Using IOUs for discharging debt

Greetings Everyone! I am interested in knowing if anybody here is/have been successful in monetizing/liquidating liens: If so, PM me. I will appreciate it very much. Thanks!

[rottweiler]

For those who may be interested in UCC redemption check these out.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uccredemption/

http://www.allbuma.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi

[charlesa6]

[:A'hul:Maur:], welcome to the forum!

[rottweiler]

It is totally amazing to me that no one has replied to this link so I bring it again.
http://www.allbuma.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi
It is cutting edge information on admiralty.

If anyone has a little patience they might scroll 1/3 of the way down the page and tell me what they think of this http://allbuma.net/ucc/2-6-06 - Rule 19.1 - A .mp3

At 1:20:00 it gets extremely interesting. I listened to some parts multiple times because this color of law stuff is bizarre.

Listen and learn what the Articles of Confederation did and how the Constitution created a more perfect union and how the bankrupt in-law de jure United States of America trustee(creator) of the de facto United States(creation) "authorizes" said at-law de facto United States(creation) to bring in the strawman(third party) for the collection of debt suit, which is what these court cases really are all about. Phew.

I repeat for edification, all these court cases are actually United States of America(de jure) v. United States(de facto) for the lack of bankruptcy debt payments. It becomes third party United States(de facto) v. third party strawman because it is not the defacto United States fault for not collecting, because the strawman has not paid! This is why the Congress created the de facto, to pay the bankruptcy debt of the de jure. So quit bitching and "pay" the debt money.

Now I understand why the flesh and blood man can not be in the admiralty courts at all. The captain of the vessel has to show.

There is also a free book there entitled "Hall on Admiralty". According to Jean Keating it caused the revolution. I have had it for a year and have read it already( I paid $55 for it, damn it). I am reading it again now because it is a tough read.

This admiralty crapola is our remedy if youse are not going to go Amish, so either we start understanding and teach the rest or else.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

For those who may be interested in UCC redemption check these out.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uccredemption/

http://www.allbuma.net/cgi-bin/archive.cgi

[idknow]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Dear Francis;


You inquired:



The bill of exchange was due in August of 2001. That due date began a thirty day term to either honor or protest the bill. Neither was done. Judgment came due on September 11, 2001. There are many different models to approach a comprehensive explanation from and I am sure now you got me thinking about explaining, I will come up with some clearer posts in the next couple days.

Thank you IamFree;

David, are you implying that because the judgement of something was due on September 11, 2001, that there *IS* a link between your Boe and the demolitions on that date?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by francis

I ran the search you suggested on Werner Maximillian Habsburg and the house of Habsburg. Very interesting. I noticed the house had some Ferdinands, wasn't one of the world wars started by the assassination of an archduke Ferdinand? Your earlier reference to the Bankruptcy Judge- Daniel was interesting.
I had come back to your reply Dave and explanation of the final notice.Thank you.
You stated, "A reading of the Holy Bible tells us that the wealth of the wicked will eventually be dispensed to the righteous". Do you mean a later day event? I thought it said, " the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the just" indicating that it could be taken by the just (if we can discover how to do that). or as stated elsewhere "the kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force" (energy?).

The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand is linked to the start of the first world war.

But as we all know, nothing is as it appears to be!

anyone know what the banksters were upto in that year?

[rottweiler]

A few days ago we learned from one of the people we have been working with their opponent, MBNA has submitted a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their complant aganst her. The reasons to speculate why they did this are too many and varied to begin because there were many strong points in this case even though they had an arbitration award where the person essentially defaulted on making a valid defense in the arbitration process.
She did begin to Voir Dire the Court about who his oath was to at the first sign he may not give her fair hearing at what was to be the first hearing and he recused himself finding reason in his owning stock in MBNA or some such. But the Voluntary Dismissal came before the hearing could be heard before the new judge so we didn't even get to try out our wares on him,
We had submitted discovery on the bank loan and being set to do business in the state.
Discharge of the debt was involved where the instrument had been kept without return or dishonor or mention in their pleadngs and that was a large part of the defense.
But so that any can judge for themselves what they think the reason might be, I submit below much of the motion for more definite statement of the complaint which was the only motion filed and is the very first motion we file in such cases.

Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides If a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, he may move for a more definite statement.

The motion is to point out the defects complained of and the details desired and the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense.

II.

MBNA AMERICA makes no pleading by affidavit or other competent fact witness that legally sufficient satisfaction of this debt has not been made to prove a debt between us still existed at the time this suit was brought as subject matter upon which Plaintiff could seek relief.

And has further failed in its pleadings to acknowledge or establish the disposition of such satisfaction of this debt to be able to give competent fact witness of actual damages entitling plaintiff to judgment.

And thereby Plaintiff's pleadings is vague and ambiguous to empower the court with subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims against the Defendant.

Such claim requires a more definite statement to establish this or in the alternative should be struck as insufficient, and Defendant so moves.

STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE TENDER OF DISCHARGE OF THE DEBT

Plaintiff's complaint and its statement of amounts owed makes no acknowledgment of the fact of Defendant's tender in payoff having been made or the disposition of it in final settlement of this account by which evidence on the record may prove actual damages and balances owed not covered by Defendant's tender of payment.

On September 1, 2004 Defendant tendered payment of this debt. What was tendered in satisfaction of this debt was written and issued by the Affiant in accordance with UCC 4-105, 12CFRSec. 229.2, 210.2 under Authority of United States Code 31 USC 392, 5103, 12 USC 1813, and 18 USC 8, which officially defines this as a statutory legal tender obligation of THE UNITED STATES in Accordance with 31 USC 3123 and HJR- 192(1933) together establishing and providing for its issuance as “Public Policy” in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.

It appears this is a statutory remedy for equity interest recovery due the principles and sureties of the United States for the lawful discharge of debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to that portion of the public debt to these it is intended to reduce.

Federal law defining ‘legal tender’ in Title 31 Section 5103 and ‘Obligations of the United States’ under Title 18 Section 8 of the United States Code cited above provide for various forms of notes and commercial paper to be written and issued by private entities against such obligations of the United States to whom they may be due or upon an Officer of the United States who has duty to over see the satisfaction of such obligations, which when written, become statutory law legal tender obligations of the United States fully tenderable, negotiable and exchangeable in commerce though they may not be commonly known or understood.

This may sound strange to the Court, but I am sure the Court is aware of more benefit that has been gained, by more people in shorter space of time from other provisions of the United States government stranger than this one.

This is what the law provides on its face and the bank has offered nothing of authority to dispute this understanding. Affiant has not seen or been presented with any statutory, factual, or historical documentation or evidence from MBNA America Bank N.A. to dispute what is stated here as fact or disputing by the law our right under the law to issue this note as a statutory legal tender obligation of THE UNITED STATES in satisfaction of this debt.

Plaintiiff has produced no competent fact witness from any authority showing anything to be legally insufficient about our tender of payment under federal statutory law to discharge this debt.

We have proof it was received along with multiple authorities we gave establishing our right to use it in this way as fully tenderable, negotiable and exchangeable in commerce. It has been kept and not returned.

As stated, We have received no notice of dishonor showing from any authority anything to be legally insufficient about it, And we have no idea what they have done with it.

We have sought in discovery to learn where it is, and whether settlement has been gained, or what of any reasonable commercial responsibility was exercised on their part to gain settlement and satisfaction from it, if it has not been recovered on.

To date They have provided no authoritative testimony what’s suppose to be wrong with it or legally insufficient about our tender of payment for the Court to know the debt has not been and is not satisfied by it, and no evidence to support their right to refuse it, or any allegation what we gave them is somehow no good and not legally sufficient to discharge the debt under the law, to prove a debt between us still exists.

Obviously, if the debt has been legally satisfied as a matter of law the Plaintiff has no basis for this action against the Defendant. The question is material to the case. The legal question therefore becomes, Is the tender of payment we have made legally sufficient to discharge the debt as a matter of prevailing federal law on the subject, not whether it is easy to deal with or convenient or a familiar form of settlement.

Our opponent has shown no error in our understanding of the law cited as legal basis for this instrument nor have they alleged we have misrepresented what the law says as a basis to refuse it or to refuse to give credit for it.. We clearly understood our opponent is not familiar with this form of tender of payment and would understandably resist having to take it. And we are aware the court is not likely to be familiar with it either.

