Foreclosure stands against ‘Redemptionist’ claims, appeals panel rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A pro se litigant who fought a mortgage foreclosure by attempting to pay a bank with drafts from his purported account at the United States Treasury has no basis to reverse summary judgment in favor of the lender, the Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

Derik Blocker of Merrillville relied on attorney-in-fact Marcus Lenton Jr. of Chicago to represent him when U.S. Bank initiated a foreclosure in December 2011, six months after Blocker stopped making mortgage payments, according to the record.

Lenton sent U.S. Bank a personal, non-certified check for $180,000 on a principal balance of more than $157,000. But the bank didn’t cash the check on which Lenton had written, “Not for deposit – EFT only!!!”  

The bank also rejected documents Lenton later prepared including a “payment instrument to discharge the alleged debt,” a “lawful order for money” for $200,000 directed to the U.S. Treasury, a “UCC Financing Statement” and an “international bill of exchange.”

In finding no issues of material fact and affirming summary judgment for U.S. Bank, Judge Michael Barnes cited the “Redemptionist” nature of the arguments, which also mirror those of sovereign citizens.

Redemptionist theory “propounds that a person has a split personality: a real person and a fictional person called the ‘strawman,’” Barnes wrote in Derik A. Blocker and Tammi Blocker v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for the Certificateholders Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificate Series 2007-AHL3, 45A03-1211-MF-479. “The ‘strawman’ purportedly came into being when the United States went off the gold standard in 1933, and, instead, pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country’s national debt. Redemptionists claim that government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person, who remains free.”

Redemptionist adherents claim that the government sets up accounts in the initial amount of $630,000 for each person at birth, and that through obscure procedures of the Uniform Commercial Code, citizens can gain access to those funds for their own purposes.

“Lenton’s attempts to pay off the Blockers’ mortgage debt were not only unorthodox but also legally unacceptable. It is unclear who Lenton is or what his relationship to the Blockers is and whether he represented to them that he knew the ‘secret formula’ to accessing money locked away in a clandestine Treasury Department account but, in any event, he clearly failed to access or provide the funds needed to pay off their mortgage,” Barnes wrote. “The trial court did not err in refusing to countenance these purported attempts to discharge the Blockers’ debt.”

The court also took issue with the Blockers’ repeated contentions that the Lake Superior trial court lacked jurisdiction. “To the extent the Blockers make other arguments attacking the trial court’s jurisdiction or the propriety of its judgment that we have not explicitly addressed, it suffices to say that those arguments lack cogency and we will not address them further.”



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.