Mortgages and Notes
 

http://www.thehomeownersrevolt.com/f...s-to-foreclose

Say you buy a house through a bank for $100k. You sign a note for the loan and agree to foreclosure of the house on a mortgage. The same day you sign these documents the bank sells them for a 1-2% profit. The books are balanced yet you perform as expected on the note giving the bank even more profit.

Now say you lose a job or otherwise cannot meet your obligation on the note. Bank attempts to take the house through foreclosure but you decide to fight the action. In court the judge holds up a copy of the mortgage and asks you if that is your signature. It might be a certified copy from the recorders office but it is not the original. It hasn't even been entered into evidence yet through ignorance you state that it is your signature. By doing so you have verified the document unwittingly. There is only one document with your signature on it and a copy does not contain it, only the original which was signed in wet ink. Rather than give away the store a better approach might be to agree to comment on the document when it is entered into evidence.

In court there are two types of hearing: argument and evidence. In evidenciary hearings someone has to take the stand and state that they recognize the document before others can talk about it.

Now even if an original note or mortgage is brought in the home buyers signature is going to be the only signature on the document. It is a pledge rather than a contract. A contract would require two signatures. So the only one who can enter the document into evidence is the home buyer and to do so would not be to his advantage. A close examination is required to make sure there is no alterations. Even a hole left where a staple is removed or a stamp (recorders alter documents all the time when they add their stamps and seals) might invalidate the document because it is now no longer the same document in the same state as when it was signed.

Ok, back to why banks sell mortgages and notes for a profit. The reason is called fractional banking. Your signature is all that is needed to make either a note or a mortgage valuable. Most probably the bank did not even have the money in the vault that they are presumed to have loaned you for the purchase. If the note and home value is $100k that is the value of the document. Through fractional banking the bank can make other loans up to $1M if they have either document as an asset ($2M if they have both documents). If these loans are at 5% interest then these documents generate $100k annually in profit for the bank. Sounds like a pretty good deal for the bank.

The remedy: If you are in foreclosure fight it by asking only for the original note and original mortgage.

If you are in court demand an evidentiary hearing rather than agument hearings.

If you are buying a home and need to sign a note or mortgage demand a signed receipt for both documents. These papers are WORTH MONEY. Don't just leave them on the table when you leave the room. The receipt is your means to receive the originals back when you have finished performing as obligated or to determine who should be receiving your payments. Look at it this way: To the bank the house is not the asset. The documents you sign are their ONLY asset. You want these documents back when you have done what you stated you would do.

I've heard this before.

Are you saying, because of a persons own misfortune, they should break a deal? because of a technicality? Sounds a lot like dishonesty to me.

My understanding is that banks were forced to give out mortgages to people who never ever would have qualified for a home loan, because they're not and never will be credit worthy. Force someone in the money making business to take on a bad risk, and they'll figure out how to rid themselves of it. They bundled these toxic assets into big packages, got "us" (US) Fannie and Freddie to guarantee this toxic stew, and then sold on the open market. When the toxic debt melted, it nearly brought down the entire financial system.

I don't care. You buy a home you can't pay for, and your situations change, you lose your home. Don't want to lose it? Do it the old fashioned way, save your money, and build it yourself.

Why should someone be able to rob a bank without repercussions? Nationalizing it, through Fannie/Freddie should stop immediately.

I don't know about mortgages, but in our courthouse, if you sign a deed of any sort, and have it witnessed, and registered in the courthouse... its golden, and unassailable. I only know of a few cases where there was fraud... once the fraud was proven, the documents were changed. The persons signature was not an authentic signature... the copy was irrelevant. The person registering the fraudulent deeds is now under investigation by the DA.

If you said you were going to pay off a note then go ahead and do so. Maybe you don't want to pay the bank who holds only a copy of the note or mortgage though. If they have sold the negotiable paper and have no standing to foreclose then you would be throwing your payment away. As to whether a bank has the standing to foreclose when it cannot produce an original note or mortgage then this requirement is the COURTS not the individuals or the banks.


But for the reasons I posted these assets were being sold whether toxic or not long before banks were forced into the substandard mortgage business. They make money from negotiable paper.

The question becomes "How can the COURTS enforce the fraud?" The answer is "They can't" , at least not without more than a little fraud being attached to the COURT.