But The job of the Court is to discern the facts and apply the law.

The Court is not here to decide this issue from its own personal knowledge or belief of what is true , but to discern fact and truth by the rules of evidence and procedure as it is presented from the parties and then to apply the law only to what is properly established in evidence before it.

The court is not free to assume our tender of payment is not a legally valid obligation of the United States legally tenderable in commerce for the discharge of debt, simply because the plaintiff assumes this when plaintiff has presented nothing to show otherwise, and has made no response whatsoever to Defendant's tender of payoff of this debt to claim anything, or dispute anything about it as cited in the United States code and code of federal regulations..

Unless the Court is going to presume to know what is or is not legal tender obligation the United States has bound itself or presume to know all the obligations the United States government may have in law or in equity and how it may have made provision to meet those obligations then it will not know this without the creditor establishing this fact by competent fact witness in its pleadings before the court, which they have not done.

Yet The burden of proof is on the obligee under the law. A tender cannot be dishonored without notice showing what’s suppose to be wrong with it giving the debtor actual opportunity to cure any supposed defect or insufficiency in his tender of payment.

Therefore, the court can not deny him the credit that may be due for a valid tender of payment with the creditor or his bank offering little more than saying or implying it is not, and such facts here evidencing Plaintiff's failure of commercial responsibility and wrongful dishonor in the handling of Defendants legal tender of payment and whether Defendants tender of payment was legally sufficient to discharge the debt clearly establishes material fact in dispute supported by evidence necessary to be addressed by Plaintiff in its claim if it is going to plead a debt has not been satisfied.

Plaintiff has neither demonstrated nor claimed knowledge of what obligations may be due the Defendant that we may have remedy for recovery under from whatever causes or reasons or in what ways law may authorize us to access such remedy, or what or by whose authority we may be empowered to make access to such remedy by any means at our disposal sanctioned by statute.

[rottweiler]

The knowledge of plaintiff or opinion of the Plaintiff or their attorney do not have a bearing on what the United States has determined by statute and statutory definition to be legal tender for discharge of debt. Legal tender for all debts public and private is determined by the Congress of the United States and they have done so in federal law and regulation cited by the Defendant and, as stated, it is not limited to that knowledge of the Plaintiff, nor determined by the opinions of the Plaintiff.

What is stated here and in the supporting documentation sent with it is what the law provides on its face and again, the plaintiff has offered nothing of authority to dispute this understanding,

Nor have they demonstrated any basis in commercial law to do anything other than present the instrument tendered by us for settlement according to its instructions, which apparently they did not.

Plaintiff’s complaint offers no facts or authoritative evidence of any kind to support it on this issue, and certainly nothing to show Defendant’s tender of payment is legally insufficient to discharge the debt as a matter of law even though it is his burden to do so if he would gain judgment.

Whether the tender of payment made is legally insufficient to discharge the debt as a matter of law is a material fact essential to the foundation of plaintiff’s pleadings, that is assumed in plaintiff’s claims, yet unsupported by any evidence or competent fact witness Plaintiff has presented to support its allegations the debt has not been paid.

DAMAGES ENTERED ON THE RECORD

As already stated, as of the date of this filing the tender of payment has not been returned to the Defendant and Defendant has received no response from plaintiff in correction of the statement of account submitted and has not seen or been presented with any documentation from Plaintiff or their banking institution or other obligee or endorser citing on authority of any Federal or state statute or regulation that the tender in discharge that has been made by the Defendant in satisfaction of this indebtedness is not a legal tender discharge of this debt. and that crediting and settlement of this account is not in order.

Further, Plaintiff's complaint and its statement of amounts owed makes no acknowledgment of the fact of Defendant's tender in payoff having been made or the disposition of it in final settlement of this account by which evidence on the record may prove actual damages and balances owed not covered by Defendant's tender of payment.

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).

Plaintiff’s pleading has failed to establish by competent fact witness Defendants tender of payment is not legally sufficient to discharge the debt and legally negotiable and tenderable in commerce under the laws of the United States of America, and has not, in fact, legally discharged this obligation in full such that there can be a balance due and owing causing damages entitling plaintiff to relief.

