|
|
Just some interesting stuff!
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by computerguy (204.180.131.3) on December 12, 2003 at 14:17:59:
Always be willing to pay if they can explain the agreement and are willing to return the unaltered, original agreement when you pay the money. One person in court kept offering, through the mail, to repay the loan in the same specie of money/credit that the bank used to fund the loan thus ending all interest and liens (ie., another note payable in the same specie of money or credit the bank used to fund the loan per GAAP, thus ending all interest and liens). We simply asked the bank to sign a simple affidavit that they lent their money to purchase the loan agreement from the alleged borrower; that they followed the law of GAAP and did not accept money/credit from the alleged borrower in the loan transaction that funded a loan or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the alleged loan; that the economics of the loan were not similar to stealing, counterfeiting and swindling; and that the intent of the agreement is that the party who funded the loan is to be repaid the money. The alleged borrower kept telling the judge, "I will pay, just have the attorney sign this affidavit and I will pay": The judge kept saying, "Sign the bloody affidavit and get paid and get out of my courtroom". The bank attorney kept saying, "But judge, you do not understand I cannot sign it". If he is a debt collector, look up verification, validation, in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the dictionary and find what it says under oath, affidavit. We want details of the agreement. Now get the attorney ethics from your state and get the attorney's oath of office. Research state laws and the attorney might not be legally licensed to go after you in the first place. They cannot go after you without a valid agreement and if it is an attorney his/her ethics say that they must understand all the details of the agreement. They fail at this point. How can they take you to court if you are willing to pay? You just want details of the agreement and for them to follow the law and GAAP before tendering payment. "Fraud in the Factum" is a real defense. That is what the bankers fear.
Remember - debt collectors are using hearsay evidence and you cannot use hearsay evidence in court unless you are an expert witness. We wel- come their expert witness. We have 600 questions for them. Let them put it on the public record. I do not think they are that foolish.
If one claims that the agreement is stolen, forged and that one did not sign the standard agreement, then the banker has a problem. Under the rules of evidence, the banker has difficulty proving a standard agreement applies, especially when one claims that the agreement signed says it must follow GAAP. The intent of the agreement is that the one who funded the loan is to be repaid the money and that the borrower provided no money/credit or thing of value to fund a check or similar instrument in approximately the amount of the loan. The bank then uses their money to purchase the agreement from you. How can they claim that this is not part of the agreement? People presume the credit card company follows the law - GAAP - and the CPA GAAP audit says two loans were exchanged. Is not the one who funded the loan to be repaid the money? If not, is it a con- version of funds or a theft? How can they legally take you to court if you have been willing to pay as soon as they can explain the agreement? How can there be an agreement if they refuse to explain it? They know that they acted merely as a moneychanger and tried to make you believe they were lenders charging you as if there was a loan. If you go to an international airport and change U.S. Dollars for Japanese Yen, you pay one percent fee to the moneychanger, not 100 percent plus interest!
For example: Both parties sign an agreement for you to sell your apples for $100 cash. The agreement says you cannot use a court to enforce the agreement, and instead, you must use an arbitrator. They get your signature and they get your apples, but then they refuse to give you the cash, and instead, they give you an IOU that they refuse to pay. They breached the agreement. They did not give you the agreed consideration, so how can they enforce the agreement demanding arbitration?
Study the Rules of Evidence. Rules of Evidence do not allow them to just say this is the total owed. The law allows anyone to demand to see the specific items charged and total bookkeeping entries regarding their agreement.
History shows that if you owe little money, it might not be worth while for the banker to sue you and collect. The more you owe, they more likely they will come after you. They know you are broke with no money to hire an expert witness CPA. They know you do not have the time and money to fight them. They figure that the bank attorney understands courtroom procedures and you do not. That is the strategy they use.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
