costs and legal fees. That would prevent such cases from ever being brought. If the threat from lawyers were removed, and if the media further cooperated by refusing to broadcast and amplify terrorist warnings, such warnings could be appropriately ignored.

That means that the victims of acts of war like 9-11 would not be able to successfully sue the building owners, or government agencies, who are fellow victims, not responsible parties. Only the attackers are responsible, and victims should only be able to go after them in a court of law. If they want charity, and a legislature grants it, that is one thing. But we should never allow benefits to victims to become treated as legal right.

We have just seen an example of how terrorists and barbarian hordes are able to defeat good people. We all have the duty to stand firm against such threats, regardless of the risks, real or imaginary. We all die. What matters is what our lives stand for, and that should not be cowardice.

I haven't reached my age by avoiding threats, but by being more dangerous than any threat I am likely to encounter. The only way I am going to change what I do is to carry an extra clip.


PS 2014/12/27: Since the above was posted I have seen the movie at one of the Alamo Drafthouse Theaters in San Antonio, which were nearly sold out, and I commend Alamo Drafthouse for standing up for freedom and against terrorist bullying Although, based on the previews, I had  not planned to see it, expecting it to be a silly farce, I found the movie to be much better than I expected, on many levels, veru funny, but with a serious moral message, and not merely a shallow entertainment. I can well understand why the North Koreans would not like it, because it has too much "truthiness", as Stephen Colbert has aptly named it. Of course, the movie would not do nearly as much damage to the standing of North Korea in the international community as their reaction to it will do. A masterful blow in the culture war.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Fermi Paradox Explanation

Enrico Fermi, a physicist who emigrated from Italy to the United States to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, once gazed at the starry sky, having done a rough feasibility analysis of interstellar travel, concluding that there was no obvious explanation for why we are not being visited often by aliens, and asked, "Where are they?" His question has become known as the "Fermi Paradox", although it is not, strictly speaking, a "paradox", but a question that begs an explanation.

This recent Huffington Post article has a good summary of the issues involved, why they are important, and why they are much more difficult than we might at first think. It describes some of the possible solutions to the Paradox proposed by various scholars. It has also been discussed by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom in this 2008 article. However, they missed one explanation:

In 1991 I wrote an article that provides the explanation. Search on "Three Futures for Earth" (with the quotes). It is based on a thermodynamic analysis that leads to several conclusions:

1. There are fundamental limits to what can be technologically achieved, no matter how "advanced" the civilization, and we may already be approaching those limits, except perhaps in a few directions, such as an FTL drive;
2. Given those limits, it would not be rational for any long-enduring civilization to try to live scattered on the surfaces of planets. The only sustainable living environment would be urban biospheres ("starship cities") sited below the surfaces of planets with hot cores, which would provide the little energy they would need, while recycling almost all materials, and emitting only a little waste heat; therefore,
3. There are no Type I, II, or III, civilizations, because no civilization would have any good reason to become one. Anthills don't need to capture and use all possible free energy. They only need enough to sustain themselves as anthills;
4. If an FTL drive, such as an Alcubierre drive, becomes possible, then it would make no sense to waste energy using electromagnetic radiation to communicate. It would be cheaper to travel to places and deliver messages directly. If EM radiation were used, it would make no sense to waste energy broadcasting. The only rational method would be narrow-beam directed at the recipient, with little or no leakage;
5. If FTL is possible, then we could have outposts of a million alien civilizations beneath our feet and never know it, provided they got along with one another. We may not be a "nature preserve", except perhaps to a few alien scientists. To most we would just be barnacles on the ship. If FTL is not possible, we might only have a few dozen, deep enough that no drill will ever reach them;
6. The ultimate end of human development is likely to be single networks of running computer programs (except the computers will be quantum). This is the "singularity" foreseen by some futurists.

It is a mistake to presume that any technological civilization will always expand its size, range, and use of energy to the limits of physics and technology. Human civilizations have tended to expand, but they also tend to fall apart, and not necessarily when resource limits are reached. There are also economic and manageability limits that are subtle and complex, but which can be expected to bring growth to a halt well short of what physics and technology might allow. There may also be a natural tendency to evolve in a way that leaves the civilization with no interest in the kinds of things that would interest us.

