Chase v USA IRS Treasury

[Rock Anthony]

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.

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.

Just pondering.

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).

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.