THIS CAME THROUGH THE ROD CLASS GROUP
and they are now wining case after case. its simple; there is no case to start with.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW – BANK FRAUD
I have, through research, learned the following to be true and most likely applies to me,
which is the reason I have requested and demanded “the bank” to validate their claims
and produce pursuant to applicable law. This MEMORANDUM serves to support my
suspicions and identify criminal facts. The “bank” allegedly “loaned me their money”
when in reality they deposited (credited) my promissory note and used that deposit to
“pay my seller”. Source and reasoning after reviewing the original file clearly shows this
fact, which is the reason for the “bank” refusing and failing to validate and to produce as
stipulated by law. However, the truth is out and there is plenty of law backing up the fact
that the bank is criminal.
FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND CASES LAWFULLY DISMISSED (NOT LETTING
BANK FORECLOSE WITHOUT LAWFUL VALIDATION AND PRODUCTION) BY
THE COURTS DUE TO BANK'S FAILURE TO VALIDATE & PRODUCE AS
STIPULATED BY LAW AND COMMITTED “BANK FRAUD” AGAINST THE
BORROWER
FROM THE BAR ASSOCIATION'S OFFICIAL WEB SITE :... ”this Court has the
responsibility to assure itself that the foreclosure plaintiffs have standing and that subject
matter jurisdiction requirements are met at the time the complaint is filed. Even without
the concerns raised by the documents the plaintiffs have filed, there is reason to question
the existence of standing and the jurisdictional amount”. Over 30 cases are covered by
the BAR at:
http://www.abanet.org/rpte/publications/ereport/2008/3/Ohioforeclosures.pdf
1.
“A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . . . Bowen
v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US
682, 44 LED 637.
2.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Taylor - Mayer, J., Supreme Court, Suffolk County /
9/07
3.
American Brokers Conduit v. ZAMALLOA - Judge SCHACK 28Jan2008
Aurora Loan Services v. MACPHERSON - Judge FARNETI 1 1Mar2008
4.
“A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to
have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited,
which-would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v.
Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.
5.
“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its
credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.”' Farmers and
Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat 'l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.
6.
Bank of New York v. SINGH - Judge KURTZ 14Dec2007
7.
Bank of New York v. TORRES - Judge COSTELLO 11Mar2008
8.
Bank of New York v. OROSCO - Judge SCHACK 19Nov2007
Citi Mortgage Inc. v. BROWN - Judge FARNETI 13Mar2008
9.
“The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations
within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate
charters, and it probably is not invoked too often…. Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National
Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW
430.
"It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being
limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of
another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires . . ." Howard &
Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).
10.
“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United
States ...” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.
11.
American Brokers Conduit v. ZAMALLOA - Judge SCHACK 11 Sep2007
Countrywide Mortgage v. BERLIUK - Judge COSTELLO 1 3Mar2008
12.
Deutsche Bank v. Barnes-Judgment Entry
13.
Deutsche Bank v. Barnes-Withdrawal of Objections and Motion to Dismiss
Deutsche Bank v. ALEMANY Judge COSTELLO 07Jan2008
Deutsche Bank v. Benjamin CRUZ – Judge KURTZ 21May2008
Deutsche Bank v. Yobanna CRUZ - Judge KURTZ 21May2008
Deutsche Bank v. CABAROY - Judge COSTELLO 02Apr2008
Deutsche Bank v. CASTELLANOS / 2007NYSlipOp50978U/- Judge SCHACK
11May2007
14.
Deutsche Bank v. CASTELLANOS/ 2008NYSlipOp50033U/ - Judge SCHACK 14Jan
2008
15.
HSBC v. Valentin - Judge SCHACK calls them liars and dismisses WITH prejudice **
16.
Deutsche Bank v. CLOUDEN / 2007NYSlipOp5 1 767U/ Judge SCHACK 1 8Sep2007
17.
Deutsche Bank v. EZAGUI - Judge SCHACK 21Dec2007
Deutsche Bank v. GRANT - Judge SCHACK 25Apr2008
Deutsche Bank v. HARRIS - Judge SCHACK 05Feb2008
18.
Deutsche Bank v. LaCrosse, Cede, DTC Complaint
19.
Deutsche Bank v. NICHOLLS - Judge KURTZ 21May2008
Deutsche Bank v. RYAN - Judge KURTZ 29Jan2008
Deutsche Bank v. SAMPSON - Judge KURTZ 16Jan2008
20.
Deutsche v. Marche - Order to Show Cause to VACATE Judgment of Foreclosure – 11
June2009
21.
GMAC Mortgage LLC v. MATTHEWS - Judge KURTZ 10Jan2008
GMAC Mortgage LLC v. SERAFINE - Judge COSTELLO 08Jan2008
HSBC Bank USA NA v. CIPRIANI Judge COSTELLO 08Jan2008
HSBC Bank USA NA v. JACK - Judge COSTELLO 02Apr2008
IndyMac Bank FSB v. RODNEY-ROSS - Judge KURTZ 15Jan2008
LaSalleBank NA v. CHARLEUS - Judge KURTZ 03Jan2008
LaSalleBank NA v. SMALLS - Judge KURTZ 03Jan2008
PHH Mortgage Corp v. BARBER - Judge KURTZ 15Jan2008
Property Asset Management v. HUAYTA 05Dec2007
22.
Rivera, In Re Services LLC v. SATTAR / 2007NYSlipOp5 1 895U/ - Judge SCHACK
09Oct2007
23.
USBank NA v. AUGUSTE - Judge KURTZ 27Nov2007
USBank NA v. GRANT - Judge KURTZ 14Dec2007
USBank NA v. ROUNDTREE - Judge BURKE 11Oct2007
USBank NA v. VILLARUEL - Judge KURTZ 01Feb2008
24.
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. HAMPTON - Judge KURTZ 03 Jan2008
25.
Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer WITH PREJUDICE Judge Schack June2008
26.
