Devizahitelszerződés megtámadása PTK 210. (3)

Egyébként csatlakozom KBS-hez: mit nem lehet ezen érteni és hogy tudna lehetetlenülni egy pénzkölcsön-szerződés?

Amúgy mi a célod egy második világháború előtti jogi tankönyvből vett idézet értelmezésével?

KBS:

Ehhh...?

Ehhh..

Most visszatérhetnénk az eredeti témára?

Halandó nyelvre kellene lefordítani:

„abban az esetben, ha a szolgáltatás a jogosult (hitelező) hibájából vált lehetetlenné, a dolgot olybá kell venni, mintha a jogosult megkapta volna a neki járó szolgáltatást, köteles tehát az ellenszolgáltatást teljesíteni annak ellenére, hogy a szolgáltatást, nem kapta meg.”

Ehhh...

KBS:

„Pénzkölcsön-szerződés hogyan tudna lehetetlenülni?”

Ugye milyen furcsa állat ez a "deviza alapú kölcsön", még ilyet is tud :)

Valami hasonlóról már olvastál?

A jóhiszemű joggyakorlás és kötelezettségteljesítés elvéből következik, hogy az adós csak addig a határig köteles a teljesítés céljából erőfeszítéseket tenni, ameddig ezt tőle a méltányosság szerint el lehet várni. Ilyenkor beszélhetünk a kötelem túlnehezültségéről.

A lehetetlenülésnek tehát mindig csak az eredetileg lehetséges szolgáltatásra nézve és utólag kell beállnia, hiszen ha már eredetileg lehetetlen szolgáltatásra irányult a felek szerződési akarata, akkor a szerződés semmisség miatt érvénytelen.

A Legfelsőbb Bíróság egy konkrét esetben meghozott döntésében a fentiekre tekintettel mondta ki, hogy lehetetlenülés folytán megállapítható a szerződés megszűnése, ha a szerződéskötés után beállott körülmények miatt csak előre nem látott olyan rendkívüli nehézségek vagy aránytalan áldozat árán lehetne teljesíteni, amelyet a kötelezettől nem lehet elvárni.

Ha mondjuk valaki a triplájára emelkedett törlesztőrészletek miatt nem tud esetleg enni adni a gyerekének, akkor azt nevezhetjük aránytalan áldozatnak, vagy csak azután, ha éhen halt?

Pénzkölcsön-szerződés hogyan tudna lehetetlenülni?

KBS:

Lefordítanád nekem halandó nyelvre, mert nem akarok rossz következtetésre jutni, egy esetleges rossz értelmezés miatt.....

Másrészt úgy tudom, hogy az LB által lehetetlenülés címen megfogalmazottak, akár egy kölcsönszerződésre is vonatkoztathatóak....

Mit nem értesz rajta? És hogy jön ez a devizakölcsönökhöz? Egy kölcsönszerződés teljesítése soha nem lehetetlenül.

Sziasztok,

Tudná nekem valaki ezt jogilag értelmezni:

„ abban az esetben, ha a szolgáltatás a jogosult (hitelező) hibájából vált lehetetlenné, a dolgot olybá kell venni, mintha a jogosult megkapta volna a neki járó szolgáltatást, köteles tehát az ellenszolgáltatást teljesíteni annak ellenére, hogy a szolgáltatást, nem kapta meg.”

Amúgy pedig nem kell itt Amerikába szaladgálni,meg feljelentgetni, mikor a Szent Korona Bank már megkezdte a magyar állampolgárok tartozásainak kifizetését... :)))

gabornagy22:

Ha a bank szavakat lecseréled takarékszövetkezetre , akkor lesz értelme a feljelentésednek, de gondolom nem velük van bajod :)

Mire reagáljunk?
Tele szórja szarságokkal a fórumot. Írjuk le, hogy kapja be..! Nem itt kéne szórakoznia.

Semmi reagálás?

