Is Ron doing this??? [Stay in Your Home!!!][Mod:No, interference w/private contracts]

[itsthepathocrats]

Ohio Rep Mary Kaptur is telling her foreclosed-upon constituents to stay in their home until the banks can produce clear title and meet the letter of the law for eviction.

You go, girl!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNPaRVuVdF8


Is Ron doing anything similar with his constituents? If not, why not?

[torchbearer]

Ron mentioned something interesting in his mises speech.
He talking about how the people in government don't follow the laws... so the people don't have to either... as in, all these guys in government that don't pay taxes.... so he expects more people to stop paying them... etc.

[ladyjade3]

no. that would be interfering with private contracts, not the federal government's business, and probably even illegal. Is Marcy Kaptur a bankruptcy attorney? It sounds like she's giving legal advice.

[itsthepathocrats]

Ron mentioned something interesting in his mises speech.
He talking about how the people in government don't follow the laws... so the people don't have to either... as in, all these guys in government that don't pay taxes.... so he expects more people to stop paying them... etc.
I'm suggest that people follow the letter of the law, not disobey it!

Would you move out of your home because a 3rd party demands that you leave, when that 3rd party can't show clear ownership, nor meet the requirements of the law for ownership?

I'm suggestion that people be more cognizant of the law, not act in defiance.

P.S. can you please provide a link to Ron's Mises speech.


no. that would be interfering with private contracts, not the federal government's business, and probably even illegal. Is Marcy Kaptur a bankruptcy attorney? It sounds like she's giving legal advice.
Marcy is telling her constituents to follow the letter of the law, and is ensuring that they obtain competent legal representation.

[torchbearer]

I'm suggest that people follow the letter of the law, not disobey it!

Would you move out of your home because a 3rd party demands that you leave, when that 3rd party can't show clear ownership, nor meet the requirements of the law for ownership?

I'm suggestion that people be more cognizant of the law, not act in defiance.

P.S. can you please provide a link to Ron's Mises speech.

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwHdSl1ASbA

I'm rewatching it to find the spot.

[torchbearer]

Its at the beginning starting around the 1:20 mark... then goes on for lil' while with examples.

[Danke]

no. that would be interfering with private contracts, not the federal government's business, and probably even illegal. Is Marcy Kaptur a bankruptcy attorney? It sounds like she's giving legal advice.

To be a valid contract, there has to be consideration.

[chadhb]

What these people are doing is stealing, they should be put in jail.

[torchbearer]

What these people are doing is stealing, they should be put in jail.

I agree, the bankers should be put in jail.
Inflation is the worst form of theft.

[itsthepathocrats]

What these people are doing is stealing, they should be put in jail.
Why are you here?

[axiomata]

There is a group in Miami that is actively moving people into unoccupied foreclosed homes. Despite being technically illegal, and even though the banks know about it, they aren't doing anything. There is a big problem with thieves looting from foreclosed houses. Stealing A/C units, removing all the copper wiring from the walls etc. The banks are allowing these squatters because their presence is essentially stopping these activities.

Personally, I think it would be a good idea for banks to make contracts with these people. We'll let you stay in the house if you protect it as if it was your own property and if you agree to move out when we find a permanent buyer. It would help the banks image around town that is for sure.

[itsthepathocrats]

Mods, why was the subject of this thread modified, and upon who's request?

[torchbearer]

There is a group in Miami that is actively moving people into unoccupied foreclosed homes. Despite being technically illegal, and even though the banks know about it, they aren't doing anything. There is a big problem with thieves looting from foreclosed houses. Stealing A/C units, removing all the copper wiring from the walls etc. The banks are allowing these squatters because their presence is essentially stopping these activities.

Personally, I think it would be a good idea for banks to make contracts with these people. We'll let you stay in the house if you protect it as if it was your own property and if you agree to move out when we find a permanent buyer. It would help the banks image around town that is for sure.

that would make more sense.