Wells Fargo v. Reyes WITH PREJUDICE, Fraud on Court & Sanctions Judge Schack
June2008
27.
Deutsche Bank v. Peabody Judge Nolan (Regulation Z)
Indymac Bank,FSB v. Boyd - Schack J. January 2009
28.
Indymac Bank, FSB v. Bethley - Schack, J. February 2009 ( The tale of many hats)
29.
LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn - Appellate Division, Third Department (Pro Se)
30.
NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY DEUTSCHE BANK
FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE NOTE
31.
Whittiker v. Deutsche (MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS) Whittiker (PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION) Whittiker (DEFENDANT WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS
CO., LPA’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION) Whittiker (RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEARSON’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT ITS MOTION TO DISMISS)
32.
Novastar v. Snyder * (lack of standing) Snyder (motion to amend w/prejudice) Snyder
(response to amend)
33.
Washington Mutual v. City of Cleveland (WAMU's motion to dismiss)
34.
2008-Ohio-1177; DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons (SJ Reversed for lack of standing)
35.
Everhome v. Rowland
36.
Deutsche - Class Action (RICO) Bank of New York v. TORRES - Judge
COSTELLO 1 1Mar2008
37.
Deutsche Bank Answer Whittiker
38.
Manley Answer Whittiker
39.
Justice Arthur M. Schack
40.
Judge Holschuh- Show cause
41.
Judge Holschuh- Dismissals
42.
Judge Boyko's Deutsche Bank Foreclosures
43.
Rose Complaint for Foreclosure | Rose Dismissals
44.
O'Malley Dismissals
45.
City Of Cleveland v. Banks
46.
Dowd Dismissal
47.
EMC can't find the note
48.
Ocwen can't find the note
49.
US Bank can't find the Note
50.
US Bank - No Note
51.
Key Bank - No Note
52.
Wells Fargo - Defective pleading
53.
Complaint in Jack v. MERS, Citi, Deutsche
54.
GMAC v. Marsh
55.
Massachusetts : Robin Hayes v. Deutsche Bank
56.
Florida: Deutsche Bank's Summary Judgment Denied
57.
Texas: MERS v. Young / 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals - PANEL: LIVINGSTON,
DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.
58.
Nevada: MERS crushed: In re Mitchell
59.
"Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank's business
to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it
received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great
deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the
power would be the mother of panics, . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of
lending money, which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability
in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse.
Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248."
American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.
60.
"It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend
its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done." Federal
Intermediate Credit Bank v. L 'Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).
61.
"There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or
become an accommodation endorser." National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E
471.
62.
"A bank can lend its money, but not its credit." First Nat'l Bank of Tallapoosa v.
Monroe . 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.
63.
".. . the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that
it loans, not its credit." Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case
No.12, 642, 1039.
64.
"A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party
of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or
without interest." Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey,
155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.
65.
"The word 'money' in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper
money used as a circulating medium of exchange . . ." Lane v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133
SW 2d 75.
66.
"A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of
actual payment ..." Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.
67.
“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.”
Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.
68.
"A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393
69.
"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with
intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted
upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover
damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817.
70.
"Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is
no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations
effected by other acts." Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.
71.
“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several
considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether
written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the
considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C
Co.,147 Wis 559-572; 132 NW 1122.
72.
“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the
promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis
550, 279 NW 83.
73.
“It is not necessary for recision of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation
should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though
misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made
false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such
representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.
74.
"Each Federal Reserve bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its
region ..." Lewis v. United States, 680 F 20 1239 (1982).
HOW AND WHY THE BANKS SECRETLY AND QUICKLY
“SWITCH CURRENCY”
NOT FULFILL THE “LOAN AGREEMENT “(THE CONTRACT)
OBTAIN YOUR MORTGAGE NOTE WITHOUT INVESTING ONE CENT
TO FORCE YOU TO LABOR TO PAY INTEREST ON “THE CONTRACT “
TO REFUSE TO FULFILL “THE CONTRACT “
TO MAKE YOU A DEPOSITOR (NOT A BORROWER)
The oldest scheme throughout History is the changing of currency. Remember the
moneychangers in the temple (BIBLE)? "If you lend money to My people, to the poor
among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest”
Exodus 22:25. They changed currency as a business. You would have to convert to
Temple currency in order to buy an animal for sacrifice. The Temple Merchants made
money by the exchange. The Bible calls it unjust weights and measures, and judges it to
be an abomination. Jesus cleared the Temple of these abominations. Our Christian
Founding Fathers did the same. Ben Franklin said in his autobiography, "... the inability
of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands
of King George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the
revolutionary war.” The year 1913 was the third attempt by the European bankers to get
their system back in place within the United States of America. President Andrew
Jackson ended the second attempt in 1836. What they could not win militarily in the
Revolutionary War they attempted to accomplish by a banking money scheme which
allowed the European Banks to own the mortgages on nearly every home, car, farm,
ranch, and business at no cost to the bank. Requiring “We the People” to pay interest on
the equity we lost and the bank got free.
Today people believe that cash and coins back up the all checks. If you deposit $100 of
cash, the bank records the cash as a bank asset (debit) and credits a Demand Deposit
Account (DDA), saying that the bank owes you $100. For the $100 liability the bank
owes you, you may receive cash or write a check. If you write a $100 check, the $100
liability your bank owes you is transferred to another bank and that bank owes $100 to
the person you wrote the check to. That person can write a $100 check or receive cash.
So far there is no problem.
Remember one thing however, for the check to be valid there must first be a deposit of
money to the banks ASSETS, to make the check (liability) good. The liability is like a
HOLDING ACCOUNT claiming that money was deposited to make the check good.
Here then, is how the switch in currency takes place
The bank advertises it loans’ money. The bank says, "sign here". However the bank
never signs because they know they are not going to lend you theirs, or other depositor's
money. Under the law of bankruptcy of a nation, the mortgage note acts like money. The
bank makes it look like a loan but it is not. It is an exchange.
