Your   Name  here, pro per  
12345 W. Free ST.
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
(480) 123-4567
<youremail@.?com>

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA                                   IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

Your   Name  here, pro se
		                               Plaintiff,
	Vs.
BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as PRES/CEO OF BAC HOME LOANS SERVICNG, LP, an ens legis being  used to conceal fraud,

JAMES F. TAYLOR and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as PRES. OF FIN.& ADMIN. OF RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., an ens legis being used to conceal fraud,

BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as PRES/CEO OF BANK OF AMERICA, an ens legis used to conceal fraud,

BRUCE PARADIS, and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as PRES/CEO OF HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC., an ens legis being used to conceal fraud,

ANGELO MAZILO, and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as PRES/CEO OF COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., an ens legis being used to conceal fraud,

R.K. ARNOLD and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as PRES/CEO OF MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., an ens legis being used to conceal fraud, 

AND JOHN DOES (Investors) 1-10,000,
   et al,                             Defendant. 
	)
)
)
)
)
)
)	Case no:__________________
             COMPLAINT AND
PETITION FOR TEMPORARY 
RESTRAINING ORDER TO ESTOP 
DEFENDANT FROM SELLING, 
TRANSFERING, FORECLOSING, 
AND/OR OTHERWISE TAKING 
PLAINTIFF’S REAL PROPERTY
FOR; 
1.  DEFENDANT’S FRAUD; AND 
2.  DEFENDANT’S USE OF A VOID 
CONTRACT PURSUANT TO 
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE 
SECOND EDITION 46 § 203 AND 
2.  DEFENDANT’S NUMEROUS 
VIOLATIONS OF
ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; 
                        AND
PLAINTIFF STATES THE CLAIM 
FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE 
GRANTED PURSUANT TO:
A.R.Cv.P. RULE 12(b)(6)
       (Oral argument requested)

Assigned to Honorable____________
	
             	COMES NOW, Your   Name  here, pro se, Plaintiff, on COMPLAINT for Defendant’s numerous acts of fraud upon the court, inclusive of any and all judicial and/or non-judicial proceedings, including without limitations, Defendant’s purposeful fraud in attempting to appear as CREDITOR to the court, when in fact Defendant is well aware they are not the CREDITOR and therefore NOT the Real Party in interest in the foreclosure matter.
	Plaintiff hereby reserves ALL RIGHTS, including without limitations, the Right to join any and all other and/or new parties that Plaintiff may discover at any time during the proceeding.
	It is now incumbent on this court to query Defendant as to Defendant’s lawful position in this instant matter.  If Defendants refuse to stipulate in open court that Defendant is the CREDITOR in this instant matter, this court must remove Defendant from this hearing forthwith, as this court is here to settle a matter between a CREDITOR and a DEBTOR.
	Accordingly, if Defendant is not the CREDITOR in this Matter, then Defendant has thus stipulated that Plaintiff MUST be the CREDITOR in this matter.
	Defendant cannot be the CREDITOR in this instant matter as Defendant NEVER risked any assets, nor is Defendant holding any assets.
	No ENTITY can be a CREDITOR if they don’t hold the asset in question, [i.e.: the NOTE and/or the property]; and Mortgage Pass-through Trusts, [i.e. R.E.M.I.C., as defined in TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter M, PART II, §§ 850-862] cannot hold assets; for if they do, their tax exempt status is violated and the Trust itself is void ab initio.
	Defendant MUST NOW inform this court, the I.R.S. and the S.E.C. of their status of either being a CREDITOR and/or not being a CREDITOR.
	Defendant’s own acts of fraud upon this court, Plaintiff, and the public in general are the single cause of this paradox and absent Defendant “stating the claim” they are the CREDITOR in this matter, this court cannot hear from Defendant.
           	By Law and precedent and in accordance with the Supreme Court of the United States pro se Pleadings MAY NOT be held to the same standard as a lawyer’s and/or attorney’s; and whose motions, pleadings and all papers may ONLY be judged by their function and never their form.  See: Haines v. Kerner; Platsky v. CIA; Anastasoff v. United States; Litigants are to be held to less stringent pleading standards;
	
	See: Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519-421; In re Haines: pro se litigants are held to 	less stringent pleading standards than admitted or licensed bar attorneys.  	Regardless of the deficiencies in their pleadings, pro se litigants are entitled to the 	opportunity to submit evidence in support of their claims. 
	
	See also: Platsky v. 	C.I.A., 953 f.2d. 25; In re Platsky: court errs if court dismisses 	the pro se litigant without instruction of how pleadings are deficient and how to 	repair pleadings.
	
	See also: Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000); In re 	Anastasoff: litigants' constitutional (guaranteed) rights are violated when courts 	depart from precedent where parties are similarly situated.   
	
	For this matter, Defendant is and/or may be the listed Defendant, any and all parties Defendant refuses to reveal to Plaintiff and/or this Court, irrespective of whether or not said party and/or parties are known to this Court and/or Plaintiff and/or Defendant, the Corporate ens legis entity Defendant is employed by and/or is an officer thereof, and/or any other parity and/or parties, indispensible or not, any and all other party and/or parties receiving any pecuniary gain from, through, and/or by Defendant’s fraudulent act(s). Singular may be inclusive of plural and plural may be inclusive of singular.
	Plaintiff hereby questions the authenticity of ALL dates and/or ALL signatures by ALL parties on ALL documents, including without limitations, notarized documents, “contracts”, “deeds”, “titles”, affidavits, and/or the like, including without limitations the dates and/or signatures by notary publics, officers, employees, and any and ALL parties attesting to any and ALL claims, facts, accounting, transfers, recordings, publications, and/or the like, etc.
	Plaintiff disavows any and ALL implied and/or conferred and/or inferred “understanding” of “legalese” terms now and at the time of the “signing” of any and ALL of the documents pertaining to this action.
	Plaintiff disavows any and ALL presumptions made by this Court, Defendant, and any and ALL other parties when said presumption may be detrimental to Plaintiff’s interest and/or case.
	Plaintiff hereby demands ALL of Plaintiff’s Rights be protected by this Court, including without limitations, State and Federal Constitutionally protected Rights, God given Rights, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Rights protected by Treaty(s), and/or ALL privileges and/or immunities, and/or the like. 
	Plaintiff hereby demands this Court refuse to commit, and act to prevent Defendant from committing, any and ALL acts barratrous in nature.
	Plaintiff hereby demands ALL applicable Rules of Court, Rules of Procedures, Laws, and/or Statutes be adhered to without preference for any party.
	Plaintiff makes this statement: “I sent Defendant a Qualified Written Request, a Written Notice of Loan/Credit Dispute, and a Notice of Loan Rescission and Defendant did NOT RESPOND which was Defendant’s confession they knew they were committing fraud against me because they knew they were not the CREDITOR.  If Defendant had responded then Defendant would have done so because they were the CREDITOR, but since Defendant did not respond as required by law for a CREDITOR to do, then Defendant has confessed Defendant knows it is not the CREDITOR.  That is how I discovered Defendant committed fraud against me."
	If Defendant attempts to fight this matter in court then Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and willfully must come to court WITHOUT “clean hands.”
	Plaintiff comes to this court with “clean hands” and as a civilian and a laymen and attempts only to seek justice and equity in accordance with Arizona law.
/
//
I.	Plaintiff hereby states the claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) as follows:
 
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS:  

		1.	Plaintiff is the CREDITOR in this matter.

		2.	Defendant is the DEBTOR in this matter.

		3.	Defendant is a Fictitious Payee.

		4. 	Defendant is not the CREDITOR, or a lawful ASSIGNEE of the 	 	           		CREDITOR, in this instant matter.

		6.	Plaintiff is not the DEBTOR in this matter.
	   	
		7.	Defendant was not the Real Party in Interest in the non-judicial 				proceeding.

		8.  	Defendant did NOT put Defendant’s assets at risk in this instant 	                 	       		matter.

		9. 	Defendant may have only “lent credit” in this instant matter.

	      	10.  	Defendant purposely destroyed the GENUINE ORIGINAL 	 	  	           		PROMISSORY NOTE to “securitize” the NOTE.

	       	11. 	Defendant’s use of “legalese” in the mortgage documents as a means 	 		of converting Real Property from its true owner to Defendant is a 				criminal act of “conversion through fraudulent means” and therefore 				the mortgage 	documents are evidence of a criminal act and cannot be 			used by this Court in this instant matter. 
			(See: Black’s Sixth; “Understand”)

		12. 	The United States has a primary mortgage Right and/or status on the 				real property in question and such CANNOT be circumvented by 				Defendant’s fraudulent and unlawful mortgage.

		13.	Defendant has been paid in full for the “contract” in question.

		14.	Defendant will fail to join “all indispensible parties” as such joinder 				would be prima facie evidence of Defendant’s fraudulent act of 				securitizing the “PROMISSORY NOTE.”

		15.	All “investors” involved in the securitization of the “Promissory 				Note” are indispensible parties to this action and MUST be joined by 			Defendant in any rebuttal, response, reply, answer, and/or the like by 			Defendant.
		
		16.	Defendant is using a corporate entity and/or TRUST in furtherance of 			fraudulent acts.

		17.	Defendant has no immunity for Defendant’s fraudulent acts.

		18.	Defendant is jointly and severally responsible for ALL of Plaintiff’s 				losses, cost fees, and/or damages; including without limitations, 				emotional damages, punitive damages, inclusive of but not limited to: 			alienation of affection from: spouse, boy and/or girl “friend”, friends, 			children, pets, co-worker(s), client(s), customer(s), and any and all 				other parties effected directly and or indirectly and/or collaterally 				even if caused by Plaintiff’s inability to deal emotionally with the 				financial issues; as said issues are and have been caused by 					Defendant’s fraudulent acts.

		19.	Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and willfully separated the 				Deed of Trust and/or the mortgage from the Genuine Original 				Promissory Note and from the allonge. 
	
	Defendant MUST rebut ANY and ALL ALLEGATIONS and/or CLAIMS with specificity, quoting facts and laws; or Defendant thereby stipulates Defendant agree with Plaintiff’s ALLEGATIONS and/or CLAIMS; and Defendant forever forsake arguing against Plaintiff’s allegations and/or claims in any court. Merely denying Plaintiff’s allegations and/or claims are not sufficient to survive a Motion for Default and/or Summary judgment against Defendant. 
	Pursuant to A.R.Cv.P. Rule 8(d) [F.R.Cv.P. Rule 8(b)(6)] and/or all allegations and/or claims made by Plaintiff MUST be accepted as true by this Court unless said allegations and/or claims are rebutted with a preponderance of the evidence by Defendant. Any and all such avowries and/or averments presented by Defendant must be et hoc paratus est verificare and done under penalty of perjury.

RELIEF PLAINTIFF WISHES TO BE GRANTED:

		1.	Defendant returns the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY 				NOTE and ALL MONEY PAID [by Plaintiff to Defendants, with a 				full disclosure of accounting of such] to Plaintiff forthwith; 

		2.	If Defendant is not able to return the GENUINE ORIGINAL 				PROMISSORY NOTE to Plaintiff forthwith then Defendant is 				therefore admitting to Defendant’s unlawful attempt to convert real 				property without cause and/or right.

		3.	Defendant present to Plaintiff and this Court an Affidavit stipulating 				that Defendant has NO RIGHTS to the real property in question.
		
		4.	Defendant returns DEED and all other documents pertaining to 				ownership of 	real property in question to Plaintiff.
	
		5.	If Defendant does not STATE THE CLAIM UNDER PENALTY OF 			PERJURY that Defendant is the CREDITOR in this instant matter, 		       		Defendant agrees to accept Judgment by Default in favor of Plaintiff.

		6.	If Defendant does STATE THE CLAIM UNDER PENALTY OF 				PERJURY that Defendant is the CREDITOR in this instant matter, 				Defendant agrees to deliver acknowledgement of such forthwith to 				the S.E.C. and the I.R.S.

II.	Plaintiff has the Due Process Rights as protected by, inter alia, the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution to rely on the court adhering to, inter alia, A.R.Cv.P., inter alia, and the federal and state Constitutions:
	A.R.Cv.P. Rule 1 
	These rules govern the procedure in the superior courts of Arizona in all suits 	of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity.  They shall be 	construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every 	action. 

III.	Plaintiff questions the jurisdiction of any and ALL non-judicial proceedings known only to Plaintiff as an administrative procedure fraudulently based on an invalid and unenforceable confession of judgment presumption in the mortgage documents.
	Once jurisdiction is questioned and not proven, the court MUST dismiss the action.  Plaintiff hereby questions the jurisdiction of any and all non-judicial proceedings instigated by Defendant in Defendant’s unlawful attempt to confiscate Plaintiff’s real property.

	A.R.Cv.P. Rule 12(h)(3).  Waiver or preservation of certain defenses
	A party waives all defenses and objections which that party does not present either 	by motion as hereinbefore provided, or, if that party has made no motion, in that 	party's answer or reply, except;
	 (3) Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the 	court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action. 
	(Emphasis added)

	See: McCorkle v. First Pennsylvania Banking and Trust Co. (4th Cir. 1972) 459 	F.2d 243, 244.  “At any stage of a litigation, including the appellate, subject matter 	jurisdiction may be questioned.  By failing to do so, the parties cannot confer 	jurisdiction by consent.  If the court perceives the defect, it is obligated to raise the 	issue sua sponte." 
	See also: McCready v. White, 417 F.3d Case 1:05-cv-04743; “Ensuring the 	existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s first duty in every lawsuit.” 

	Subject-matter jurisdiction is an issue that must be considered at any stage of the litigation.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem. Co., 322 F.3d 942, 946 (7th Cir. 2003); BEM I, L.L.C. v. Anthropologie, Inc., 301 F.3d 548, 551 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction . . . may be questioned at any time until the litigation becomes final, and sometimes even later.”).  Even if the defense of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is overruled, stricken, or excluded by the district court, it may be reasserted at any time in the action.  See: 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1350, at 132 (3d ed. 2004) (citing Fahnestock v. Reeder, 223 F. Supp. 2d 618, 621 (E.D. Pa. 2002)).
	Once questioned, the Defendant and/or the court MUST prove jurisdiction BEFORE proceeding with a case.  This requirement has not been abrogated nor does it exclude non-judicial proceedings. 
	The non-judicial foreclosure procedure requires jurisdiction as does any matter, judicial, administrative or otherwise.  Defendant has attempted to circumvent jurisdiction requirements by falsely claiming Defendant has met for the court the requisite elements of jurisdiction, primarily that Defendant is the Real Party in Interest.
	Defendant’s claim to be the Real Party in Interest is false, fraudulent and unlawful.  Pursuant to, inter alia, Rule 17(a), Defendant must prove Defendant is the Real Party in Interest, not just claim such.
	It is a functional impossibility for Defendant to be the Real Party in Interest without the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE.  Ergo, it is a functional impossibility for Defendant to prove Defendant is the Real Party in Interest without presenting to this court the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE.
	It is an incontrovertible fact that Defendant is not in possession of the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE, and accordingly, it is an incontrovertible fact that Defendant is committing fraud upon the court by falsely and/or fraudulently claiming Defendant is in possession of the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE. 
	Pursuant to law and in accordance with Plaintiff’s claims; Defendants MUST present to this court the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE and prove to be the CREDITOR in this agreement or agree to Plaintiff’s demand for Judgment by Default in favor of Plaintiff.
	This COMPLAINT is supported by law which is incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth, and which Plaintiff asks this Court to take judicial notice thereof. This COMPLAINT is further supported by the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:This    th day of _______, in the year of our Lord, 2010.

               BY: ____________________________, agent     
                          Your   Name  here, pro se         
        
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: The above-mentioned entity is quoting citations ‘as purported in’ context to copyrighted case law, statutes, rules of court and court decision material as found in books published with Federal or state funding supplied by the Citizens of the united States of America and intended for use by attorneys, and does so under the provisions of the Fair use clause of the copyright laws of the United States.
		                                  PROPERTY
	This COMPLAINT is for the unlawful foreclosure proceeding initiated by Defendant concerning the real property located at:
12345 W. Free ST., in the county of Maricopa, in the city of Scottsdale, in the state of Arizona. 
	A.P.N. number 666-66-666. Bank of America Loan Number 66666666.
	Legal description: Lot 66, McDowell Mountain Ranch Parcel U, according to book 666 of Maps, page 66, records of Maricopa County, Arizona; except all minerals and all uranium, thorium, or any other material which is or may be determined to be peculiarly essential to the production of fissionable materials, whether or not of commercial value, as reserved in patent from the United States of America.  
		MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
	Diversity of jurisdiction is present in this matter as the real property in question is in Arizona and Defendant and/or other entities involved are in other states and/or countries.  Therefore, Plaintiff hereby invokes Erie doctrine and will accordingly use Arizona law and/or may use federal laws accordingly.
	Defendants are committing BARRATRY by fraudulently filing foreclosure documents only a CREDTIOR and the Real Party in Interest may file, when in fact Defendants are NOT the CREDTIOR and NOT the Real Party in Interest in this instant matter.
	It is a functional impossibility for Plaintiff to “understand” the mortgage documents Defendants used in their unlawful attempt to convert Plaintiff’s Real Property to Defendants’ possession.  Plaintiff’s inability to “understand” the “legalese” used by the attorneys who wrote the mortgage documents prohibits Defendants from using said documents as evidence against Plaintiff. 
	In fact, Defendants’ malum in se act of using “legalese” in a document to unlawfully convert real property is defined in law as “theft through unlawful conversion.”
Defendants cannot now use said documents to convert said property without said documents being used as prima facie evidence of Defendants’ felonious act.
	This court cannot use evidence of a felonious act to assist a criminal in furtherance of a felonious act.

	See: Black’s Law Sixth Edition:
	Understand.  To know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as, to understand 	the nature and effect of an act.  International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Pence, Tex. 	Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 206, 210.  To have a full and clear knowledge of; to 	comprehend.  Thus, to invalidate a deed on the ground that the grantor did not 	understand the nature of the act, the grantor must be incapable of comprehending 	that the effect of the act would divest him of the title to the land set forth in the 	deed.  As used in connection with the execution of wills and other instruments, the 	term includes the realization of the practical effects and consequences of the 	proposed act.  See Capacity.

	Definitions from Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition:
	BARRATRY, crimes.  In old law French barat, baraterie, signifying robbery, 	deceit, fraud.  In modern usage it may be defined as the habitual moving, exciting, 	and maintaining suits and quarrels, either at law or otherwise.  1 Inst. 368; 1 Hawk. 	243. 
2.  A man cannot be indicted as a common barrator in respect of any number of false and groundless actions brought in his own right, nor for a single act in right of another; for that would not make him a common barrator. 
	3. Barratry, in this sense, is different from maintenance (q. v.) and champerty.(q.v.)
	
	CHAMPERTY, crimes.  A bargain with a plaintiff or defendant, campum partire, 	to divide the land or other matter sued for between them, if they prevail at law, the 	champertor undertaking to carry on the suit at his own expense. 1 Pick. 416; 1 Ham. 	132; 5 Monr. 416; 4 Litt. 117; 5 John. Ch. R. 44; 7 Port. R. 488. 2. This offence 	differs from maintenance, in this, that in the latter the person 	assisting the suitor 	receives no benefit, while in the former he receives one half, or other portion, of the 	thing sued for.  See Punishment; Fine; Imprisonment; 4 Bl. Com. 135. 3. This was 	an offence in the civil law. Poth. Pand. lib. 3, t. 1; App. n. 1, tom. 3, p. 104; 15 Ves. 	139; 7 Bligh's R. 369; S. C. 20 E. C. L. R. 165; 5 Moore & P. 193; 6 	Carr. & P. 	749; S.C. 25 E. C. L. R. 631; 1-Russ. Cr. 179 Hawk.P. C. b.1 c.84, s.5. 
	4. To maintan a defendant may be champerty. Hawk. P. C. b. 1, c. 84, s. 8 3 Ham. 	541; 6 Monr. 392; 8 Yerg. 484; 8 John. 479; 1 John. Ch. R. 444;, 7 Wend. 152; 3 	Cowen, 624; 6 Co@ven, 90

I.	Defendants are Not the Real Party in Interest in the non-judicial 	proceeding as 	current possession of the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE is a 	requirement for a party to be the Real Party in Interest in all foreclosure 	proceedings pursuant to the U.C.C. 
	Defendant is not and cannot be the Real Party in Interest and is committing fraud without ‘clean hands’ by unlawfully attempting to foreclose on real property owned by Plaintiff.  Absent possession of the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE singed by Plaintiff, Defendant could not/cannot lawfully move forward with the non-judicial process as the non-judicial court authorities do NOT have subject matter jurisdiction.

II.	Absent prima facie evidence that Defendant is the Real Party in Interest in 	the non-judicial proceeding, Defendant cannot be considered the Real Party in 	Interest in the non-judicial proceeding.
	The ONLY acceptable evidence that Defendant may be the Real Party in Interest is the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE.  Defendant did NOT present the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE to the officers acting in the non-judicial procedure and therefore the non-judicial procedures claims to jurisdiction are and were fraudulent claims and are thus void ab initio.

III.	Absent prima facie evidence that Defendant was the CREDITOR in the non-judicial proceeding, Defendant cannot be considered the CREDITOR in the non-judicial proceeding.
	The ONLY acceptable evidence that Defendant is the CREDITOR in this foreclosure matter is the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE and the forensic accounting showing the Defendant loaning the Plaintiff the Defendants’ assets.  There is no evidence Defendant put assets at risk in this matter.  Defendant did NOT present the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE and the forensic accounting records to the officers acting in the non-judicial procedure and therefore the non-judicial procedure “claims to jurisdiction” are and were fraudulent claims and thus void ab initio.

IV.	Since Defendant is not the Real Party in Interest in the non-judicial 	proceeding, the foreclosure is an unlawful procedure.

	Defendant has and is committing fraud by attempting to foreclose on real property Defendant is not the lawful lien holder of.  Defendant is NOT the CREDITOR and NOT a GENUINE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE of the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE and therefore CANNOT proceed non-judicially or judicially in any foreclosure matter.
V.	Defendant received a COPY of the PROMISSORY NOTE AFTER the 	PROMISSORY NOTE was determined to be in default. 
	Defendant was fully informed the NOTE and/or mortgage was delinquent and in dishonor before Defendant accepted a copy of the NOTE and/or became the HOLDER of a COPY of the NOTE.
	Even if Defendant did prove possession of the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE, which is impossible, Defendant’s claims are still invalid as Defendant has previously admitted knowledge the NOTE and/or mortgage was in default.

	A.R.S. § 47-3302 2(C). Holder in due course
	A. Subject to subsection C of this section and section 47-3106, subsection D, 	"holder in due course" means the holder of an instrument if:
	2. The holder took the instrument:
	(c) Without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or 	that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument 	issued as part of the same series;
	
	A.R.S. § 47-3305. Defenses and claims in recoupment
	A. Except as stated in subsection B of this section, the right to enforce the 	obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to the following:
	1. A defense of the obligor based on:
	(a) Infancy of the obligor to the extent it is a defense to a simple contract;
	(b) Duress, lack of legal capacity or illegality of the transaction which, under 	other law, nullifies the obligation of the obligor;
	(c) Fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither 	knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential 	terms; or
	(d) Discharge of the obligor in insolvency proceedings.

VI.	Defendant has knowingly, with malice aforethought, violated numerous, 	inter alia, Arizona Revised Statutes to convene the non-judicial proceeding 	and/or attempt to unlawfully foreclose on Plaintiff’s real property.
	Plaintiff hereby submits the following A.R.S. sections as an offer of proof of an abridged list of the crimes perpetrated by Defendant in Defendant’s fraudulent attempt to unlawfully convert Plaintiff’s real property into Defendant’s asset.  Key words are in bold for the court’s convenience. 
	Defendant’s unlawful use of the non-judicial proceeding to fraudulently establish “standing” without the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE is prima facie evidence of Defendant’s guilt, and evidence of Defendant’s violations of the statues.
	In fact, Defendant could not have convened the non-judicial procedure without having violated one and possible all of the listed statutes, and probably other state and federal laws unknown to this layman.
	Plaintiff presents the following list ONLY as evidence of the non-judicial procedure’s lack of jurisdiction and not as evidence of criminal activity on the part of Defendant.  Accordingly, Defendant cannot disavow said claims for Plaintiff’s use of criminal violations in civil litigation. 
	
	39-161.  Presentment of false instrument for filing; classification
	A person who acknowledges, certifies, notarizes, procures or offers to be filed, 	registered or recorded in a public office in this state an instrument he knows to be 	false or forged, which, if genuine, could be filed, registered or recorded under any 	law of this state or the United States, or in compliance with established procedure is 	guilty of a class 6 felony. As used in this section "instrument" includes a written 	instrument as defined in section 13-2001. 

	13-2004. Criminal simulation; classification
	A. A person commits criminal simulation if, with intent to defraud, such person 	makes, alters, or presents or offers, whether accepted or not, any object so that it 	appears to have an antiquity, rarity, source, authorship or value that it does not in 	fact possess.
	B. Criminal simulation is a class 6 felony. 

	13-2005. Obtaining a signature by deception; classification
	A. A person commits obtaining a signature by deception if, with intent to defraud, 	such person obtains the signature of another person to a written instrument by 	knowingly misrepresenting or omitting any fact material to the instrument or 	transaction.

	13-2006. Criminal impersonation; classification
	A. A person commits criminal impersonation by:
	2. Pretending to be a representative of some person or organization with the intent 	to defraud; or
	3. Pretending to be, or assuming a false identity of, an employee or a 	representative of some person or organization with the intent to induce another 	person to provide or allow access to property.
	13-2010. Trafficking in the identity of another person or entity; classification
	A. A person commits trafficking in the identity of another person or entity if the 	person knowingly sells, transfers or transmits any personal identifying 	information or entity identifying information of another person or entity, including 	a real or fictitious person or entity, without the consent of the other person or entity 	for any unlawful purpose or to cause loss to the person or entity whether or not 	the other person or entity actually suffers any economic loss, or allowing 	another person to obtain or continue employment.

