What if the debt instrument has no markings?

[jaylon]

Your honor, opposing counsel has produced the note/debt instrument [as agreed] and after examination of it we may now have prima facia evidence that will dismiss the complaint
[[[ or deny summary judgment without a hearing being necessary. ]]]]
[[[[ if no markings ]]]]
[[ Your honor, this note/debt instrument has been negotiated to Wells Fargo from [name of bnk.
There is no marking of that transaction on here.]]]
Would you ask opposing Counsel Is there a computer disc that is suppose to come with it to show any negotiations, deposits and uses the bank has made of it?
If there is, then what constitutes the electronic allonge of the note is missing and we do not have all what is legally the note. And we don’t know all material fact concerning this transaction there is to know from it of
[[what negotiation, deposits or other monetary conversions it has been used for.
–claims there are none—
Is opposing counsel prepared to produce an affidavit sworn to by a qualified bank officer under penalty of purgery, and subject to cross examination, that the bank does not keep an electronic record by computer disc or otherwise showing the exchanges, deposits and monetary conversions that are made with commercial paper debt instruments that come into its possession, and that there absolutely is no electronic record that has been kept with this debt instrument? So we will know of fact certain this is all there is to know of ]]]]
[ who is or was or has been the legal holder of this debt instrument and how long ago and when, and what monetary exchanges and gains have been made from it? ]]
If plaintiff cannot demonstrate this by producing the note and all its records intact, or to show by affidavit or other evidence there is no more to it, then , I move for immediate dismissal of this case for failure of a compotent fact witness put forward by the plaintiff they had personal jurisdiction and standing as legal holders of the debt to bring this action in their own name at the time this was done.
[[and for lack of competent fact witness they brought equity to the contract not gained from deposit or other monetary conversion of this debt instrument they got from me, and have suffered actual loss and damage as subject matter to give the Court jurisdiction to hear their claim, which presently is not established. ]]]
--reply rebuttle—
A note/debt instrument is a negotiable equity instrument of money equivalent value as commercial paper.
Are we suppose to believe the bank did not make some type of negotiation, by deposit or other monetary conversion [ into new equity ]] on its books to their benefit [[ to cover their risk of loss ]] if it was theirs to so use?
Does opposing counsel know or is prepared today to tell if the bank [[original lender or the present holder]] made negotiation or deposit of the debt instrument when they received it?
--irrelevant -- does not know -- yes they did.
[[ To the contrary your honor]]]
According to federal regulations and the United States banking code: 12 USC Sect. 1813, in front of you there your honor, by definition a deposit is “the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received or held by a bank. ….. Any such account or instrument must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the equivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for a promissory note.” [[ or such commercial paper debt instrument as this ]]] that’s what a deposit is your honor, “the receipt of the equivalent of money”.

If the bank deposited the note/debt instrument, by the authority of legal definition in federal law, [[ this is prima facia evidence ]] they have converted the equity of it into money on the bank’s books which has covered its loan without risking its other assets and deposits and has offset any loss or damage they had from my non-performance as a cause for action to bring this suit and if they cannot show this which is understood by the standard federal definition of the term “deposit “ is not what has happened here as well, then they have failed to establish subject matter of loss and damage for the Court to hear their claim or a cause of loss and damage as basis to bring their claim and it should be dismissed.
Anything less is certain to be overturned on appeal.