Printable View
This looks on the surface like a simple Quiet Title action but along with the Demand for the Treasury to Redeem the property within 30 Days comes a lot of lawful money connotations and the allusions to who holds the Note. - Or more, that Chase does not hold the Note; non-judicial State. To get my point there keep in mind that if the homeowner was not endorsing private credit from the Fed, he would not have gotten the Chase loan in the first place.
I think this may be the retaliation/counterclaim.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Feds sue biggest US banks
Banksters eating their own, I'm enjoying this show!
Perhaps there is one amonst us that will soon look to acquire a home loan. Also, perhaps the one can include the demand for lawful money on those gazillion papers they have the borrower sign at the closing.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
That would be really interesting!
Interestingly enough, I was perusing my landlord's mortgage papers and came across a part that mentions repayments to be made with lawful money. I didn't digest the entire document as we were talking about a different subject. I guess the repayment in lawful money was to extinguish the lending of fiat money?
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Earl
David Merrill consistently talks about establishing parameters. Also, in another post, RThomas mentioned how when parties enter into a contract, then the terms of the contract become law. I agree with DM an RT.
My point - what is lawful money according to the parameters of the mortgage contract? Currency issued by the US Treasury, or private credit issued by banks? The former extinguishes the latter. The latter only discharges the former.
I describe lawful money as bonded currency. I don't have any experience with the mortgage process but imagine the clause to assure that the homeowner pays off the bank only in money earned by labor of goods and services. Sweat of the brow rather than redeeming credit by a coupon/remittance redemption process. The bank is offering no consideration on the loan in other words.
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg
The Minnesota Supreme Court (Bar Association) went through gyrations to discredit the Credit River Decision and disbar DALY and (maybe even kill) MAHONEY while Jerome DALY lived a couple more decades in his "foreclosed on" home. A lawful money clause might be the result.
Speaking simply then any FRNs cash you have in your wallet is lawful money, the question is whether or not you endorsed it or redeemed lawful money when you cashed your paycheck. Either way, demanding lawful money instead of private credit assures the mortgager that you went out and worked for what you tender in payments back to the bank for living in their home.
I am viewing this suit as like suing a gambling casino. Do you see the way BBC World News followed with a gambling scenario interviewing people in Las Vegas? - Maybe shock testing in the Silent Weapons sense? The attorneys are bartering a reality check before the USA will even file to see how it goes. Fannie and Freddie gambled that people would be able to stay paying the mortgages while the bankers controlled the value of the house chips and were gambling they could make people foreclose. Another item is that Las Vegas, the housing market is faltering in a new dreadful way - the banks are not keeping up their empty homes. The good side is that people in a city known for nobody talking (they stay inside while at home in the air conditioning) are getting together and mowing weeds and otherwise keeping up the empty houses...
In other words I am watching and still do not find the actual "countersuit" USA v Major Banks. It may never actually show up. If you lose your money gambling, you usually get no refund by law suit.
I tracked down an article that articulated:
The cases are Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Bank of America Corp. (BAC), 11-CV-6195; FHFA v. Barclays Bank Plc., 11-CV- 6190; FHFA v. Citigroup, 11-CV-6196; FHFA v. Credit Suisse Holdings (USA) Inc., 11-CV-6200; FHFA v. Deutsche Bank AG, 11- CV-6192; FHFA v. First Horizon National Corp., 11-CV-6193; FHFA v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 11-CV-6198; FHFA v. HSBC North America Holdings Inc., 11-CV-6189; FHFA v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 11-CV- 6188; FHFA v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 11-CV-6202; FHFA v. Nomura Holding America Inc., 11-CV-6201; FHFA v. SG Americas Inc., 11- CV-6203, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
I will watch Chase specifically on PACER...
It looks like maybe Tuesday afternoon being a three-day holiday weekend:
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1...report9511.jpg
My thinking behind including the demand for lawful money on mortgage agreements is that doing so would preclude banks from financing the loan with newly created credit. Rather, the banks would have to finance the loans with the notes within their bank vaults, and not with the credit entries in their bank computers.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Just pondering. :)
Perhaps this is why Congress allowed the US Treasury and Federal Reserve to impose onto banks billions of dollars of extra cash to just sit on banks' balance sheets - to fund settlements of these lawsuits. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Anthony
The first part; you might be right but I misunderstood. I thought that the clause was in the financing agreement.
The second part - one word - Barratry. You propose a government fundraising scam.
Whatever became of this case? Links no longer work and I can't find it.
There are no headlines for this but I did see that JP Morgan Chase is under a fourth criminal probe for rigging the price of gold and silver:
https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/...felony-counts/
Have you tried PACER?Quote:
Originally Posted by marcel
Tried SDNY (Southern District of New York) and came up empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Merrill