	13-2204. Defrauding secured creditors; definition; classification
	A. A person commits defrauding secured creditors if the person knowingly 	destroys, removes, conceals, encumbers, converts, sells, obtains, transfers, 	controls or otherwise deals with property subject to a security interest with the 	intent to hinder or prevent the enforcement of that interest.

	13-2205. Defrauding judgment creditors; classification
	A.  A person commits defrauding judgment creditors if such person secretes, 	assigns, conveys or otherwise disposes of his property with the intent to defraud a 	judgment creditor or to prevent that property from being subjected to payment of a 	judgment.

	13-2206. Fraud in insolvency; classification
	A.  A person commits fraud in insolvency if, when proceedings have been or are 	about to be instituted for the appointment of a trustee, receiver or other person 	entitled to administer property for the benefit of CREDITORs or when any other 	assignment, composition or liquidation for the benefit of CREDITORs has been or 	is about to be made, such person:
	2. Knowingly falsifies any writing or record relating to the property; or
	3. Knowingly misrepresents or refuses to disclose to a receiver or other person 	entitled to administer property for the benefit of CREDITORs the existence, 	amount or location of the property or any other information which he could be 	legally required to furnish to such administration; or
	4. Obtains any substantial part of or interest in the debtor's estate with intent 	to defraud any CREDITOR.

	13-2306. Possession of altered property; classification
	A.  A person who is a dealer in property and recklessly possesses property the 	permanent identifying features of which, including serial numbers or labels, have 	been removed or in any fashion altered is guilty of a class 6 felony.

	13-2308. Participating in or assisting a criminal syndicate; classification
	A.  A person commits participating in a criminal syndicate by:
1.  Intentionally organizing, managing, directing, supervising or financing a criminal syndicate with the intent to promote or further the criminal objectives of the syndicate; or
	3.  Furnishing advice or direction in the conduct, financing or management of a 	criminal syndicate's affairs with the intent to promote or further the criminal 	objectives of a criminal syndicate; or
	4.  Intentionally promoting or furthering the criminal objectives of a criminal 	syndicate by inducing or committing any act or omission by a public servant in 	violation of his official duty; or

	13-2310. Fraudulent schemes and artifices; classification; definition
	A.  Any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains 	any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or 	material omissions is guilty of a class 2 felony.
	B. Reliance on the part of any person shall not be a necessary element of the 	offense described in subsection A of this section.

	13-2311. Fraudulent schemes and practices; willful concealment; classification
	A.  Notwithstanding any provision of the law to the contrary, in any matter related 	to the business conducted by any department or agency of this state or any political 	subdivision thereof, any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud or 	deceive, knowingly falsifies, conceals or covers up a material fact by any trick, 	scheme or device or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing such 	writing or document contains any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry is 	guilty of a class 5 felony.
B.  For the purposes of this section, "agency" includes a public agency as defined by section 38-502, paragraph 6. 

	13-2317. Money laundering; classification; definitions
	A.  A person is guilty of money laundering in the first degree if the person does any 	of the following:
	1.  Knowingly initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages, supervises or 	is in the business of money laundering in violation of subsection B of this section. 
	B.  A person is guilty of money laundering in the second degree if the person does 	any of the following:
	1.  Acquires or maintains an interest in, transacts, transfers, transports, receives or 	conceals the existence or nature of racketeering proceeds knowing or having reason 	to know that they are the proceeds of an offense.
	2.  Makes property available to another by transaction, transportation or otherwise 	knowing that it is intended to be used to facilitate racketeering.
	3.  Conducts a transaction knowing or having reason to know that the property 	involved is the proceeds of an offense and with the intent to conceal or disguise the 	nature, location, source, ownership or control of the property or the intent to 	facilitate racketeering.
	4.  Intentionally or knowingly makes a false statement, misrepresentation or false 	certification or makes a false entry or omits a material entry in any application, 	financial statement, account record, customer receipt, report or other document that 	is filed or required to be maintained or filed under title 6, chapter 12. 
	5.  Intentionally or knowingly evades or attempts to evade any reporting 	requirement under section 6-1241, whether by structuring transactions as described 	in 31 Code of Federal Regulations part 103, by causing any financial institution, 	money transmitter, trade or business to fail to file the report, by failing to file a 	required report or record or by any other means.
	6.  Intentionally or knowingly provides any false information or fails to disclose 	information that causes any licensee, authorized delegate, money transmitter, trade 	or business to either:
	(a)  Fail to file any report or record that is required under section 6-1241.
	(b)  File such a report or record that contains a material omission or misstatement of 	fact.
	7.  Intentionally or knowingly falsifies, conceals, covers up or misrepresents or 	attempts to falsify, conceal, cover up or misrepresent the identity of any person in 	connection with any transaction with a financial institution or money transmitter.
8.  In connection with a transaction with a financial institution or money transmitter, intentionally or knowingly makes, uses, offers or presents or attempts to make, use, 	offer or present, whether accepted or not, a forged instrument, a falsely altered or completed written instrument or a written instrument that contains any materially false personal identifying information.
	9.  If the person is a money transmitter, a person engaged in a trade or business or 	any employee of a money transmitter or a person engaged in a trade or business, 	intentionally or knowingly accepts false personal identifying information from any 	person or otherwise knowingly incorporates false personal identifying information 	into any report or record that is required by section 6-1241.
10.  Intentionally conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs or owns all or part of a money transmitting business for which a license is required by title 6, chapter 12 unless the business is licensed pursuant to title 6, chapter 12 and complies with the money transmitting business registration requirements under 31 United States Code section 5330.
	C.  A person is guilty of money laundering in the third degree if the person 	intentionally or knowingly does any of the following:
	1.  In the course of any transaction transmitting money, confers or agrees to confer 	anything of value on a money transmitter or any employee of a money transmitter 	that is intended to influence or reward any person for failing to comply with any 	requirement under title 6, chapter 12.
	2.  Engages in the business of receiving money for transmission or transmitting 	money, as an employee or otherwise, and receives anything of value upon an 	agreement or understanding that it is intended to influence or benefit the person for 	failing to comply with any requirement under title 6, chapter 12.
	D.  In addition to any other criminal or civil remedy, if a person violates subsection 	A or B of this section as part of a pattern of violations that involve a total of one 	hundred thousand dollars or more in any twelve month period, the person is subject 	to forfeiture of substitute assets in an amount that is three times the amount that was 	involved in the pattern, including conduct that occurred before and after the twelve 	month period.
E.  Money laundering in the third degree is a class 6 felony.  Money laundering in the second degree is a class 3 felony.  Money laundering in the first degree is a class 2 felony.

	13-2320. Residential mortgage fraud; classification; definitions
	A.  A person commits residential mortgage fraud if, with the intent to defraud, the 	person does any of the following:
	1.  Knowingly makes any deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation or material 	omission during the mortgage lending process that is relied on by a mortgage 	lender, borrower or other party to the mortgage lending process.
	2.  Knowingly uses or facilitates the use of any deliberate misstatement, 	misrepresentation or material omission during the mortgage lending process that 		is relied on by a mortgage lender, borrower or other party to the mortgage lending 	process.
3.  Receives any proceeds or other monies in connection with a residential mortgage loan that the person knows resulted from a violation of paragraph 1 or 2 of this subsection.
	4.  Files or causes to be filed with the office of the county recorder of any 	county of this state any residential mortgage loan document that the person 	knows to contain a deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation or material 	omission.
	B.  An offense involving residential mortgage fraud shall not be based solely on 	information that is lawfully disclosed under federal disclosure laws, regulations and 	interpretations related to the mortgage lending process.

VII.	Defendant CANNOT use the confession of judgment as written in the 	mortgage for any proceeding, judicial, non-judicial, and/or otherwise.
	Arizona law requires the power of attorney for the confession of judgment to be signed AFTER the indebtedness became due and payable.  Therefore, any clause in the mortgage pertaining to such is void and does not give Right and/or cause for Defendant to claim confession of judgment authority and/or right.

	A.R.S. § 44-143 
	Judgment by confession shall not be entered upon a note, bond or other 	instrument in writing for the payment of money under the authority of a power of 	attorney to confess judgment thereon, unless such authority is executed and 	acknowledged on a day subsequent to the date on which the indebtedness to be 	confessed became due and payable.

VIII. 	Defendant cannot claim res judicata for standing from any decision in the 	non-judicial proceeding as jurisdiction of the non-judicial proceeding is and 	was in question, and therefore Defendant’s standing remains in question.
	Whereas the non-judicial proceeding may only claim jurisdiction in accordance with a valid confession of judgment and/or attorney’s warrant, the fact neither the confession of judgment nor the attorney’s warrant were valid causes the non-judicial proceeding to not have jurisdiction.  Decisions made in any proceedings that lack jurisdiction are void.
	Fraudulent statements in an affidavit invalidate said affidavit.
	Failure of a confession of judgment to meet all five (5) elements required invalidates said confession of judgment. 

IX.	Defendant’s use of a Notary Public who has a “beneficial interest” in the 	process for the non-judicial proceeding is invalid. 
	The Notary Public used by Defendant and/or Defendant’s attorneys has a financial and/or business interest with the Defendant and/or Defendant’s attorneys and therefore said Notary Public’s actions are in violation of the, inter alia, Notary’s Code of Ethics and the , inter alia, Arizona Revised Statutes § 41-328, and accordingly the Notary’s verification is fraudulent and thus void.
	
	ARIZONA NOTARY PUBLIC REFERENCE MANUAL, page 2
	Second paragraph:
	This means, a notary public cannot be a “party to the transaction” or a “party
	to the instrument” and the notary public cannot have any financial or beneficial
	interest in the transaction, no matter how small (A.R.S. § 41-328(B)).  A notary
	public has a financial interest in a transaction if he or she will gain (or lose)
	something of value in the transaction.  A notary public has beneficial interest in
	a transaction if the document will benefit the notary in some way.

	Last paragraph:
	 “If a jurat is performed, the document signer is also required to vouch for the 	truthfulness of the document.”

	A.R.S. § 41-328. Prohibited conduct; incomplete documents; signatures of 	relatives
	B.  A notary public is an impartial witness and shall not notarize the notary's 	own signature or the signatures of any person who is related by marriage or 	adoption. 

X. 	Plaintiff disputes ALL signatures by ALL other parties and demands 	verification 	by prima facie evidence, affidavit, and non-hearsay testimony to 	validate ALL signatures.
	There are numerous instances of Defendants Notary Public notarizing documents with; incorrect dates; fraudulent signatures; attestations done absent parties being present; perjurous statements of claims of being sworn; dates that do not correlate to events; etc. 
	ALL documents notarized MUST be correct or the whole process itself is void and Defendant is required by law to prove the process is valid once questioned.

XI. 	Plaintiff disputes ALL claims of service of process by Defendants in ALL 	matters concerning the non-judicial foreclosure process.
	To contest a cognovit clause on federal due-process grounds, a judgment debtor must plead specific facts sufficient to support a claim that he or she did not voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waive the right to prejudgment notice and hearing.  See: F.D.I.C. v. Aaronian, 93 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 1996).
	In some states, the practice of ex parte entry of judgment by confession is in disrepute, and notice must be given to the debtor before entry of judgment.  See: First Mut. Corp. v. Grammercy & Maine, Inc., 176 N.J. Super. 428, 423 A.2d 	680 (Law Div.1980).
	A state statute may provide that a judgment by confession may not be entered as a final judgment, effective in all respects as a judgment after trial, until the prothonotary gives written notice to the obligor by certified mail, return receipt requested, of an opportunity for judicial determination as to whether the obligor understandingly waived the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the entry of final judgment.  
See: Cheidem Corp. v. Farmer, 449 A.2d 1061 (Del. Super. Ct. 1982).
	Any errors in the service of process is considered by law a “fatal error” and the whole process is then considered void.  Absent fully correct process of service Defendant has no authority to proceed with a foreclosure on any party and/or property. 
	Defendant is then required by law to cease and desist with said foreclosure process and may only begin again once if and only if Plaintiff’s claims are proved invalid.

XII. 	Plaintiff disputes ALL claims by Defendant that there is ANY amount due 	on the mortgage in question as said mortgage has been paid in full, directly 	and/or indirectly, by one or more of the following: Credit Default Swaps, 	“bailout funds”, mortgage insurance, government agencies, signature of party, 	etc.
	Defendant did receive “bail out” and/or “TARP” funds from the government and/or private quasi-government institutions that did in fact “pay-off” some or all of Defendant’s “mortgages” and/or other financial deals. 
	It is incumbent on Defendant to prove the mortgage in question WAS NOT paid-off and/or Defendant was enumerated directly and/or indirectly for the mortgage in question.
	In fact, absent prima facie evidence controverting Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant was reimbursed in some way by some entity for the mortgage in question, Defendant is agreeing that said mortgage is paid in full.
	Defendant MUST therefore present for inspection to the Plaintiff a complete list with accounting of ALL funds received correlated to ALL mortgages paid and not paid before continuing with any foreclosure attempt on the property and/or mortgage in question.
	Defendant’s failure to produce for inspection said accounting documents is Defendant’s agreement that the mortgage in question is paid in full.  There is no law dictating who is required to pay for a mortgage for it to be considered paid in full.
	In fact, Plaintiff believes the mortgage was and is paid in full and Defendant is attempting to fraudulently convert real property through a conspiracy involving numerous parties unknown to Plaintiff.
	Therefore the forensic accounting of the original ‘loan’ should be submitted for inspection, to reveal the true source of the funding of the ‘loan’

XIII. 	Plaintiff disputes and hereby rebuts any and all statements in any and all 	Affidavits submitted by Defendant and/or Defendant’s agents

22-219. Confession of judgment without issuance or service of process
A. A party may appear in person or by an agent or attorney before a justice of the peace without issuance or service of process and confess judgment for an amount within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, and such judgment shall be entered thereon upon the filing by Plaintiff, his agent or attorney of an affidavit of the justness of Plaintiff's claim.
B. Where the judgment is confessed by an agent or attorney, the warrant of agent or attorney authorizing the confession shall be filed with the justice and noted in the docket. 
XIV.	Legal definitions laymen may not be presumed to know and/or understand.
	Definitions a “laymen” would not likely understand and would require a BAR licensed attorney to define and explain before a “laymen” may be considered “knowingly, intelligently, and willfully” agreeing to numerous legal definitions that ONLY competent counsel would be familiar with.  Absent Defendant proving Plaintiff had knowledge of the following terms, Defendant cannot lawfully claim Plaintiff knowingly, intelligently, and willfully agreed to any mortgage containing said terms and/or concepts.

Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition:

Cognovit judgment.  See Cognovit judgment; also, Confession Of judgment, below.

Confession of judgment.  At common law, judgment entered where Defendant, instead of entering plea, confessed action, or withdrew plea and confessed action.
Judgment where a Defendant gives the Plaintiff a cognovit or written confession of the action by virtue of which the Plaintiff enters judgment. The act of a debtor in permitting judgment to be entered against him by his creditor, for a stipulated sum, by a written statement to that effect or by warrant of attorney, without the institution of legal proceedings of any kind; voluntary submission to court's jurisdiction. O'Hara v. Manley, 140 Pa.Super. 39, 12 A.2d 820, 822. Such agreements for confession of judgment are void in many states; e.g. Mass.G.L. c. 231, § 13A.
The negotiability of an instrument is not affected by a term authorizing a confession of judgment if the instrument is not paid when due.  U.C.C. § 3-112. See also Cognovit judgment.
Cognovit judgment.  Confession of judgment by debtor.  Written authority of debtor and his direction for entry of judgment against him in the event he shall default in payment.  Such provision in a debt instrument or agreement permits the creditor or his attorney on default to appear in court and confers judgment against the debtor.  Such agreements are prohibited, or greatly restricted, in many states; though, where permitted, the constitutionality of such has been upheld.  D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174, 92 S.Ct. 775, 31 L.Ed.2d 124.  See Cognovit note; Judgment (Confession of judgment).

Cognovit note.  An extraordinary note which authorizes an attorney to confess judgment against person or persons signing it.  It is written authority of a debtor and a direction by him for entry of a judgment against him if obligation set forth in note is not paid when due.  Such judgment may be taken by any person holding the note, which cuts off every defense which maker of note may otherwise have and it likewise cuts off all rights of appeal from any judgment taken on it.  Jones v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., D.C.Mich., 289 F.Supp. 930, 935.  See Cognovit judgment; Judgment (Confession of judgment). 

Warrant of attorney.  An instrument in writing, addressed to one or more attorneys therein named, authorizing them, generally, to appear in any court, or in some specified court, on behalf of the person giving it, and to confess judgment in favor of some particular person therein named, in an action of debt.  It usually contains a stipulation not to bring any action, or any writ of error, or file a bill in equity, so as to delay him; such writing usually being given as security for obligation on which judgment was authorized, and in such procedure service of process is not essential.  See Judgment (Confession of Judgment).

Seisin.  Possession of real property under claim of freehold estate.  The completion of the feudal investiture, by which the tenant was admitted into the feud, and performed the rights of homage and fealty.  Possession with an intent on the part of him who holds it to claim a freehold interest.  Right to immediate possession according to the nature of the estate.  Williams v. Swango, 365 IlL 549, 7 N.E.2d 306, 309.

Actual seisin.  Possession of the freehold by the pedis positio of one's self or one's tenant or agent, or by construction of law, as in the case of a state grant or a conveyance under the statutes of uses, or (probably) of grant or devise where there is no actual adverse possession; it means actual possession as distinguished from constructive possession or possession in law.

Constructive seisin.  Seisin in law where there is no seisin in fact; as where the state issues a patent to a person who never takes any sort of possession of the lands granted, he has constructive seisin of all the land in his grant, though another person is at the time in actual possession.

Equitable seisin.  A seisin which is analogous to legal seisin; that is, seisin of an equitable estate in land.  Thus a mortgagor is said to have equitable seisin of the land by receipt of the rents.

Seisin in deed.  Actual possession of the freehold; the same as actual seisin or seisin in fact.  Roetzel v. Beal, 196 Ark. 5, 116 S.W.2d 591, 593.

Seisin in law.  A right of immediate possession according to the nature of the estate.  As the old doctrine of corporeal investiture is no longer in force, the delivery of a deed gives seisin in law.

Seized.  A person is "seized" within Fourth Amendment when police officer restrains person's freedom to walk away.  State v. Ochoa, 112 Ariz. 582, 544 P.2d 1097, 1099. It exists when reasonable person would feel that he was not free to leave.  U.S. v. Albert, C.A.N.C., 816 F.2d 958, 960.  See Seizure. The status of legally owning and possessing real estate. See Seisin.

Seizure.  The act of taking possession of property, e.g., for a violation of law or by virtue of an execution of a judgment.  Term implies a taking or removal of something from the possession, actual or constructive, of another person or persons.  Molinav. State, 53 Wis.2d 662, 193 N.W.2d 874, 877.

A "seizure" of property (under Fourth Amendment) occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in that property.  U.S. v. Jacobsen, U.S.Minn., 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85.

Parol.  A word; speech; hence, oral or verbal.  Expressed or evidenced by speech only; as opposed to be writing or by sealed instrument.

Parol contract.  An oral contract as distinguished from a written or formal contract. 
Understand. To know; to apprehend the meaning; to appreciate; as, to understand the nature and effect of an act. International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Pence, Tex. Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 206, 210. To have a full and clear knowledge of; to comprehend. Thus, to invalidate a deed on the ground that the grantor did not understand the nature of the act, the grantor must be incapable of comprehending that the effect of the act would divest him of the title to the land set forth in the deed. As used in connection with the execution of wills and other instruments, the term includes the realization of the practical effects and consequences of the proposed act. See Capacity.

Capable. Susceptible; competent; qualified; fitting; possessing legal power or capacity. Able, fit or adapted for. See Capacity.

Capacity. Legal qualification (i.e. legal age), competency, power or fitness. Mental ability to understand the nature and effects of one's acts.

XV. 	Discussion of confession of judgment clause as it pertains to the mortgage in 	question and the use of such in the non-judicial foreclosure of Plaintiff’s Real 	Property.
	Defendant is attempting to non-judicially foreclose on real property in accordance with the presumption the “confession of judgment” concept (hereafter cognovit clause) in the mortgage/deed of trust (hereafter mortgage) is and was valid.  It is a functional impossibility for a cognovit clause to be valid in the State of Arizona pursuant to stare decisis applicable to mortgage document signing unless an attorney represented Plaintiff throughout the negotiations of the mortgage. 
	Defendant is fully aware Plaintiff was NOT represented by a BAR licensed attorney at any point during the mortgage and/or purchase process that lead to the mortgage being agreed upon by either party. As such, the mortgage is void ab initio, not just voidable, but void and in fact did never lawfully exist pursuant to Arizona law.
	It is now incumbent on Defendant and/or Defendant’s attorney to claim as their defense in this matter before proceeding with any other defense, that Plaintiff was not required nor entitled to competent counsel during the mortgage negotiations and signing, in contradiction to the stare decisis pertaining to cognovit clauses in any and all contracts and/or mortgages.
	Accordingly, Defendant must therefore establish an argument against law and set new precedent in violation of, inter alia, A.R.Cv.P. Rule 11(a):
		
		“…….it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good 			faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; 			and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to 		cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”
		(Emphasis added)

	American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Judgments
	IV. Particular Kinds of Judgments, D. Judgment by Confession, 6. Practice and 	Procedure Topic Summary Correlation Table References
	§ 230. Notice and hearing, West's Key Number Digest, Federal Civil Procedure 	2396, West's Key Number Digest, Judgment 29 to 70
	See: D. H. Overmyer Co. Inc., of Ohio v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174, 92 S. Ct. 775, 31 	L. Ed. 2d 124

	“A maker of a confession of judgment voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly 	waives due-process rights it otherwise possesses to prejudgment notice and hearing, 	and does so with full awareness of the legal consequences, when:	
	(1) the cognovit does not involve unequal bargaining power or overreaching;
	(2) the agreement is not a contract of adhesion;
	(3) the cognovit provision is obtained for adequate consideration;
	(4) the cognovit is a product of negotiations carried on by parties with the advice of 	competent counsel; and
	(5) the maker, despite cognovit, is not defenseless under state law.”
	Plaintiff hereby claims all five (5) elements required for a cognovit clause to be valid in Arizona have been purposely violated by Defendant to deprive Plaintiff of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights under color of state law. 
	A single violation of any one element is all that is required to void the mortgage.
		
Verified explanation of the five (5) elements of cognovit,
as they pertain to this instant matter, and as such,
prima facie evidence the five (5) elements of cognovit have not been met.
 (1)  Defendant had an unequal bargaining power and Defendant was overreaching by:
	i)  Plaintiff is a laymen and as such did not have the requisite knowledge to discover Defendant’s numerous acts of concealment and/or fraud concerning the “legal definitions” of words and/or language used in the mortgage document; 
	ii)  Defendant is familiar with the “legal definitions” of the words and/or language of the mortgage and purposely, with malicious intent, confused Plaintiff and mis-represented the meanings of numerous words and/or the functionality of the language in the mortgage document(s);
	iii) Defendant was overreaching the potential of Plaintiff’s “understanding” the mortgage and the words and/or language used in the mortgage as said mortgage was obviously designed and written in such a way to purposely confuse laymen;
(2) The mortgage is without controversy an adhesion contract as Defendant openly refuses to allow ANY change to the mortgage documents.
	See: Cubic Corp. v. Marty, 4 Dist. 185.,  C.A.3d. 438, 229 Cal. Rptr 828, 833; 	Standard Oil Co. of Calif. v. Perkins, C.A.Or., 347, F.2d 379, 383 “Distinctive 	feature of adhesion contract is that weaker party has no realistic choice as to its 	terms.” 
(3) There can be no adequate consideration when nothing is given for something.  Defendant required Plaintiff to unknowingly give up Plaintiff’s Right to Due Process yet Defendant gave absolutely nothing in return for Plaintiff’s Right.
	Black’s Sixth Edition, page 39: Such as is equal, or reasonably proportioned, to the 	value for that which it is given.
	See: Nissen v. Miller, 44 N.M. 487, 105 P.2d. 324, 326 “Equal to some given 	occasion or work.”
	See also: Town of Winchester v. Cox, 129 Conn. 106, 26 A2.d 592, 597 “Such only 	as puts injured party in as good condition as he would have been if injury if injury 	had not been inflicted.”
(4)	“Competent counsel” as used when referring to contract negotiations in Arizona CAN ONLY mean a BAR licensed attorney.  A.R.Civ.P., inter alia, Rule 6 deals with “duties of counsel” and accordingly ONLY references and applies to BAR licensed attorneys.  Defendant has no bases and no grounds to claim “competent counsel” can mean anything other than a BAR licensed attorney.  If, in fact and on the record, Defendant’s attorney even attempts to claim in this matter that “competent counsel” can mean something other than a BAR licensed attorney then this court shall immediately report Defendant to the ARIZONA BAR for his fraudulent effort and violation of his contract with the ARIZONA BAR.  
	The courts in Arizona have made numerous decisions relating to “competent counsel” when referring to contracts and all of such state unequivocally that said counsel MUST be, and may ONLY be, a licensed attorney.
	The following issue is absolutely incontrovertible under Arizona Law: 
	ANY MORTGAGE THAT IS NOT A PRODUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS
	CONDUCTED BY A COMPETENT BAR LICENSED ATTORNEYS IS 
	VOID AB INITIO AND CANNOT BE ENFORCED IN ANY JUDICIAL 
	AND/OR NON-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN ARIZONA.
	In fact, if Defendant is not willing to claim for the record that Plaintiff was not required to have advice of counsel for the mortgage in question to be valid, then Defendant has agreed that the mortgage in question is void.
	Also, in fact, if Defendant does agree that Plaintiff was required to have advice of counsel for the mortgage to be valid, yet Defendant is well aware that Plaintiff did not have advice of counsel, then Defendant is thereby confessing to the crime of barratry if Defendant does not agree to a summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
(5)  Defendant’s attempt at non-judicial foreclosure, and therefore his defense, is based solely upon the claim that Plaintiff is defenseless under state law due to the “confession of judgment” clause in the mortgage. 
	It is well established that court is adversarial in nature, yet contracts are agreements between parties to prevent disputes.  Accordingly, rules for specific contractual agreements such as mortgages have been decided by precedent to prevent parties from using the court to take advantage of weaker parties.  The legality of a non-judicial foreclosure is not the issue before this court.  More correctly stated the requirement of “confession of judgment” is the primary controversy this court must determine.  The determination of the validity of “confession of judgment” must rely on the stare decisis as previously stated.
	Plaintiff hereby states and claims as an offer of proof in this matter, it is not lawfully possible for this court to determine the mortgage in question is valid unless this court determines that:
1. Defendant and Plaintiff had equal bargaining power and Defendant’s requests in the mortgage were not overreaching; 
2. Plaintiff could have altered the terms and conditions of the mortgage and the Defendant would have still consummated the deal;
3. Plaintiff was adequately compensated for his loss and that Plaintiff understood he was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently agreeing to said loss;
4. Plaintiff was advised by a BAR licensed attorney through out the mortgage process;
5. Plaintiff has a defense against the cognovit clause based in law irrespective of Defendant’s claims.
6.  Defendant has risked assets in the mortgage.
	Absent a conclusion based in fact and Arizona law that all five (5) elements of a cognovit clause have been met, then this court may only determine that the mortgage in question is VOID ab initio and that Plaintiff is the true lawful owner of the real property in question. 