It is also a mistake to presume that technological progress will continue forever, along every course. There is nothing inevitable about that. Every technology is an exploitation of a limited opportunity provided by nature that, like an ore deposit, is eventually exhausted. Eventually, one can expect to find no more such opportunities. We don't know where the limits are, but we can be sure they exist at some point. It is likely that most alien civilizations older than ours have long since reached those limits, and that we may not be far behind them.

So if we eventually become aware there are, say, 20 alien civilizations with outposts on this (not "our") planet, we can tentatively conclude no FTL drive is possible.

Addendum 2014/07/15:

There is no need for interstellar journeys to be one-hop, single-generation (assuming aliens even have generations). Just put an outpost on some suitable planemo (defined here) (planet not tethered to a star), with a hot core, of which there are likely to be trillions within this galaxy, then wait to drift near another suitable planet or planemo, millions of years later, and hop over to it when close. It would be a spread over the course of millions or billions of years, not less than a few hundred.

Scientists have proposed many alternatives to chemical rockets, from solar sails to Bussard ramjets and more. No need to carry reaction mass or accelerate rapidly. Antimatter drives would work nicely, but are not needed for slow spread across the galaxy.

Aliens don't need to send living beings. Just send a small nanofabricator and the information on how to make them (assuming the aliens even have corporeal forms) if and when it arrives at a suitable location, using materials it finds in the vicinity. Such a starship could be the size of a flea. Just set trillions of them adrift among the stars. Some of them would eventually find and colonize every suitable spot in the galaxy. Such nanofabricators could burrow through many miles of rock, like some seeds or larvae do for shorter distances, and create deep colonies without any of them having any interest in traveling back to the surface or beyond.

If there are deep alien colonies and some of them are sending "away" missions to explore life on the surface, or perhaps launch more starships on million-year journeys, we do need to explain why we don't find openings they could pass through. If reports (video) of the TR-3B (allegedly reverse engineered from recovered alien craft) are true, and we can reduce the effective mass of a large object within a bubble field, then it is not too much of a stretch to imagine a bubble field that would turn a large object into what amounts to a large boson, able to pass through (fermionic) matter without being affected by it. That would enable them to transition from deep colonies to space without passages.

If reported UFOs are carrying protoplasmic beings, those are almost certainly not full "citizens" of their civilizations, but one-time-use synthetic constructs created for the mission and then recycled when the mission is complete. (Think Blade Runner.) "Greys" might be alien, but not "the" aliens in charge, which are more likely to be quantum computers, not biological beings.

Once a civilization reaches the end of possible technological progress, and few threats remain, "curiosity" about further scientific and technological discoveries becomes a waste of precious energy, and any durable civilization is likely to prioritize energy economy and conservation, which would also make them difficult to detect.

Donate Now!

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Greatest missed opportunities

Why aren't we already exploring the stars? Why couldn't the industrial revolution have begun in ancient Greece, or perhaps ancient Rome? What are some of the great wrong turns taken in history, such that if events had happened differently, we might have come much farther and faster than we did?

Many have speculated about what might have been. Some have written alternative histories that, if done right, can provide some illumination of where we are and how we got here. The misses are usually explained by the lack of key innovative ideas at critical times, but there have also been some active impediments that blocked progress that was already under way.

Some have composed lists, and here is one, with a focus on past impediments resulting from human decisions:

Fall of Athenian klerostocracy. The key event was the replacement with the Four Hundred in 411 BC. Much of it was about the Peloponnesian War, and more about the failure to make needed reforms, but the opportunity was there.

Too-early death of Alexander, 323 BC. We usually just think of Alexander the Great as a conqueror, but he was also a great patron of learning and the arts, inspired by his teacher Aristotle. Unfortunately he made no preparation for an orderly succession that would continue that legacy, and left his empire to his generals, who lacked his vision. Had he lived longer it is likely the Mediterranean Empire would have been Greek rather than Roman, and might have flourished technologically as well as in the arts of governance and architecture.

Fall of Vercingetorix at the Battle of Alesia, 52 BC. Led to the rise of the Caesars and fall of the Roman Republic.

