The One People's Public Trust & Sovereign Citizens Movement Scams Broken Down.

Originally posted by hawkiye


That is how it is supposed to work however Mortgages in reality do not work that way they are in fact fraudulent and no money was ever loaned to the borrower. The loan was funded by the promissory note not by any money the bank had on hand. The borrower funded his own loan and the Bank pretended like it loaned him money it is quite the scam and largely responsible for the housing bubble that crashed in 2008. As the bank creates computer entry money based on promissory notes times 9 of the value using fractional reserve this inflated the bubble till it popped. And they're are doing it again now. If enough people understood how mortgages really work there would probably be a revolution by morning.

Here is a more detailed description:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

100% not true - this is another sovereign citizen based myth. It doesn't even make any sense, because according to this theory the bank could simply make its own money by having its officers sign promissory notes all day. Why go through the whole mortgage thing? Instead I'll just form a bank and sign promissory notes for a week for $1 million each and end up a billionaire. Oh wait...it doesn't happen because thats not how things work.

What caused the housing bubble was CDS instruments, not magic money making via promissory notes. The housing bubble popped because banks were lending money to people who couldn't afford it and then bundling them into financial instruments sold to investors with a AAA credit rating that was bogus. Since the AAA rating was bogus because the underlying mortgages would not be repaid, once people stopped paying the instruments defaulted and it caused a domino effect that restricted easy credit (the blood of the housing bubble). Boom goes the bubble. How you could believe it has anything to do with your fictional version of mortgages is beyond me.

Originally posted by thelongjourney

Originally posted by hawkiye


That is how it is supposed to work however Mortgages in reality do not work that way they are in fact fraudulent and no money was ever loaned to the borrower. The loan was funded by the promissory note not by any money the bank had on hand. The borrower funded his own loan and the Bank pretended like it loaned him money it is quite the scam and largely responsible for the housing bubble that crashed in 2008. As the bank creates computer entry money based on promissory notes times 9 of the value using fractional reserve this inflated the bubble till it popped. And they're are doing it again now. If enough people understood how mortgages really work there would probably be a revolution by morning.

Here is a more detailed description:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

100% not true - this is another sovereign citizen based myth. It doesn't even make any sense, because according to this theory the bank could simply make its own money by having its officers sign promissory notes all day. Why go through the whole mortgage thing? Instead I'll just form a bank and sign promissory notes for a week for $1 million each and end up a billionaire. Oh wait...it doesn't happen because thats not how things work.

What caused the housing bubble was CDS instruments, not magic money making via promissory notes. The housing bubble popped because banks were lending money to people who couldn't afford it and then bundling them into financial instruments sold to investors with a AAA credit rating that was bogus. Since the AAA rating was bogus because the underlying mortgages would not be repaid, once people stopped paying the instruments defaulted and it caused a domino effect that restricted easy credit (the blood of the housing bubble). Boom goes the bubble. How you could believe it has anything to do with your fictional version of mortgages is beyond me.

It is absolutely 100% true this is why MERs and Bank of America have lost cases on it. it is the main way money is created now a days. I can prove it in any mortgage contract even yours! This has nothing to with Sovereign citizen stuff this is jut plain fact. it is even in law that banks cannot loan their own assets.

In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.” Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat ‘l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.

“A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation.” Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925, 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED

It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires” Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE759 (1926).

“It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done.” Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L ‘Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).

Good job hawkeye, now apply that level of research to how money is actually created. You will see that a promissory note does not create money at all, its a popular sovereign citizen myth based on a complete bastardization of the fractional banking concept. A mortgage is based on bank funds, the value of the assets the bank holds allow it to lend out 10x that amount. A promissory note does NOT create money, and nothing you've provided says it does.

I do say good job about banks not being able to sign their own promissory note. I wish conspiracy theorists would conduct the same level of research about the rest of this non-sense.

Originally posted by thelongjourney
Good job hawkeye, now apply that level of research to how money is actually created. You will see that a promissory note does not create money at all, its a popular sovereign citizen myth based on a complete bastardization of the fractional banking concept. A mortgage is based on bank funds, the value of the assets the bank holds allow it to lend out 10x that amount. A promissory note does NOT create money, and nothing you've provided says it does.