The bank receives the equity in the home you are buying, for free, in exchange for an
unpaid bank liability that the bank cannot pay, without returning the mortgage note. If
the bank had fulfilled its end of the contract, the bank could not have received the equity
in your home for free.
The bank receives your mortgage note without investing or risking one-cent.
The bank sells the mortgage note, receives cash or an asset that can then be converted to
cash and still refuses to loan you their or other depositors' money or pay the liability it
owes you. On a $100,000 loan the bank does not give up $100,000. The bank receives
$100,000 in cash or an asset and issues a $100,000 liability (check) the bank has no
intention of paying. The $100,000 the bank received in the alleged loan is the equity
(lien on property) the bank received without investment, and it is the $100,000 the
individual lost in equity to the bank. The $100,000 equity the individual lost to the bank,
which demands he/she repay plus interest.
The loan agreement the bank told you to sign said LOAN. The bank broke that
agreement. The bank now owns the mortgage note without loaning anything. The bank
then deposited the mortgage note in an account they opened under your name without
your authorization or knowledge. The bank withdrew the money without your
authorization or knowledge using a forged signature. The bank then claimed the money
was the banks’ property, which is a fraudulent conversion.
The mortgage note was deposited or debited (asset) and credited to a Direct Deposit
Account, (DDA) (liability). The credit to Direct Deposit Account (liability) was used
from which to issue the check. The bank just switched the currency. The bank demands
that you cannot use the same currency, which the bank deposited (promissory notes or
mortgage notes) to discharge your mortgage note. The bank refuses to loan you other
depositors' money, or pay the liability it owes you for having deposited your mortgage
note.
To pay this liability the bank must return the mortgage note to you. However instead of
the bank paying the liability it owes you, the bank demands you use these unpaid bank
liabilities, created in the alleged loan process, as the new currency. Now you must labor
to earn the bank currency (unpaid liabilities created in the alleged loan process) to pay
back the bank. What the bank received for free, the individual lost in equity.
If you tried to repay the bank in like kind currency, (which the bank deposited without
your authorization to create the check they issued you), then the bank claims the
promissory note is not money. They want payment to be in legal tender (check book
money).
The mortgage note is the money the bank uses to buy your property in the foreclosure.
They get your real property at no cost. If they accept your promissory note to discharge
the mortgage note, the bank can use the promissory note to buy your home if you sell it.
Their problem is, the promissory note stops the interest and there is no lien on the
property. If you sell the home before the bank can find out and use the promissory note
to buy the home, the bank lost. The bank claims they have not bought the home at no
cost. Question is, what right does the bank have to receive the mortgage note at no cost
in direct violation of the contract they wrote and refused to sign or fulfill.
By demanding that the bank fulfill the contract and not change the currency, the bank
must deposit your second promissory note to create check book money to end the fraud,
putting everyone back in the same position they where, prior to the fraud, in the first
place. Then all the homes, farms, ranches, cars and businesses in this country would be
redeemed and the equity returned to the rightful owners (the people). If not, every time
the homes are refinanced the banks get the equity for free. You and I must labor 20 to 30
years full time as the bankers sit behind their desks, laughing at us because we are too
stupid to figure it out or to force them to fulfill their contract.
The $100,000 created inflation and this increases the equity value of the homes. On an
average homes are refinanced every 7 1/2 years. When the home is refinanced the bank
again receives the equity for free. What the bank receives for free the alleged borrower
loses to the bank.
According to the Federal Reserve Banks’ own book of Richmond, Va. titled “YOUR
MONEY” page seven, “...demand deposit accounts are not legal tender...” If a
promissory note is legal tender, the bank must accept it to discharge the mortgage note.
The bank changed the currency from the money deposited, (mortgage note) to check
book money (liability the bank owes for the mortgage note deposited) forcing us to labor
to pay interest on the equity, in real property (real estate) the bank received for free. This
cost was not disclosed in NOTICE TO CUSTOMER REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW,
Federal Reserve Regulation Z.
When a bank says they gave you credit, they mean they credited your transaction
account, leaving you with the presumption that they deposited other depositors money in
the account. The fact is they deposited your money (mortgage note). The bank cannot
claim they own the mortgage note until they loan you their money. If bank deposits your
money, they are to credit a Demand Deposit Account under your name, so you can write
checks and spend your money. In this case they claim your money is their money. Ask a
criminal attorney what happens in a fraudulent conversion of your funds to the bank's
use and benefit, without your signature or authorization.
What the banks could not win voluntarily, through deception they received for free.
Several presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln believed that
banker capitalism was more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. U.S.
President James A. Garfield said, “Whoever controls the money in any country is
absolute master of industry and commerce."
The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank's book,”Modern Money Mechanics”, explains
exactly how the banks expand and contract the checkbook money supply forcing people
into foreclosure. This could never happen if contracts were not violated and if we
received equal protection under the law of Contract.
HOW THE BANK SWITCHES THE CURRENCY This is a repeat worded differently
to be sure you understand it. You must understand the currency switch.
The bank does not loan money. The bank merely switches the currency. The alleged
borrower created money or currency by simply signing the mortgage note. The bank
does not sign the mortgage note because they know they will not loan you their money.
The mortgage note acts like money. To make it look like the bank loaned you money the
bank deposits your mortgage note (lien on property) as money from which to issue a
check. No money was loaned to legally fulfill the contract for the bank to own the
mortgage note. By doing this, the bank received the lien on the property without risking
or using one cent. The people lost the equity in their homes and farms to the bank and
now they must labor to pay interest on the property, which the bank got for free and they
lost.
The check is not money, the check merely transfers money and by transferring money
the check acts LIKE money. The money deposited is the mortgage note. If the bank
never fulfills the contract to loan money, then the bank does not own the mortgage note.
The deposited mortgage note is still your money and the checking account they set up in
your name, which they credited, from which to issue the check, is still your money. They
only returned your money in the form of a check. Why do you have to fulfill your end of
the agreement if the bank refuses to fulfill their end of the agreement? If the bank does
not loan you their money they have not fulfilled the agreement, the contract is void.