[itsthepathocrats]

There is a group in Miami that is actively moving people into unoccupied foreclosed homes. Despite being technically illegal, and even though the banks know about it, they aren't doing anything. There is a big problem with thieves looting from foreclosed houses. Stealing A/C units, removing all the copper wiring from the walls etc. The banks are allowing these squatters because their presence is essentially stopping these activities.
1. If the banks can't prove ownership though traditional legal means, how is this technically illegal?

2. Where is Ron on this? Is he suggesting that his foreclosed constituents defend their legal rights before voluntarily vacating property with no clear ownership established?

[torchbearer]

1. If the banks can't prove ownership though traditional legal means, how is this technically illegal?

2. Where is Ron on this? Is he suggesting that his foreclosed constituents defend their legal rights before voluntarily vacating property with no clear ownership established?

The government actually owns all the property they tax.

[Sandra]

I'm hearing of local court rulings that make the mortgage company forfeit the property to the owner for altering or destroying the original contract in order to enter into lucrative deals with third parties. Apparently in some cases the courts feel the customer was the one victimized in some shady deals.

[axiomata]

1. If the banks can't prove ownership though traditional legal means, how is this technically illegal?

2. Where is Ron on this? Is he suggesting that his foreclosed constituents defend their legal rights before voluntarily vacating property with no clear ownership established?
In the story I heard I do not think there was any question of ownership. The people that were set up in these houses were not the original owners. They were families that had been evicted from different homes and had been homeless or living in small apartments.

I heard it on NPR but here's an article: http://eng.habitants.org/noticias/from_inhabitants/inhabitants_of_americas/miami_activist_moves_people_into_foreclosed_houses

[itsthepathocrats]

In the story I heard I do not think there was any question of ownership. The people that were set up in these houses were not the original owners. They were families that had been evicted from different homes and had been homeless or living in small apartments.

I heard it on NPR but here's an article: http://eng.habitants.org/noticias/from_inhabitants/inhabitants_of_americas/miami_activist_moves_people_into_foreclosed_houses

If the banks can't produce clear title, then they don't have ownership. Period. So, who's rights are these "homeless" people infringing upon when they move-in to these vacant home?

Sorry, I don't listen to elite controlled NPR.

[torchbearer]

If the banks can't produce clear title, then they don't have ownership. Period. So, who's rights are these "homeless" people infringing upon when they move-in to these vacant home?

Sorry, I don't listen to elite controlled NPR.

Depends on homesteading laws in your state.
In fact, homesteading laws may give you ownership of the property if you had been living there. I need to look up our homesteading laws.

[axiomata]

There is no information in my example about the banks not being able to produce a title. IMO it would be a fair assumption to assume that they could, if they wanted to.

An interview of the guy running it if you are interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaKLYIP8GOU

[itsthepathocrats]

Depends on homesteading laws in your state.
In fact, homesteading laws may give you ownership of the property if you had been living there. I need to look up our homesteading laws.

An Overview of The Texas Homestead Law (http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Oct/1/126857.html)

IV.A. "Acquiring homestead rights in a piece of property in Texas does not require a
formalized legal process, or the filing of a specific document. The general criteria
for creating a homestead are (i) overt acts of usage, and (ii) an intent to claim the
land as a permanent residence"

[torchbearer]

An Overview of The Texas Homestead Law (http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Oct/1/126857.html)

IV.A. "Acquiring homestead rights in a piece of property in Texas does not require a
formalized legal process, or the filing of a specific document. The general criteria
for creating a homestead are (i) overt acts of usage, and (ii) an intent to claim the
land as a permanent residence"

I haven't been able to find Louisiana's law. Can you help me?

[Sandra]

This is where mortgage companies fail in common sense in this depressed economy, the rotton spot effect.

If the inhabitants leave then it leaves the property empty-----> the foreclosed property deteriorates making it obvious the house is vacated ----> causing the empty house to be used in criminal activity -----> causing surrounding land values to plummet ------> causing the neighbors to want to sell their property at what they can get for it to seek safer residence.

[torchbearer]

I haven't been able to find Louisiana's law. Can you help me?

This is the only thing i've found so far:


Homestead Exemption

Section 20.(A) Homeowners.

