This article is intended for information purposes only... not intended as legal advice.
1. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) codified at 15 USC 1692 stipulates that a debt collector must validate an alleged debt by affidavit, oath or deposition and cease all collection activity until validation is provided.
2. Validation or verification is defined as: confirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity of a claim “to assure good faith in averments of statement of party.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990.
3. A debt collector must swear true, correct, and complete that an exchange of valuable consideration has occurred that allows him to demand repayment.
4. On an alleged note dated 00/00/00 regarding loan 0000000000 (Servicing No. 000000-0) under No. 1. “BORROWER’S PROMISE TO PAY” the promise to pay is stated in these words . . . “In return for a LOAN, I promise to pay . . . to the LENDER . . .”
PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING...
5. loan: vb. to lend some thing, esp. money.
6. borrow: vb. 1. to take some thing for temporary use. 2. to receive money with the understanding or agreement that the money is to be repaid, usu. with interest.
7. The five essential elements of a lawful Note require . . .
7.1 . . . the signature of the maker, meaning the alleged lender;
7.2 . . . the signature of the receiver, meaning the alleged borrower;
7.3 . . . the due date, or dates;
7.4 . . . the specified amount;
7.5 . . . a clear sentence of intent.
8. The signature of the maker — the so-called lender — is often missing from the note therefore the note is not a lawful note!
9. It was not the bank’s money that bought the defendants their home. The defendants received no value from the bank. The defendant’s Promissory Note supplied the credit for the sale.
10. In return for the defendant’s Promissory Note (the defendant’s credit) the bank leased the defendant’s credit back to him as rent for thirty years and holds the title for having supplied nothing to the transaction at all.
11. The defendant’s Promissory Note has been sold many times without his knowledge or consent even though the defendant’s Promissory Note still belongs to him.
12. In monetizing the borrower’s Promissory Note through fractional reserve banking practices, the bank increased its wealth by more than nine times the value of the Promissory Note and still demands that the borrower pay the bank the principal of the Note plus interest on the credit that the borrower himself provided.
13. Americans have been engaged in commerce on a “Promissory Note Standard” (instead of a “Gold Standard”) since 1933.
14. Congress borrows Federal Reserve “Promissory Notes” from the Federal Reserve Bank with bonds backed by the credit of the people of the United States.
15. The credit that Congress borrows from the people of the United States is called “the credit of the United States.”
16. “Congress shall have power / to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” — Article 1, Section 8, clause 2, U.S. Constitution.
17. Federal Reserve Notes represent the United States CORPORATION’S promise to pay interest to the Federal Reserve Bank on the alleged Notes that Congress could issue itself.
18. The borrower’s Promissory Note created the money that the lenders gave back to him as a so-called “loan.”
19. The Bill of Exchange that the bank gave the borrower (the bank check) is worth more than nine times that dollar amount to the bank when monetized on the discount exchange market and through fractional reserve banking practices.
20. As a so-called “thank you” for the privilege of using the alleged borrower’s Promissory Note to vastly increase the assets of the bank, bank officials expect the alleged borrower to pay back the non-loan that he received as his credit in changed form, plus the interest he is expected to pay the bank on the non-loan over thirty years, which nearly triples the cost of the alleged mortgage to him.
21. In addition, the borrower pledged to the bank the collateral of the house that he had already paid for with his Promissory Note, should he default.
22. There is no “contract” in the mortgage process from the beginning; a mortgage is not a contract, just as the Constitution of the United States is not a contract. It is a “constitutum.”
22.1. A “constitutum” is 1. An agreement to pay one’s own or another’s existing debt. 2. The fixing of a day for the repayment of money owed. — Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, page 307.
22.2. The Constitution of the United States is basically an agreement to pay the United States Confederacy’s existing debt to the British King. It in turn obligated all of the States of the Confederate United States who ratified it, to British King George.
22.3. A Mortgage is basically a unilateral agreement to pay the lender’s duty to pay the borrower for his Promissory Note (his application for the “loan” of some “THING” called “consideration”) — which he signed under non-disclosure, false pretenses, and fraud.
23. A contract requires two parties, an “offeror” and an “offeree” (an acceptor) who at the time of the contract’s acceptance (its creation) agrees to be bound by the offeror’s terms, as evidenced by the signatures of both parties to the contract.
24. Every mortgage lender intentionally obtains his customer’s Promissory Note by non-disclosure, concealment, and suppression of the material fact that the alleged lender is not risking any of his own assets in the transaction, and that the alleged lender intentionally obtained his customer’s Promissory Note (his credit exchange) by concerted action with full knowledge of the end results of his participation in fraud, larceny, and conspiracy to defraud, in contempt of the RICO Act.
25. A mortgage lender is NOT a party to the mortgage according to the laws of contract.
26. No agent or principal of the mortgage lender will sign an “alleged” mortgage contract because he knows that the mortgage lender is not tendering any consideration to bind the transaction.
