Certified Verification of Alleged Debt

[Bird]

Ice:



Where is a example where the courts accepted a "copy" of the contract, as opposed to the original?



And if this contract was a negotiable instrument, the acceptance of a "copy" as the original is against some very fundamental Negotiable Instrument Law.

[Jerseee]

Negotiable instrument law?

[Bird]

Jerseee:



Pre the "Uniform Commerical Code" days there was the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). But the older NIL was codefied, for the most part, in Article 3 of the UCC.



"In 1896, four years after the Uniform Law Commissioners (ULC) first organized, they promulgated the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL). It was adopted in every state in the United States, and was the first successful Uniform Act. When the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) was promulgated initially in 1951, the old, venerable NIL was polished up a bit and offered as Article 3 of the new UCC. The old NIL in either its independent form or as part of the UCC has governed negotiable instruments in the United States for about 80 years, as its first major revisions are prepared for promulgation by the ULC in the year 1989. Another 80 or so years of service is expected for the revisions."



Here is a link that contains the preceding information.

http://www.nccusl.org/nccusl/uniform...s-uccra3ni.asp

[Jerseee]

hhmmmm,



Thanks for the education Bird.

[sadie]

This should help



Validation: "'Validate,' 'validation,' and 'validating' are all derivatives of 'valid,' which is to make valid, confirm, good or sufficient in point of law, efficacious, executed with the proper formalities incapable of being rightfully overthrown or set aside, sustainable and effective in law as distinguished from that which exists or took place in fact or appearance, but has not the requisites to enable it to be recognized and enforced by law. Thompson v. Town of Frostproof, 103 So. 118, 89 Fla. 92."



Verify: "'Verify' means to confirm or substantiate by oath and also to check or test accuracy or exactness of or to confirm or establish authenticity of. Miller v. American Bonding Co. of Baltimore, Mo., 319 S.W.2d 530, 533, 534."



Verify: "'Verify' means swearing to affidavit; to confirm and substantiate by oath. Marshall v. State, 215 N.W. 564, 116 Neb. 45.



Also see "Modern Money Mechanics" read the whole thing especially page 6 and 7. It explains how the banks don't fund the credit card they just create "money" out of thin air.

[sadie]

The banks don't even have an original signed agreement. The only thing they might have is a signed application.



Did you ever get an original signed agreement with your signature and an original signature of a bank officer?



The agreement is a fraud. Did they ever disclose to you that they weren't lending you any money?



Did they ever tell you they would take your application and set up a liability deposit account in a fiduciary name - all caps?



Did they ever tell you they would use this to then create money out of thin air using journal entries against this bank account.



This account is just like any other deposit account and the bank owes the "money" back to that deposit account just like it would a checking account or savings acccount did they tell you that?



Do they claim to have the right to change the agreement to suit them any time they want and to close the account whenever they feel like it?



There is no full disclosure, there is no meeting of the minds, there is no signed contract, there is no agreement, there is just a lot of BS.



"A contract that lacks consideration lacks mutuality of obligation and is unenforceable." See 17B C.J.S. § 84.



12 USC 24 Seventh. read this. The bank is not authorized to lend credit only authorized to negotiate instruments.



statements by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in their "Modern Money Mechanics" workbook, Revised February 1994:

A. "Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the 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 the borrowers' transaction accounts." at page 6.

B."Loans are made by crediting the borrower's deposit account,i.e.,by creating additional deposit money."at page 7.



They really do this it is taught right in my economics book under the heading "Expansion of Money".



When you demand verification you can't get it because it doesn't exist. They never funded the loan you did.



"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately" U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300.



Also check out the Jerome Daly Case - Credit River Decision.



Of course the judges don't want to hear any of this. They accept a photocopy of a statement as evidence even though it is against the rules of evidence.



The new tactic is to get some secretary or bookkeeper to sign an affidavit to the effect that you had a credit card and used it and the bank paid the merchants so you owe the bank. This is still not a verification that the bank lent you it's own assets and has something at risk. But the judges don't care they just side with the banks.



I think I will make photocopies of the statements the atty in my case is trying to introduce and put the judges name on it and the attys name on another one and demand they be introduced as evidence to show how ridiculous this is.



Hope some of this might help.

[Jerseee]

Sadie,



Excellent Post! Excellent.



The questions you raised should not be asked for them to do. If you ever demand certified verification, this is all one needs to do first. Keep demanding certified verification. Now when they come back with something out of the side of their neck, the response should be to demand certified verification and then cite case law that negates their claim or ascertion, such as the finding that Sadie posted.



After putting them on notice of the case law---go right back to demanding certified verification. There is no need to ask to see their accounting ledgers or books since they are fraudulent as well.



Keep demanding certified verification and never argue about an alleged debt.



Great post Sadie--I will add that holding into my archives!!

[dashboy]

Jerseee,

in one of your other post I remember you saying you sent notices to other uninterested parties (District Attorney's Office, Sheriff, IRS, SoS, ect..) that you had just satisfied an alleged debt with your exemption via CPN. How would you word such a notice? Oh by the way, last Friday letters to CRA's requesting Verification went out and also a Good faith payment to the meglomaniacs...oops.. I mean bankers too. Wish me luck!!



dash

[Ice]

Bird,



Everyday in this great land someone is being screwed in a mortgage situation in which the attornies ("debt collector" types) DO NOT PRODUCE AN ORIGINAL NOTE. Not only that - they are getting screwed by Summary Judgment most of the time.



CCC's are another great example. They do not keep those little cards that get filled out in order to get the card.



Ever try to view a copy of an original mortgage or CC application? Try to. Go ahead. Let us know how it turns out.



The truth is that if the courts would accept ONLY the original - then NO MORTGAGE OR CC CASE WOULD BE WON BY THOSE ATTORNIES IN FAVOR OF THOSE "BANKS".



Ice

All of the above is true. The courts are not going to make any of these SOB's prove anything knowing full well they cannot and if they did then the money system would be destroyed. That is why the judges and lawyers are not following the law and will not. Sadly I am giving up on trying to have justice done in my cases it is a losing battle I will back anyone who does however. I am tired and I will just stay in honor so they cannot touch me by recontracting with them on my terms. Wish me luck because the law hasn't helped me to date. Defeatist attude maybe? But, one can take just so much.