You created currency by simply signing the mortgage note. The mortgage note has value
because of the lien on the property and because of the fact that you are to repay the loan.
The bank deposits the mortgage note (currency) to create a check (currency, bank
money). Both currencies cost nothing to create. By law the bank cannot create currency
(bank money, a check) without first depositing currency, (mortgage note) or legal tender.
For the check to be valid there must be mortgage note or bank money as legal tender, but
the bank accepted currency (mortgage note) as a deposit without telling you and without
your authorization.
The bank withdrew your money, which they deposited without telling you and withdrew
it without your signature, in a fraudulent conversion scheme, which can land the bankers
in jail but is played out in every City and Town in this nation on a daily basis. Without
loaning you money, the bank deposits your money (mortgage note), withdraws it and
claims it is the bank's money and that it is their money they loaned you.
It is not a loan, it is merely an exchange of one currency for another, they'll owe you the
money, which they claimed they were to loan you. If they do not loan the money and
merely exchange one currency for another, the bank receives the lien on your property
for free. What they get for free you lost and must labor to pay back at interest.
If the banks loaned you legal tender, they could not receive the liens on nearly every
home, car, farm, and business for free. The people would still own the value of their
homes. The bank must sell your currency (mortgage note) for legal tender so if you use
the bank's currency (bank money), and want to convert currency (bank money) to legal
tender they will be able to make it appear that the currency (bank money) is backed by
legal tender. The bank's currency (bank money) has no value without your currency
(mortgage note). The bank cannot sell your currency (mortgage note) without fulfilling
the contract by loaning you their money. They never loaned money, they merely
exchanged one currency for another. The bank received your currency for free, without
making any loan or fulfilling the contract, changing the cost and the risk of the contract
wherein they refused to sign, knowing that it is a change of currency and not a loan.
If you use currency (mortgage note), the same currency the bank deposited to create
currency (bank money), to pay the loan, the bank rejects it and says you must use
currency (bank money) or legal tender. The bank received your currency (mortgage
note) and the bank's currency (bank money) for free without using legal tender and
without loaning money thereby refusing to fulfill the contract. Now the bank switches
the currency without loaning money and demands to receive your labor to pay what was
not loaned or the bank will use your currency (mortgage note) to buy your home in
foreclosure, The Revolutionary war was fought to stop these bank schemes. The bank
has a written policy to expand and contract the currency (bank money), creating
recessions, forcing people out of work, allowing the banks to obtain your property for
free.
If the banks loaned legal tender, this would never happen and the home would cost much
less. If you allow someone to obtain liens for free and create a new currency, which is
not legal tender and you must use legal tender to repay. This changes the cost and the
risk.
Under this bank scheme, even if everyone in the nation owned their homes and farms
debt free, the banks would soon receive the liens on the property in the loan process. The
liens the banks receive for free, are what the people lost in property, and now must labor
to pay interest on. The interest would not be paid if the banks fulfilled the contract they
wrote. If there is equal protection under the law and contract, you could get the
mortgage note back without further labor. Why should the bank get your mortgage note
and your
labor for free when they refuse to fulfill the contract they wrote and told you to sign?
Sorry for the redundancy, but it is important for you to know by heart their “shell game”,
I will continue in that redundancy as it is imperative that you understand the principle.
The following material is case law on the subject and other related legal issues as well as
a summary.
LOGIC AS EVIDENCE
The check was written without deducting funds from Savings Account or Certificate of
Deposit allowing the mortgage note to become the new pool of money owed to Demand
Deposit Account, Savings Account, Certificate of Deposit with Demand Deposit,
Savings Account, and/or Certificate of Deposit increasing by the amount of the
mortgage note. In this case the bankers sell the mortgage note for Federal Reserve Bank
Notes or other assets while still owing the liability for the mortgage note sold and
without the bank giving up any- Federal Reserve Bank Notes.
If the bank had to part with Federal Reserve Bank Notes, and without the benefit of
checks to hide the fraudulent conversion of the mortgage note from which it issues the
check, the bank fraud would be exposed.
Federal Reserve Bank Notes are the only money called legal tender. If only Federal
Reserve Bank Notes are deposited for the credit to Demand Deposit Account- Savings
Account, Certificate of Deposit, and if the bank wrote a check for the mortgage note, the
check then transfers Federal Reserve Bank Notes and the bank gives the borrower a
bank asset. There is no increase in the check book money supply that exists in the loan
process.
The bank policy is to increase bank liabilities; Demand Deposit Account, Savings
Account, Certificate of Deposit, by the mortgage note. If the mortgage note is money,
then the bank never gave up a bank asset. The bank simply used fraudulent conversion
of ownership of the mortgage note. The bank cannot own the mortgage note until the
bank fulfills the contract.
The check is not the money; the money is the deposit that makes the check good. In this
case, the mortgage note is the money from which the check is issued. Who owns the
mortgage note when the mortgage note is deposited? The borrower owns the mortgage
note because the bank never paid money for the mortgage note and never loaned money
(bank asset). The bank simply claimed the bank owned the mortgage note without
paying for it and deposited the mortgage note from which the check was issued. This is
fraudulent conversion. The bank risked nothing! Not even one penny was invested. They
never took money out of any account, in order to own the mortgage note, as proven by
the bookkeeping entries, financial ratios, the balance sheet, and of course the bank's
literature. The bank simply never complied with the contract.
If the mortgage note is not money, then the check is check kiting and the bank is
insolvent and the bank still never paid. If the mortgage note is money, the bank took our
money without showing the deposit, and without paying for it, which is fraudulent
conversion. The bank claimed it owned the mortgage note without paying for it, then
sold
the mortgage note, took the cash and never used the cash to pay the liability it owed for
the check the bank issued. The liability means that the bank still owes the money. The
bank must return the mortgage note or the cash it received in the sale, in order to pay the
liability. Even if the bank did this, the bank still never loaned us the bank's money,
which is what 'loan' means. The check is not money but merely an order to pay money.
