Livinglies's Weblog

from K. Rudek

First your honor, Plaintiff’s counsel implies that only one set of material facts and one side of the contract is in play here: that being the obligations on the Defendant and the facts surrounding those obligations when the court full well knows “there are two sides to every coin and every contract”. And the issues are no more relevant on one side of this case than on the other side the court must consider.
We have submitted into evidence defendant’s Affidavit FDCPA EFD with documentary evidence of correspondence affirmed in our affidavit of first hand knowledge, proving Plaintiff had not responded to Defendant’s good faith requests for verification and validation of the debt according to the legal definition of these terms that act to estoppe the Plaintiff and his Attorney from further collection action under the FDCPA including the filling of this claim until this dispute was resolved according to law. This is not disputed by plaintiff and therefore stands as fact before the court on which this claim should be denied.

We have affidavit SRC of first hand knowledge, affirming there is no evidence found by Defendant or provided by the Plaintiff as to whether plaintiff has complied with the law and is authorized by its corporate charter to engage in this type of contract or to file suits in foreclosure of consumer debt which fact has been disputed by the defendant. We affirm this has not been disclosed by the Plaintiff nor has any documentation been provided by them to show the court they have complied with these requirements of law to bring this case and it is not found by the defendant, and on this basis the claim should be denied.
Then your honor we have submitted into the record affidavit, A, wherein we have affirmed first hand knowledge this presented by plaintiff is not a copy of the contract I entered into and that we have received no competent fact witness by affidavit or other documentation from them showing they are the true holder of the debt and can produce the unnegotiated, unconverted, signed debt instrument/credit application agreement or the signed charge slips that should still be in plaintiff’s possession as their own from their payment of purchases on the card on which any claim of an amount owed must be based, showing they are the potentially injured party who would have standing to bring this claim.

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, which can only be the original agreement itself.
From the Securities and Exchange Commission, Release on ASSET BACKED SECURITIES; relevant portions now submitted into the record as exhibit ABS we find on pages 10 and 11 as far back as 2003, 128 billion dollars in credit card receivables accounted for 16% of the total Asset-Backed Securities market Wherein a sponsor acquires a pool of financial assets and sells them to a specifically created investment vehicle that issues securities “backed” by those financial assets…..” and that these markets have grown every year which gives rise to reasonable suspicion this credit card account may have been part of such an Asset-Backed Securities pool, and if so, as indicated it would have been sold to and owned by the “specifically created investment vehicle that issues securities “backed” or supported by those financial assets…..” and could not then or now be actually held or owned by the Plaintiff if it is still in such an Asset-Backed Securities pool. Again, Plaintiff’s affidavit offers no affirmation that the debt instrument/credit agreement can actually be produced to evidence this is not the case or to support their affirmation they are holders of it in support of Plaintiff’s standing to bring this suit
and it should be denied on these grounds.
And Defendant should be granted relief and monetary damages for plaintiff’s FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS TO STANDING TO ENFORCE CONTRACT and has further damaged the Defendant by its ABUSE OF PROCESS and MALICIOUS CIVIL PROSECUTION.

Then your honor we have shown from Federal Reserve Bank publications and other authoritative sources of the banking and accounting industry, exhibits G and M, in our Affidavit AFR we have submitted into the record, showing standard banking practices in financial markets, that this loan has not been made by taking the bank’s existing assets or of its depositors and giving it to the borrower with the full equitable risk of loss represented in the contract, but was instead made by “expansion of depository institution credit” from the receiving of my note into the bank as equity of commercial paper money equivalence, bringing new deposit money credit on to its books which has been debited and transferred out of the bank in settlement of its card obligations Without the bank bringing its already existing equity to the transaction, and without the full risk to its other assets and deposits to recover represented to me in the contract as basis for my agreement to it.
This is not our supposed faulty understanding of what happened your honor. We are just quoting what their own authorities have said,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Loans are made by creating additional deposit money.”
….. they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created.