I do say good job about banks not being able to sign their own promissory note. I wish conspiracy theorists would conduct the same level of research about the rest of this non-sense.

u just showed several cases proving an bank cannot loan its own assets/funds. It's a known fact Banks create money from nothing Where doe the 9x fractional reserve to lend come from? They create money out of thin air. The promissory note is deposited in an account as an asset and viola they can now lend 9x the value of the note. They cannot lend their own credit and they have no real money Federal reserve notes are debt instruments hence credit. So if they cannot lend their own credit then where are they getting funds to lend the borrower? From the promissory note deposited and then multiplying it times 9 viola instant money. Trust me I have been researching this nearly 30 years. People have on cases because of this information because the bank cannot prove it has money on account to loan because of they dd they would be in violation of the law. I have a memorandum of law on this too Ill post some of as soon a i dig it up.

Originally posted by hawkiye
it's a known fact Banks create money from nothing Where doe the 9x fractional reserve to lend come from? They create money out of thin air. The promissory note is deposited in an account as an asset and viola they can no lend 9x the value of the note. They cannot lend their on credit and they have no real money Federal reserve notes are debt instruments hence credit. So if they cannot lend their own credit then where are the getting money to lend the borrower? From the promissory note deposited and then multiplying it times 9. Trust me I have been researching this nearly 30 years. People have on cases because of this information because the bank cannot prove it has money on account to loan because of they dd they would be in violation of the law. I have a memorandum of law on this too...

No its NOT a known fact that "banks create money from nothing" because they don't. Again, you are bastardizing the fractional lending concept. No one "creates" money. The federal reserve takes in money by putting US bonds on the market. The funds from the proceeds of those bonds (whose interest rates are so low that were actually making money off them) are used to loan to banks.

Banks receive that money in the form of low interest loans. They then LEND it at a higher rate. Lets say the bank gets $1.00 from the federal reserve at a rate of 2%. They now owe the fed $1.02. The bank loans $1.00 to you at a rate of 5% via a mortgage. That interest spread is their profit. No money is created from the bank, no one creates any money in fact the $1.00 originally came from whoever bought the bond.

BUT WAIT! You'll say. If the bank only has $1.00 then they can't loan that out because of fractional reserve! That would be true, except banks aren't allowed to start without having a huge amount of assets $50M+ (or $10 in this simplified example).

Evidence:
upload.wikimedia.org...

This is the last Im going to post on this, because frankly I think your in so deep no evidence will dissuade you from belief in this non-sense. However, if you can post ANY actual evidence (like you did above with court cases), I'll reply.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

not meaning to argue the obvious but if the banks Borrow the 'notes' from a PRIVATE entity (fed reserve), who owns them again?

don't the banks have to pay the FR back with interest ?
(ie: fractional lending) and isn't that exactly how we got here ?

under 'fractional lending' methods, the 'bank' isn't even in possession of the majority of the currency they are lending.

so, no, i can't agree that they own it.
the Private creator/Federal Reserve/Crown own it.
that's why we pay it back w/interest.

ever see the list of primary stockholders in the FR ??
(it's been on several threads here)
a grand majority are not Americans.

i appreciate the vocabulary context but in my region, we don't have 'munincipalities'.
it is either local/county government, State government or Fed government ... however, any way you slice it, it's still 'government'.

and since one government feeds the next, why separate them ?
personally, i like the idea of 'separate' and smaller governments but we're not there yet and so long as it's one big behemoth, i intend to hold all parts accountable.

if, in my commentary, it seems confusing, i will try to be more specific cause i do realize each state is different in some ways.

in PA, we had several more layers of government, much to my dismay.

believe me, i'm well aware of what property taxes are supposed to support but here's the reality ... property taxes tripled and all of those others are rapidly closing or deteriorating and that's not an exaggeration.
[libraries closed or reduced hours, parks closed or 'restricted', schools? *i like my membership, so moving on*, police & fire have been cut to the point Sheriffs are telling their residents to fend for themselves - not here yet but in some parts of the country that's old news]

so, how are any of the 'property' taxes proving to be beneficial to the community as a whole ?? and, if the outcome relfects the method then in this case, the method needs to be changed.

btw, Truman changed the designation of 'roads' so they could generate a perpetual tax.
didn't exist previously.

as for the Fed tax, i thoroughly agree.
yes, they are a bunch indeed.
sometimes, even that moron word is too generous