XVI.		VERIFIED STATEMENTS OF FACTS AND 
		ALLEGATIONS BASED ON VERIFIED FACTS 
	Plaintiff, avers that, prior to, during and up to a recent event, Plaintiff had no knowledge whatsoever as to particular terms contained within the Deed of Trust, which, Plaintiff learned much later, contained, inter alia, a small and somewhat hidden and/or disguised provision, known as a Power of Sale Clause that, Plaintiff now finds Defendant wanton to, individually and severally invoke, in order to literally confiscate Plaintiff’s property without due process and without clean hands.
	Whereas, normally, at minimum, each page of an important (life-altering) document, such as a Deed of Trust, would require initialing of the party executing it, as to signify the obligor’s acknowledgement thereof.  Defendants furthered their concealment by not only directing Plaintiff away from certain terms/clauses and the like, but are wholly without evidence via initialing of these terms/clauses, that would have otherwise alerted Plaintiff to the extent of what rights were truly being abrogated.
	Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendants willfully and intentionally concealed the aforesaid Clauses, and any irrevocability thereafter imparted to the sole detriment of Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, the preclusion to commence any action in defense of Plaintiff’s rights, for the expressed purpose of depriving an otherwise unknowing Plaintiff of fundamental rights to Due Process, by nothing less than despicable and clearly unconscionable means.

	Federal questions of constitutionality arise from the conduct and nature of Defendants’ actions, both individually and collectively, insofar as to the inherent rights that may be otherwise enjoyed by Plaintiff, as insured under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and, as to certain statutorily clothed tetherings upon ones rights; particularly, a Power of Sale clause, and the irrevocable means by which it attaches, in defiance of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
	The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Plaintiff states that Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States provides the same answer being raised by the Plaintiff, that: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  A similar provision exists in all the state constitution; the phrases "Due Course of Law", and the "Law of the Land" are sometimes used; but all three of these phrases have the same meaning and that applies conformity with the ancient and customary laws of the English people or laws indicated by parliament.  Davidson v. New Orleans 96 U.S. 97, 24, L Ed 616.
	The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2, mandates that State judges, regardless of state constitutional considerations, and laws enacted to the contrary, by effectuating the united States Constitution and its amendments as being the “supreme law of the land”.
	The Supremacy Clause reads in pertinent part, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or the Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
	The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires “timely individual notice…, before their property can be adversely affected”.  See Volkswagenwerk  Aktiengesallschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694,707 (1988)
	Plaintiff was (unknowingly) deprived of Due Process (and other) rights, as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and, the Arizona State Constitution; as, Defendants’, in the first instance, through unconscionable means, caused to be executed a certain Deed of Trust, which, unknown, nor otherwise explained to Plaintiff, lacked the proper “Notice”, having substituted in lieu of, an obscure and/or as yet detected provision for the unfettered power of sale of Plaintiff’s property.
	Notice is a Due Process issue, which in the absence thereof, constitutes the abrogation of Plaintiff’s substantive and procedural due process rights as afforded under the Fifth (5th) and Fourteenth (14th) Amendments, guaranteed Plaintiff by the United States Constitution.
	Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) ("An elemental and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to afford them an opportunity to present their objections.")
	The Constitution of the United States and Arizona makes it illegal for any one to take property without just compensation and by this amendment (5th) there can be no proceeding against life, liberty, or property which may result in the observance of those general rules established in our system of Jurisprudence for the security of private rights which guarantees to each citizen the equal protection of the laws and prohibits a denial thereof by any Federal official." (See rights) Bolling v. Sharpe, 327 U.S. 497.  U.S. vs Kuwzbzva (DC-CAL) 56F Supp. 716.
	The terms "due process of law" and “natural rights” as used in the Federal Constitution and/or the Declaration of Independence, have been repeatedly declared to be the exact equivalent of the phrase "law of the land" as used in the Magna Charta. 16 Am. Jur. 2d 547;
	Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39) of the Magna Carta as if they are set forth at length herein.
	Upon information and belief of Plaintiff, a power of sale clause, whether evidenced or not, within a Deed of Trust, is akin in performance to a cognovit note and/or confession of judgment, however, it operates far more insidiously; as, it specifically robs the (unknowing layman) maker of certain or otherwise assured rights and remedies, including, but not limited to Due Process, and redress by appeal, while wholly evading the requisite (form and manner of) noticing as encumbering cognovits or confessions.
	Upon information and belief of Plaintiff, the hidden power of sale clause, which in effect, creates a cognovit note/confession of judgment, as irrevocably granted in a Deed of Trust, does just that; it creates conditions that are in violation of the Arizona Constitution.
	WHAT IS A COGNOVIT NOTE?  A cognovit note is not an ordinary note.  It is indeed an extraordinary note, which authorizes an attorney to confess judgment against the person or persons signing it.  It is written authority of the debtor and a direction by them for the entry of a judgment against debtor, if the obligation set forth in the note is not paid when due.  
	Such a judgment (of confession) may be taken by any person or any company holding the note, only if specifically and diligently pointed out and discussed as to the legal ramifications in so doing, for it cuts off every defense which the maker of the note might otherwise possess. It likewise cuts off all rights of appeal from any judgment taken on it. 
	According to The United States Supreme Court, “a cognovit note is the ancient legal device by which the debtor consents in advance to the holder’s obtaining a judgment without notice or hearing, and possibly even with the appearance, on the debtor’s behalf, of an attorney designated by the debtor”. 
	Justice Blackmun, expressing the unanimous view of the court in Overmyer v. Frick, 405 U.S. 174, 92 S.Ct. 775, L.Ed.2d 124 (1972), stated the criteria for establishing constitutionality of a Cognovit Note is not determine upon the theory of the note but the method used by both parties to afford each other due process protection afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Emphasis added)
	Justice Blackmun stated, “…[i]t was held that (1) a cognovit clause was not, per se, violative of the Fourteenth Amendment due process requirements as to prejudgment notice and hearing, and (2) under the facts in the instant case, (Overmyer) due process was not violated by the entry of the confessed judgment, since the record established that the debtor had knowingly and voluntarily waived its rights to notice and hearing, with full awareness of the legal consequences, by executing the cognovit note, which was supported by consideration from the creditor, and which had resulted from negotiations between the parties of equal bargaining power,…” Id (Emphasis added)
	Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Marshall concurring, stated, in effect that, (1) the record must establish that a clear and unmistakable, voluntarily and intelligently valid waiver of the debtor’s constitutional rights, (2)… a trial judge was required to vacate a judgment obtained through a cognovit clause when presented sufficient evidence of an affirmative defense to pose a jury question, a preponderance of evidence burden not being imposed, and (3) the preponderance of the evidence in the (present) case does not support even a conclusionary finding that Plaintiff was even aware of the existence of any cognovit note, let alone intentionally, deliberately, knowingly and intelligently waive due process rights.
	Justice Douglas, further observed, “Debtors receive the benefit of credit at a lower rate of interest than they would receive if they did not give the creditor the right to confess judgment against them.  Nevertheless, the right to be heard in court is central to our system of justice, and, as with other constitutional rights, there is no presumption of waiver.”  Overmyer, 405, U.S. 174, 31 L. 2d 124, 92S.Ct. 775 (1972) and its companion case, Swarb v. Lennox, 405 U.S. 191, 31 L. ed.2d 138, 92 S.Ct. 767 (1972) and at 186, 188.  (Emphasis added)
	Based upon the Defendants’ lack of credible evidence and/or proof that Plaintiff ever waived or was ever advised of legal detriment upon the signing of what must be characterized, at best, as a hidden cognovit clause, is just preposterous and is sufficient to warrant presentation to a jury.
	In order to help determine the validity of the cognovit note and/or confession of judgment before this Court, one must concede that the mentioned contract containing the hidden clause, was never explained to the Plaintiff, so Plaintiff was never aware of waiving Fourteenth Amendment rights through a contract of adhesion (illegal and/or void contract) or the product of disparity in the parties’ bargaining power. 
	Most contracts of adhesion are either procedural and/or substantively unconscionable and, the unconscionability alone should void the cognovit clause of this adhesion contract.
	Plaintiff is aware that in a civil proceeding, acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights will not be presumed, and, that the rights to due process in a civil judgment are subject to waiver.  Plaintiff emphatically states that the contract of adhesion was a take it or leave it offer and the cognovit clause was never an issue raised with emphasis, or even raised at all, by the Defendants during the signing ceremonies.
	Based upon the Plaintiff’s recent extensive study of cognovit notes for this matter; (1) this contract was never open to any negotiations, for it was a contract of adhesion, as the parties were not parties of equal bargaining power; (2) the Defendants never gave the Plaintiff any extra consideration in order to obtain any confession of judgment (cognovit note) clause, nor was the cognovit note issued under any other substantial benefit and/or consideration including and not limited to a reduction in installment payments or reduction in interest rates; (3) there was no contention or acknowledgment that the Plaintiff was aware of the legal (detrimental) consequences of the cognovit provision; (4) this Court should vacate this prejudgment (confession of judgment or cognovit note) as a matter of law for showing that Plaintiff’s natural Rights to due process were violated.  
	The clear lack of evidence that Plaintiff ever intentionally, deliberately, and/or knowingly waived due process rights is further supported by this very Complaint.   
	Natural rights cannot be waived even if that is the intent of the Plaintiff. 
	At all times material to this Complaint Plaintiff never waived Constitutional rights to a trial by jury under any circumstances, much less willingly, knowingly, or intentionally. 
	The United States Supreme Court and the great majority of State Supreme Courts have all adopted the concept as; State’s that use cognovit procedure was found unconstitutional, unless, the debtor knowingly and understandingly consented to the authorization to confess judgment.
	In National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukent, 375, U.S. 311 (1962), the Court observed: “It is settled …that parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court, to permit notice to be served by the opposing party, or even to waive notice altogether.” Id., at 315-316.
	And, in Boddie v. Connecticut, supra, the Court acknowledges that “the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver.”  401 U.S., at 378-379. In another case on point is from New Jersey when the Chief Justice described in a rather condescending tone, “a cognovit note is the loosest way of binding a man’s property that was devised in any civilized country.” Alderman v. Diament, 7 N.J. L. 197, 198. 
	The Supreme Court clarified another part of cognovit note when the Court stated, “we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights, Ohio Bell Tel., Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 301 U.S. 292, 307 (1937), that standard was fully satisfied here.”
	The United States Supreme Court makes it very clear that any one may waive their due process rights and/or any other right but in order to do so, one must intentionally, knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily do so. 
	The consequences or legal detriment to waiving one’s Rights must be based only upon an intelligent decision having been presented with the consequences of entering into an agreement having a cognovit clause, (note and/or confession of judgment clause).
	Because a cognovit note deprives the debtor knowledge and of notice that their property is being seized, without recourse, or, without benefit of hearing or appeal, courts demand “clear and convincing evidence” that the written waiver is “voluntary, knowing, and intelligently made.”  The question of waiver is factual not presumptive. This, a jury must decide.
	The Plaintiff is now briefly schooled in the confession of judgment theory through Defendants’ application of a hidden within, cognovit note, and, agrees that the knowing and voluntary waiver of one’s due process Rights would be pertinent, if, it was truly evident in the present case.  Plaintiff agrees that the due process rights to notice and hearing prior to a civil judgment are subject to waiver.
	Because the cognovit note deprives the debtor of notice that their property is about to be seized, without benefit of hearing, or right to appeal, courts demand “clear and convincing evidence” that the written waiver was “voluntary, knowing, and intelligently made.”
	In order for the Defendants to substantially support their position that Plaintiff did voluntarily waive due process rights, Plaintiff states that there was never any warning paragraph, bold letters, bold sentences and/or no warning statement to merit any concern on behalf of the Plaintiff.  One would think to guarantee this basic constitutional question, which is now before this court, the Defendants should have a warning such as the following warning to serve as an example:
“WARNING –By signing this paper you give up your right to notice and court trial. If you do not pay on time a court judgment may be taken against you without your knowledge and the powers of a court can be used to collect from you or your employer regardless of any claims you may have against the creditor whether for returned goods, faulty goods, failure on their part to comply with the agreement, or any other cause.”
	Plaintiff once again reiterates that Plaintiff was never made aware of any cognovit note and/or confession of judgment at the time of their entering into the contract with the Defendants, or that, Plaintiff ever knowingly waived any Constitutionally guaranteed Rights.  Defendants never spent any time on this subject with Plaintiff. 
	After carefully examining the executed documents Plaintiff still cannot find any specific references that Plaintiff has, in any way, waived any Constitutionally guaranteed Rights upon execution of Defendants’ documents. 
	Based upon further review, the Plaintiff never witnessed and/or was never verbally instructed, concerning the loss of Due Process Rights.  Any one may give up their Rights, but, only those specifically bargained for.
	Further, Plaintiff never knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived Rights to notice and hearing, and, was wholly unaware of the legal consequences appertaining thereto.
	Other factors that this Court must take into consideration, besides the unconstitutionality of the purposefully disguised confession of judgment, and/or the cognovit note incognito; but also must consider contracts of adhesions are procedurally and substantively unconscionable contracts and contract foundations built upon mistakes, inadvertence, excusable negligence, newly discovered information, fraudulent conveyance, misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement in violation of Federal and Arizona State law; are void ab initio. 
	The very existence of a contract is the very heart of our commercial system as both parties operate in good faith and any “illegal provisions of the contract are “void,” and thus those provisions were never part of a validly formed contract.” Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1991), and “voidness” challenges go to the very existence of a contract provision, and are not merely a defense to a legally formed contract.”  And one valid defense that the Defendants are raising is “unconscionability is not merely a defensive doctrine but rather it goes to the predicate of whether a contract was validly formed in the first place.”  California Grocers Ass’n, Inc. v. Bank of America, 22 Cal.App.4th 205, 217 1994): and the “Doctrine of Unconscionability,” procedural and/or substantively are the tools to determine the validity of any contract thus ignoring for now the four main elements of a contract.
	Plaintiff is raising the unconscionability aspect of the mortgage (ARS 47-2302 Unconscionable contract or clause) as referenced in “Blake v. Ecker, 93 Cal.App.4th 728, 742 (2001)” (the substantive element of unconscionability “traditionally involves contract terms that are so one-sided as to ‘shock the conscience’ or that impose harsh or oppressive terms.”) (Emphasis added) (citing Armendariz, 24 Cal.4th at 114).  
Anyone who would knowingly agree to a non-judicial foreclosure, where the illegally appointed bank trustee has the power to foreclose on your home at his and/or her whim, is ludicrous and would have to be totally incompetent. 
	The contract is procedurally unconscionable if “the contract is a standard-form contract, drafted by the party with superior bargaining power, which relegates to the other party the option of adhering to its terms without modification or rejecting the contract entirely.;”; Flores v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc., 93 Cal.App.4th 846, 853 (2001) (same); Mercuro v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 174 (2002), rev. denied. 
	Plaintiff states emphatically that this Court should grant the temporary injunction to allow Defendants sufficient time to disprove that the Deed of Trust is, in fact, a contract void ab initio, and, to dispute Plaintiff’s averment to the contrary, that the creation of the contract is supported by a clear and convincing intent of the Plaintiff, for existence of mutual or reciprocal assent.  Sanford v. Abrams (1888) 24 Fla 181, 2 So 373; Ross v. Savage (1913) 66 Fla 106, 63 So 148; McCay v. Sever (1929) 98 Fla 710, 124 So 44; United State Rubber Products, Inc. v. Clark (1941) 145 Fla 631, 200 So 385; Mann v. Thompson (1958, Fla App D1) 100 So 2d 634. 
	The Plaintiff hereby states that for a valid contract to exist with the Defendants and/or any entity, the contract must have assent be to a certain and definite proposition.  For example, this Court, operating under cold neutrality, should demand that both sides produce all the substantial records, including and not limited to the accounting records for a determination as far as consideration.  Fincher v. Belk-Sawyer Co. (1961, Fla App D3) 127 So 2d 130; Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inv. (1965, Fla App D2) 178 So 2d 910; Hewitt v. Price (1969, Fla App D3) 222 So 2d 247. 
	The Plaintiff contends that without a meeting of the minds of the parties on an essential element (consideration), there can be no enforceable contract. Hettenbaugh v. Keyes-Ozon-Fincher Ins., Inc. (1962, Fla App D3) 147 So 2d 328; Goff v. Indian Lake Estates, Inc. (1965, Fla App D2) 178 So 2d 910.
	The Plaintiff has established enough doubt as to the validity of an enforceable contract that this court is required to determine the enforceability of the contract and determined what party breached the terms and conditions of the contract and in order to form a valid contract, the parties must have a distinct understanding, common to both, and without doubt or difference.  Unless all understand alike, there can be no assent, and therefore no contract.  Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln (1927) 94 Fla 1097, 115 So 498; Minsky's Follies of Florida, Inc v. Sennes (1953 206 F2d 1; O'neill v. Corporate Trustees, Inc. (1967) 376 F2d 818.  
	The Plaintiff hereby declares that the Defendants have greatly injured the Plaintiff through and not limited to misrepresentation, truth in lending, UDAP and unjust enrichment as a result of the Defendant’s deliberate, conspired, intentional, and malicious fraud.  Further, Defendants’ and/or their counsel have violated, inter alia, the Professional Code of Conduct and procured this illegal and/or voidable contract which lacks the essential elements of real assent and obtained the Plaintiff’s Signature as result of the exercise of duress or undue influence by the other party, or procured by the fraud of one of the parties, lacks the essential element of real assent and may be avoided by the injured party.  Wall v. Bureau of Lathing and Plastering (1960, Fla App D3) 117 So 2d 767.
	Being that the Plaintiff is asking for this court to protect Plaintiff’s due process rights and stay the sale and provide the Plaintiff with their right to a Trial by Jury for the Plaintiff never agreed to a non-judicial foreclosure and any entity must prove compliance with all the terms and conditions and specifically consideration and substantiate actual assent by the parties upon exactly the same matters is indispensable to the formation of a contract.  Bullock v. Hardwick (1947) 158 Fla 834, 30 So 2d 539: Hettenbaugh v. Keyes- Ozon - Fincher Ins. , Inc (1962, Fla App D3) 147 So 2d  328: General Finance Corp. V. Stratton (1963 Fla App D1) 156 So 2d 664.
	Unconscionability is deemed to exist when a two-prong test is met, that is, when it is established that both procedural and substantive unconscionability exist.  Blake v. Ecker, 93 Cal App 4th 728 (2001). According to Restatement of Contracts (2nd Ed. 1990) commentary accompanying section 208.
	Most state unconscionability jurisprudence is sub-divided into two branches: substantive and procedural.  Substantive unconscionability refers to oppressively one-sided and harsh terms of a contract, while procedural unconscionability involves the manner and process by which the terms become part of the contract including unequal bargaining power and hidden contract terms.  Comb v. PayPal Inc., Case No. C-02-1227 and C-02-2777 USDC CA No.  Dist. San Jose Div (9th Cir. 2002); Blake, supra; Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 2002 MT 129; 310 Mont. 123; 54 P3d 1; 2002 Mont. LEXIS 223 (MT Sup Ct 2002). 
	The process by which a contract comes into existence is at the heart of procedural unconscionability such that the contract in question is typically one of adhesion.  Flores v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc., 93 Cal App 4th 846 (2001).
	Analysis of unconscionability begins with an inquiry into whether the contract (Deed of Trust) was a contract of adhesion i.e., a standardized contract, imposed upon the subscribing party without an opportunity to negotiate the terms and the conditions is an oppressive, “take it or leave it offer,” an inequality of bargaining position when under scrutiny are so one sided that the terms and conditions are so supportive of the superior bargaining power and actually detrimental or no real negotiations and an absence of meaningful choice through an unequal bargaining position of the weaker party.  Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 113, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 745, 6 P.3d 669 (2000).  Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc., 28 Cal.3d 807, 819, 171 Cal. Rptr. 604, 623 P.2d 165 & n.16 (1981).
	Plaintiff never knew about nor agreed to place their property in an irrevocable trust, nor, did Plaintiff ever knowingly agree to have their home subject to a power of sale clause.  As a matter of fact, Plaintiff hereby declares that they have never heard of the term power of sale, and, what that term meant, until recently. 
	Plaintiff likewise, did not know that the term “seised” imparted a wholly different connotation than “seized”, whereby, upon recent comprehension of Plaintiff, “seised” indicates that Plaintiff actually owned their property free and clear, without encumbrance, prior to signing a Deed of Trust, without benefit of consideration.
	The concept of seising, dates back to the middle ages when the serfs, who were made to consider themselves not worthy of owning land, would actually give their properties through seising (gave it away absolutely free)  to their masters.  Today this unconscionable practice is still being utilized by bankers, constituting an unjust enrichment, through concealment and deception and outright ignorance on this Plaintiff, who suffers from the least susceptible and/or susceptible consumer syndrome. 
	Plaintiff now challenges this practice as being procedural and substantively unconscionable; Clauses contained in this referenced contract (Deed of Trust) should be challenged by this court as the Deed of Trust, did not and does not represent the true intentions of the Plaintiff. 
	Plaintiff would not knowingly agree to the placing of an irrevocable trust against their home by any mortgage company and/or banker and would not knowingly, intentionally and willfully have given their property to anyone through the middle ages policy of seising.  At trial, it would become apparent that the trier of facts could not find an objectively clear and unambiguous expression of mutual intent of these objectionable and substantively unconscionably shocking terms.
	In the absence of conflicting parol evidence, the interpretation of a written contract is essentially a judicial function subject to independent review by this Court or on appeal.  A trial court's threshold determination as to whether there is an ambiguity permitting the admission of parol evidence is also a question of law subject to independent review. 
	If parol evidence is admissible, and the competent parol evidence is in conflict, the construction of the contract becomes a question of fact.  However, if the parol evidence is not conflicting, the appellate court will independently construe the writing. 
	The duty of this Court is to schedule a hearing and permit the Defendants to actually produce documented evidence that Plaintiff, understood that Plaintiff was already lawfully seised of property by signing the Deed of Trust, and thereafter, knowingly, intentionally, and, deliberately agreed to a (unseen) power of sale clause, and, irrevocable grant, executed, without consideration, to the sole benefit of Defendants.
	However, this Court should also recognize the risk that such provisions may be included in a trust deed or mortgage without the debtor's knowledge or understanding.  Clauses such as this are often termed "dragnet" or "anaconda," as by their broad and general terms they enwrap the unsuspecting debtor in the folds of indebtedness and deceptive practices (concealing deceptively, the power of sale clause in which Plaintiff never was told and/or knew that it was actually part of the alleged contract). 
	The proponent of a dragnet clause bears the burden of establishing that the parties intended all existing or contemporaneous clauses to be included within its scope.  A trust deed containing a dragnet clause that is printed on a standard bank form is considered a contract of adhesion under Arizona law. 
	Although contracts of adhesion are generally enforceable according to their terms, a provision contained in such a contract cannot be enforced if it does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or adhering party. 
	This Court should examine a number of factors in determining whether broadly worded dragnet clauses (Seised and irrevocable trust) was mutually intended by the parties to be included in the terms and conditions: (1) the language and specificity of the dragnet clause; (2) whether the parties were aware of the dragnet clause and appreciated its significance and would have benefited by their existence; (3) were the clauses procedurally and/or substantively unconscionable and benefited the one party at the expense of the other party taking into account the degree of negotiability being exerted upon the smaller party with inferior bargaining position against the larger party with superior bargaining power. 
	The Defendant’s intentional concealment of the Power of Sale Clause in the Deed of Trust further insures Plaintiff’s allegations of deceptive intentions of the Defendants, ensuring that if they come before this court it will be incontrovertibly without ‘clean hands’. 
	Plaintiff hereby avers that for this Court to precede with this sale, this Court must find an objective and clear unambiguous expression of mutual intent to where the Plaintiff intentionally, deliberately, knowingly desired to place the home into a non-revocable trust, to allow the Defendant’s to have the home seised, power of sale and knowingly waived due process rights including and not limited to trial by jury.  This Court has in its inherent authority, the duty to stop/reverse this “Deed of Trust Sale” upon the unsuspecting mortgagor in the folds of indebtedness embraced and secured in the mortgage which Plaintiff did not contemplate or understand their presence or implications.      
	However, "[t]here are two judicially imposed limitations on the enforcement of adhesion contracts or provisions thereof.  The first is that such a contract or provision which does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or 'adhering' party will not be enforced against him . . .  The second - a principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally - is that a contract or provision, even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, will be denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or unconscionable. 
	The irrevocable trust, the hidden power of sale clause, due process violations and the seising clauses are four examples of Plaintiff being involved with procedural and substantive violations of unconscionability, thus voiding this contract from its incipience.  	A contract of adhesion is "a standardized contract, which, imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength, relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it."  (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Serv., 24 Cal 4th 83 at 113 (2000); reflected in Martinez v. Master Protection Corp., 118 Cal. App. 4th 107; 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 638  (2004) -- is not unconscionable merely because of disparity of the parties’ bargaining position (Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 US 20; 114 L. Ed. 2d 26, 111 St. Ct. 1647 (1991). Rather, the procedural unconscionability must co-exist with substantive components that include harsh or one-sided results that “shock the conscience”.  Soltani v. West. & So. Life Ins. Co., 258 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2001);  Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., 298 F.3d 778; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 14739 (9th Cir. 2002); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor, 335 F.3d 1101; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 14607 (9th Cir. 2003). 
	When a party to a contract possesses far greater bargaining power (Defendants and/or any entity) than another party (Plaintiff), or when the stronger party pressures, harasses, or compels another party into entering into a contract, "'oppression and, therefore, procedural unconscionability, are present."  Ingle v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 328 F.3d 1165, at 1172 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Indus., Inc., 298 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2002); Kinney v United HealthCare Services, Inc., 70 Cal App 4th 1322 (1999).
	Substantive unconscionability addresses the fairness of the term in dispute.  It traditionally involves contract terms that are so one-sided as to “shock the conscience,” or impose harsh or oppressive terms.  Historically, courts looked to the common law for discerning the existence of substantive unconscionability, as in Rakoff, Contracts of Adhesion: An Essay in Reconstruction, 96 Harv. L. Rev. 1173, 1179-1180 (1983); Slawson, Mass Contracts: Lawful Fraud in California, 48 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1, 12-13 (1974); K. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition 370-371 (1960). 
	“The common law, recognizing that standardized form contracts account for a significant portion of all commercial agreements… subjects terms in contracts of adhesion to scrutiny for reasonableness.”  Judge J. Skelly Wright set out the state of the law succinctly in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 121 U. S. App. D. C. 315, 319-320, 350 F. 2d 445, 449-450 (1965) (footnotes omitted): 
	"Ordinarily, one who signs an agreement without full knowledge of its terms might be held to assume the risk that he has entered a one-sided bargain.  But when a party of little bargaining power, and hence little real choice, signs a commercially unreasonable contract with little or no knowledge of its terms, it is hardly likely that Plaintiff’s consent, or even an objective manifestation of Plaintiff’s consent, was ever given to all of the terms.  In such a case the usual rule that the terms of the agreement are not to be questioned should be abandoned and the court should consider whether the terms of the contract are so unfair that enforcement should be withheld."
Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, this Honorable Court may enter a declaratory judgment to determine the rights of the Plaintiff, regarding the aforesaid claims and controversies arising therefrom.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
	The primary purpose of a temporary restraining order is to prevent irreparable injury and harm caused without right to the Plaintiff, and, to allow time for determining the legal rights, status and relations of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
	A temporary restraining order is absolutely necessary in the present instance to speedily effectuate the rights and status of Plaintiff in relation to the Defendants as well as delineate the authority of each of the Defendants in their actions as taken against the Plaintiff.
	Delay in granting Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order will result in irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiff, without ability to otherwise address Plaintiff’s grievances to the degree and means that would be otherwise availed.
	Temporary restraining order is proper when (1) a reasonable likelihood of success; (2) irreparable harm; (3) the balance of harms is in the movant’s favor; and (4) the public interest is favorably impacted.
	An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, both individually and collectively, as Defendants continue to usurp Plaintiff’s rights, unabated, in the wholesale deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights and, abrogation of Plaintiff’s property.
	Additional litigation is imminent and inevitable, pending this court’s determination of the controversy, that in the absence thereof, Plaintiff will be forced to proceed in securing their rights, as opposed to Defendants meritless and/or unlawful actions undertaken against Plaintiff.
	Plaintiff clearly has a direct, substantial and present interest in the controversy.
	A temporary restraining order will aid in ending the controversy, or in the alternative, clearly establish the rights of Plaintiff and the authority and/or lack thereof, of Defendant(s).
	As to element (1), Plaintiff is highly likely to be successful in litigation as Defendant(s) have no evidence to substantiate their fraud.
	As to element (2), absent the temporary restraining order, Defendant will steal Plaintiff’s property and convert said property, in which case a third party may be harmed by Defendant’s criminal activity.
	As to element (3), Defendant’s fraud will greatly harm Plaintiff.
	As to element (4), it is in the public interest to prevent criminal enterprises from committing fraud against the people. 

