How an Honest Court can expose MORTGAGE fraud

BANKSTERS PROVE THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW IN AUSTRALIA

BANKSTERS - GANGSTERS - TRAITORS - the worlds SCAMSTERS

presented by CRAG "Community Reformation Action Group" Australia

Crime

Definitions:

Banksters - take our money by deception ... they are criminals using words

Gangsters - take our money by force ... they are criminals using
weapons.

Traitors - politicians and judges who are on the take from
Banksters-Gangsters .

Mortgage . -. a Death Pledge (Mort = Death ... gage = Pledge)

Here's how the Bankster-smoke and mirrors mortgage scam works;

1. When we sign an application for a loan (a "financial accommodation" ),
they

securitise-monetise our signature into a dual faceted "Promissory- Mortgage
Note" ... IMPORTANT, as ours is the only signature, it is not a legal
contract .

2. They give it a "number", tagged with a dollar amount ... entering it in
their "direct deposit account" ledger as an Asset, and also as a Liability
... this is evidence that they have accepted our promissory note as money
... they then transfer our own money into our cheque account, pretending
that they are loaning us their money.

By concealing the substance of the transaction ... the bookkeeping entries,
where they record the promissory note as a loan from us to the bank. ...
proves that we are the lender and the bank is the borrower ...

IMPORTANT they use smoke and mirrors to deceive us, into thinking that the
opposite occurred ... a breach of contract.

Their bookkeeping entries also prove that when the bank deposited our
promissory note into our cheque account, they created new bank credit money
... the bank did not loan their own, or depositors money ... they loaned
counterfeit money.

IMPORTANT this verifies that no "consideration" under contract exists.

3 Then, even though the previous owners bank receives a "cheque" for the
"paid out Mortgage", the "derivative Bond" created by the previous owners
bank still continues its life on the Stock Exchange (per 4)...

IMPORTANT this is criminal "double dipping", ie selling something twice.

3. They term us the "borrower", charging us "interest", which over a 25 year
period we pay them four times the original amount.

IMPORTANT in reality we are the Lender and they are the Borrower, for they
couldn't create the "Money" without our signature.

4.Extracting the Promissory aspect from the Mortgage Note they create a
"monetised derivative", a financial instrument , a "Bond" ... based on the
projected future interest income stream it is sold in to a Stock Exchange
listed Hedge Fund

IMPORTANT the Cusip Number allocated to the instrument is our evidence.

If they deposited it on Wall Street they must Register it as a Security? If
it went unregistered they have violated codes with the Security Exchange
Commission which could cause the Bank to lose their Charter and their
ability to do business.

IMPORTANT the Mortgage Note rights transfer with the Bond, thus the original
bank cannot prove any continuing interest in our home.

5. Even though they have sold the "Promissory" Note aspect of the "Mortgage"
they retain our "Title Deeds" fraudulently pretending that they can take
possession of our home ... IMPORTANT having "double dipped", they have
suffered no injury, thus they have no lawful claim against our home.

BUT THATS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG;

6.Under "Fractional Reserve Bank" rules, they are allowed to call our
"Mortgage" an Asset - on which they can lend 10 times the amount we loaned
them from our signature.

IMPORTANT all Reserve Banks in the world are indirectly owned by a Bankster
cartel..

7. Thus leveraging our fiction $1 million mortgage into a larger fiction $10
million, at say 7% pa, their interest income is really 70% pa (7% x 10
mortgages = 70%pa)

8.On the next round of the carousel the fiction $10 million is again
leverage by 10 ... creating $100 million, and so on and on.

CONCLUSION: They owe us ! ... we owe them nothing !

