Foreclosure Defense (Use the UCC)
- Thread starter Svarstaad
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #62
. . .
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CREDIT CARD BUSINESS
All federally insured banks (FDIC) must follow what are called the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) which are found in the federal statutes at 12 USC § 1831n — Accounting objectives, standards, and requirements;
"Anything accepted by a bank for deposit would be considered as cash." Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, 2003 ed., Wiley, page 41, Cash and Cash Equivalents.
BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE "CREDIT CARD" SYSTEM AT WORK
THAT HAS VICTIMIZED YOU THROUGH YOUR OWN IGNORANCE
Upon “approval, banks accept your signed "credit card" agreement as a promissory note and deposits your note as an asset.
That note is then “monetized,” and “deposit multiplied” by a factor of 10. For example, a $1,000 credit limit, agreement/promissory note is monetized to $10,000.00. $1,000.00 is credited to the "credit card" company's bank account. And the rest, $9,000.00, is gravy. (Did you get a kiss? A thank-you? $100.00 on the dresser?)
The banks use the attributes of the Federal Reserve “deposit multiplier,” to enrich themselves by a factor of 9 times the amount of the “deposit.” ($9,000.00 in the example above). (This “multiplier” factor can go as high as 23 times the deposit amount).
And now, it gets even better for the banks, because every time you use their "credit card" and sign a purchase transaction "receipt" slip, as authorized agent for the bank, you create another promissory note, which the merchant deposits into his account as cash. Then, the banks once again, use the “deposit multiplier” money manufacturing scam to enrich themselves by a factor of approximately 9 times the amount of the new deposit; the face value amount of your “credit card” purchase transaction.
The Merchant’s bank deposits all of the signed "credit card" slips and uses the “deposit multiplier” money manufacturing scam to enrich themselves by a factor of approximately 9 times the amount of the deposit. And on, and on, and on.
How many times does this happen? How many times have you and many others used a credit card?
The criminal banks could not enrich themselves without YOU signing the notes, in ignorance, playing their foolsÂ’ game.
And not only that, in the example above, it is a fact that the credit card company gained a full $1,000 from the original agreement that was signed by YOU.
Even if you never use the credit card, the “credit card” company has received unjust enrichment of $1000 + $9000 (deposit multiplier) on the operation of the scam based upon your participation, by your signature on the promissory note or credit card agreement.
The credit card company is paid in full by the value of YOUR signature on all those promissory notes YOU generate. The credit card company is never at any risk and never loses a penny even if YOU never pay.
YOU were robbed. Non-disclosure of the facts is fraud!
BACKGROUND BRIEF
The Federal Reserve has been very clear in their circulars that banks do not really lend or “loan” money.
Federal Reserve official publications reveal one example in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs all negotiable instruments, and every state in the union has adopted and codified the UCC into their state statutes.
Two examples to prove the point about what the FED says about banks lending money.
FIRST: Federal Reserve Publication, Modern Money Mechanics states on pg 6:
So if banks do not “really” pay out loans from the money that they receive as deposits, where do they get the money to payout “loans?”
The FED reveals in such a manner that it would take professional “help” to fail to comprehend:
In reality an exchange has occurred Â…
So, the banks and the “credit card” companies are lying when they stipulate in their “agreements” that you are receiving a loan. And then they charge you interest on a “loan?!”
The agreement never mentions the real nature of the transaction, an “exchange” founded in fraud, relying upon your ignorance.
SECOND: The FED adds fuel to the argument in their publication "Two faces of Debt,” pg. 19:
Again, the FED uses the word “exchange,” which is being associated with the so called “loan.”
Notice the quote clearly says that a “depositors” balance “rises,” (evidence the promise to pay is deposited) when a “depository institution extends credit either by granting a loan to or by buying securities from a depositor. . .”
How does that happen?
According to the circular, “In exchange for the note,” the lending institution credits your account. Then, the FED reveals something that proves the bank or financial institution really did not lend their money as they implied or agreed – the FED discloses that as a result of this “transaction,” “no one loses a deposit” (thus no other person who had money deposited at the institution lost any deposit) — and actually “the money supply is increased;” “New money” has been brought into existence.
In truth, the “new money” brought into existence was done so by the deposit of the promissory note, predicated upon your signature.
CRITICAL ISSUE: for an agreement or a contract to be valid, both parties to the agreement must fully disclose all of the facts relevant to the transaction. Without full disclosure YOU have no way to competently authenticate by validation all of the terms of the agreement.
The indication that you have “authenticated” by attestation, all of the terms of an agreement, is evidenced by YOUR SIGNATURE. There are actually two (2) elements or attributes of your signature. Most people only have comprehension of one element or attribute: a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing peculiar to a certain individual, made with pen and ink on paper.
Here is the most important attribute of your signature:
When a signature is affixed to a promissory note, the signer is normally required to state a variety of private information. It is quite common for the signer-in-waiting to volunteer an address, phone number, social insecurity number and other information. At the bottom of the agreement is a line where the signer applies their “Signature.”
Before the word “signature,” is used again, a short review of the legal definition of signature, as well as some other definitions that are relevant to initiating an agreement or contract meeting the stipulations of laws intended to protect the rights of the parties to the agreement in the eyes of the law/courts.
Signature.
*UCC § 1-201(37).
"Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.
**UCC § 3-401(b).
A signature may be made
(i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and
(ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.
signatory.
Signature.
The generally accepted legal definition of signature is very broad:
Attestation:
The act of attesting; testimony; witness; a solemn or official declaration, verbal or written, in support of a fact; evidence. The truth appears from the attestation of witnesses, or of the proper officer. The subscription of a name to a writing as a witness, is an attestation. [1913 Webster]
Authentic:
genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested. Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence. (BLD6-132).
Authentication:
Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law. (BLD6-132).
Intention:
Determination to act in a certain way or to do a certain thing. Meaning; will; purpose; design. “Intention,” when used with reference to the construction of wills and other documents, means the sense and meaning of it, as gathered from the words used therein. (BLD6-810).
Verification:
Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party. (BLD6-1561).
Every effort imaginable is being made by those operating the Federal Reserve scam, to disconnect the individual from the notion that your “SIGNATURE” attests to the validity and authenticity of all the terms of whatever it is that you are signing. This is so, because a flesh-and-blood individual is a living soul, and his signature represents, among other things, the individuals intentions either/or his informed consent to the terms of the writing.
The deceivers would rather that your only comprehension of the meaning of the term “signature,” remain confined to “a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing.”
“Signature” indicates that the signer agrees that the matters committed to a writing are within his wishes.
The concept of “within his wishes,” is a VERY important issue. If someone has ‘forced’ you to sign, or used “false representations” of the facts relevant to an agreement, or has deliberately withheld facts relevant to the agreement, the signer cannot be held liable for the matter if it can be proven that the party taking the unfair advantage, has acted with such intentionally false representations.
“Signature” places in motion many unique events:
Usually, there is really NOTHING in these so-called “agreements” that holds the alleged creditor liable if THEY were to commit a fraud or other nefarious act. That is because the signer has the free-will to EXIT the agreement if it can be proven that the alleged creditor (the bank) has not acted in good faith.
True to the criminal aspects of their “business,” the bank’s representative(s) will never discuss the signer’s (YOUR) options if you determine that the bank has committed wrong-doing with respect to the transaction: this is no accident.
The bottom line on signatures is this:
A ‘hand writing analysis’ can only determine that a signature is a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing peculiar to a certain individual. No inference as to the intent of the signer, or the circumstances under which the signature was acquired can be determined by a “hand writing expert.”
A “signature,” (particular scratching pattern, etching, style, etc.), is NOT the important point of relevance — FULLY INFORMED CONSENT is the most important element signified by a “signature,” and that issue has significant intrinsic value with respect to the fraud perpetrated by the “money interests”.
WHAT DID THE BANK BRING TO THE TRANSACTION?
Another related issue, which may be more difficult to prove, considering that the courts will do everything in their power to protect the bank instead of you, is that the bank never really brought anything of value to the transaction.
In other words, for there to be a valid contract/agreement, each party must provide something of value in return for the thing of value that they receive.
What was “loaned” to you that should be repaid?
If according to the FED, whose regulations the bank must follow,
What did the bank lend?
The bank issued a wire transfer, credit, or check based upon the deposit of your promissory note bearing YOUR SIGNATURE. The bank could not create money without YOUR HELP.
Again, GAAP says, “Anything accepted by a bank as a deposit is considered as cash.”
The promissory note is in fact an asset, and as an asset it has value that can be bought and sold.
This explains why the FED says “New Money” is brought into existence with the deposit of the promissory note. It is “money” that was not in the bank or financial institution prior to the deposit of the promissory note.
Comprehend this, it is your SIGNATURE that allows the FED to create vast resources of New Money, and then use that money to control every aspect of your life. Think about it.
As stated in “Two Faces of Debt” Pg. 19:
These funds are in “addition” to the other funds.
In reality, your promissory note/agreement is an increase of the financial institution's funds. (Unjust enrichment by a factor of ~9).
Thus, from an economic standpoint you are far from getting a loan; in fact, you are actually making a deposit, but this has not been disclosed to you.
And what does the FED say about that?
Again, in “Two Faces of Debt,” Pg 19:
This is a very powerful, clear, and concise statement. It means that:
When you deposit your paycheck or cash into a bank or financial institution, the institution has to record it as a “debt” owed to you on their books. Gaining access to the evidence of the banks detailed accounting that will reveal the truth of the matter could be difficult. If you were one of the criminals running the scam, how far would you go to protect the scam?
MEETING OF THE MINDS
This element of contract law known as “meeting of the minds,” must also be present in any valid agreement. In other words, both parties must fully comprehend all of the terms and conditions of the agreement for there to be a “meeting of the minds.”
There must be full disclosure by both sides of all relevant material facts so that everyone knows and agrees with what is going on — it is called “full disclosure.”
If you are not aware of all of the material terms and conditions of an agreement, how could you possibly agree to those terms and conditions with your fully informed consent?
And if you did not agree to them because you were not aware of them, how can there be a valid agreement in place at all?
There has been no “meeting of the minds.” Therefore, no valid, enforceable contract.
At this point, you should be able to comprehend that:
Why do you keep enriching the bank?
As if that is not enough, the “credit card” company demands that you pay them again, plus interest. If you don’t, the bank will eventually acquire the services of a court authorized goon with a warrant to take your property, or your life, at the barrel of a gun.
And if that is not enough, the banksters have all credit cards securitized by insurance policies in the event of default; they NEVER lose. (Credit Default Swaps anyone?).
Furthermore, there is no way for you to have understood all the terms of their contract, as full disclosure was not made to you at the signing of the contract.
Until you comprehend the scam, it is very difficult to perceive how the banks and credit card companies keep going when so many people with “credit cards” file bankruptcy.
Once you do understand the scam, you can perceive that “they” profit no matter what.
The “credit cards” are a godsend for the “credit card” companies as they are free to create “new money” out of thin air.
The foregoing answers the question, “Why do the credit card companies seem eager to offer credit cards like water?”
The “credit card” companies have the audacity, and arrogance, to lie about their scam. They pretend that the reason for the interest rate increases are due to the large number of defaults and/or bankruptcies … (It’s YOUR fault!).
Then, after all the money has been manufactured, and squirreled away in their vaults, they have the audacity to use the courts to ultimately authorize a gun-toting goon to come to your property, stick a gun in your face and demand you surrender your property.
BANKERS, LAWYER-LIAR BANKER REPS, AND DEBT COLLECTORS, ARE ALL LYING [expletive deleted] THIEVES!
Must you continue doing business with them?
