Did they claim loss and damage when they sued you?

[jaylon]

Most of the time they don't claim loss and damage as a necessary basis to bring the claim. This is also basis to dismiss or void the judgment. If you have been sued look at your complaint and see. It doesn't matter how old the judgment is. Below is how we seek to vacate that:

Further, the record shows, Plaintiff has not established in its pleadings a claim supported by affidavit or any other competent fact witness that plaintiff has been damaged or suffered equitable loss by default of the Defendant that represents a loss of money loaned to the defendant already existing before the transaction they have had a risk to recover that was not gained or offset from conversion of the borrower’s signed note/credit agreement as equity it held of commercial paper money equivalence obtained from the borrower, unbeknowns to him, and converted on the bank’s books into new deposit money credit that had not existed before which has funded or offset the funding of the bank’s loans without risk to its already existing assets and deposits to get it back, which, as our evidence shows, may be a standard banking practice for origination of some loans.
Plaintiff acknowledges receiving the signed note credit agreement prior to any extension of credit being made. And according to authoritative sources of the banking and accounting professions, (see exhibit “G and M”, attached), in discussion under Brief of Fact, Evidence and Law in Summary of Case, such a signed promise to pay as this is a tangible commercial paper money equivalent asset in the world of finance on its books that expands the bank’s payable deposit money credits by the same amount as the impending loan limit, offsetting the book entry transfers in settling of any card obligations without expending or risking any of the bank’s other assets or deposits to make its extensions of credit.

Again, the record shows Plaintiff does not dispute this established practice of the banking industry or the fact the Plaintiff has used the note/credit agreement provided by the defendant to originate the funds or offset the funding of the bank's extension of credit as in standard banking practices identified in the documentation from authoritative sources referenced in our response to the Plaintiff in its exhibits; the bank does not dispute these obvious banking practices to assert the bank has instead made a loan in equity of money already there and existing before the transaction they have suffered equitable loss for recovery from defendant's default, and therefore, it would appear, Plaintiff has failed in their burden to show on the record factual equitable loss as subject matter for claims against the Defendant exist for the Court to have subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims. .

Plaintiff’s affidavit mades no claim of loss and damage suffered by Defendant’s presumed default and claims no knowledge of the facts of Plaintiff's risk and potential loss as determined by examination of plaintiff’s performance to the representations of its contract as shown in its book entry accounting or other compotent fact witness, and makes no factual documentation of this by exhibit presented as factual documentation or evidence that would support any such claim if it were counted as implied. .
And therefore the bank’s compliance with the representations of its contract to be making a loan they have the equitable risk of loss to recover represented in their agreement, and the level or degree of risk which the Plaintiff actually had in making the extension of credit, and whether the plaintiff has suffered actual equitable loss of money from its other assets and deposits already existing and in its possession before this loan transaction was made as basis to claim loss and damage as a cause for action against the Defendant clearly is not alleged, affirmed or supported by any knowledge of this claimed or affirmed in the affidavit or otherwise in Plaintiff’s pleadings.

Whereas, in the maxims of law:
a contract founded on base consideration is null; and one who has not been damaged or put at risk by another has no basis to make claims or charges against him,”
And pursuant to case law precedent:
Failure to establish injury leaves the Court without a means to effectuate a remedy and certainly without a basis to allow Defendants to lose their property interest by means of foreclosure. See DeCastro v. Wellston City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 94 Ohio St. 3d 197;761 N.E.2d 612 (2002), (finding that a breach of contract claim without allegation and evidence of actual damage does not provide a means for judicial relief and wastes the Defendant’s and Court’s time and resources).

Loss and injury are the two elements which must exist in combination on essentials of a cause of action. 1 Am J2d, Actions. Sec.70

With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face.. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512

In so failing to assert by affidavit or other competent fact witness Plaintiff has suffered factual, equitable loss in recovery as a basis for action plaintiff has failed to empower the court with subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims against the Defendant.