SUMMARY STEP BY STEP PROCESS

Borrower Signs the Banks Loan Contract and Mortgage

Borrowers Signature transforms the Loan Contract into a Financial
Instrument worth the Value of the agreed Loan Amount

Bank Fails to Disclose to Borrower that the Borrower Created an Asset

Loan Contract (Financial Instrument) Asset Deposited with the Bank by
Borrower

Financial Instrument remains property of Borrower since the Borrower created
it

Bank Fails to Disclose the Banks Liability to the Borrower for the Value of
the Asset

Bank Fails to Give Borrower a Receipt for Deposit of the Borrowers Asset

New Money Credit is Created on the Bank Books credited against the
Borrowers Financial Instrument

Bank Fails to Disclose to the Borrower that the Borrowers Signature Created
New Money that is claimed by the Bank as a Loan to the Borrower

Loan Amount Credited to an Account for Borrowers Use

Bank Deceives Borrower by Calling Credit a Loan when it is an Exchange for
the Deposited Asset

Bank Deceives Public at large by calling this process Mortgage Lending, Loan
and similar

Bank Deceives Borrower by Charging Interest and Fees when there is no value
provided to the Borrower by the Bank

Bank Provides None of own Money so the Bank has No Consideration in the
transaction and so no True Contract exists

Bank Deceives Borrower that the Borrowers self-created Credit is a Loan
from the Bank, thus there is No Full Disclosure so no True Contract exists

Borrower is the True Creditor in the Transaction. Borrower Created the
Money. Bank provided no value.

Bank Deceives Borrower that Borrower is Debtor not Creditor

Bank Hides its Liability by off balance-sheet accounting and only shows its
Debtor ledger in order to Deceive the Borrower and the Court

Bank Demands Borrowers payments without Just Cause... Deception-Theft- Fraud

Bank Sells Borrowers Financial Instrument to a third party for profit

Sale of the Financial Instrument confirms it has intrinsic value as an Asset
yet that value is not credited to the Borrower as Creator and Depositor of
the Instrument

Bank Hides truth from the Borrower, not admitting Theft, nor sharing
proceeds of the sale of the Borrowers Financial Instrument with the
Borrower

The Borrowers Financial Instrument is Converted into a Security through a
Trust or similar arrangement in order to defeat restrictions on transactions
of Loan Contracts

The Security including the Loan Contract is sold to investors, despite the
fact that such Securitization is Illegal

Bank is not the Holder in Due Course of the Loan Contract

Only the Holder in Due Course can claim on the Loan Contract

Bank Deceives the Borrower that the Bank is Holder in Due Course of the Loan
Contract

Bank makes Fraudulent Charges to Borrower for Loan payments which the Bank
has no lawful right to since it is not the Holder in Due Course of the Loan
Contract

Bank advanced none of own money to Borrower but only monetized Borrowers
signature

Bank Interest is Usurious based on there being No Money Provided to the
Borrower by the Bank so that any interest charged at all would be Usurious

Thus BANK LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE UNCONSCIONABLE!

Bank Has No True Need for a Mortgage over the Borrowers Property, since the
Bank has No Consideration, No Risk and No Need for Security

Bank Exploits Borrower by demanding a Redundant and Unjust Mortgage

Bank Deceives Borrower that the Mortgage is needed as Security

Mortgage Contract is a second Financial Instrument Created by the Borrower

Deposit of the Mortgage Contract is not credited to the Borrower

Bank Sells the Borrowers Mortgage Contract for profit without disclosure or
share of proceeds to Borrower

Sale of the Mortgage Contract confirms it has intrinsic value as an Asset
yet that value is not credited to the Borrower as Creator and Depositor of
the Mortgage Contract

Bank Deceives Borrower that Bank is the Holder in Due Course of the Mortgage

Bank Extorts Unjust Payments from the Borrower under Duress with threat of
Foreclosure

Bank Steals Borrowers Wealth by intimidating Borrower to make Unjust Loan
Payments

Bank Harasses Borrower if Borrower fails to make payments, threatening Legal
Recourse

Bank Enlists Lawyers willing to Deceive Borrower and Court and Exploit
Borrower

Bank Deceives Court that Bank is Holder in Due Course of Loan Contract and
Mortgage