(1) The bona fide homestead, consisting of a tract of land or two or more tracts of land even if the land is classified and assessed at use value pursuant to Article VII, Section 18(C) of this constitution, with a residence on one tract and a field with or without timber on it, pasture, or garden on the other tract or tracts, not exceeding one hundred sixty acres, buildings and appurtenances, whether rural or urban, owned and occupied by any person or persons owning the property in indivision, shall be exempt from state, parish, and special ad valorem taxes to the extent of seven thousand five hundred dollars of the assessed valuation. The same homestead exemption shall also fully apply to the primary residence, including a mobile home, which serves as a bona fide home and which is owned and occupied by any person or persons owning the property in indivision, regardless of whether the homeowner owns the land upon which the home or mobile home is sited; however, this homestead exemption shall not apply to the land upon which such primary residence is sited if the homeowner does not own the land.

(2)The homestead exemption shall extend and apply fully to the surviving spouse or a former spouse when the homestead is occupied by the surviving spouse or a former spouse and title to it is in the name of (a) the surviving spouse as owner of any interest or either or both of the former spouses, (b) the surviving spouse as usufructuary, or (c) a testamentary trust established for the benefit of the surviving spouse and the descendants of the deceased spouse or surviving spouse, but not to more than one homestead owned by either the husband or wife, or both.

(3) The homestead exemption shall extend to property owned by an irrevocable trust when the principal beneficiary or beneficiaries of the trust are the settlor or settlors of the trust and were the immediate prior owners of the homestead, and the homestead is occupied as such by a principal beneficiary. The provisions of this Subparagraph shall apply only to property which qualified for the homestead exemption immediately prior to transfer, conveyance, or donation in trust, or which would have qualified for the homestead exemption if such property were not owned in trust.

(4) The homestead exemption shall extend to property where the usufruct of the property has been granted to no more than two usufructuaries who were the immediate prior owners of the homestead and the homestead is occupied as such by a usufructuary. The provisions of this Subparagraph shall apply only to property which qualified for the homestead exemption immediately prior to the granting of such usufruct, or which would have qualified for the homestead exemption if such usufruct had not been granted.

(5) The homestead exemption shall extend only to a natural person or persons and to an irrevocable trust created by a natural person or persons, in which the beneficiaries of the trust are a natural person or persons provided that the provisions of this Paragraph are otherwise satisfied.

(6) Except as otherwise provided for in this Paragraph, the homestead exemption shall apply to property owned in indivision, but shall be limited to the pro rata ownership interest of that person or persons occupying the homestead.

(7) No homestead exemption shall be granted on bond for deed property. However, any homestead exemption granted prior to June 20, 2003 on any property occupied upon the effective date of this Paragraph by a buyer under a bond for deed contract shall remain valid as long as the circumstances giving rise to the exemption at the time the exemption was granted remain applicable.

(8) Notwithstanding any provision of this Paragraph to the contrary, in no event shall more than one homestead exemption extend or apply to any person in this state.

(9) This exemption shall not extend to municipal taxes. However, the exemptions shall apply (a) in Orleans Parish, to state, general city, school, levee, and levee district taxes and (b) to any municipal taxes levied for school purposes.

(B) Residential Lessees. Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this constitution, the legislature may provide for tax relief to residential lessees in the form of credits or rebates in order to provide equitable tax relief similar to that granted to homeowners through homestead exemptions.

Amended by Acts 1980, No. 844, §1, approved Nov. 4, 1980; Acts 1993, No. 1046, §1, approved Oct. 16, 1993, eff. Nov. 18, 1993; Acts 2004, No. 929, §1, approved Nov. 2, 2004, eff. Dec. 7, 2004.

[itsthepathocrats]

I haven't been able to find Louisiana's law. Can you help me?
I've not been able to find the appropriate code. What I've found addresses Homestead exemptions, which is a different issue:

http://law.justia.com/louisiana/codes/5/81983.html

http://www.homesteadus.com/laws.htm

I'll look a little deeper later this weekend.