And therefore, actual damages and balances owed not covered by Defendant's tender of payment, is a material fact of plaintiff’s pleading that is assumed by the Plaintiff unsupported by any competent fact witness on their part Plaintiff has presented to give the Court subject matter of an actual balance due and owing not satisfied by Defendant’s tender of payment [date] for the Court to hear the claim and it should be dismissed.

Further, Plaintiff’s pleading the debt has not been paid is not supported by the final return to defendant of the instrument tendered in payment of this debt unmarked and unnegotiated showing it has not been converted or recovered on, or any competent fact witness from any authority showing anything to be legally insufficient about our tender of payment under federal statutory law as basis to refuse it, for the Court to know the debt has not been and is not satisfied by it, or documentary evidence of its rejection by the drawee, or examination of any agents of the Plaintiff’ who would testify it was not or could not be negotiated for settlement, establishing any reasonable commercial responsibility was exercised on their part to gain settlement and satisfaction from it, therefore Plaintiff’s pleading offered no competent fact witness of subject matter that a debt still exists that has not been recovered on and therefore such a claim is vague and ambiguous to give the Court jurisdiction to hear their claim.

Such claim requires a more definite statement to establish this or in the alternative should be struck as insufficient for this reason as well.

And Defendant moves that it be so ordered.

III.

Plaintiff’s pleading has failed to assert by affidavit or other competent fact witness the facimile copy of the supposed contract agreement between the parties submitted as an exhibit of evidence by the Plaintiff in support of his complaint showing that binding arbitration was allegedly agreed between the parties, is in fact a true and correct copy of the original contract in which such terms were agreed to, thereby failing to establish by competent fact witness any obligation requiring either to attend or accept any such arbitration.

The alleged agreement submitted as Plaintiff’s evidence that binding arbitration was agreed to nowhere contains even a copy alleged as Defendant’s signature and agreement to the contract in this form and therefore the claim is vague and ambiguous.

Plaintiff’s pleadings establish in no way that the agreement submitted as evidence purported to be that agreed to between the parties was, in fact, signed by the borrower and therefore the claim is vague and ambiguous to show what the agreement between the parties actually was the borrower did sign.

In the day of computer technology and the sophisticated means by which a document can be put together to make the copies say whatever the bank wants to have them say is no proof of anything without competent fact witness what the original contract actually was, or my agreement to it, as the subject matter of this dispute giving jurisdiction for the Court to hear the claim.

If Plaintiff cannot provide the Court with a competent fact witness as to what the original, unaltered signed contract actually was that we agreed to, which they have not, then the Defendant nor the Court has any way to judge the compliance of either of us to the contract if it doesn’t know as fact established by the rules of evidence what the substance of the actual contract was regarding arbitration or even the basic terms of the loan agreement itself and therefore the claim is vague and ambiguous to give the Court subject matter of an actual agreement to have jurisdiction to hear any claims based on such agreement.

Such claim requires a more definite statement to establish this or in the alternative should be struck as insufficient, and Defendant so moves.

IV.

The bank makes no pleading they are an injured party and have suffered actual loss and damage from my performance as basis to bring this claim. This may sound incredulous to the Court.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

A few days ago we learned from one of the people we have been working with their opponent, MBNA has submitted a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of their complant aganst her. The reasons to speculate why they did this are too many and varied to begin because there were many strong points in this case even though they had an arbitration award where the person essentially defaulted on making a valid defense in the arbitration process.
She did begin to Voir Dire the Court about who his oath was to at the first sign he may not give her fair hearing at what was to be the first hearing and he recused himself finding reason in his owning stock in MBNA or some such. But the Voluntary Dismissal came before the hearing could be heard before the new judge so we didn't even get to try out our wares on him,
We had submitted discovery on the bank loan and being set to do business in the state.
Discharge of the debt was involved where the instrument had been kept without return or dishonor or mention in their pleadngs and that was a large part of the defense.
But so that any can judge for themselves what they think the reason might be, I submit below much of the motion for more definite statement of the complaint which was the only motion filed and is the very first motion we file in such cases.

Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides If a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, he may move for a more definite statement.

The motion is to point out the defects complained of and the details desired and the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense.

II.

MBNA AMERICA makes no pleading by affidavit or other competent fact witness that legally sufficient satisfaction of this debt has not been made to prove a debt between us still existed at the time this suit was brought as subject matter upon which Plaintiff could seek relief.

And has further failed in its pleadings to acknowledge or establish the disposition of such satisfaction of this debt to be able to give competent fact witness of actual damages entitling plaintiff to judgment.

And thereby Plaintiff's pleadings is vague and ambiguous to empower the court with subject matter jurisdiction to hear such claims against the Defendant.

Such claim requires a more definite statement to establish this or in the alternative should be struck as insufficient, and Defendant so moves.

STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE TENDER OF DISCHARGE OF THE DEBT

Plaintiff's complaint and its statement of amounts owed makes no acknowledgment of the fact of Defendant's tender in payoff having been made or the disposition of it in final settlement of this account by which evidence on the record may prove actual damages and balances owed not covered by Defendant's tender of payment.

On September 1, 2004 Defendant tendered payment of this debt. What was tendered in satisfaction of this debt was written and issued by the Affiant in accordance with UCC 4-105, 12CFRSec. 229.2, 210.2 under Authority of United States Code 31 USC 392, 5103, 12 USC 1813, and 18 USC 8, which officially defines this as a statutory legal tender obligation of THE UNITED STATES in Accordance with 31 USC 3123 and HJR- 192(1933) together establishing and providing for its issuance as “Public Policy” in remedy for discharge of equity interest recovery on that portion of the public debt to its Principals, and Sureties bearing the Obligations of THE UNITED STATES.

It appears this is a statutory remedy for equity interest recovery due the principles and sureties of the United States for the lawful discharge of debts in commerce in conjunction with US obligations to that portion of the public debt to these it is intended to reduce.

Federal law defining ‘legal tender’ in Title 31 Section 5103 and ‘Obligations of the United States’ under Title 18 Section 8 of the United States Code cited above provide for various forms of notes and commercial paper to be written and issued by private entities against such obligations of the United States to whom they may be due or upon an Officer of the United States who has duty to over see the satisfaction of such obligations, which when written, become statutory law legal tender obligations of the United States fully tenderable, negotiable and exchangeable in commerce though they may not be commonly known or understood.

This may sound strange to the Court, but I am sure the Court is aware of more benefit that has been gained, by more people in shorter space of time from other provisions of the United States government stranger than this one.

This is what the law provides on its face and the bank has offered nothing of authority to dispute this understanding. Affiant has not seen or been presented with any statutory, factual, or historical documentation or evidence from MBNA America Bank N.A. to dispute what is stated here as fact or disputing by the law our right under the law to issue this note as a statutory legal tender obligation of THE UNITED STATES in satisfaction of this debt.

Plaintiiff has produced no competent fact witness from any authority showing anything to be legally insufficient about our tender of payment under federal statutory law to discharge this debt.

We have proof it was received along with multiple authorities we gave establishing our right to use it in this way as fully tenderable, negotiable and exchangeable in commerce. It has been kept and not returned.

As stated, We have received no notice of dishonor showing from any authority anything to be legally insufficient about it, And we have no idea what they have done with it.

We have sought in discovery to learn where it is, and whether settlement has been gained, or what of any reasonable commercial responsibility was exercised on their part to gain settlement and satisfaction from it, if it has not been recovered on.

To date They have provided no authoritative testimony what’s suppose to be wrong with it or legally insufficient about our tender of payment for the Court to know the debt has not been and is not satisfied by it, and no evidence to support their right to refuse it, or any allegation what we gave them is somehow no good and not legally sufficient to discharge the debt under the law, to prove a debt between us still exists.

Obviously, if the debt has been legally satisfied as a matter of law the Plaintiff has no basis for this action against the Defendant. The question is material to the case. The legal question therefore becomes, Is the tender of payment we have made legally sufficient to discharge the debt as a matter of prevailing federal law on the subject, not whether it is easy to deal with or convenient or a familiar form of settlement.

