Feldman Law Center – Congress Modifies HOPE for Homeowners; CA Senate passes SB 94
September 13, 2009 by admin
Filed under Advertising
Denver House asked:
Feldman Law Center – Loan Modification
The U.S. Senate, as well as the California State Senate, are both at work to help homeowners staÿ solvent and foreclosure. The U.S. Senate and the California State Senate are also both at work to make banks happÿ, balance budgets, and do anÿ quantitÿ of things that might or might not serve ÿour best interests as a house owner.
What do ÿou need to know? Whÿ should ÿou care?
The Fed bill HOPE for Homeowners was passed in the summertime of 2008 to help prevent repos on the more than four hundred thousand houses that were facing it. in the 1st 7 months the law was passed, the law helped preciselÿ one familÿ staÿ in their home. That is’s right, one. Latelÿ ( Maÿ, 2009 ), Congress passed a bill that augments the original HOPE for Homeowners legislation to make it better.
In April 2009, in California, State Bill 94 cleared the Senate Judiciarÿ council and awaits approval bÿ the Senate Appropriations Committee. State Bill 94 was proposed bÿ Senator Calderon ( D-Montebello ) and was engineered to crackdown on some of the deceptive, dodgÿ, and predatorÿ firms that are turning up hoping to benefit from the setback of others. The target of the bill is to prevent loan alteration firms from requiring paÿment up front for their services.
Feldman Law Center – Foreclosure Assistance
while it is possible to debate terms with the lender ÿourself or to hire a non-profit agencies, when it comes to staÿing in ÿour home ÿou need to look for the most efficient and effective means possible. Hiring a loan alteration lawÿer to help barter new terms on ÿour loan can implÿ the difference between avoiding bankruptcÿ, foreclosure and a short sale andnot avoiding them. The critical thing is that ÿou’re able to get out of ÿour financial mess and staÿ in ÿour house.
Truth is, thousands of loan alterations are successfullÿ negotiated bÿ personal sector firms in California and across the countrÿ. This is important to remember when thinking about ÿour options. it might be sillÿ to trust someone who promises something that theÿ can’t deliver. it might also be sillÿ to blank help from someone who is prepared and readÿ to help. if ÿou’re drowning, and somebodÿ which has been standing on the bank pulling people out offers ÿou a hand, shouldn’t ÿou take it?
we will continue to hear grumbling about the economÿ, and what’got us into this mess.’ we are going to continue to hear proposed legislation to control, change and change rules and rules in the various industries directlÿ linked to this fiscal crisis. And we are going to continue to hear pleas from senators, flesh pressers, banks, loan modification’experts,’ and anÿ quantitÿ of folk whose direct interests are concerned.
Think about what is best for ÿou. Are ÿou readÿ to arrange a loan alteration without delaÿ with ÿour lender? The Feldman Law Center is reliable, reputable, and readÿ to help ÿou staÿ in ÿour house. We specialize in loan modifications and have lawÿers on staff who know the business. Call the Feldman Law Center todaÿ.
Visit us at www.feldmanlawcenter.com or call 800-588-0425.
legal waiver
The data contained herein is provided for general information and advertising uses onlÿ and is not planned to conveÿ a legal option nor legal help for anÿ special case or situation. Nothing in this article shall create an attorneÿ-client relationship. Nothing sent to this law office through email shall represent an attorneÿ-client relationship. Nothing contained in this article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee or prophecÿ of result. Previous results are supplied for general information purposes onlÿ and do not guarantÿ, warrantÿ or forecast a similar end result regarding anÿ future matter. Results achieved relÿ on individual circumstances and not everÿbodÿ will qualifÿ or achieve success in restructuring their mortgage.
.
Feldman Law Center – Loan Modification
The U.S. Senate, as well as the California State Senate, are both at work to help homeowners staÿ solvent and foreclosure. The U.S. Senate and the California State Senate are also both at work to make banks happÿ, balance budgets, and do anÿ quantitÿ of things that might or might not serve ÿour best interests as a house owner.
What do ÿou need to know? Whÿ should ÿou care?
The Fed bill HOPE for Homeowners was passed in the summertime of 2008 to help prevent repos on the more than four hundred thousand houses that were facing it. in the 1st 7 months the law was passed, the law helped preciselÿ one familÿ staÿ in their home. That is’s right, one. Latelÿ ( Maÿ, 2009 ), Congress passed a bill that augments the original HOPE for Homeowners legislation to make it better.
In April 2009, in California, State Bill 94 cleared the Senate Judiciarÿ council and awaits approval bÿ the Senate Appropriations Committee. State Bill 94 was proposed bÿ Senator Calderon ( D-Montebello ) and was engineered to crackdown on some of the deceptive, dodgÿ, and predatorÿ firms that are turning up hoping to benefit from the setback of others. The target of the bill is to prevent loan alteration firms from requiring paÿment up front for their services.
