Comment: I agree 100%, and yes, I see

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Well, to begin with: (see in situ)

I agree 100%, and yes, I see

I agree 100%, and yes, I see EVERYTHING wrong with that, BUT, that only makes these contracts VOIDABLE, NOT void!!!

Thinking they are automatically void is what lands a lot of people in trouble:

    We have long recognized that contracts obtained by fraud are not absolutely void, but are “voidable at the election of the parties affected by the fraud” and “binding until properly avoided.” Urner v. Sollenberger, 89 Md. 316, 332, 334, 43 A. 810, 811-12 (1899); see also Iseli v. Clapp, 254 Md. 664, 669-72, 255 A.2d 315, 318-19 (1969) (holding that a foreclosure rescue scam victim’s deed was voidable, but not as against innocent third parties); Hoffman v. Seth, 207 Md. 234, 239, 114 A.2d 58, 60 (1955) (stating that an agreement or conveyance procured by a false representation of a material fact is voidable, but not void); Wicklein v. Kidd, 149 Md. 412, 424-25, 131 A. 780, 784-85 (1926)

see also,

http://books.google.com/books?id=JQY8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA756&lpg=P...

Americans MUST void the contracts that they have made!

http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/ssa_521.pdf