I expect the resources to fight a foreclosure are not "free". There is a cost. Had a RECEIPT been given for the NOTE and the MORTGAGE then the fight might be considered more reasonable.

I once knew of a landowner who rented the same farm to two different tenants the same year. They only found out about it when they both were trying to plant it at the same time.

People are so sloppy with their legal procedures that practically anything goes until challenged. Attorneys don't help the situation because they are trained in administrative law and procedure rather than questioning the law. Most people could not tell the difference between an evidentiary hearing or one for arguments. Most people don't know that courtrooms are scheduled and that, just because the black robed one sits four feet above the floor, he might just be the tenant-for-an-hour.

You have to FIGHT for justice. Don't wait and expect it will be handed to youi on a silver platter.

You might be going under the presumption that when a note is paid in full that the item described becomes owned by you. This is not the case. Even if you fulfill all terms of the note you still only have an equitable right to use the property while ownership is ALWAYS fully vested in the state.

I believe I read this somewhere in a document described as the ten planks.

When Roosevelt took away your ability to pay in gold and when Nixon took away your ability to pay in silver you have no path to become an owner.

End result .. if you BELIEVE you are an owner then you are being dishonest with yourself. You have lost the right to this concept.

Excellent observations Palani.

Well, it's hard to escape the State, and paying tribute.

However, I did for 13 years (at least on my house) without any penalties whatsoever.

You can escape foreclosure, by never acquiring a mortgage in the first place. Imho, you own nothing, until the mortgage is paid off.

If you walk in 'my' bank, they're going to require collateral... they'll want to know what you make, see tax statements, personal history, standing in the community. Get a loan from them, they're going to hold the paper, not package it and sell it on the market.

I'm sorry, but I was raised to be honest, and a gentleman.

Even if I did know how I could weasel out of a loan, and keep a home that I didn't own, I wouldn't. Guess it's a character flaw (at least in the modern age). A man's word is his bond... lose that and your nothing. That kind of 'reputation' gets out in a hurry, and never leaves... Reckon you could move off to some place else and start over, but if you 'poo'ed' in your nest before, you'll probably do it where you land.

what texican said, both times.

How about you turn things around and say you loan some money to someone. Would you like to lose out on repayment because of a technicality?

I am amazed that people don't get that they way you treat others always comes back to you. good or bad.

bottom line, if you borrowed money pay it back. If you can't then own it and see what you can do to fix it.

By tribute I expect you mean property tax.

I have heard of people who do so. For example, the original 13 colonies land was issued by grant. If you can track down the original grant and have no intervening tax lien "events" in the abstract then you can claim title under that original grant.

Nevada has a concept called "alloidal title" in which you simply prepay the debt you currently owe and nothing after that. This is not the same concept as absolute alloidal title though being more of a prepayment with interest. Unfortunately heirs do not have the knowledge to keep away from state servitudes.


You still have a servitude attached to the debt instuments you used to purchase the property from the prior owner [unless you paid $1 silver and OVC]

Again, a $100k note and a $100K mortgage have a combined value of $2M which can be loaned against them. A bank would only want to sell them if they don't need the paper assets to be able to loan more fictitious money (OR unless they figured it was substandard).

Have you ever hired a lawyer rather than present your own case? If so then no more needs to be said.

Basics: Roosevelt took substance out of the money system. The payment is THE PROMISE TO PAY. That PROMISE TO PAY is to the one holding onto the ORIGINAL and to no one else. If the bank moves out the paper they no longer hold onto the originals. I don't care so much what you promised to do. They might have arranged the affair but have SOLD that RIGHT. If you continue payments to this entity then you might as well send the payment to me for all the good it would do you.

Go back and read that link I gave at the beginning. The Florida Supreme Court has as much as admitted that people are being foreclosed on by banks that no longer have the original documents (or standing)......WITHOUT THE ORIGINALS THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO ANY PAYMENT or TO FORECLOSURE.

Oh, boy! If people put as much effort into being honest and doing "what's right" as they do into figuring out how to beat the system, the level of consciousness would be raised for everyone.

So my understanding is that you believe that anyone who holds a COPY of your mortgage or note deserves to be paid? Or that after paying a note in full you should not expect the ORIGINAL back? Or that a COPY may be placed into EVIDENCE the same as an original wet-signed document?

And yet you wonder WHY you live in a society that does not respect you?

Respect is earned. Go out and earn some. Or, if you prefer, act foolishly and be treated as a fool.