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

@ Hefficide ...

because electronic scanning devices have an easier time reading the all caps than the mixed case

that's a crock and you know it.

look at your own birth certificate, see any lower case on it ??
mine's a rather old one re-produced in 08 but i sure do.
(all 8 of them do)
and btw, on mine, every entry except my name is mixed case ... both cell identifiers and the additional input.
even the parent names are mixed case.

read any legal documents lately ?
see any lower case in the commentary ?
[ easier scanning ]

how 'bout a vehicle title ?
why isn't the whole of the form capitalized ???

why aren't the 'names' of the official signatories capitalized ??
(they actually have titles and everything ... "Director/Executive Director")

every single input cell is titled in mixed case ... clearly, it makes a difference.
exactly what that difference is i'm still learning.

Heff, if you don't notice it, you can borrow my glasses

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

@ hellobruce

sorry dude, my dance card is full
maybe another time ?

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

@ PsykoOps
that's a funny alright ... given the following
and i'll even give wiki the benefit of doubt that they got this one right.

en.wikipedia.org...
Roman type was modelled from a European scribal manuscript style of the 1400s, based on the pairing of inscriptional capitals used in ancient Rome with Carolingian minuscules developed in the Holy Roman Empire

but you're right, they knew nothing of it, they just invented it

Originally posted by thelongjourney

No its NOT a known fact that "banks create money from nothing" because they don't. Again, you are bastardizing the fractional lending concept. No one "creates" money. The federal reserve takes in money by putting US bonds on the market. The funds from the proceeds of those bonds (whose interest rates are so low that were actually making money off them) are used to loan to banks.

Banks receive that money in the form of low interest loans. They then LEND it at a higher rate. Lets say the bank gets $1.00 from the federal reserve at a rate of 2%. They now owe the fed $1.02. The bank loans $1.00 to you at a rate of 5% via a mortgage. That interest spread is their profit. No money is created from the bank, no one creates any money in fact the $1.00 originally came from whoever bought the bond.

BUT WAIT! You'll say. If the bank only has $1.00 then they can't loan that out because of fractional reserve! That would be true, except banks aren't allowed to start without having a huge amount of assets $50M+ (or $10 in this simplified example).

Evidence:
upload.wikimedia.org...

This is the last Im going to post on this, because frankly I think your in so deep no evidence will dissuade you from belief in this non-sense. However, if you can post ANY actual evidence (like you did above with court cases), I'll reply.

Where does the money come from? The federal reserve creates money form nothing also and loans it at interest to the treasury It's all debt/credit. You have no clue what you are talking about. Yea this is the last you are going to post on it because the Banksters themselves are going to tell you I am right!

Read em and weep...
www.positivemoney.org...

And a case that proves it:
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly
educationcenter2000.com...

Originally posted by Honor93
@ hellobruce

sorry dude, my dance card is full

maybe another time ?

That is ok, of course I understand you cannot find any federal law in reference to all capitals - because none exist!

reply to post by Hefficide

hahahahaha, facts ??
an opinion piece full of bunk like this paragragh ??

Lawyers continued to hand write legal documents long after typewriters were invented. As a profession, they tend to be the last to adopt new technology. When things were hand written, they had only a few ways to highlight words. They could use block printed characters instead of cursive, or they could underline. Typesetters converted the block printed characters to all caps, sometimes with different font sizes, and the underlined words to italics.

As lawyers and legal staff began to use typewriters, they could not conveniently underline, and they didn't have italic fonts, so putting words in all caps was about the only way they had to show emphasis. Judges began rewarding lawyers (or so they thought) with better decisions if they put some words, like the names of parties, in all caps, to make it easier for overworked judges to quickly scan through many pages of pleadings and make sense of them.

dang i wish i'd kept the pleadings from the 60 & 70s ... long before 'computers' and choice typesetting
and quite honestly, i can't recall a time in over 50yrs that any lawyer prepared his/her own briefs, even before or after typewriters ... unless they were freshly licensed and self-employed
(or on tv )

Legal docs have never been permitted to be prepared in cursive anytime in this century (well last century)
i would challenge you to link one. even from the early 1900s.

and if you believe it, that's your choice but without a document to review, sorry, no sale here.

btw, if you look at the founding documents (the scanned originals), even they are prepared in a similar script manner ... however, they are in cursive.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Hefficide

 

The price of rent includes the expense of property taxes. So renters pay property taxes.

