INDIANAPOLIS | The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled against a Merrillville man who declared himself a bank and proceeded to issue his own money, which he then tried to use to pay off his home mortgage.
In a 3-0 decision, the appeals court said U.S. Bank was entitled to foreclose on the home of Derik and Tammi Blocker for failing to pay their mortgage, despite Derik Blocker's insistence the U.S. Treasury should do so.
He contended his private property is collateral for the national debt. Therefore, he's entitled to add to that debt by issuing notes that reclaim the equity and interest that have accrued during his lifetime, he said.
Blocker submitted to U.S. Bank a "Lawful Order for Money" drawn on the U.S. Treasury, an "International Bill of Exchange" and an "International Promissory Note," each for $200,000, that he claimed were legitimate payments for his mortgage despite not being associated with an actual bank account, according to court records.
U.S. Bank refused to accept all three payments, declaring each not valid.
Lake Superior Judge William Davis and the Court of Appeals both said U.S. Bank can require mortgages be paid off only with certified funds, such as a money order, cashier's check or wire transfer.
The appeals court suggested Blocker's claims stem from the discredited "Redemptionist Movement," which postulates each American is both a real person and a "straw man," with the fictional second person coming into existence when the United States stopped tying its currency to gold in 1933.
Redemptionists believe the U.S. government sets up a secret account worth at least $630,000 for each American at birth that an individual can access if he or she knows the correct procedures, while the straw man is left holding the national debt, the court said.
The FBI lists Redemptionist and straw-man financial arrangements as common fraud schemes and warns Americans not to buy kits or services from fraudsters who claim they can access secret bank accounts.
The Blockers still can ask the Indiana Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals ruling.