Destruction of the Library of Alexandria. First in 48 BC, during the occupation by Julius Caesar, apparently an accident, and the loss may not have been complete. The second during an attack by Emperor Aurelian on Queen Zenobia in 274 AD. The third by Patriarch Theophilus in 391 AD. A related loss was the murder of the philosopher-mathematician Hypatia in 415 AD, which has been styled as the downfall of Alexandrian intellectual life. The fourth and final destruction was by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas in 642 AD. The wrong turn here was largely in not having alternate repositories in other locations, so that the only copies of many ancient texts were lost.

Fall of the Roman Republic. This was a series of events, from the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC to the grant of imperial power to Octavian in 27 BC, but perhaps the key event was the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC when Brutus died. Had he defeated and killed Octavian and Mark Anthony, he might have restored the Republic and laid the foundation for a better future for the Mediterranean region. He would have had to overcome some serious problems with the Republic, but he or perhaps someone like him might have done so.

Fall of Boudica, at the Battle of Watling Street, 60 or 61 AD.  Had she defeated the Romans they would probably have abandoned Britain, and if she had then kept the British tribes united, that might have led to a Britain that would emerge stronger and more creative.

First Council of Nicaea, 325 AD. Convened by Constantine to bring peace among warring Christian factions, it chose an imposed orthodoxy instead of creating forums for tolerance, creative diversity, and peaceful debate, which would have led to a climate favorable to innovation and progress.

Abandonment of the Dustur al-Madinah (Constitution of Medina), framed under the direction of Mohammed in 622 AD, it did not survive him, but was replaced as a model of government by his warlord successors, who also developed competing variants of traditional sharia law as tools of political control, but which had the effect of threatening world peace, and crippling Islamic civilization and eventually bringing it down.

Abandonment of Vinland, after about 1000 AD. If the Norse had followed through on their discovery of the New World, or if others, such as the English, had done so, the New World might have been developed 500 years sooner than it was, and by peaceful settlers instead of Spanish or Portuguese plunderers.

Excesses of the Crusades, 1095-1291. Not without some justification as resistance to Muslim imperialism, but that did not justify the degree some of them were conducted, on both sides. The aim should have been a peaceful region tolerant of many faiths, but the excesses led to centuries of further conflict.

Fall of Montfort, at the Battle of Evesham, 1265 AD. Had Simon de Montfort defeated and killed the royalists, and further developed the Provisions that created the first English parliament, he might have established a republic and avoided 400 years of destructive civil conflict that retarded progress there. Those reforms would likely have spread to other nations through the widespread Joachimite movement that looked to Simon as its hope for the end of monarchy and Catholic oppression and corruption. Had Montfort survived at Evesham he would likely have returned to the crusades and conducted them without the excesses.

Papal interregnum, 1268-71.  This was a critical opportunity for the Church to elect a reformer, and they failed to do so, leading ultimately to the excesses of the Inquisition, the Protestant Reformation, and centuries of destructive conflict and suppression of new ideas and groups such as the Templars. The failure was one of the impacts of the fall of Montfort, which, had he prevailed, could have led to the election of an English pope and allowing dioceses to elect their own clergy. This would have resulted in a productive diversity of faiths of all kinds without the acrimony.

Chinese abandonment of exploration, 1425 AD.  The Xuande Emperor Zhu Zhanji discontinued the Zheng He voyages, one of which may have discovered the New World about 1421,  although he permitted one last one to the Indian ocean. He thus lost the opportunity to lay the foundations for a wider civilization. After that China turned inward and away from the technological progress it had begun. It can be argued that this was, on balance, a good thing, because the culture was not making needed political progress, but exposure to more cultures might have led to such progress.

Inquisition of Galileo, 1633.  Copernican heliocentrism was on its way to becoming accepted until Galileo's defense of it was perceived as a criticism of the Pope and the Jesuits, who set back scientific progress for some time.

Lilburne outlived by Cromwell, 1657 AD. Had John Lilburne outlived Oliver Cromwell, he likely would have succeeded him, ended monarchy, and consolidated an English Republic that would have made the American Revolution unnecessary.