Stop the motor of the world with your power to withhold your value from the people who are using your life to effect your destruction.
After having been extremely useful to the “money interests,” Edward Mandell House is reported to have said the following in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
. . .
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CREDIT CARD BUSINESS
All federally insured banks (FDIC) must follow what are called the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) which are found in the federal statutes at 12 USC § 1831n — Accounting objectives, standards, and requirements;
12 USC § 1831n(a)(1)
That there are certain accounting principles that must be followed by (FDIC) banks and financial institutions.
12 USC § 1831n(a)(1)
That certain reports or statements must be filed with federal banking agencies by insured depository institutions.
12 USC § 1831n(a)(1)(A)
That these reports and or financial statements must accurately reflect the capital of these institutions.
12 USC § 1831n(a)(2)(A)
That the institution's accounting principles shall be uniform and consistent with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
That there are certain accounting principles that must be followed by (FDIC) banks and financial institutions.
12 USC § 1831n(a)(1)
That certain reports or statements must be filed with federal banking agencies by insured depository institutions.
12 USC § 1831n(a)(1)(A)
That these reports and or financial statements must accurately reflect the capital of these institutions.
12 USC § 1831n(a)(2)(A)
That the institution's accounting principles shall be uniform and consistent with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
"Anything accepted by a bank for deposit would be considered as cash." Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, 2003 ed., Wiley, page 41, Cash and Cash Equivalents.
BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE "CREDIT CARD" SYSTEM AT WORK
THAT HAS VICTIMIZED YOU THROUGH YOUR OWN IGNORANCE
Upon “approval, banks accept your signed "credit card" agreement as a promissory note and deposits your note as an asset.
That note is then “monetized,” and “deposit multiplied” by a factor of 10. For example, a $1,000 credit limit, agreement/promissory note is monetized to $10,000.00. $1,000.00 is credited to the "credit card" company's bank account. And the rest, $9,000.00, is gravy. (Did you get a kiss? A thank-you? $100.00 on the dresser?)
The banks use the attributes of the Federal Reserve “deposit multiplier,” to enrich themselves by a factor of 9 times the amount of the “deposit.” ($9,000.00 in the example above). (This “multiplier” factor can go as high as 23 times the deposit amount).
And now, it gets even better for the banks, because every time you use their "credit card" and sign a purchase transaction "receipt" slip, as authorized agent for the bank, you create another promissory note, which the merchant deposits into his account as cash. Then, the banks once again, use the “deposit multiplier” money manufacturing scam to enrich themselves by a factor of approximately 9 times the amount of the new deposit; the face value amount of your “credit card” purchase transaction.
The Merchant’s bank deposits all of the signed "credit card" slips and uses the “deposit multiplier” money manufacturing scam to enrich themselves by a factor of approximately 9 times the amount of the deposit. And on, and on, and on.
How many times does this happen? How many times have you and many others used a credit card?
The criminal banks could not enrich themselves without YOU signing the notes, in ignorance, playing their foolsÂ’ game.
And not only that, in the example above, it is a fact that the credit card company gained a full $1,000 from the original agreement that was signed by YOU.
Even if you never use the credit card, the “credit card” company has received unjust enrichment of $1000 + $9000 (deposit multiplier) on the operation of the scam based upon your participation, by your signature on the promissory note or credit card agreement.
The credit card company is paid in full by the value of YOUR signature on all those promissory notes YOU generate. The credit card company is never at any risk and never loses a penny even if YOU never pay.
YOU were robbed. Non-disclosure of the facts is fraud!
BACKGROUND BRIEF
The Federal Reserve has been very clear in their circulars that banks do not really lend or “loan” money.
Federal Reserve official publications reveal one example in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs all negotiable instruments, and every state in the union has adopted and codified the UCC into their state statutes.
Two examples to prove the point about what the FED says about banks lending money.
FIRST: Federal Reserve Publication, Modern Money Mechanics states on pg 6:
“Of course they [Banks] do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created.”
So if banks do not “really” pay out loans from the money that they receive as deposits, where do they get the money to payout “loans?”
The FED reveals in such a manner that it would take professional “help” to fail to comprehend:
"What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credit to the borrower’s transaction accounts.”
In reality an exchange has occurred Â…
So, the banks and the “credit card” companies are lying when they stipulate in their “agreements” that you are receiving a loan. And then they charge you interest on a “loan?!”
The agreement never mentions the real nature of the transaction, an “exchange” founded in fraud, relying upon your ignorance.
SECOND: The FED adds fuel to the argument in their publication "Two faces of Debt,” pg. 19:
“depositor's balance rises when the depository institution extends credit either by granting a loan to or by buying securities from the depositor in exchange for the note or security, the lending or investing institution credits the depositors or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case no one else loses a deposit and the money supply is increased. “New money” has been brought into existence.”
Again, the FED uses the word “exchange,” which is being associated with the so called “loan.”
Notice the quote clearly says that a “depositors” balance “rises,” (evidence the promise to pay is deposited) when a “depository institution extends credit either by granting a loan to or by buying securities from a depositor. . .”
How does that happen?
According to the circular, “In exchange for the note,” the lending institution credits your account. Then, the FED reveals something that proves the bank or financial institution really did not lend their money as they implied or agreed – the FED discloses that as a result of this “transaction,” “no one loses a deposit” (thus no other person who had money deposited at the institution lost any deposit) — and actually “the money supply is increased;” “New money” has been brought into existence.
In truth, the “new money” brought into existence was done so by the deposit of the promissory note, predicated upon your signature.
CRITICAL ISSUE: for an agreement or a contract to be valid, both parties to the agreement must fully disclose all of the facts relevant to the transaction. Without full disclosure YOU have no way to competently authenticate by validation all of the terms of the agreement.
The indication that you have “authenticated” by attestation, all of the terms of an agreement, is evidenced by YOUR SIGNATURE. There are actually two (2) elements or attributes of your signature. Most people only have comprehension of one element or attribute: a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing peculiar to a certain individual, made with pen and ink on paper.
Here is the most important attribute of your signature:
When a signature is affixed to a promissory note, the signer is normally required to state a variety of private information. It is quite common for the signer-in-waiting to volunteer an address, phone number, social insecurity number and other information. At the bottom of the agreement is a line where the signer applies their “Signature.”
Before the word “signature,” is used again, a short review of the legal definition of signature, as well as some other definitions that are relevant to initiating an agreement or contract meeting the stipulations of laws intended to protect the rights of the parties to the agreement in the eyes of the law/courts.
Signature.
1. A personÂ’s name or mark written by that person or at the personÂ’s direction.
2. Commercial law. Any name, mark, or writing used with the intention of authenticating a document. UCC §§ 1-201(37),* 3-401(b).** (Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition)
2. Commercial law. Any name, mark, or writing used with the intention of authenticating a document. UCC §§ 1-201(37),* 3-401(b).** (Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition)
*UCC § 1-201(37).
"Signed" includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.
**UCC § 3-401(b).
A signature may be made
(i) manually or by means of a device or machine, and
(ii) by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing.
signatory.
A party that signs a document, personally or through an agent, and thereby becomes a party to an agreement.
Signature.
By signature is understood the act of putting down a man's name, at the end of an instrument, to attest its validity. The name thus written is also called a signature. Vide to Sign. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856).
The generally accepted legal definition of signature is very broad:
“[t]he act of putting one’s name on the end of any instrument to attest its validity; the name thus written.” (Black’s Law Dictionary p. 1381(6th ed. 1990) (BLD6-1381)).
See also WebsterÂ’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1934)
(defining signature as “the name of any person, written with his own hand to signify that the writing which precedes accords with his wishes or intentions”).
(defining signature as “the name of any person, written with his own hand to signify that the writing which precedes accords with his wishes or intentions”).
Attestation:
The act of attesting; testimony; witness; a solemn or official declaration, verbal or written, in support of a fact; evidence. The truth appears from the attestation of witnesses, or of the proper officer. The subscription of a name to a writing as a witness, is an attestation. [1913 Webster]
Authentic:
genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested. Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence. (BLD6-132).
Authentication:
Authentication of a writing means (a) the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is or (b) the establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law. (BLD6-132).
Intention:
Determination to act in a certain way or to do a certain thing. Meaning; will; purpose; design. “Intention,” when used with reference to the construction of wills and other documents, means the sense and meaning of it, as gathered from the words used therein. (BLD6-810).
Verification:
Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. Affidavit of truth of matter stated and object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of party. (BLD6-1561).
Every effort imaginable is being made by those operating the Federal Reserve scam, to disconnect the individual from the notion that your “SIGNATURE” attests to the validity and authenticity of all the terms of whatever it is that you are signing. This is so, because a flesh-and-blood individual is a living soul, and his signature represents, among other things, the individuals intentions either/or his informed consent to the terms of the writing.
The deceivers would rather that your only comprehension of the meaning of the term “signature,” remain confined to “a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing.”
“Signature” indicates that the signer agrees that the matters committed to a writing are within his wishes.
The concept of “within his wishes,” is a VERY important issue. If someone has ‘forced’ you to sign, or used “false representations” of the facts relevant to an agreement, or has deliberately withheld facts relevant to the agreement, the signer cannot be held liable for the matter if it can be proven that the party taking the unfair advantage, has acted with such intentionally false representations.
“Signature” places in motion many unique events:
1. It boldly states that the signer has consented to the full terms of the agreement, and becomes a party to that agreement. By doing so, the full stipulations (if any) as to how matters of conflict and dispute are treated apply; these administrative or remedial solutions are not always handled through standard court proceedings.
2. Many credit applications have a stipulation or inclusion, that by applying your “Signature,” ALL of the information provided to be reviewed for “credit worthiness” is true, complete, and certain. (or “The Truth, The whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”). In essence a swearing that the individual providing the information has NOT lied, deceived, or entered into the agreement with any preconceived intent to commit any fraud or other nefarious means.
2. Many credit applications have a stipulation or inclusion, that by applying your “Signature,” ALL of the information provided to be reviewed for “credit worthiness” is true, complete, and certain. (or “The Truth, The whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”). In essence a swearing that the individual providing the information has NOT lied, deceived, or entered into the agreement with any preconceived intent to commit any fraud or other nefarious means.
Usually, there is really NOTHING in these so-called “agreements” that holds the alleged creditor liable if THEY were to commit a fraud or other nefarious act. That is because the signer has the free-will to EXIT the agreement if it can be proven that the alleged creditor (the bank) has not acted in good faith.
True to the criminal aspects of their “business,” the bank’s representative(s) will never discuss the signer’s (YOUR) options if you determine that the bank has committed wrong-doing with respect to the transaction: this is no accident.
3. In relation to the claimed “loan,” and the “agreement,” the signature is the origin and the beginning of the ‘promise-to-pay’ creation process.
4. With the application of the signature to the promissory note, without full disclosure, the signer has unwittingly participated in a scheme to create money out of thin air. The NEW obligation created the PRINCIPAL, just not the interest money that is allegedly owed.
4. With the application of the signature to the promissory note, without full disclosure, the signer has unwittingly participated in a scheme to create money out of thin air. The NEW obligation created the PRINCIPAL, just not the interest money that is allegedly owed.
The bottom line on signatures is this:
A signature that was provided pursuant to false representations, fraud, is voidable upon discovery of the fraud perpetrated in order to acquire the signature.
A ‘hand writing analysis’ can only determine that a signature is a particular scratching pattern, etching, or style of mechanical writing peculiar to a certain individual. No inference as to the intent of the signer, or the circumstances under which the signature was acquired can be determined by a “hand writing expert.”