I'd prefer for people to pay what they rightly owe me and I'll gladly pay what I rightly owe. This is a reminder why I REFUSE to work for lawyers.

I have no idea of your age but I suspect that no one has ever paid you for anything in your lifetime. As you have not been paid anything then neither do you have the ability to pay for anything.

Roosevelt removed gold from society and Nixon removed silver. Now the only way you pay for anything is the promise to pay at some time in the future when these two substances are returned to circulation. Until that time the promise to pay actually IS the payment.

The clue to this last statement is that, at the end of the day, the banks books are going to balance. If you doubt this just go into the bank and ask any of the tellers "Do your books balance at the end of the day?" If you just completed closing on a $100k house after pulling that sum of money out of the banks vaults and replacing them with an ORIGINAL note the end result is that the books have been balanced.

Now if the bank no longer holds the ORIGINAL note yet you continue to send in payment you are contributing to unbalancing their books. They no longer have the right to enforce payment.

If you think this is fraud then you would be correct. No one forced the bank to sell the ORIGINAL note. If they no longer have it then when you are done paying YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE ORIGINAL NOTE BACK. NOW YOUR BOOKS ARE UNBALANCED.

I'm shown respect, and I have earned it by not trying to find ways to get out of paying my debts. Have I acted foolishly? Jeeez, I don't think so, as I'm not treated as a fool. Do your droll legal posts make you somehow feel superior? And your superiority is... what... education-based? If anyone lacks respect from society, it's attorneys because they think everyone else are fools.

Are you so dull that you believe paper is money? Or that nickel clad copper coins are as valuable as 90% silver?

Yet you practice the ten planks.

You have never paid a debt in your life. Roosevelt and Nixon took care of that. Your ignorance is failure to recognize this simple fact.

You are living in a 100% communist society and have take no remedial action. That is how my definition of a fool.

Does your attempt at ad hominem make you somehow feel superior?

Do you BELIEVE I am superior?

Is anyone here an attorney? Is ignorance of the law an excuse? Do you feel excused?

If you have an argument then take it to the Florida supreme court. Do you have a clue as to why they ruled as they did in requiring an ORIGINAL? Do you realize that if a COPY is permitted then anyone can take a trip to your local recorders office, get a certified copy of your note and use it against you? Copies have no place in evidence. Never did. Never will.

Does it matter? I could deal in literally anything from eggs to manual labor, because it is between me and the party I'm dealing with to decide what medium we use as tender. My point stands.

Your ignorance is failure to realize that your textbook definitions don't change anything. A debt is merely MY owing someone something, and when that is fulfilled, the debt has been paid. This, incidentally, allows me to feel indebted to someone whom I may not literally owe anything!

You know nothing about me, and your definition of a fool would include everyone BUT you. Yep, that makes sense! :rolleyes:

Like when you called me a disrespected fool? No, of course not. But, that's no cause to relinquish my right to self-defense against those who insult me.

No. But, I DO admire your diligence on occasion to delve into the hidden meanings of words and how they relate to certain gov't documents, past and present. Interesting... but has no bearing on day-to-day living for most people. One example, paper money is still legal tender in this country... no matter your interpretation of your books.

Have any of your interpretations of the world changed ANYTHING? How many hours have you spent working to enlighten the rest of humanity that we're all wrong, but you're right? How many of them have acted on your behalf to make the world right in your eyes? If we're all doing it wrong, what are you doing to make it right?

I have no dog in this hunt, and didn't argue that point. Your lecture is based on my original post: "Oh, boy! If people put as much effort into being honest and doing "what's right" as they do into figuring out how to beat the system, the level of consciousness would be raised for everyone."

How you put so much into what I DIDN'T say just baffles me. You seem to take me for someone who should be impressed by your realizations. I'm proud that I'm of the same mindset as texican and AR transplant. This tit-for-tat with you just proves that your objective is to being fractious, with nothing noteworthy.

Except that you are bringing in Congress and other peoples debt to the transaction and they continue to take an interest long after your use of their currency is complete.

In exchange for use of the Peoples money you lose your right to lawful ownership. Yet you continue to maintain that you own things. Congress is not the only entity that commits fraud on a grand scale. They represent you.

Would you be saying that EVERYONE lives in a communist society BUT me? Somehow I don't believe that is the case. I do respect my ancestors though and they were not communists.