DECLARATORY RELIEF
	
	Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, this Honorable Court may enter a declaratory judgment to determine the rights of the Plaintiff, regarding the aforesaid claims and controversies arising therefrom.
	The primary purpose of a declaratory judgment is to quickly determine issues, if left otherwise delayed, will cause irreparable injury and harm to the Plaintiff, and, to afford certain relief from uncertainty and insecurity by effectively determining the legal rights, status and relations of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
	A declaratory judgment is absolutely necessary in the present instance to speedily effectuate the rights and status of Plaintiff in relation to the Defendants as well as delineate the authority of each of the Defendants in their actions as taken against the Plaintiff.
	Delay in granting Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment will result in irreparable harm and injury to Plaintiff, without ability to otherwise address Plaintiff’s grievances to the degree and means that would be otherwise availed.
	Declaratory judgments are proper when (1) an actual controversy exists, (2) litigation appears imminent and inevitable, (3) the Plaintiff has a direct, substantial and present interest, and (4) the declaration sought will be of practical help in ending the controversy.
	An actual controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, both individually and collectively, as Defendants continue to usurp Plaintiff’s rights, unabated, in the wholesale deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights and, abrogation of Plaintiff’s property.
	Additional litigation is imminent and inevitable, pending this court’s determination of the controversy, that in the absence thereof, Plaintiff will be forced to proceed in securing their rights, as opposed to Defendants meritless and/or unlawful actions undertaken against Plaintiff.
	Plaintiff clearly has a direct, substantial and present interest in the controversy.
	A declaratory judgment will aid in ending the controversy, or in the alternative, clearly establish the rights of Plaintiff and the authority and/or lack thereof, of Defendant(s).

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

	Plaintiff’s right to injunctive relief seems clear: An injunction is absolutely necessary to avoid a further and yet greater injury, as result of Defendants continued and unbridled actions.
	It is abundantly clear from the foregoing cause(s) as stated herein, that, sufficient grounds to warrant an injunction have been established, until, all facts are fully and properly clarified, as, to be accomplished following the completion of discovery.
	It is averred that Defendants, both individually and collectively, have acted in bad faith, in their attempts to unlawfully wrestle Plaintiff’s property.
	It is averred that Defendants, whether individually and/or collectively, have entered certain documents into the public record, for the purpose of reliance thereupon, which, Plaintiff believes are not supported by the facts, should this Court allow them to be brought to light.
	Plaintiff will be irreparably harmed, without effective recourse, should this Court deny Plaintiff’s plea for injunctive relief; whereas, Defendants will not be so harmed, should this court grant Plaintiff’s relief, pending the full and complete adjudication of salient issues as raised in this complaint.
	Because of the intentional deceptive nature of the Defendants, this Court should grant the temporary injunction in the name of justice and a matter of good law. “Where administrative action may result in the loss of property and/or life, or of all that makes life worth living, and doubt as to the extent of power delegated to administrative officials is to be resolved in citizen’s favor and court must be especially sensitive to the citizen’s rights where proceeding is non-judicial.”  United States v. Minker, 350 U.S. 179; 76 S. Ct. 281 (1956).

       MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S PETITION
	
	HOW AND WHY THE BANK MUST SWITCH CURRENCY

1.	NOT FULFILL THE LOAN AGREEMENT 
2.	OBTAIN YOUR MORTGAGE NOTE WITHOUT INVESTING ONE CENT 
3.	FORCING YOU TO LABOR TO PAY INTEREST ON THE CONTRACT 
4.	THE BANK REFUSES TO FULFILL THE CONTRACT 
5.	MAKES YOU A DEPOSITOR NOT A BORROWER 
	The oldest scheme throughout History is the changing of currency. Remember the moneychangers in the temple? They changed currency as a business. You would have to convert to Temple currency in order to buy an animal for sacrifice. The Temple Merchants made money by the exchange. The Bible calls it unjust weights and measures, and judges it to be an abomination. Jesus cleared the Temple of these abominations. Our Christian Founding Fathers did the same. Ben Franklin said in his autobiography, "…the inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.” The year 1913 was the third attempt by the European bankers to get their system back in place within the United States of America. President Andrew Jackson ended the second attempt in 1836. What they could not win militarily in the Revolutionary War they attempted to accomplish by a banking money scheme which allowed the European Banks to own the mortgages on nearly every home, car, farm, ranch, and business at no cost to the bank. Requiring “We the People” to pay interest on the equity we lost and the bank got free.
	Today people believe that cash and coins back up the all checks. If you deposit $100 of cash, the bank records the cash as a bank asset (debit) and credits a Demand Deposit Account (DDA), saying that the bank owes you $100.  For the $100 liability the bank owes you, you may receive cash or write a check.  If you write a $100 check, the $100 liability your bank owes you is transferred to another bank and that bank owes $100 to the person you wrote the check to.  That person can write a $100 check or receive cash. So far there is no problem.
	Remember one thing however, for the check to be valid there must first be a deposit of money to the bank’s ASSETS, to make the check (liability) good.  The liability is like a HOLDING ACCOUNT claiming that money was deposited to make the check good.
Here then, is how the switch in currency takes place.
	The bank advertises it loans’ money. The bank says, "Sign here".  However the bank never signs because they know they are not going to lend you theirs, or other depositor's money.  Under the law of bankruptcy of a nation, the mortgage note acts like money.  The bank makes it look like a loan but it is not. It is an exchange. 
	The bank receives the equity in the home you are buying, for free, in exchange for an unpaid bank liability that the bank cannot pay, without returning the mortgage note.  If the bank had fulfilled its end of the contract, the bank could not have received the equity in your real property for free.
	The bank receives your mortgage note without investing or risking one-cent.
	The bank sells the mortgage note, receives cash or an asset that can then be converted to cash and still refuses to ‘loan’ you their or other depositors' money or pay the liability it owes you.  On a $100,000 loan the bank does not give up $100,000. The bank receives $100,000 in cash or an asset and issues a $100,000 liability (check) the bank has no intention of paying.  The $100,000 the bank received in the alleged loan is the equity (lien on property) the bank received without investment, and it is the $100,000 the individual lost in equity to the bank.  The $100,000 equity the individual lost to the bank, which demands he/she repay plus interest.
	The loan agreement the bank told you to sign said “LOAN.”  The bank broke that agreement.  The bank now owns the mortgage note without loaning anything.  The bank then deposited the mortgage note in an account they opened under your name without your authorization or knowledge.  The bank withdrew the money without your authorization or knowledge using a forged signature.  The bank then claimed the money was the banks’ property, which is a fraudulent conversion and a blatant lie.
	The mortgage note was deposited or debited (asset) and credited to a Direct Deposit Account, (DDA) (liability).  The credit to DDA (liability) was used from which to issue the check.  The bank just switched the currency.  The bank demands that you cannot use the same currency, which the bank deposited (promissory notes or mortgage notes) to discharge your mortgage note.  The bank refuses to loan you other depositors' money, or pay the liability it owes you for having deposited your mortgage note.
	To pay this liability the bank must return the mortgage note to you.  However instead of the bank paying the liability it owes you, the bank demands you use these unpaid bank liabilities, created in the alleged loan process, as the new currency.  Now you must labor to earn the bank currency (unpaid liabilities created in the alleged loan process) to pay back the bank.  What the bank received for free, the individual lost in equity. 
If you tried to repay the bank in like kind currency, (which the bank deposited without your authorization to create the check they issued you), then the bank claims the promissory note is not money.  They want payment to be in legal tender (check book money).
	The mortgage note is the money the bank uses to buy your property in the foreclosure.  They get your real property at no cost.  If they accept your promissory note to discharge the mortgage note, the bank can use the promissory note to buy your home if you sell it.  Their problem is, the promissory note stops the interest and there is no lien on the property.  If you sell the home before the bank can find out and use the promissory note to buy the home, the bank lost nothing.  The bank claims they have not bought the home at no cost.  Question is, what right does the bank have to receive the mortgage note at no cost in direct violation of the contract they wrote and refused to sign or fulfill.
	By demanding that the bank fulfill the contract and not change the currency, the bank must deposit your second promissory note to create check book money to end the fraud, putting everyone back in the same position they where, prior to the fraud, in the first place.  Then all the homes, farms, ranches, cars and businesses in this country would be redeemed and the equity returned to the rightful owners (the people).  If not, every time the homes are refinanced the banks get the equity for free.  You and I must labor 20 to 30 years full time as the bankers sit behind their desks, laughing at us because we are too ignorant to figure it out or to force them to fulfill their contract.
	The $100,000 created inflation and this increases the equity value of the homes.  On an average homes are refinanced every 7 ½ years.  When the home is refinanced the bank again receives the equity for free.  What the bank receives for free the alleged borrower loses to the bank.
	According to the Federal Reserve Banks’ own book of Richmond, Va. titled “YOUR MONEY” page seven, “…demand deposit accounts are not legal tender…”  If a promissory note is legal tender, the bank must accept it to discharge the mortgage note.  The bank changed the currency from the money deposited, (mortgage note) to check book money (liability the bank owes for the mortgage note deposited) forcing us to labor to pay interest on the equity, in real property (real estate) the bank received for free.  This cost was not disclosed in NOTICE TO CUSTOMER REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW, Federal Reserve Regulation Z.
	When a bank says they gave you credit, they mean they credited your transaction account, leaving you, from their misrepresented deceit, with the presumption that they deposited other depositors money in the account.  The fact is they deposited your money (mortgage note).  The bank cannot claim they own the mortgage note until they loan you their money.  If the bank deposits your money, they are to credit a Demand Deposit Account under your name, so you can write checks and spend your money.  In this case they claim your money is their money.  Ask a criminal attorney what happens in a fraudulent conversion of your funds to the bank's use and benefit, without your signature or authorization.
	What the banks could not win voluntarily, through deception they received for free.  Several presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln believed that banker capitalism was more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  U.S. President James A. Garfield said, “Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry and commerce."
	The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank's book, ”Modern Money Mechanics”, explains exactly how the banks expand and contract the checkbook money supply forcing people into foreclosure.  This could never happen if contracts were not violated and if we received equal protection under the law of Contract.
HOW THE BANK SWITCHES THE CURRENCY
	This is a repeat worded differently to be sure you understand it.
	You must understand the currency switch.
	The bank does not loan money.  The bank merely switches the currency.  The alleged borrower created money or currency by simply signing the mortgage note.  The bank does not sign the mortgage note because they know they will not loan you their money.  The mortgage note acts like money.  To make it look like the bank loaned you money the bank deposits your mortgage note (lien on property) as money from which to issue a check.  No money was loaned to legally fulfill the contract for the bank to own the mortgage note.  By doing this, the bank received the lien on the property without risking or using one cent.  The people lost the equity in their homes and farms to the bank and now they must labor to pay interest on the property, which the bank got for free and the people lost.
	The check is not money, the check merely transfers money and by transferring money the check acts LIKE money.  The money deposited is the mortgage note.  If the bank never fulfills the contract to loan money, then the bank does not own the mortgage note.  The deposited mortgage note is still your money and the checking account they set up in your name, which they credited, from which to issue the check, is still your money.  They only returned your money in the form of a check.  Why do you have to fulfill your end of the agreement if the bank refuses to fulfill their end of the agreement?   If the bank does not loan you their money they have not fulfilled the agreement, the contract is void.
	You created currency by simply signing the mortgage note.  The mortgage note has value because of the lien on the property and because of the fact that you are to repay the loan.  The bank deposits the mortgage note (currency, MN) to create a check (currency, BM) (bank money).  Both currencies cost nothing to create.  By law the bank cannot create currency (BM a check) without first depositing currency, (MN) or legal tender.  For the check to be valid there must be MN or BM as legal tender, but the bank accepted currency (MN) as a deposit without telling you and without your authorization.
	The bank withdrew your money, which they deposited without telling you and withdrew it without your signature, in a fraudulent conversion scheme, which can land the bankers in jail but is played out in every City and Town in this nation on a daily basis.  
	Without loaning you money, the bank deposits your money (mortgage note), withdraws it and claims it is the bank's money and that it is their money they loaned you.
	It is not a loan, it is merely an exchange of one currency for another, they'll owe you the money, which they claimed they were to loan you.  If they do not loan the money and merely exchange one currency for another, the bank receives the lien on your property for free.  What they get for free you lost and must labor to pay back at interest.
	If the banks loaned you legal tender, they could not receive the liens on nearly every home, car, farm, and business for free.  The people would still own the value of their homes.  The bank must sell your currency (Mortgage Note) for legal tender so if you use the bank's currency (bank money, BM), and want to convert currency (BM) to legal tender they will be able to make it appear that the currency (BM) is backed by legal tender.  The bank's currency (BM) has no value without your currency (MN).  The bank cannot sell your currency (MN) without fulfilling the contract by loaning you their money.  They never loaned their money, they merely exchanged one currency for another.  The bank received your currency for free, without making any loan or fulfilling the contract, changing the cost and the risk of the contract wherein they refused to sign, knowing that, it is easy to see, it is a change of currency and not a loan.
	If you use currency (MN), the same currency the bank deposited to create currency (BM), to pay the loan, the bank rejects it and says you must use currency (BM) or legal tender.  The bank received your currency (MN) and the bank's currency (BM) for free without using legal tender and without loaning money thereby refusing to fulfill the contract.  Now the bank switches the currency without loaning money and demands to receive your labor to pay what was not loaned or the bank will use your currency (MN) (mortgage note) to buy your home in foreclosure.  
	The Revolutionary war was fought to stop these bank schemes.  The bank has a written policy to expand and contract the currency (BM), creating recessions, forcing people out of work, and allowing the banks to obtain your property for free.
	If the banks loaned legal tender, this would never happen and the home would cost much less.  If you allow someone to obtain liens for free and create a new currency, which is not legal tender and you must use legal tender to repay.  This changes the cost and the risk.
	Under this bank scheme, even if everyone in the nation owned their homes and farms debt free, the banks would soon receive the liens on the property in the loan process.  The liens the banks receive for free are what the people lost in property, and now must labor to pay interest on.  The interest would not be paid if the banks fulfilled the contract they wrote.  If there is equal protection under the law and contract, you could get the mortgage note back without further labor.  Why should the bank get your mortgage note and your labor free, when they refuse to fulfill the contract they wrote and told you to sign?
	Sorry for the redundancy, but it is important for you to know by heart their “shell game”, I will continue in that redundancy as it is imperative that you understand the principle.  The following material is case law on the subject and other related legal issues as well as a summary. 
				LOGIC AS EVIDENCE
	The check was written without deducting funds from SA (Savings Account) or CD (Certificate of Deposit) allowing the MN (Mortgage Note) to become the new, pool of money owed to DDA (Direct Deposit Account), SA, CD with DDA, SA, CD increasing by the amount of the MN.  In this case the bankers sell the MN for FRBNs (Federal Reserve Bank Notes) or other assets while still owing the liability for the MN sold and without the bank giving up any- FRBNs.
	If the bank had to part with FRBNs, and without the benefit of checks to hide the fraudulent conversion of the MN from which it issues the check, the bank fraud would be exposed.
	FRBN's are the only money called legal tender.  If only FRBN's are deposited for the credit to DDA- SA- CD, and if the bank wrote a check for the MN, the check then transfers FRBN's and the bank gives the borrower a bank asset.  There is no increase in the check book money supply that exists in the loan process.
	The bank policy is to increase bank liabilities; DDA, SA, CD, by the MN.  If the MN is money, then the bank never gave up a bank asset.  The bank simply used fraudulent conversion of ownership of the MN.  The bank cannot own the MN until the bank fulfills the contract.
	The check is not the money; the money is the deposit that makes the check good.  In this case, the mortgage note is the money from which the check is issued.  Who owns the MN when the MN is deposited?  The borrower owns the MN because the bank never paid money for the MN and never loaned money (bank asset).  The bank simply claimed the bank owned the MN without paying for it and deposited the MN from which the check was issued.  This is fraudulent conversion.  The bank risked nothing!  Not even one penny was invested.  They never took money out of any account, in order to own the MN, as proven by the bookkeeping entries, financial ratios, the balance sheet, and of course the bank's literature.  The bank simply never complied with the contract.
	If the MN is not money, then the check is check kiting and the bank is insolvent and the bank still never paid.  If the MN is money, the bank took our money without showing us the deposit, and without paying for it, which is fraudulent conversion.  The bank claimed it owned the MN without paying for it, then sold the MN, took the cash and never used the cash to pay the liability it owed for the check the bank issued.  The liability means that the bank still owes the money.  The bank must return the MN or the cash it received in the sale, in order to pay the liability.  Even if the bank did this, the bank still never loaned us the bank's money, which is what 'loan' means.  The check is not money but merely an order to pay money.  If the mortgage note is money then the bank must pay the check by returning the MN.
	The only way the bank can pay FRBNs for the check issued is to sell the MN for FRBNs.  FRBNs are non-redeemable in violation of the UCC.  The bank forces us to trade in non-redeemable private bank notes of which the bank refuses to pay the liability owed.  When we present the FRBNs for payment the bank just gives us back another FRBN which the bank paid a few cents for per bill regardless of denomination.
	What a profit for the bank!
	The check issued can only be redeemed in FRBNs, which the bank obtained by selling the MN that they paid nothing for.
	The bank forces us to trade in bank liabilities, which they never redeem in an asset.  We the people are forced to give up our assets to the bank for free, and without cost to the bank.
	This is fraudulent conversion making the contract, which the bank created with their policy of bookkeeping entries, illegal and the alleged contract null and void.
The bank has no right to the MN or to a lien on the property, until the bank performs under the contract.
	The bank had less than ten percent of FRBNs to back up the bank liabilities in DDA, SA, or CD's.  A bank liability to pay money is not money.  When we try to repay the bank in like funds (such as is the bank’s policy to deposit from which to issue checks) they claim it is not money.  The bank's confusing and deceptive trade practices and their alleged contracts are unconscionable.
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES IN THIS EXAMPLE
	The bank made the alleged borrower a depositor by depositing a $100,000 negotiable instrument, which the bank sold or had available to sell for approximately $100,000 in legal tender.  The bank did not credit the borrower's transaction account showing that the bank owed the borrower the $100,000.  Rather the bank claimed that the alleged borrower owed the bank the $100,000, then placed a lien on the borrower's real property for $100,000 and demanded loan payments or the bank would foreclose.
	The bank deposited a non-legal tender negotiable instrument and exchanged it for another non-legal tender check, which traded like money, using the deposited negotiable instrument as the money deposited.  The bank changed the currency without the borrower's authorization.  First by depositing non legal tender from which to issue a check (which is non-legal tender) and using the negotiable instrument (your mortgage note), to exchange for legal tender, the bank needed to make the check appear to be backed by legal tender.  
No loan ever took place.  Which shell hides the little pea?
	The transaction that took place was merely a change of currency (without authorization), a negotiable instrument for a check.  The negotiable instrument is the money, which can be exchanged for legal tender to make the check good.  An exchange is not a loan.  The bank exchanged $100,000 for $100,000.  There was no need to go to the bank for any money.  The customer (alleged borrower) did not receive a loan, the alleged borrower lost $100,000 in value to the bank, which the bank kept and recorded as a bank asset and never loaned any of the bank's money.
	In this example, the damages are $100,000 plus interest payments, which the bank demanded by mail.  The bank illegally placed a lien on the property and then threatened to foreclose, further damaging the alleged borrower, if the payments were not made.
A depositor is owed money for the deposit and the alleged borrower is owed money for the loan the bank never made and yet placed a lien on the real property demanding payment.
	Damages exist in that the bank refuses to loan their money.  The bank denies the alleged borrower equal protection under the law and contract, by merely exchanging one currency for another and refusing repayment in the same type of currency deposited.  The bank refused to fulfill the contract by not loaning the money, and by the bank refusing to be repaid in the same currency, which they deposited as an exchange for another currency.  A debt tender offered and refused is a debt paid to the extent of the offer.  The bank has no authorization to alter the alleged contract and to refuse to perform by not loaning money, by changing the currency and then refusing repayment in what the bank has a written policy to deposit.
	The seller of the home received a check.  The money deposited for the check issued came from the borrower not the bank.  The bank has no right to the mortgage note until the bank performs by loaning the money.
	In the transaction the bank was to loan legal tender to the borrower, in order for the bank to secure a lien.  The bank never made the loan, but kept the mortgage note the alleged borrower signed.  This allowed the bank to obtain the equity in the property (by a lien) and transfer the wealth of the property to the bank without the bank's investment, loan, or risk of money.  Then the bank receives the alleged borrower's labor to pay principal and Usury interest.  What the people owned or should have owned debt free, the bank obtained ownership in, and for free, in exchange for the people receiving a debt, paying interest to the bank, all because the bank refused to loan money and merely exchanged one currency for another.  This places you in perpetual slavery to the bank because the bank refuses to perform under the contract.  The lien forces payment by threat of foreclosure.  The mail is used to extort payment on a contract the bank never fulfilled.
If the bank refuses to perform, then they must return the mortgage note.  If the bank wishes to perform, then they must make the loan.  The past payments must be returned because the bank had no right to lien the property and extort interest payments.  The bank has no right to sell a mortgage note for two reasons.  The mortgage note was deposited and the money withdrawn without authorization by using a forged signature and; two, the contract was never fulfilled.  The bank acted without authorization and is involved in a fraud thereby damaging the alleged borrower.
Excerpts from “Modem Money Mechanics” Pages 3 & 6
What Makes Money Valuable?   In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities.  Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries.  Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than face value.
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers, in this way, banks began to create money.  More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.
Transaction deposits are the modem counterpart of bank notes.  It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby "printing" their own money.

Notes, exchange just like checks.