Just as comsumers pay all corporate taxes.

i suppose that's a logical viewpoint, although i still disagree.
if the renter vacates, the tax bill doesn't disappear

yes, renters ease the burden of the tax ... totally agree.
however, they are not responsible for it and that was the point of that post sequence.

and the bottomline being ... if they are no owners, then there are no renters either.
and if the owner doesn't pay the tax due, watch how quickly he/she loses their real property that the state never invested a dime in at any point in time.
but yeah, they own it alright, til the state says otherwise.

I hadn't heard of this particular scam before, though I'm familiar with some of the other similar ones. Great job, Vkey, in setting it out and digging through the information and posting links. The first time I heard about this particular offshoot was with the recent threads here on ATS and I started reading more about it at that point, too. It raised red flags right from the get-go and I hope your hard work with this thread will raise red flags for others about this group.

I'm only on page 22 so far, and getting ready to go back and continue through the rest of the thread, but I just had to comment really quickly on one aspect that I saw that stuck out a lot. That is the whole language usage. Taking words that have a specific meaning and skewing them just a bit, or using nonsense phrases, and odd out of place capitalization of words in the middle of sentences. A couple of quick examples off the top of my head would be: "Absolute Data" and waiting for "Absolute Data", a lot of talk about getting "back to Prime". One that is a particular peeve is that they "noticed" someone, not served a notice or served papers, just that they "noticed" someone. Every time I see that I think that they noticed, as in they saw and noted, not served them legal papers. The insistence to capitalize "DO" and "BE" mid-sentence over and over.

It isn't just in reading up on them that I saw this, but also in reading the replies of their adherents. It just strikes me as rather creepily cult-like. The Scientologists did the same thing, took existing words and gave them new meanings or just made up new words all together.

Now, back to reading. I just wanted to share this bit that was standing out to me. Again, great work to you and to the others who have provided lots of information and analysis.

Take care,
Cindi

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

And there was a time when people spoke Hebrew, Egyptian and some odd caveman grunting. Doesn't mean we follow caveman rules today.

that was a good one, thanks for the chuckle.
ppl still speak Hebrew, Egyptian and some odd caveman grunting ... guess times haven't changed much at all, eh?

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by thelongjourney

No its NOT a known fact that "banks create money from nothing" because they don't. Again, you are bastardizing the fractional lending concept. No one "creates" money. The federal reserve takes in money by putting US bonds on the market. The funds from the proceeds of those bonds (whose interest rates are so low that were actually making money off them) are used to loan to banks.

Banks receive that money in the form of low interest loans. They then LEND it at a higher rate. Lets say the bank gets $1.00 from the federal reserve at a rate of 2%. They now owe the fed $1.02. The bank loans $1.00 to you at a rate of 5% via a mortgage. That interest spread is their profit. No money is created from the bank, no one creates any money in fact the $1.00 originally came from whoever bought the bond.

BUT WAIT! You'll say. If the bank only has $1.00 then they can't loan that out because of fractional reserve! That would be true, except banks aren't allowed to start without having a huge amount of assets $50M+ (or $10 in this simplified example).

Evidence:
upload.wikimedia.org...

This is the last Im going to post on this, because frankly I think your in so deep no evidence will dissuade you from belief in this non-sense. However, if you can post ANY actual evidence (like you did above with court cases), I'll reply.

Where does the money come from? The federal reserve creates money form nothing also and loans it at interest to the treasury It's all debt/credit. You have no clue what you are talking about. Yea this is the last you are going to post on it because the Banksters themselves are going to tell you I am right!

Read em and weep...
www.positivemoney.org...

And a case that proves it:
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly
educationcenter2000.com...

edit on 16-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Thank you so much for posting this. This is exactly what I mean - you want to believe this complete BS so much that you are posting completely debunked sources. Its not even work, and this is why Im not replying to your BS anymore.

First "positive money" is not an authoritative site. Its the same as posting a youtube video. The federal reserve on the other hand WOULD know how it lends money, which I directly linked you. I wish you would read your own propaganda site - even positivemoney.org on the FRONT PAGE says money is created by the federal reserve lending money to banks. NO MONEY IS CREATED. NONE.