I never called you a disrespected fool or insulted you. You are doing a pretty good job of doing that yourself.

If Congress told you to go out and murder your neighbor would you do it? Yet you are willing to commit fraud upon him based upon the legal tender acts. Congress, after all, does REPRESENT you, don't they?


Are you now thinking about possible criminal acts that YOU might have committed? Would that not be some gain?

So you are saying it is ok to hit and run in a discussion? Make pithy little one-line comments off-hand that imply some sort of CRIMINAL activity in others while your own morals are lily white? Examine yourself and your activities before attempting to cure others of theirs. Would you have any financial interests in any commercial banks?

And your yardstick is what others SAY they believe rather than what YOU believe?

You know legal tender laws don't kick in until a merchant says "I don't want to take that paper" in which case you read from the note "Legal Tender For All Debts Public and Private" upon which he is breaking the law if he refuses to accept it. Until the discussion reaches this point there is no benefit provided by government in doing transactions using paper currency .. it is all by agreement. But when you use other peoples debt then liens attach that are not fully disclosed.

Have you ever had a merchant refuse to take paper currency? If the answer is no then you have received no benefit from the legal tender acts.

Tell ya what, Palani -- let's conduct a little experiment. Let's go down to the grocery store and load up our carts. I'll pay in cash, while you attempt to barter some gold nuggets. We'll see who leaves the store with their shopping bags full. ;)

Palani..... I've not read all of your posts, and so I can't make any hard line accusations, but it appears as though you are kind of jumping into the middle of a very long story and expecting folks to understand the foundations of what you are trying to expose.

People have been taught, rather by default, that the "currency" they have been provided with is money. They are certain that they are "paying" value for value in their transactions. They believe they have the right to "own" what they "pay" for.
They don't want to believe that what they have is military scrip.... the kind that is temporarily allowed a conquered people for their day-to-day "business", while bigger issues are sorted out, in their behalf and not in their best interests, between "sovereigns". They don't want to examine the evidence, even in cursory manner, and realize that US citizens are under a vow of poverty and cannot OWN anything. The STATE owns all, period. That is why tribute must be paid. That is why "imminent domain" is not a laughingstock. That is why regulations are in place governing the use of every person, place and thing in the country.

Now if folks realized some of that, then it might be easier for them to see that there are bendable rules, just as in "The Matrix", and that the agents bend those rules all the time, and we are supposed to believe that we cannot.
All of this puts robbery, dishonesty, honor, right, value, virtue, ad infinitum, into a whole new perspective. The old rules have been grossly twisted, and right and wrong are well beyond vague, at best.

That said, I do respect the stand that most here are willing to take, and their attempt at remaining honorable in a very dishonorable game. Their naivety at this point can't hurt them much. It would be interesting, though, 100 years from now, to see how this great debacle is represented in the history books. It would be even more interesting if it were all written form a de jure, common law, just weights and measures point of view.

Is the goal s full shopping bag or ownership of what is in the bag?

Forerunner,
I know what he's saying... It just doesn't work in the real world. Don't pay your tribute (property taxes) and you'll find a piece of paper posted on the wall of the courthouse... Tax Sale.

If I take out a lien, a loan, or a mortgage, when it's paid off, I DO get the original piece of paper back, And, if the original was filed in the courthouse, an official release is filed too. That satisfies me

I know I'm talking apples and Palani is talking oranges...

What I'm talking about is the right thing to do.

I reckon if a person wants to make their living by stealing from others, or informing them how to weasel out of a deal (to obtain goods and services, cash, or other things), that's ok. As long as they know that by doing such things, it reinforces that Shakespearean feeling of retribution.

This, amazingly, is a self reliance forum... Not a who can I blame for my own troubles, and get out obligations I willingly entered into.

Basically agreed, Texican.

The system is designed by the highest form of evil with intent to make all complicit in the most extraordinary self-depravating/self-destroying/self-consuming feeding orgy of all times.
One-sided, unjust weights and measures trading takes place in all directions and everyone loses in the end.
Quite hand-in-hand with politics, you can't be in the same muddy vicinity and begin to stay clean.

That is why, rather than "fight" the beast with weapons that he has designed in such a manner as to only give him further power when "employed" against him.... I chose withdrawal.

