Journal zogger's Journal: Rock the system 16
Isn't this interesting, 60 million mortgages might be unable to be legally foreclosed on.
HAHAHAHAHA! This should sure make things a lot more sporting in this big economic game of musical paper chairs! Nothing like a little legal "jubilee" to clear the decks! They wanted highly con-plex contracts, they got them, but it seems maybe in their haste to accrue megaprofits via fractional reserve poof money creation, then added on usury, combined with deliberately lowballing risk and using hedging and so forth to sell all that upstream paper, they forgot some of the more *relevant legal niceties*. The fine print, the cornerstone of capitalism, *is* the fine print!
Money As Debt (Score:2)
I thought that English Common Law was changed, back before the U.S. even came into being, to allow the transfer of notes like these allowing for the sale of debt? There is probably more in the details, but it looks interesting.
If you haven't seen it, Money as Debt 2 is out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doYllBk5No&feature=PlayList&p=879A14495D29C64F&index=0&playnext=1 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Screw youtube and their little 10 minute segments. Here it is in one piece [viddler.com], the way god meant it to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that English Common Law was changed, back before the U.S. even came into being, to allow the transfer of notes like these allowing for the sale of debt?
My understanding of the problem is that nobody has the note anymore: it was shredded and the pieces given to lots of different people. This MERS company from the article theoretically knows who all of these individual people are and assumed that they could represent all of them at once without actually representing any individual possessor of a pi
Nice. Wait, what? (Score:2)
So the people who actually made the loans walk away with no liabilities? They made loans to people they shouldn't have, then repackaged and sold those loans to people who should know better, using unenforceable contracts, and they get to keep their profits? Meanwhile, either the homeowner or the greedy idiot who bought the repackaged debt gets the shaft.
While I like the idea of the greedy idiots getting stuck with this, it seems to me that the con men who packaged up and resold the debt should be held to ac
It goes beyond that (Score:1)
Homeowners who are still in good standing with payments need to know they are not being party to fraud (which they could be), or if they are really paying who they should be paying. If it was me, I'd stick the payment in an escrow account and demand legal written overwhelming proof from whom you have been paying the money to to prove that they indeed are the rightful recipient, and if they are not, sue/demand for the return of the payments you have previously made.
Just sayin...and then maybe no one can prov
Re: (Score:2)
Look at rates of home ownership over time. In 1900, the average rate of home ownership was about 10%. 90% of people rented. It was easy access to credit that put people into homes, created by the 'fractional reserve poof.'
You do know that fractional reserve lending goes back a lot further than the Fed, right? It started with goldsmiths. They would keep gold safe in their vaults for people, and give them a piece of paper stating that they could redeem said paper for X amount of gold.
Paper is a heck of a lot
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. I linked "Money as Debt 2" in a different post. You just quoted a section of The Money Masters [themoneymasters.com], with the description of fractional reserve goldsmiths and lock houses. Another excellent piece of educational video, by the way.
I'm not sold on a gold-based currency for a couple of reasons.
First, guess who has all the gold? The big boys of the Fed, IMF, US Treasury, World Bank, Chinese Bank, etc. How is that different than now?
Gold-backed currency, as you pointed out, doesn't preclude fractional reserv
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sold on a gold-based currency for a couple of reasons...
One of them should be, contrary to what the film says, gold has NO intrinsic value whatsoever other than the convenience it can provide as a means of exchange, but anything that's mutually agreed upon can provide that, even paper. Gold, like diamonds is just another racket, or religion, if you will. Somewhere in there I saw "You can't eat gold". No matter what you use, it still boils down to good old trust. What is your word worth? Straight
Re: (Score:2)
No, the unfortunate thing is that gold DOES have intrinsic value. It's uses in industry are myriad, especially high tech. If you want to use gold as a basis of currency, then the industrial and currency uses will be fighting each other. As the economy expands, we need more gold to represent it. This means that when the economy is growing, industrial processes that use gold will be getting more and more expensive. Using gold in more industrial processes will have the effect of reducing the money supply.
History (Score:1)
I know I am in the minority here on this, but I'm betting that gold and silver will remain as the ultimate form of universal money well past the life spans of anyone reading this today. There's just too much history behind it and there are too many people on the globe from the fattest of cats to the peonists of serfs who still value it.
I completely recognize all the arguments against it, and I also completely accept all the history and status quo for it. I am just too practical to ignore both of those thing
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. They made loans hoping the debtor couldn't pay. While the price of the property is rising, the bank is collecting mortgage payments. Debtor gets 2 months behind, BAM the bank won't accept anything less than all delinquent payments plus fees, making it nearly impossible for the homeowner to catch up. They then foreclose and sell the home for a profit, plus the payments the foreclosed mortgageholder has paid.
In the unlikely even that (nah, never happen) housing prices actually fall, they
One can only hope (Score:1)
That this could lead to a prohibition against the transfer of ANY contract without the signature of all parties involved. This would especially help in regard to IP law. A nice little uprising over this would be very cool.
disclaimer: Not a call for violence (Score:1)
By "uprising", I mean I hope people will note this and tell the banks(government) to go screw. No shots need be fired, except in self defense of course..
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you.
For a contract to be enforceable by any court in the US, it should be required that the contract is signed by all signatories in the presence of the court, the original housed by the court, and scans hosted by the court. They can put up a bunch of torrents if they want (checksums to ensure no backdoor crap), and plenty of orgs will gladly mirror it.
No implied contracts. There's a word for that, it's called Statute or Constitution. And even those are bad enough these days.
The other shoe drops (Score:2)
I wondered why Chase was so eager to refinance my house....at first I thought it was just good marketing (refinance this guy before he goes somewhere else at 3 points less than he's paying), but now I see that there's a secondary reason as well, to get themselves on the paperwork as mortgage primary holder.
Related (Score:2)
I saw something on this awhile back, a talk-show guest gave up the secret to forestalling foreclosure: when in court, 3 little words: "Produce the note." Very often, even if the note hadn't been shuffled into hyper-leveraged hell, even if the original lender was the party attempting to foreclose, production of the original physical document was not possible in timely enough fashion to satisfy the court.
Result? Judgment in favor of defendant, foreclosure dismissed.