27. Having provided no consideration and having shown no intention to be a party to the contract by signing it, neither the mortgage lender nor any third party who may purchase the mortgage at a later date has any “standing” to enforce the terms of the mortgage. Therefore the so-called mortgage contract fails “for lack of consideration” and is void.
28. After obtaining the note, the non-authorized actions of the mortgage lender, regarding the applicant’s Promissory Note, create the “implied obligation” for him to disclose the material facts of the transaction to the obligor of the note.
29. If the mortgage were really a contract, the mortgage lender would have tendered consideration and have in his possession the original unmarked and unaltered note in order to enforce the contract or sell the note.
30. When the mortgage lender obtains the customer’s Promissory Note without consideration, he commits constructive fraud by acts of concealment of the material facts.
31. The acts of concealment of the material facts establish a “breach of contract” since the mortgage lender has the legal duty to act in good faith and disclose the material facts relative to the transaction.
32. Having obtained the customer’s Promissory Note “by constructive fraud,” the mortgage lender is not justified to enforce the contract by any “implied consent” because true consent, expressed or implied, cannot be given under a cloud of non-disclosure, concealment, and suppression of the material facts, or a state of duress.
33. The Sovereign is deceived by the use of “the mortgage fraud” into “use by privilege” of what he thinks is “possession by right.”
34. A contract is a living body of law; an agreement made between living people with their full knowledge and consent.
35. The main issue in this case is the banking industry’s long time practice of “constructive fraud” by breach of contract, nondisclosure of the material facts, and larceny to boot.
36. A mortgage lender must be a party to the mortgage according to the laws of contract in order for the contract to be enforced.
37. The alleged lender didn’t loan one cent of the bank’s assets or of its depositors funds!
38. A bank loans nothing of substance as consideration because the bank is forbidden by Federal Reserve regulations from loaning any assets of the bank or of its depositors.
39. The borrower is always the original source of the principle amount of any alleged loan by virtue of his “promise to pay” (his signature on his credit application and Promissory Note) from which a negotiable instrument is generated (”credit money” per UCC 3-104) which the alleged lender converts into another form (a cashier’s check, bank draft, or account deposit) in accordance with the lending policies of the Federal Reserve, which other form is then issued to the borrower as the so-called “loan”.
40. This “loan” is nothing more than accounting digits entered on the bank’s computer pad without the borrower’s knowledge and consent.
41. So-called loans that end in default are simply charged off, i.e. discharged by a bookkeeping entry with no loss incurred by the bank or the bank’s depositors.
42. The bank has no substantial risk in any loan transaction and therefore no valid claim because the bank only loans the customer’s own credit back to him.
43. Banks do not loan substance, only alleged credit (good will and intent).
44. The New Deal banking system is fraudulent by nature and can’t be made legitimate by a false affidavit.
45. The only person who can validate a debt is the alleged borrower himself.
46. The lender simply exchanges actual cash value for actual cash value and the borrower is charged for this equal exchange as if it were a loan of money to him.
47. The bank claims that the mortgage transaction is a so-called loan but it is a quid pro quo exchange deceptively called a loan.
48. The evidence of this quid pro quo exchange is in the bookkeeping entries according to GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).
49. No cash value was paid by the bank for the accused’s Promissory Note; the accused’s Promissory Note funded the bank loan check that the borrower received.
50. When a borrower gives the bank his Promissory Note it has a value equal to the loan check that the bank gives him.
51. Who paid for the accused’s Promissory Note? No one. Title to the Promissory Note still belongs to the accused.
52. When a bank grants a loan all they are doing is transferring cash value from the alleged borrower’s Promissory Note to themselves which is theft.
53. The bank did not loan one cent of the bank’s money or its depositors funds to obtain the borrower’s Promissory Note.
54. The bank posted the alleged borrower’s Promissory Note on its books as a deposit from the borrower to the bank and uses the credit the bank obtains from the alleged borrower via his Promissory Note to create the check-book money they give to him as the so-called loan, and vastly increase the assets of the bank through fractional reserve techniques.
55. The check-book money they give to the borrower has an equivalent value of legal tender because his Promissory Note can be sold for legal tender cash.
56. The bank uses the newly created check-book money to fund the bank loan check they give to the alleged borrower to be repaid to them at interest over time.
57. “The practice of law cannot be licensed by an state or State.” — Schware v. Bd. of Examiners, 353 US 238, 239.
58. “The practice of law is an occupation of common right.” — Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720.
59. A promissory note is a negotiable instrument constructed in strict accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code.
60. Debt is discharged upon tender of a promissory note whether accepted or rejected.
61. No body has any obligation to pay in promissory federal reserve notes.
62. A payment tendered and refused is paid in full meaning discharged.
63. Promissory notes represent the holder’s right to enforce the promise against the United States.
64. Notes are legal tender for everyone.
65. Commercial Redemption is a legal administrative remedy provided by Congress via Public Policy.
66. The collective entity rule makes a distinction between natural persons and fictional persons that are created the State.
68. No “exchange of valuable consideration” has occurred in commerce since 1933.
July 23, 2009 - source RestoreTheRepublic