Banks Lawyers Deceive and Exploit Court to Defraud Borrower

Bank Steals Borrowers Mortgaged Property with Legal Impunity

Bank Holds Borrower Liable for any outstanding balance of original Loan plus
costs

Bank Profits from Loan Contract and Mortgage by Sale of the Loan Contract,
Sale of the Mortgage, Principal and Interest Charges, Fees Charged, Increase
of its Lending Capacity due to Borrowers Mortgaged Asset and by Acquisition
of Borrowers Mortgaged Property in Foreclosure. Bank retains the amount of
increase to the Money Supply Created by the Borrowers Signature once the
Loan Account has been closed.

Borrower is Damaged by the Banks Loan Contract and Mortgage by Theft of his
Financial Instrument Asset, Theft of his Mortgage Asset, Being Deceived into
the unjust Status of a Debt Slave, Paying Lifetime Wealth to the Bank,
Paying Unjust Fees and Charges, Living in Fear of Foreclosure, and
ultimately having his Family Home Stolen by the Bank. ... Thus the

BANK MORTGAGE BUSINESS IS UNCONSCIONABLE

QUESTIONS and ANSWERS

Q: What is the basis of your Peoples Grand Jury action against the banks,
and why do you say that the banks are engaged in fraudulent and illegal
practice?

A: Our statement of claim explains the lot, but essentially, when you go to
the bank to borrow money, they don't really lend you any money (or not the
kind of money that we can see, feel and touch such as gold or legal tender
bank notes).

Not only do you not receive any money, but the "money" or "credit" that you
receive actually comes from you ... from the promissory note or commercial
instrument which you yourself "validate" by signing the document.

The bank takes this instrument which you just created (your own money) from
you and the bank deposits this money into their account.

They then make a ledger or computer entry into your account and claim they
loaned you the money.

This is illegal because there is no law that empowers these corporations to
create money out of nothing. Only God can create something out of nothing.

In the above example, the money "loaned" to you by the bank actually came
from you.

The bank provided no equity in the transaction; the bank never risked
anything, nor lost anything and never would have lost anything.

The bank was only supposed to keep your money (the promissory note) as
collateral, in case you default.

But what they do not tell you is that they took your promissory note or
commercial instrument and converted it for their own use. They unlawfully
enriched themselves, and this is illegal.

Q Why do you say the money or credit comes from me?

A: Because that is the truth - the money, or the bank note that we have in
circulation today is nothing but a promissory note ... it is not real money,
it is fiat money ... a piece of "legal tender" paper ... that says the
government owes us the money, because after they took the gold out of
circulation, there is really no money left ... therefore there is nothing to
pay our debts with!

All we have is the government's promise to pay - worthless IOUs that are not
backed with anything other than the government's coercive force, which
dictates to us that we have to accept this form of "legal tender fiat money"
or we get nothing for our labour.

The banks have no "credit", the credit comes from us. This credit is backed
by our labour, our ability to repay whatever we may borrow.

But the banks, the lawyers, the accountants, and the bottom feeder debt
collectors do not tell us that.

The banks lie to us each time we borrow money because they really do not
lend us any money ... whatever "money" they lend to us is ours to begin with
as it did not come from their vaults ... it was created as electronic or
digital money.

Q: Where does the bank get the money to lend to their borrowers?

A: They use God's money ... money they create out of nothing, out of "air,"
... they have created an unlimited "money tree" ... made possible by
gullible and trusting people who are led to believe that they are lending us
their own money ... or money deposited by their clients in their chequing or
savings account.

The banks really do not have any money or assets to lend.

Banking regulation does not permit the banks to lend their depositors'
money.

Money is created each time a borrower signs a promissory note which is then
deposited into their account as "cash."

This cash value is then used by the bank to increase their book asset by the
amount that is equivalent to the loan.

It is not as though the bank had this money sitting in their vault waiting
for someone to come along and borrow that money.