Az Európai Gazdasági és Szociális Bizottság véleménye – A Bizottság zöld könyve a fogyasztók és a vállalkozások javára szolgáló európai szerződési jog felé történő előrehaladás szakpolitikai választási lehetőségeiről (COM(2010) 348 végleges)

3.1 Zöld könyvében az Európai Bizottság különféle megközelítéseket ajánl a szerződési jog koherenciájának növelése céljából. A lehetőségek között említést kap:

• uniós modellként szolgáló (nem kötelező érvényű) szerződéses normák interneten történő kihirdetése, melyeket az európai egységes piacon belül lehetne alkalmazni,
• jobb és koherensebb szabályozást biztosító (kötelező érvényű vagy nem kötelező) "eszköztár", mely az uniós törvényhozók rendelkezésére áll az új jogszabályok elfogadásakor,
• a szerződési jogra vonatkozó ajánlás, mely arra ösztönzi a tagállamokat, hogy az egyes nemzeti jogrendszerekbe vezessék be az európai szerződési jogot, részben az Egyesült Államok mintájára, ahol egy kivételével mind az 50 szövetségi állam elfogadta az egységes kereskedelmi kódexet,
• fakultatív európai szerződési jog vagy más néven 28. rendszer, melyet a fogyasztók és a vállalatok a szerződéses kapcsolatok terén szabadon választhatnának. Ez a valamennyi nyelven rendelkezésre álló fakultatív jogszabály alternatívát jelentene a meglévő nemzeti szabályozásokkal szemben, és vagy csak a transznacionális szerződésekre vonatkozhatna, vagy kiterjedhetne az országon belül megkötött szerződésekre is. Magas szintű fogyasztóvédelmet kellene biztosítania és a szerződés teljes élettartamára szavatolnia a jogbiztonságot,
• a nemzeti szerződési jogrendszerek uniós irányelv révén történő harmonizációja,
• a nemzeti szerződési jogrendszerek uniós rendelet révén történő teljes harmonizációja,
• a szerződésekre vonatkozó valamennyi nemzeti jogszabályt felváltó valódi európai polgári törvénykönyv létrehozása.

Study U C C 3-302. People have been claiming forgery if the bank
cannot come up with the original.
Please remember that there is a difference between a debt collector and a
lender collecting their own debt. A debt collector normally tells you that
they are a debt collector in their letter to you.
If a mortgage is involved, change the notices when writing to a servicing
agent of the mortgage. See: West publishing 12 U S C A 24 C F R 3500.21
Part 78978 2 ( Q u a l i f i ed written request.) You can write to the servicing
agents of the mortgage giving your name, alleged loan number and a
statement of reasons you believe there is an error. Discuss GAAP—matching
principle. You were the lender, they were the borrower. They repaid
the loan and falsely called it a loan to you.
57

Remélem miután elolvastátok ezt az angol szöveget ami csak elenyésző része a titkos dokumentumnak ,világossá válik miért szükséges a pénz eredetéhez kapcsolódó vizsgálat!

