0 votes

REALLY Need Help: My home Foreclosure hearing is tomorrow. *UPDATED* 4-26-2010!!!

Can any one here give me some advice on how to make the lender produce the note (in a legal manner). Countrywide was the original lender (they no longer exist). Bank of America now supposedly holds the note. How would I go about challenging them without hiring an attorney? Any advice would be much appreciated!

Ok, so I woke up this morning not knowing what I was going to do, logged on to the DP, and after reading some of your guys posts from after I went to bed I got up the confidence to go down to the courthouse to see what I could do.

When the magistrate asked me if I had anything to say I said yes your honor, I would like BofA, formerly Countrywide Home Loans, to produce the genuine original promissory note for this amount, also, I want to be sure B of A has standing to collect on this alleged debt. (thank you esp to jules and wolfe, jules for giving me something to go with, and wolfe with letting me know non lawyers get more leeway)

Anyway, the magistrate says very good; have you filed and answer with the court? No your honor, I have not. Mag: Technically you should have done that already, but I will grant you till 11/27/2009 to file an answer with the court and mail to all concerning parties.

UPDATE* 11/24/2009

After much research I have finished my answer to the complaint. Im going to take it to a lawyer friend now to review it and hopefully file it today. I really think I nailed it. The burden of Proof is now on the bank. I want to thank the whole Daily Paul family so much for all your advice, info, encouragement, and support! Wish me luck!

UPDATE* 11/25/2009

Answer to complaint filed with the clerk of courts today. Copy mailed to Plaintiff via certified mail. My lawyer friend says i probably wont hear from anyone for a while now.

UPDATE* 2/18/2010 !!!!!!!!!!!

Out of curiosity yesterday i was checking the Clerk of Courts website to see if anything new had been filed and sure enough Bank of America has filed a motion for Summary Judgment. They didnt even notify me though it says they did in their affidavit. i got it today at the courthouse. They have two affidavits in support of the motion. I think i've got em but i need help.

In the affidavit a man named Greg Hige*** labeled as Assistant Vice President of BAC Home Loans states:

1.
In such job position affiant has the custody of the accounts of said company, including the account of Mr. _____ , defendant herein. Affiant states that the records of the accounts of said company are compiled at or near the time of occurence of each event by persons with knowledge of said events, that said records are kept in the course of its regularly conducted business activity, and that it is the regular practice to keep such records related to the business activity.

2. Plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage which are the subject of the within foreclosure action. TRUE AND ACCURATE REPRODUCTIONS of the originals as they exist in Plaintiff's files are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B".

3. Affiant states that there has been a default in payment under the terms of the aforesaid note and mortgage. The account is due for the August 1, 2008 payment and all subsequent payments. Plaintiff has therefore elected to accelerate the entire balance due.

4. Affiant states that there is due on said account a principal balance of 59,704.21, together with interest thereon from July 1, 2008 at 6.125 percent annum and as may be subsequently adjusted if provided for by the terms of the note, and advances for taxes insurance or otherwise expended to protect the property.

They didnt produce the genuine original note! All they did was submit another copy! Where do I go from here. My Answer specifically demanded they produce the Genuine original promissory note.

UPDATE!! 2-28-2010

Ive discovered that a lady who signed for the ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE listed as the Assistant Vice President for Countrywide has also in the last three years been listed as Assistant VP of MERS, VP of Countrywide, and Assistant VP of Bank of New York, constantly flipping back and forth signing these ASSIGNMENTS OF MORTGAGE. Also, I just discovered tonight via Fannie Mae's web site that they currently own the loan for my house. They are not listed anywhere in any of BOA's filings. I'm diggin!!!

UPDATE!! 3-17-2010

Back on March 5th I filed my Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment challenging BOA's standing as the real party in interest after I discovered that my mortgage loan was sold to Fannie Mae, and to this day are still claiming ownership. As well as the fact that the lady they had sign the assignment of mortgage as Countrywide's Assistant Vice President also signed on the very same day on six different occasions as the Assistant Vice President of MERS that i could find on file with the the County Recorder here in my county. Well, checked the docket online today and BOA has filed a Motion for Extension of Time to reply to Defendant's Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment.

I really dont know what to expect now.

UPDATE!! 4-02-2010

From the docket today:

"PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF MAY FILE ITS REPLY ON OR BEFORE APRIL 23, 2010"

UPDATE 4-26-2010

The bank filed a reply in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. I'm so confused and overwhelmed right now. I really dont know if i have a chance now. They are now stating that they are the servicer for fannie mae among other things. not sure where to go with this now.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you filed for them to produce the note...

and they ignored it...you Need to immediately file a motion to dismiss your obligations!!

Without the note they have NO CASE!!! IF you ignore the fact that you won (ie they did not present the note in time) it is your loss... meaning you need to get the judge to either dismiss the case -mortgages(ie no grounds for foreclosure or no grounds for them to collect payments from you), or he/she must command the bank to present the note.

If you end up in court and they do present the original...then you can either dispute your signatures(which means they will need to bring the original notary public to the stand)or go about an attack on the validity of a fraudulent loan.

If you read down this thread there are some examples of how to question the bank officer if it ever gets to court, on a fraudulent loan issue. You will either need to find an attorney who has NO FEAR AND BALLS OF STEEL... or be your own attorney . (the post below shows an example of a conversation between a bank exec. on the stand and an attorney)
http://dailypaul.com/node/115088#comment-1420782

This sounds like a win to me

Judge should dismiss their claims! No Note, No Foreclosure.

And you're right on the Bankruptcy...that is like slavery...just walk away.

RP R3VOLution

Thanks jdayh, but there is no court involved

With whom do I file a motion to dismiss my obligations? Or do I have to wait until they are actually trying to foreclose on me?

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

you have 2 choices....

one you can "attack them" like file suit to force them to either show the original note or walk away.....

or....

wait till they foreclose and then file papers (ie rebuttal papers) asking the judge to have them show the note!

Look at it this way..you have nothing to lose by trying...make it a hobby... IF you succeed.. you can teach people what you did.

I would like to hear more paul4won

We have a few (2-4) months.

Still trying to figure it out myself.

Regards.

(you can contact me private if you wish)

Gavin, Please keep us updated

Gavin,

Please keep us updated about what you decide. Many folks are praying for you and wishing you well.

Ron Paul 2012 - It's Almost Here!

Hate to say I told you so but..

On 2/2/2010 some sagacious advice was given. Today you would have owned your house free and clear with no court hearing. I'll pray for your success though no matter what remedy you seek.

It seems like you rather enjoy it to me...

You did not give sagacious advice. You gave vague hints, that left me feeling you might actually know something useful, but that you would not give away details. I did contact you once, and already know that the price for your info puts your help in the category of only helping those who do not need help.
It always used to blow my mind when the doctors would give the other doctors free health care, but I do understand that is how the world works. Keep giving financial help to those who have plenty of money, Gene...

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

You are assuming facts not in evidence

The only person I have helped was the one who asked: "gavination". As you can see he or she declined the offer to help and is now about to lose his or her home. I don't know "info" you are talking about as I don't provide any except the following which no one has read: On June 5, 1933, Congress passed House Joint Resolution (HJR 192). HJR 192 was passed to suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause in the national constitution. Since then no one in America has been able to lawfully pay a debt. This resolution declared:
"To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the Unites States,
Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect public interest, and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and
Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency of the United States, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts,
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of t Representative of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that
(a) every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payments in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Any such provision contained in any law authorizing obligations to be issued by or under authority of the United States, is herby repealed, but the repeal of any such provision shall not invalidate any other provision or authority contained in such law.
(b) As used in this resolution, the term 'obligation' means any obligation (including every obligation of and to the United States, excepting currency) payable in money of the United States; and the term 'coin or currency' means coin or currency of the United States, including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations.
Sec. 2 The last sentence of paragraph (1) of subsection (b) of section 43 of the Act entitled 'An Act to relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks, and of other purposes;, approved May 12, 1933, is amended to read as follows:
"All coins and currencies of the United Stated (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of the Federal Reserve banks and national banking associations) heretofore or hereafter coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties, and dues, except that gold coins, when below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided by law for the single piece, shall be legal tender only at valuation in proportion to their actual weight.'
Approved, June 5, 1933, 4:40 p.m. 31 U.S.C.A. 462, 463
House Joint Resolution 192, 73d Congress, Sess. I, Ch. 48, June 5, 1933 (Public Law No. 10 )
Note: "payment of debt" is now against Congressional and "public policy" and henceforth, "Every obligation . . . Shall be discharged."
As a result of HJR 192, and from that day forward (June 5, 1933), no one in this nation has been able to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do, is tender in transfer of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our common law to operate on, and created a void as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a "PUBLIC NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEM" where debt is "LEGAL TENDER" money.
HJR 192 was implemented immediately. The day after President Roosevelt signed the resolution, the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional "payable in gold" clause.
192 states that one cannot demand a certain form of currency that they want to receive if it is dollar for dollar. If you review the Modern Money Mechanics article you will discover that all currency is your credit! The Federal Reserve calls it "monetized debt." The problem with the above-said case is that the gentleman is not pointing out to the court that you cannot "pay" a debt with a debt. You can only discharge it as guaranteed by the public policy of congress. I have had 100% success with over thirty homes using this method.

Thanks

I did ask for your help, and you asked for several ounces of gold to help me. I do not have several ounces of gold, so we are doing our best to fight this on our own. I will try use this information, and I truly appreciate you posting it. Truly, I do not have any expectation of justice out of the courts sytem, so I will still sell off all my personal belongings and assume I will be living in an RV soon.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

wolfe's picture

Hey...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126675999

If you are gonna be out anyway... Have some fun... :) I am serious about this but not sure if you will take it that way...

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

You are assuming facts not in evidence

Please provide evidence that Amendment VIII was repealed or overturned.

Thank You --> Gene Koszio

I will use this, thank you so much for your information.

They are going to sell our home at the Court house
June 2, 2010- how do I stop this if Federal Court doesn't contact me before hand????

United We Stand

We Went to our County Court House today

Because they told us over the Phone that Bank of America paid the TAXES! Yeah right! They stole my husbands $926.00 Escrow account! I told them no they didn't- so now we know why they want people to have an Escrow- Any way we went to the Deed Office and she printed off showing that it is with MERS!!!

Now I know I read on here about a power of attorney- some one tell me again- cause she told me they have to file what someone brings to them?- I'm not walking away- to hell with that- I will fight to hell and back before they get another FREE HOME!! HJR 192 YOU CAN'T PAY A DEBT WITH A DEBT!

United We Stand

May 8 2010 they are going to foreclose!

I live in Missouri- they are going to sell our Home June 2, 2010!!!

I really need help! I have filed in Federal Court May 5 2010

Why doesn't attorneys help us? Is it too much work? What is going on here!

Are they told to sit back and leave it alone???

United We Stand

I'm no lawyer but,

if you are buried in the house, I'd walk away. If you only have a year or two, three...Fight. I know this is wearing you out but, there is always a better tomorrow. As for the law..they make it up as they go. I don't see much hope in fighting courts/banks...I'd get out of the city and see if you can work on a farm for room, board, some wages. You'll be a lot better off when the war starts this year.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey

I AM NOT AN attorney either

But I have experienced filing suit before in Federal Court- and I don't care to do a thousand!

If people sit back and say " Oh well " then why do people ask - how come they do things like this?? Because we don't make & take a stand! Now if some one can help me, I will be thankful

I live in Missouri- and it may be the show me state but I am tired of being shoved instead of being shown!

I need to know about the Power of Attorney Part on the Property- I want to transfer it back to us from MERS since it doesn't breathe like me-

Thank YOu for any help
573-718-5745 or contact me at
debdgg@aol.com

United We Stand

According to our company lawyer

Missouri is one state in which the mortgage cannot be satisfied by walking away from the house and letting the bank foreclose. If the mortgage is for more than the amount the bank can recover from a foreclosure sale, the original mortgagee is responsible to pay the difference. The bank is protected. So he could end up with no house, but continuing mortgage payments (albeit, smaller).

I believe that is not the case in California, where the house is 100% security for the mortgage? In that case, walking away makes sense.

Your company lawyer is WRONG.

I went to TWO bankruptcy attorneys who were not aware of this law:

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=179414,00.html

They are LYING to get people to NOT walk away.

We have been turning ourselves upside down and inside out over this, and the bottom line was WALK AWAY. It is best for US, and harms the fraud perpetuating banksters the most.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Bankruptcy? Or don't they allow that in Missouri? If they don't (and I'm sure they do) I'd still walk away.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey

you have to pick your

you have to pick your battles. Sometimes its better to stay and fight other times its better to go.
If you stay and fight, the servicer must have a financial interest in order to foreclose (holder in due coarse) if they got paid for the note, how can they claim a loss? If the note funded a demand deposit account that funded the loan, then how come you have to repay the loan? They take one form of currency and change it then want you to believe it was a loan, thats the scam.

By the way I beat my bank, it took me 2 and a half years, it wasn't a grand slam, it was maybe a double :)

Ill come back and battle another day, my goal will be full reconveyance, Now that i have gone through it I can see how it can be done, but its a battle and they are very slippery snakes.

@ troyusaguy

Congrats- I'm glad you accomplished- ours is just beginning!

But I'm ready- just want to stop the vultures flying in to purchase at the court house doors FIRST-

I have it filed in federal court- just need to stop the sale at the court house- as far as MERS - its a virus-

hmmmm maybe I can say that on the power of attorney?? ;)

United We Stand

Gavination

I hope you have at least 48 hours. There is a man named Randy Kelton and he is a host on "Rule of Law Radio" they will be on again Thursday night from 8 pm
till 10 pm and then Friday night from 8pm till 12 am
the site is on FM radio and is streamed on the web here
http://ruleoflawradio.com/ Randy can give you the lowdown on EXACTLY what you need. Under the circumstances like unsecured debt there needs to be original info and B of A doesn't have it. Give them a call Thursday night Randy's email is Randy@RuleOfLawRadio.com He's really busy so a call Thursday might be more expeditious.

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

I

I may hafta give up the fight. I got a job in Nashville TN, with a disaster restoration company ive worked for in the past. I'll probably be there at least a year. The money is too good to pass up. I'll file a motion before I leave and then just see what happens.

I need a job too

I live in SC. Need help?

call me 864-425-1161

Brian Frank

Freedom is NOT free!

File an injunction

These people do not have the original note. File an injunction with a superior court, do that and include a mandamus demanding the superior court to request the original deed that you have asked for..You might want to make criminal complaints for fraud against the original party of interest. Ask Randy he will tell you exactly what you need.

Just one last kick in the nuts, then a final deathblow

request a change of venue.

request a change of venue. National banks are under the jurisdiction of all district courts.

Good luck

we can all learn from one another, thanks for sharing this with us and by the time your are through with this you could write a book.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

does fannie mae own your loan?

Go to fannie mae . com and look up your loan info. see if they own your loan. Then print out and bring to court.

http://loanlookup.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/

cque

I don't know

if your attorney could make use of any of the following, but just in case... I recently got this from "Taxcore:"

For those that may have wondered how a loan works in a fiat currency debt based banking system here it is. Here’s how a "bank loan" really works.

Interviews with bankers about a foreclosure. The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker's education and background.

The attorney asked the banker, "What is court exhibit A?"

The banker responded by saying, "This is a promissory note."

The attorney then asked, "Is there an agreement between Mr. Smith (borrower) and the defendant?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe the agreement includes a lender and a borrower?"

The banker responded by saying, "Yes, I am the lender and Mr. Smith is the borrower."

The attorney asked, "What do you believe the agreement is?"

The banker quickly responded, saying, " We have the borrower sign the note and we give the borrower a check."

The attorney asked, "Does this agreement show the words borrower, lender, loan, interest, credit, or money within the agreement?"

The banker responded by saying, "Sure it does."

The attorney asked, `"According to your knowledge, who was to loan what to whom according to the written agreement?"

The banker responded by saying, "The lender loaned the borrower a $50,000 check. The borrower got the money and the house and has not repaid the money."

The attorney noted that the banker never said that the bank received the promissory note as a loan from the borrower to the bank. He asked, "Do you believe an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe you or your company legally own the promissory note and have the right to enforce payment from the borrower?"

The banker said, "Absolutely we own it and legally have the right to collect the money."

The attorney asked, "Does the $50,000 note have actual cash value of $50,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $50,000 cash in the ordinary course of business."

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "According to your understanding of the alleged agreement, how much actual cash value must the bank loan to the borrower in order for the bank to legally fulfill the agreement and legally own the promissory note?"

The banker said, "$50,000."

The attorney asked, "According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $50,000 actual cash value, would the bank or borrower own the promissory note?"

The banker said, "The borrower would own it if the bank did not loan the money. The bank gave the borrower a check and that is how the borrower financed the purchase of the house."

The attorney asked, "Do you believe that the borrower agreed to provide the bank with $50,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"

The banker said, "No. If the borrower provided the $50,000 to fund the check, there was no money loaned by the bank so the bank could not charge interest on money it never loaned."

The attorney asked, "If this happened, in your opinion would the bank legally own the promissory note and be able to force Mr. Smith to pay the bank interest and principal payments?"

The banker said, "I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer legal questions."

The attorney asked, " Is it bank policy that when a borrower receives a $50,000 bank loan, the bank receives $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $50,000 bank loan check, and this check is returned to the borrower as a bank loan which the borrower must repay?"

The banker said, "I do not know the bookkeeping entries."

The attorney said, "I am asking you if this is the policy."

The banker responded, "I do not recall."

The attorney again asked, "Do you believe the agreement between Mr. Smith and the bank is that Mr. Smith provides the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which is used to fund a $50,000 bank loan check back to himself which he is then required to repay plus interest back to the same bank?"

The banker said, " I am not a lawyer."

The attorney said, "Did you not say earlier that an ordinary person can use ordinary terms and understand this written agreement?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney handed the bank loan agreement marked "Exhibit B" to the banker. He said, "Is there anything in this agreement showing the borrower had knowledge or showing where the borrower gave the bank authorization or permission for the bank to receive $50,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $50,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $50,000 plus interest?"

The banker said, "No."

The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $50,000 which the bank used to fund the $50,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $50,000 to the borrower?"

The banker said, "No."

The attorney asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $50,000 to the bank and the bank returns $50,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000."

The banker replied, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Did the agreement call for an exchange of $50,000 swapped for $50,000, or did it call for a $50,000 loan?"

The banker said, "A $50,000 loan."

The attorney asked, "Is the bank to follow the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures when banks grant loans."

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "What are the standard bank bookkeeping entries for granting loans according to the Federal Reserve Bank policies and procedures?" The attorney handed the banker FED publication Modern Money Mechanics, marked "Exhibit C".

The banker said, "The promissory note is recorded as a bank asset and a new matching deposit (liability) is created. Then we issue a check from the new deposit back to the borrower."

The attorney asked, "Is this not a swap or exchange of $50,000 for $50,000?"

The banker said, "This is the standard way to do it."
The attorney said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $50,000 actual cash value for $50,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?"

The banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The attorney asked, "If the bank's deposits (liabilities) increase, do the bank's assets increase by an asset that has actual cash value?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Is there any exception?"

The banker said, "Not that I know of."

The attorney asked, "If the bank records a new deposit and records an asset on the bank's books having actual cash value, would the actual cash value always come from a customer of the bank or an investor or a lender to the bank?"

The banker thought for a moment and said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to record the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new liability?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "Does the promissory note have actual cash value equal to the amount of the bank loan check?"

The banker said "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Does this bookkeeping entry prove that the borrower provided actual cash value to fund the bank loan check?"

The banker said, "Yes, the bank president told us to do it this way."

The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank loan to obtain the promissory note?"

The banker said, "Nothing."

The attorney asked, "How much actual cash value did the bank receive from the borrower?"

The banker said, "$50,000."

The attorney said, "Is it true you received $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower, plus monthly payments and then you foreclosed and never invested one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money to obtain the promissory note in the first place? Is it true that the borrower financed the whole transaction?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Are you telling me the borrower agreed to give the bank $50,000 actual cash value for free and that the banker returned the actual cash value back to the same person as a bank loan?"

The banker said, "I was not there when the borrower agreed to the loan."

The attorney asked, "Do the standard FED publications show the bank receives actual cash value from the borrower for free and that the bank returns it back to the borrower as a bank loan?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "Do you believe the bank does this without the borrower's knowledge or written permission or authorization?"

The banker said, "No."

The attorney asked, "To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorization for the bank to transfer $50,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?

The banker said, "No."

Does this allow the bank to use this $50,000 actual cash value to fund the $50,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $50,000 plus interest? "

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney said, "If the bank transferred $50,000 actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, in this part of the transaction, did the bank loan anything of value to the borrower?"

The banker said, "No." He knew that one must first deposit something having actual cash value (cash, check, or promissory note) to fund a check.

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to first transfer the actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the lender for the amount of the alleged loan?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Does the bank pay IRS tax on the actual cash value transferred from the alleged borrower to the bank?"

The banker answered, "No, because the actual cash value transferred shows up like a loan from the borrower to the bank, or a deposit which is the same thing, so it is not taxable."

The attorney asked, "If a loan is forgiven, is it taxable?"

The banker agreed by saying, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to not return the actual cash value that they received from the alleged borrower unless it is returned as a loan from the bank to the alleged borrower?"

"Yes", the banker replied.

The attorney said, "You never pay taxes on the actual cash value you receive from the alleged borrower and keep as the bank's property?"

"No. No tax is paid.", said the crying banker.

The attorney asked, "When the lender receives the actual cash value from the alleged borrower, does the bank claim that it then owns it and that it is the property of the lender, without the bank loaning or risking one cent of legal tender or other depositors' money?"

The banker said, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Are you telling me the bank policy is that the bank owns the promissory note (actual cash value) without loaning one cent of other depositors' money or legal tender, that the alleged borrower is the one who provided the funds deposited to fund the bank loan check, and that the bank gets funds from the alleged borrower for free? Is the money then returned back to the same person as a loan which the alleged borrower repays when the bank never gave up any money to obtain the promissory note? Am I hearing this right? I give you the equivalent of $50,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $50,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?"

In a shaking voice the banker cried, saying, "All the banks are doing this. Congress allows this."

The attorney quickly responded, "Does Congress allow the banks to breach written agreements, use false and misleading advertising, act without written permission, authorization, and without the alleged borrower's knowledge to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then return it back as a loan?"

The banker said, "But the borrower got a check and the house."

The attorney said, "Is it true that the actual cash value that was used to fund the bank loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the alleged borrower for free?"

"It is true", said the banker.

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank's policy to transfer actual cash value from the alleged borrower to the bank and then to keep the funds as the bank's property, which they loan out as bank loans?"

The banker, showing tears of regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."

The attorney asked, "Was it the bank's intent to receive actual cash value from the borrower and return the value of the funds back to the borrower as a loan?"

The banker said, "Yes." He knew he had to say yes because of the bank policy.

The attorney asked, "Do you believe that it was the borrower's intent to fund his own bank loan check?"

The banker answered, "I was not there at the time and I cannot know what went through the borrower's mind."

The attorney asked, "If a lender loaned a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refused to repay the money, do you believe the lender is damaged?"

The banker thought. If he said no, it would imply that the borrower does not have to repay. If he said yes, it would imply that the borrower is damaged for the loan to the bank of which the bank never repaid. The banker answered, "If a loan is not repaid, the lender is damaged."

The attorney asked, "Is it the bank policy to take actual cash value from the borrower, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return the actual cash value to the borrower?"

The banker said, "The bank returns the funds."

The attorney asked, "Was the actual cash value the bank received from the alleged borrower returned as a return of the money the bank took or was it returned as a bank loan to the borrower?"

The banker said, "As a loan."

The attorney asked, "How did the bank get the borrower's money for free?"

The banker said, "That is how it works."

GOOD LUCK!