A “signature,” (particular scratching pattern, etching, style, etc.), is NOT the important point of relevance — FULLY INFORMED CONSENT is the most important element signified by a “signature,” and that issue has significant intrinsic value with respect to the fraud perpetrated by the “money interests”.
WHAT DID THE BANK BRING TO THE TRANSACTION?
Another related issue, which may be more difficult to prove, considering that the courts will do everything in their power to protect the bank instead of you, is that the bank never really brought anything of value to the transaction.
In other words, for there to be a valid contract/agreement, each party must provide something of value in return for the thing of value that they receive.
What was “loaned” to you that should be repaid?
If according to the FED, whose regulations the bank must follow,
(1) the bank did not use other depositor's money,
(2) the banks do not really payout loans from its own money, or from money belonging to depositors
(3) the banks accept promissory notes/agreements in “exchange” for credits in a transaction (checking) account
(4) the banks issue a check or wire transfer from the money created by YOUR note; approximately 10 times the face value amount indicated on the note or instrument.
(2) the banks do not really payout loans from its own money, or from money belonging to depositors
(3) the banks accept promissory notes/agreements in “exchange” for credits in a transaction (checking) account
(4) the banks issue a check or wire transfer from the money created by YOUR note; approximately 10 times the face value amount indicated on the note or instrument.
What did the bank lend?
The bank issued a wire transfer, credit, or check based upon the deposit of your promissory note bearing YOUR SIGNATURE. The bank could not create money without YOUR HELP.
Again, GAAP says, “Anything accepted by a bank as a deposit is considered as cash.”
The promissory note is in fact an asset, and as an asset it has value that can be bought and sold.
This explains why the FED says “New Money” is brought into existence with the deposit of the promissory note. It is “money” that was not in the bank or financial institution prior to the deposit of the promissory note.
Comprehend this, it is your SIGNATURE that allows the FED to create vast resources of New Money, and then use that money to control every aspect of your life. Think about it.
As stated in “Two Faces of Debt” Pg. 19:
“such newly created funds are in addition to funds that all financial institutions provide in their operations as intermediaries between savers and users of savings.”
These funds are in “addition” to the other funds.
In reality, your promissory note/agreement is an increase of the financial institution's funds. (Unjust enrichment by a factor of ~9).
Thus, from an economic standpoint you are far from getting a loan; in fact, you are actually making a deposit, but this has not been disclosed to you.
And what does the FED say about that?
Again, in “Two Faces of Debt,” Pg 19:
“A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer’s deposit of checks in a bank.”
This is a very powerful, clear, and concise statement. It means that:
1) When a bank or financial institution makes a “loan,” by fraudulently acquiring your signature on a promissory note, they (the bank) actually incurs debt.
2) This debt is required to be paid on demand of the depositor of the promissory note. (ThatÂ’s YOU).
3) It is the same as the debt the institution owes a person who deposits checks or currency in a bank.
2) This debt is required to be paid on demand of the depositor of the promissory note. (ThatÂ’s YOU).
3) It is the same as the debt the institution owes a person who deposits checks or currency in a bank.
When you deposit your paycheck or cash into a bank or financial institution, the institution has to record it as a “debt” owed to you on their books. Gaining access to the evidence of the banks detailed accounting that will reveal the truth of the matter could be difficult. If you were one of the criminals running the scam, how far would you go to protect the scam?
MEETING OF THE MINDS
This element of contract law known as “meeting of the minds,” must also be present in any valid agreement. In other words, both parties must fully comprehend all of the terms and conditions of the agreement for there to be a “meeting of the minds.”
There must be full disclosure by both sides of all relevant material facts so that everyone knows and agrees with what is going on — it is called “full disclosure.”
If you are not aware of all of the material terms and conditions of an agreement, how could you possibly agree to those terms and conditions with your fully informed consent?
And if you did not agree to them because you were not aware of them, how can there be a valid agreement in place at all?
There has been no “meeting of the minds.” Therefore, no valid, enforceable contract.
At this point, you should be able to comprehend that:
(1) you did not receive a “loan” from the “credit card” company;
(2) the “credit card” company profited from your signature;
(3) every time you use the “credit card,” the banks profit some more as you cause “new money” to be created.
(2) the “credit card” company profited from your signature;
(3) every time you use the “credit card,” the banks profit some more as you cause “new money” to be created.
Why do you keep enriching the bank?
As if that is not enough, the “credit card” company demands that you pay them again, plus interest. If you don’t, the bank will eventually acquire the services of a court authorized goon with a warrant to take your property, or your life, at the barrel of a gun.
And if that is not enough, the banksters have all credit cards securitized by insurance policies in the event of default; they NEVER lose. (Credit Default Swaps anyone?).
Furthermore, there is no way for you to have understood all the terms of their contract, as full disclosure was not made to you at the signing of the contract.
Until you comprehend the scam, it is very difficult to perceive how the banks and credit card companies keep going when so many people with “credit cards” file bankruptcy.
Once you do understand the scam, you can perceive that “they” profit no matter what.
The “credit cards” are a godsend for the “credit card” companies as they are free to create “new money” out of thin air.
The foregoing answers the question, “Why do the credit card companies seem eager to offer credit cards like water?”
The “credit card” companies have the audacity, and arrogance, to lie about their scam. They pretend that the reason for the interest rate increases are due to the large number of defaults and/or bankruptcies … (It’s YOUR fault!).
Then, after all the money has been manufactured, and squirreled away in their vaults, they have the audacity to use the courts to ultimately authorize a gun-toting goon to come to your property, stick a gun in your face and demand you surrender your property.
BANKERS, LAWYER-LIAR BANKER REPS, AND DEBT COLLECTORS, ARE ALL LYING [expletive deleted] THIEVES!
Must you continue doing business with them?
Stop the motor of the world with your power to withhold your value from the people who are using your life to effect your destruction.
After having been extremely useful to the “money interests,” Edward Mandell House is reported to have said the following in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us [“berth” certificate] will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.
Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us [“berth” certificate] will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.
They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the REGISTRANTS in the form of benefits and privileges.
This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.”
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly.
The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.” [emphasis added].
After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the REGISTRANTS in the form of benefits and privileges.
This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.”
Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly.
The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.” [emphasis added].
. . .
Most of my work now involves bank foreclosures. A few numb skulls have trotted into court with that defense and were immediately informed that was not a defense under Georgia law.
A mortgage is a contract. If you violate the contract the mortgage holdercan accelerate and demand full payment.
We are a nation of laws, not men and their hair brained schemes.
Go ahead and try that mortgage hoax you have there and see how far you get with it.
Good luck. I hope Motel 6 has a room near you. We'll leave the light on for you.
A mortgage is a contract. If you violate the contract the mortgage holdercan accelerate and demand full payment.
We are a nation of laws, not men and their hair brained schemes.
Go ahead and try that mortgage hoax you have there and see how far you get with it.
Good luck. I hope Motel 6 has a room near you. We'll leave the light on for you.
- Thread starter
- #64
. . .
Background information and comprehension of the scam is necessary to be able to ask the right questions.
Never admit having account/card/relationship with the bank/credit card company. Make them PROVE it!
The banks cannot produce fact witnesses. Show me the evidence. Where's the note!
"I just don't recollect ever having such an account. Prove it" (Reagan/Bush defense).
Never traverse. Always ask the important questions of the one bringing the claim.
"They" (the bank/credit card company) have to PROVE use of a credit card with a personal knowledge fact witness.
Impossible. No proof of acceptance.
Research the rules of evidence, and the exceptions therefor, in the rules applicable to your jurisdiction.
Evidence of testimony of a cashier that witnessed use of a credit card is the only way to establish acceptance by use of such a card. No way a cashier could competently remember a single transaction at the checkout counter.
Papers can be fabricated, and are routinely fabricated by lawyer-liar-attorneys in such cases.
Banks/Credit card companies can't produce the original wet-ink note.
No evidence to link a "mark" to an account. (Unless you stupidly "confess.")
Accounts (credit accounts) are under UCC Article 3 which defines "account" for purposes of Article 3 at UCC 4-104 -
Banks and credit card companies and collectors, routinely fabricate documents.
Perjured Affidavits. Do forensic analysis of such documents. Such documents can be ripped apart by identification of the perjury that will be found within them.
"Personal Knowledge" means a fact witness that actually observed an event with their own senses, (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste).
And not only that, the claimant must prove "STANDING" under UCC 3-301. The right to enforce the instrument. (See previous posts).
The statements made in the post above #62 (permalink) are for background information on the FRAUD being perpetrated upon people who don't know about the true nature of the banker vipers and thieves.
Debt collectors are LIARS and FRAUDS.
Scumbags -- ALL!
******************
Gadawg73, If you haven't heard:
“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, and the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”
Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS).
Carpenter recently cited in – Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)).
You have admitted that your work involves bank foreclosures, so, please publish the court name, location, and case number, for some of the cases where you have been "involved" in the successfull defense of someone in a bank foreclosure.
Such cases are public record. No privacy issues.
I'd like to read for myself how your "involvement" benefited someone in a bank foreclosure case.
In case you don't comprehend; the so-called "contract," is a "nullity" if there is no valid proof of the original wet-ink promissory note.
And not only that, if the so-called "contract," was founded in FRAUD, which it was, the so-called "contract," is, once again, null and void.
No evidence of the original, wet-ink promissory note, VOID Contract;
Fraud committed by the bank, non-disclosure, VOID Contract.
. . .
Background information and comprehension of the scam is necessary to be able to ask the right questions.
Never admit having account/card/relationship with the bank/credit card company. Make them PROVE it!
The banks cannot produce fact witnesses. Show me the evidence. Where's the note!
"I just don't recollect ever having such an account. Prove it" (Reagan/Bush defense).
Never traverse. Always ask the important questions of the one bringing the claim.
"They" (the bank/credit card company) have to PROVE use of a credit card with a personal knowledge fact witness.
Impossible. No proof of acceptance.
Research the rules of evidence, and the exceptions therefor, in the rules applicable to your jurisdiction.
Evidence of testimony of a cashier that witnessed use of a credit card is the only way to establish acceptance by use of such a card. No way a cashier could competently remember a single transaction at the checkout counter.
Papers can be fabricated, and are routinely fabricated by lawyer-liar-attorneys in such cases.
Banks/Credit card companies can't produce the original wet-ink note.
No evidence to link a "mark" to an account. (Unless you stupidly "confess.")
Accounts (credit accounts) are under UCC Article 3 which defines "account" for purposes of Article 3 at UCC 4-104 -
"Account" means any deposit or credit account with a bank, including a demand, time, savings, passbook, share draft, or like account, other than an account evidenced by a certificate of deposit;
Banks and credit card companies and collectors, routinely fabricate documents.
Perjured Affidavits. Do forensic analysis of such documents. Such documents can be ripped apart by identification of the perjury that will be found within them.
"Personal Knowledge" means a fact witness that actually observed an event with their own senses, (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste).
And not only that, the claimant must prove "STANDING" under UCC 3-301. The right to enforce the instrument. (See previous posts).
The statements made in the post above #62 (permalink) are for background information on the FRAUD being perpetrated upon people who don't know about the true nature of the banker vipers and thieves.
Debt collectors are LIARS and FRAUDS.
Scumbags -- ALL!
******************
Gadawg73, If you haven't heard:
“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, and the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”
Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 271, 274, 21 L. Ed 313 (1872) (SCOTUS).
Carpenter recently cited in – Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, Kansas S.Ct., No. 98,489, (August 2009)).
You have admitted that your work involves bank foreclosures, so, please publish the court name, location, and case number, for some of the cases where you have been "involved" in the successfull defense of someone in a bank foreclosure.
Such cases are public record. No privacy issues.
