Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

LookingConfident
Send Message
Longstanding investor in Looksmart (and a 70 yr old ex-tradesman), who has a passionate interest in the problems of newspapers along with their success in all their monetisation attempts made, on the web. For the "times are indeed, a changin", I feel. [17th of Aug, 2011 - Print media... More
View LookingConfident's Instablogs on:
  • Bank Loan Validity.doc - The Banker And The Attorney (Promissory Notes)

    As many are unable to down-load this doc, I have copied it in full and provided a link to the Drop-box I found it on.

    Anyone who has ever had a Bank loan or, is about to apply for one, really must read "The Banker And The Attorney" story...

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

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

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

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

    The banker said, "Yes."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The banker responded by saying, "The lender loaned the borrower a $200,000 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. She 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 $200,000 note have actual cash value of $200,000? Actual cash value means the promissory note can be sold for $200,000 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 fulfil the agreement and legally own the promissory note?"

    The banker said, "$200,000."

    The attorney asked, "According to your belief, if the borrower signs the promissory note and the bank refuses to loan the borrower $200,000 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 $200,000 of actual cash value which was used to fund the $200,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, and then agreed to pay the bank back $200,000 plus interest?"

    The banker said, "No. If the borrower provided the $200,000 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 $200,000 bank loan, the bank receives $200,000 actual cash value from the borrower, that this gives value to a $200,000 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 $200,000 which is used to fund a $200,000 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 authorisation or permission for the bank to receive $200,000 actual cash value from him and to use this to fund the $200,000 bank loan check which obligates him to give the bank back $200,000 plus interest?"

    The banker said, "No."

    The lawyer asked, "If the borrower provided the bank with actual cash value of $200,000 which the bank used to fund the $200,000 check and returned the check back to the alleged borrower as a bank loan check, in your opinion, did the bank loan $200,000 to the borrower?"

    The banker said, "No."

    The attorney asked, "If a bank customer provides actual cash value of $200,000 to the bank and the bank returns $200,000 actual cash value back to the same customer, is this a swap or exchange of $200,000 for $200,000."

    The banker replied, "Yes."

    The attorney asked, "Did the agreement call for an exchange of

    $200,000 swapped for $200,000, or did it call for a $200,000 loan?"

    The banker said, "A $200,000 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 $200,000

    for $200,000?"

    The banker said, "This is the standard way to do it."

    The attorney said, "Answer the question. Is it a swap or exchange of $200,000 actual cash value for $200,000 actual cash value? If the note funded the check, must they not both have equal value?"

    The banker then pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

    [The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." tinyurl.com/ntusype]

    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, "$200,000."

    The attorney said, "Is it true you received $200,000 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 $200,000 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 authorisation?"

    The banker said, "No."

    The attorney asked, "To the best of your knowledge, is there written permission or authorisation for the bank to transfer $200,000 of actual cash value from the borrower to the bank and for the bank to keep it for free?

    The banker said, "No."

    The attorney said, "Does this allow the bank to use this $200,000 actual cash value to fund the $200,000 bank loan check back to the same borrower, forcing the borrower to pay the bank $200,000 plus interest?"

    The banker said, "Yes."

    The attorney said, "If the bank transferred $200,000 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?"

    The banker replied "Yes".

    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 $200,000, you return the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest? Do you think I am stupid?"

    The banker, 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, authorisation, 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?"

    The banker, "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 a wince of regret that he had been caught, confessed, "Yes."

    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 so it is!

    CONCLUSION: See Drop-box: tinyurl.com/k2ta9fp

    LC

    ps; YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_If31KLDKA#t=257

    Apr 09 11:40 PM | Link | 2 Comments
  • If It's Not Lawful It Isn't Legal - Rule Of Law

    Yes, it's a big statement yet it's time the subject was addressed and rationally reasoned through.

    According to Black's law Dictionary (yes, it's a law dictionary, not a Legal dictionary), the following tells us what the word Legal means:

    What is LEGAL?

    1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law.

    2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law ; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law.

    3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity.

    4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice.

    See LAWFUL. As to legal "Age," "Assets," "Consideration," "Cruelty," "Damages," "Day," "Debts," "Demand." "Defense," "Disability," "Discretion," "Duty," "Estate," "Evidence," "Fraud," $ LEGATES "Heirs," "Holiday," "Incapacity," "Interest," "Irregularity," "Malice," "Memory," "Mortgage," "Negligence," "Notice," "Proceedings," "Process," "Relevancy," "Remedy," "Representative," "Reversion," "Subrogation," and "Tender," see those titles.

