Being foreclosed on? No worries if you follow the example of Jerome Daly, a lawyer and political activist of sorts, who successfully had his mortgage declared null and void.
In order for a mortgage agreement to be legal, the bank must put up legal ‘consideration’. That’s a fancy lawyer word for ‘money’ or some such other tangible asset. The Federal Reserve System creates money for lending as bookkeeping entries and as such, the bank fails to provide any real consideration in the contract. As a result, the whole thing is null and void and you can’t be foreclosed upon.
Don’t believe me? Read it for yourself here:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1968-12-09judgmentanddecree.pdf
This decision has never been overturned and Daly was able to keep his house.
does this also include private mortgage lenders?
Private lenders, outside the Federal Reserve system must put up actual funds. Thus it does NOT apply.
I see. this is all very interesting.
Just out of curiosity- where do they get their funds to lend?
Martin, watch the ‘Zeitgeist addendum’ parts 2/13 and 3/13 to answer your question. They can be seen on youtube or you can download the whole movie from the Zeitgeist website. I highly recommend watchinmg the whole movie.
as I understand it private lenders have a “warehousing line of revolving CREDIT” with commercial banks – so- where is the CONSIDERATION??
Does this apply to credit card companies? Or solely mortgages?
Mortgages are issued out of fractional reserve funds. I don’t think this would apply to credit card holders. Undoubtedly though the credit card companies get loans for cash flow. Those loans are likely conjured from thin air using the fractional reserve banking system.
where can i obtain a certified copy of the decision?
The cited pdf is from the law library of the state of Minnesota. That should be sufficiently official. If not, perhaps contact them directly.
Insightful but what are the chances of success today? Most people who are in need of this argument lack the funds to pursue such a case against the lender.
And, from this layman’s point of view, I don’t see a judge wanting to side with the homeowner. The whole house of cards is built around the status quo.