Written articles from the past reveal that by design, this electronic negotiable note eScam was by anticipation, and included into E-SIGN in 15 USC 7021.

         The Mortgage Bankers Association anticipated electronic promissory notes to be included in a revision of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is clearly visible in 15 USC 7021. However the Uniform Commercial Code did not include electronic promissory notes and as it appears, the E-SIGN committee failed to remove (1)(A) in 15 USC 7021 because the Uniform Commercial Code is excluded from E-SIGN/UETA as cited in 15 USC 7003.

         It was clear in 2000 that there was a great concern with electronic promissory notes being lawful. The Cheque truncation mishap was recognized by the 108^th Congress when it enacted the Check 21 Act in 2003, three years after E-SIGN was enacted. To this day, electronic promissory Notes are not included in the Uniform Commercial Code.

          So, why is this verbiage still within E-SIGN.UETA? Why is this verbiage still within State(s) E-SIGN/UETA equivalents?

E-SIGN was for electronic signatures and UETA was for electronic transactions.

         ESIGN clearly intended that, with respect to any transaction, a signature, contract or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforcement solely because it is in electronic form and that a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.

How are eNotes legal?

    Freedom of speech is protected by the Constitutions