prohibition of lending credit

[seeker]

An interesting read -- validates what is being said here on SJ -- not a plug for this company, they just have a lot of great info here in letters, interview, audios etc.



Seeker

[suijuris]

And by "company" what exactly is meant?

[seeker]

dlk consultants or whoever. I just know they have some great info on the site -

[seeker]

Here's the content -- sorry!



http://www.dlkconsultants.com/ look under debt solutions -- there's an interview with attorney, Bruce Hawkins, from Washington state discussing the fact the national banks do not have the authority to loan credit. Some cites and case law regarding this would be excellent. Using the law, just like Jerseee says.



Seeker



I could past and copy, but it is long -- SuiJuris?

[Ice]

It is true that it is law that they cannot loan credit. But this is not an approach that you would want to use in the court room.



The better approach is breach of contract... where issues of Fraud and violations of law can be raised.

[dashboy]

Can the bank substitute or draw up a second promissory note to be enforced while the original note is floating out there somewhere in DTC land? When I demanded to see the orignal prom note, they showed me a pink carbon copy of the original I signed while at the car dealership instead of the original white. But they showed me the original second note I signed the next day while sitting at the bank.

It just dawned on me that they are pretending that the second note signed at the bank is the original enforcing note.



I am also noticing several things concerning Federal truth in lending violations on my carbon copy of the original note signed at the dealership. There is no number of payments listed, no amount of payments, and no payment dates. However on my copy of the second note signed while at the bank, this info is included. Can both of these documents for one vehicle both be the original note?

Another thing I noticed on both notes in several places it mentions things such as:



The cost of your credit as a yearly rate,

The dollar amount the credit will cost you,

The amount of credit provided to you or on your behalf.



Is this evidence of loaning me credit?

The thing I am know struggling with is in what order am I to attack this!

1. I have not seen the original note signed while at the car dealership which they promised to show me,

2. If the first contract signed is the hook in my mouth, why did they violate truth in lending by not disclosing vital info on the note,

3. Why have they loaned me credit without disclosing that fact - I thought I was getting money!

4. Which note is the enforcing note? If I fullfill one, how can I be protected from some fool in the future presenting the second?

5. Why have they dishonored my 3 CPN's for payment in full three time if they had a verified contract,

6. Who can attest to my signature on any of two notes!



I guess I am asking which knife in their chest comes first, second, third, ect...

[Jerseee]

dashboy,



Good questions. But the real question that should be asked is who funded the loan?



were they at risk of losing anything?



And I am having some revelations about CPNs and BOEs. I think we are heading in the wrong direction. I think there should be CBOEs. Certified Bills of Exchange. The notary makes them certified since the BoEs are an order to pay--I believe this to be appropriate but, I am not sure just yet. I am inclined to believe this is an order (declatory judgement) through the notary witnessing your signature and testimony for them (alleged creditors) to be paid through public policy.



Just kicking around ideas in my head.....

[joma44]

Holy crapasaurus batman.... I just ran the apr, payment and amount financed through a number of apr calculators and look what I found



what they said on the note



apr= 8.54%

Length=72 months

amount financed=21213.83

total finance charge=6056.17

amount of payments=378.75







what I found from 3 different apr calculators

I entered amount financed=21213.83

apr=8.54%

length=72 months



my results

total finance charges= 5970.89

amount of payments= 377.57





for my amount of payments and my finance charge I am actually being charged 8.65%



not alot but image that times a 10 million other people who get ripped.



oh yeah my new tags....fight the fraud and who funded that?



thanks guys



http://www.bankrate.com/gookeyword/popcalc2.asp



http://www.efunda.com/formulae/finance/apr_solver.cfm

Couple of things:



Justin Garriott of North American Paralegal, phone number 317-926-7055, talks about using the interest charge approach against banks. He explains this in part in an Erwin Rommel School of Law Video styled School of Banking. He is available for consulting for a fee though he sounds like a very reasonable guy and may give you a few pointers at no charge. If the above number is not good, he may also be contacted through

http://members.aol.com/rommellaw/



There are also some audio and other files from the Erwin Rommel School of Law archived on this site.



With respect to DLK, one word: BEWARE. Yes, they have good material on their site and I recommend using it for that purpose. With respect to using any of the services that they claim to offer let me say this: I have done business with these people and <u>I will never do business with them again.</u> A big CAVEAT EMPTOR when dealing with DLK.



Finally, although this is not the correct string, I would like to tell everyone that I am uploading an eye opening letter from an "insider" for those interested in Sovereignty. It is a 1985 letter from Arizona State Senator Wayne Stump to Arizona's Director of Public Safety in which Stump urges the Director to train his officers in the proper way to deal with people who "...have rescinded all of their contracts with the U.S. federal gov't, the State of Arizona, and each of its political subdivisions, establishing themsleves as freemen under the organic Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America." Note the notarized certification along the left margin of the letter. I will style the file "Senator Stump's Letter Re: Sovereignty".



Be good,

B.

[Ice]

In the Downloads under "Citizenship and Jurisdiction".



I'll say this much... he states: "... inasmuch as this procedure is entirely appropriate..." and later on he states: "... arising from the exercise of a person's freeman status in order to evaluate the outcome of properly rescinded contracts."



Seems to me that his only concern is that the process to rescind was done properly and that law enforcement doesn't get tangled in a mess that might cost them $$ in damages.



But, we should discuss this in the "Citizenship and Jurisdiction" Section of the forum.