One chink that I have seen in Palani's armor is that he appears not to have stuck his neck out too far before making his claims. He appears to preach battle from the sidelines, so to speak. I hope I am mistaken.

Conversely, I have run the gauntlet, intentionally, on many fronts, and live to tell the tale. There are no guarantees, either way.

If I pay for my groceries, take them home and eat/use them, I'll be content in thinking that I own them.

The longest journey starts with a single step.

Many people believe accounting principles are above reproach. Double entry bookkeeping. An asset balances a debit and so forth.

Most people believe they are honor bound to keep their word while others do not.

Well, the original note balances the books with any paper currency removed from the vault. No one here has rebutted that simple little principle. Nor can they.

Now the signer of the note (a pledge) has a duty to perform but that duty is premised upon receiving the original back when performance is complete. If he cannot receive the original back then exactly WHY is he performing? Simple question. Again, no rebuttals.

Also called "entitlements" or "privileges".




Many true statements here. Property tax is not a tax on the property so much as the VALUE of the property. The LAND is not taxed. The ownership is taxed.

These rules are made up as time goes by. Government is not randomly making these things up for if they were they would decide in favor of common law OCCASIONALLY. Instead everything done is to take you further into the rabbits burrow.

Entirely 100% of what is occurring in society with respect to law, money, government and ownership is done with the complete consent of those who SHOULD be screaming TRESPASS!

One of Bacon's maxims goes: All actions without remedy are valid. If you have no clue that there is a trespass then the action is valid. This appears to be the main rule used by government to gain consent.

If I feed a stock cow a bale of hay then I have no expectation that her offspring shall be her property.

And "they" can come take back what's left when I'm done with 'em! :D

Does that include the part that becomes a portion of your substance?

Actually, I believe it could come to that, if things don't change direction. That's precisely why we have a 2nd Amendment.

Will they redistribute me... like Soylent Green? Not such a bad way to go, but don't want to be on the receiving end.

LOL.

A homeowner is not making their house payment. Someone comes along and tells them they need to get out, because they are being foreclosed on. They "fight back" by telling the lien holder, they can't foreclose because of paperwork snafus?

The new gumption in America? With the same paperwork problems, wonder how many times this happens , when mortgage payments are current?

This is nearly as vile, those who make any purchase, are happy or mostly happy with the purchase, by still complain loudly to the seller, about some dissatisfaction, demanding a large partial refund or other credit, just to "hustle" some of their money back.

I doubt things will go in that direction. There are several problems though. First would be that dependence upon money means less independence or self-dependence. As soon as you start relying upon money then you have to some way to access it. Papers start getting signed where you are willing to make statements that are not completely truthful. To work you need a SSN. To drive you need a state issued license. To get the state issued license you must state you are a federal citizen. You might state your race as Caucasian while neither you nor your family have even visited the Caucus region. Each step, while not reversible, is not entirely true.

Then since you have made all of these statements you might plan on adding perjury to your crimes as you sign all those 1040 forms.

In property possession can be separated from ownership. In ownership of things "use" is not the same as "usufruct".

So you might have the "use" of those groceries but you better not be enjoying them.

Well stated. In fact there is a lady in Florida who paid on her mortgage for 15 years or so, original value $160K and she had paid in $170k. She came to a realization that the entire affair was a scam and stopped making payments. She was just foreclosed on 4-5 months ago but no note or mortgage has ever been entered into evidence [because there are no originals that can be produced]. She has every expectation of either getting the house back or her payments refunded.

Several points. First, the money did not exist before this lady created it by signing a note. SHE was the one who created the money by agreeing to the payment. That is how money is created now-a-days. By signing something. Second, receiving the ORIGINAL documents back after all the payments have been made is part of the deal. It is not optional. It is a requirement.

Finally, in these notes the bank frequently includes a clause called a cognovit. This is a confession of judgment clause that denies due process to the one signing the note or mortgage. Cognovits are illegal in 45 states and closely controlled in the other five. These phrases are limited to dealings with corporations rather than real men or women. If this phrase is in YOUR note then you have engaged in an illegal contract. GOT THAT? It is not legal. Same as trying to purchase heroin or marijuana. Illegal contracts are void from inception. They don't exist.

I wondered off course with this second statement. I was referring to purchases in general, not necessarily homes. Sorry

I agree that buyers remorse exists and there are also people who complain more than they should. Always a joy to be around. There is always a 72 hour period after a purchase to keep these people from suffering too much from their "impulse purchases". With homes not so much. Too formal.