If the inhabitants leave then it leaves the property empty-----> the foreclosed property deteriorates making it obvious the house is vacated ----> causing the empty house to be used in criminal activity -----> causing surrounding land values to plummet ------> causing the neighbors to want to sell their property at what they can get for it to seek safer residence.
Ever wonder if this is deliberate? I mean, these actions make no sense for lien holders who are trying to maximize their recovery value of the properties.

[CMoore]

I recently attended a seminar held for attorneys who might be defending people in foreclosure actions. Requiring the foreclosing party to produce the documents through which they hold an interest in the property was discussed. It is simply good law practice to require a party to meet their burden of proof in any case. There is really nothing illegal about it.

[rockandrollsouls]

To be a valid contract, there has to be consideration.

:rolleyes:

There is consideration. Read through your mortgage if you have one....look at the contracts you signed when you bought the house.

Trust me. It's all in there. Believe it or not, though our financial system has been full of fools, they know what they are doing slightly more than the average American. Go ask those people being foreclosed on if they even READ the terms of their agreement. They screwed themselves. I feel bad for the people that have to eat it now, but you have to know what you get yourself into.

[micahnelson]

This would obviously be illegal.

The giving of public funds to these banks and lending institutions is also illegal. The government as violated its end of the contract by being more than an impartial mediator in contracts. They have taken the side of the banks by subsidizing them, and being the muscle for evictions.

People should honor the contracts they make, so if the whole point of this is to get out of paying a bill you don't feel like paying- I can't support that. To do this as an act of protest against the banks- well that too would be illegal.

Illegal like printing a paper without the king's stamp.

Illegal like helping a slave cross state lines.

Illegal like burning your draft card.

Illegal like standing in front of a tank as it rolls towards Tienanmen Square.

If you oppose the government, at some point that is going to mean breaking laws. I'm not saying this is the time or place- but lets not use the notion of legality as currently defined by our masters in DC as the only consideration.

[rockandrollsouls]

This is where mortgage companies fail in common sense in this depressed economy, the rotton spot effect.

If the inhabitants leave then it leaves the property empty-----> the foreclosed property deteriorates making it obvious the house is vacated ----> causing the empty house to be used in criminal activity -----> causing surrounding land values to plummet ------> causing the neighbors to want to sell their property at what they can get for it to seek safer residence.

Wow. You clearly don't have any sense of reasonable logic.

[Danke]

:rolleyes:

There is consideration. Read through your mortgage if you have one....look at the contracts you signed when you bought the house.

Trust me. It's all in there. Believe it or not, though our financial system has been full of fools, they know what they are doing slightly more than the average American. Go ask those people being foreclosed on if they even READ the terms of their agreement. They screwed themselves. I feel bad for the people that have to eat it now, but you have to know what you get yourself into.

And what is it?

[rockandrollsouls]

And what is it?

Do you know the process it takes to "buy" a house? You're off your nut if you don't think there was any consideration. Are you just starting to learn business law 101 in college or something, kid? And trying to somehow construe that logic to say that there is no valid contract? Again, you're off your nut. Do a little research. They are completely valid contracts.

[itsthepathocrats]

This would obviously be illegal.

The giving of public funds to these banks and lending institutions is also illegal. The government as violated its end of the contract by being more than an impartial mediator in contracts. They have taken the side of the banks by subsidizing them, and being the muscle for evictions.

People should honor the contracts they make, so if the whole point of this is to get out of paying a bill you don't feel like paying- I can't support that. To do this as an act of protest against the banks- well that too would be illegal.

Illegal like printing a paper without the king's stamp.

Illegal like helping a slave cross state lines.

Illegal like burning your draft card.

Illegal like standing in front of a tank as it rolls towards Tienanmen Square.

If you oppose the government, at some point that is going to mean breaking laws. I'm not saying this is the time or place- but lets not use the notion of legality as currently defined by our masters in DC as the only consideration.
If the bank makes a claim on the property and cannon produce clear title, then they have NO claim. The judge simply throws-out the claimants claim and the defendant (home owner) is NOT obligated to do anything.

