There was an Opinion piece in the New York Times Sunday, Jan. 22,2012 by Elisabeth Rosenthal regarding the matter of Disclosures. Her position is that there isn't any, especially in the Consumer area. The link to the article is shown at the end of this posting. It's worth reading, every word of it!
NOW MY POSTING:
NOW MY POSTING:
FOR DISCLOSURE PURPOSES ONLY!!!!!!
I am a lawyer. Please do not pillage me for thinking, many years ago, that lawyers HELPED people, and had a high degree of integrity. Even worse, at one foolish time I actually considered getting into politics, again thinking that our elected officials actually care about their constituents.
I come face to face every day, handling foreclosure prevention work, with federally mandated and corporate sought after disclosures like the "[NO] Truth In Lending" disclosure required at all real estate transactions. Unlike many of my brethren and sisteren I actually understand the documents. Having spent 18 years in Banking, at times working for regulatory bodies, and being an attorney, I learned the hidden meanings of the documents. Dan Brown would just be disappointed as would the Incas.
Instead of calling the volumes of paper presented to borrowers of any type disclosures, how about some honesty - call them DISCLAIMERS "NO MATTER WHAT WE DO TO YOU, WE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING. IF YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE ANY LAWS WE WILL BRING THE FURIES OF HELL UPON YOU".
Unfortunately the last statement is only a mild exaggeration. The law firms representing the lenders and other large corporations can inundate a consumer or her/his lawyer with paper and deadlines.- EXPERIENCE.
No matter what a disclosure states, if there is no regulatory oversight in a meaningful way to protect consumers, the disclosures are worthless. The Tea Party et al who want less government better have an army of lawyers ready.
Most recently a Bankruptcy case involving a foreclosure was decided when the judge rules that all of the required disclosures were given to the borrower - the fact that the lender didn't follow federal guidelines was excused - guideline don't count. DISCLOSURES=OBFUSCATION.
Just remember "Less is More" in many cases
Richard I Isacoff, Esq.
I come face to face every day, handling foreclosure prevention work, with federally mandated and corporate sought after disclosures like the "[NO] Truth In Lending" disclosure required at all real estate transactions. Unlike many of my brethren and sisteren I actually understand the documents. Having spent 18 years in Banking, at times working for regulatory bodies, and being an attorney, I learned the hidden meanings of the documents. Dan Brown would just be disappointed as would the Incas.
Instead of calling the volumes of paper presented to borrowers of any type disclosures, how about some honesty - call them DISCLAIMERS "NO MATTER WHAT WE DO TO YOU, WE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING. IF YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE ANY LAWS WE WILL BRING THE FURIES OF HELL UPON YOU".
Unfortunately the last statement is only a mild exaggeration. The law firms representing the lenders and other large corporations can inundate a consumer or her/his lawyer with paper and deadlines.- EXPERIENCE.
No matter what a disclosure states, if there is no regulatory oversight in a meaningful way to protect consumers, the disclosures are worthless. The Tea Party et al who want less government better have an army of lawyers ready.
Most recently a Bankruptcy case involving a foreclosure was decided when the judge rules that all of the required disclosures were given to the borrower - the fact that the lender didn't follow federal guidelines was excused - guideline don't count. DISCLOSURES=OBFUSCATION.
Just remember "Less is More" in many cases
Richard I Isacoff, Esq.
Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, January 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/sunday-review/hard-truths-about-disclosure.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion by Elisabeth Rosenthal
No comments:
Post a Comment