Our opponent has shown no error in our understanding of the law cited as legal basis for this instrument nor have they alleged we have misrepresented what the law says as a basis to refuse it or to refuse to give credit for it.. We clearly understood our opponent is not familiar with this form of tender of payment and would understandably resist having to take it. And we are aware the court is not likely to be familiar with it either.

But The job of the Court is to discern the facts and apply the law.

The Court is not here to decide this issue from its own personal knowledge or belief of what is true , but to discern fact and truth by the rules of evidence and procedure as it is presented from the parties and then to apply the law only to what is properly established in evidence before it.

The court is not free to assume our tender of payment is not a legally valid obligation of the United States legally tenderable in commerce for the discharge of debt, simply because the plaintiff assumes this when plaintiff has presented nothing to show otherwise, and has made no response whatsoever to Defendant's tender of payoff of this debt to claim anything, or dispute anything about it as cited in the United States code and code of federal regulations..

Unless the Court is going to presume to know what is or is not legal tender obligation the United States has bound itself or presume to know all the obligations the United States government may have in law or in equity and how it may have made provision to meet those obligations then it will not know this without the creditor establishing this fact by competent fact witness in its pleadings before the court, which they have not done.

Yet The burden of proof is on the obligee under the law. A tender cannot be dishonored without notice showing what’s suppose to be wrong with it giving the debtor actual opportunity to cure any supposed defect or insufficiency in his tender of payment.

Therefore, the court can not deny him the credit that may be due for a valid tender of payment with the creditor or his bank offering little more than saying or implying it is not, and such facts here evidencing Plaintiff's failure of commercial responsibility and wrongful dishonor in the handling of Defendants legal tender of payment and whether Defendants tender of payment was legally sufficient to discharge the debt clearly establishes material fact in dispute supported by evidence necessary to be addressed by Plaintiff in its claim if it is going to plead a debt has not been satisfied.

Plaintiff has neither demonstrated nor claimed knowledge of what obligations may be due the Defendant that we may have remedy for recovery under from whatever causes or reasons or in what ways law may authorize us to access such remedy, or what or by whose authority we may be empowered to make access to such remedy by any means at our disposal sanctioned by statute.

What is your Question? OCC alert instructed the lender not to accepted any instruments from individual even if the instrument is authentic. The black robe go with the order too once the third party file it with their claims.

[rottweiler]

But let the court examine the pleadings. Apart from tender of payment made which they do not give any competent fact witness how it is legally insufficient to discharge the debt, or how it has been dishonored and recovery not gained, or what they have done with if it has not. They affirm documentary evidence to support an amount of an account supposedly due and owing, but even if our tender of payment has not legally satisfied the debt, their pleadings do not assert they are an injured party with actual loss or damage suffered from my performance as a basis to seek relief from the Court, and further offers no competent fact witness the bank has suffered actual loss and damage from my performance as basis to bring this claim

Whereas, in the maxims of law:

Where there is no injured party established, there can be no claim. 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).

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

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

Whether the bank has suffered actual equitable loss as a result of Defendant’s performance, as a cause for action against me is clearly a material fact of Plaintiff’s pleadings that must be established before this Court can hear their claims, which they have not.

Implication or what the Court is asked to assume is not proper pleading of a competent fact witness required under the rules, and therefore the claim is vague and ambiguous to establish they are an injured party with subject matter of actual loss and damage suffered from my performance for the court to have jurisdiction to hear claims against me because of it.

Such claim requires a more definite statement to establish this or in the alternative should be struck as insufficient, and Defendant so moves.

V.

Plaintiff’s pleading has failed to assert by affidavit or other competent fact witness the Plaintiff to be the holder in due course of the original, unnegotiated unconverted, debt instrument who would have personal jurisdiction and standing as legal holders of the debt to bring this action in their own name at the time this was done or whether such note/contract between Plaintiff and Defendant survives today has not been established by the plaintiff by affidavit or other competent fact witness.

In summary, Plaintiff’s pleadings establishes in no way they are the injured part who is still holder of the alleged debt…… that it still exists,……that it was signed by the borrower ………… or what the agreement between the parties actually was the borrower did sign, as the pleading makes no affirmation of competent fact witness that the debt instrument can be produced to establish these facts.

