Foreclosure Defense Florida

America’s Plan: Use Courts to Steal Homes, Allow Warren Buffet To Rent Them Back

I reckon I should just shut up now about the AG sellout…no one is reporting and no one seems to care.

And when you wonder, “How did we let Hitler kill 6 million Jews?”   Just look at what’s happening in this country today.   Hitler didn’t first stand up and announce the killings, he first used thuggery to take private property, then they passed laws that made it official government policy.   Meanwhile, all the German people just sat there, waving flags and cheering them on.

And what was that smell wafting across the countryside and into the towns that were near Dachau and Buchenwald?   That was the smell of millions of human beings cooked.   And what did the German people do?   They did nothing.   Well, actually they did more than nothing, the German people jumped up and down, cheering as the trains carrying Jews to the camps came chugging by.   They even had a nice greeting welded onto the gate at the Buchenwald:

Jedem das Seine

everyone gets what he deserves

Well as none of you know, because the news is not covering it, the President signed the National Defense Preparedness Act on Friday, March 16…all private resources can now be seized as we prepare for war.   Friday’s a great day to release little memos that we really shouldn’t care about….like the National Defense Authorization Act….member that little thing?

Closer to home, all across this nation our courts will busily be throwing their neighbors into the street, turning formerly private property over to the federal government or shadowy undefined entities like Deutsche Bank Trust…it doesn’t matter who gets the property or why, the only thing that matters is

WE’VE GOT TO GRANT THESE FORECLOSURES, GET THESE PEOPLE OUT INTO THE STREETS!

It certainly reminds me of that scene in Pink Floyd’s The Wall.   Actually much of what’s happening today reminds me of the haunting screenplay.   I encourage everyone to pull out the old LPs, or go out and watch the DVDs, cause it’s coming little sheep.

And what will happen to your homes after our local, elected judges and now increasingly unelected imperial senior judges bang the hammer and throw you into the street?   Well, the plan is to sell them in bulk, for cents on the dollar, to folks like Warren Buffet and, I don’t know, maybe George Soros?   Mind you, they wouldn’t cut you any break at all when you tried to modify your loan, but that very same home will be sold for cents on the dollar to the inner circle of the tyrannical regime.

Think we’ve got a functioning legal system in this country anymore?   Do you think liberty and justice and freedom are even worth talking about?

See you in the camps…..

6 Comments

  • nydeemarie says:

    I keep wondering if there is a Notice(?); which can be filed into a land record; which would preserve the right of redemption for something like 30 years.

    Given the circumstances, I find it curious that there is no such template in circulation.

    ie for fraud in the (chain/record), cloud, slander, etc..

  • nydeemarie says:

    “Bona Fide” purchaser/investor vs. title company/insurer vs. NOTICE

  • Raptor says:

    Matt,
    Your rage is palpable and justified. What do we do?

  • neidermeyer says:

    Illegitimi non carborundum

  • nydeemarie says:

    However, there is a serious question as to whether the bank can be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, as the bank is charged with notice of all matter revealed by the record title.

    ************************

    “When, during a series of years or in numerous business transactions, he has been permitted, without objection, and in his official capacity, to pursue a particular course of conduct, it may be presumed, as between the bank and those who in good faith deal with it upon the basis of his authority to represent the corporation, that he has acted in conformity with instructions received from those who have the right to control its operations. Directors cannot, in justice to those who deal with the bank, shut their eyes to what is going on around them. It is their duty to use ordinary diligence in ascertaining the condition of its business, and to exercise reasonable control and supervision of its officers. They have something more to do than, from time to time, to elect the officers of the bank, and to make declarations of dividends.

    That which they ought, by proper diligence, to have known as to the general course of business in the bank, they may be presumed to have known in any contest between the corporation and those who are justified by the circumstances in dealing with its officers upon the basis of that course of business.” This seems peculiarly applicable to the situation here, although we are not resting our decision on the negligence of the directors.

    *******************

    Barring exceptional circumstances, it has been held that failure of a bank to inquire, when a fiduciary negotiates a check made to a payee other than the representative and deposits the funds in the fiduciary’s personal account, is an unreasonable banking practice as a matter of law. (See, National Bank v Refrigerated Transp. Co., 147 Ga App 240, 248 SE2d 496; Sherriff-Goslin Co. v Cawood, 91 Mich App 204, 283 NW2d 691; Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Hepler State Bank, 6 Kan App 2d 543, 630 P2d 721.)

    Moreover, industry custom supports the foregoing view. It has been advised that “persons dealing with fiduciaries beyond their power or authority must always return to the principal or beneficiary whatever they have received in the transaction and, since any act done by the fiduciary beyond his power is void, the third party can make no claim for loss against the principal.

    Under these circumstances, it is always proper for one dealing with a fiduciary to demand and receive full evidence of the authority and power under which he acts”. (Beutel & Shroeder, Bank Officer’s Handbook of Commercial Banking Law § 27-20, at 458-459 [5th ed 1982].)

    ***********************

    “As the bank must be held to have known that the treasurer was not authorized to borrow money for the town, paying his overdrawing checks and discounting the notes were each loans by it to him as an individual. By lending to an officer whose office conferred no power to borrow, the bank cannot force itself into the position of a creditor of the town against its will and without its knowledge; and the payment of its debts by the unauthorized act of the treasurer from money thus borrowed is not an appropriation of it by the town to its uses; it had previously placed money in his hands for the payment of those specific debts; there remained to it upon knowledge the right to repudiate the unauthorized borrowing and payment; the right to remain in debt, with its creditors’ permission; not having that, the right to borrow for itself.

    Upon such repudiation the transaction remains the lending by the bank to the agent for himself; the money borrowed remains his own; the duty to repay solely upon him; the right of the bank to recover, solely from him.

  • Amos Maheia says:

    toronto condos…bubble?

Leave a Reply