If the mortgage note is money then the bank must pay the check by returning the
mortgage note.
The only way the bank can pay Federal Reserve Bank Notes for the check issued is to
sell the mortgage note for Federal Reserve Bank Notes. Federal Reserve Bank Notes are
non-redeemable in violation of the UCC. The bank forces us to trade in non-redeemable
private bank notes of which the bank refuses to pay the liability owed. When we present
the Federal Reserve Bank Notes for payment the bank just gives us back another Federal
Reserve Bank Note which the bank paid 2 1/2 cents for per bill regardless of
denomination.
What a profit for the bank!
The check issued can only be redeemed in Federal Reserve Bank Notes, which the bank
obtained by selling the mortgage note that they paid nothing for.
The bank forces us to trade in bank liabilities, which they never redeem in an asset. We
the people are forced to give up our assets to the bank for free, and without cost to the
bank. This is fraudulent conversion making the contract, which the bank created with
their policy of bookkeeping entries, illegal and the alleged contract null and void.
The bank has no right to the mortgage note or to a lien on the property, until the bank
performs under the contract. The bank had less than ten percent of Federal Reserve Bank
Notes to back up the bank liabilities in Demand Deposit Account, Savings Account, or
Certificate of Deposit's. A bank liability to pay money is not money. When we try and
repay the bank in like funds (such as is the banks policy to deposit from which to issue
checks) they claim it is not money. The bank's confusing and deceptive trade practices
and their alleged contracts are unconscionable.
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES
The bank made the alleged borrower a depositor by depositing a $100,000 negotiable
instrument, which the bank sold or had available to sell for approximately $100,000 in
legal tender. The bank did not credit the borrower's transaction account showing that the
bank owed the borrower the $100,000. Rather the bank claimed that the alleged
borrower owed the bank the $100,000, then placed a lien on the borrower's real property
for $100,000 and demanded loan payments or the bank would foreclose.
The bank deposited a non-legal tender negotiable instrument and exchanged it for
another non legal tender check, which traded like money, using the deposited negotiable
instrument as the money deposited. The bank changed the currency without the
borrower's authorization. First by depositing non legal tender from which to issue a
check (which is non-legal tender) and using the negotiable instrument (your mortgage
note), to exchange for legal tender, the bank needed to make the check appear to be
backed by
legal tender. No loan ever took place. Which shell hides the little pea?
The transaction that took place was merely a change of currency (without authorization),
a negotiable instrument for a check. The negotiable instrument is the money, which can
be exchanged for legal tender to make the check good. An exchange is not a loan. The
bank exchanged $100,000 for $100,000. There was no need to go to the bank for any
money. The customer (alleged borrower) did not receive a loan, the alleged borrower
lost $100,000 in value to the bank, which the bank kept and recorded as a bank asset and
never loaned any of the bank's money.
In this example, the damages are $100,000 plus interest payments, which the bank
demanded by mail. The bank illegally placed a lien on the property and then threatened
to foreclose, further damaging the alleged borrower, if the payments were not made. A
depositor is owed money for the deposit and the alleged borrower is owed money for the
loan the bank never made and yet placed a lien on the real property demanding payment.
Damages exist in that the bank refuses to loan their money. The bank denies the alleged
borrower equal protection under the law and contract, by merely exchanging one
currency for another and refusing repayment in the same type of currency deposited. The
bank refused to fulfill the contract by not loaning the money, and by the bank refusing to
be repaid in the same currency, which they deposited as an exchange for another
currency. A debt tender offered and refused is a debt paid to the extent of the offer. The
bank has no authorization to alter the alleged contract and to refuse to perform by not
loaning money, by changing the currency and then refusing repayment in what the bank
has a written policy to deposit.
The seller of the home received a check. The money deposited for the check issued came
from the borrower not the bank. The bank has no right to the mortgage note until the
bank performs by loaning the money.
In the transaction the bank was to loan legal tender to the borrower, in order for the bank
to secure a lien. The bank never made the loan, but kept the mortgage note the alleged
borrower signed. This allowed the bank to obtain the equity in the property (by a lien)
and transfer the wealth of the property to the bank without the bank's investment, loan,
or risk of money. Then the bank receives the alleged borrower's labor to pay principal
and Usury interest. What the people owned or should have owned debt free, the bank
obtained ownership in, and for free, in exchange for the people receiving a debt, paying
interest to the bank, all because the bank refused to loan money and merely exchanged
one currency for another. This places you in perpetual slavery to the bank because the
bank refuses to perform under the contract. The lien forces payment by threat of
foreclosure. The mail is used to extort payment on a contract the bank never fulfilled.
If the bank refuses to perform, then they must return the mortgage note. If the bank
wishes to perform, then they must make the loan. The past payments must be returned
because the bank had no right to lien the property and extort interest payments. The bank
has no right to sell a mortgage note for two reasons. The mortgage note was deposited
and the money withdrawn without authorization by using a forged signature and; two,
the contract was never fulfilled. The bank acted without authorization and is involved in
a fraud thereby damaging the alleged borrower.
Excerpts From “Modem Money Mechanics” Pages 3 & 6
What Makes Money Valuable? In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits
have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits
merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less
than face value.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to
pay, or bank notes, to borrowers, in this way, banks began to create money. More notes
could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes
outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money
had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented
for payment.
Transaction deposits are the modem counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from
printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the
borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby "printing" their own money.
Notes, exchange just like checks.
How do open market purchases add to bank reserves and deposits? Suppose the Federal
Reserve System, through its trading desk at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
buys $10,000 of Treasury bills from a dealer in U.S. government securities. In today's
world of Computer financial transactions, the Federal Reserve Bank pays for the
securities with an "electronic" check drawn on itself. Via its "Fedwire" transfer network,
the Federal Reserve notifies the dealer's designated bank (Bank A) that payment for the
securities should be credited to (deposited in) the dealer's account at Bank A. At the
same time, Bank A's reserve account at the Federal Reserve is credited for the amount of
the securities purchased. The Federal Reserve System has added $10,000 of securities to
its assets, which it has paid for, in effect, by creating a liability on itself in the form of
bank reserve balances. These reserves on Bank A's books are matched by $10,000 of the
dealer's deposits that did not exist before.
