Quatloos!

Not sure if this is the correct protocol, but can someone please give a link to the case in Ireland where the court rejected the "banks don't lend money so I don't have to pay my mortgage" claim. Thank you.

Sounds like a question for the famous Irish attorney, Wesley O'Serra.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/50 ... E7005372E8

20. In my view the phrases “fanciful” and “completely devoid of merit” are very appropriate to describe this argument and indeed significantly more robust language would be justified. Quite simply the plaintiff drew down funds and thereby took on the responsibility to repay. What the source of these funds was matters not a whit. The position is not altered by the sourcing of the article on which the plaintiff places such reliance.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/E9 ... B300570477

If the banks don't lend money, who paid the seller?

See....

MaritalArtist wrote:Not sure if this is the correct protocol, but can someone please give a link to the case in Ireland where the court rejected the "banks don't lend money so I don't have to pay my mortgage" claim. Thank you.

MA, if no one has said this yet, welcome to Quatloos.

In the US, that was called the "vapor money" theory, and has likewise been widely rejected.

Gregg wrote:If the banks don't lend money, who paid the seller?....

Yeah, and let's think about that in terms of a home mortgage loan.

If the bank didn't lend the borrower any money, and if the seller didn't receive any money, then I guess the borrower won't mind if the bank takes that house that the borrower got out of the deal. After all, if money the bank loaned wasn't real, then the house must not be real, either.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/50 ... E7005372E8

20. In my view the phrases “fanciful” and “completely devoid of merit” are very appropriate to describe this argument and indeed significantly more robust language would be justified. Quite simply the plaintiff drew down funds and thereby took on the responsibility to repay. What the source of these funds was matters not a whit. The position is not altered by the sourcing of the article on which the plaintiff places such reliance.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/E9 ... B300570477

That's the one. Thanks a lot

The Observer wrote:Sounds like a question for the famous Irish attorney, Wesley O'Serra.

"O'Serra"? Muire, máthair Dé.

Oh, it should be self evident that when you need an Irishman to settle an argument, the only definitive authority is John Powers and Sons, late of Dublin, now to be most reliably found at the Dead Rabbit Grocery and Grog.

Where I work, I was having lunch in the lunch room, when the subject of mortgages and interest rates came up, somehow.

One of the IT engineers, who I believe has a college degree, and who is otherwise a very intelligent and normal guy, mentioned that banks don't really lend money, they create it with a few keystrokes on the computer.

I tried to disagree, but he persisted. I don't know if he believes the other half of that falsehood, that he therefore is not obligated to pay his morgage. At that point, I bailed on the conversation.

Had I continued the conversation, I might have brought up a personal experience I had. Back in 1981, when interest rates for mortgages were approaching 20 percent, I inquired about a loan at one of the very large, multi-billion dollar banks in our area. Their rate was, I think 17.5 percent, but I was told that, even with my good credit rating, they simply had no money to lend on mortgages. If they could simply create money, why did they have none to lend me?

We also have another guy, also seemingly intelligent, who firmly believes that the shootings in Sandy Hook never happened and that the whole thing is a hoax.

I guess this is the right place to post this recent decision:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0985 ... enDocument

Presumably all these "it's not real money, created by a few clicks, so I don't have to pay it back" people have forgotten what happened to us all in 2008 when people didn't pay back that not-real-money.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:I guess this is the right place to post this recent decision:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0985 ... enDocument

Judgements and transcripts can be dry reading, but this one gets off to a racy start .. "This case considers the plaintiffs’ meaningless claims ..."

aesmith wrote:

rumpelstilzchen wrote:I guess this is the right place to post this recent decision:

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0985 ... enDocument

Judgements and transcripts can be dry reading, but this one gets off to a racy start .. "This case considers the plaintiffs’ meaningless claims ..."

Well, it certainly ruins the possibility of keeping you in suspense as to whether the judge will rule in favor of the idiot.