I'd like to read for myself how your "involvement" benefited someone in a bank foreclosure case.
In case you don't comprehend; the so-called "contract," is a "nullity" if there is no valid proof of the original wet-ink promissory note.
And not only that, if the so-called "contract," was founded in FRAUD, which it was, the so-called "contract," is, once again, null and void.
No evidence of the original, wet-ink promissory note, VOID Contract;
Fraud committed by the bank, non-disclosure, VOID Contract.
. . .
Last edited:
Ron Obvious
Rookie
- Mar 5, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 1
Svar, this is great stuff. We are currently fighting foreclosure in Connecticut and we are attacking them with the UCC. The lawyers are fit to be tied because they know we've got them by the balls.
Randy Kelton has some great material on this. "ruleoflawradio~DOT~com"
Next, we sue them in federal court for TILA violations. EVERY mortgage out there has at least one TILA violation which dissolves the mortgage.
Randy Kelton has some great material on this. "ruleoflawradio~DOT~com"
Next, we sue them in federal court for TILA violations. EVERY mortgage out there has at least one TILA violation which dissolves the mortgage.
I work for the banks. We go after dead beats.
Go up and down every street in this city and the For Sale signs of the bank owned homes are the ones we foreclosed on. Cherokee county, Ga. Go to Fulton county Ga. website and look up cases from all of the major banks and all of them that have raised your bogus defense have collapsed.
Same with your neighborhood.
Quit being a dead beat and pay your bills. Many lie, cheat and steal like you do and want to find a way to get away with it.
We punished our kids when they were young for such. It is a shame you were never taught right from wrong.
Go ahead with it Moe. Someone has scammed you. We will get your house.
If you spent as much time working to keep your home for your family as you do being a crook your irresponsible self would not be where you are.
I pity your family. Where do I make the donation for some food and clothing for them?
Carpenter v. Logan case law for dummies:
The latest precedent citing Carpenter is Beals v. Neddo and states:
"The doctrine is old and undisputable that the holder of negotiable paper, before maturity and without notice, takes it clear of equities between the original parties, and neither fraud or durress would invalidate it in it's hands"
Also cited in this decision was Sawyer v.Prickett
You have no standing with your Carpenter case.
Even on your BEST day you will not beat me. I know the law asI have to. Scammers are everywhere.
The latest precedent citing Carpenter is Beals v. Neddo and states:
"The doctrine is old and undisputable that the holder of negotiable paper, before maturity and without notice, takes it clear of equities between the original parties, and neither fraud or durress would invalidate it in it's hands"
Also cited in this decision was Sawyer v.Prickett
You have no standing with your Carpenter case.
Even on your BEST day you will not beat me. I know the law asI have to. Scammers are everywhere.
- Thread starter
- #68
. . .
HereÂ’s a logic flow for contemplation:
Lend:
To provide money to another for a period of time, usually with interest charge to be incurred by borrower. See also Loan. (BlackÂ’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed, p. 901 (BLD6-901)).
Loan:
A lending. Delivery by one party to and receipt by another party of sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest. Boerner v. Colwell Co., 21 Cal.3d 37, 145 Cal.Rptr. 380, 384, 577 P.2d 200. Anything furnished for temporary use to a person at his request, on condition that it shall be returned, or its equivalent in kind, with or without compensation for its use. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. V. Travelers Indem. Co., 58 Misc.2d 443, 295 N.Y. S.2d 983, 986.
“Loan” includes: (1) the creation of debt by the lender’s payment of or agreement to pay money to the debtor or to a third party for the account of the debtor; (2) the creation of debt by a credit to an account with the lender upon which the debtor is entitled to draw immediately; (3) the creation of debt pursuant to a lender credit card or similar arrangement; and (4) the forbearance of debt arising from a loan. Uniform Consumer Credit Code, § 3-106. (BLD6-936)
Provide:
To make, procure, or furnish for use, prepare. To supply; to afford; to contribute. (BLD6-1224).
Borrower:
He to whom a thing or money is lent at his request. “Borrower,” within automobile liability policy covering borrower of vehicle during loading and unloading, may be defined as someone who has, with permission of owner, temporary possession and use of property of another for his own purposes. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. V. American Emp. Ins. Co., Tex., 556 S.W.2d 242, 244. (BLD66-185).
Borrow:
To solicit and receive from another any article of property, money or thing of value with the intention and promise to repay or return it or its equivalent. If the item borrowed is money, there normally exists an agreement to pay interest for its use. In a broad sense the term means a contract for the use of money. The term may be used to express the idea of receiving something from another for one’s own use. The word “loan” is the correlative of “borrow.” (BLD6-185).
Conclusions from the foregoing definitions:
1. For a transaction to actually be a “loan,” the thing to be “loaned” must previously be in physical or legal possession of the “lender.”
2. For an individual to be classified as a “borrower,” he must, with permission, be in possession of, and have the use of, the property of another.
3. For a so-called “lending institution,” (“lender”) to “loan” money, such money must first be in the physical or legal possession of such “lender.”
4. If a so-called “lending institution,” (“lender”), used your signature on a note, to create the “money” which was then returned to you in a form of cash, check, account balance, whatever, you did NOT receive a “loan.”
Did the so-called “lending institution” disclose to you the information noted above when you were coerced to participate in the ongoing banking scam?
With the above information, do you think you might be inclined to ask for the bank/loan company/debt collector:
1. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate whether or not it is currently/presently in physical possession of the original, wet-ink promissory note; and
2. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate the present and current physical location of the original, wet-ink promissory note; and
3. Provide and attach an authenticated copy of the original, wet-ink promissory note, in its present and current condition; and
4. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate whether or not the original, wet-ink promissory note (Agreement) was deposited as cash in a banking industry account or “pool”; and
5. Provide evidence to validate the identity and ownership of any such account or “pool” into which the original wet-ink promissory note was deposited; and
6. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate the accurate amount of any cash, in any form of money, that was generated, or came into existence pursuant to the deposit of the original, wet-ink promissory note into any account; and
7. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate the identity of the current owner of the alleged account and the amount paid in any transaction involving the said promissory note with respect to said account; and
8. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the promissory note, if such note was sold, and presently in the possession of its present holder; and
9. Provide evidence (certified document(s)), related in any way, for all transactions related to and involving the original wet-ink promissory note identified above; and
10. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the promissory note, if such note was sold, and in the possession of its present holder, who is NOT <name of the original “lender”>; and
11. Provide a certified copy of the security agreement that created or provided for a security interest in the obligation; and
12. Provide a certified copy of the secured party's sworn affidavit stating that:
GLOSSARY OF RELEVANT TERMS
“Authentic”
Genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested. Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence. (“Black’s Law Dictionary,” 6th Ed., p. 132 (BLD6-132)).
“Authenticum”
In the civil law, an original instrument or writing; the original of a will or other instrument, as distinguished from a copy. (BLD6-133).
“Authentication”
The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed.Evid.Rule 901. (BLD6-132)
“Valid”
Founded on truth of fact; capable of being justified; supported, or defended; not weak or defective. (BLD6-1550)
“Verification”
Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. (BLD6-1561)
Law) (a) Confirmation by evidence. (b) A formal phrase used in concluding a plea. [1913 Webster]
“Verity”
Truth; truthfulness; conformity to fact. The records of a court “import uncontrollable verity.” (BLD6-1550)
“evidence”
upon oath either/or sworn statement, testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. (composed from definition of “evidence,” in (BLD6-555).
“personal knowledge,”
something which the witness actually saw or heard, as distinguished from something he learned from some other person or sources. (BLD6-873).
“prove”
to establish, to render or make certain. (BLD6-1224).
“show affirmative proof”
to make clear or apparent by evidence, to prove the truth of matters asserted as tends to establish them.
“show”
to make clear or apparent by evidence, to prove. (BLD6-1379).
“affirmative proof”
such evidence of the truth of matters asserted as tends to establish them. (BLD6-60).
. . .
HereÂ’s a logic flow for contemplation:
Lend:
To provide money to another for a period of time, usually with interest charge to be incurred by borrower. See also Loan. (BlackÂ’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed, p. 901 (BLD6-901)).
Loan:
A lending. Delivery by one party to and receipt by another party of sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest. Boerner v. Colwell Co., 21 Cal.3d 37, 145 Cal.Rptr. 380, 384, 577 P.2d 200. Anything furnished for temporary use to a person at his request, on condition that it shall be returned, or its equivalent in kind, with or without compensation for its use. Liberty Nat. Bank & Trust Co. V. Travelers Indem. Co., 58 Misc.2d 443, 295 N.Y. S.2d 983, 986.
“Loan” includes: (1) the creation of debt by the lender’s payment of or agreement to pay money to the debtor or to a third party for the account of the debtor; (2) the creation of debt by a credit to an account with the lender upon which the debtor is entitled to draw immediately; (3) the creation of debt pursuant to a lender credit card or similar arrangement; and (4) the forbearance of debt arising from a loan. Uniform Consumer Credit Code, § 3-106. (BLD6-936)
Provide:
To make, procure, or furnish for use, prepare. To supply; to afford; to contribute. (BLD6-1224).
Borrower:
He to whom a thing or money is lent at his request. “Borrower,” within automobile liability policy covering borrower of vehicle during loading and unloading, may be defined as someone who has, with permission of owner, temporary possession and use of property of another for his own purposes. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. V. American Emp. Ins. Co., Tex., 556 S.W.2d 242, 244. (BLD66-185).
Borrow:
To solicit and receive from another any article of property, money or thing of value with the intention and promise to repay or return it or its equivalent. If the item borrowed is money, there normally exists an agreement to pay interest for its use. In a broad sense the term means a contract for the use of money. The term may be used to express the idea of receiving something from another for one’s own use. The word “loan” is the correlative of “borrow.” (BLD6-185).
Conclusions from the foregoing definitions:
1. For a transaction to actually be a “loan,” the thing to be “loaned” must previously be in physical or legal possession of the “lender.”
2. For an individual to be classified as a “borrower,” he must, with permission, be in possession of, and have the use of, the property of another.
3. For a so-called “lending institution,” (“lender”) to “loan” money, such money must first be in the physical or legal possession of such “lender.”
4. If a so-called “lending institution,” (“lender”), used your signature on a note, to create the “money” which was then returned to you in a form of cash, check, account balance, whatever, you did NOT receive a “loan.”
a. YOU did NOT “borrow” anything;
b. YOU actually gave or “loaned” something of value to the bank/mortgage company/whatever;
c. YOU are actually the “lender”;
d. The bank/mortgage company/whatever; is actually the debtor;
e. The debtor is going to charge YOU interest and demand that YOU, the “lender,” pay to the debtor, the amount YOU “loaned” to the debtor, plus interest;
f. If YOU do not pay, the debtor will go to a judge, get a warrant, which will be given to a goon-with-a-gun, who will put the barrel of that gun in your face to take YOUR property;
b. YOU actually gave or “loaned” something of value to the bank/mortgage company/whatever;
c. YOU are actually the “lender”;
d. The bank/mortgage company/whatever; is actually the debtor;
e. The debtor is going to charge YOU interest and demand that YOU, the “lender,” pay to the debtor, the amount YOU “loaned” to the debtor, plus interest;
f. If YOU do not pay, the debtor will go to a judge, get a warrant, which will be given to a goon-with-a-gun, who will put the barrel of that gun in your face to take YOUR property;
i. that goon-with-a-gun will KILL YOU if you resist.
AinÂ’t it nice to live in America?
AinÂ’t it nice to live in America?
Did the so-called “lending institution” disclose to you the information noted above when you were coerced to participate in the ongoing banking scam?