If business is active, the banks with excess reserves probably will have opportunities to
loan the $9,000. Of course, they do not really pay out loans from money they receive as
deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when
they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to tile borrower's
transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000.
Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new
additions to the total deposits of the banking system.
PROOF BANKS DEPOSIT NOTES AND ISSUE BANK CHECKS. THE CHECKS
ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE PROMISSORY NOTE. NEARLY ALL BANK
CHECKS ARE CREATED FROM PRIVATE NOTES. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
NOTES ARE A PRIVATE CORPORATE NOTE (Chapter 48, 48 Stat 112) WE USE
NOTES TO DISCHARGE NOTES.
Excerpt from booklet Your Money, page 7: Other M1 Money
While demand deposits, traveler’s checks, and interest-bearing accounts with unlimited
checking authority are not legal tender, they are usually acceptable in payment for
purchases of goods and services.
The booklet, “Your Money”, is distributed free of charge. Additional copies may be
obtained by writing to: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Public Services Department
P.O. Box 27622 Richmond, Virginia 23261
CREDIT LOANS AND VOID CONTRACTS: CASE LAW
75.
“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its
credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.”' Farmers and
Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat 'l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.
76.
"A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . . . Bowen
v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US
682, 44 LED 637.
77.
“The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations
within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate
charters, and it probably is not invoked too often .. .” Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First
National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank,
194 NW 430.
78.
“A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to
have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited,
which-would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v.
Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.
79.
"It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being
limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of
another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires . . ." Howard &
Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).
80.
“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United
States ...” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.
81.
"Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank's business
to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it
received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great
deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the
power would be the mother of panics . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of
lending money, which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability
in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse.
Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee,
Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248." American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank,
194 NW 429.
82.
"It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend
its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done." Federal
Intermediate Credit Bank v. L 'Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).
83.
"There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or
become an accommodation endorser." National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E
471.
84.
"A bank can lend its money, but not its credit." First Nat'l Bank of Tallapoosa v.
Monroe . 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.
85.
".. . the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that
it loans, not its credit." Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case
No.12, 642, 1039.
86.
"A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party
of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or
without interest." Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey,
155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.
87.
"The word 'money' in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper
money used as a circulating medium of exchange . . ." Lane v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133
SW 2d 75.
88.
"A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of
actual payment ..." Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.
89.
“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.”
Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.
90.
"A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393.
91.
"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with
intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted
upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover
damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co.. 92 F 26 817.
92.
"Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is
no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations
effected by other acts." Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.
93.
“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several
considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether
written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which
one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies
L & C Co., 147 Wis 559. 572; 132 NW 1122.
94.
“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the
promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis
550, 279 NW 83.
95.
“It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the
misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even
though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one
who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced
by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.
96.
"Each Federal Reserve bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its
region ..." Lewis v. United States, 680 F 20 1239 (1982).
97.
In a Debtor's RICO action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an
unlawful debt, an interest rate (where all loan charges were added together) that
exceeded, in the language of the RICO Statute, "twice the enforceable rate." The Court
found no reason to impose a requirement that the Plaintiff show that the Defendant had
been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a "loan sharking" operation. The
debt included the fact that exaction of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful
and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil RICO action. Durante Bros. & Sons,
Inc. v. Flushing Nat 'l Bank. 755 F2d 239, Cert. denied, 473 US 906 (1985).
98.
The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action need establish only a
criminal "violation" and not a criminal conviction. Further, the Court held that the
Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate
offense in such a way as to constitute a "pattern of Racketeering activity." That is, the
Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster
in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering
injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires. The
RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to
effect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute. Sedima, SPRL v.
Imrex Co., 473 US 479 (1985).
DEFINITIONS TO KNOW WHEN EXAMINING A BANK CONTRACT
BANK ACCOUNT: A sum of money placed with a bank or banker, on deposit, by a
customer, and subject to be drawn out on the latter's check.
BANK: whose business it is to receive money on deposit, cash checks or drafts, discount
commercial paper, make loans and issue promissory notes payable to bearer, known as
bank notes.
BANK CREDIT: A credit with a bank by which, on proper credit rating or proper
security given to the bank, a person receives liberty to draw to a certain extent agreed
upon.
BANK DEPOSIT: Cash, checks or drafts placed with the bank for credit to depositor's
account. Placement of money in bank, thereby, creating contract between bank and
depositors.
DEMAND DEPOSIT: The right to withdraw deposit at any time.
BANK DEPOSITOR: One who delivers to, or leaves with a bank a sum of money
subject to his order.
BANK DRAFT: A check, draft or other form of payment.
ANK OF ISSUE: Bank with the authority to issue notes which are intended to circulate
as currency.
LOAN: Delivery by one party to, and receipt by another party, a sum of money upon
agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest.
CONSIDERATION: The inducement to a contract. The cause, motive, price or
impelling influences, which induces a contracting, party to enter into a contract. The
reason, or material cause of a contract.
CHECK: A draft drawn upon a bank and payable on demand, signed by the maker or
drawer, containing an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum in money to the order
of the payee. The Federal Reserve Board defines a check as, "...a draft or order upon a
bank or banking house purporting to be drawn upon a deposit of funds for the payment
at all events of, a certain sum of money to a certain person therein named, or to him or
his order, or to bearer and payable instantly on demand of."
QUESTIONS ONE MIGHT ASK THE BANK IN AN INTERROGATORY
Did the bank loan gold or silver to the alleged borrower?
Did the bank loan credit to the alleged borrower?
Did the borrower sign any agreement with the bank, which prevents the borrower from
repaying the bank in credit?
