You may want to look at the following laws: Fair Credit B i l l i n g A c t and the Fair Debt C o l l e c t i o n Practices A c t . L o o k up the words "validation"
and "verification" in the law dictionary—let them, by affidavit, tell you that you owe the money and what the terms and conditions are. Study the rules of evidence (they must show you each item charged that they claim you owe, not just a total debt, and no standard agreement is easy to prove). See U C C 8-315, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 1003 about not a l l o w i n g a copy as evidence—argue the authenticity of the copy, demand the original, look up under State law for lost or missing notes.
Study the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure, Rules 27 and 28 to get Depo-sitions. Study Declaratory Relief/Judgment to invalidate the contract.
Read U C C 3-308 about the proof of signature and status as the holder in due course—about denying signature in pleadings before trial or else the judge assumes it is your signature, g i v i n g authenticity to the promissory note—which means you agreed the bank lent you the money as agreed.
Study "hearsay evidence". The debt collector who is an attorney uses hearsay evidence—what the credit card company (a third party) said—to collect. One person kept objecting in court as the debt collector talked, saying, "objection, this is hearsay evidence." The judge allowed the debt collector to testify. The judge asked if this was hearsay and the debt collector said yes. T h e judge threw out a l l of the evidence because it was hearsay. The debt collector has no evidence under the rules of evidence to collect, so the alleged borrower won by objecting to hearsay. The judge may say, "take j u d i c i a l notice." T h i s means the banker can bring in a copy of the note unless y o u object. L o o k for court cases that say that the party who wrote the agreement has the greater burden of proof ex-plaining the agreement.
If y o u are not w i l l i n g to do your job , and homework, do not expect the judge to help you. You have to help the judge help y o u . Do not expect the judge to rule against the banking system. He wants to keep his j o b . O n l y discuss breach of agreement and h o w they changed the cost and the risk and concealed material facts. Discuss G A A P .
These are the things that you might want to go over and discuss with your legal counsel.
Have fun. Get a group of people together for a seminar. Put together a mock trial with a mock jury and see how it sounds. What w o u ld the jury (voters) decide. Would they rule in your favor or the banker's favor?
One bank answered our " A d m i s s i o n s " document, admitting that they follow G A A P and that they follow Federal Reserve Banks' policies and procedures. Another admission statement was "The intent of the alleged agreement was for the consumer to provide the money that the bank woul d use to fund the credit line or loan." The bank denied this.
What have the credit card companies been doing to stop lawsuits? T h e y change the rules. T h e y can change the policies and procedures by simply mailing you the changes. So they changed the rules requiring you to go to arbitration or sue them in a State court 1,000 miles from your home.
One party told T o m that he signed an agreement forcing T o m into arbi-tration. T o m told the arbitrator that the alleged document agreeing to arbitration was a forgery so there is no agreement a l l o w i n g the arbitrator to arbitrate. The arbitrator was told that if he did arbitrate that T o m would sue the arbitrator for damages. The arbitrator refused to arbitrate. The arbitrator knows that the bank is paying him and keeps getting money from the bank. So w h o do you think that the arbitrator w i l l rule in favor of? The banker knows that the bank won before it got started. It is like hiring the fox to guard the chickens. The chickens are dead in that deal.
To w i n , to really w i n requires that we get the voters to agree with us. If not, the courts w i l l not be the answer. T h e y w i l l just change the rules against us.
T h i s is not intended as legal advice. T h i s is only to show you the histori-cal information per telephone histori-calls to T o m from people claiming suc-cess. We cannot guarantee sucsuc-cess.
The intent of this manual is to show you the law and allow you to be the judge and jury. If you agree with T o m , help us w i n our nation back to the truth. Not by going to court, but by helping us get the voters to j o i n us so that we become the lawmakers so that we control the judges, sheriffs and bankers the legal way through the vote.
4 9
If you go to court, and get out of your loan but we do not use the vote to w i n the nation, the bankers' politicians w i l l demand a National ID to enslave you. So, what good is it winning in court if we lose the nation to the bankers? You could get many others to j o i n us w h o could help us get 10,000s. Y E S , Y O U C A N M A K E A B I G D I F F E R E N C E .
If we do not do anything, they w i l l go to a cashless society g i v i n g them total control over you. T h i s is the time to win back a nation to the truth and stop slavery.
We expect the bank to change strategy in 2003. The new bankruptcy law w i l l mean that you cannot cancel your credit card debt. They w i l l simply garnish your wages and foreclose on your house after they force you into involuntary bankruptcy. A s k your legal counsel about demanding proof of the debt in bankruptcy. That might be your best defense.
F o r research please look up these court cases:
"Because the note in question was not payable 'to order or to bearer' the plaintiff payee did not hold in due course. Pascal v. Tardera, 1986, 123 A . D . 2 d 752, 507 N . Y . S . 2 d 2 2 5 " .
"Where an instrument is neither payable to order or bearer no one can qualify as a holder in due course. K e y Bank of Southeastern N. Y. v.
Strober Bros., Inc., 1988, 136 A . D . 2 d 604, 136 A . D . 2d 604, 523 N . Y . S . 2d 855"°.