With the above information, do you think you might be inclined to ask for the bank/loan company/debt collector:
1. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate whether or not it is currently/presently in physical possession of the original, wet-ink promissory note; and
2. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate the present and current physical location of the original, wet-ink promissory note; and
3. Provide and attach an authenticated copy of the original, wet-ink promissory note, in its present and current condition; and
4. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate whether or not the original, wet-ink promissory note (Agreement) was deposited as cash in a banking industry account or “pool”; and
5. Provide evidence to validate the identity and ownership of any such account or “pool” into which the original wet-ink promissory note was deposited; and
6. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate the accurate amount of any cash, in any form of money, that was generated, or came into existence pursuant to the deposit of the original, wet-ink promissory note into any account; and
7. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) to validate the identity of the current owner of the alleged account and the amount paid in any transaction involving the said promissory note with respect to said account; and
8. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the promissory note, if such note was sold, and presently in the possession of its present holder; and
9. Provide evidence (certified document(s)), related in any way, for all transactions related to and involving the original wet-ink promissory note identified above; and
10. Provide evidence (certified document(s)) of a valid assignment of the right to enforce the promissory note, if such note was sold, and in the possession of its present holder, who is NOT <name of the original “lender”>; and
11. Provide a certified copy of the security agreement that created or provided for a security interest in the obligation; and
12. Provide a certified copy of the secured party's sworn affidavit stating that:
(A) a default has occurred; and
(B) the secured party is entitled to enforce the mortgage.
(B) the secured party is entitled to enforce the mortgage.
GLOSSARY OF RELEVANT TERMS
“Authentic”
Genuine; true; real; pure; reliable; trustworthy; having the character and authority of an original; duly vested with all necessary formalities and legally attested. Competent, credible, and reliable as evidence. (“Black’s Law Dictionary,” 6th Ed., p. 132 (BLD6-132)).
“Authenticum”
In the civil law, an original instrument or writing; the original of a will or other instrument, as distinguished from a copy. (BLD6-133).
“Authentication”
The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility of evidence is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Fed.Evid.Rule 901. (BLD6-132)
“Valid”
Founded on truth of fact; capable of being justified; supported, or defended; not weak or defective. (BLD6-1550)
“Verification”
Confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition. (BLD6-1561)
Law) (a) Confirmation by evidence. (b) A formal phrase used in concluding a plea. [1913 Webster]
“Verity”
Truth; truthfulness; conformity to fact. The records of a court “import uncontrollable verity.” (BLD6-1550)
“evidence”
upon oath either/or sworn statement, testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. (composed from definition of “evidence,” in (BLD6-555).
“personal knowledge,”
something which the witness actually saw or heard, as distinguished from something he learned from some other person or sources. (BLD6-873).
“prove”
to establish, to render or make certain. (BLD6-1224).
“show affirmative proof”
to make clear or apparent by evidence, to prove the truth of matters asserted as tends to establish them.
“show”
to make clear or apparent by evidence, to prove. (BLD6-1379).
“affirmative proof”
such evidence of the truth of matters asserted as tends to establish them. (BLD6-60).
. . .
- Thread starter
- #69
. . .
Hey Gadawg73
The next time you want to “lawyer-up,” you might want to turn over a new leaf and tell the whole truth.
REFERENCE: Beals v. Neddo
The Beals v. Neddo case did NOT disturb the Carpenter decision. Do you know how to Shepardize a case?
A Kansas Circuit Court decision has not the power to overrule a United States Supreme Court decision. As is observed by the reference in the Landmark case. What law school did you get your certificate from?
The following was found online with a link to the PDF file to read it.
Beals v. Neddo, (Circuit Court, D. Kansas. February, 1880.)
Online URL: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F1/0002/0002.f1.0041.pdf
MORTGAGE— DURESS— ASSIGNEE WITHOUT NOTICE,— Duress is not available.
as a defence upon the foreclosure of a mortgage, where the note and mortgage were purchased before maturity, for value and without notice.
“As to the question whether the purchaser in good faith of a promissory note before maturity, who takes an assignment of a mortgage securing the same, takes the security as the note free of equities, is one upon which there is some conflict among the decided cases, but the great weight of authority is to the affirmative. It is sufficient for this court that the supreme court of the United States has so held. The security is but an accessory to the debt, and follows the note and takes the same character. Carpenter v. Logan, (sic) 16 Wall. 271, 275; Sawyer v. Pickett, 19 Wall. 147; 1 Jones on Mort. § 834, and cases cited.”
The actual citation is Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall. 271) 271 (1872)
Online Access: CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
It seems the people seeking foreclosure in Beals, were in physical possession of the promissory note.
A situation NOT found TODAY.
The Beals case is inapposite to the issues brought up in this thread, which is focused on people who are in trouble TODAY, because of the banking system scam.
***********
REFERENCE: Sawyer v. Prickett
U.S. Supreme Court
Sawyer v. Prickett, 86 U.S. (19 Wall. 146) 146 (1873)
Actual citation: Sawyer v. Prickett, 86 U.S. (19 Wall. 146) 146 (1873)
Online URL: SAWYER V. PRICKETT, 86 U. S. 146 (1873) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
"We have recently decided that the rule of bona fide holding applies to a case where the "proceeding is to foreclose a mortgage accompanying a note, with the same force as when the suit is brought upon the note itself." " [Footnote 3]
[Footnote 3] Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271. (emphasis added)
This case was about a scam in which hustlers coerced farmers to mortgage their farms to buy “stock.”
The people foreclosing on the farms actually were in possession of the promissory notes, to enforce the foreclosures.
Since then, and in many other cases, the courts have ruled according to the Carpenter decision, even as recently as the Landmark decision by the Kansas Supreme Court.
*******
Although it seems very easy to do so, I am NOT trying to defeat you.
Just presenting facts. If you cannot make a valid contribution, why donÂ’t you just be quiet?
If you DO post in this thread, please try to stay ON POINT with cases that are applicable to the situation in which a lot of people find themselves involved in — TODAY.
Your posts might then be of some value.
. . .
Hey Gadawg73
The next time you want to “lawyer-up,” you might want to turn over a new leaf and tell the whole truth.
REFERENCE: Beals v. Neddo
The Beals v. Neddo case did NOT disturb the Carpenter decision. Do you know how to Shepardize a case?
A Kansas Circuit Court decision has not the power to overrule a United States Supreme Court decision. As is observed by the reference in the Landmark case. What law school did you get your certificate from?
The following was found online with a link to the PDF file to read it.
Beals v. Neddo, (Circuit Court, D. Kansas. February, 1880.)
Online URL: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F1/0002/0002.f1.0041.pdf
MORTGAGE— DURESS— ASSIGNEE WITHOUT NOTICE,— Duress is not available.
as a defence upon the foreclosure of a mortgage, where the note and mortgage were purchased before maturity, for value and without notice.
“As to the question whether the purchaser in good faith of a promissory note before maturity, who takes an assignment of a mortgage securing the same, takes the security as the note free of equities, is one upon which there is some conflict among the decided cases, but the great weight of authority is to the affirmative. It is sufficient for this court that the supreme court of the United States has so held. The security is but an accessory to the debt, and follows the note and takes the same character. Carpenter v. Logan, (sic) 16 Wall. 271, 275; Sawyer v. Pickett, 19 Wall. 147; 1 Jones on Mort. § 834, and cases cited.”
The actual citation is Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. (16 Wall. 271) 271 (1872)
Online Access: CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
It seems the people seeking foreclosure in Beals, were in physical possession of the promissory note.
A situation NOT found TODAY.
The Beals case is inapposite to the issues brought up in this thread, which is focused on people who are in trouble TODAY, because of the banking system scam.
***********
REFERENCE: Sawyer v. Prickett
U.S. Supreme Court
Sawyer v. Prickett, 86 U.S. (19 Wall. 146) 146 (1873)
Actual citation: Sawyer v. Prickett, 86 U.S. (19 Wall. 146) 146 (1873)
Online URL: SAWYER V. PRICKETT, 86 U. S. 146 (1873) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
"We have recently decided that the rule of bona fide holding applies to a case where the "proceeding is to foreclose a mortgage accompanying a note, with the same force as when the suit is brought upon the note itself." " [Footnote 3]
[Footnote 3] Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271. (emphasis added)
This case was about a scam in which hustlers coerced farmers to mortgage their farms to buy “stock.”
The people foreclosing on the farms actually were in possession of the promissory notes, to enforce the foreclosures.
Since then, and in many other cases, the courts have ruled according to the Carpenter decision, even as recently as the Landmark decision by the Kansas Supreme Court.
*******
Although it seems very easy to do so, I am NOT trying to defeat you.
Just presenting facts. If you cannot make a valid contribution, why donÂ’t you just be quiet?
If you DO post in this thread, please try to stay ON POINT with cases that are applicable to the situation in which a lot of people find themselves involved in — TODAY.
Your posts might then be of some value.
. . .
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #70
. . .
Hey Gadawg73:
It is not surprising that creatures of your ilk work for banks.
Scum-bags like you, swoop in to take advantage of people who have been victimized by the banking system.
People who have been denied their income because of --- banksters.
Scum-bags, such as you, step up to "pick the bones" of the "bankster" victims, when they are most vulnerable, and broke.
When people have no knowledge of how to defend themselves, and no resources to pay for a valid defense from predators like you, when they are at their most vulnerable, instead of helping, you swoop down to "finish them off," and get them thrown into the street.
All in the name of FRAUD!
At the barrel of a gun!
What does your confession, "I work for the banks," say about you?
You are complicit in the scam, you are a willing accomplice!
Instead of seeking after the truth, you seek to uphold and defend the lie.
Your day of reckoning is near. It will come upon you as a thief in the night.
. . .
Hey Gadawg73:
It is not surprising that creatures of your ilk work for banks.
Scum-bags like you, swoop in to take advantage of people who have been victimized by the banking system.
People who have been denied their income because of --- banksters.
Scum-bags, such as you, step up to "pick the bones" of the "bankster" victims, when they are most vulnerable, and broke.
When people have no knowledge of how to defend themselves, and no resources to pay for a valid defense from predators like you, when they are at their most vulnerable, instead of helping, you swoop down to "finish them off," and get them thrown into the street.
All in the name of FRAUD!
At the barrel of a gun!
What does your confession, "I work for the banks," say about you?
You are complicit in the scam, you are a willing accomplice!
Instead of seeking after the truth, you seek to uphold and defend the lie.
Your day of reckoning is near. It will come upon you as a thief in the night.
. . .
- Thread starter
- #71
. . .
New "STOP FORECLOSURE" doc.
Easy access to the 16 page PDF file at Google Docs, this URL:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...TEtMjFmMS00NDU1LTg4NTMtOTU2ZTY3MmE1MjU4&hl=en
Doc Intro --
"STOP FORECLOSURES"
PRODUCE THE NOTE!
To recover on a promissory note, the note holder (the foreclosure claimant) must prove:
It is also true, in mortgage foreclosures, that any claim requires presentation of the “ORIGINAL” promissory note and general account and ledger statement. A claim of damages, to be admissible as evidence, must incorporate records such as a general ledger and accounting of an alleged unpaid promissory note. The person responsible for preparing and maintaining the account general ledger must provide a complete accounting which must be sworn to and dated by the person who maintained the ledger.
POOLING AND TRANCHE-ING
By the METHOD of pooling and tranche-ing, the “players” in the banking scam convert the original negotiable instrument to a non-negotiable “writing.” (See Article VIII, UCC).