The factual basis in law to serve as subject matter for their complaint against us is the implied alleged fact they have performed as they agreed and we have not, and therefore have loss and are damaged. If the bank wanted to plead my failure to perform has caused them loss or damage, as a matter of law, at a minimum, they would have to assert by affidavit or other compotent fact witness in their pleadings their loans represent equity already their own, not gained or originated on the bank's books from conversion of the equity asset of the borrower’s note, which has funded or offset the funding of the bank’s loans, as is a standard banking practice, and affirm they have equitable risk of loss to recover this money so that my nonperformance has caused them loss or damage as a basis for action against me.

Under the four corners of the document test the note/credit agreement and other documents of their pleadings do not assert this. Therefore, their pleadings have failed to establish subject matter of equitable loss to give the court jurisdiction to hear the case, or to establish a cause for action on which relief can be granted. And their claim should have been dismissed.

Plaintiff has in fact made no claim of loss or damage in its pleadings whatsoever. Let the court examine the pleadings. They assert I have not paid them and affirm personal knowledge of documentary evidence to support this, but they do not affirm this has caused them loss or damage in any way shape or form, and certainly do not put forward or affirm personal knowledge of documentary evidence from their book entry accounting or otherwise that the bank has performed a loan in equity they would have risk of loss to recover that would cause them loss or damage by my nonperformance.

I would ask the Court, where is the competent fact witness the bank has made a loan they have the equitable risk of loss to recover represented in their agreement, which my agreement to the contract was based on, establishing their compliance under contract to have authority to enforce it, and actual loss and damage from my non performance as basis to bring this claim?

They have not produced the original note/credit agreement to show it has no markings of negotiation or monetary conversion into equity on it by which it has funded its loan. nor even sworn an affidavit claiming the bank has made a loan they have the equitable risk of loss to recover represented in their agreement or that they have suffered loss and damage from Defendant’s default by any means of determination.

Again, If they cannot produce such evidences of competent fact witness to show these things,
then for lack of competent fact witness
1) what the agreement between us I signed actually was,
2) whether they are still legal holders to enforce it,
3) or that a debt between us still exists,
4) as well as lack of competent fact witness they made a loan they have the equitable risk of loss to recover represented in their agreement to have loss and damage as basis to bring the claim, and have complied with the representations of their contract to have right to enforce it;
these material facts lacking in a proper pleading of the plaintiff denied the court personal as well as subject matter jurisdiction to hear these claims, and denied them any causes for action on which the court could grant relief and should have been dismissed by the Court as Defendant’s motion to dismiss sought as relief but was denied by the Court without serious explanation or comment.

[jaylon]

As the Court knows DAMAGES MUST BE PROVED BY EVIDENCE ENTERED ON THE RECORD,
Proof of or assessment of damages upon petition claiming damages, it is error to pronounce judgment without hearing proof or assessing damages. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Lambert, 31 Okla. 300, 121 P. 654, Ann.Cas.1913E, 329 (1912); City of Guthrie v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 5 Okla. 774, 50 P. 84 (1897).
In a tort action founded on an un-liquidated claim for damages, a defaulting party is deemed to have admitted only plaintiff's right to recover, so that the court is without authority or power to enter a judgment fixing the amount of recovery in the absence of the introduction of evidence. Graves v. Walters, Okla.App., 534 P.2d 702 (1975). Presumptions which ordinarily shield judgments from collateral attacks were not applicable on motion to vacate a small claim default judgment on ground that court assessed damages on an un-liquidated tort claim without first hearing any supporting evidence. Graves v. Walters, Okla.App., 534 P.2d 702 (1975). Rule that default judgment fixing the amount of recovery in absence of introduction of supporting evidence is void and not merely erroneous or voidable obtains with regard to exemplary as well as compensatory damages. Graves v. Walters, Okla.App., 534 P.2d 702 (1975)
Claim of damages, to be admissible as evidence, must incorporate records such as a general ledger and accounting of an alleged unpaid promissory note, the person responsible for preparing and maintaining the account general ledger must provide a complete accounting which must be sworn to and dated by the person who maintained the ledger. See Pacific Concrete F.C.U. V. Kauanoe, 62 Haw. 334, 614 P.2d 936 (1980), GE Capital Hawaii, Inc. v. Yonenaka 25 P.3d 807, 96 Hawaii 32, (Hawaii App 2001), Fooks v. Norwich Housing Authority 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 371, (Conn. Super.2000), and Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc. 513 A.2d 1218, 201 Conn.1 (1986). See also Solon v. Godbole, 163 Ill. App. 3d 845, 114 Ill. Dec. 890, 516 N. E.2d 1045 (3Dist. 1987).