Is it true that your bank creates check book money when the bank grants loans, simply
by adding deposit dollars to accounts on the bank's books, in exchange, for the
borrower's mortgage note?
Has your bank, at any time, used the borrower's mortgage note, "promise to pay", as a
deposit on the bank's books from which to issue bank checks to the borrower?
At the time of the loan to the alleged borrower, was there one dollar of Federal Reserve
Bank Notes in the bank's possession for every dollar owed in Savings Accounts,
Certificates of Deposits and check Accounts (Demand Deposit Accounts) for every
dollar of the loan?
According to the bank's policy, is a promise to pay money the equivalent of money?
Does the bank have a policy to prevent the borrower from discharging the mortgage note
in "like kind funds" which the bank deposited from which to issue the check?
Does the bank have a policy of violating the Deceptive Trade Practices Act?
When the bank loan officer talks to the borrower, does the bank inform the borrower that
the bank uses the borrowers mortgage note to create the very money the bank loans out
to the borrower?
Does the bank have a policy to show the same money in two separate places at the same
time?
Does the bank claim to loan out money or credit from savings and certificates of
deposits while never reducing the amount of money or credit from savings accounts or
certificates of deposits, which customers can withdraw from?
Using the banking practice in place at the time the loan was made, is it theoretically
possible for the bank to have loaned out a percentage of the Savings Accounts and
Certificates of Deposits?
If the answer is "no" to question #13, explain why the answer is no.
In regards to question #13, at the time the loan was made, were there enough Federal
Reserve Bank Notes on hand at the bank to match the figures represented by every
Savings Account and Certificate of Deposit and checking Account (Demand Deposit
Account)?
Does the bank have to obey, the laws concerning, Commercial Paper; Commercial
Transactions, Commercial Instruments, and Negotiable Instruments?
Did the bank lend the borrower the bank's assets, or the bank's liabilities?
What is the complete name of the banking entity, which employs you, and in what
jurisdiction is the bank chartered?
What is the bank's definition of "Loan Credit"?
Did the bank use the borrowers assumed mortgage note to create new bank money,
which
did not exist before the assumed mortgage note was signed?
Did the bank take money from any Demand Deposit Account (DDA), Savings Account
(SA), or a Certificate of Deposit (CD), or any combination of any Demand Deposit
Account, Savings Account or Certificate of Deposit, and loan this money to the
borrower?
Did the bank replace the money or credit, which it loaned to the borrower with the
borrower's assumed mortgage note?
Did the bank take a bank asset called money, or the credit used as collateral for
customers' bank deposits, to loan this money to the borrower, and/or did the bank use the
borrower's note to replace the asset it loaned to the borrower?
Did the money or credit, which the bank claims to have loaned to the borrower, come
from deposits of money or credit made by the bank's customers, excluding the
borrower's assumed mortgage note?
Considering the balance sheet entries of the bank's loan of money or credit to the
borrower, did the bank directly decrease the customer deposit accounts (i.e. Demand
Deposit Account, Savings Account, and Certificate of Deposit) for the amount of the
loan?
Describe the bookkeeping entries referred to in question #13.
Did the bank's bookkeeping entries to record the loan and the borrower's assumed
mortgage note ever, at any time, directly decrease the amount of money or credit from
any specific bank customer's deposit account?
Does the bank have a policy or practice to work in cooperation with other banks or
financial institutions use borrower's mortgage note as collateral to create an offsetting
amount of new bank money or credit or check book money or Demand Deposit Account
generally to equal the amount of the alleged loan?
Regarding the borrowers assumed mortgage loan, give the name of the account which
was debited to record the mortgage.
Regarding the bookkeeping entry referred to in Interrogatory #17, state the name and
purpose of the account, which was credited.
When the borrower's assumed mortgage note was debited as a bookkeeping entry, was
the offsetting entry a credit account?
Regarding the initial bookkeeping entry to record the borrower's assumed mortgage note
and the assumed loan to the borrower, was the bookkeeping entry credited for the money
loaned to the borrower, and was this credit offset by a debit to record the borrower's
assumed mortgage note?
Does the bank currently or has it ever at anytime used the borrower's assumed mortgage
note as money to cover the bank's liabilities referred to above, i.e. Demand Deposit
Account, Savings Account and Certificate of Deposit?
When the assumed loan was made to the borrower, did the bank have every Demand
Deposit Account, Savings Account, and Certificate of Deposit backed up by Federal
Reserve Bank Notes on hand at the bank?
Does the bank have an established policy and practice to emit bills of credit which it
creates upon its books at the time of making a loan agreement and issuing money or socalled
money of credit, to its borrowers?
SUMMARY
The bank advertised it would loan money, which is backed by legal tender. Is not that
what the symbol $ means? Is that not what the contract said? Do you not know there is
no agreement or contract in the absence of mutual consent? The bank may say that they
gave you a check, you owe the bank money. This information shows you that the check
came from the money the alleged borrower provided and the bank never loaned any
money from other depositors.
I’ve shown you the law and the bank’s own literature to prove my case. All the bank did
was trick you. They get your mortgage note without investing one cent, by making you a
depositor and not a borrower. The key to the puzzle is, the bank did not sign the contract.
If they did they must loan you the money. If they did not sign it, chances are, they
deposited the mortgage note in a checking account and used it to issue a check without
ever loaning you money or the bank investing one cent.
Our Nation, along with every State of the Union, entered into Bankruptcy, in 1933. This
changes the law from "gold and silver” legal money and “common law” to the law of
bankruptcy. Under Bankruptcy law the mortgage note acts like money. Once you sign
the mortgage note it acts like money. The bankers now trick you into thinking they
loaned you legal tender, when they never loaned you any of their money.