Prior to “pooling and tranche-ing,” the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument, (NOTE), is deposited in the bank’s own deposit account, where the bank uses the Federal Reserve System authorized procedure of “deposit multiplication,” to create a cash deposit in the bank’s favor of 10-23 times the face value amount of the NOTE. (See Modern Money Mechanics; Two Faces of Debt). The bank separates the promissory note from the mortgage instrument, and deposits each as separate instruments to take advantage of the “deposit multiplier” TWICE for one transaction. e.g.:
1. “borrower” signs promissory note and mortgage agreement for purchase of a $100k property;
2. bank uses —
4. The bank then, cuts a check for $100k, to provide the newly created cash to the “borrower,” who is instilled with the false representation of an alleged “obligation” to pay back to the bank $100k PLUS interest, any fees, and penalties, while the bank walks away from the transaction table with a cool $2,105,000.00, for its own benefit.
5. Then, because the Federal Reserve has engineered the money system, and the “borrower’s” ultimate default on the transaction is guaranteed, default takes place;
The above scenario was made possible by “pooling and tranche-ing,” of the original wet-ink instruments, which means that when the so-called “lender,” the bank, sold and subsequently transferred physical possession of the original wet-ink note and mortgage agreement, which were negotiable instruments at the time of execution, the bank, received payment from the purchaser (“aggregator” of the “pool”
of the promissory note and mortgage agreement. ($205,000.00). The bank was then in receipt of “satisfaction of mortgage,” having been PAID, and then some. (Don’t forget the “Federal Reserve “deposit multiplier”. The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument, executed and issued by the so-called “borrower,” is satisfied in full.
The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument was then ALTERED by the purchaser (“aggregator” to become a NON-NEGOTIABLE writing, and thus, was no longer an “instrument,” within the meaning of that term under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
These circumstances, in and of themselves, VOID the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument. (Don't make claims, get the bank to make admissions about these matters and reveal the truth using appropriate questions in discovery).
Enforcement of the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument is now an impossibility. The original “writings” have been materially ALTERED into something to which the “issuer,” the so-called “borrower,” is NOT a party.
“A material alteration of a written contract by a party to it discharges a party who does not authorize or consent to the alteration, because it destroys the identity of the contract, and substitutes a different agreement for that into which he entered.” Mersman v. Werges and another, 112 U.S. 139, 5 S.Ct. 65, 28 L.Ed. 641 (1884). Online: 112 U.S. 139
A new obligation arises between the seller (the bank), and the buyer (??), separate and apart from the so-called “borrower.”
Further, the method calls for the proceeds of payment from one note to be used as collateral (cross collateralization) for another. This breaches the terms of the original wet-ink note which states that payments by the so-called “borrower” will be applied to what the “borrower” owes.
So, after “pooling,” “tranche-ing,” and alteration of the character of the original wet-ink writings, unknown “investor” in this scam receive “benefits” of multiple obligors plus insurance and credit default swaps and an investment grade rating that was obtained under false pretenses, without notification to the issuer of the original wet-ink NOTE, the so-called “borrower,” inhabiting the so-called, mortgaged property.
Cont'd here: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...TEtMjFmMS00NDU1LTg4NTMtOTU2ZTY3MmE1MjU4&hl=en
. . .
New "STOP FORECLOSURE" doc.
Easy access to the 16 page PDF file at Google Docs, this URL:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...TEtMjFmMS00NDU1LTg4NTMtOTU2ZTY3MmE1MjU4&hl=en
Doc Intro --
"STOP FORECLOSURES"
PRODUCE THE NOTE!
To recover on a promissory note, the note holder (the foreclosure claimant) must prove:
(1) the existence of the note in question; and
(2) that the party sued, signed the note; and
(3) that the plaintiff (the foreclosure claimant) is the owner or holder of the note; and
(4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note.
(2) that the party sued, signed the note; and
(3) that the plaintiff (the foreclosure claimant) is the owner or holder of the note; and
(4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note.
It is also true, in mortgage foreclosures, that any claim requires presentation of the “ORIGINAL” promissory note and general account and ledger statement. A claim of damages, to be admissible as evidence, must incorporate records such as a general ledger and accounting of an alleged unpaid promissory note. The person responsible for preparing and maintaining the account general ledger must provide a complete accounting which must be sworn to and dated by the person who maintained the ledger.
POOLING AND TRANCHE-ING
By the METHOD of pooling and tranche-ing, the “players” in the banking scam convert the original negotiable instrument to a non-negotiable “writing.” (See Article VIII, UCC).
"Tranche" is actually a French word meaning "slice" or "portion." The stock market investment scam, uses the term to describe a security that can be split up into smaller pieces and subsequently sold to investors.
Mortgage-backed securities (MBS), such as a collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO), can often be found in the form of a tranche. These securities can be partitioned based on their maturities and then sold to investors based on their preferences. (Credit Default Swaps (“CDSs” are the “insurance” for CMOs).
Mortgage-backed securities (MBS), such as a collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO), can often be found in the form of a tranche. These securities can be partitioned based on their maturities and then sold to investors based on their preferences. (Credit Default Swaps (“CDSs”
are the “insurance” for CMOs).Prior to “pooling and tranche-ing,” the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument, (NOTE), is deposited in the bank’s own deposit account, where the bank uses the Federal Reserve System authorized procedure of “deposit multiplication,” to create a cash deposit in the bank’s favor of 10-23 times the face value amount of the NOTE. (See Modern Money Mechanics; Two Faces of Debt). The bank separates the promissory note from the mortgage instrument, and deposits each as separate instruments to take advantage of the “deposit multiplier” TWICE for one transaction. e.g.:
1. “borrower” signs promissory note and mortgage agreement for purchase of a $100k property;
2. bank uses —
a. the promissory note as one (1) cash deposit, and
b. the mortgage agreement as (1) cash deposit for a total cash deposit into the bank’s own account of $200k, times 10 (deposit multiplier) equals $2M now on deposit in the banking system.
3. The bank THEN sells the two separated instruments at face value amount plus ~ 2.5%, another $2.05k is added to the bank’s newly created windfall of $2M ($2,205,000.00).b. the mortgage agreement as (1) cash deposit for a total cash deposit into the bank’s own account of $200k, times 10 (deposit multiplier) equals $2M now on deposit in the banking system.
4. The bank then, cuts a check for $100k, to provide the newly created cash to the “borrower,” who is instilled with the false representation of an alleged “obligation” to pay back to the bank $100k PLUS interest, any fees, and penalties, while the bank walks away from the transaction table with a cool $2,105,000.00, for its own benefit.
5. Then, because the Federal Reserve has engineered the money system, and the “borrower’s” ultimate default on the transaction is guaranteed, default takes place;
a. After default is declared, the CMOs, (Collateralized Mortgage Obligations) that had been issued and traded on the stock market at huge profits, would be declared in default, and
b. the insurance on the CMOs, known as CDSs (Credit Default Swaps) would be cashed in for another fabulous profit on the planned default.
b. the insurance on the CMOs, known as CDSs (Credit Default Swaps) would be cashed in for another fabulous profit on the planned default.
i. The CDSs were the instruments the government paid in the bailout. What a scam!
(A sweet deal, if you are an unconscionable, scum-bag banker).
The above scenario was made possible by “pooling and tranche-ing,” of the original wet-ink instruments, which means that when the so-called “lender,” the bank, sold and subsequently transferred physical possession of the original wet-ink note and mortgage agreement, which were negotiable instruments at the time of execution, the bank, received payment from the purchaser (“aggregator” of the “pool”
of the promissory note and mortgage agreement. ($205,000.00). The bank was then in receipt of “satisfaction of mortgage,” having been PAID, and then some. (Don’t forget the “Federal Reserve “deposit multiplier”. The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument, executed and issued by the so-called “borrower,” is satisfied in full.The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument was then ALTERED by the purchaser (“aggregator”
to become a NON-NEGOTIABLE writing, and thus, was no longer an “instrument,” within the meaning of that term under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). These circumstances, in and of themselves, VOID the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument. (Don't make claims, get the bank to make admissions about these matters and reveal the truth using appropriate questions in discovery).
Enforcement of the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument is now an impossibility. The original “writings” have been materially ALTERED into something to which the “issuer,” the so-called “borrower,” is NOT a party.
“A material alteration of a written contract by a party to it discharges a party who does not authorize or consent to the alteration, because it destroys the identity of the contract, and substitutes a different agreement for that into which he entered.” Mersman v. Werges and another, 112 U.S. 139, 5 S.Ct. 65, 28 L.Ed. 641 (1884). Online: 112 U.S. 139
A new obligation arises between the seller (the bank), and the buyer (??), separate and apart from the so-called “borrower.”
Further, the method calls for the proceeds of payment from one note to be used as collateral (cross collateralization) for another. This breaches the terms of the original wet-ink note which states that payments by the so-called “borrower” will be applied to what the “borrower” owes.
So, after “pooling,” “tranche-ing,” and alteration of the character of the original wet-ink writings, unknown “investor” in this scam receive “benefits” of multiple obligors plus insurance and credit default swaps and an investment grade rating that was obtained under false pretenses, without notification to the issuer of the original wet-ink NOTE, the so-called “borrower,” inhabiting the so-called, mortgaged property.
Cont'd here: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=...TEtMjFmMS00NDU1LTg4NTMtOTU2ZTY3MmE1MjU4&hl=en
. . .
Last edited:
How have you been victimized by the banks?
Did they force you to borrow the $?
Guess who owns 95% of the bank stock Moe? Pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman.
Those are the folks you are ripping off.
Why not sell your fancy car Moe and pay your house note? Your kids will thank you for it.
You have been fooled. None of your defenses are valid. Get over it. You learned a valuable lesson.
Pay your bills and keep your house.
Did they force you to borrow the $?
Guess who owns 95% of the bank stock Moe? Pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman.
Those are the folks you are ripping off.
Why not sell your fancy car Moe and pay your house note? Your kids will thank you for it.
You have been fooled. None of your defenses are valid. Get over it. You learned a valuable lesson.
Pay your bills and keep your house.
If you loaned your neighbor 100K at 5% and they did not pay I am sure you would accept arguments that they do not owe you the $.
You are a damn joke son. If you borrow the $ you have to pay it back. If you try a scam to avoid paying it YOU are the thief.
Not to mention a fraud also.
Keep it up. All we want is our collatreral which we are lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar on these days so you have fucked us out of 50% of the vaklue being a dead beat.
Be careful Moe. IRS and DA are right behind us. Do not worry about us as we are small potatoes. However, the DA will give you 10 years for fraud. You do not strike me as jail material.
RodISHI
Platinum Member
- Nov 29, 2008
- 25,786
- 11,301
- 940
Guess who loses those "pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman", granny's life savings and various others money in those banks? Banks have lied, stolen, altered documents, used creative accounting, stripped tax payer coffers and committed vast amounts of fraud and fraud in the inducement. I know this to be fact as it was done to me. They strip and rip off everyone they can with other people's money and retirement funds. They have teams of attorneys, bought and paid for judges and the victims do not have a chance in hell against these deep pocket hucksters. In my case it was not for some chump change $250,000.00 house. Once these con men convinced a judge to fully ignore evidence and banker testimony admitting wrong doing on the bank's part, they also took away two lawsuits where I was financially damaged. The major lawsuit the bank had dismissed after they took it away from me. The one thing I want to stress and make perfectly clear here is that the bank had no desire what so ever to have this loan paid back. Period... How do I know this, because one of the bank vice presidents testified that he could not say with any amount of certainty how much or even if I was in default at the time the bank claimed a default. He was merely "guesstimating". You can live in that perfect little cocoon you have wrapped yourself in and keep telling yourself that banks do not cheat people if you like. There are a hell of a lot of people out here that know different.