Failure of Britain to extend parliamentary representation to American colonies, culminating in the Declaratory Act in 1766 and the American Revolution 1776-1783.  Arguably the Revolution and following Constitution was needed and beneficial, but the American reforms might have spread faster to Britain and the rest of Europe.

Excesses of the French Revolution, leading to the Napoleonic Wars, mainly 1789-99, which led to cascading wrong turns in the Revolutions of 1848World War I, 1914-19, the October Revolution in Russia, 1917, World War II, 1939-45, the Chinese Revolution, 1946-50, and the Cold War, 1945-91.  Not everything that happened in these events were wrong turns, but so many things were that they need to be included as a chain.

Excesses of modern imperialism and nationalism. This was a series of wrong turns involving many nations that turned to conquest instead of trade. Most such efforts eventually proved unprofitable, but not without bloodshed and misery. There were also some beneficial results, some from colonialization, but mostly bad. Examples include Nazism, Fascism, the Soviet Empire, the First and Second Sino-Japanese wars, leading to the First and Second World wars and the Cold War.

Wrong U.S. Supreme Court precedents, more than 100 key decisions beginning in 1819.  Usually thought of as largely confined in their impacts to the United States, they actually impact the world and set a bad example for government everywhere. They have also allowed the growth of a government and policies that could ultimately bring down civilization.

Attack on Fort Sumter, 1861, which caused the destructive American Civil War. Although the war ended slavery legally, it left a lasting negative legacy that continues. If war could have been avoided, slavery would have been ended peacefully and without so much discrimination that persists to this day.

Durand Line, 1893. By dividing the Pashtun people it produced more than a century of unnecessary and destructive conflict. Other lines drawn by imperial powers following WWI that did not align with ethnic and tribal boundaries further exacerbated conflicts in ways that continue to this day.

Failure to respond to the Ottoman genocides, mainly of Armenians, 1914-18, and to subsequent genocides, especially the Shoah of 1933-45, the Cambodian genocide of 1975-79, the Rwandan genocide of 1994, and the Bosnian genocides in the former Yugoslavia 1992-95, although there was a late intervention in 1999 in Kosovo. The genocides themselves are wrong turns, of course, but the main missed opportunities were the failure to intervene in a timely manner, and to make an example of the perpetrators that would prevent recurrence. A really strong response to the Armenian genocide might have prevented all the others.

Failure to recognize Viet Minh government of Viet Nam, leading to war, 1954-75, that was not necessary to contain the spread of communism.

Failure to follow through on the moon landings, 1972. Although there are unfunded plans to return, we missed a critical opportunity by not proceeding immediately to building a permanent lunar colony, and then a Mars colony. If there is now a global economic collapse, humanity may never become a spacefaring civilization.

Abandonment of Afghanistan, after Soviet withdrawal, 1989, after backing too many of the wrong factions, leading to al Qaeda and the Taliban. 

Failure to immediately follow through on First Gulf War, 1991. Had Saddam been deposed then, the far more expensive and disruptive Iraq war could have been avoided, while realizing most of its benefits.

Now, no one can know whether any of these actually were bad turns, or things whose time had come, or how things might have eventually have turned out even worse. History is irreproducible phenomena, so all we can do is speculate. But speculation that attends to historical detail can be enlightening, so there is value in it.

Donate Now!

Through the keyhole

 Is there a way to avoid the worst effects of the global economic collapse that now seems inevitable? Perhaps not. But I prefer to be optimistic and look for a keyhole that we might be able to get through. It may not exist, but we need to look for it anyway.

There is a tendency for people to recommend courses of action now that should have been taken 40-60 years ago, but which if taken now would precipitate economic collapse and get blamed for it.

There is a way out if we do everything exactly right, but it is not a simple path. It involves separating the productive sector from the financial sector, give the former a new, energy-based currency, then allowing the financial sector and its fiat currency collapse without taking most of the productive sector down with it. If that were done all "wealth" measured in fiats (a good word for fiat currency of all kinds) would be wiped out, but at least farms and factories would continue to meet our essential needs.

Separating the two sectors would be tricky. It has never been done. As it stands now there is nothing to prevent the speculators from scarfing up bitcoins and making them unavailable as an alternative productive currency. The same could happen with an energy-backed currency (denominated in megajoules), so the transition would have to be made fast, within a couple of years.

