Foreclosure Fraud Revealed by Bar Association Proves Most Mortgages Void

February 6th, 2012

Category: Industry News, Legal News, Mortgage Elimination, Mortgage Fraud

Tagged with: , , ,

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

p-2

“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).

“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States …” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.

American Brokers Conduit v. ZAMALLOA – Judge SCHACK 11 Sep2007

Countrywide Mortgage v. BERLIUK – Judge COSTELLO 1 3Mar2008

Deutsche Bank v. Barnes-Judgment Entry

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

Deutsche Bank v. CASTELLANOS/ 2008NYSlipOp50033U/ – Judge SCHACK 14Jan 2008

HSBC v. Valentin – Judge SCHACK calls them liars and dismisses WITH prejudice **

Deutsche Bank v. CLOUDEN / 2007NYSlipOp5 1 767U/ Judge SCHACK 1 8Sep2007

Deutsche Bank v. EZAGUI – Judge SCHACK 21Dec2007

Deutsche Bank v. GRANT – Judge SCHACK 25Apr2008

Deutsche Bank v. HARRIS – Judge SCHACK 05Feb2008

Deutsche Bank v. LaCrosse, Cede, DTC Complaint

Deutsche Bank v. NICHOLLS – Judge KURTZ 21May2008

Deutsche Bank v. RYAN – Judge KURTZ 29Jan2008

Deutsche Bank v. SAMPSON – Judge KURTZ 16Jan2008

Deutsche v. Marche – Order to Show Cause to VACATE Judgment of Foreclosure – 11 June2009

p-3

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

Rivera, In Re Services LLC v. SATTAR / 2007NYSlipOp5 1 895U/ – Judge SCHACK 09Oct2007

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

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. HAMPTON – Judge KURTZ 03 Jan2008

Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer WITH PREJUDICE Judge Schack June2008

Wells Fargo v. Reyes WITH PREJUDICE, Fraud on Court & Sanctions Judge Schack June2008

Deutsche Bank v. Peabody Judge Nolan (Regulation Z)

Indymac Bank,FSB v. Boyd – Schack J. January 2009

Indymac Bank, FSB v. Bethley – Schack, J. February 2009 ( The tale of many hats)

LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn – Appellate Division, Third Department (Pro Se)

NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY DEUTSCHE BANK FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE NOTE

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)

Novastar v. Snyder * (lack of standing) Snyder (motion to amend w/prejudice) Snyder (response to amend)

Washington Mutual v. City of Cleveland (WAMU’s motion to dismiss)

2008-Ohio-1177; DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons (SJ Reversed for lack of standing)

Everhome v. Rowland

Deutsche – Class Action (RICO) Bank of New York v. TORRES – Judge

p-4

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

Complaint in Jack v. MERS, Citi, Deutsche

GMAC v. Marsh

Massachusetts : Robin Hayes v. Deutsche Bank

Florida: Deutsche Bank’s Summary Judgment Denied

Texas: MERS v. Young / 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals – PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.

Nevada: MERS crushed: In re Mitchell

“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.

p-5

“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).

“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.

“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.

“.. . 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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.

“A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money.” Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393

“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.

“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.

“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.

p-6

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

p-7

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

p-8

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

p-9

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.

p-10

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

p-11

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

p-12

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

P-13

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

p-14

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

p-15

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

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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).

“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States …” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.

“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

p-16

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

p-17

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).

Be Sociable, Share!

No comments yet


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>