as value to issue a bond and sells them to investors, The bank becomes
the servicing agent. Now the bank sues you and tries to foreclose. Get
the picture? The bank does not have possession, and is not the owner of
the note so what legal standing does the bank have to sue you? People
have demanded to see what contract allows the non-owner of the note to
sue you. The servicing agent has 60 days to give you the owner's name
after you request it. (See title 12 under servicing agents). They usually
sell it again when you request the owner's name and keep selling it so
you cannot find out who owns it. People have demanded to know who
owns the note, and what contract allows someone other than the owner
to sue you. It is like you having a contract with your neighbor, Joe. Your
neighbor Tom says you violated your agreement with Joe, so Tom sues
you. Tom has no contract with you and cannot sue you. Replace the
word Tom with the word bank and you see the picture. The bank works
on presumption hoping that no one demands the original note or who
owns the note. If you cannot find the note, some States allow one to
reconstruct the note. How can they reconstruct it if the one doing the
reconstructing has no personal knowledge and you are arguing the terms
and conditions of the note? Only you have first hand knowledge, only
you were there signing it. Some States allow the attorney to use a copy of
the public record where the note was recorded in the country record and
certify the copy as the original. Again the attorney has no personal knowledge
and it could be forged, stolen and we still do not know who owns it.
They still cannot explain our 6-7 terms in dispute in the back of this
manual in the notices claiming breach of agreement. Tom Schauf received
a telephone call from someone who used this information. The
person wrote to the bank requesting a copy of the current note with the
assignments (paid to the order of... ) showing who is the current owner
of the note. The bank refused to respond. He gave a second request. He
did not give any arguments or dispute. He only requested a copy of the
note. Now he sues the bank claiming that he is the holder in due course
of the title of the home and the bank is not the holder of the note. The
bank refused to answer the law suit and he got his home free and clear.
Remember after one sues, you can amend the suit once. If the bank responded,
you could claim that the terms were altered or breached. The
bank did not want to get involved in answering the questions as to breaching
the terms and 6-7 things concerning the terms that we want to discuss.
31
They never tell you who owns the note. They have been known to sell
the notes, you pay off the entire note and the bank gives you a sheet of
paper saying it is all paid off. Then 5 years later the owner of the note
forecloses. Why? it is simple. You never got the original note back and
you must prove that you paid off the note. People have been foreclosed
on who paid off the note 5 years ago but lost the one piece of paper
saying that it was paid off. They throw out their old bank statements
showing that they paid it off and did not get back the original note. This
is why it is important to see the original note and get it back. This is why
it is important to follow the law and get the note, and see who owns it
and get back the original.
Two people taught by Tom have been winning on credit cards. One person
invoices the credit card, then sends an opportunity to cure and pay
the invoice. Then he sends a default judgement. Next he sues the credit
card company in small claims court. Results have been wins and the
credit card companies have issued checks back to the victor in small
claims court. Some small claims w i l l not allow you to sue an out of State
business. Check the agreement regarding jurisdiction, arbitration and
court location.
One person uses a b i l l of particulars if sued by the credit card company,
then enters a motion to dismiss the court case brought by the credit card
company for not complying with the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
and giving verification/affidavit by someone with personal knowledge
and he uses our CPA Report and our CPA expert. Results have been
successes. As I write this it is not a 100% success. The week I wrote this
one man had his mortgage cancelled on one house, but on his other house
the mortgage was not cancelled.
There are a series of court cases on void and voidable judgments. The
attorney foreclosing did not tell you that he is a debt collector per the
supreme court ruling. You had no opportunity to demand verification,
affidavit signed by the attorney, with personal knowledge, verifying the
debt. The attorney forces you into court and wins. The attorney broke
the law by not informing you that he is a debt collector. People have
used court cases showing that the first court case is void or voidable and
32
reversed the first court decision because the first attorney violated the
law.
God gave us a wonderful government and laws and court cases. You
need to use what God gave us to protect your rights. Don't let some
attorney violate your rights and get your property for free. We merely
want to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding the
whole agreement and bookkeeping entries and follow the law. What is
wrong with that? If the bank has nothing to hide, then let them explain
all of the details. We simply believe that the party who funded the loan,
per the bookkeeping entries, should be repaid the money. Who could
argue with that unless you are a swindler. Only a swindler would try and
suppress evidence proving who funded the loan. They cannot prove us
wrong so now the attorneys resort to name calling. We see this in court.
When an attorney cannot get a witness with personal knowledge to prove
their case, the attorney tries to be the witness telling the judge that our
arguments come from Google.com and are nonsense as the attorney cannot
explain G A A P , the federal law that they should know. So do we
have another Enron, Arthur Anderson C P A firm on our hands? The jury
convicted the C P A firm of Anderson on June 15, 2002 for obstruction of
justice for impeding an investigation. D i d you know that Anderson was
a big bank auditor? How can we trust them or any other C PA firm auditing
the banks? We have a number of CPA's now who agree that federal
law G A A P was violated and this means that the audit is like the Enron
situation. The bank attorneys do not know G A A P and cannot testify to
GAAP. Only a C P A can testify to G A A P and now honest CPAs are exposing
the truth.
See Appendix for "Suggested Court Admissions".
33