How do open market purchases add to bank reserves and deposits?   Suppose the Federal Reserve System, through its trading desk at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, buys $10,000 of Treasury bills from a dealer in U.S. government securities.  In today's world of Computer financial transactions, the Federal Reserve Bank pays for the securities with an "electronic" check drawn on itself.  Via its "Fedwire" transfer network, the Federal Reserve notifies the dealer's designated bank (Bank A) that payment for the securities should be credited to (deposited in) the dealer's account at Bank A.  At the same time, Bank A's reserve account at the Federal Reserve is credited for the amount of the securities purchased.  The Federal Reserve System has added $10,000 of securities to its assets, which it has paid for, in effect, by creating a liability on itself in the form of bank reserve balances.  These reserves on Bank A's books are matched by $10,000 of the dealer's deposits that did not exist before.
If business is active, the banks with excess reserves probably will have opportunities to loan the $9,000.  Of course, they do not really pay out loans from money they receive as deposits.  If they did this, no additional money would be created.  What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to tile borrower's transaction accounts.  Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000.  Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions.  But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system.

PROOF BANKS DEPOSIT NOTES AND ISSUE BANK CHECKS. THE CHECKS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE PROMISSORY NOTE.  NEARLY ALL BANK CHECKS ARE CREATED FROM PRIVATE NOTES.  FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NOTES ARE A PRIVATE CORPORATE NOTE (HJR 192) WE USE NOTES TO DISCHARGE NOTES.
Excerpt from booklet Your Money, page 7:
Other M1 Money
While demand deposits, traveler’s checks, and interest-bearing accounts with unlimited checking authority are not legal tender, they are usually acceptable in payment for purchases of goods and services.
The booklet, “Your Money”, is distributed free of charge.  Additional copies may be obtained by writing to: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Public Services Department P.O. Box 27622 Richmond, Virginia 23261

		CREDIT LOANS AND VOID CONTRACTS: CASE LAW

1.	“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for him.”' Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat 'l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.

2.	"A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . . . Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.

3.	“The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often ... Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.

4.	“A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.
5.	"It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires . . ." Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).

6.	“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States ...” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.

7.	"Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank's business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics, . . . Indeed; lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248." American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.

8.	"It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done." Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L 'Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).

9.	"There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser." National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E 471.

10.	"A bank can lend its money, but not its credit." First Nat'l Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe . 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.

11.	".. . The bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit." Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.

12.	"A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest." Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.

13.	"The word 'money' in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange . . ." Lane v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133 SW 2d 75.

14.	"A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of actual payment ..." Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.

15.	“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.

16.	"A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393.

17.	"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co... 92 F 26 817.

18.	"Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts." Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.

19.	“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559. 572; 132 NW 1122.

20.	“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.

21.	“It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.

22.	"Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region ..." Lewis v. United States, 680 F 20 1239 (1982).

23.	In a Debtor's RICO action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an unlawful debt, an interest rate (where all loan charges were added together) that exceeded, in the language of the RICO Statute, "twice the enforceable rate." The Court found no reason to impose a requirement that the Plaintiff show that the Defendant had been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a "loan sharking" operation. The debt included the fact that exaction of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil RICO action. Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat 'l Bank. 755 F2d 239, Cert. denied, 473 US 906 (1985).

24.	The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action need establish only a criminal "violation" and not a criminal conviction.  Further, the Court held that the Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a "pattern of Racketeering activity."  That is, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires.  The RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to affect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute.  Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co., 473 US 479 (1985).

DEFINITIONS TO KNOW WHEN EXAMINING A BANK CONTRACT

1.	BANK ACCOUNT: A sum of money placed with a bank or banker, on deposit, by a customer, and subject to be drawn out on the latter's check.

2.	BANK: whose business it is to receive money on deposit, cash checks or drafts, discount commercial paper, make loans and issue promissory notes payable to bearer, known as bank notes.

3.	BANK CREDIT: A credit with a bank by which, on proper credit rating or proper security given to the bank, a person receives liberty to draw to a certain extent agreed upon.

4.	BANK DEPOSIT: Cash, checks or drafts placed with the bank for credit to depositor's account. Placement of money in bank, thereby, creating contract between bank and depositors.

5.	DEMAND DEPOSIT: The right to withdraw deposit at any time.

6.	BANK DEPOSITOR: One who delivers to, or leaves with a bank a sum of money subject to his order.

7.	BANK DRAFT: A check, draft or other form of payment.

8.	BANK OF ISSUE- Bank with the authority to issue notes which are intended to circulate as currency.

9.	LOAN: Delivery by one party to, and receipt by another party, a sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest.

10.	CONSIDERATION: The inducement to a contract.  The cause, motive, price or impelling influences, which induce a contracting, party to enter into a contract.  The reason or material cause of a contract. (See illegal consideration and impossible consideration.)

11.	check- A draft drawn upon a bank and payable on demand, signed by the maker or drawer, containing an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum in money to the order of the payee.  The Federal Reserve Board defines a check as, "…a draft or order upon a bank or banking house purporting to be drawn upon a deposit of funds for the payment at all events of, a certain sum of money to a certain person therein named, or to him or his order, or to bearer and payable instantly on demand of." 

QUESTIONS ONE MIGHT ASK THE BANK IN AN INTERROGATORY

1.	Did the bank loan gold or silver to the alleged borrower? 

2.	Did the bank loan credit to the alleged borrower? 

3.	Did the borrower sign any agreement with the bank, which prevents the borrower from repaying the bank in credit? 

4.	Is it true that your bank creates check book money when the bank grants loans, simply by adding deposit dollars to accounts on the bank's books, in exchange, for the borrower's mortgage note? 

5.	Has your bank, at any time, used the borrower's mortgage note, "promise to pay", as a deposit on the bank's books from which to issue bank checks to the borrower? 

6.	At the time of the loan to the alleged borrower, was there one dollar of Federal Reserve Bank Notes in the bank's possession for every dollar owed in Savings Accounts, Certificates of Deposits and check Accounts (Demand Deposit Accounts) for every dollar of the loan?

7.	According to the bank's policy, is a promise to pay money the equivalent of money?
 
8.	Does the bank have a policy to prevent the borrower from discharging the mortgage note in "like kind funds" which the bank deposited from which to issue the check? 

9.	Does the bank have a policy of violating the Deceptive Trade Practices Act? 

10.	When the bank loan officer talks to the borrower, does the bank inform the borrower that the bank uses the borrowers mortgage note to create the very money the bank loans out to the borrower? 

11.	Does the bank have a policy to show the same money in two separate places at the same time? 

12.	Does the bank claim to loan out money or credit from savings and certificates of deposits while never reducing the amount of money or credit from savings accounts or certificates of deposits, which customers can withdraw from? 

13.	Using the banking practice in place at the time the loan was made, is it theoretically possible for the bank to have loaned out a percentage of the Savings Accounts and Certificates of Deposits?

14.	If the answer is "no" to question #13, explain why the answer is no. 

15.	In regards to question #13, at the time the loan was made, were there enough Federal Reserve Bank Notes on hand at the bank to match the figures represented by every Savings Account and Certificate of Deposit and checking Account (Demand Deposit Account)? 

16.	Does the bank have to obey, the laws concerning, Commercial Paper; Commercial Transactions, Commercial Instruments, and Negotiable Instruments? 

17.	Did the bank lend the borrower the bank's assets, or the bank's liabilities? 

18.	What is the complete name of the banking entity, which employs you, and in what jurisdiction is the bank chartered? 

19.	What is the bank's definition of "Loan Credit"? 

20.	Did the bank use the borrowers assumed mortgage note to create new bank money, which did not exist before the assumed mortgage note was signed? 

21.	Did the bank take money from any Demand Deposit Account (DDA), Savings Account (SA), or a Certificate of Deposit (CD), or any combination of any DDA, SA or CD, and loan this money to the borrower? 

22.	Did the bank replace the money or credit, which it loaned to the borrower with the borrower's assumed mortgage note? 

23.	Did the bank take a bank asset called money, or the credit used as collateral for customers' bank deposits, to loan this money to the borrower, and/or did the bank use the borrower's note to replace the asset it loaned to the borrower?

24.	Did the money or credit, which the bank claims to have loaned to the borrower, come from deposits of money or credit made by the bank's customers, excluding the borrower's assumed mortgage note?

25.	Considering the balance sheet entries of the bank's loan of money or credit to the borrower, did the bank directly decrease the customer deposit accounts (i.e. DDA, SA, and CD) for the amount of the loan?

26.	Describe the bookkeeping entries referred to in question #13.

27.	Did the bank's bookkeeping entries to record the loan and the borrower's assumed mortgage note ever, at any time, directly decrease the amount of money or credit from any specific bank customer's deposit account?

28.	Does the bank have a policy or practice to work in cooperation with other banks or financial institutions use borrower's mortgage note as collateral to create an offsetting amount of new bank money or credit or check book money or DDA generally to equal the amount of the alleged loan?

29.	Regarding the borrowers assumed mortgage loan, give the name of the account which was debited to record the mortgage.

30.	Regarding the bookkeeping entry referred to in Interrogatory #17 states the name and purpose of the account, which was credited.

31.	When the borrower's assumed mortgage note was debited as a bookkeeping entry, was the offsetting entry a credit account?

32.	Regarding the initial bookkeeping entry to record the borrower's assumed mortgage note and the assumed loan to the borrower, was the bookkeeping entry credited for the money loaned to the borrower, and was this credit offset by a debit to record the borrower's assumed mortgage note? 

33.	Does the bank currently or has it ever at anytime used the borrower's assumed mortgage note as money to cover the bank's liabilities referred to above, i.e. DDA, SA and CD? 

34.	When the assumed loan was made to the borrower, did the bank have every DDA, SA, and CD backed up by Federal Reserve Bank Notes on hand at the bank? 

35.	Does the bank have an established policy and practice to emit bills of credit which it creates upon its books at the time of making a loan agreement and issuing money or so-called money of credit, to its borrowers?

SUMMARY OF THIS SECTION
	The bank advertised it would loan money, which is backed by legal tender.  Is not that what the symbol $ means?   Is that not what the contract said?   Do you not know there is no agreement or contract in the absence of mutual consent?   The bank may say that they gave you a check, you owe the bank money.  This information shows you that the check came from the money the alleged borrower provided and the bank never loaned any money from other depositors. 
	I’ve shown you the law and the bank’s own literature to prove my case.  All the bank did was trick you.  They get your mortgage note without investing one cent, by making you a depositor and not a borrower.  The key to the puzzle is, the bank did not sign the contract.  If they did they must loan you the money.  If they did not sign it, chances are, they deposited the mortgage note in a checking account and used it to issue a check without ever loaning you money or the bank investing one cent. 
	Our Nation, along with every State of the Union, entered into Bankruptcy, in 1933.  This changes the law from "gold and silver” legal money and “common law" to the law of bankruptcy.  Under Bankruptcy law the mortgage note acts like money.  Once you sign the mortgage note it acts like money.  The bankers now trick you into thinking they loaned you legal tender, when they never loaned you any of their money. 
	The trick is they made you a depositor instead of a borrower.  They deposited your mortgage note and issued a bank check.  Neither the mortgage note nor the check is legal tender.  The mortgage note and the check are now money created that never existed prior.  The bank got your mortgage note for free without loaning you money, and sold the mortgage note to make the bank check appear legal.  The borrower provided the legal tender, which the bank gave back in the form of a check.  If the bank loaned legal tender, as the contract says, for the bank to legally own the mortgage note, then the people would still own the homes, farms, businesses and cars, nearly debt free and pay little, if any interest.  By the banks not fulfilling the contract by loaning legal tender, they make the alleged borrower, a depositor.  This is a fraudulent conversion of the mortgage note.  A Fraud is a felony.
	The bank had no intent to loan, making it promissory fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and a long list of other crimes.  How can they make a felony, legal?   They cannot!   Fraud is fraud!
	The banks deposit your mortgage note in a checking account.  The deposit becomes the bank’s property.  They withdraw money without your signature, and call the money, the banks money that they loaned to you.  The bank forgot one thing.  If the bank deposits your mortgage note, then the bank must credit your checking account claiming the bank owes you $100,000 for the $100,000 mortgage note deposited.  The credit of $100,000 the bank owes you for the deposit allows you to write a check or receive cash.  They did not tell you they deposited the money, and they forget to tell you that the $100,000 is money the banks owe you, not what you owe the bank.  You lost $100,000 and the bank gained $100,000.  For the $100,000 the bank gained, the bank received government bonds or cash of $100,000 by selling the mortgage note.  For the loan, the bank received $100,000 cash, the bank did not give up $100,000.
	Anytime the bank receives a deposit, the bank owes you the money.  You do not owe the bank the money.
	If you or I deposit anyone's negotiable instrument without a contract authorizing it, and withdraw the money claiming it is our money, we would go to jail.  If it was our policy to violate a contract, we could go to jail for a very long time.  You agreed to receive a loan, not to be a depositor and have the bank receive the deposit for free.  What the bank got for free (lien on real property) you lost and now must pay with interest.
	If the bank loaned us legal tender (other depositors’ money) to obtain the mortgage note the bank could never obtain the lien on the property for free.  By not loaning their money, but instead depositing the mortgage note the bank creates inflation, which costs the consumer money.  Plus the economic loss of the asset, which the bank received for free, in direct violation of any signed agreement.
	We want equal protection under the law and contract, and to have the bank fulfill the contract or return the mortgage note.  We want the judges, sheriffs, and lawmakers to uphold their oath of office and to honor and uphold the founding fathers U.S. Constitution.  Is this too much to ask?
	What is the mortgage note?   The mortgage note represents your future loan payments.  A promise to pay the money the bank loaned you.  What is a lien?   The lien is a security on the property for the money loaned.
	How can the bank promise to pay money and then not pay?   How can they take a promise to pay and call it money and then use it as money to purchase the future payments of money at interest?   Interest is the compensation allowed by law or fixed by the parties for the use or forbearance of borrowed money.  The bank never invested any money to receive your mortgage note.  What is it they are charging interest on?
	The bank received an asset.  They never gave up an asset.  Did they pay interest on the money they received as a deposit?   A check issued on a deposit received from the borrower cost the bank nothing?   Where did the money come from that the bank invested to charge interest on?
	The bank may say we received a benefit.  What benefit?   Without their benefit we would receive equal protection under the law, which would mean we did not need to give up an asset or pay interest on our own money!  Without their benefit we would be free and not enslaved.  We would have little debt and interest instead of being enslaved in debt and interest.  The banks broke the contract, which they never intended to fulfill in the first place.  We got a check and a house, while they received a lien and interest for free, through a broken contract, while we got a debt and lost our assets and our country.  The benefit is to the banks, which have placed liens on nearly every asset in the nation, without costing the bank one cent.  Inflation and working to pay the bank interest on our own money is the benefit.  Some benefit!   What a Shell Game.  The Following case was an actual trial concerning the issues we have covered.  The Judge was extraordinary in-that he had a grasp of the Constitution that I haven’t seen often enough in our courts.  This is the real thing, absolutely true.  This case was reviewed by the Minnesota Supreme Court on their own motion.  The last thing in the world that the Bankers and the Judges wanted was case law in favor against the Bankers.  However, this case law is real.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN JUSTICE COURT COUNTY OF SCOTT TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER CASE NO: 19144 
MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE 
FIRST BANK OF MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, Vs. Jerome Daly, Defendant. 
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above entitled action came on before the court and a jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel Theodore R. Mellby, Defendant appeared on his own behalf. 
A jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in this case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for plaintiff and defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf 
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn.  Plaintiff claimed titled to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.  Defendant appeared and answered that the plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the legal failure of consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.  The issues tried to the jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the note for almost 3 years.  Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute of Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this.  Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the consideration and that Defendant was estopped from doing so.  At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.  Now therefore by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State Minnesota not inconsistent therewith.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
1.	That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.  That because of failure of a lawful consideration the note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 is null and void.
2.	That the Sheriffs sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect. 
3.	That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said premises or lien thereon, as is above described. 
4.	That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute limiting the Jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has Jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this cause. 
5.	That Defendant is awarded costs in the sum of $75.00 and execution is hereby issued therefore. 
6.	A 10 day stay is granted. 
The following memorandum and any supplemental memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.
BY THE COURT 
Dated December 9, 1969 
MARTIN V. MAHONEY 
Justice of the Peace Credit River Township Scott County, Minnesota 
MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple.  There was no material dispute on the facts for the jury to resolve.  Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry.  That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date.  The Money and credit first came into existence when they credited it.  Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law of Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.  A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note.  (See Anheuser Busch Brewing Co. v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. 46 NW 558.)  The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree Only God can create something of value out of nothing.  Even if defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of law this is no defense to the plaintiff.  The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them.  (See sections 50, 5 1, and 52 of Am Jur 2d "Actions" on page 584.")  No action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which plaintiff was a party.  Plaintiffs act of creating is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not lawful consideration in the eyes of the law to support anything or upon which any lawful rights can be built.  Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original jurisdiction with right of trial by jury guaranteed.  This is a Common Law Action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render complete justice between the parties.  Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void.  No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial.  Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts and law to the jury, at least in so far as they saw it.  No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial.  From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was made direct and clear for the jury.  Their verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise.  Justice was rendered completely and without purchase, conformable to the law in this Court on December 7, 1968. 
BY THE COURT 
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Justice of the Peace Credit River Township Scott County, Minnesota 
Note: It has never been doubted that a note given on a consideration, which is prohibited by law is void.  It has been determined independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal.  The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful.  See Craig v. @ 4 peters reports 912, This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty.  M.V.M. 
JUDGE MARTIN MAHONEY DECISION WAS AS FOLLOWS
"For the Justice's fees, the First National Bank deposited @ the Clerk of the District Court the two Federal Reserve Bank Notes.  The Clerk tendered the Notes to me (the Judge).  As Judge my sworn duty compelled me to refuse the tender.  This is contrary to the Constitution of the United States.  The States have no power to make bank notes a legal tender.  Only gold and silver coin is a lawful tender."  (See American Jurist on Money 36 sec. 13.) 
“Bank Notes are a good tender as money unless specifically objected to.  Their consent and usage is based upon the convertibility of such notes to coin at the pleasure of the holder upon presentation to the bank for redemption.  When the inability of a bank to redeem its notes is openly avowed they instantly lose their character as money and their circulation as currency ceases."  (See American Jurist 36-section 9).  "There is no lawful consideration for these Federal Reserve Bank Notes to circulate as money.  The banks actually obtained these notes for cost of printing - A lawful consideration must exist for a Note.  As a matter of fact, the "Notes" are not Notes at all, as they contain no promise to pay."  (See 17 American Jurist section 85, 215)  "The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks of Minnesota, San Francisco and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and constitutes an unlawful creation of money, credit and the obtaining of money and credit for no valuable consideration.  Activity of said banks in creating money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States."  "The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing Notes at the expense of the public which does not receive a fair equivalent.  This scheme is obliquely designed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail, and oppress the producers of wealth.  "The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act are, in their operation and effect, contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, for they confer an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; they hold all of our fellow citizens in dependence; they are subversive to the rights and liberation of the people.”  "These Acts have defiled the lawfully constituted Government of the United States.  The Federal Reserve Act and the National Banking Act are not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the legislative powers granted to Congress or any other powers vested in the Government of the United States, but on the contrary, are subversive to the rights of the People in their rights to life, liberty, and property."  (See Section 462 of Title 31 U. S. Code). 
"The meaning of the Constitutional provision, 'NO STATE SHALL make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a legal tender ' payment of debts' is direct, clear, unambiguous and without any qualification.  This Court is without authority to interpolate any exception.  My duty is simply to execute it, as and to pronounce the legal result.  From an examination of the case of Edwards v. Kearsey, Federal Reserve Bank Notes (fiat money) which are attempted to be made a legal tender, are exactly what the authors of the Constitution of the United States intend to prohibit.  No State can make these Notes a legal tender.  Congress is incompetent to authorize a State to make the Notes a legal tender.  For the effect of binding Constitution provisions see Cooke v. Iverson.  This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundation."  (See 96 U.S. Code 595 and 108 M 388 and 63 M 147)
"Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 432, is in direct conflict with the Constitution insofar, at least, that it attempts to make Federal Reserve Bank Notes a legal tender.  The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.  Section 462 of Title 31 is not a law, which is made in pursuance of the Constitution.  It is unconstitutional and void, and I so hold.  Therefore, the two Federal Reserve Bank Notes are Null and Void for any lawful purpose in so far as this case is concerned and are not a valid deposit of $2.00 with the Clerk of the District Court for the purpose of affecting an Appeal from this Court to the District Court."  "However, of these Federal Reserve Bank Notes, previously discussed, and that is that the Notes are invalid, because of a theory that they are based upon a valid, adequate or lawful consideration.  At the hearing scheduled for January 22, 1969, at 7:00 P.M., Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial; he appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful.  He testified to years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minnesota and the First National Bank of Minnesota.  He seemed to be familiar with the operation of the Federal Reserve System.  He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the money and credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964.  The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books.  Further, he freely admitted that no United States Law gave the Bank the authority to do this.  This was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. 
The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink.  In this case, the evidence was on January 22, 1969 that the Federal Reserve Bank obtained the Notes for this seems to be conferred by Title 12 USC Section 420.  The cost is about 9/10th of a cent per Note regardless of the amount of the Note.  The Federal Reserve Banks create all of the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entries by which they acquire United States Securities.  The collateral required to obtain the Note is, by section 412 USC, Title 12, a deposit of a like amount of bonds.  Bonds which the Banks acquire by creating money and credit by bookkeeping entry." 
"No rights can be acquired by fraud.  The Federal Reserve Bank Notes are acquired through the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud."  "The Common Law requires a lawful consideration for any contract or Note.  These Notes are void for failure at a lawful consideration at Common Law, entirely apart from any Constitutional consideration.  Upon this ground, the Notes are ineffectual for any purpose.  This seems to be the principal objection to paper fiat money and the cause of its depreciation and failure down through the ages.  If allowed to continue, Federal Reserve Bank Notes will meet the same fate.  From the evidence introduced on January 22, 1969, this Court finds that as of March 18, 1969, all Gold and Silver backing is removed from Federal Reserve Bank Notes."  "The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them.  (See I Mer. Jur 2nd on Actions Section 550)."  Slavery and all its incidents, including Peonage, thralldom, and debt created by fraud is universally prohibited in the United States.  This case represents but another refined form of Slavery by the Bankers.  Their position is not supported by the Constitution of the United States.  The People have spoken their will in terms, which cannot be misunderstood.  It is indispensable to the preservation of the Union and independence and liberties of the people that this Court, adhere only to the mandate of the Constitution and administer it as it is written.  I, therefore, hold these Notes in question void and not effectual for any purpose."  (4) January 30, 1969 
Judge Martin V. Mahoney 
Justice of the Peace Credit River Township 
CREDIT LOANS AND VOID CONTRACTS PERFECT
OBLIGATION AS TO A HUMAN BEING AS TO A BANK

