|
need caselaw corpooration chartered under state law
If one knows nothing about financial markets at all it is self evident if the note has value to be sold it had value in itself when the other bank held it [[[ and when Wells Fargo got it. ]]]]
Again, According to federal 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.”
The markings plainly show a deposit or monetary conversion has been made into the [original lending] bank with the note itself.
[[ The markings] [ assignment of interests] show it has been treated by Wells Fargo as a negotiable equity asset of money equivalent value as commercial paper. Of value unto itself, bought and sold for money, and received by Wells Fargo into its bank.
By the authoritative sources we have cited from the banking industry and by the fact a promissory note is included in the federal definition of a “deposit” as a balance of money or its equivalent credited in exchange for the note, this has brought new deposit money credit on its books to offset these same amounts [[[ in settlement of its loan checks ]]] [[[[ to Coastal Capital Corp. to purchase the note ]]]].
So that Wells Fargo has since then been without the equitable risk of loss to recover this money represented in the language and terms of the contract they are now trying to enforce [in foreclosure]
to recover this supposed loss, an examination of the book entry accounting of the transaction will show they do not have.
The book entry accounting we have requested in discovery will factually prove with absolute certainty the performance of the bank in this dispute and the inherent risk to itself, or lack thereof in the making[[ or purchasing ]]] of its loan once it is produced.
Unless the Court is a CPA it cannot know what all this means or what to believe has happened here. Opposing Counsel has presented nothing in its affidavits or other competent fact witness testifying what these markings actually mean or the electronic alonge of the note to dispute what we have alleged is not true. And they have refused to give the book entry accounting in discovery or produce the qualified persons in their employ as witnesses to examine the accounting and the markings of monetary conversion on the note or any electronic allonge that accompanies it to show of a fact certain what has happened here, and what actual risk the original lender [ or Wells Fargo] was at to recover the money for its making or purchase of the loan.
Your honor, We have the note itself, which if we were to stand here and read it shows in every other sentence the holder of the note is representing to the maker by statement or implication they have a risk of loss to recover the equity loaned.
Yet with markings on its face showing after it had been signed and tendered to the bank in the loan, it has been deposited by [the first] bank and monetary conversion of it into equity has been gained as money on its books in exchange for it, to recover its loan, without that risk of loss to recover represented to me in their agreement as basis for my acceptance of obligations under the contract, which misrepresentations Wells Fargo is also responsible for.
We have Coastal Capital’s [assignment][endorsement] of it to Wells Fargo for value which indicates the note has been received by Wells Fargo as an asset of commercial paper money equivalence, into its bank, Of value unto itself, sold and exchanged for money, and [[ there is no reason to believe ]] Wells Fargo [did not make] [made] deposit and monetary conversion of it into equity on their books to recover their purchase of the loan [as did the first bank], which producing the electronic allonge, or the accounting in discovery or the bank’s employees as witnesses will [further] prove.
If this is not enough evidence yet to prove our defense here, it certainly creates dispute over material fact of whether Wells Fargo has complied with the representations of its [the] contract to have [made] [ purchase of] a loan they have the equitable risk of loss to recover represented to me in their agreement, not regained in deposit or monetary conversion of the debt instrument [ into equity ] they got from me, And has actual loss and damage from my performance entitling them to [action against me] foreclosure], which will require trial of all the evidence and facts to discern the truth here which the Court must determine before it can apply the law to this case, and therefore again, summary judgment is precluded as a matter of law, if there claim should not be dismissed out right.
If he has the evidence to resolve or refute these material issues of the case we have disputed to support his motion to reconsider summary judgment, let him produce it right now your honor. If he can’t these issues are material fact in dispute requiring trial and there is nothing more on summary judgment the Court needs to hear to deny it.
__________________
Do or do not; there is no such thing as try.
|
