Subject: Void Mortgages
From: Veronica
Date: 27/9/13 11:07 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

I may have this wrong, but I've been trying to work out what Tony O'Tighearnaigh told us, at the meeting in Liverpool.

He talked about an independent CORPORATION known as a "Special Purpose Vehicle".

We know that, by signing the Title Deed, "the money" ... to purchase the house ... is created ... to pay for the property ... up front ... in full.

We already know that.

Apparently the Special Purpose Vehicle buys these Title Deeds (containing our Signatures) ... and pay the Bank/Building Society for the Equitable Title (i.e. the "Value") in the Title Deed.

The Special Purpose Vehicle then adds the Title Deeds to a 'pool'.

It offers 'bonds' to Investors ... to buy ... which create an Investment Dividend.

Because all the Title Deeds are in a 'pool', no Investor's bond is actually associated with any specific Title Deed.

Now, the point is that, by selling the Equitable Title (the "Value"), the Bank/Building Society say that they retain the Legal Title (i.e. the "Ownership") ... and that's the Title ... i.e. the Ownership ... that they use to create a Re-possession.

(And that's why it's called a RE-possession ... not a 'Possession' ... they are RE-possessing what they claim to own! And very kindly let you live in, for a while)

BUT ... having sold the VALUE, the Legal Title has no VALUE.

In other words, it's 'empty'.

Now, the late Lord Denning, when discussing Void Orders, said "You can't build something on nothing". Thus if an Order is void ab initio, then there is no way to create something from it ... something that isn't also completely void.

"You can't build something on nothing". If a Legal Title is 'empty' ... and has no value ... it's 'nothing' ... in which case you can't build a NON-VOID Claim (i.e. Re-possession Claim) on it.

Thus all Re-possession Claims are VOID ab initio.

I think that's the argument.

(I may be wrong ... but it's something along those lines, I think)