	Furthermore, Plaintiff, is offering this Memorandum of law in order for the Court to advance it’s understanding of the complex legal issues, present and embodied in the Common Law, with authorities, law and cases in support of, which will constitute the following facts: 
Defendant and other privately owned banks are making loans of "credit" with the intended purpose of circulating "credit" as "money".  Other financial institutions and individuals may "launder" bank credit that they receive directly or indirectly from privately owned banks.  This collective activity is unconstitutional, unlawful, in violation of Common Law, U.S. Code and the principles of equity.  Such activity and underlying contracts have long been held void, by State Courts, Federal Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.  This Memorandum will demonstrate through authorities and established common law, that credit "money creation" by privately owned bank corporations is not really "money creation" at all.  It is the trade specialty and artful illusion of law merchants, which use old-time trade secrets of the Goldsmiths, to entrap the borrower and unjustly enrich the lender through usury and other unlawful techniques.  Issues based on law and the principles of equity, which are within the jurisdiction of this Court, will be addressed.  
THE GOLDSMITHS
	In his book, Money and Banking (8th Edition, 1984), Professor David R. Kamerschen writes on pages 56 -63: "The first bankers in the modern sense were the goldsmiths, who frequently accepted bullion and coins for storage ...  One result was that the goldsmiths temporarily could lend part of the gold left with them . . . These loans of their customers' gold were soon replaced by a revolutionary technique.  When people brought in gold, the goldsmiths gave them notes promising to pay that amount of gold on demand.  The notes, first made payable to the order of the individual, were later changed to bearer obligations.  In the previous form, a note payable to the order of Jebidiah Johnson would be paid to no one else unless Johnson had first endorsed the note ...  But notes were soon being used in an unforeseen way.  The note holders found that, when they wanted to buy something, they could use the note itself in payment more conveniently and let the other person go after the gold, which the person rarely did ...  The specie, then tended to remain in the goldsmiths' vaults. . . .  The goldsmiths began to realize that they might profit handsomely by issuing somewhat more notes than the amount of specie they held. . .  These additional notes would cost the goldsmiths nothing except the negligible cost of printing them, yet the notes provided the goldsmiths with funds to lend at interest . . . .  And they were to find that the profitability of their lending operations would exceed the profit from their original trade.  The goldsmiths became bankers as their interest in manufacture of gold items to sell was replaced by their concern with credit policies and lending activities . . .  They discovered early that, although an unlimited note issue would be unwise, they could issue notes up to several times the amount of specie they held.  The key to the whole operation lay in the public's willingness to leave gold and silver in the bank's vaults and use the bank's notes.  This discovery is the basis of modern banking: On page 74, Professor Kamerschen further explains the evolution of the credit system: "Later the goldsmiths learned a more efficient way to put their credit money into circulation.  They lent by issuing additional notes, rather than by paying out in gold.  In exchange for the interest-bearing note received from their customer (in effect, the loan contract), they gave their own non-interest bearing note.  Each was actually borrowing from the other ... The advantage of the later procedure of' lending notes rather than gold was that . . . more notes could be issued if the gold remained in the vaults ...  Thus, through the principle of bank note issuance, banks learned to create money in the form of their own liability." [Emphasis Added]
MODERN MONEY MECHANICS
	Another publication which explains modern banking as learned from the Goldsmiths is Modern Money Mechanics (5th edition 1992), published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago which states beginning on page 3: "It started with the goldsmiths ..." At one time, bankers were merely middlemen. They made a profit by accepting gold and coins brought to them for safekeeping and lending the gold and coins to borrowers. But the goldsmiths soon found that the receipts they issued to depositors were being used as a means of payment. 'Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving borrowers their promises to pay, or bank notes… In this way, banks began to create money ... Demand deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes . . . It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries to the credit of borrowers which the borrowers, in turn, could 'spend' by writing checks, thereby printing their own money." [Emphasis added] 
HOW BANKS CREATE MONEY
	In the modern sense, banks create money by creating "demand deposits."  Demand deposits are merely "book entries" that reflect how much lawful money the bank owes its customers.  Thus, all deposits are called demand deposits and are the bank's liabilities. The bank's assets are the vault cash plus all the "IOUs" or promissory notes that the borrower signs when they borrow either money or credit.  When a bank lends its cash (legal money), it loans its assets, but when a bank lends its “credit” it lends its liabilities.  The lending of credit is, therefore, the exact opposite of the lending of cash (legal money).
	At this point, we need to define the meaning of certain words like "lawful money”, “legal tender”, “other money” and “dollars”.  The terms "Money" and "Tender" had their origins in Article 1, Sec. 8 and Article 1, Sec. 10 of the Constitution of the United States. 12 U.S.C. §152 refers to "gold and silver coin as lawful money of the United States" and was unconstitutionally repealed in 1994 in-that Congress can not delegate any portion of their constitutional responsibility without Amendment.  The term "legal tender" was originally cited in 31 U.S.C.A. §392 and is now re-codified in 31 U.S.C.A. §5103 which states: "United States coins and currency . . .  are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."  The common denominator in both "lawful money" and "legal tender money" is that the United States Government issues both.
	With Bankers, however, we find that there are two forms of money - one is government-issued, and privately owned banks such as Defendant, (Name of Bank) Bank, issue the other.  As we have already discussed government issued forms of money, we must now scrutinize privately issued forms of money.
	All privately issued forms of money today are based upon the liabilities of the issuer.  There are three common terms used to describe this privately created money.  They are “credit”, “demand deposits” and “checkbook money”.  In the Sixth edition of Blacks Law Dictionary, p.367 under the term “Credit” the term “Bank credit” is described as: “Money bank owes or will lend a individual or person”.  It is clear from this definition that “Bank credit” which is the “money bank owes” is the bank's liability.  The term “checkbook money” is described in the book “I Bet You Thought”, published by the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as follows: "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding deposit dollars to accounts on their books to exchange for the borrowers IOU . . . ."  The word "deposit" and "demand deposit" both mean the same thing in bank terminology and refer to the bank's liabilities.  For example, the Chicago Federal Reserves publication, “Modern Money Mechanics” states: "Deposits are merely book entries ...  Banks can build up deposits by increasing loans …  Demand deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes.  It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries to the credit of borrowers which the borrowers, in turn, could 'spend' by writing checks.  Thus, it is demonstrated in “Modern Money Mechanics” how, under the practice of fractional reserve banking, a deposit of $5,000 in cash could result in a loan of credit/checkbook money/demand deposits of. $100,000 if reserve ratios set by the Federal Reserve are 5% (instead of 10%).
	In a practical application, here is how it works.  If a bank has ten people who each deposit $5,000 (totaling $50,000) in cash (legal money) and the bank's reserve ratio is 5%, then the bank will lend twenty times this amount, or $1,000,000 in "credit" money.  What the bank has actually done, however, is to write a check or loan its credit with the intended purpose of circulating credit as "money."  Banks know that if all the people who receive a check or credit loan come to the bank and demand cash, the bank will have to close its doors because it doesn't have the cash to back up its check or loan.  The bank's check or loan will, however, pass as money as long as people have confidence in the illusion and don't demand cash.  Panics are created when people line up at the bank and demand cash (legal money), causing banks to fold as history records in several time periods, the most recent in this country was the panic of 1933. 
THE PROCESS OF PASSING CHECKS OR
CREDIT AS MONEY IS DONE QUITE SIMPLY

	A deposit of $5,000 in cash by one person results in a loan of $100,000 to another person at 5% reserves.  The person receiving the check or loan of credit for $100,000 usually deposits it in the same bank or another bank in the Federal Reserve System.  The check or loan is sent to the bookkeeping department of the lending bank where a book entry of $100,000 is credited to the borrower's account.  The lending bank's check that created the borrower's loan is then stamped "Paid" when the account of the borrower is credited a "dollar" amount.  The borrower may then "spend" these book entries (demand deposits) by writing checks to others, who in turn deposit their checks and have book entries transferred to their account from the borrower's checking account.  However, two highly questionable and unlawful acts have now occurred.  The first was when the bank wrote the check or made the loan with insufficient funds to back them up.  The second is when the bank stamps its own “Not Sufficient Funds” check "paid" or posts a loan by merely crediting the borrower's account with book entries the bank calls "dollars."  Ironically, the check or loan seems good and passes as money -- unless an emergency occurs via demands for cash - or a Court challenge -- and the artful, illusion bubble, bursts.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF MONEY
	The book, “I Bet You Thought”, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, states: "Money is any generally accepted medium of exchange, not simply coin and currency.  Money doesn't have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by a government or be in any special form."  [Emphasis added]  
Thus we see that privately issued forms of money only require public confidence in order to pass as money.  Counterfeit money also passes as money as long as nobody discovers it's counterfeit.  Like wise, "bad" checks and "credit" loans pass as money so long as no one finds out they are unlawful.  Yet, once the fraud is discovered, the values of such “bank money” like bad check’s ceases to exist.  There are, therefore, two kinds of money -- government issued legal money and privately issued unlawful money.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF DOLLARS
	The dollar once represented something intrinsically valuable made from gold or silver.  For example, in 1792, Congress defined the silver dollar as a silver coin containing 371.25 grains of pure silver.  The legal dollar is now known as "United States coins and currency."  However, the Banker's dollar has become a unit of measure of a different kind of money.  Therefore, with Bankers there is a "dollar" of coins and a dollar of cash (legal money), a "dollar" of debt, a "dollar" of credit, a "dollar" of checkbook money or a "dollar" of checks.  When one refers to a dollar spent or a dollar loaned, he should now indicate what kind of "dollar" he is talking about, since Bankers have created so many different kinds.
	A dollar of bank "credit money" is the exact opposite of a dollar of "legal money".  The former is a liability while the latter is an asset.  Thus, it can be seen from the earlier statement quoted from I Bet You Thought, that money can be privately issued as: "Money doesn't have to ... be issued by a government or be in any special form."  It should be carefully noted that banks that issue and lend privately created money demand to be paid with government issued money.  However, payment in like kind under natural equity would seem to indicate that a debt created by a loan of privately created money can be paid with other privately created money, without regard for “any special form” as there are no statutory laws to dictate how either private citizens or banks may create money. 
BY WHAT AUTHORITY?
	By what authority do state and national banks, as privately owned corporations, create money by lending their credit --or more simply put - by writing and passing "bad" checks and "credit" loans as "money"?   Nowhere can a law be found that gives banks the authority to create money by lending their liabilities.
	Therefore, the next question is, if banks are creating money by passing bad checks and lending their credit, where is their authority to do so?   From their literature, banks claim these techniques were learned from the trade secrets of the Goldsmiths.  It is evident; however, that money creation by private banks is not the result of powers conferred upon them by government, but rather the artful use of long held "trade secrets."  Thus, unlawful money creation is not being done by banks as corporations, but unlawfully by bankers.
Article I, Section 10, para. 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America specifically states that no state shall "... coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligations of Contracts . . ."
[Emphasis added]
	The states, which grant the Charters of state banks also, prohibit the emitting of Bills of credit by not granting such authority in bank charters.  It is obvious that "We the people" never delegated to Congress, state government, or agencies of the state, the power to create and issue money in the form of checks, credit, or other "bills of credit."  The Federal Government today does not authorize banks to emit, write, create, issue and pass checks and credit as money.  But banks do, and get away with it!  Banks call their privately created money nice sounding names, like “credit”, “demand deposits”, or “checkbook money”.  However, the true nature of "credit money" and "checks" does not change regardless of the poetic terminology used to describe them.  Such money in common use by privately owned banks is illegal under Art. 1, Sec. 10, para. 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as unlawful under the laws of the United States and of this State. 
VOID "ULTRA VIRES" CONTRACTS
The courts have long held that when a corporation executes a contract beyond the scope of its charter or granted corporate powers, the contract is void or "ultra vires".
1.	In Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman, 139 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55, the court said: "A contract ultra vires being unlawful and void, not because it is in itself immoral, but because the corporation, by the law of its creation, is incapable of making it, the courts, while refusing to maintain any action upon the unlawful contract, have always striven to do justice between the parties, so far as could be done consistently with adherence to law, by permitting property or money, parted with on the faith of the unlawful contract, to be recovered back, or compensation to be made for it. In such case, however, the action is not maintained upon the unlawful contract, nor according to its terms; but on an implied contract of the defendant to return, or, failing to do that, to make compensation for, property or money which it has no right to retain. To maintain such an action is not to affirm, but to disaffirm, the unlawful contract."

2.	"When a contract is once declared ultra vires, the fact that it is executed · does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of suitor action, nor does the doctrine of estoppel apply." F& PR v. Richmond, 133 SE 898; 151 Va 195.

3.	"A national bank ... cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him, such an act ; is ultra vires . . ." Merchants' Bank v. Baird 160 F 642. (Additional cases are cited as footnotes at the end of this Memorandum.) 

THE QUESTION OF LAWFUL CONSIDERATION
	The issue of whether the lender who writes and passes a "bad" check or makes a "credit" loan has a claim for relief against the borrower is easy to answer, providing the lender can prove that he gave a lawful consideration, based upon lawful acts.  But did the lender give a lawful consideration?   To give a lawful consideration, the lender must prove that he gave the borrower lawful money such as coins or currency.  Failing that, he can have no claim for relief in a court at law against the borrower as the lender's actions were ultra vires or void from the beginning of the transaction. 
	It can be argued that “bad” checks or “credit” loans that pass as money are valuable; but so are counterfeit coins and currency that pass as money.  It seems unconscionable that a bank would ask homeowners to put up a homestead as collateral for a "credit loan" that the bank created out of thin air.  Would this court of law or equity allow a counterfeiter to foreclose against a person's home because the borrower was late in payments on an unlawful loan of counterfeit money?   Were the court to do so, it would be contrary to all principles of law.
	The question of valuable consideration in the case at bar, does not depend on any value imparted by the lender, but the false confidence instilled in the "bad" check or "credit" loan by the lender.  In a court at law or equity, the lender has no claim for relief.  The argument that because the borrower received property for the lender's "bad" check or "credit" loan gives the lender a claim for relief is not valid, unless the lender can prove that he gave lawful value.  The seller in some cases who may be holding the “bad” check or “Credit” loan has a claim for relief against the lender or the borrower or both, but the lender has no such claim.
BORROWER RELIEF
	Since we have established that the lender of unlawful or counterfeit money has no claim for relief under a void contract, the last question should be, does the borrower have a claim for relief against the lender?   First, if it is established that the borrower has made no payments to the lender, then the borrower has no claim for relief against the lender for money damages.  But the borrower has a claim for relief to void the debt he owes the lender for notes or obligations unlawfully created by an ultra vires contract for lending "credit" money.
	The borrower, the Courts have long held, has a claim for relief against the lender to have the note, security agreement, or mortgage note the borrower signed declared null and void.
	The borrower may also have claims for relief for breach of contract by the lender for not lending "lawful money" and for “usury” for charging an interest rate several times greater than the amount agreed to in the contract for any lawful money actually risked by the lender.  For example, if on a $100,000 loan it can be established that the lender actually risked only $5,000 (5% Federal Reserve ratio) with a contract interest rate of 10%, the lender has then loaned $95,000 of "credit" and $5,000 of "lawful money".  However, while charging 10% interest ($10,000) on the entire $100,000.  The true interest rate on the $5,000 of "lawful money" actually risked by the lender is 200% which violates Usury laws of this state. 
	If no "lawful money" was loaned, then the interest rate is an infinite percentage.  Such techniques the bankers say were learned from the trade secrets of the Goldsmiths.  The Courts have repeatedly ruled that such contracts with borrowers are wholly void from the beginning of the transaction, because banks are not granted powers to enter into such contracts by either state or national charters. 
ADDITIONAL BORROWER RELIEF
	In Federal District Court the borrower may have additional claims for relief under "Civil RICO" Federal Racketeering laws (18 U.S.C. §1964).  The lender may have established a "pattern of racketeering activity" by using the U.S. Mail more than twice to collect an unlawful debt and the lender may be in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1343, 1961 and 1962.
	The borrower has other claims for relief if he can prove there was or is a conspiracy to deprive him of property without due process of law under. (42 U.S.C. §§1983 (Constitutional Injury), 1985(Conspiracy) and 1986 ("Knowledge" and "Neglect to Prevent" a U.S. Constitutional Wrong), Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 241 (Conspiracy) violators, "shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten (10) years or both."
In a Debtor's RICO action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an unlawful debt, an interest rate (where all loan charges were added together) that exceeded, in the language of the RICO Statute, "twice the enforceable rate."  The Court found no reason to impose a requirement that the Plaintiff show that the Defendant had been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a "loan sharking" operation.  The debt included the fact that exaction of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil RICO action.  Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat 'l Bank. 755 F2d 239, Cert. denied, 473 US 906 (1985).
	The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action, need establish only a criminal "violation" and not a criminal conviction.  Further, the Court held that the Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a "pattern of Racketeering activity."  That is, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires.  The RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to effect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute.  Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co., 473 US 479 (1985).
	Aside from any legal obligation, there exists a societal and moral obligation enure to both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in that if you were to defuse a Bomb, and you completed the task 99% correct, you are still dead.  Plaintiff believes that his position on the law is sound, but fears grievous repercussions throughout the financial community if he should prevail.  The credit for money scheme is endemic throughout our society and could have devastating effects on the national economy. 
Plaintiff believes that another approach may be explored as follows: 
PERFECT OBLIGATION AS TO A HUMAN BEING
	That which is borrowed is wealth.  Labor created that wealth, so it is money notwithstanding its form. Consideration is promised in advance by the Promissor of the Note, in the nature of principal and interest payments for the consideration provided by the lender, which is his personal wealth created by his labor. 
	A Mortgage Note or Promissory Note secures the position of the lender and if there is default on the promise to pay then the borrower has agreed to accept the strict foreclosure remedy provided by state statutes. 
	Then the borrower obligated themselves to pay back the principal and pay for the use of it, in the form of interest for the years over which the principal is to be paid back.  When payments stop there is a prima facie injury to the lender.  When payments stop the lender has strict foreclosure procedure in state court to remedy the pay back of the balance of the principal. 
	Judgment to foreclose on the property is granted upon the mere proof that payments have ceased as promised.  The property is sold to cover the unpaid balance; deficiency judgment may be needed.  All is right with the world.  Here the lender would be prejudiced if complete and swift remedy were not available.  Absent such remedy the government would be party to placing the lender into a condition of involuntary servitude to the borrower. 
PERFECT OBLIGATION AS TO A BANK
	In years past banks and savings and loans institutions enjoyed the remedy outlined above.  The reason was they were lending out money belonging to their depositors and there was prima facie injury to the depositors upon the mere proof that payments had ceased.  Thereby the bank as well as the government would be party to creating a condition of involuntary servitude upon the depositors if strict foreclosure remedy were not available.  Today depositors are not in jeopardy of being injured when a person borrows money from a bank.  The bank does not lead their money, only their credit in the amount of the loan (paper accounting).  Hence no prima facie injury exists to either the depositors or the bank upon the mere proof that payments cease.  Injury is based upon the payments made as to the credit line.
PERFECT OR IMPERFECT OBLIGATION
	A perfect obligation is one recognized and sanctioned by positive law; one of which the fulfillment can be enforced by the aid of the law.  But if the duty created by the obligation operates only on the moral sense, without being enforced by any positive law, it is called an "imperfect obligation," and creates no right of action, nor has it any legal operation.  The duty of exercising gratitude, charity, and the other merely moral duties are examples of this kind of obligation.  Edwards v. Keaney, 96 U.S. 595, 600, 24 L.Ed. 793. 
Government approved the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc., as the Central Banking system for the United States, and it’s policy is reviewed by Congress albeit, in a haphazard manner.  The Federal Reserve authorizes it’s “private money” “Federal Reserve Bank Notes” to be used by lending institutions such as member banks, to operate upon a system of fractionalizing.  The nature of which is that they do not lend either their money or the money of the depositors; the money is created out of thin air, by the mere stroke of a pen.  When there is no consideration in jeopardy of being returned, then the obligation is to make the bank injury proof, to the extent of the obligation, which would be to make them whole.
	The only legal obligation is based upon the moral issue, which under the law is an Imperfect Obligation, to return to them their property, which isn’t wealth, but credit.  A Promissory Note is signed under "economic compulsion" when, the "loan" will not be consummated unless and until the borrower signs it.  Thus, performing the act of signing a Promissory Note cannot be considered voluntary. 
	The discharging of the credit is based upon social, economic, and moral standards to make the bank whole, if injury is claimed, in any court action where default on the Promissory Note is on record and where the bank fails to verify an injury, the bank cannot enforce a promise to pay consideration where they provided no consideration.  For the bank to be able to force upon the defendant an amount over and above the credit, is to force upon the defendants a debt that goes to the control of their labor against their will.  This condition would be Peonage, which has be en abolished in this country. 
(42 U.S.C. § 1994, and 18 U.S.C. §1581.) 
	The question then arises as to when is the obligation discharged, to put the bank in a position, where there is no record of injury to it? 
BANK CREDIT LOAN EXAMPLE
	When a person borrows $100,000.00 at 10 % interest amortized over 30 years at a cost of 4 points, is not the $4,000.00 for points the profit to the bank?   In the paperwork the borrower is charged the $4,000.00 for points.  In essence the bank only provides $96,000.00 for a $100,000.00 loan, thereby causing the cost of the loan to be more than $100,000.00.  Example: the borrower's cost of the Note is 10 % of $100,000.00, or $10,000.00 for the bank's investment of $96,000.00.  $10,000.00 divided by $96,000.00 = 10.42 annual percentage rate (APR).  In this process the profit to the bank is received at the closing table.  This raises the question at what point in making payments can the holder of the Note no longer sustain injury?
	Monthly payments should be $878.00 for a $100,000.00 loan at 10 % interest amortized over 30 years [$8.78 per $1,000.00 = $8.78 x 100 = $878.00/month].  The $100,000.00 loan divided by $878.00/monthly payments = 113.4 payments; or after making 114 payments x $878.00 a total of $100,092.00 has been paid. 
	After 114 payments the credit lined provided by the loan has been discharged. Does injury exist to the bank after the 114th payment? The answer is NO. Where the credit line of $100,000.00 is discharged, where is the injury? There is only injury to the bank where payments have not been made for 9 ½ years (114 payments).
	If payments stop before the 114th payment then whatever injury exists must be based upon a verified complaint of injury; e.g, that which remains to discharge the credit line after 57 payments is approximately $50,000.00 [57 x $878.00 = $50,046.00]. 
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PAYMENTS STOP AFTER THE 114TH PAYMENT?
	The plan is for the borrower to pay $878.00 x 360 payments; or $316,080.00 (over 30 years) for a credit line of $100.000.00.
	The first payment of $878.00 includes principal of $55.00 and interests $833.00. When payments stop prematurely the bank uses the state's strict foreclosure laws color ably as if the bank's wealth or the wealth of the depositors is in jeopardy of being returned. 
"Colorable transaction, one presenting an appearance which does not correspond with the reality, and, ordinarily, an appearance intended to conceal or to deceive. (Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition.) 
	Is, or is not, a transaction with the bank colorable?
	Plaintiff believes if the borrower stops the payments before the credit line is exhausted then it can be charged that the borrower intended to injure the bank; but that the bank intends to injure the borrower if the borrower has made 114 payments and the bank forecloses intending for the court to rule in their favor. Plaintiff believes that forced collection of anything over the $l00,000.00 is injury to the borrower and is a debt that goes to control their labor against their will. Enforcement of this service is a prohibited condition of peonage. 
	It is taken that the plaintiff permits the Bank to use the court's process and the state's strict foreclosure procedures as if the bank arranged for consideration to be part of the transaction when the Plaintiff does not refuse to accept the enforcement of this service for the reason that they can only make a defense based upon a verified complaint of injury to the bank since the bank provided no consideration in the transaction. Plaintiff has yet to see a verified complaint of injury filed in these proceedings. 
	In the example where 114 payments had been made, and then payments stop, the credit line is discharged. The bank however, based upon the former practice (policy) will claim through a third party, their attorney, using the records color ably in a non verified complaint, that an outstanding balance of approximately $90,000.00 exists on the 30 year amortized Promissory Note as if the bank provided consideration. 
	Under such circumstances the foreclosure procedure used intends to injure the Plaintiffs where there is no verified complaint of injury to defend against. 
	Due process is violated when the court makes judgment in favor of the bank upon the mere proof that the borrower stopped making payments.  There is no verified complaint of injury to the bank; thereby the strict foreclosure procedure has the result of the court, imposing injury to the Plaintiff in an amount certain. 
	Plaintiffs believe the enforcement of this service is peonage.  Plaintiffs argue that if the borrower does not refuse to accept for cause, without dishonor, the rebuttable presumptions in the non-verified complaint then they accept being controlled by the court's process and the proceedings is to the non-verified claims.  If the Plaintiffs make a proper record (by affidavit) of refusing to accept the non-verified complaint and proceedings and their reasons are not controverted with evidence (by affidavit) then a record is made that the claims in the non-verified complaint are irrefutable presumptions. Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 2193. 
		Absent a verified complaint of a damaged party, the Plaintiff having repaid the principle of the original loan, can not be held to peonage for the satisfaction of an imperfect obligation. 
CONTINUATION OF CASE CITES IN SUPPORT
THE FOLLOWING CASE CITES ALSO SUPPORT THIS MEMORANDUM

1.	“A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.

2.	“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.”' Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat 'l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.

3.	"A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . . . Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637. 

4.	“The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often .. . Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.

5.	"It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires . . ." Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).

6.	“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States ...” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168. 

7.	"Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank's business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics, . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248." American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429. 

8.	"It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done." Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L 'Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929). 

9.	"There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser." National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E 471. 

10.	"A bank can lend its money, but not its credit." First Nat'l Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe . 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550. 

11.	".. . the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit." Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.

12.	"A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest." Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879. 

13.	"The word 'money' in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange . . ." Lane v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133 SW 2d 75. 

14.	"A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of actual payment ..." Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.

15.	“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143. 

16.	"A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393. 

17.	"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817. 

18.	"Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts." Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.

19.	“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559-572; 132 NW 1122. 

20.	“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83. 

21.	“It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166. 

22.	"Each Federal Reserve bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region ..." Lewis v. United States, 680 F 20 1239 (1982). 

LAW OF THE CASE

	The law of the case is decreed as follows:

It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. 

In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. 

Laws, whether organic or ordinary, are either written or unwritten. 

A written law is that which is promulgated in writing, and of which a record is in existence. 

The organic law is the Constitution of Government, and is altogether written. Other written laws are denominated statutes. The written law of this State is therefore contained in its Constitution and statutes, and in the Constitution and statutes of the United States. 

Any judicial record may be impeached by evidence of a want of jurisdiction in the Court or judicial officer, of collusion between the parties, or of fraud in the party offering the record, in respect to the proceedings. 

...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.

....This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." 

The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]

The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights. [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]

Whereas, the people of Arizona have presented a constitution....and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government.... 

Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]

The State of Arizona is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.]
Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [18, USC 241]

Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [18, USC 242]

Property rights of citizens: All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. [42 USC 1982]

Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. [42 USC 1983]

Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights: Depriving persons of rights or privileges: If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. [42 USC 1985(3)]
Action for neglect to prevent: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. [42 USC 1986]

COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]

COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth.  They are:
A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior courts.... [California Penal Code, Sec. 808.]

...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297, Sources of Our Liberties Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation]

Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].