more people put up our website and distributed the books, we could
quickly win the nation before it is too late. If everyone stopped and went
to court, we could lose the nation and government we love. We have the
right to replace the employees called politicians using the vote but we
need your help to get the job done. P L E A S E JOIN US IN SAVING
A M E R I C A A N D T H E R E P U B L I C W H I C H S T A N D S , O N E NATION
UNDER T H E C H R I S T I A N G O D O F OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
WITH LIBERTIES A N D J U S T I C E FOR A L L A N D E Q U A L PROTECTTION
W I T H JUST WEIGHTS A N D M E A S U R E S . It is our job to get
every American talking so America w i l l be safe for a l l . A M E R I C A ' S
F U T U R E I S IN Y O U R HANDS.
They might be able to stop us in court but they cannot stop us from getting
the voters organized and awakened, and vote them out of office and
put in honest Americans. Help us make it happen.
The lawmakers and courts have been helping us with the following court
cases demanding that the lender have possession of the promissory note
before the banker can collect. See the following court cases confirming
this. See Matter of Staff Mort. & Inv. Corp., 550 F 2 d 1228 (9th Cir 1977):
"Under the Uniform Commercial Code 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.
See Bankruptcy Court followed by UCC In Re Investors & Lenders LTD
165 BR. 389 BKRTCY D.N.J. 1994." Under the New Jersey Uniform
Commercial Code (NJUCC) promissory note is instrument," security
interest in which must be perfected by possession." Clearly the courts
demand possession of the note before the bank can collect. Why is this
so important? It is important because you have been paying the loan to
bank #1. Bank #1 sells the note to bank #2. You keep paying the wrong
party. Bank #1. Now bank #2 who bought the note from bank #1 demands
that you pay the last 12 months of payments to bank #2. You
claim that you paid, and bank #2 claims that you paid the wrong party.
This is why you must be sure that you paid the correct party and must
see the note to see who the note is sold to or you must pay twice. You
would have to pay the wrong party and then again pay the correct party.
Historically, the bank claims they lent you money. The bank bundles up
the promissory notes in groups of about $2-3 million and uses the notes
30

why not tell every voter? The fact is, bankers have been telling people
that other depositors funded the loans and you must repay the loans so
that the other depositors who funded the loans can be repaid the money.
If this is true, then all loans should be canceled because the borrower
funded the loan to the same borrower per G A A P and per the Federal
Reserve Bank publications.
Remember—there is no guarantee of a court win. What worked last month
is not a guarantee it w i l l work today. If a friend won, it does not guarantee
that you will win. It costs time and money to go to court. The bankers
have the time, the money and the attorneys. The judge might be afraid to
rule in your favor. The judge is not your friend. Tom believes that you
should stay out of court and help us get the voters to j o in us. The voters
are the sure way to fix the problem.
This is the key to winning. The best court strategy to stop the bank summary
judgement against you is the C P A Report copyrighted by Tom
Schauf and suing the bank using Tom's court admissions. You need the
CPA Report regardless of whether you are sued or you sue the bank.
Look at court procedures. The bank cannot sue without personal knowledge,
and a copy of the note might not give legal knowledge. See the
following court cases: Monmouth County Social Serve. v P.A.Q. 317
N.J. Super 187. 193-194 App. Div. 1998. See also: United States Bankruptcy
Court N.J. Investors and Lenders/Debtors June 30, 1993 Bankruptcy
no. 92-30754.
Supreme Court of Hawaii, Pacific Concrete Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff-
Appellee v. Andrew J. S. Kauanoe, Defendant Appellant No 6362
July 17, 1980 tells us that the bank must give us the bookkeeping entries
with an affidavit or the bank's evidence is hearsay evidence. One cannot
enter hearsay evidence into the court. Tom says with this and a C PA
report talking about G A A P , the bank has a serious problem.
It is best to not be behind in debt payments if you sue. This way, they
cannot foreclose and you can win. It is important to use a C P A expert
witness using Tom's copyrighted C PA Report.
If you got 100 emails out and they emailed their friends and more and
29

cent and that the stolen property funded the alleged loan that was a breach
of agreement. Let them tell you that the agreement allows them to steal
and create new money. Fraud in the factum—you never agreed that your
signature and promissory note was money to be stolen and returned as a loan.
Remember, we are defining stolen as the banker getting the promissory
note without spending one cent to purchase it and violating GAAP—the
matching principle.
The banker argues, "This is how it is done, you signed the agreement,
you got the money." We ask, "Was the agreement altered after it was
signed, was it forged?" We ask, " D i d the borrower provide the capital
for the loan to the same borrower per G A A P (standard bookkeeping entries)?
D i d you follow G A A P as required by law and the C P A audit opinion?
Is it the intent of the agreement that the one who funded the loan per
G A A P is to be repaid the money? Were material facts concealed? Mr.
Banker, do you understand this agreement and who was to provide the
money or funding for the loan?" They cannot explain the agreement that
they wrote and that they are trying to enforce.
Please read and study Tom's two banking books for further training.
Bankers have told Tom that the American people are too stupid to understand
the bank loan agreement and bookkeeping entries and no one can
explain it in court to a jury. Tom agrees, you need a jury and Tom says
that a jury can understand it.
Why do we keep talking about G A A P ? It is the law. If they claim that
G A A P was not followed, they violated the law and the C P A audit opinion.
If they followed G A A P , they cannot claim that they do not know
what the bookkeeping entries are. The bookkeeping entries prove who
lent what to whom. Two loans were exchanged and we believe that all
borrowers should repay all loans giving each party equal protection. We
believe that all the facts should be disclosed in the loan and not conceal
material facts as to who provided the money to fund the alleged loan.
Who could argue with that? Why not tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth? If there is nothing wrong with the banking system,
28

entries and that the borrower funded the loan to the same borrower. If
the borrower provided the money, why are we paying back the principal
and interest to a party who refused to loan the money that they advertised
that they would loan and then refused to give the consideration
promised? If I lent you my money, you should repay the loan. If I stole
your money and returned the value of the stolen property to you as a
loan, did I conceal the theft and did I perform as promised? This stolen
action changes the cost and risk of the alleged loan. Lack of consideration
is a personal defense. No title passes in a theft per U C C . Federal
banking law G A A P was violated. Use a C P A expert witness to confirm
GAAP. They cannot put up an expert C PA witness and answer our 600
questions. Then place in the admissions—admit or deny—which they
are not likely to answer, which might allow you to go to summary judgment.
You had better really know law and courtroom procedures or you can
expect to lose unless they do not answer the lawsuit. Even if they do not
answer the suit, w i l l the judge sign off and allow you to win? Sounds
easy, but it is work. Do not expect the bank to let you off the hook that
easily. Do not stop making payments or they w i l l foreclose. Some people
send a new promissory note in the amount of the original note payable in
the same species of money or credit that the bank used to fund the loan
per GAAP thus ending all interest and liens. Then they write loan payment
checks payable to the new note. If the bank accepts the checks,
then you can have fun. If they do not, you might claim breach of agreement.
You tried to learn the facts of the agreement and they refused to
explain.
We write notices to learn what is the real agreement. When they refuse
to tell us, we look at it as breach of agreement—concealment.
People try and stay away from the word fraud. If you say fraud, you
have a greater burden of proof. You should instead say breach of agreement,
they stole the note and you want it returned or for them to fund the
loan. When the stolen property funded the loan, that is a breach of agreement.
You need to show that the bank never performed and never was out one
27

GAAP, nor if the intent of the agreement is that the party who funded
loan per G A A P (the bookkeeping entries) is to be repaid the money.
They cannot explain what is money per the agreement. Never ask for the
legal definition of money. O n l y the judge can discuss that. Ask, "What is
money per the agreement?" They call an exchange a loan. They call
owing money, money, and then they say, "So what, you got the money."
We return that argument and ask "According to the agreement, did the
bank use the promissory note as money or money equivalent or capital
to fund the loan?" If you deposit cash at the bank, how much money did
the bank loan you when the cash was deposited? N O N E . You lent the
bank money. Replace the word cash with promissory note and you see
the exchange; the bank merely acted as a moneychanger and charged
you as if there were a loan. Two loans were exchanged. You must repay
the loan and the bank never has to repay the loan from you to the bank.
They conceal the loan from you to the bank, creating the economics
similar to stealing, counterfeiting and swindling. An agreement means
mutual understanding and no concealment.
We are always happy to repay the loan, just explain the details so that the
voters w i l l know how to vote. If voters believe the big lie, you will be
enslaved in debt and your wealth goes to the bankers for free. It is our
job to tell the truth to the voters. Have the judge admit that the economics
are similar to stealing, counterfeiting and swindling and that is how it
works. Let the voters vote out that judge next election or vote out the
Congressmen and President who allow judges to deny us equal protection
under the law and use concealment to keep the true economics of
the bank loan a secret. Vote in Tom Schauf as President and he w i l l put in
honest judges and correct the problem.
If you were on the j u ry and someone claimed the bank stole the promissory
note and returned the value of the stolen property as a loan, you
would wonder when the banker cannot explain. The promissory note is
believed to be forged and there is fraudulent concealment and fraud in
the factum with unjust enrichment obtaining the promissory note for
free, by violating G A A P . Fraud was committed by misrepresenting that
they would follow the law and G A A P and they did not follow GAAP.
The G A A P discussion forces them to disclose the actual bookkeeping
26

consideration given to purchase it from you. No consideration was given
as required by the U C C . This has scared bank attorneys telling their bank
client not to respond. The bankers' own secret, inside manual explained
fraud in the factum, U C C 3-305. This means that the party who did not
write the agreement had no reasonable opportunity to obtain the knowledge
of the terms. This is why we write the bank notices requesting i n formation
on the terms. They refuse to tell us who was to fund the loan,
the bank or the borrower? Did the bank follow G A A P ? A l l major banks
have an annual stock report that a stockbroker can get for you showing
the CPA audit opinion stating that the management and C P A agree that
GAAP was followed. Was it the intent of the agreement that the party
who funded the loan is to be repaid the money? Do you see how the
bank must conceal the truth? Imagine the bank advertise saying, "Let us
steal your money and return it to you as a loan." Who would agree to
this? They must make you believe that they lent you other depositors'
money, making you feel that you have an ethical duty to repay the loan.
Read U C C 3-302 to 3-308, Holder in Due Course—real defenses are
fraud in the factum, material alteration and stolen notes. See personal
defenses are want of consideration and fraud in the inducement. They
may have changed the Holder in Due Course part of the U C C so be
advised. The stolen / forged / concealment part of the U C C should remain
the same. They exchanged one kind of money—promissory note—
that was deposited for another kind of money called a check. The check
acts like money per the U C C . The banker w i l l say it is an exchange of
which you must pay back 100 percent of the money exchanged plus
interest. The banker will say that they do not have to pay one cent of
their money lent to you to buy your promissory note. I ask what does the
agreement say that they wrote? Why would the voters allow the exchange
of money for money and then you have to repay the money plus interest?
Ignorance is the answer. If voters knew the truth and understood how the
bankers got nearly all the money and wealth for free and control the
lawmakers, judges, police and media, we would change the banking system
to follow Presidents John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas
Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and James Garfield.
The banker has problems answering the admissions that we have. They
cannot explain the agreement. The bank attorney w i l l say, "Interesting
theory, this is the way it works." They cannot explain if they followed
25