The problem with precious metals is that the supply of them doesn't grow with the global economy. Energy does, and the cost of most things is roughly measured by the amount of energy that goes into making and delivering them. Energy in most forms is already being traded in terms of gigajoule-equivalents. This would just mean carrying that kind of trading into the consumer sector.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Politicians’ Extortion Racket

“Politicians’ Extortion Racket”

It is not a revelation to political insiders that the initiative for undue influence through campaign contributions comes more from candidates than from donors, in what is essentially extortion, and that this has been the pattern for more than a century.

One variety of "milker bill" is called a "fetcher bill" by candidates and "bogeyman bill" by donors, often resulting from agreement between two groups of congressmen whereby each group introduces legislation to scare the donors of the other, enabling each to hit up their donors with the argument that "I need more money to stop that terrible bill."

This came out in a report in the Sacramento Bee about 1997 that Democratic Rep. Robert Matsui warned prospective donors not to reduce their contributions to Democrats, lest bad bills be passed.

One can imagine each house adopting a rule that its members not solicit funds while the house is in session, but such a rule would probably not be enforced.

The real solution is to abandon direct election and use random selection steps, called sortition, in a multi-step process that would make the random selection be from among candidates filtered for reputation as competent and honest. The random steps would make it nearly impossible to influence the final selection by spending money in a campaign, and therefore remove the need to raise campaign funds.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

The Fox and the Hedgehog

The Fox and the Hedgehog

The complexity of human polities makes some reductionism necessary for comprehensible models, but Somin and Schleicher are simplifying beyond necessity.

A human polity, like an ant colony, is composed of many actors, each of which makes decisions locally based on information each receives within their capabilities, mostly from their closest associates. The information may be incomplete and inaccurate, and their intelligence low, but if the situation remains one for which they are adapted, they may be able to solve the problems of that situation. If not, and especially if the situation is one which they themselves created but which they are not capable of understanding, the results are unpredictable, and likely dismal.

We may write the Epitaph for Humanity: "They were smart enough to create problems for themselves they weren't smart enough to solve."

Whether you start your analysis at legislators and the laws they adopt, then work back to the people who influence or elect them, and then back to the people and messages that influence them, or work forward to the people who try to carry out or obey the laws (or not), and provide feedback on how well the laws are working (or not), or how each of them decide who to follow as leaders or advisers, we soon confront the larger problem that a polity does not function like an efficient market. Not even close.

It is not just voters who are ignorant. It is also the decisionmakers they elect, who generally lack not only domain knowledge of the issues they confront, but even enough knowledge to decide who the experts are, or at least the moderately more expert, since for most issues there are no experts, and cannot be any.

We are all drunk gunslingers firing incendiary rounds at random in a darkened explosives factory. It is only amazing we haven't already blown ourselves up. So enjoy it while you can. We are evolved for a stone age and to a stone age we are likely to return.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Mortgage fraud

When I was a real estate investor and agent back in the 1960s and 1970s in Texas the deed of trust (mortgage) form most of us used for financing real estate was the Texas State Bar form, or the language of it. It was two pages of fine print (consisting of a single sentence!) that enabled state rules for nonjudicial foreclosures by a trustee appointed by the lender but in theory independent of him, with a fiduciary duty to both lender and borrower, and the deed of trust contained provisions that protected the rights of both. For example, it protected the borrower by providing that when the note was paid in full, the trust would dissolve automatically, and the borrower would then have clear title as far as the lender was concerned. It was customary for the lender to also sign an instrument called the release of lien, but that was only to confirm the fact of full payment. In principle, it would also work to return the note to the borrower marked "paid" and signed by the lender or his agent. It also required the lender or his assigns to notify the borrower of any change in his address or that of his servicing agent, and required him to credit any payments sent to that address. That would have protected a borrower who made all payments on time from being foreclosed upon if the servicing agent failed to convey the payments to the owner and holder of the note. It also enabled the borrower to sue to "quiet title" if he made all payments on time and the lender failed to perform according to the terms of the note and deed of trust, or to sue for injunction to prevent an improper foreclosure. If he sued for such an injunction, the lender was required, under the longstanding 'best evidence rule", to produce the original signed note, not a copy or an affidavit that he or his attorney was the "owner and holder" of the note. Each signed note was a separate obligation, and if it could not be produced as evidence at trial, the court would find that the borrower owed no money, and indeed, could get judgment for the return of all sums already paid.