If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or not valid; such decision does not affect the validity of any other portion of this action. 
The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular. 
The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future, the present.
The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter. 
NATIONAL CURRENCY ACT
(later called "NATIONAL BANK ACT")
June 3, 1864

1865, ch. 78, §§ 6, 7.
Post, p. 484.	CHAP. CVI. — An Act to provide a National Currency, secured by a Pledge of United States Bonds, and to provide for the Circulation and Redemption thereof.	
Currency bureau established.	Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be established in the treasury department a separate bureau, which shall be charged with the execution of this and all other laws that may be passed by congress respecting the issue and regulation of a national currency secured by United States bonds. The chief officer of the said bureau shall be denominated the comptroller of the currency, and shall be under the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. He shall be appointed by the President, on the recommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold his office for the term of five years unless sooner removed by the President, upon reasons to be communicated by him to the Senate; he shall receive an annual salary of five thousand dollars; he shall have a competent deputy, appointed by the secretary, whose salary shall be two thousand five hundred dollars, and who shall possess the power and perform the duties attached by law to the office of comptroller during a vacancy in such office and during his absence or inability; he shall employ, from time to time, the necessary clerks to discharge such duties as he shall direct, which clerks shall be appointed and classified by the Secretary of the Treasury in the manner now provided by law. Within fifteen days from the time of notice of his appointment the comptroller shall take and subscribe the oath of office prescribed by the constitution and laws of the United States; and he shall give to the United States a bond in the penalty of one hundred thousand dollars, with not less than two responsible sureties, to be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office. The deputy-comptroller so appointed shall also take the oath of office prescribed by the constitution and laws of the United States, and shall give a like bond in the penalty of fifty thousand dollars. The comptroller and deputy-comptroller shall not, either directly or indirectly, be interested in any association issuing national currency under the provisions of this act.	
Comptroller of the currency.		
Appointment.		
Term of office.		
Salary.		
Deputy comptroller.		
Clerks.		
Comptroller to take oath within what time.		
Bond.		
Oath and bond of deputy comptroller.		
Not to be interested in any banking association.		
Seal of currency bureau, 
and where to be kept.	SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the comptroller of the currency, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall devise a seal, with suitable inscriptions, for his office, a description of which, with a certificate of approval by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State with an impression thereof, which shall thereupon become the seal of office of the comptroller of the currency, and the same may be renewed when necessary. Every certificate, assignment, and conveyance executed by the comptroller, in pursuance of any authority conferred on him by law, and sealed with his seal of office, shall be received in evidence in all places and courts whatsoever; and all copies of papers in the office of the comptroller, certified by him and authenticated by the said seal, shall in all cases be evidence equally and in like manner as the original. An impression of such seal directly on the paper shall be as valid as if made on wax or wafer.	
Certain papers under such seal to be evidence.		
Impression may be upon paper.		
Rooms for currency bureau.	SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be assigned to the comptroller of the currency by the Secretary of the Treasury suitable rooms in the treasury building for conducting the business of the currency bureau, in which shall be safe and secure fire-proof vaults, in which it shall be the duty of the comptroller to deposit and safely keep all the plates not necessarily in the possession of engravers or printers, and other valuable things belonging to his department; and the comptroller shall from time to time furnish necessary furniture, stationery, fuel, lights, and other proper conveniences for the transaction of the said business.	
Fire-proof vaults.		
Furniture, &c.		
Term "United States Bonds" to include what.	SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the term "United States Bonds," as used in this act, shall be construed to mean all registered bonds now issued, or that may hereafter be issued, on the faith of the United States by the Secretary of the Treasury in pursuance of law.	
Banking associations, how may be formed.	SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That associations for carrying on the business of banking may be formed by any number of persons, not less in any case than five, who shall enter into articles of association, which shall specify in general terms the object for which the association is formed, and may contain any other provisions, not inconsistent with provisions of this act, which the association may see fit to adopt for the regulation of the business of the association and the conduct of its affairs, which said articles shall be signed by the persons uniting to form the association, and a copy of them forwarded to the comptroller of the currency, to be filed and preserved in his office.	
Organization certificate to specify,	SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the persons uniting to form such an association shall, under their hands, make an organization certificate, which shall specify—	
name,	First. The name assumed by such association, which name shall be subject to the approval of the comptroller.	
place of business,	Second. The place where its operations of discount and deposit are to be carried on, designating the state, territory, or district, and also the particular county and city, town, or village.	
capital and shares,	Third. The amount of its capital stock, and the number of shares into which the same shall be divided.	
names &c., of shareholders,	Fourth. The names and places of residence of the shareholders, and the number of shares held by each of them.	
purpose of certificate.	Fifth. A declaration that said certificate is made to enable such persons to avail themselves of the advantages of this act.
     The said certificate shall be acknowledged before a judge of some court of record or a notary public, and such certificate, with the acknowledgement thereof authenticated by the seal of such court or notary, shall be transmitted to the comptroller of the currency, who shall record and carefully preserve the same in his office. Copies of such certificate, duly certified by the comptroller, and authenticated by his seal of office, shall be legal and sufficient evidence in all courts and places within the United States, or the jurisdiction of the government thereof, of the existence of such association, and of every other matter or thing which could be proved by the production of the original certificate.	
Certificate to be acknowledged.		
Copies under seal to be evidence.		
Amount of capital to be not less than, &c.	SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That no association shall be organized under this act, with a less capital than one hundred thousand dollars, nor in a city whose population exceeds fifty thousand persons, with a less capital than two hundred thousand dollars: Provided, That banks with a capital of not less than fifty thousand dollars may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, be organized in any place the population of which does not exceed six thousand inhabitants.	
Proviso.		
Associations when to be corporations and when to commence business.	SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That every association formed pursuant to the provisions of this act shall, from the date of the execution of its organization certificate, be a body corporate, but shall transact no business except such as may be incidental to its organizatin and necessarily preliminary, until authorized by the comptroller of the currency to commence the business of banking. Such association shall have power to adopt a corporate seal, and shall have succession by the name designated in its organizatin certificate, for the period of twenty years from its organization, unless sooner dissolved according to the provisions of its articles of association, or by the act of its shareholders owning two thirds of its stock, or unless the franchise shall be forfeited by a violation of this act; by such name it may make contracts, sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law and equity as fully as natural persons; it may elect or appoint directors, and by its board of directors appoint a president, vice-president, cashier, and other officers, define their duties, require bonds of them and fix the penalty thereof, dismiss said officers or any of them at pleasure, and appoint others to fill their places, and exercise under this act all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by receiving deposits; by buying and selling exchange, coin, and bullion; by loaning money on personal security; by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes according to the provisions of this act; and its board of directors shall also have power to define and regulate by by-laws, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, the manner in which its stock shall be transferred, its directors elected or appointed, its officers appointed, its property transferred, its general business conducted, and all the privileges granted by this act to associations organized under it shall be exercised and enjoyed; and its usual business shall be transacted at an office or banking house located in the place specified in its organization certificate.	
Seal.		
May continue twenty years, unless, &c.		
General powers.		
Directors and officers.		
By-laws.		
Directors; qualifications;
one to be president.	SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the affairs of every association shall be managed by not less than five directors, one of whom shall be the president. Every director shall, during his whole term of service, be a citizen of the United States; and at least three fourths of the directors shall have resided in the state, territory, or district in which such association is located one year next preceding their election as directors, and be residents of the same during their continuance in office. Each director shall own, in his own right, at least ten shares of the capital stock of the association of which he is a director. Each director, when appointed or elected, shall take an oath that he will, so far as the duty devolves on him, diligently and honestly administer the affairs of such association, and will not knowingly violate, or willingly permit to be violated, any of the provisions of this act, and that he is the bona fide owner, in his own right, of the number of shares of stock required by this act, subscribed by him, or standing in his name on the books of the association, and that the same is not hypothecated, or in any way pledged, as security for any loan or debt; which oath, subscribed by himself, and certified by the officer before whom it is taken, shall be immediately transmitted to the comptroller of the currency, and by him filed and preserved in his office.	
Oath.		
Term of office of directors.	SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That the directors of any asscociation first elected or appointed shall hold their places until their successors shall be elected and qualified. All subsequent elections shall be held annually on such day in the month of January as may be specified in the articles of association; and the directors so elected shall hold their places for one year, and until their successors are elected and qualified. But any director ceasing to be the owner of the requisite amount of stock, or having in any other manner become disqualified, shall thereby vacate his place. Any vacancy in the board shall be filled by appointment by the remaining directors, and any director so appointed shall hold his place until the next election. If from any cause an election of directors shall not be made at the time appointed, the association shall not for that cause be dissolved, but an election may be held on any subsequent day, thirty days' notice thereof in all cases having been given in a newspaper published in the city, town, or county in which the association is located; and if no newspaper is published in such city, town, or county, such notice shall be published in a newspaper published nearest thereto. If the articles of association do not fix the day on which the election shall be held, or if the election should not be held on the day fixed, the day for the election shall be designated by the board of directors in their by-laws, or otherwise: Provided, That if the directors fail to fix the day, as aforesaid, shareholders representing two thirds of the shares may.	
Elections.		
Vacancies, how filled.		
Voting and proxies.	SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That in all elections of directors, and in deciding all questions at meetings of shareholders, each shareholder shall be entitled to one vote on each share of stock held by him. Shareholders may vote by proxies duly authorized in writing; but no officer, clerk, teller, or book-keeper of such association shall act as proxy; and no shareholder whose liability is past due and unpaid shall be allowed to vote.	
Capital stock to be divided into shares.	SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That the capital stock of any association formed under this act shall be divided into shares of one hundred dollars each, and be deemed personal property and transferable on the books of the association in such manner as may be prescribed in the by-laws or articles of association; and every person becoming a shareholder by such transfer shall, in proportion to his shares, succeed to all the rights and liabilities of the prior holder of such shares, and no change shall be made in the articles of association by which the rights, remedies, or security of the existing creditors of the association shall be impaired. The shareholders of each association formed under the provisions of this act, and of each existing bank or banking association that may accept the provisions of this act, shall be held individually responsible, equally and ratably, and not one for another, for all contracts, debts, and engagements of such association to the extent of the amount of their stock therein at the par value thereof, in addition to the amount invested in such shares; except that shareholders of any banking association now existing under state laws, having not less than five millions of dollars of capital actually paid in, and a surplus of twenty per centum on hand, both to be determined by the comptroller of the currency, shall be liable only to the amount invested in their shares; and such surplus of twenty per centum shall be kept undiminished, and be in addition to the surplus provided for in this act; and if at any time there shall be a deficiency in said surplus of twenty per centum, the said banking association shall not pay any dividends to its shareholders until such deficiency shall be made good; and in case of such deficiency, the comptroller of the currency may compel said banking association to close its business and wind up its affairs under the provisions of this act. And the comptroller shall have authority to withhold from an association his certificate authorizing the commencement of business, whenever he shall have reason to suppose that the shareholders thereof have formed the same for any other than the legitimate objects contemplated by this act.	
Transfer.		
Rights of existing creditors not to be impaired.		
Individual liability.		
When comptroller may withhold certificate.		
Increase of capital stock.	SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any association formed under this act, by its articles of association , to provide for an increase of its capital from time to time, as may be deemed expedient, subject to the limitations of this act: Provided, That the maximum of such increase in the articles of association shall be determined by the comptroller of the currency; and no increase of capital shall be valid until the whole amount of such increase shall be paid in, and notice thereof shall have been transmitted to the comptroller of the currency, and his certificate obtained specifying the amount of such increase of capital stock, with his approval thereof, and that it has been duly paid in as part of the capital of such association. And every association shall have power, by the vote of shareholders owning two thirds of its capital stock, to reduce the capital of such association to any sum not below the amount required by this act, in the formation of associations: Provided, That by no such reduction shall its capital be brought below the amount required by this act for its outstanding circulation, nor shall any such reduction be made until the amount of the proposed reduction has been reported to the comptroller of the currency and his approval thereof obtained.	
Maximum.		
Minimum.		
Amount to be paid in before commencing business.
Remainder, when to be paid.	SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That at least fifty per centum of the capital stock of every association shall be paid in before it shall be authorized to commence business; and the remainder of the capital stock of such association shall be paid in instalments of at least ten per centum each on the whole amount of the capital as frequently as one instalment at the end of each succeeding month from the time it shall be authorized by the comptroller to commence business; and the payment of each instalment shall be certified to the comptroller, under oath, by the president or cashier of the association.	
Proceedings, if shareholder fails to pay instalments.	SEC. 15. And be it further enacted, That if any shareholder, or his assignee, shall fail to pay any instalment on the stock when the same is required by the foregoing section to be paid, the directors of such association may sell the stock of such delinquent shareholder at public auction, having given three weeks' previous notice thereof in a newspaper published and of general circulation in the city or county where the association is located, and if no newspaper is published in said city or county, then in a newspaper published nearest thereto, to any person who will pay the highest price therefor, and not less than the amount due thereon, with the expenses of advertisement and sale; and the excess, if any, shall be paid to the delinquent shareholder. If no bidder can be found who will pay for such stock the amount due thereon to the association, and the cost of advertisement and sale, the amount previously paid shall be forfeited to the association, and such stock shall be sold as the directors may order, within six months from the time of such forfeiture, and if not sold it shall be cancelled and deducted from the capital stock of the association; and if such cancellation and reduction shall reduce the capital of the association below the minimum of capital required by this act, the capital stock shall, within thirty days from the date of such cancellation, be increased to the requirements of the act, in default of which a receiver may be appointed to close up the business of the association according to the provisions of the fiftieth section of this act.	
Stock of delinquent shareholders to be sold.		
United States registered bonds to be deposited with treasurer to an amount equal to one third of the capital stock.	SEC. 16. And be it further enacted, That every association, after having complied with the provisions of this act, preliminary to the commencement of banking business under its provisions, and before it shall be authorized to commence business, shall transfer and deliver to the treasurer of the United States any United States registered bonds bearing interest to an amount not less than thirty thousand dollars nor less than one third of the capital stock paid in, which bonds shall be deposited with the treasurer of the United States and by him safely kept in his office until the same shall be otherwise disposed of, in pursuance of the provisions of this act; and the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to receive and cancel any United States coupon bonds, and to issue in lieu thereof registered bonds of like amount, bearing a like rate of interest, and having the same time to run; and the deposit of bonds shall be, by every association, increased as its capital may be paid up or increased, so that every association shall at all times have on deposit with the treasurer registered United States bonds to the amount of at least one third of its capital stock actually paid in: Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent an association that may desire to reduce its capital or to close up its business and dissolve its organization from taking up its bonds upon returning to the comptroller its circulation notes in the proportion hereinafter named in this act, nor from taking up any excess of bonds beyond one third of its capital stock and upon which no circulating notes have been delivered.	
Deposit to be increased;		
may be diminished.		
Comptroller to examine and determine if association can commence business.	SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That whenever a certificate shall have been transmitted to the comptroller of the currency, as provided in this act, and the association transmitting the same shall notify the comptroller that at least fifty per centum of its capital stock has been paid in as aforesaid, and that such association has complied with all the provisions of this act as required to be complied with before such association shall be authorized to commence the business of banking, the comptroller shall examine into the condition of such association, ascertain especially the amount of money paid in on account of its capital, the name and place of residence of each of the directors of such association, and the amount of the capital stock of which each is the bona fide owner, and generally whether such association has complied with all the requirements of this act to entitle it to engage in the business of banking; and shall cause to be made and attested by the oaths of a majority of the directors and by the president or cashier of such association, a statement of all the facts necessary to enable the comptroller to determine whether such association is lawfully entitled to commence the business of banking under this act.	
When association is found entitled to commence business, comptroller to give certificate.	SEC. 18. And be it further enacted, That if, upon a careful examination of the facts so reported, and of any other facts which may come to the knowledge of the comptroller, whether by means of special commission appointed by him for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of such association, or otherwise, it shall appear that such association is lawfully entitled to commence the business of banking, the comptroller shall give to such association a certificate, under his hand and official seal, that such association has complied with all the provisions of this act required to be complied with before being entitled to commence the business of banking under it, and that such association is authorized to commence said business accordingly; and it shall be the duty of the association to cause said certificate to be published in some newspaper published in the city or county where the association is located for at least sixty days next after the issuing thereof: Provided, That if no newspaper is published in such city or county the certificate shall be published in a newspaper published nearest thereto.	
Certificate to be published.		
Transfers of bonds by association, to be made to the treasurer in trust.	SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That all transfers of United States bonds which shall be made by any association under the provisions of this act shall be made to the treasurer of the United States in trust for the association, with a memorandum written or printed on each bond, and signed by the cashier or some other officer of the association making the deposit, a receipt therefor to be given to said association, or by the comptroller of the currency, or by a clerk appointed by him for that purpose, stating that it is held in trust for the association on whose behalf such transfer is made, and as security for the redemption and payment of any circulating notes that have been or may be delivered to such association. No assignment or transfer of any such bonds by the treasurer shall be deemed valid or of binding force and effect unless countersigned by the comptroller or the currency. It shall be the duty of the comptroller of the currency to keep in his office a book in which shall be entered the name of every association from whose accounts such transfer of bonds is made by the treasurer, and the name of the party to whom such transfer is made; and the par value of the bonds so transferred shall be entered therein; and it shall be the duty of the comptroller, immediately upon countersigning and entering the same, to advise by mail the association from whose account such transfer was made of the kind and numerical designation of the bonds and the amount thereof so transferred.	
How executed.		
Comptroller to keep transfer book, &c.		
Transfers to be countersigned and entered.	SEC. 20. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the comptroller of the currency to countersign and enter in the book, in the manner aforesaid, every transfer or assignment of any bonds held by the treasurer presented for his signature; and the comptroller shall have at all times during office hours access to the books of the treasurer, for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of the transfer or assignment presented to him to countersign; and the treasurer shall have the like access to the book above mentioned, kept by the comptroller, during office hours, to ascertain the correctness of the entries in the same; and the comptroller shall also at all times have access to the bonds on deposit with the treasurer, to ascertain their amount and condition.	
Books to be accessible.		
Associations, after transfer, may receive circulating notes.	SEC. 21. And be it further enacted, That upon the transfer and delivery of bonds to the treasurer, as provided in the foregoing section, the association making the same shall be entitled to receive from the comptroller of the currency circulating notes of different denominations, in blank, registered and countersigned as hereinafter provided, equal in amount to ninety per centum of the current market value of the United States bonds so transferred and delivered, but not exceeding ninety per centum of the amount of said bonds at the par value thereof, if bearing interest at a rate not less than five per centum per annum; and at no time shall the total amount of such notes, issued to any such association, exceed the amount at such time actually paid in of its capital stock.	
1865, ch. 82.
Post, p. 498.		
Limit of amount.		
Entire circulation not to exceed $300,000,000.	SEC. 22. And be it further enacted, That the entire amount of notes for circulation to be issued under this act shall not exceed three hundred millions of dollars. In order to furnish suitable notes for circulation, the comptroller of the currency is hereby authorized and required, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, to cause plates and dies to be engraved, in the best manner to guard against counterfeiting and fraudulent alterations, and to have printed therefrom, and numbered, such quantity of circulating notes, in blank, of the denominations of one dollar, two dollars, three dollars, five dollars, ten dollars, twenty dollars, fifty dollars, one hundred dollars, five hundred dollars, and one thousand dollars, as may be required to supply, under this act, the associations entitled to receive the same; which notes shall express upon their face that they are secured by United States bonds, deposited with the treasurer of the United States by the written or engraved signatures of the treasurer and register, and by the imprint of the seal of the treasury; and shall also express upon their face the promise of the association receiving the same to pay on demand, attested by the signatures of the president or vice-president and cashier. And the said notes shall bear such devices and such other statements, and shall be in such form, as the Secretary of the Treasury shall, by regulation, direct: Provided, That not more than one sixth part of the notes furnished to an association shall be of a less denomination than five dollars, and that after specie payments shall be resumed no association shall be furnished with notes of less denomination than five dollars.	
Comptroller to prepare the notes.		
Denominations.		
Notes to express what.		
Devices.		
Notes under $5.		
When notes may be circulated as money;	SEC. 23. And be it further enacted, That after any such association shall have caused its promise to pay such notes on demand to be signed by the president or vice-president and cashier thereof, in such manner as to make them obligatory promissory notes, payable on demand, at its place of business, such association is hereby authorized to issue and circulate the same as money; and the same shall be received at par in all parts of the United States in payment of taxes, excises, public lands, and all other dues to the United States, except for duties on imports; and also for all salaries and other debts and demands owing by the United States to individuals, corporations, and associations within the United States, except interest on the public debt, and in redemption of the national currency. And no such association shall issue post notes or any other notes to circulate as money than such as are authorized by the foregoing provisions of this act.	
to be received for all dues, except, &c.		
Post notes, &c;, not to be issued.		
Worn-out and mutilated notes.	SEC. 24. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the comptroller of the currency to receive worn-out or mutilated circulating notes issued by any such banking association, and also, on due proof of the destruction of any such circulating notes, to deliver in place thereof to such association other blank circulating notes to an equal amount. And such worn-out or mutilated notes, after a memorandum shall have been entered in the proper books, in accordance with such regulations as may be established by the comptroller, as well as all circulating notes which shall have been paid or surrendered to be cancelled, shall be burned to ashes in presence of four persons, one to be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, one by the comptroller of the currency, one by the treasurer of the United States, and one by the association, under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescibe. And a certificate of such burning, signed by the parties so appointed, shall be made in the books of the comptroller, and a duplicate thereof forwarded to the association whose notes are thus cancelled.	
Associations to examine annually its bonds deposited, and make certificate.	SEC. 25And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of every banking association having bonds deposited in the office of the treasurer of the United States, once or oftener in each fiscal year, and at such time or times during the ordinary business hours as said officer or officers may select, to examine and compare the bonds so pledged with the books of the comptroller and the accounts of the association, and, if found correct, to execute to the said treasurer a certificate setting forth the different kinds and the amounts thereof, and that the same are in the possession and custody of the treasurer at the date of such certificate. Such examination may be made by an officer or agent of such association, duly appointed in writing for that purpose, whose certificate before mentioned shall be of like force and validity as if executed by such president or cashier; and a duplicate signed by the treasurer shall be retained by the association.	
Examination of associations.		
Deposited bonds to be held exclusively to secure circulation.	SEC. 26. And be it further enacted, That the bonds transferred to and deposited with the treasurer of the United States, as hereinbefore provided, by any banking association for the security of its circulating notes, shall be held exclusively for that purpose, until such notes shall be redeemed, except as provided in this act; but the comptroller of the currency shall give to any such banking association powers of attorney to receive and appropriate to its own use the interest on the bonds which it shall have transferred to the treasurer; but such powers shall become inoperative whenever such banking association shall fail to redeem its circulating notes as aforesaid. Whenever the market or cash value of any bonds deposited with the treasurer of the United States, as aforesaid, shall be reduced below the amount of the circulation issued for the same, the comptroller of the currency is hereby authorized to demand and receive the amount of such depreciation in other United States bonds at cash value, or in money, from the association receiving said bills, to be deposited with the treasurer of the United States as long as such depreciation continues. And said comptroller, upon the terms prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, may permit an exchange to be made of any of the bonds deposited with the treasurer by an association for other bonds of the United States authorized by this act to be received as security for circulating notes, if he shall be of opinion that such an exchange can be made without prejudice to the United States, and he may direct the return of any of said bonds to the banking association which transferred the same, in sums of not less than one thousand dollars, upon the surrender to him and the cancellation of a proportionate amount of such circulating notes: Provided, That the remaining bonds which shall have been transferred by the banking association offering to surrender circulating notes shall be equal to the amount required for the circulating notes not surrendered by such banking association, and that the amount of bonds in the hands of the treasurer shall not be diminished below the amount required to be kept on deposit with him by this act: And provided, That there shall have been no failure by such association to redeem its circulating notes, and no other violations by such association of the provisions of this act, and that the market or cash value of the remaining bonds shall not be below the amount required for the circulation issued for the same.	
Provision as to interest.		
If bonds depreciate, security to be made good.		
Bonds may be exchanged, if, &c.;		
may be returned upon cancellation of circulating notes.
Proviso.		
The countersigning and delivery of circulating notes, except as permitted by this act, made unlawful.
Penalty.	SEC. 27. And be it further enacted, That it shall be unlawful for any officer acting under the provisions of this act to countersign or deliver to any association, or to any other company or person, any circulating notes contemplated by this act, except as hereinbefore provided, and in accordance with the true intent and meaning of this act. And any officer who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding double the amount so countersigned and delivered, and imprisonment not less than one year and not exceeding fifteen years, at the discretion of the court in which he shall be tried.	
Associations may hold, &c., certain real estate.	SEC. 28. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any such association to purchase, hold, and convey real estate as follows: — 	
	First. Such as shall be necessary for its immediate accommodation in the transaction of its business.	
Real estate.	Second. Such as shall be mortgaged to it in good faith by way of security for debts previously contracted.	
	Third. Such as shall be conveyed to it in satisfaction of debts previously contracted in the course of its dealings.	
	Fourth. Such as it shall purchase at sales under judgments, decrees, or mortgages held by such association, or shall purchase to secure debts due to said association.
     Such associations shall not purchase or hold real estate in any other case or for any other purpose than as specified in this section. Nor shall it hold possession of any real estate under mortgage, or hold the title and possession of any real estate purchased to secure any debts due to it for a longer period than five years.	
No person, &c., to be liable to association for more than, &c.	SEC. 29. And be it further enacted, That the total liabilities to any association, of any person, or of any company, corporation, or firm for money borrowed, including in the liabilities of a company or firm the liabilities of the several members thereof, shall at no time exceed one tenth part of the amount of the capital stock of such association actually paid in: Provided, That the discount of bona fide bills of exchange drawn against actually existing values, and the discount of commercial or business paper actually owned by the person or persons, corporation, or firm negotiating the same shall not be considered as money borrowed.	
Certain discounts not to be included.		
Rate of interest.	SEC. 30. And be it further enacted, That every association may take, receive, reserve, and charge on any loan or discount made, or upon any note, bill of exchange, or other evidences of debt, interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the state or territory where the bank is located, and no more, except that where by the laws of any state a different rate is limited for banks of issue organized under state laws, the rate so limited shall be allowed for associations organized in any such state under this act. And when no rate is fixed by the laws of the state or territory, the bank may take, receive, reserve, or charge a rate not exceeding seven per centum, and such interest may be taken in advance, reckoning the days for which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt has to run. And the knowingly taking, receiving, reserving, or charging a rate of interest greater than aforesaid shall be held and adjudged a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon. And in case a greater rate of interest has been paid, the person or persons paying the same, or their legal representatives, may recover back, in any action of debt, twice the amount of interest thus paid from the association taking or receiving the same: Provided, That such action is commenced within two years from the time the usurious transaction occurred. But the purchase, discount, or sale of bona fide bill of exchange, payable at another place than the place of purchase, discount, or sale, at not more than the current rate of exchange for sight drafts in addition to the interest, shall not be considered as taking or receiving a greater rate of interest.	