We have a system of laws in this country, and if a debtor does not obtain clear title to a property then they should have not purchased that, hence, their claim is with the seller of that debt and not the homeowner.

[Danke]

Do you know the process it takes to "buy" a house? You're off your nut if you don't think there was any consideration. Are you just starting to learn business law 101 in college or something, kid? And trying to somehow construe that logic to say that there is no valid contract? Again, you're off your nut. Do a little research. They are completely valid contracts.

I have purchased many homes. And a good friend is a Realtor/builder/real estate investor. I also know many people who have used various unconventional methods to turn the tables on banks.

Why do you always have such a condescending attitude? And why don't you just answer the question without the personal insults?

[Anti Federalist]

Possession is 9/10's of the law.

[torchbearer]

Possession is 9/10's of the law.

that is what homestead laws are about.
If you are using the property in a productive manner, then you are the owner.
If not, you are either an employee or a slave to a land owner and live as a serf.

[chadhb]

If the banks can't produce clear title, then they don't have ownership. Period. So, who's rights are these "homeless" people infringing upon when they move-in to these vacant home?

Sorry, I don't listen to elite controlled NPR.


WTF are you talking about? They bought the houses, now pay your fing bills , like the rest of us. This BS about titles, is just free loader mentality.

[rockandrollsouls]

that is what homestead laws are about.
If you are using the property in a productive manner, then you are the owner.
If not, you are either an employee or a slave to a land owner and live as a serf.

You don't own anything if you can't make your payments on it, and the fact of the matter is that house isn't yours until you pay it off.

And, Danke, I don't have a condescending attitude, but I do understand property law, and I too have friends that are realtors...and guess what? Doesn't take much education to become a licensed realtor buddy. Fact of the matter is these people being foreclosed on cannot uphold their end of the contract. They do not own the home, they have not paid for it in full, therefore it is not their's. You should know homebuying isn't a simple process. You should also know it's one giant contract where you initial about 3 sections of the page for about 10 pages :rolleyes:

All the info is in there....people should read it.

[Danke]

You don't own anything if you can't make your payments on it, and the fact of the matter is that house isn't yours until you pay it off.

And, Danke, I don't have a condescending attitude, but I do understand property law, and I too have friends that are realtors...and guess what? Doesn't take much education to become a licensed realtor buddy. Fact of the matter is these people being foreclosed on cannot uphold their end of the contract. They do not own the home, they have not paid for it in full, therefore it is not their's. You should know homebuying isn't a simple process. You should also know it's one giant contract where you initial about 3 sections of the page for about 10 pages :rolleyes:

All the info is in there....people should read it.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just answer the question.

[rockandrollsouls]

If the bank makes a claim on the property and cannon produce clear title, then they have NO claim. The judge simply throws-out the claimants claim and the defendant (home owner) is NOT obligated to do anything.

We have a system of laws in this country, and if a debtor does not obtain clear title to a property then they should have not purchased that, hence, their claim is with the seller of that debt and not the homeowner.

You're out of your mind. They have the title. Do you have any evidence to support your opinion that "the banks" can't produce it, or are you pulling that out of your ass :rolleyes:

And, torchbearer, you're wrong. I like you, but you're wrong here. Just because someone is using SOMEONE ELSE'S property doesn't mean they can claim title to it.

[rockandrollsouls]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just answer the question.

There aren't any personal insults, buddy. You just can't accept you're wrong. READ THE STUFF YOU SIGN.

What question is it you want me to answer?

[Danke]

There aren't any personal insults, buddy. You just can't accept you're wrong. READ THE STUFF YOU SIGN.

What question is it you want me to answer?

Are you that thick? What is the consideration?

[rockandrollsouls]

Are you that thick? What is the consideration?

Consideration is something of value in a contract. What do you think a down payment is?

Would you like me to tell you the steps there needs to be to form a contract? Business law 101 here...

[Danke]

Consideration is something of value in a contract. What do you think a down payment is?

Would you like me to tell you the steps there needs to be to form a contract? Business law 101 here...

Just answer the fucking question please. What is the consideration from the lender?