    Law Dictionary: thelawdictionary.org/legal
    ******************************

    Under the Rule of Law, no one is above the law. And from off our live birth record (and at law), we are both under and protected by the law, as living entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State; tinyurl.com/k2tc65g

    And the living sovereign and crown (the lawmaker) Pope Francis is the "boss" or, the CEO of the Holy See. (The lawmaking body.)

    All corporate governments - are "registered" with and are under the law of the Holy See. (At law.)

    All "juridical persons" (men and women) within the system of law that we have - are "registered" with and are under the law of the Holy See. (At law.)

    It's simple. Men and women in corporate governments don't make law. Their role is or, should only be to 'manage' both the resources of the land and the infrastructure of the living people (on the land) and to support a proper functioning of, the law of the land.

    All people living on the land are under that one law, of the land.

    Let's be clear that under the Rule of Law, we're all under the law

    People don't need to be "governed" as we are, in today's world.

    If we are doing no harm to others or, the property of others, we are living lawfully. The most important role of any government is only to ensure both an efficient administration and the proper enforcement of the law in relation to lawbreakers. A separation of powers should at all times be paramount.

    The "pretend" law of corporate governments? Is it lawful? No.

    Being 'under' law, people can't possibly make law, themselves. They now have no "power" to do so. (No crown backing.)

    In regards to what is clearly the unlawful 'over-reach' of corporate governments, wonderful "Truther" Larken Rose poses five questions that really need some serious consideration, certainly by those who may hold a different view.

    A user

    Larken says that If anyone believes that government in it's existing role is a necessity, then they need to answer these 5 questions.

    1) Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

    2) Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?

    3) Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?

    4) When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?

    5) When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong, in order to "obey the law"?

    If it's not Lawful it isn't Legal? (1. Conforming to the law;)

    Back on topic- with the "fiction of law" now dead (that once had 'powered' all those inferior Trust/contracts, at law), where does it leave anything construed or governed by the rules and principles of law?

    All state 'managed' corporate courts are dead in the water. As they have no crown backing, at law.

    The "fiction of law" (Dead) tinyurl.com/lowv8ek

    What once was "Legal" suddenly becomes, un-lawful.

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Apr 08 5:43 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • Corporate Governments Have Cornered The "Pittsburgh Pennsylvania" Market?

    Maybe he did see or, foretold the reality of the Guy Mitchell's song?

    For mine, his (William Penn's) work is a revelation, I feel. Certainly this unfinished piece as contained within the link below.

    ...... Bear in mind that the CQV Act itself was enacted in 1666 when Penn was just 22 years of age.. the linked story (AN ESSAY TOWARDS THE PRESENT AND FUTURE PEACE OF EUROPE - 1st published 1693-94), tells us .... almost exactly, I feel - what had been destined within Penn's mind, from over 500 years ago.

    As a foe of the Vatican, he would never have taken into account that the Popes (being fully involved in the corruption), would themselves find a solution, at law. ("Motu Proprio")

    "I say .... Justice is the means of Peace" - William Penn

    It appears finally, someone has been listening to his thoughts:

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25750949.pdf?acceptTC=true

    What a thinker - William Penn (14 October 1644 - 30 July 1718)

    Wikipedia tells us:

    As one of the earlier supporters of colonial unification, Penn wrote and urged for a union of all the English colonies in what was to become the United States of America.

    ........... The democratic principles that he [Penn] set forth in the Pennsylvania Frame of Government served as an inspiration for the United States Constitution.

    As a pacifist Quaker, Penn considered the problems of war and peace deeply.

    He developed a forward-looking project for a United States of Europe through the creation of a European Assembly made of deputies that could discuss and adjudicate controversies peacefully.

    He is therefore considered the very first thinker to suggest the creation of a European Parliament.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn

    In a nutshell?

    Penn is talking of a/the (one, democratic) European Parliament above- with a ONE "Law".

    And we all must get to know now (just as William Penn would surely have back then), where that law comes from. (And it's fact, that he branded the Catholic Church, as "the Whore of Babylon".)

    Yet, Penn was more about a ONE European Parliament law. And now, there is.

    "Powered by"?

    A one law .. where Peace Officers at the 'coal-face' of society uphold the law - and in a ONE system of law, for all. (Do no Harm.)


    Yes. The unlawful "game" of deceitfully gaining societal "consent" is now over, at law.

    Always, only an opinion.

    LC

    Apr 04 10:27 PM | Link | Comment!
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.