I probably shouldn't get sucked into this, but ... what good are the original documents? They show that you have (or had) a mortgage on the property. So what? What's important is the deed, and whether there are any secured parties, liens or other encumbrances on it.

I am not trying to suck anyone into anything but asking questions is not a bad thing.

The ONLY way to get foreclosed is if a court somewhere issues a document telling the sheriff to move you out. If the only original document the court has ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE is a note then the only order they can stand behind is a lien on the property in the amount remaining on the note. This doesn't get you evicted. It just says you have to pay that amount before you can sell the house. In theory you can only be evicted if both note and mortgages (originals) are entered into evidence.

You only signed one original of each document. Copies are not originals. You did not sign a copy. Because these banks sell these documents, because they are sloppy businessmen and might not have access to the original and because the judges bend rules to accommodate banks, because the government has bailed out the banks and not the people, why would anyone feel any obligation to give them anything they do not deserve. Make them prove everything.

At argument hearings a judge will hold up a copy and ask the (default) home buyer if that is his signature. As likely as not he will agree that he did sign it. A better answer is "I am willing to comment on this document when it has been entered into evidence". He is the only signer. He is the only one who can verify it. Why would he do so if it is a copy? Even if it is an original if it is modified in ANY way then it is not the same document that he might have signed. This attempt by the judge to get a document validated places them in the pocket of the banker. They know better.

Umm, because he's an honest man?

Look, if you made a deal and agreed to pay, you should live up to your obligation, not attempt to weasel out of it!

It's because of people like you that most won't do business on a handshake anymore. For shame!

On the nosy!!!! Willow Girl summed it up nicely.

Following your line - if the bank no longer holds the originals, thus making the contract/pledge null and void - would that not also make the fact that you "own" the property null and void ?

If the contract/pledge no longer exists, then neither does your ownership?

Granted, you have been making payments in good faith that you owed the money to them based on the original documents. Those documents no longer exist, but you have made the payments to the entity. Now they must refund the money - with interest? or sign the property over to you?



I agree in honesty you agree to make the payments to purchase the property (although in honesty, they also agreed to return the original document upon completion and now can no longer uphold their end of the deal), but I do find these types of things to be interesting - sounds a bit like B la c k' s L aw book to me.

No. Because he is a weasel and can get away with it because of the ignorance of most honest people.

The deal is good as long as an original can be produced.

Look ... this is not about the land or house. It is about PAPER. Obligations exist on both sides.

The PAPER is only a monument. The words spoken are what control the agreement.

Are you a judge? You seem pretty quick to condemn when you are deficient in facts and knowledge.

And the handshake is more binding than the paper is.

Listen to me carefully. You never have and never will own the property. You only have an equitable right to use it and that can be canceled by the state at any time.


You have chosen to live in a communist world and that is what it is like. There is no ownership. You don't own a car. You don't own a bicycle. You don't own a lawnmower. The beneficent state provides everything for your equitable use. Law was abolished when gold and silver left society.

Don't shoot me. I am just the messenger. You might be the one living the American "dream/nightmare".

The bank or the state might place a lien on the property. Chances are the mortgage not being vented will also act to prevent you from selling it. Certainly if you stop making property tax payments the state is going to sell it on the steps of the courthouse at the first opportunity.

If you can establish that a cognovit exits then the contract is illegal. If you can sue on this basis and win then the contract did not exist from inception. You turn the keys over to the note/mortgage holder and in turn should receive all payments made back.



Mainly I wanted to bring up that there is no money except what you create by signing these documents. The bank doesn't have any in their vaults. It is all paper transactions and fractional banking.

You might be aware of the logical game ROCK, PAPER, SCISSOR.

The ten commandments were written on ROCK, a pretty solid substance that does not float nearly as well as PAPER does. So PAPER beats ROCK but only in a maritime law environment. Now along comes SCISSORS which won't dent ROCK but cuts PAPER pretty well. Gold and silver are pretty solid substances too. SCISSORS won't touch them so I would place them in the same category as ROCK.

If you find your life ruled by PAPER and maritime law then bring along a pair of SCISSORS and you might stand a chance finding DRY LAND again.

Nope, I think my understanding of your integrity is quite sufficient and I'm glad I haven't had the misfortune of doing business with you. Good day!