That is actually an accurate statement of contract law. Nicely done for a change.
But I would not be so quick to fling an insult like "Ignorant
" at someone who hasn't been trained ln the law, because someone else will fling it right back at you. Namely, me.
You see, the McCain loan agreement has conflicting terms, some of which say there was no security interest in federal campaign funds and others which make no sense at all unless there was a security interest in federal campaign funds.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the term "
security interest" is broad: "Security interest" means an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation.
That seems circular until you define the terms. "
Interest"" means "any and all, partial or total right to property or for the use of property, including an easement to pass over a neighboring parcel of land, the right to drill for oil,
a possibility of acquiring title upon the happening of some event, or outright title. While most often referring to real property, one may have an interest in a business, a bank account or any article."
An interest is defined broadly so that mere technical distinctions do not defeat clearly defined legal requirements. It includes current or future rights to property, and vested or contingent rights as well, such as "a possibility of acquiring title".
McCain's bank controlled his campaign's ability to use or encumber federal campaign funds which he might later acquire. That is all it took to create an "interest". They did that for the purpose of securing repayment of their loan. That is all it takes to create a "security interest".
Despite their efforts to create technical distinctions to evade federal law, the parties intended to create that interest, and they intended to create it so the bank would be secured.
And that makes John McCain a felon.