The trick is they made you a depositor instead of a borrower. They deposited your
mortgage note and issued a bank check. Neither the mortgage note nor the check is legal
tender. The mortgage note and the check are now money created that never existed,
prior. The bank got your mortgage note for free without loaning you money, and sold the
mortgage note to make the bank check appear legal. The borrower provided the legal
tender, which the bank gave back in the form of a check. If the bank loaned legal tender,
as the contract says, for the bank to legally own the mortgage note, then the people
would still own the homes, farms, businesses and cars, nearly debt free and pay little, if
any interest. By the banks not fulfilling the contract by loaning legal tender, they make
the alleged borrower, a depositor. This is a fraudulent conversion of the mortgage note.
A Fraud is a felony.
The bank had no intent to loan, making it promissory fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and a
list of other crimes a mile long. How can they make a felony, legal? They cannot! Fraud
is fraud!
The banks deposit your mortgage note in a checking account. The deposit becomes the
bank’s property. They withdraw money without your signature, and call the money, the
banks money that they loaned to you. The bank forgot one thing. If the bank deposits
your mortgage note, then the bank must credit your checking account claiming the bank
owes you $100,000 for the $100,000 mortgage note deposited. The credit of $100,000
the bank owes you for the deposit allows you to write a check or receive cash. They did
not tell you they deposited the money, and they forget to tell you that the $100,000 is
money the banks owe you, not what you owe the bank. You lost $100,000 and the bank
gained $100,000. For the $100,000 the bank gained, the bank received government
bonds or cash of $100,000 by selling the mortgage note. For the loan, the bank received
$100,000 cash, the bank did not give up $100,000.
Anytime the bank receives a deposit, the bank owes you the money. You do not owe the
bank the money.
If you or I deposit anyone's negotiable instrument without a contract authorizing it, and
withdraw the money claiming it is our money, we would go to jail. If it was our policy to
violate a contract, we could go to jail for a very long time. You agreed to receive a loan,
not to be a depositor and have the bank receive the deposit for free. What the bank got
for free (lien on real property) you lost and now must pay with interest.
If the bank loaned us legal tender (other depositors’ money) to obtain the mortgage note
the bank could never obtain the lien on the property for free. By not loaning their money,
but instead depositing the mortgage note the bank creates inflation, which costs the
consumer money. Plus the economic loss of the asset, which the bank received for free,
in direct violation of any signed agreement.
We want equal protection under the law and contract, and to have the bank fulfill the
contract or return the mortgage note. We want the judges, sheriffs, and lawmakers to
uphold their oath of office and to honor and uphold the founding fathers U.S.
Constitution. Is this too much to ask?
What is the mortgage note? The mortgage note represents your future loan payments. A
promise to pay the money the bank loaned you. What is a lien? The lien is a security on
the property for the money loaned.
How can the bank promise to pay money and then not pay? How can they take a
promise to pay and call it money and then use it as money to purchase the future
payments of money at interest. Interest is the compensation allowed by law or fixed by
the parties for the use or forbearance of borrowed money. The bank never invested any
money to receive your mortgage note. What is it they are charging interest on?
The bank received an asset. They never gave up an asset. Did they pay interest on the
money they received as a deposit? A check issued on a deposit received from the
borrower cost the bank nothing? Where did the money come from that the bank invested
to charge interest on?
The bank may say we received a benefit. What benefit? Without their benefit we would
receive equal protection under the law, which would mean we did not need to give up an
asset or pay interest on our own money! Without their benefit we would be free and not
enslaved. We would have little debt and interest instead of being enslaved in debt and
interest. The banks broke the contract, which they never intended to fulfill in the first
place. We got a check and a house, while they received a lien and interest for free,
through a broken contract, while we got a debt and lost our assets and our country. The
benefit is the banks, who have placed liens on nearly every asset in the nation, without
costing the bank one cent. Inflation and working to pay the bank interest on our own
money is the benefit. Some benefit!
What a Shell Game. The Following case was an actual trial concerning the issues we
have covered. The Judge was extraordinary in-that he had a grasp of the Constitution
that I haven’t seen often enough in our courts. This is the real thing, absolutely true. This
case was reviewed by the Minnesota Supreme Court on their own motion. The last thing
in the world that the Bankers and the Judges wanted was case law against the Bankers.
However, this case law is real.
_______________________________________________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN JUSTICE COURT COUNTY OF SCOTT TOWNSHIP
OF CREDIT RIVER
)MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE
FIRST BANK OF MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, ) CASE NO: 19144
Vs. ) JUDGMENT AND DECREE
Jerome Daly, Defendant. )
The above entitled action came on before the court and a jury of 12 on December 7,
1968 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was
represented by its Counsel Theodore R. Mellby, Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
A jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in this case.
Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for plaintiff and defendant testified as
the only witness in his own behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of lot
19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed titled to the Real Property in
question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which plaintiff
claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started. Defendant
appeared and answered that the plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own
books by bookkeeping entry as the legal failure of consideration for the Mortgage Deed
and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff. The issues tried to the jury
were
whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights
to complain about the consideration having paid on the note for almost 3 years. Mr.
Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was
created upon their books that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank
in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank,
further that he knew of no United States Statute of Law that gave the Plaintiff the
authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book
created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain
about the consideration and that Defendant was estopped from doing so. At 12:15 on
December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant. Now
therefore by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of
Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution and laws of the State Minnesota not inconsistent therewith.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott
County, Minnesota according to the plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
That because of failure of a lawful consideration the note and Mortgage dated May 8,
1964 are null and void.
That the Sheriffs sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and
void, of no effect.
That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said premises or lien thereon, as is above
described.
That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute limiting the
Jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the
Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has
Jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this cause.
That Defendant is awarded costs in the sum of $75.00 and execution is hereby issued
therefore.
A 10 day stay is granted.
The following memorandum and any supplemental memorandum made and filed by this
Court in support of this judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.
BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1969
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Justice of the Peace Credit River Township Scott County, Minnesota
MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on the facts for the
jury to resolve. Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank
of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes because of their interlocking activity
and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the laws of the
United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the
entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its
From the Phil Daniels proposed Foundation to Prevent Fraudulent Foreclosures or
F.P.F.F
