Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

848

So it gets tricky, but i had to look up the process vs what the outcome was, vs what exactly they are for.

The first issue i noticed is that a bank would not allow a subject to, and that notifying the bank of a subject to process voids your contract. This then made me think, this is a case where the bank is actually (gasp) protecting you. See, if you sign away your own deed to your house to someone else, and still hold the mortgage note, you essentially indebted yourself to give someone else (stupidly) your own house. And you now have a new problem, since any equity that existed in your house is gone, and any proceeds from a sale down the road go to the person holding the title (read not you)

I then looked at the second component: the memorandum of sale. Well as it turns out a memorandum of sale is not legally binding in this particular state, and has no effect since anyone can write a memorandum for any reason. So then, why would the subject to "buyer" (read asshole jew) be pushing this concept so aggressively knowing it has no teeth? Well because if the jew can threaten you with the effect of a what if scenario coming true, you would get scammed out of your own house willingly. As much as America is very litigious, it really isn't, and legal crap is only reserved for more "expensive" high profile cases.

The last concept is the very superfluous (read asshole jews re writing basic contract law) nature of how subject to sales work. See when i tell someone i buy or sell an item, it's with the idea of said item being in my possession and the lack of liens and loans attached to it. Per these idiots, one can feasibly sell an item that doesn't belong to them to someone else without ever holding the title or closing on said house. This is very ... confusing to me, because that to me sounds like theft.

So it gets tricky, but i had to look up the process vs what the outcome was, vs what exactly they are for. The first issue i noticed is that a bank would not allow a subject to, and that notifying the bank of a subject to process voids your contract. This then made me think, this is a case where the bank is actually (gasp) protecting you. See, if you sign away your own deed to your house to someone else, and still hold the mortgage note, you essentially indebted yourself to give someone else (stupidly) your own house. And you now have a new problem, since any equity that existed in your house is gone, and any proceeds from a sale down the road go to the person holding the title (read not you) I then looked at the second component: the memorandum of sale. Well as it turns out a memorandum of sale is not legally binding in this particular state, and has no effect since anyone can write a memorandum for any reason. So then, why would the subject to "buyer" (read asshole jew) be pushing this concept so aggressively knowing it has no teeth? Well because if the jew can threaten you with the effect of a what if scenario coming true, you would get scammed out of your own house willingly. As much as America is very litigious, it really isn't, and legal crap is only reserved for more "expensive" high profile cases. The last concept is the very superfluous (read asshole jews re writing basic contract law) nature of how subject to sales work. See when i tell someone i buy or sell an item, it's with the idea of said item being in my possession and the lack of liens and loans attached to it. Per these idiots, one can feasibly sell an item that doesn't belong to them to someone else without ever holding the title or closing on said house. This is very ... confusing to me, because that to me sounds like theft.

(post is archived)

[–] • 0 pt

Theft is similar to truth in that it depends on who acts on it. For example, if Pfizer says their vaccines are safe and effective, it's considered truthy. That is, you must accept what they say because the media will side with them, so will the courts.

If a jew steals something from you and he now has possession of it. He'll present an argument that he is now the rightful owner of it. The courts will side with the jew. This concept is not hard to understand. What's hard to understand is the mental gymnastics the jew tries to bamboozle you with.

I'm currently dealing with a jew claiming I owe it money for a bill he submitted to me. Needless to say, the bill is groundless and I'm simply not paying it. Oh, it threatens me with a lawsuit and I say bring it on. It won't do that because even a jew judge will see it's invalid. The best action for me is to ignore the jew.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

I thin that's the hard part for me, is the absurd mentally gymnastics these assholes use to justify the most heinous behavior imaginable. The thing is the jew luls you in with the promise of something that sounds reasonable, but it never holds to scrutiny. Then the questions arise behind the curtains, and the jew just ignores those as if you never mentioned them