[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Quite true - the change in policy.

Follow through the attachments in this post:

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/131997-post25.html

I glanced at the article linked in the opening post and so get a look here:

http://www.financialsense.com/editor...2007/1124.html
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...3029/146435/5/
http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...forclosure.pdf

and here:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev...n20080214a.htm

With this Fed link, you can get a look at the headlines lately on all the bulletins. Risk management about this "bundling" fiasco has become quite the sensation lately.


Regards,

David Merrill.

I appreciate your posts DM, always knowledgeable reading. Going thru your one link
http://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/Clerk_s...forclosure.pdf

I came across this footnote 3 at the bottom.

In the meantime, the financial institutions or successors/assignees rush to foreclose, obtain a
default judgment and then sit on the deed, avoiding responsibility for maintaining the property while
reaping the financial benefits of interest running on a judgment. The financial institutions know the law
charges the one with title (still the homeowner) with maintaining the property.

At the fed level I can see FDR doing this and restructuring the fed gov to be the interest collector while we the people at the state level still hold title but pay for the upkeep. But I'm having difficulty comprehending the indiviual relationship with a forecloser. If a successor forcloses wouldn't it make more sense to move out or is it perhaps just cheaper to stay and pay interest and this leads the people into peonage. Any more eloquent opinions on my concepts here? I'm thinking this is what Judge Wynkoop meant when he said "It will be through forms of law you will be lead into slavery." 4 July 1776. Thanks in advance.