……..”When a bank makes a loan, it accepts as an asset the borrower’s debt obligation and creates ….on its books ….a demand deposit in the amount of the loan…….. This money creation increased the bank’s assets and ……Thus, the loan did not simply bring about a redistribution of assets.”

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
“The total of currency — the money supply — is increased. New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit..”

Which is further documented by the official Federal Reserve System website cited in Affidavit AFR showing the cash fractional reserve percentage of the original lender or any successor’s assets required to be held and actually placed at risk of the actual face principal of any loan amount or its purchase would not exceed 10% of the face of the loan in any Federal Reserve District for an institution of any size as a standard banking practice in the present world financial markets.

This use of the credit agreement is further established by federal regulations and the United States banking code: 12 USC Sect. 1813 we have submitted into the record.
According to 12 USC Sect. 1813, and the authority of legal definition in federal law of a deposit, 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” among other things “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”. And this note/debt instrument and signed charge slips is included in what may be received as
“ the equivalent of money” and credited as such on the bank’s books “in exchange for it”.

As standard banking practice, shown by the authority of legal definition in federal law, The bank deposited the note/debt instrument, and/or signed charge slips. And by the inclusion of it in the United States banking code’s official definition of a “deposit”, by the authority of legal definition in federal law, the bank has, in fact, gained monetary conversion of the commercial paper money equivalent equity asset of my note/debt instrument as equity converted into money on its books which has funded or offset the funding of at least 90% the extensions of credit in this contract or [[$ XXXXXXXXX ]] and did not bring this equity to the contract for which there could be an injured party with actual loss and damage from my performance as basis to bring this claim for them to seek recovery on.

By its “deposit, ” they have converted the equity of it into money on the bank’s books which has offset any loss or damage they had from my performance,
excepting only the 10% or less cash fractional reserve required to be held and actually placed at risk for the loan or its purchase at any time as a cause for action to bring this suit.
This is not disputed by plaintiff and therefore stands as fact before the court on which this claim should be denied.
We further affirm, in Affidavit A have we not received any competent fact witness whether there may be markings on the debt instruments, that deposit or monetary conversion of them, or the signed charge slips, into equity has been made by the bank negating and offsetting any loss or damage from my performance for them to seek recovery on.

Nor we affirm in Affidavit A and AFR are there any pleadings or evidences in this case they have suffered actual equitable loss and damage from Defendant’s performance to have sought relief in the amounts shown that would not be offset by deposit or conversion of the debt instruments or signed charge slips into equity, by definition cited in the banking code : 12 USC Sect. 1813, “credited as money” on the bank’s books in exchange for the debt instruments or signed charge slips, as is standard banking practice we have shown from authoritative documentation of the Federal Reserve System and the American Banker’s Association, how loans are made in this way. There is Nothing from them or in their affidavits that factually rebuts these evidences on this point to establish they brought equity to this contract already their own before the contract was made and are at actual face loss to get to back, in compliance with their own representations in the contract. None of these facts established in our affidavits A and AFR by these authorities and official documentation cited therein is disputed by plaintiff on any point affirmed and therefore stands as fact before the court as prima facie evidence the bank has not complied with the representations of its contract it is at risk to its own assets or its depositors to recover the full face amount of the equity loaned.
This purported risk is what all the terms and obligations on the borrower in their contract is based on your honor
and is probably the most fundamental material fact of it.
And the breach of those representations they have this risk represented is a fundamental breach of the agreement that voids the contract and this claim from the beginning before the borrower’s obligations ever began.
In support of their case, Plaintiff offers only the affidavits of [Constance Curtis ], and [ name] who acknowledges they are only [an] agents of the bank and declares no competency of legal knowledge or status to affirm or dispute any of these material facts that we have established.
First, Pursuant to Rule 56.06. of the Rules of Civil Procedure says under Form of Affidavits —“Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.”

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud |