You are on page 1of 2

Are the current actions by those named as substitute trustees or

acting as agents for the beneficiary in our deeds of trust unconstiutional?


My support of an answer in the affirmative.
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the
appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the
supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It
is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one
must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and
name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any
purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not
merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, i
n legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a
statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had t
he statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imp
oses no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or author
ity on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.
. .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional la
w cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statu
te runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enfor
ce it."
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence
Second Edition, 1998 version, Section 203 (formerly Section 256)
jg: If any state law denies one party the benefit of due process before being re
lieved of his property, a right guaranteed by our constitution, then that law, a
ccording to this tenet, is to be given no consideration. I think it's been argu
ed that the constitution literally speaks to only separation from one's property
BY THE GOV'T, but I don't believe (but can't 'prove') that they meant to limit
the application of due process to attempts by the government only to take our pr
operty.
There's no due process when on the word of one of the parties' representative, w
ithout consideration of the rights and arguments of the other party to the agree
ment, that party may be separated from his property. These particular trustees o
we their fiduciary to both parties, not just one, just as courts owe their objec
tivity to both parties before them. The evidentiary standard may be less for dot
trustees than one for courts, but it still has to be met and the person making
the determination that it's met must be qualified to know if it is or isn't.
If states adopt laws which allow for the creation of a trust into which
a homeowner sends his land title as security for a loan (which adoption was done
years ago by many states to 86 lender' problems with mortgages, briefly) and ye
t subsequently enact other laws which allow for the separation of the landowner
from his estate, by way of that trust created, with reference only to the intere
sts of one party to the trust, one of those laws is unconstitutional. When a dot
trustee, or someone designated an "agent" for the beneficiary or otherwise acti
ng for the beneficiary only, may take the thing put in trust by the other party
for the party for whom he acts exclusively, there is either no deed of trust -

or - a law which says an entirely unilateral act, that is, one without due proce
ss, separating one from his property is at odds with the earlier law providing f
or deeds of trust as security instruments. I dare say any such contravening stat
e law is void.