Wherefore, it being the duty and function of the court to determine the facts and apply the law in all cases.
And, the court being sworn by its oath to the Constitution under which it holds its office to know nothing in this case except fact in evidence proven before it, and to give fair and impartial hearing to all parties…
Whereas, the bank has not affirmed personal knowledge of documentary evidence from their book entry accounting or otherwise that the bank has performed a loan in equity they would have risk of loss to recover that has caused them loss or damage by my nonperformance and have not even so much as implied they brought equity to the contract they had risk to recover by asserting any compotent fact witness they have suffered loss and damage from my non-performance by which subject matter of a factual loss has been established by competent fact witness of the Plaintiff as a basis to empower the court with jurisdiction of subject matter to hear claims against the Defendant. Plaintiff's complaint should have been dismissed as a matter of law.

BRIEF OF LAW IN SUPPORT
The unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters can only be exercised by the court through the filing of pleadings which are sufficient to invoke the power of the court to act. The requirement for a verified information to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court and empower the court to act has been applied to both courts of record and not of record.
The mandatory language of statute requiring the information is more than merely a "guaranty of good faith" of the Plaintiff. An unverified information failed to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, Chandler v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 344, 255 P.2d 299, 301-2 (1953), Smith v. State, 152 P.2d 279, 281 (Okl.Cr. 1944); City of Tulsa, 554 P.2d at 103; Nickell v. State, 562 P.2d 151 (Okl.Cr. 1977); Short v. State, 634 P.2d 755, 757 (Okl.Cr. 1981); Byrne v. State, 620 P.2d 1328 (Okl.Cr. 1980); Laughton v. State, 558 P.2d 1171 (Okl.Cr. 1977)., and Buis v. State, 792 P.2d 427, 1990 OK CR 28 (Okla.Crim.App. 05/14/1990).
To be "justiciable," the claim must be suitable for judicial inquiry, which requires determining whether the controversy (a) is definite and concrete, (b) concerns legal relations among parties with adverse interests and (c) is real and substantial so as to be capable of a decision granting or denying specific relief of a conclusive nature." Dank v. Benson, 2000 OK 40, 5 P.3d 1088, 1091. See also, 12 O.S. §1651. See also, Easterwood v. Choctaw County District Attorney, 45 P.3d 436, 2002 OK CIV APP 41 (Okla. App. 01/11/2002)). Only by the filing of an information which complies with mandatory statutory requirement can the court obtain subject matter jurisdiction which then empowers the court to adjudicate the matters presented to it.

Even if a court (judge) has or appears to have subject matter jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction can be lost. where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings, Ligon v Williams, 264 Ill.App.3d 701, 637 N.E.2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994),

When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the party asserting that the court has subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of showing that it exists on the record. Once the court has knowledge that subject matter is lacking, the court has no discretion but to dismiss the action. Failure to dismiss means that the court is proceeding in clear absence of all jurisdiction and the judgment would be void.
Defendant would show unto the Court, Void judgment is one rendered by court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in manner inconsistent with due process, U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14 Matter of Marriage of Hampshire, 869 P.2d 58 ( Kan. 1997). ) Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E. 2d 741 (Ill. App. Dist. 1993). Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 60(b)(4), 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985) U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5 – Triad Energy Corp. v. McNell 110 F.R.D. 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), U.S.C.A. Const. Amed. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 n.e.2D 1383 (Ill. App. 5 Dist. 1983), In re Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan. App. 1999).
Void judgment is one rendered in absence of jurisdiction over subject matter or parties 310 N.W. 2d 502, (Minn. 1981)., Lange v. Johnson, 204 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. 1973) Void judgments are those rendered by court which lacked jurisdiction, either of subject matter or parties, ****erham v. Zikratch, 619 P.2d 739 (Ariz. 1980).
Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278

Wherefore by error or mistake of the Court the judgment in this case is void and/or by Plaintiff’s failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction for the Court to hear their claims the judgment is void and should be vacated.