- The Money Racket -- Court Strategies - Chapter 2
- By Tom Schauf
- Top Secret Banker's Manual
- 25/12/2015 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: Mick ( 3 articles in 2015 )
All Bank Loans are a Fraud [30:19]
The bank-trained lawyers are experts in courtroom procedures.
Remember, it was the bankers' U.S. Presidents who got through the "Trading With the Enemy Act " and the Emergency War Powers. The U.S. Government and its leaders declared the U.S. Citizen to be the enemy. This means you must have a license to trade with the enemy (you). The soldiers (police) require that you have a driver's license. The soldiers may argue that [it] could be a good thing to get blind people and drunks off the road and keep people under control. The court has a military flag flying in the courtroom. The gold fringe flag makes it a military court. The war allows the victors, bankers and the government agents working for the bankers, to plunder the enemy (you).
Now do you understand why they want to get all the guns? They want to disarm the enemy. You no longer have a right to own a gun under the Constitution. They turned the right into a privilege that they control by license. They fear that the enemy might communicate and realize that war has been declared on them and the war allows the bankers to create money to plunder the enemy. The secret weapon is the money creation in a silent war to plunder the enemy—you. They want to go to a national ID card so that they have total control over you. The ID card allows them to track you 24 hours a day by satellite. You cannot buy or sell without the ID so they can control you. Delete your ID card and you cannot buy food to eat. Get the idea of the terrorist talk. Using the terrorist police powers, the government has already abused the power against [the] people they do not like. They say if you have nothing to hide, then you do not care if we use the ID.
It is all about power and control. Do you trust them after what they did with the banking? Do you trust anyone who wages war against you to plunder you? The propaganda media is there to talk you into willingly going along with their agenda. They cannot fight 120 million voters who say NO. If you were a Congressman or judge and getting all that money from the bankers to get elected and personal investment money, why would you change the system unless the voters all wake up and say enough is enough? The key to winning in court is helping us inform every Ameri-can voter and using the vote to correct the problem and end the war. Exposing the problem forces the problem to be corrected.
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 will 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 (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).
Per GAAP 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.
GAAP 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—contract-says 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 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[std form contract] says that the bank funded the loan and should be repaid the money but the bookkeeping entries prove the opposite.
Did 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 GAAP, then the CPA audit is a fraud and the bank management and CPA will go to jail and the SEC can go after them so they cannot say that they did not follow GAAP.
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 GAAP.
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 UCC 3-302.
Adequate assurance of due performance UCC 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 will 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 GAAP and did not steal it.
It is not a gift to the bank without your knowledge.
The UCC 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 consideration given to purchase it from you. No consideration was given as required by the UCC. This has scared bank attorneys telling their bank client not to respond.
The bankers' own secret, inside manual explained fraud in the factum, UCC 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 information on the terms.
They refuse to tell us who was to fund the loan, the bank or the borrower?
Did the bank follow GAAP?
All major banks have an annual stock report that a stockbroker can get for you showing the CPA audit opinion stating that the management and CPA 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 UCC 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 UCC so be advised.
The stolen / forged / concealment part of the UCC 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 UCC.
**The banker will 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 will say, "Interesting theory, this is the way it works."
They cannot explain if they followed GAAP, nor if the intent of the agreement is that the party who funded loan per GAAP (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. Only 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? NONE.
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 will 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 will put in honest judges and correct the problem.
If you were on the jury 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 GAAP.
Fraud was committed by misrepresenting that they would follow the law and GAAP and they did not follow GAAP. The GAAP discussion forces them to disclose the actual bookkeeping 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 UCC. Federal banking law GAAP was violated. Use a CPA expert witness to confirm GAAP. They cannot put up an expert CPA 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, will 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 will 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 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, "Did the borrower provide the capital for the loan to the same borrower per GAAP (standard bookkeeping entries)? Did you follow GAAP as required by law and the CPA audit opinion?
Is it the intent of the agreement that the one who funded the loan per GAAP 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 GAAP? It is the law.
If they claim that GAAP was not followed, they violated the law and the CPA audit opinion.
If they followed GAAP, 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, 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 GAAP 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 will 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 join 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 CPA 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 CP A report talking about GAAP , 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 CPA expert witness using Tom's copyrighted CPA Report.
If you got 100 emails out and they emailed their friends and more and 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.
PLEASE JOIN US IN SAVING AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC WHICH STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER THE CHRISTIAN GOD OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WITH LIBERTIES AND JUSTICE FOR ALL AND EQUAL PROTECTION WITH JUST WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. It is our job to get every American talking so America will be safe for all. AMERICA'S FUTURE IS IN YOUR 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 F2 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 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.
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 will not allow you to sue an out of State business. Check the agreement regarding jurisdiction, arbitration and court location.
One person uses a bill 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 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 GAAP, the federal law that they should know. So do we have another Enron, Arthur Anderson CPA firm on our hands?
The jury convicted the CPA firm of Anderson on June 15, 2002 for obstruction of justice for impeding an investigation. Did you know that Anderson was a big bank auditor?
How can we trust them or any other CPA firm auditing the banks?
We have a number of CPA' s now who agree that federal law GAAP was violated and this means that the audit is like the Enron situation. The bank attorneys do not know GAAP and cannot testify to GAAP. Only a CPA can testify to GAAP and now honest CPAs are exposing the truth.