The fact is, prior to the loan agreement, when we come to the bank to borrow
money, the money did not exist. Therefore the money had to come from
somewhere.

In the old days, when banking used to be honest and honourable, only those
who have money can engage in the business of lending money. That was when
the banking business used to operate just like any other business.

If the bank did not have the money, they have to get the money from the
central bank or another bank, rent the money at wholesale (low interest) and
then lend the money at retail (higher interest) to the borrower.

They couldn't create unlimited amounts of money like they do now. It is
true, banks were allowed to issue debt certificates, or notes, but these are
really not intended to be circulated as money.

In recent times, banks are no longer required to have money in order to lend
money.

You might say: "duh?" Yes it's true ... it's called the fractional reserve
banking system.

This is because there is really no such thing as money. So when you want to
borrow money, you just go to one of these banks who does not have any money
to lend, and they'll create money right in front of you, just like magic.

Just sign a promissory note or loan application form and voila!

With one quick computer entry, you now have money sitting in your account!

Or the bank issues a cheque payable to you even though these cheques are not
backed by any currency or legal tender money.

WARNING: Don't do this at home, do not write cheques without sufficient
funds or you will be arrested and charged for the crime of false pretence
under the Criminal Code.

Only the banks are permitted (not by law) to write cheques with absolutely
no funds and yet get away with it and then charge interest on these
counterfeit, non-existent monies at criminal interest rates.

Banks can only legally do two things - take deposits and make loans.

Their corporate charter or power is very limited. Nowhere in the Bank Act or
the Constitution does it say that banks can lawfully or legally create money
out of nothing and then lend us this counterfeit, non-existent money and
charge us interest for it.

Only the Parliament can legally create money.

Q. How does the bank really create money?

A: Simple - they just write a cheque, or they make a book or computer entry.
The banks don't even have to have any money of their own, one bank writes a
cheque, the other banks have to accept it - according to the Payments
Association clearing rules.

This acceptance by the other banks (although they are all realistically one
bank) protects the issuing bank from criminal prosecution for false
pretence, an indictable crime punishable for up to 5 years.

If no one complains, there is no crime. This is how our legal system works.

To understand more regarding this subject from the bank's standpoint, please
read Modern Money Mechanics published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
... a free internet download.

Q. Who is the Borrower, and who is the lender ?

A. Everyone agrees the borrower should repay the lender. The problem is that
most people are confused as to who funded the loan.

The key question is simple: Should the borrower repay the one who funded the
loan?

If the bank says yes ... your loan is paid off, as you are the lender.

If the bank says no ... then you do not need to repay the loan, as the law
says if there is not mutual understanding in the agreement, then there is no
agreement.

Q. Are home Mortgages valid Contracts ?

A. The Common Law criteria for the creation of a contract are that ALL 10
elements are essential for a valid Contract;

1 Offer - you ask for a loan of Money

2.Acceptance - the bank accepts, thus your offer becomes a promissory
note to pay.

3.Consideration - bank does not lend you real money - they create
counterfeit money

4 Intention to Enter Legal Relations - the banks use Deception thus
unlawful.

5 Legality of Purpose - it is unlawful for banks to create money from
the Air

6 Capacity to Contract - the Banks give you wrong information

7 Genuine Consent - the banks make you the borrower when you are the
lender

8 Certainty of Terms - Banks variable interest rates are uncertain

9.Possibility of Performance - Banks cannot lend their shareholders
funds

10.Enforceable by Law - Banks have used Deception, and Fraud so
unenforceable

Bank Mortgages are thus in breach of most of them.

Q. Are variable interest rates a breach of contract ?

A. Yes because "variable interest rates render a contract void for
uncertainty" all loan contracts with variable interest rates are fraud, ie:
not having been created in the first place ..."a deed or charter not in
being is not valid" (legal maxim).where there is fraud there is no valid
contract.

