Quote:
|
Originally Posted by amenmesse
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.
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. |
That is a good point. I am trying to understand it. "...the people at the state level..." I am presuming to mean taxpayers. Cutting weeds and replacing a roof etc. to prevent an empty home from decaying to the point where they have to bulldoze it - yet another taxpayer expense.
I think if you look at it that way it will make more sense. Mostly as I understand it, the bank will have the sheriff kick the people out - whether anybody comes in to live, rent or buy the house or not.
A spectacular treatise on banking practices was written about 1840 by George Lippard
New York - The Upper Ten and the Lower Million.
Regards,
David Merrill.