[rockandrollsouls]

Oh, and by the way, the Constitution doesn't define what constitutes a contract. It simply states the law in regard to contract. The notion of elements in a contract were composed by politicians, which I ultimately disagree with, but using their definition all the elements of a contract are present with these mortgages.

[Malakai]

If someone feels there is a problem with the terms of their foreclosure, they are perfectly free to pursue whatever legal means necessary to find out whats really going on.

She is not pledging government power to back these people up, just encouraging them to basically be a pain in the ass of the banks and securities traders. No problem there from a libertarian standpoint, as long as no gov authority is being thrown around.

I often say I don't see the point to paying of credit card debt(I have none but lots do), or medical debt (which I have a bit of). Banking, credit, medical finance, all the systems are so f'ed up and corrupt, I see no reason to give away money to them. Banks and CC's are charging 30% on money they themselves are borrowing en masse for 1%, all the profits from the medical-insurance-government scheme go to shady private hands and lobbied back into the politicians, no need to pay these people.

It's just a personal opinion though. If I am a congressman and I say it am I somehow violating the law?

[rockandrollsouls]

Just answer the fucking question please. What is the consideration from the lender?

You keep expanding the question, and you might want to watch your mouth little man.

Are you referring to consideration in a mortgage? How about the interest in the property :rolleyes:

[Danke]

Oh, and by the way, the Constitution doesn't define what constitutes a contract. It simply states the law in regard to contract. The notion of elements in a contract were composed by politicians, which I ultimately disagree with, but using their definition all the elements of a contract are present with these mortgages.

No, it is called common law.

[Danke]

You keep expanding the question, and you might want to watch your mouth little man.

Are you referring to consideration in a mortgage? How about the interest in the property :rolleyes:

You are so clueless. Good night.

[rockandrollsouls]

If someone feels there is a problem with the terms of their foreclosure, they are perfectly free to pursue whatever legal means necessary to find out whats really going on.

She is not pledging government power to back these people up, just encouraging them to basically be a pain in the ass of the banks and securities traders. No problem there from a libertarian standpoint, as long as no gov authority is being thrown around.

I often say I don't see the point to paying of credit card debt(I have none but lots do), or medical debt (which I have a bit of). It's just a personal opinion though. If I am a congressman and I say it am I somehow violating the law?

No, you can say whatever you want. That's your right. However, her advice is wrong. The fact of the matter is the home is not the property of the person being foreclosed on.

[rockandrollsouls]

You are so clueless. Good night.

Yawn. Talk about personal insults. You can beat around the bush or debate, but I'm not playing games with you. You're the ignorant and condescending one, and you're very, very wrong.

I can break it down for you very simply.

In this contract, there is money, consideration from the buyer, and an interest in the property, consideration from the seller. TADA. Contract. That is, at the root of it all, the contract. So tell me, what about that makes all mortgages and home loans a fallacy and not valid contracts? :rolleyes: Again, you're off your nut. It's completely legal and official.

[Ninja Homer]

There was a case in Minnesota where the homeowner beat the bank and got to keep his house in a pretty interesting way.

I searched around a little, but couldn't find it... maybe somebody who's better with Google can find a link. Anyway, quick summary from memory:

By law, all contracts must be made with real money (I'm not sure if that's federal or MN state law). When you get a mortgage, the bank tells the Federal Reserve they need x amount of dollars, and the Federal Reserve prints it up out of thin air. That is NOT real money, so the mortgage contract was illegal. They print money out of thin air to provide the mortgage, and then you pay it back in real money.

The homeowner made this case, and the judge ruled in his favor. The homeowner got the house free and clear, because he was currently in possession of it and the contract was illegal.

By this reasoning, which seems sound and lawful to me, almost all mortgage contracts are illegal. While many might see it as a crime when people stay in their homes when they aren't making their mortgage payments, the true crime is the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air and then forcing people to pay it back in real money with interest.

[gilliganscorner]

To be a valid contract, there has to be consideration.

Good point. Did you all see this? (http://www.foreclosurefish.com/blog/index.php?id=439)

[gilliganscorner]

There was a case in Minnesota where the homeowner beat the bank and got to keep his house in a pretty interesting way.