Sometime during the 1980s lenders began using their own deed of trust forms that reduced the protections for borrowers, until now many of them seem to be using forms that provide no protections at all. I have examined at least one that does not even allow the borrower to get clear title to his home if he pays off the note in full and on time. Such degraded "deeds of trust" convert the sale into little more than a long-term lease in which the borrower gets no equity in a home that is enforceable in court. If the lender does finally grant a release of lien, it is an indulgence and not something he may be legally required to do. Such deeds of trust are in my view unconscionable, but courts have little choice but to enforce them as written, or not written.

No one should ever finance the purchase of real estate using such deed of trust forms. Never sign any legal document you have not read and thoroughly understand. If you don't understand it, ask a lawyer to explain it to you. If a lawyer lets you sign such an instrument, he should be sued for malpractice, and disbarred. Lenders who use such forms should have all their notes cancelled, be put out of business, and the loan officers put in prison for fraud.

When I was in the real estate field, especially when I was a buyer, I would usually add provisions to a deed of trust to provide additional protections, to which the lender almost always agreed. You don't have to accept the form the lender provides, and if he does not agree to reasonable added protections to your position, then walk away from the deal. You will likely be better off leasing the property. At least under a lease the landlord will generally be obligated to make major repairs.

Here are the key provisions you should insist in including in a deed of trust:

  1. Upon payment of the note in full according to its terms, or if late payments are accepted by the owner and holder of the note, or his servicing agent, the deed of trust is dissolved, and the lien must be released.
  2. The borrower must be notified of any changes of ownership of the note, and of any changes in the servicing agent, including the address to which payments are to be made, before the next payment is due, and the address for service of process if a legal action is taken.
  3. The owner and holder of the note is required to credit all payments made to and accepted by the the lender or his servicing agent at his last known address, even if the servicing agent fails to deliver the payments to the owner and holder of the note.
  4. Reasonable attorney fees of up to 10 percent of the remaining balance on the note may be added to the end of the note only if the borrower refuses or is unable to pay, and not for a dispute concerning credit for payments made or the amount of the remaining balance.
  5. In the event of legal action by the owner and holder of the note, he must produce the original signed note, not a copy or an affidavit.
  6. The owner and holder of the note may not assign the note to a party out of state without the signed consent of the borrower. 
  7. Charges for things like taxes, insurance, or reasonable repairs, shall be paid only out of a fixed escrow account, bearing no interest, and not added to the balance of the note, although the escrow balance may be required to be paid before the lien is released, and the borrower always has the option to pay all such charges directly.

There should also be a warranty deed that provides:

  1. The seller (grantor) is the sole owner, with power to sell and convey.
  2. There are no prior liens or other claims on the title to the property.
  3. The seller will pay all costs to settle any such prior claims to the title or any part thereof, or if unable to defend them, to refund all sums paid and any consideration received, plus ten percent interest from receipt thereof.
  4. The seller has secured the deed, at his expense. with a title policy from a title insurance company able to cover all claims and to defend the title in court.
  5. If the buyer (grantee) incurs any cost to defend his title, that cost must be compensated by the seller, with interest and reasonable attorney fees.

If enough people, or the courts, had insisted on such terms, we could have avoided the financial crisis of 2008 that almost collapsed the world economy, and which still threatens it. People have the power to prevent another world depression if they only demand non-fraudulent mortgages and other credit instruments at the inception. Speculative securitization could have been prevented had people made more educated choices, or gotten better legal advice.

If you are threatened with foreclosure, don't fall for some of the schemes that some people are peddling.  Yes, something like a quiet title action might work in a case where the deed of trust provides you some protections, or in a state that upholds the "best evidence rule" and the lender can't produce the original note, but otherwise you are at the mercy of the lender and if the lender won't renegotiate, you are better off saving your money and walking away and renting.

Donate Now!