[Tower]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Just wanted to thank those who earlier stepped up to answer Mikey's challenge to me. I haven't been at my computer since I posted earlier.

A couple of things I did want to mention. If you go back and read my post Mikey, you'll see that I anticipated that the argument in the case was about a failure of consideration even though I hadn't (and still haven't) read the case. Do you want to know how I knew what the argument was going to be? It's essentially the only possible defence to a mortgage foreclosure, that the lender didn't actually give you the consideration that supports the legal right you have given them to take your house away. Now here's the trick, consideration doesn't have to be 'backed' as Tower would have you believe. As long as everybody agrees to accept the 'fiat created' money as legitimate, then it is. The borrower has no right to object to how the bank chooses to meet the obligation it had to pay the seller whatever portion of the purchase price it agreed to finance as long as the seller or the seller's financial institution accepted same, which they clearly did since they weren't suing to try and get the property back.

Your credit card, your personal line of credit, even the interest in your savings account is all fiat created money, but it is collectively agreed to be valid and an individual can't opt out of that group consensus any more than they can opt out of obeying the criminal code.


As many others have said, the case is bad law, has been overruled by later common law precedents, and is inconsistent with the entire basis of the US monetary system. There was no need for me to specifically know the details of the case because it was obvious what the argument had to be.

By the way, I'd like Tower and Mikey to answer this for me... How is it just and equitable for me to lead the bank to believe that I accept the terms of the mortgage agreement and start living in a property with no intention of honouring my word to the bank that I would pay them a certain amount of money in return for standing behind my name by granting me credit that the seller recognizes as having value. If I truly disagreed with the concept of bank created credit, shouldn't I refuse to be involved with the bank at the outset instead of taking advantage of them? Where is the justice in the case on that basis.

Also if one is using deception and/or does not fully disclose... It is NOT a binding contract.