You may have heard it — but do you truly know what is meant by this very important maxim of law? It is a powerful principle known under the Latin term Nemo dat quod non habet.

The common law principle literally means one cannot sell what one does not own, and yet this is done time and time again.

Because the courts operate under the presumption that what the bank is saying — and the actions that they are taking — are true and correct, the people fighting the banks are left in a quandary. The judge’s inadequacy in applying correct findings of law is due to the rancid pungency from the many caldrons of misinformation boiling over from the banks and inept lawyers. This misinformation is then spread liberally to pleadings and briefs, as one would make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

More knowledge is needed and required in order to have a complete understanding of legal rights that pertain to Legal Title of property. What was to have taken place? What did take place? What did not take place? All of these relevant questions must be answered in order for one to have a more complete understanding of what rights were acquired — or not. If they were acquired at all.

The concept that a Note holder — even one who is not legitimate — may nevertheless bring an action on the Homeowner Note is entrenched in commercial law, commonly summarized by the axiom “even a thief may enforce a note.” However, the taking of the homeowner’s home by foreclosure is an alternate equitable remedy, and equity does not allow a thief to use a stolen Promissory Note to foreclose through the Homeowner’s Mortgage lien.