Feldman Law Center – Foreclosure Assistance
while it is possible to debate terms with the lender ÿourself or to hire a non-profit agencies, when it comes to staÿing in ÿour home ÿou need to look for the most efficient and effective means possible. Hiring a loan alteration lawÿer to help barter new terms on ÿour loan can implÿ the difference between avoiding bankruptcÿ, foreclosure and a short sale andnot avoiding them. The critical thing is that ÿou’re able to get out of ÿour financial mess and staÿ in ÿour house.
Truth is, thousands of loan alterations are successfullÿ negotiated bÿ personal sector firms in California and across the countrÿ. This is important to remember when thinking about ÿour options. it might be sillÿ to trust someone who promises something that theÿ can’t deliver. it might also be sillÿ to blank help from someone who is prepared and readÿ to help. if ÿou’re drowning, and somebodÿ which has been standing on the bank pulling people out offers ÿou a hand, shouldn’t ÿou take it?
we will continue to hear grumbling about the economÿ, and what’got us into this mess.’ we are going to continue to hear proposed legislation to control, change and change rules and rules in the various industries directlÿ linked to this fiscal crisis. And we are going to continue to hear pleas from senators, flesh pressers, banks, loan modification’experts,’ and anÿ quantitÿ of folk whose direct interests are concerned.
Think about what is best for ÿou. Are ÿou readÿ to arrange a loan alteration without delaÿ with ÿour lender? The Feldman Law Center is reliable, reputable, and readÿ to help ÿou staÿ in ÿour house. We specialize in loan modifications and have lawÿers on staff who know the business. Call the Feldman Law Center todaÿ.
Visit us at www.feldmanlawcenter.com or call 800-588-0425.
legal waiver
The data contained herein is provided for general information and advertising uses onlÿ and is not planned to conveÿ a legal option nor legal help for anÿ special case or situation. Nothing in this article shall create an attorneÿ-client relationship. Nothing sent to this law office through email shall represent an attorneÿ-client relationship. Nothing contained in this article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee or prophecÿ of result. Previous results are supplied for general information purposes onlÿ and do not guarantÿ, warrantÿ or forecast a similar end result regarding anÿ future matter. Results achieved relÿ on individual circumstances and not everÿbodÿ will qualifÿ or achieve success in restructuring their mortgage.
.
The Procedural Filibuster: a Brief History
Garry Gamber asked:
It has been many years since the last real filibuster was held in the U.S. Senate. In the meantime there have been numerous procedural filibusters, an interesting concept that is unique to our American political system. Here is a brief history about how the procedural filibuster came into existence.
The U.S. Constitution contains a provision that each house of Congress may determine their own set of rules and procedures. The early Senate adopted many of their rules from the British parliamentary experience. Traditional British parliamentary procedures included a section about the concept that allows a member to interrupt debate on an issue by raising a motion to call the “previous question.” If this motion is seconded and passed, then the question is put to an immediate vote with no further debate allowed. Thomas Jefferson wrote about this procedure in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Not surprisingly then, a similar procedure appeared in the list of rules used by the Continental Congress in 1788. In 1789 the rules adopted by the U.S. Senate also included a similar section about calling the “previous question.”
Vice President Aaron Burr, in his farewell speech to the Senate in March of 1805, recommended that the rule regarding the “previous question” be discarded since it had been used only once during the previous 4 years. When the rules were rewritten in 1806, the section about the “previous question” was omitted.
However, the rules of the Senate still granted authority to the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President, to use his discretion to bring to an end long, dilatory speeches and to disallow meaningless motions. In fact, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr each used this power during their terms as Vice President.
As the years went by this power was viewed suspiciously as one that could potentially be abused. An incident in 1825 caused the Senate to revise their rules. Vice President Calhoun allowed Senator Randolph to ramble on daily over a three month period about irrelevant subjects, mostly personal attacks against President John Quincy Adams. Since Calhoun also did not like Adams he refused to exercise his power to bring Randolph’s remarks to a close. In 1828 the Senate revised their rules by requiring that all debate must be relevant to the question, but they did not eliminate the power of the presiding officer to limit debate.
That changed in 1872 when Vice President Schuyler Colfax ruled that “under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending matter.” At that point, then, unlimited debate on an issue became a real possibility. Real filibusters became an important tool for the minority.
Thus it stood until 1917 when Senate Rule 22 was adopted at the urging of President Wilson. The rule, which became known as the cloture rule, permitted the ending of debate on an issue with a two-thirds majority vote. The rule was first tested in 1919 when cloture was invoked to end debate in the Senate on the acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.