Q.What is a bank cognovit note ?

A. Banks enter you into a Cognovit promissory note whereby you sign away all
your rights ... an Unconscionable Confessed Judgment ... making the Contract
unlawful.

BANKSTERS (the Plaintiff) HAVE TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM IN AN AFFIDAVIT (Sworn
by a Natural person); the AFFIDAVIT should encompass the following;

1. The Plaintiff is required to VALIDATE the alleged Debt - Prove

i.that the Plaintiff is a Creditor

ii.that the Plaintiff has suffered an injury

iii.that there is probable cause ie the 8 elements of a contract.

2. The Plaintiff is required to VERIFY the alleged Claim -

3. The Plaintiff is required to Prove they had MONEY to lend and therefore
had the capacity to enter into, and/or perform under, a binding contract.

4 The Plaintiff is required to Prove that they provided "Valuable
Consideration" , a key ingredient of the 8 elements of a Contract.

5. The Plaintiff is required to Prove that the Plaintiff had any cash-money
reserve; the Plaintiff is not legally permitted to lend their depositors or
members cash-money without expressed written authorisation from their
depositors and therefore the Plaintiff has not proven the capacity to enter
into, or perform under, a binding contract.

6. The Plaintiff is required to prove that the Plaintiff had tangible assets
of their own to lend, thereby having the capacity to enter into, or perform
under, a binding contract;

7. The Plaintiff is required to prove that their "assets" are not mostly
"paper assets", "receivables" , thereby proving the capacity to enter into,
or perform under, a binding contract;

D

8. The Plaintiff is required to prove that they do not conjure "moneys" out
of " thin air ", from the signatures of "loan applicants".

9. The Plaintiff is required to prove that they do not create "new"
artificial "moneys - debt", which they rename "Principal"; which they then
put into the "loan applicants-borrower s " account as a "Loan" at "Interest"
.

10.The Plaintiff is required to prove that the Plaintiff had, other than
bookkeeping and computer entries, "Money" or "Substance" of any value to
loan, thereby proving the capacity to enter into, or perform under, a
binding contract;

11.The Plaintiff is to produce evidence by way of Justice of the Peace
certified copies of the Plaintiffs signed letter/s of Demand; signed
Statement/s of Claim ; signed Affidavit/s; and all documents showing their
calculations of alleged "financial accommodation" , "advanced moneys",
"Interest" .

12. The Plaintiff is to produce the legal definitions, for "default notices"
"default" "defaulted" "principal" "money" "moneys" financial accommodation"
"interest" , quoting the source Law dictionary, used by them.

13. The Plaintiff is required to provide copies of ALL Valuations .

14. The Plaintiff is required to provide copies of ALL documents, and
records, whether electronic, or in any other media, or form.

15 The Plaintiff is to explain how they "create credit"-"provide financial
accommodation" , "valuable consideration" in the light of comment by Ex
Senator Helen Coonan that " banks do not borrow money from the Reserve bank
for the creation of credit"

16 The Plaintiff to produce the document-evidence which was used to give
full and complete disclosure of the eight essential elements of the alleged
contract.

17 The Plaintiff to produce evidence that any money or currency changed
hands or was deposited in the defendants account.

18 The Plaintiff to produce evidence that the "loan document" is NOT a
Promissory Note, being a instrument used to create the alleged "valuable
consideration"

19 The Plaintiff to produce all documents, records relating to the
"Securization" of the mortgage #........, and of its journey, final
destination, and present value within the Financial System

20. The Plaintiff is required to prove that the Defendants JOHN DOE, AND
JANE DOE, are living beings, and not Corporate entities, artificial persons;
and are the same beings as the natural Man; John Doe, and the natural Woman
Jane Doe.


Court Testimony of a Banker on Bank Loans

This is the Testimony from a Banker on a Foreclosure. The Banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in.

The attorney for the plaintiff-borrower 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 responded, " 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.". . . and thats the truth!