money as a deposit, the bank accepted money from you, the bank never
gave up one cent of the bank's money. The bank accepted money from
you and deposited it, which is the opposite of lending you money. If you
lent the bank money and they returned the same value back to you, two
loans were exchanged or they stole your money. The bank charter requires
the bank to follow the law—GAAP. You can presume the bank
must follow the law or the contract is an illegal contract. The contract
said interest, which is defined as the charge for the use of borrowed
money. We can presume that the party who funded the loan is to be repaid
the money. The bank claims that the form says that the bank funded
the loan and should be repaid the money but the bookkeeping entries
prove the opposite. D i d the agreement say that the bank was to steal the
promissory note, alter it to become money, and then return the stolen
money as a loan or did the bank use their money to purchase the promissory
note from you without the economics similar to stealing and counterfeiting
and swindling? The bankers hate it if you claim that the note
was stolen and forged.
You have to have a damage in court to win. If it is stolen, you can claim
a damage. If the bank violated G A A P , then the C PA audit is a fraud and
the bank management and C P A w i l l go to j a i l and the S E C can go after
them so they cannot say that they did not follow G A A P . If they follow
GAAP, we know what the bookkeeping entries are and they did the opposite
to what you understood the agreement was to be. You only care
about the agreement. You only care about G A A P . You only want them to
explain the details of the agreement they wrote. You want the original
promissory note back to see the stamps to see if you are paying the proper
party endorsed on it. See U C C 3-302. Adequate assurance of due performance
U C C 2-609 is for the sale or purchase. If you demand adequate
assurance of due performance, the other party must give assurance in 30
days or the deal is off for purchases. The bank w i l l try and demand that
this does not apply to them. If they do this they admit that the original
alleged lender never purchased the note from you.
Let us presume that they purchased your note using G A A P and did not
steal it. It is not a gift to the bank without your knowledge. The U C C
says that no title passes with theft. This is where people use this response
to suggest that the bank knew that the note was stolen, with no
24

In court, you cannot use the Constitution, or say they lent you credit so
you do not have to repay the money. The banker and judge w i l l try and
get you to agree that you have a signature on the agreement, that the
bank lent money to you and therefore you must repay the money. If the
judge says, is that your signature, some people say, "It looks like a masterful
forgery. I do not understand what this document is. Can you stipulate
if this promissory note acts like money or money equivalent used to
give value to a bank check? Can you stipulate all of the material facts
about the promissory note or what the agreement is so I know what it is
that my alleged signature is validating as to the agreement. I do not understand
in the agreement if I provide the capital or if the banker does to
fund the check. I cannot testify if something is my signature if I do not
know what is agreed to in the alleged document." When the judge demands
that you say yes or no, some people say they will answer when
you explain what the agreement is. How can you testify to something
that you do not understand and they refuse to explain? Some respond
saying it looks like a forged document to me with concealed materials.
If you agree that it is your signature, you lost the court case. Your signature
means you agree that the bank lent you their money and that you
owe them your money. The judge may demand that you say that the
bank lent you money that resulted in your purchase of a house or car.
But, if you agree that the bank lent their money to "purchase" your promissory
note, then you are testifying that the bank violated the law—GAAP.
Per G A A P and Federal Reserve publications, two loans were exchanged.
You lent the promissory note to the bank that funded the loan back to
you. The loan from you to the bank is the deposit of the promissory note.
G A A P requires that the bank "match" a new bank liability with your
name on it showing that the bank owes you for the deposit they accepted
from you just like they do when you deposit cash into your checking
account. The banker knows as well as the judge that when you deposit
cash into your checking account, you lent the bank your money. If you
withdraw your money, the bank lent you nothing. The form—contractsays
that the bank lent you money, but the substance—bookkeeping entries—
say that the bank accepted your promissory note as new money as
a deposit just like depositing cash into your checking account. Your signature
cannot testify that the bank lent you the bank's money to purchase
your promissory note, but the bookkeeping entries prove that they
lent no money to purchase your promissory note. If you lent the bank
23