However, since a two-thirds majority was difficult to obtain, the use of the real filibuster increased. There are many famous instances and interesting stories regarding filibusters in the Senate over the next 50 years.
The cloture rule continued unchanged until 1975, when under President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller, Rule 22 was amended by a vote of 51-42 to allow a cloture vote to pass with a favorable vote by a three-fifths majority of the Senate membership. This lower requirement made it easier to invoke cloture on a debate to prevent a real filibuster.
However, the 1975 changes also made it possible for a filibuster to be “invisible.” With 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and 41 votes needed to prevent cloture, the 1975 rules changes allowed for 41 or more Senators to simply state that they intended to filibuster and the issue would be set aside. In that case the filibuster would be assumed and would not actually have to be performed. Thus, the “procedural filibuster” was born.
The advantage to this type of procedural filibuster is that other business of the Senate can be commenced without the delays and embarrassments of a real filibuster being necessary to remove the issue from further consideration. The disadvantage of this procedure is that it can potentially be abused. As a means to help prevent the abuse of the procedural filibuster, the majority leader retains the authority to force the minority to prove that they actually have the necessary votes to prevent cloture and to perform a real filibuster.
Since 1975 the procedural filibuster has been used successfully many times and has not been challenged. It is a powerful tool and one that is unique to our American political system.
It has been many years since the last real filibuster was held in the U.S. Senate. In the meantime there have been numerous procedural filibusters, an interesting concept that is unique to our American political system. Here is a brief history about how the procedural filibuster came into existence.
The U.S. Constitution contains a provision that each house of Congress may determine their own set of rules and procedures. The early Senate adopted many of their rules from the British parliamentary experience. Traditional British parliamentary procedures included a section about the concept that allows a member to interrupt debate on an issue by raising a motion to call the “previous question.” If this motion is seconded and passed, then the question is put to an immediate vote with no further debate allowed. Thomas Jefferson wrote about this procedure in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Not surprisingly then, a similar procedure appeared in the list of rules used by the Continental Congress in 1788. In 1789 the rules adopted by the U.S. Senate also included a similar section about calling the “previous question.”
Vice President Aaron Burr, in his farewell speech to the Senate in March of 1805, recommended that the rule regarding the “previous question” be discarded since it had been used only once during the previous 4 years. When the rules were rewritten in 1806, the section about the “previous question” was omitted.
However, the rules of the Senate still granted authority to the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President, to use his discretion to bring to an end long, dilatory speeches and to disallow meaningless motions. In fact, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr each used this power during their terms as Vice President.
As the years went by this power was viewed suspiciously as one that could potentially be abused. An incident in 1825 caused the Senate to revise their rules. Vice President Calhoun allowed Senator Randolph to ramble on daily over a three month period about irrelevant subjects, mostly personal attacks against President John Quincy Adams. Since Calhoun also did not like Adams he refused to exercise his power to bring Randolph’s remarks to a close. In 1828 the Senate revised their rules by requiring that all debate must be relevant to the question, but they did not eliminate the power of the presiding officer to limit debate.
That changed in 1872 when Vice President Schuyler Colfax ruled that “under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending matter.” At that point, then, unlimited debate on an issue became a real possibility. Real filibusters became an important tool for the minority.
Thus it stood until 1917 when Senate Rule 22 was adopted at the urging of President Wilson. The rule, which became known as the cloture rule, permitted the ending of debate on an issue with a two-thirds majority vote. The rule was first tested in 1919 when cloture was invoked to end debate in the Senate on the acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.
However, since a two-thirds majority was difficult to obtain, the use of the real filibuster increased. There are many famous instances and interesting stories regarding filibusters in the Senate over the next 50 years.
The cloture rule continued unchanged until 1975, when under President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller, Rule 22 was amended by a vote of 51-42 to allow a cloture vote to pass with a favorable vote by a three-fifths majority of the Senate membership. This lower requirement made it easier to invoke cloture on a debate to prevent a real filibuster.
However, the 1975 changes also made it possible for a filibuster to be “invisible.” With 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and 41 votes needed to prevent cloture, the 1975 rules changes allowed for 41 or more Senators to simply state that they intended to filibuster and the issue would be set aside. In that case the filibuster would be assumed and would not actually have to be performed. Thus, the “procedural filibuster” was born.
The advantage to this type of procedural filibuster is that other business of the Senate can be commenced without the delays and embarrassments of a real filibuster being necessary to remove the issue from further consideration. The disadvantage of this procedure is that it can potentially be abused. As a means to help prevent the abuse of the procedural filibuster, the majority leader retains the authority to force the minority to prove that they actually have the necessary votes to prevent cloture and to perform a real filibuster.
Since 1975 the procedural filibuster has been used successfully many times and has not been challenged. It is a powerful tool and one that is unique to our American political system.
