Great piece up by D-Day about a Mass. Supreme Court ruling stating that banks must be able to prove they own a house before closing it. You’d think that, in and of itself, would be an open and shut case. But what is so strange about it is that D-Day feels the need to say the following:
The banks are screwed if this precedent holds.
It’s a sign of what a screwed up country we are that someone would even speculate that this ruling might not hold (and mind you, I think D-Day is right- the banksters might weasel out of this somehow). The law is pretty clear. You have to have the proof. Christ, I have to prove I own my car every time I want to have it inspected. It would never occur to me to show up without that proof, because the law is pretty clear. What kind of arrogance, hubris, and mismanagement would lead banks to think that they can go to court and take someone’s property without even proving that they are the rightful owner?