None of these material facts has been established by the plaintiff in its pleadings as a basis for such claims to empower the court with the personal jurisdiction of the plaintiff to bring the claim or the subject matter of the agreement between the parties for it to have jurisdiction to hear claims against the Defendant based on such agreement.

In the day of computer technology and the sophisticated means by which a document can be put together to make the copies say whatever the bank wants to have them say with my signature from the original attached in fact is no proof of anything without competent fact witness they still hold the actual debt instrument to make claim, and can show what the original contract actually was, or my agreement to it, as the subject matter of this dispute giving jurisdiction for the Court to hear the claim.

Where the complaining party can not prove the existence of the note or the substance of the agreement in it, that it is what the offending party agreed to, and that they are still holders to enforce it, then there is no note, there is no agreement, and there is no authority for them to enforce anything empowering them to bring a claim.

The Court’s have held that law applicable to a promissory note for some purposes is also applicable to other credit agreements and instruments:

[1999 Tex. App. LEXIS 3804,*;994 S.W.2d 280

KAREN SMITH BIRD, Appellant, v. FIRST DEPOSIT NATIONAL BANK, Appellee.

We find that a bank's credit card account is analogous to a promissory note, …..]

To recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of the note in question; (2) that the party sued signed the note; (3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note; and (4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note. See In Re: SMS Financial LLc. v. Abco Homes, Inc. No.98-50117 February 18, 1999 (5th Circuit Court of Appeals) and the Courts have held further no part payments should be made on the bond or note unless the person to whom payment is made is able to produce the bond or note and the part payments are endorsed thereon.

If no one is able to produce the “instrument” there is no competent evidence before the Court that any party is the holder of the alleged note or the true holder in due course. Further, Common law also dictates that the plaintiff prove the existence of the alleged note in question, prove that the party sued signed the alleged note, prove that the plaintiff is the owner and holder of the alleged note, and prove that certain balance is due and owing on any alleged note. Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that the only way to prove the perfection of any security is by actual possession of the security. See Matter of Staff Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir 1977).

Where the complaining party can not prove the existence of the debt, then there is no debt.

This is established as well under MS Code 75- 3-302, holder in due course. The only notice sufficient to inform all interested parties that a security interest in instruments has been perfected is actual possession by the secured party, his agent or bailee.” Bankruptcy Courts have followed the Uniform Commercial Code. In Re Investors & Lenders, Ltd. 165 B.R. 389 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J.1994),

Unequivocally the Court’s rule is that in order to prove the “instrument”, possession is mandatory.

Absent this, Plaintiff's pleadings fail to empower the court with the personal jurisdiction of the plaintiff to bring the claim or the subject matter of the agreement between the parties for it to have jurisdiction to hear its claims against the Defendant, and any judgment baaed on the hearing of such a claim is void.

If their pleading does not offer any competent fact witness They are still legal holders of the original, unnegotiated unconverted, debt instrument, as the potentially injured party, which they have not, the claim is vague and ambiguous and fails to establish personal jurisdiction and standing before the Court for Plaintiff to bring this action and for the Court to hear their claim

Such claim requires a more definite statement to establish this or in the alternative should be struck as insufficient, and Defendant so moves.

If their pleading does not offer any competent fact witness they are able to produce the debt instrument itself to show the Court what the original, unaltered signed contract actually was that we agreed to, which they have not, then the Defendant nor the Court has any way to judge the compliance of either of us to the contract if it doesn’t know as fact established by the rules of evidence what the substance of the actual contract was, and therefore the claim is vague and ambiguous to give the Court subject matter of an actual agreement to have jurisdiction to hear any claims based on such agreement.

Such claim requires a more definite statement to establish this or in the alternative should be struck as insufficient, and Defendant so moves.

Further, given the nature of Plaintiff’s claim and the nature of this debt instrument contract which is the basis for it, Plaintiff’s pleading is vague and ambiguous and does not establish competent fact witness acceptable in law they brought equity to this contract, already their own, not gained or offset by conversion into equity of the debt instrument gained from the borrower for which they could have suffered loss or damage from Defendant’s non performance as a basis to bring their claim.