Also, the court case has been debunked so many times. Credit river is cited by conspiracy theorists over and over again and yet you all cant be bothered to look up the actual case:

(1) The ruling - if it were upheld - would have 0 (zip, NADA, NONE) impact outside Minnesota because it was a local decision made by a justice of the peace.

(2) It doesn't even apply to Minnesota because it was made by a justice of the peace who knew so little about the law he made a ruling in a matter he had no jurisdiction over and was 100% overturned on appeal.

(3) If there was one ounce of truth to the defendant's arguments why was it rejected COMPLETELY on appeal - the court did not uphold ANY of it. Oh by the way? That defendant was a lawyer who was later disbarred and convicted for not paying taxes.

Debunked. Try again.

Read'em and weep indeed. Weep for you that your in so deep into sovereign propaganda that you can't even be bothered to do 5 minutes of research on anything that disproves the non-sense you are a peddling. THE VERY PAGE YOU LINKED STATED:

"The bank appealed the next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling.

This nullfied case and its reasoning have nevertheless been cited by groups opposing the Federal Reserve System and, in particular, the practice of fractional-reserve banking. Such groups argue the case demonstrates that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. Because the Credit River decision was nullified, the case has no value as precedent. A U.S. District Court decision in Utah in 2008 mentioned half a dozen such citations, noting that similar arguments have "repeatedly been dismissed by the courts as baseless" and that "courts around the country have repeatedly dismissed efforts to void loans based on similar assertions."

And this is why I can't be bothered to reply anymore. I mean...when you make debunking you this easy...what is the point?

This thread has been quite the telling social experiment, I know it wasn't meant to be in any way, but looking from a neutral perspective it speaks volumes on certain mindsets...

Oooh cryptic!!

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

hmmmm, i can still recall the necessity of punch cards in the 80s and reel to reel for max storage ... there sure wasn't much commercial usage even then, so where you get the 'systems of the 60s' would be kinda nice to know ... got a link ?

and some of the first portable word-processors (not computers yet) ... basically a glorified typewriter with a small memory didn't hit the market until almost the 90s.
i think y'all are really reaching for the stars with these tall tales.

reply to post by Crakeur

the cornell link produced "page cannot be displayed" ... any chance you'd fix it ?

from what you posted, all i see is instructions on how it must be presented.
that doesn't say jack about why and i can't seem to access the cornell law link.

however, it should be said ... thank you for showing it does make a difference

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

dude, i am not getting into a distance match in your living room.
i'm sure your wall decorations are sufficient.

however, if a courteous exchange is beyond your abilities, i have no place here.

"post office" was the most recent and beyond that, it isn't worth it.
enjoy the campaign.

it is no wonder the level of personal attacks has risen above the constructive contributions.
thanks for the awakening

reply to post by thelongjourney

Thank you so much for posting this. This is exactly what I mean - you want to believe this complete BS so much that you are posting completely debunked sources. Its not even work, and this is why Im not replying to your BS anymore.

First "positive money" is not an authoritative site. Its the same as posting a youtube video. The federal reserve on the other hand WOULD know how it lends money, which I directly linked you. I wish you would read your own propaganda site - even positivemoney.org on the FRONT PAGE says money is created by the federal reserve lending money to banks. NO MONEY IS CREATED. NONE.

Also, the court case has been debunked so many times. Credit river is cited by conspiracy theorists over and over again and yet you all cant be bothered to look up the actual case:

(1) The ruling - if it were upheld - would have 0 (zip, NADA, NONE) impact outside Minnesota because it was a local decision made by a justice of the peace.

(2) It doesn't even apply to Minnesota because it was made by a justice of the peace who knew so little about the law he made a ruling in a matter he had no jurisdiction over and was 100% overturned on appeal.

(3) If there was one ounce of truth to the defendant's arguments why was it rejected COMPLETELY on appeal - the court did not uphold ANY of it. Oh by the way? That defendant was a lawyer who was later disbarred and convicted for not paying taxes.

Debunked. Try again.

Read'em and weep indeed. Weep for you that your in so deep into sovereign propaganda that you can't even be bothered to do 5 minutes of research on anything that disproves the non-sense you are a peddling. THE VERY PAGE YOU LINKED STATED:

"The bank appealed the next day, and the decision was ultimately nullified on the grounds that a Justice of the Peace did not have the power to make such a ruling.