- Thread starter
- #75
. . .
Hey Gadawg73:
It is obvious to everyone that you are a scum-bag.
Why don't you reply with any actual validation for your position?
When people get the facts straight, about the banking scam, where will you hide?
Get your family to a secure, isolated location, now.
You have no argument when the facts are put to good use in the formulation of valid and relevant questions in discovery that will expose the scam.
Every time you open your mouth, (post in this thread), you insert both feet. Just be quiet. It is obvious that you have nothing to add.
With your knowledge, (maybe?), if you honestly analyzed the banking scam, you could do some good. I think that circumstance would be, for you, like the camel going through the eye of a needle.
. . .
Hey Gadawg73:
It is obvious to everyone that you are a scum-bag.
Why don't you reply with any actual validation for your position?
When people get the facts straight, about the banking scam, where will you hide?
Get your family to a secure, isolated location, now.
You have no argument when the facts are put to good use in the formulation of valid and relevant questions in discovery that will expose the scam.
Every time you open your mouth, (post in this thread), you insert both feet. Just be quiet. It is obvious that you have nothing to add.
With your knowledge, (maybe?), if you honestly analyzed the banking scam, you could do some good. I think that circumstance would be, for you, like the camel going through the eye of a needle.
. . .
- Thread starter
- #76
. . .
The hyperlink below is to a 7-page PDF file that shows a letter to Capital One.
The letter asks questions in a non-judicial format that will put the mortgage company on notice of what is coming if foreclosure/repossession is implemented with respect to an “account.”
Access: Google Docs
Use the supporting case law found in the doc at:
Google Docs
to get started with your own research into the banking scam.
. . .
The hyperlink below is to a 7-page PDF file that shows a letter to Capital One.
The letter asks questions in a non-judicial format that will put the mortgage company on notice of what is coming if foreclosure/repossession is implemented with respect to an “account.”
Access: Google Docs
Use the supporting case law found in the doc at:
Google Docs
to get started with your own research into the banking scam.
. . .
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #77
. . .
29-MAR-2010, 07:43 PM
Gadawg73
Svarstaad comments in bold type.
How have you been victimized by the banks?
Used in a continuing criminal enterprise to profit from theft of property by deception.
Did they force you to borrow the $?
“They” run the education system and everything else. Ultimately, in this country, the power resides with the People. When the knowledge is no longer suppressed, and the information is properly disseminated, your world of fraud will come crashing down.
Guess who owns 95% of the bank stock Moe? Pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman.
All blood-sucking government workers complicit in the scam for a paycheck.
Those are the folks you are ripping off.
Why not sell your fancy car Moe and pay your house note? Your kids will thank you for it.
You have been fooled. None of your defenses are valid. Get over it. You learned a valuable lesson.
YOU, Gadawg73, provide no validation or substantiation for your claims. YOU are a CARTOON!
Pay your bills and keep your house.
Keep chanting the “party line,” Gadawg73, sooner or later, someone will come along to cover you up, like the cat-shit that you are.
**************
29-MAR-2010, 07:47 PM
Gadawg73:
Svarstaad comments in bold type.
If you loaned your neighbor 100K at 5% and they did not pay I am sure you would accept arguments that they do not owe you the $.
If you found out that “your neighbor”
** created $100k out of thin air,
** falsely represented that the money was his,
** made you believe that he was making an actual “loan” of something he possessed before he knew that you desired to borrow some money,
** manufactured the money for the "loan" out of "thin air," at no cost to himself,
** that the “neighbor” was part of the “organization” responsible for making certain that you would inevitably default on the so-called “loan,” and
** that such neighbor would then employ goons–with-guns to force you to abandon your property so he could take possession and make another profit from his fraud,
** what would you do?
And, by the way, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bang their asses when they hop.
You are a damn joke son. If you borrow the $ you have to pay it back. If you try a scam to avoid paying it YOU are the thief.
You, Gadawg73, are the “damn joke son,” and a pathetic one, at that. The point being that no money was actually “borrowed.” You scum-bag.
Not to mention a fraud also.
You, Gadawg73, are the one acting in complicity with the banksters. That makes YOU the fraud. You scum-bag.
Keep it up. All we want is our collatreral which we are lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar on these days so you have fucked us out of 50% of the vaklue being a dead beat.
The banking system has become fabulously wealthy with the money scam. Pooling, tranche-ing, bailouts, the banking system has destroyed the entire WORLD. Do you think anyone has any sympathy for YOU?
Be careful Moe. IRS and DA are right behind us. Do not worry about us as we are small potatoes. However, the DA will give you 10 years for fraud. You do not strike me as jail material.
Making threats? The truth will come out! The torturers will be vanquished! Where do YOU want to be found.
. . .
29-MAR-2010, 07:43 PM
Gadawg73
Svarstaad comments in bold type.
How have you been victimized by the banks?
Used in a continuing criminal enterprise to profit from theft of property by deception.
Did they force you to borrow the $?
“They” run the education system and everything else. Ultimately, in this country, the power resides with the People. When the knowledge is no longer suppressed, and the information is properly disseminated, your world of fraud will come crashing down.
Guess who owns 95% of the bank stock Moe? Pension funds of retired school teachers and police, fireman.
All blood-sucking government workers complicit in the scam for a paycheck.
Those are the folks you are ripping off.
Why not sell your fancy car Moe and pay your house note? Your kids will thank you for it.
You have been fooled. None of your defenses are valid. Get over it. You learned a valuable lesson.
YOU, Gadawg73, provide no validation or substantiation for your claims. YOU are a CARTOON!
Pay your bills and keep your house.
Keep chanting the “party line,” Gadawg73, sooner or later, someone will come along to cover you up, like the cat-shit that you are.
**************
29-MAR-2010, 07:47 PM
Gadawg73:
Svarstaad comments in bold type.
If you loaned your neighbor 100K at 5% and they did not pay I am sure you would accept arguments that they do not owe you the $.
If you found out that “your neighbor”
** created $100k out of thin air,
** falsely represented that the money was his,
** made you believe that he was making an actual “loan” of something he possessed before he knew that you desired to borrow some money,
** manufactured the money for the "loan" out of "thin air," at no cost to himself,
** that the “neighbor” was part of the “organization” responsible for making certain that you would inevitably default on the so-called “loan,” and
** that such neighbor would then employ goons–with-guns to force you to abandon your property so he could take possession and make another profit from his fraud,
** what would you do?
And, by the way, if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bang their asses when they hop.
You are a damn joke son. If you borrow the $ you have to pay it back. If you try a scam to avoid paying it YOU are the thief.
You, Gadawg73, are the “damn joke son,” and a pathetic one, at that. The point being that no money was actually “borrowed.” You scum-bag.
Not to mention a fraud also.
You, Gadawg73, are the one acting in complicity with the banksters. That makes YOU the fraud. You scum-bag.
Keep it up. All we want is our collatreral which we are lucky to get 50 cents on the dollar on these days so you have fucked us out of 50% of the vaklue being a dead beat.
The banking system has become fabulously wealthy with the money scam. Pooling, tranche-ing, bailouts, the banking system has destroyed the entire WORLD. Do you think anyone has any sympathy for YOU?
Be careful Moe. IRS and DA are right behind us. Do not worry about us as we are small potatoes. However, the DA will give you 10 years for fraud. You do not strike me as jail material.
Making threats? The truth will come out! The torturers will be vanquished! Where do YOU want to be found.
. . .
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #78
. . .
Questions about the actual, present, physical location, of the original wet-ink note will make them howl for protection.
Become conversant with the Rules of Evidence, and the case law about same.
Upon OBJECTION to HEARSAY, and false affidavits, in Motions to STRIKE ---
Without CERTIFIED evidence properly before the Court, the banksters and debt collectors CANNOT PROVE THEIR CLAIM.
This is the reason debt collectors and banks cannot survive a well structured series of questions in the form of interrogatories.
Always OBJECT to UNCERTIFIED so-called "proof."
Lawyers cannot introduce evidence before the Court with their own words and writings.
Only a competent FACT witness with "PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE" can provide evidence before the court.
Somebody has to swear to observation of the event(s) to "prove" such.
***************
The following reveals the reason that all of those auto-loan, home-loan, credit card transaction notes and agreement are gone:
1. . . . The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument was ALTERED by the “aggregator,” when the original so-called “lender,” sold the note.
A negotiable instrument is an UNCONDITIONAL promise to pay.
2. . . . These circumstances, in and of themselves, VOID the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument.
3. . . Enforcement of the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument against the issuer, after alteration, is not possible. . . . the original “writings,” have been materially ALTERED into something to which the “issuer,” the so-called “borrower,” is NOT a party.
MERSMAN v. WERGES AND ANOTHER
4. . . . “A material alteration of a written contract by a party to it discharges a party who does not authorize or consent to the alteration, because it destroys the identity of the contract, and substitutes a different agreement for that into which he entered.” Mersman v. Werges and another, 112 U.S. 139, 5 S.Ct. 65, 28 L.Ed. 641 (1884). Online here.
< http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/112/112.US.139.html>
5. . . . After “pooling” and “tranche-ing,” (P&T) a new obligation arises between the seller (the bank), and the buyer (-?-unknown to the issuer-?-), separate and apart from the so-called “borrower.”
6. . . . Further, the procedure, P&T, calls for the proceeds of payment from one note to be used as collateral (cross collateralization) for another note in the “pool.” CONDITIONS. This attribute of changing the conditions inherent in the former promissory note and mortgage agreement (PN&MA) breaches the terms of the original wet-ink PN&MA which states that payments by the so-called “borrower” will be applied to the so-called “obligation.”
7. . . . So, after P&T, and alteration of the character of the original wet-ink PN&MA, unknown “investor(s)” in this scam receive “benefits” of multiple obligors plus insurance and credit default swaps and an investment grade rating that was obtained under false pretenses, without notification to the issuer of the original wet-ink PN&MA, the so-called “borrower,” inhabiting the so-called, mortgaged property.
8. . . . But, what the investor is holding is not the original PN&MA. He/she/it is holding a stream of revenue with multiple conditions. A conditional promise to pay is not a negotiable instrument. This circumstance was NOT within the meaning of the issuer’s “informed consent” to authenticate the original writing. What the issuer signed, in the midst of a cloud of non-disclosure, was NOT within his comprehension and therefore outside the pale of reasonable application of the term “INFORMED CONSENT.”
9. . . . Consequently, the only party on record as mortgagee or beneficiary with respect to the original PN&MA is the bank who:
. . . . 9.1. . . . has been paid in full as to principal, and
. . . . 9.2. . . . has been paid in full as to disclosed fees, and
. . . . 9.3. . . . has received undisclosed fees as well, and
. . . . 9.4 . . . . has charged-off the so-called “debt” after default declared, and
. . . . 9.5 . . . . has declared the “loss” in the default as a tax write-off, and
. . . . 9.6 . . . . has received insurance payment on the “loss.”
Where and how has the bank been injured?
10. . . . Because the bank failed to disclose all the facts relevant to the original transaction, and with the bank actually “shielding” the 3rd party purchaser of the PN&MA, the bank is actually falsely representing that it is standing as the real so-called “HOLDER,” whose identity and existence is being withheld from the so-called “borrower,” — big-time TILA violations.
. . .
Questions about the actual, present, physical location, of the original wet-ink note will make them howl for protection.
Become conversant with the Rules of Evidence, and the case law about same.
Upon OBJECTION to HEARSAY, and false affidavits, in Motions to STRIKE ---
Without CERTIFIED evidence properly before the Court, the banksters and debt collectors CANNOT PROVE THEIR CLAIM.