I searched around a little, but couldn't find it... maybe somebody who's better with Google can find a link. Anyway, quick summary from memory:

By law, all contracts must be made with real money (I'm not sure if that's federal or MN state law). When you get a mortgage, the bank tells the Federal Reserve they need x amount of dollars, and the Federal Reserve prints it up out of thin air. That is NOT real money, so the mortgage contract was illegal. They print money out of thin air to provide the mortgage, and then you pay it back in real money.

The homeowner made this case, and the judge ruled in his favor. The homeowner got the house free and clear, because he was currently in possession of it and the contract was illegal.

By this reasoning, which seems sound and lawful to me, almost all mortgage contracts are illegal. While many might see it as a crime when people stay in their homes when they aren't making their mortgage payments, the true crime is the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air and then forcing people to pay it back in real money with interest.

Sorry, read this too late. I provided the link above.

[Ninja Homer]

Sorry, read this too late. I provided the link above.

That's the case, thanks!

For more info, Google "Jerome Daly (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22Jerome+Daly%22)" or "the credit river decision (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22the+credit+river+decision%22)".

[itsthepathocrats]

There was a case in Minnesota where the homeowner beat the bank and got to keep his house in a pretty interesting way.

I searched around a little, but couldn't find it... maybe somebody who's better with Google can find a link. Anyway, quick summary from memory:

By law, all contracts must be made with real money (I'm not sure if that's federal or MN state law). When you get a mortgage, the bank tells the Federal Reserve they need x amount of dollars, and the Federal Reserve prints it up out of thin air. That is NOT real money, so the mortgage contract was illegal. They print money out of thin air to provide the mortgage, and then you pay it back in real money.

The homeowner made this case, and the judge ruled in his favor. The homeowner got the house free and clear, because he was currently in possession of it and the contract was illegal.

By this reasoning, which seems sound and lawful to me, almost all mortgage contracts are illegal. While many might see it as a crime when people stay in their homes when they aren't making their mortgage payments, the true crime is the Federal Reserve printing money out of thin air and then forcing people to pay it back in real money with interest.
This is about contractual consideration, which has been brought up as an issue in this thread. The point is that if the only work a bank performs in a mortgage contract is an electronic journal entry that produces the money to purchase the house, then due consideration in the contract did not exist, and therefore the contract is null and void.


Jerome Daly was a homeowner living in Minnesota who stopped paying his mortgage. The lender, First National Bank of Montgomery, of course, sued the man for foreclosure. Daly presented his argument before a jury as to why he did not owe the bank anything.

Essentially, he argued that the bank had not provided any consideration for Daly's promise to pay back the loan. Consideration is one of the requirements for a valid contract, and without it, a contract is void. Daly was arguing that the mortgage contract was void and did not need to be repaid because the bank had not actually given him any money. The lender had created the money out of thin air in response to the promise to repay the loan.


This credit, argued Daly, was not real money that counted as consideration and therefore did not need to be paid back. Without valid consideration, the mortgage contract was null and void and nothing was owed to the bank. Astoundingly enough, the jury agreed with him and declared that the mortgage was not a valid contract.


The judge and a representative testifying on behalf of the bank also agreed with Daly's argument, in effect. The bank's president, Mr. Morgan, admitted that the money did not exist until Daly was given the mortgage, and the money was created out of thin air.


The judge wrote a supporting decision in the case agreeing with Daly, writing "The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan [the bank's president] admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this." Thus, the lending of the money to Daly in the form of a mortgage did not constitute valid consideration. The bank did not even have the authority to create money out of thin air according to any known law or statute.

While this is a different tactic than was originally posted in this thread, I believe it has merit but is most likely an incredibly difficult case to win. Only a jury would provide such a verdict.

What is being posited here in this thread is the issue that the bank does not have a legal claim to a foreclosed property if they cannot prove their claim by producing a clear title to that property. It's really that simple.

Hence, the bank has NO claim and the occupant of that property can remain in the property until someone proves a claim otherwise. End of story.