This nullfied case and its reasoning have nevertheless been cited by groups opposing the Federal Reserve System and, in particular, the practice of fractional-reserve banking. Such groups argue the case demonstrates that the Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional. Because the Credit River decision was nullified, the case has no value as precedent. A U.S. District Court decision in Utah in 2008 mentioned half a dozen such citations, noting that similar arguments have "repeatedly been dismissed by the courts as baseless" and that "courts around the country have repeatedly dismissed efforts to void loans based on similar assertions."

And this is why I can't be bothered to reply anymore. I mean...when you make debunking you this easy...what is the point?

Wow nice facts and evidence debu.... Oh wait you have none.... Of course you can't be bothered anymore because you have NOTHING! I have posted all sorts of cites and law proving my points rather meticulously and yet geniuses think their unsubstantiated opinions hold more weight... Sigh!

The site with the bankers does not have to be authoritative those are direct quotes from the bankers themselves. And prove the Case has been debunked since i posted the transcripts or maybe you'd feel better if they were from the law library? www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/.../1968-12-09judgmentanddecree.pdf You won't because you can't!

it as never overturned and even if it had been the bank admitted in open court it create the money from nothing as book entry money which is standard practice. Calming the Judge was only a justice of the peace is ridiculous It was a jury trial and a judge is only supposed to be an unbiased administrator of the proceedings. But he was murdered 6 months after entering the judgement on the case the appeal was denied. The case stands.

All banks are agent banks of the Federal reserve they have to be to get a banking license they all operate the same way. Money from nothing its a proven fact.

And of course you can.t tell us where the money comes from because it does not fit with your false belief.

Originally posted by hawkiye
it as never overturned

Wrong again, www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us...

All proceedings in the justice court in the underlying matter were declared a nullity in Zurn v. Northwestern National Bank, 284 Minn. 573, 170 N.W.2d 600 (1969). The same happened in another case brought by Jerome Daly, Daly v. Savage State Bank, 285 Minn. 503, 171 N.W.2d 218 (1969).
These cases were recently cited in Sneed v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46536, 2007 WL 1851674 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2007). The court noted the frivolous nature of the plaintiff's argument relying on these cases and went on to say:
Furthermore, the Minnesota cases cited by Plaintiff are not only unreported, but they have been vacated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in reported decisions. See In re Daly, 284 Minn. 567, 171 N.W.2d 818; Zurn v. Northwestern Nat. Bank of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 600, 284 Minn. 573 (Minn. 1969); Daly v. Savage State Bank, 171 N.W.2d 218, 218, 285 Minn. 503, 503 (Minn. 1969). Plaintiff is hereby admonished she must not cite any decision under which Justice Martin Mahoney purported to question the validity of federal currency or the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act, nor may she cite any opinion or decision as authoritative which no longer has authoritative status.

. But he was murdered 6 months after entering the judgement on the case the appeal was denied. The case stands.

Still wrong, he was not murdered, and as shown the case does NOT stand....

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by vkey08

 

A lot of communities in my state have a system where if you lose your job, or end up geting old and can't pay the taxes on your home any longer they waive the tax and allow people to keep their homes.

that sounds like a good and worthy program.
it isn't one i'm familiar with in the least, so i hope you understand if i reserve further opinion.

here, the elderly, feeble and 'ignorant' are exploited at alarming rates.
i recently helped someone with a transfer that was originally written as a NON-transferrable VA loan. aside from the non-transferrable part being unlawful, it was an inter-family transfer at that.

even our veterans are 'targets' of this nonsense.
and that's not just sad, it's disgusting in my book

AS I'm still playing catch up from last evening, I'll just respond to this. Connecticut changed their rules a few years ago, and added in some relief for older/disabled persons..

Waiver of Taxes or Interest Taxes

The chief elected official of towns, cities and boroughs may abate a tax or interest for a person who is poor and unable to pay, or for a railroad company under certain circumstances (Chapter 204 - Sec. 12-124). A municipality’s legislative body (or its board of selectmen in a town in which the legislative body is a town meeting) may abate the property tax for an owner-occupied residential dwelling, to the extent that the tax exceeds 8% or more of the total income of all occupants (Chapter 204 - Sec. 12-124a).

It really has helped a lot of folks....