This is the reason debt collectors and banks cannot survive a well structured series of questions in the form of interrogatories.
Always OBJECT to UNCERTIFIED so-called "proof."
Lawyers cannot introduce evidence before the Court with their own words and writings.
Only a competent FACT witness with "PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE" can provide evidence before the court.
Somebody has to swear to observation of the event(s) to "prove" such.
***************
The following reveals the reason that all of those auto-loan, home-loan, credit card transaction notes and agreement are gone:
1. . . . The original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument was ALTERED by the “aggregator,” when the original so-called “lender,” sold the note.
The Wall Street crowd altered the original negotiable instrument
to a NON-NEGOTIABLE writing, encumbered by added conditions, and thus,
the original wet-ink issued note was no longer an “instrument,” within the meaning of that term under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
to a NON-NEGOTIABLE writing, encumbered by added conditions, and thus,
the original wet-ink issued note was no longer an “instrument,” within the meaning of that term under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
A negotiable instrument is an UNCONDITIONAL promise to pay.
2. . . . These circumstances, in and of themselves, VOID the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument.
3. . . Enforcement of the original wet-ink note and mortgage instrument against the issuer, after alteration, is not possible. . . . the original “writings,” have been materially ALTERED into something to which the “issuer,” the so-called “borrower,” is NOT a party.
MERSMAN v. WERGES AND ANOTHER
4. . . . “A material alteration of a written contract by a party to it discharges a party who does not authorize or consent to the alteration, because it destroys the identity of the contract, and substitutes a different agreement for that into which he entered.” Mersman v. Werges and another, 112 U.S. 139, 5 S.Ct. 65, 28 L.Ed. 641 (1884). Online here.
< http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/112/112.US.139.html>
5. . . . After “pooling” and “tranche-ing,” (P&T) a new obligation arises between the seller (the bank), and the buyer (-?-unknown to the issuer-?-), separate and apart from the so-called “borrower.”
6. . . . Further, the procedure, P&T, calls for the proceeds of payment from one note to be used as collateral (cross collateralization) for another note in the “pool.” CONDITIONS. This attribute of changing the conditions inherent in the former promissory note and mortgage agreement (PN&MA) breaches the terms of the original wet-ink PN&MA which states that payments by the so-called “borrower” will be applied to the so-called “obligation.”
7. . . . So, after P&T, and alteration of the character of the original wet-ink PN&MA, unknown “investor(s)” in this scam receive “benefits” of multiple obligors plus insurance and credit default swaps and an investment grade rating that was obtained under false pretenses, without notification to the issuer of the original wet-ink PN&MA, the so-called “borrower,” inhabiting the so-called, mortgaged property.
8. . . . But, what the investor is holding is not the original PN&MA. He/she/it is holding a stream of revenue with multiple conditions. A conditional promise to pay is not a negotiable instrument. This circumstance was NOT within the meaning of the issuer’s “informed consent” to authenticate the original writing. What the issuer signed, in the midst of a cloud of non-disclosure, was NOT within his comprehension and therefore outside the pale of reasonable application of the term “INFORMED CONSENT.”
9. . . . Consequently, the only party on record as mortgagee or beneficiary with respect to the original PN&MA is the bank who:
. . . . 9.1. . . . has been paid in full as to principal, and
. . . . 9.2. . . . has been paid in full as to disclosed fees, and
. . . . 9.3. . . . has received undisclosed fees as well, and
. . . . 9.4 . . . . has charged-off the so-called “debt” after default declared, and
. . . . 9.5 . . . . has declared the “loss” in the default as a tax write-off, and
. . . . 9.6 . . . . has received insurance payment on the “loss.”
Where and how has the bank been injured?
10. . . . Because the bank failed to disclose all the facts relevant to the original transaction, and with the bank actually “shielding” the 3rd party purchaser of the PN&MA, the bank is actually falsely representing that it is standing as the real so-called “HOLDER,” whose identity and existence is being withheld from the so-called “borrower,” — big-time TILA violations.
. . .
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #80
. . .
Banks in violation of National Banking Act.
Below is the statutory restriction on usurious interest. 12 U.S.C. § 85. (National Banking Act) (With emphasis added).
The maximum rate, by statute is 7% APR,
or
1% added to the current rate of interest charged on 90-day commercial paper (9DCP).
The Federal Reserve periodically, and at odd intervals, sets the interest rate on 9DCP.
See the certified table of the interest rates on 9DCP, from the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, Minnesota, uploaded to Google Docs:
<https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6KARWQjetg_M2YxMTQ5NTItZTdmMy00Y2IzLWE3YzMtYTYwNjdhMjc3ODkz&hl=en>
The rate changes from time to time shown in the table.
For instance:
1. Table Entry Date: 05/01/08 to 10/06/08 (~ 5 months, 5 days)
2. During the 5 month time period a national bank, subject to federal law, 12 U.S.C. § 85, could charge interest at:
The Primary and Secondary Discount Rates are charged depending on the banks status as a Primary or Secondary risk.
Did your credit card company charge you more in interest than allowed by statute during that time period?
If the credit card company is a national bank, or a subsidiary of a national bank, 12 U.S.C. § 86, mandates that the violation of 12 U.S.C. § 85,
If you file a lawsuit within 24 months of the occurrence, the bank has to pay you double the amount of all of the interest you were charged.
Dispute the debt amount owed. If the bank violates any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, (FCRA), (and they probably will fail to abide by the provisions of the FCRA), you can file suit under FCRA, with several counts of the Complaint alleging remedy for violation of the National Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. § 85. Just a threat of the lawsuit, (send them a sample copy of your impending lawsuit), will probably get you paid and your debt canceled.
**********************
National Banking Act
TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 85
12 U.S.C. § 85. Rate of interest on loans, discounts and purchases
Any association may take, receive, reserve, and charge on any loan or discount made, or upon any notes, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt, interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State, Territory, or District where the bank is located, or at a rate of 1 per centum in excess of the discount rate on ninety-day commercial paper in effect at the Federal reserve bank in the Federal reserve district where the bank is located, whichever may be the greater, and no more, except that where by the laws of any State a different rate is limited for banks organized under State laws, the rate so limited shall be allowed for associations organized or existing in any such State under title 62 of the Revised Statutes.
When no rate is fixed by the laws of the State, or Territory, or District, the bank may take, receive, reserve, or charge a rate not exceeding 7 per centum,
or
1 per centum in excess of the discount rate on ninety day commercial paper in effect at the Federal reserve bank in the Federal reserve district where the bank is located,
whichever may be the greater,
and such interest may be taken in advance, reckoning the days for which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt has to run.
The maximum amount of interest or discount to be charged at a branch of an association located outside of the States of the United States and the District of Columbia shall be at the rate allowed by the laws of the country, territory, dependency, province, dominion, insular possession, or other political subdivision where the branch is located. And the purchase, discount, or sale of a bona fide bill of exchange, payable at another place than the place of such purchase, discount, or sale, at not more than the current rate of exchange for sight drafts in addition to the interest, shall not be considered as taking or receiving a greater rate of interest.
*********
TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 86
12 U.S.C. § 86. Usurious interest; penalty for taking; limitations
The taking, receiving, reserving, or charging a rate of interest greater than is allowed by section 85 of this title, when knowingly done, shall be deemed a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon. In case the greater rate of interest has been paid, the person by whom it has been paid, or his legal representatives, may recover back, in an action in the nature of an action of debt, twice the amount of the interest thus paid from the association taking or receiving the same: Provided, That such action is commenced within two years from the time the usurious transaction occurred. (emphasis added).
. . .
Banks in violation of National Banking Act.
Below is the statutory restriction on usurious interest. 12 U.S.C. § 85. (National Banking Act) (With emphasis added).
The maximum rate, by statute is 7% APR,
or
1% added to the current rate of interest charged on 90-day commercial paper (9DCP).
The Federal Reserve periodically, and at odd intervals, sets the interest rate on 9DCP.
See the certified table of the interest rates on 9DCP, from the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, Minnesota, uploaded to Google Docs:
<https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6KARWQjetg_M2YxMTQ5NTItZTdmMy00Y2IzLWE3YzMtYTYwNjdhMjc3ODkz&hl=en>
The rate changes from time to time shown in the table.
For instance:
1. Table Entry Date: 05/01/08 to 10/06/08 (~ 5 months, 5 days)
Primary Rate 2.25%
Secondary Rate 2.75%
Secondary Rate 2.75%
2. During the 5 month time period a national bank, subject to federal law, 12 U.S.C. § 85, could charge interest at:
Primary Rate 2.25% + 1% (calculated APR of 13%) OR
Secondary Rate 2.75% + 1% (calculated APR of 15%)
Secondary Rate 2.75% + 1% (calculated APR of 15%)
The Primary and Secondary Discount Rates are charged depending on the banks status as a Primary or Secondary risk.
Did your credit card company charge you more in interest than allowed by statute during that time period?
If the credit card company is a national bank, or a subsidiary of a national bank, 12 U.S.C. § 86, mandates that the violation of 12 U.S.C. § 85,
"when knowingly done, shall be deemed a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon."
If you file a lawsuit within 24 months of the occurrence, the bank has to pay you double the amount of all of the interest you were charged.
Dispute the debt amount owed. If the bank violates any provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, (FCRA), (and they probably will fail to abide by the provisions of the FCRA), you can file suit under FCRA, with several counts of the Complaint alleging remedy for violation of the National Banking Act, 12 U.S.C. § 85. Just a threat of the lawsuit, (send them a sample copy of your impending lawsuit), will probably get you paid and your debt canceled.
**********************
National Banking Act
TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 85
12 U.S.C. § 85. Rate of interest on loans, discounts and purchases
Any association may take, receive, reserve, and charge on any loan or discount made, or upon any notes, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt, interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State, Territory, or District where the bank is located, or at a rate of 1 per centum in excess of the discount rate on ninety-day commercial paper in effect at the Federal reserve bank in the Federal reserve district where the bank is located, whichever may be the greater, and no more, except that where by the laws of any State a different rate is limited for banks organized under State laws, the rate so limited shall be allowed for associations organized or existing in any such State under title 62 of the Revised Statutes.
When no rate is fixed by the laws of the State, or Territory, or District, the bank may take, receive, reserve, or charge a rate not exceeding 7 per centum,
or
1 per centum in excess of the discount rate on ninety day commercial paper in effect at the Federal reserve bank in the Federal reserve district where the bank is located,
whichever may be the greater,
and such interest may be taken in advance, reckoning the days for which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt has to run.
The maximum amount of interest or discount to be charged at a branch of an association located outside of the States of the United States and the District of Columbia shall be at the rate allowed by the laws of the country, territory, dependency, province, dominion, insular possession, or other political subdivision where the branch is located. And the purchase, discount, or sale of a bona fide bill of exchange, payable at another place than the place of such purchase, discount, or sale, at not more than the current rate of exchange for sight drafts in addition to the interest, shall not be considered as taking or receiving a greater rate of interest.
*********
TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, SUBCHAPTER IV, § 86
12 U.S.C. § 86. Usurious interest; penalty for taking; limitations
The taking, receiving, reserving, or charging a rate of interest greater than is allowed by section 85 of this title, when knowingly done, shall be deemed a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon. In case the greater rate of interest has been paid, the person by whom it has been paid, or his legal representatives, may recover back, in an action in the nature of an action of debt, twice the amount of the interest thus paid from the association taking or receiving the same: Provided, That such action is commenced within two years from the time the usurious transaction occurred. (emphasis added).
. . .
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Democrats propaganda explained in simple sentences.- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
