I just want to bring forth something that has been wronged for nearly 100yrs in the judicial system. Banks have no such thing as "In Rem" rights. This has been settled in the US Supreme Court in Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U.S. 185 (1888). Here is a quote:
"There is, however, a large class of cases which are not strictly actions in rem, but are frequently spoken of as actions quasi in rem, because, though brought against persons, they only seek to subject certain property of those persons to the discharge of the claims asserted. Such are actions in which property of non-residents is attached and held for the discharge of debts due by them to citizens of the state, and actions for the enforcement of mortgages and other liens. Indeed, all proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant to satisfy the demands of the plaintiff are in a general way thus designated. But they differ, among other things, from actions which are strictly in rem, in that the interest of the defendant is alone sought to be affected, that citation to him is required, and that judgment therein is only conclusive between the parties."
This is about subject matter jurisdiction people must understand this. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group Inc. vs Nona McGahn Docket No. 107954 Supreme Court of Illinois, in 2010 recently use this case correctly and subject matter jurisdiction was properly used. This case forever changed the landscape of foreclosures in this state. They went on to say that :
"We are not persuaded by Financial Freedom. As noted above, Waughop and Marcus did not engage in any analysis in reaching the conclusion that foreclosures were in rem actions. We have found, however, that the nature of a foreclosure proceeding mandates our conclusion that foreclosure actions are quasi in rem proceedings. Accordingly, we reject Financial Freedom,and to the extent that decision and any statements in our prior cases are contrary to our holding here, they are hereby overruled. In sum, we hold that, based on the well-settled principles distinguishing in rem and quasi in rem actions and the requirements of the Mortgage Foreclosure Law, a foreclosure proceeding is a quasi in rem action.
Read these 2 cases and R. Waples, Treatise on Proceedings In Rem §64, at 88 (1882). (its free on Google Books)
Discharge from Bankruptcy is a powerful thing be it chapter 7, 11, or 13. If the personal liability is gone, no bank can come forward because court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the person because they are no longer a party. Also this is the same judge and the same year that ruled on the Long vs Bullard. The very case that every judge uses, Bullard was about fraud trying to concealed property. The court had jurisdiction over the res and took it from the defendant. When a bankruptcy has been adjudicated and there was no fraud concealment the court can not use In Rem because the court is not the one taking the property, but the bank trying to close out your interest. That is Quasi In Rem. Now I know people will scratch there head on this, thats why I ask for people to read and understand the law and document.
Only then when you see documentation in law books that can be supported not a person on the internet, should you then use the information in your own situation.
This banks have In Rem has been fraudulently use for way to long and must be stopped. Bank can not and will not ever have In Rem rights. The promissory note is the instrument of the wrong, without the person there is no mortgage. Indeed this is just like the method of Standing and Real Party in Interest. If they do not have standing the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to rule on anything and the case must be dismissed. This is the same thing.
The purported power they so call get that allows them to walk in your home and lock the door is from the old rule of Corporate Mortgages (check out Bouvier Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia) but they seem to forget the huge rule if they do this. it would be a huge liability on them for this, for the law is clear if the so called bank comes in and takes the property then the trustee is liable for price of the note, and you are no longer liable period. Now why would the trustee want to pay off a debt for you without having the right to come after you?
Information is out there but you just must know how to find it. For the record I am not in foreclosure I pay everything in cash, but I just do not like seeing people becoming debt slaves and held in bondage. I'm tried of people saying that it doesn't matter what the defense of the debtor is they owe the money and thats it. The country was built to be a Republic and a Democracy, but instead we have Democracy Republic one person can have a voice but if a majority doesn't like it then your out of luck.