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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.