Penalty for taking greater interest.		
Action to be commenced in two years.		
Amount of money to be kept on hand.	SEC. 31. And be it further enacted, That every association in the cities hereinafter named shall, at all times, have on hand, in lawful money of the United States, an amount equal to at least twenty-five per centum of the aggregate amount of its notes in circulation and its deposits; and every other association shall, at all times, have on hand, in lawful money of the United States, an amount equal to at least fifteen per centum of the aggregate amount of its notes in circulation, and of its deposits. And whenever the lawful money of any association in any of the cities hereinafter named shall be below the amount of twenty-five per centum of its circulation and deposits, and whenever the lawful money of any other association shall be below fifteen per centum of its circulation and deposits, such associations shall not increase its liabilities by making any new loans or discounts otherwise than by discounting or purchasing bills of exchange payable at sight, nor make any dividend of its profits until the required proportion between the aggregate amount of its outstanding notes of circulation and deposits and its lawful money of the United States shall be restored: Provided, That three fifths of said fifteen per centum may consist of balances due to an association available for the redemption of its circulating notes from associations approved by the comptroller of the currency, organized under this act, in the cities of Saint Louis, Louisville, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukie, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Albany, Leavenworth, San Francisco, and Washington City: Provided, also, That clearing-house certificates, representing specie or lawful money specially deposited for the purpose of any clearing-house association, shall be deemed to be lawful money in the possession of any association belonging to such clearing-house holding and owning such certificate, and shall be considered to be a part of the lawful money which such association is required to have under the foregoing provisions of this section: Provided, That the cities of Charleston and Richmond may be added to the list of cities in the national associations of which other associations may keep three fifths of their lawful money, whenever, in the opinion of the comptroller of the currency, the condition of the southern states will warrant it. And it shall be competent for the comptroller of the currency to notify any association, whose lawful money reserve as aforesaid shall be below the amount to be kept on hand as aforesaid, to make good such reserve; and if such association shall fail for thirty days thereafter so to make good its reserve of lawful money of the United States, the comptroller may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury, appoint a receiver to wind up the business of such association, as provided in this act.	
Liabilities not to be increased until reserve is made good.		
Money deposited for redemption of circulation in certain cities to be included.		
Clearing-house certificates to be deemed lawful money for this purpose.		
Charleston and Richmond.		
If association fails, after notice, to make good its reserve.		
Circulation to be redeemed in New York at par.	SEC. 32. And be it further enacted, That each association organized in any of the cities named in the forgoing section shall select, subject to the approval of the comptroller of the currency, an association in the city of New York, at which it will redeem its circulating notes at par. And each of such associations may keep one half of its lawful money reserve in cash deposits in the city of New York. And each association not organized within the cities named in the preceeding section shall select, subject to the approval of the comptroller of the currency, an association in either of the cities named in the preceding section at which it will redeem its circulating notes at par, and the comptroller shall give public notice of the names of the associations so selected at which redemptions are to be made by the respective associations, and of any change that may be made of the association at which the notes of any association are redeemed. If any association shall fail either to make the selection or to redeem its notes as aforesaid, the comptroller of the currency may, upon receiving satisfactory evidence thereof, appoint a receiver, in the manner provided for in this act, to wind up its affairs: Provided, That nothing in this section shall relieve any association from its liability to redeem its circulating notes at its own counter, at par, in lawful money, on demand: And provided, further, That every association formed or existing under the provisions of this act shall take and receive at par, for any debt or liability to said association, any and all notes or bills issued by any association existing under and by virtue of this act.	
Certain associations to select place for redemption of circulation.		
Proceedings in case of failure.		
Each association to take notes of other associations.		
Dividends.	SEC. 33. And be it further enacted, That the directors of any association may, semi-annually, each year, declare a dividend of so much of the nett profits of the association as they shall judge expedient; but each association shall, before the declaration of a dividend, carry one tenth part of its nett profits of the preceding half year to its surplus fund until the same shall amount to twenty per centum of its capital stock.	
Surplus funds.		
Associations to report to comptroller quarterly.
Contents of report.	SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That every association shall make to the comptroller of the currency a report, according to the form which may be prescribed by him, verified by the oath or affirmation of the president or cashier of such association; which report shall exhibit in detail, and under appropriate heads, the resources and liabilities of the association before the commencement of business on the morning of the first Monday of the month of January, April, July, and October of each year, and shall transmit the same to the comptroller within five days thereafter. And any bank failing to make and transmit such report shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars for each day after five days that such report is delayed beyond that time. And the comptroller shall publish abstracts of said reports in a newspaper to be designated by him for that purpose in the city of Washington, and the separate report of each association shall be published in a newspaper in the place where such association is established, or if there be no newspaper at such place, then in a newspaper published at the nearest place thereto, at the expense of the association making such report. In addition to the quarterly reports required by this section, every association shall, on the first Tuesday of each month, make to the comptroller of the currency a statement, under the oath of the president or cashier, showing the condition of the association making such statement, on the morning of the day next preceding the date of such statement, in respect to the following items and particulars, to wit: average amount of loans and discounts, specie, and other lawful money belonging to the association, deposits, and circulation. And associations in other places than those cities named in the thirty-first section of this act shall also return the amount due them available for the redemption of their circulation.	
Penalty for failing to report.		
Comptroller to publish abstracts.		
Monthly statements.		
Associations not to make loans, &c., on the security of their own stock, &c.	SEC. 35. And be it further enacted, That no association shall make any loan or discount on the security of the shares of its own capital stock, nor be the purchaser or holder of any such shares, unless such security or purchases shall be necessary to prevent loss upon a debt previously contracted in good faith; and stock so purchased or acquired shall, within six months from the time of its purchase, be sold or disposed of at public or private sale, in default of which a receiver may be appointed to close up the business of the association, according to the provisions of this act.	
Indebtedness not to exceed capital stock, &c.	SEC. 36. And be it further enacted, That no association shall at any time be indebted, or in any way liable, to an amount exceeding the amount of its capital stock at such times actually paid in and remaining undiminished by losses or otherwise, except on the following accounts, that is to say: — 	
	First. On account of its notes in circulation.	
	Second. On account of moneys deposited with, or collected by, such association.	
	Third. On account of bills of exchange or drafts drawn against money actually on deposit to the credit of such association, or due thereto.	
	Fourth. On account of liabilities to its stockholders for dividends and reserved profits.	
Associations not to hypothecate circulating notes, for, &c.;	SEC. 37. And be it further enacted, That no association shall, either directly or indirectly, pledge or hypothecate any of its notes of circulation, for the purpose of procuring money to be paid in on its capital stock, or to be used in its banking operations, or otherwise; nor shall any association use its circulating notes, or any part thereof, in any manner or form, to create or increase its capital stock.	
not to withdraw any portion of their capital.	SEC. 38. And be it further enacted, That no association, or any member thereof, shall, during the time it shall continue its banking operations, withdraw, or permit to be withdrawn, either in form of dividends or otherwise, any portion of its capital. And if losses shall at any time have been sustained by any such association equal to or exceeding its undivided profits then on hand, no dividend shall be made; and no dividend shall ever be made by any association, while it shall continue its banking operations, to an amount greater than its nett profits then on hand, deducting therefrom its losses and bad debts. And all debts due to any association, on which interest is past due and unpaid for a period of six months, unless the same shall be well secured, and shall be in process of collection, shall be considered bad debts within the meaning of this act: Provided, That nothing is this section shall prevent the reduction of the capital stock of the association under the thirteenth section of this act.	
Losses.		
Bad debts.		
What to be deemed bad debts.		
Association not to pay out certain notes.	SEC. 39. And be it further enacted, That no associaiton shall at any time pay out on loans or discounts, or in purchasing drafts or bills of exchange, or in payment of deposits, or in any other mode pay or put in circulation the notes of any bank or banking association which shall not, at any such time, be receivable, at par, on deposit and in payment of debts by the association so paying out or circulating such notes; nor shall it knowingly pay out or put in circulation any notes issued by any bank or banking association which at the time of such paying out or putting in circulation is not redeeming its circulating notes in lawful money of the United States.	
List of names of shareholders and residences to be kept;	SEC. 40. And be it further enacted, That the president and cashier of every such association shall cause to be kept at all times a full and correct list of the names and residences of all the shareholders, in the association, and the number of shares held by each, in the office where its business is transacted; and such list shall be subject to the inspection of all the shareholders and creditors of the association, and the officers authorized to assess taxes under state authority, during business hours of each day in which business may be legally transacted; and a copy of such list, on the first Monday of July in each year, verified by the oath of such president or cashier, shall be transmitted to the comptroller of the currency.	
to be subject to inspection;		
to be sent to comptroller.		
Comptroller to keep control of plates and special dies.	SEC. 41. And be it further enacted, That the plates and special dies to be procured by the comptroller of the currency for the printing of such circulating notes shall remain under his control and direction, and the expenses necessarily incurred in executing the provisions of this act respecting the procuring of such notes, and all other expenses of the bureau, shall be paid out of the proceeds of the taxes or duties now or hereafter to be assessed on the circulation, and collected from associations organized under this act. And in lieu of all existing taxes, every association shall pay to the treasurer of the United States, in the months of January and July, a duty of one half of one per centum each half year from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, upon the average amount of its notes in circulation, and a duty of one quarter of one per centum each half year upon the average amount of its deposits, and a duty of one quarter of one per centum each half year, as aforesaid, on the average amount of its capital stock beyond the amount invested in United States bonds; and in case of default in the payment thereof by any association, the duties aforesaid may be collected in the manner provided for the collection of United States duties of other corporations, or the treasurer may reserve the amount of said duties out of the interest, as it may become due, on the bonds deposited with him by such defaulting association. And it shall be the duty of each association, within ten days from the first days of January and July of each year, to make a return, under the oath of its president or cashier, to the treasurer of the United States, in such form as he may prescribe, of the average amount of its notes in circulation,and of the average amount of its deposits, and of the average amount of its capital stock, beyond the amount invested in United States bonds, for the six months next preceding said first days of January and July as aforesaid, and in default of such return, and for each default thereof, each defaulting association shall forfeit and pay to the United States the sum of two hundred dollars, to be collected either out of the interest as it may become due such association on the bonds deposited with the treasurer, or, at his option, in the manner in which penalties are to be collected of other corporations under the laws of the United States; and in case of such default the amount of the duties to be paid by such association shall be assessed upon the amount of notes delivered to such association by the comptroller of the currency, and upon the highest amont of its deposits and capital stock, to be ascertained in such other manner as the treasurer may deem best: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent all the shares in any of the said associations, held by any person or body corporate, from being included in the valuation of the personal property of such person or corporation in the assessment of taxes imposed by or under state authority at the place where such bank is located, and not elsewhere, but not at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such state: Provided, further, That the tax so imposed under the laws of any state upon the shares of any of the associations authorized by this act shall not exceed the rate imposed upon the shares in any of the banks organized under authority of the state where such association is located: Provided, also, That nothing in this act shall exempt the real estate associations from either state, county, or municipal taxes to the same extent, according to its value, as other real estate is taxed.	
Expenses to be borne by associations.		
Duty upon circulation, deposits, and capital stock to be paid semi-annually.		
How collected if not paid in time.		
Return of circulation, &c., to be made.		
Penalty for default.		
Shares not hereby exempted from taxation by state authority.		
Limit of state tax.		
Real estate to be taxed.		
How associations may be closed.	SEC. 42. And be it further enacted, That any association may go into liquidation and be closed by the vote of its shareholders owning two thirds of its stock. And whenever such vote shall be taken it shall be the duty of the board of directors to cause notice of this fact to be certified, under the seal of the association, by it president or cashier, to the comptroller of the currency, and publication thereof to be made for a period of two months in a newspaper published in the city of New York, and also in a newspaper published in a city or town in which the association is located, and if no newspaper be there published, then in the newspaper published nearest thereto, that said association is closing up its affairs, and notifying the holders of its notes and other creditors to present the notes and other claims against the association for payment. And at any time after the expiration of one year from the time of the publication of such notice as aforesaid, the said association may pay over to the treasurer of the United States the amount of its outstanding notes in the lawful money of the United States, and take up the bonds which said association has on deposit with the treasurer for the security of its circulating notes; which bonds shall be assigned to the bank in the manner specified in the nineteenth section of this act, and from that time the outstanding notes of said association shall be redeemed at the treasury of the United States, and the said association and the shareholders thereof shall be discharged from all liabilities therefor.	
Proceedings.		
Treasurer to execute duplicate receipts.	SEC. 43. And be it further enacted, That the treasurer, on receiving from an association lawful money for the payment and redemption of its outstanding notes, as provided for in the preceding section of this act, shall execute duplicate receipts therefor, one to the association and the other to the comptroller of the currency, stating the amount received by him, and the purpose for which it has been received, which amount shall be paid into the treasury of the United States, and placed to the credit of such association upon redemption account. And it shall be the duty of the treasurer, whenever he shall redeem any of the notes of said association, to cause the same to be mutilated, and charged to the redemption account of said association; and all notes so redeemed by the treasurer shall, every three months, be certified to and burned in the manner prescribed in the twenty-fourth section of this act.	
Redeemed notes to be mutilated, &c.		
State banks may become national associations.	SEC. 44. And be it further enacted, That any bank incorporated by special law, or any banking institution organized under a general law of any state, may, by authority of this act, become a national association under its provisions, by the name prescribed in its organization certificate; and in such case the articles of association and organization certificate required by this act may be executed by a majority of the directors of the bank or banking institution; and said certificate shall declare that the owners of two thirds of the capital stock have authorized the directors to make such certificate and to change and convert the said bank or banking institution into a national association under this act. And a majority of the directors, after executing said articles of association and organization certificate, shall have power to execute all other papers, and to do whatever may be required to make its organization perfect and complete as a national association. The shares of any such bank may continue to be for the same amount each as they were before said conversion, and the directors aforesaid may be the directors of the association until others are elected or appointed in accordance with the provisions of this act; and any state bank which is a stockholder in any other bank, by authority of state laws, may continue to hold its stock, although either bank, or both, may be organized under and have accepted the provisions of this act. When the comptroller shall give to such association a certificate, under his hand and official seal, that the provisions of this act have been complied with, and that it is authorized to commence the business of banking under it, the association shall have the same powers and privileges, and shall be subject to the same duties, responsibilities, and rules, in all respects as are prescribed in this act for other associations organized under it, and shall be held and regarded as an association under this act: Provided, however, That no such association shall have a less capital than the amount prescribed for banking associations under this act.	
Mode of procedure.		
Associations, when so designated, may be depositaries of public moneys, except, &c.;	SEC. 45. And be it further enacted, That all associations under this act, when designated for that purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall be depositaries of public money, except receipts from customs, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary; and they may also be employed as financial agents of the government; and they shall perform all such reasonable duties, as depositaries of public moneys and financial agents of the government, as may be required of them. And the Secretary of the Treasury shall require of the associations thus designated satisfactory security, by the deposit of United States bonds and otherwise, for the safe-keeping and prompt payment of the public money deposited with them, and for the faithful performance of their duties as financial agents of the government: Provided, That every association which shall be selected and designated as receiver or depositary of the public money shall take and receive at par all of the national currency bills, by whatever association issued, which have been paid in to the government for internal revenue, or for loans or stocks.	
may be financial agents.		
Designated depositaries to pay promptly;		
to receive national currency bills at par.		
If associations fail to redeem their circulation, the notes may be protested, unless, &c.	SEC. 46. And be it further enacted, That if any such association shall at any time fail to redeem, in the lawful money of the United States, any of its circulating notes, when payment thereof shall be lawfully demanded, during the usual hours of business, at the office of such association, or at its place of redemption aforesaid, the holder may cause the same to be protested, in one package, by a notary-public, unless the president or cashier of the association whose notes are presented for payment, or the president or cashier of the association at the place at which they are redeemable, shall offer to waive demand and notice of the protest, and shall, in pursuance of such offer, make, sign, and deliver to the party making such demand an admission in writing, stating the time of the demand, the amount demanded, and the fact of non-payment thereof; and such notary-public, on making such protest, or upon receiving such admission, shall forthwith forward such admission or notice of protest to the comptroller of the currency, retaining a copy thereof. And after such default, on examination of the facts by the comptroller, and notice by him to the association, it shall not be lawful for the association suffering the same to pay out any of its notes, discount any notes or bills, or otherwise prosecute the business of banking, except to receive and safely keep money belonging to it, and to deliver special deposites: Provided, That if satisfactory proof be produced to such notary-public that the payment of any such notes is restrained by order of any court of competent jurisdiction, such notary-public shall not protest the same; and when the holder of such notes shall cause more than one note or package to be protested on the same day, he shall not receive pay for more than one protest.	
Notices of protest, &c., to be forwarded to comptroller.		
Association not to do business further, except, &c.		
Notes not to be protested in certain cases.		
Fees of notary.		
Upon notice of failure to redeem circulation, comptroller to send special agent to ascertain facts,	SEC. 47. And be it further enacted, That on receiving notice that any such association has failed to redeem any of its circulating notes, as specified in the next preceding section, the comptroller of the currency, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Treasury, may appoint a special agent (of whose appointment immediate notice shall be given to such association) who shall immediately proceed to ascertain whether such association has refused to pay its circulating notes in the lawful money of the United States, when demanded as aforesaid, and report to the comptroller the fact so ascertained; and if, from such protest or the report so made, the comptroller shall be satisfied that such association has refused to pay its circulating notes as aforesaid and is in default, he shall, within thirty days after he shall have received notice of such failure, declare the United States bonds and securities pledged by such association forfeited to the United States, and the same shall thereupon be forfeited accordingly. And thereupon the comptroller shall immediately give notice in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury shall, by general rules or otherwise, direct, to the holders of the circulating notes of such association to present them for payment at the treasury of the United States, and the same shall be paid as presented in lawful money of the United States; whereupon said comptroller may, in his discretion, cancel an amount of bonds pledged by such association equal at current market rates, not exceeding par, to the notes paid. And it shall be lawful for the Secretary of the Treasury, from time to time, to make such regulations respecting the disposition to be made of such circulating notes after presentation thereof for payment as aforesaid, and respecting the perpetuation of the evidence of the payment thereof as may seem to him proper; but all such notes, on being paid, shall be cancelled. And for any deficiency in the proceeds of the bonds pledged by such association, when disposed of as hereinafter specified, to reimburse to the United States the amount so expended in paying the circulating notes of such association, the United States shall have a first and paramount lien upon all the assets of such association; and such deficiency shall be made good out of such assets in preference to any and all other claims whatsoever, except the necessary costs and expenses of administering the same.	
when to declare securities forfeited,		
to notify holders of notes to present them for payment,		
to pay notes and cancel bonds.		
The United States to have priority of lien upon assets for any deficiency in redemption of circulation.		
Bonds pledged as security may be sold at auction;	SEC. 48. And be it further enacted, That whenever the comptroller shall become satisfied, as in the last preceding section specified, that any association has refused to pay its circulating notes as therein mentioned, he may, instead of cancelling the United States bonds pledged by such association, as provided in the next preceding section, cause so much of them as necessary to redeem the outstanding circulating notes of such association to be sold at public auction in the city of New York, after giving thirty days' notice of such sale to such association.	
or at private sale.	SEC. 49. And be it further enacted, That the comptroller of the currency may, if he shall be of opinion that the interests of the United States will be best promoted thereby, sell at private sale any of the bonds pledged by such association, and receive therefor either money or the circulating notes of such failing association: Provided, That no such bonds shall be sold by private sale for less than par, nor less than the market value thereof at the time of sale: And provided, further, That no sales of any such bonds, either public or private, shall be complete until the transfer thereof shall have been made with the formalities prescribed in this act.	
Proviso.		
Comptroller may appoint a receiver to close affairs of defaulting association.	SEC. 50. And be it further enacted, That on becoming satisfied, as specified in this act, that any association has refused to pay its circulating notes as therein mentioned, and is in default, the comptroller of the currency may forthwith appoint a receiver, and require of him such bond and security as he shall deem proper, who, under the direction of the comptroller, shall take possession of the books, records, and assets of every description of such association, collect all debts, dues, and claims belonging to such association, and, upon the order of a court of record of competent jurisdiction, may sell or compound all bad or doubtful debts, and, on a like order, sell all the real and personal property of such association, on such terms as the court shall direct; and may, if necessary to pay the debts of such association, enforce the individual liability of the stockholders provided for by the twelfth section of this act; and such receiver shall pay over all money so made to the treasurer of the United States, subject to the order of the comptroller of the currency, and also make report to the comptroller of the currency of all his acts and proceedings. The comptroller shall thereupon cause notice to be given, by advertisement in such newspapers as he may direct, for three consecutive months, calling on all persons who may have claims against such association to present the same, and to make legal proof thereof. And from time to time the comptroller, after full provision shall have been first made for refunding to the United States any such deficiency in redeeming the notes of such association as is mentioned in this act, shall make a ratable dividend of the money so paid over to him by such receiver on all such claims as may have been proved to his satisfaction or adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction; and from time to time, as the proceeds of the assets of such association shall be paid over to him, he shall make further dividends, as aforesaid, on all claims previously proved or adjudicated; and the remainder of such proceeds, if any, shall be paid over to the shareholders of such association, or their legal representatives, in proportion to the stock by them respectively held: Provided, however, That if such association against which proceedings have been so instituted, on account of any alleged refusal to redeem its circulating notes as aforesaid, shall deny having failed to do so, such association may, at any time within ten days after such association shall have been notified of the appointment of an agent, as provided in this act, apply to the nearest circuit, or district, or territorial court of the United States, to enjoin further proceedings in the premises; and such court, after citing the comptroller of the currency to show cause why further proceedings should not be enjoined, and after the decision of the court or finding of a jury that such association has not refused to redeem its circulating notes, when legally presented, in the lawful money of the United States, shall make an order enjoining the comptroller, and any receiver acting under his direction, from all further proceedings on account of such alleged refusal.	
Bond and duties of receiver, &c.		
If association denies that it has failed to redeem its notes, it may apply to the courts for an injunction.		
Proceedings.		
Fees for protest and other expenses, how to be paid.	SEC. 51. And be it further enacted, That all fees for protesting the notes issued by any such banking association shall be paid by the person procuring the protest to be made, and such banking association shall be liable therefor; but no part of the bonds pledged by such banking association, as aforesaid, shall be applied to the payment of such fees. And all expenses of any preliminary or other examinations into the condition of any association shall be paid by such association; and all expenses of any receivership shall be paid out of the assets of such association before distribution of the proceeds thereof.	
Transfers, assignments, &c., in contemplation of insolvency, &c., to be void.	SEC. 52. And be it further enacted, That all transfer of the notes, bonds, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt owing to any association, or of deposits to its credit; all assignments of mortgages, sureties on real estate, or of judgments or decrees in its favor; all deposits of money, bullion, or other valuable thing for its use, or for the use of any of its shareholders or creditors; and all payments of money to either, made after the commission of an act of insolvency, or in contemplation thereof, with a view to prevent the application of its assets in the manner prescribed by this act, or with a view to the preference of one creditor to another, except in payment of its circulating notes, shall be utterly null and void.	
Penalty upon directors for violations of this act.	SEC. 53. And be it further enacted, That if the directors of any association shall knowingly violate, or knowingly permit any of the officers, agents, or servants of the association to violate any of the provisions of this act, all the rights, privileges, and franchises of the association derived from this act shall be thereby forfeited. Such violation shall, however, be determined and adjudged by a proper circuit, district, or territorial court of the United States, in a suit brought for that purpose by the comptroller of the currency, in his own name, before the association shall be declared dissolved. And in cases of such violation, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal and individual capacity for all damages which the association, its shareholders, or any other person, shall have sustained in consequences of such violation.	
Violation, how to be determined.		
Personal liability.		
Comptroller may appoint person to examine the affairs of any association.	SEC. 54. And be it further enacted, That the comptroller of the currency, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, as often as shall be deemed necessary or proper, shall appoint a suitable person or persons to make an examination of the affairs of every banking association, which person shall not be a director or other officer in any association whose affairs he shall be appointed to examine, and who shall have power to make a thorough examination into all the affairs of the association, and, in doing so, to examine any of the officers and agents thereof on oath; and shall make a full and detailed report of the condition of the association to the comptroller. And the association shall not be subject to any other visitorial powers than such as are authorized by this act, except such as are vested in the several courts of law and chancery. And every person appointed to make such examinatin shall receive for his services at the rate of five dollars for each day by him employed in such examination, and two dollars for every twenty-five miles he shall necessarily travel in the performance of his duty, which shall be paid by the association by him examined.	
Duty of such examiner.		
Pay.		
Penalty upon officers, &c., of association for embezzlement, &c., of funds.	SEC. 55. And be it further enacted, That every president, director, cashier, teller, clerk, or agent of any association, who shall embezzle, abstract, or wilfully misapply any of the moneys, funds, or credits of the association, or shall, without authority from the directors, issue or put in circulation any of the notes of the association, or shall, without such authority, issue or put forth any certificate of deposit, draw any order or bill of exchange, make any acceptance, assign any note, bond, draft, bill of exchange, mortgage, judgment, or decree, or shall make any false entry in any book, report, or statement of the association, with intent, in either case, to injure or defraud the association or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of the association, or any agent appointed to examine the affairs of any such association, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment not less than five nor more than ten years.	
District attorneys to conduct certain suits.	SEC. 56. And be it further enacted, That all suits and proceedings arising out of the provisions of this act, in which the United States or its officers or agents shall be parties, shall be conducted by the district attorneys of the several districts, under the direction and supervision of the solicitor of the treasury.	
In what courts, suits, &c., under this act may be prosecuted.	SEC. 57. And be it further enacted, That suits, actions, and proceedings, against any association under this act, may be had in any circuit, district, or territorial court of the United States held within the district in which such association may be established; or in any state, county, or municipal court in the county or city in which said association is located, having jurisdiction in similar cases: Provided, however, That all proceedings to enjoin the comptoller under this act shall be had in a circuit, district, or territorial court of the United States, held in the district in which the association is located.	
Proceedings for injunctions to be in what courts.		
Penalty for mutilating notes to make them unfit for reissue.	SEC. 58. And be it further enacted, That every person who shall mutilate, cut, deface, disfigure, or perforate with holes, or shall unite or cement together, or do any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt, issued by any such association, or shall cause or procure the same to be done, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued by said association, shall, upon conviction, forfeit fifty dollars to the association who shall be injured thereby, to be recovered by action in any court having jurisdiction.	
Penalty for counterfeiting notes,	SEC. 59. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall falsely make, forge, or counterfeit, or cause or procure to be made, forged, or counterfeited, or willingly aid or assist in falsely making, forging, or counterfeiting, any note in imitation of, or purporting to be in imitation of, the circulating notes issued under the provisions of this act, or shall pass, utter, or publish, or attempt to pass, utter, or publish, any false, forged, or counterfeited note, purporting to be issued by any association doing a banking business under the provisions of this act, knowing the same to be falsely made, forged, or counterfeited, or shall falsely alter, or cause or procure to be falsely altered, or willingly aid or assist in falsely altering, any such circulating notes, issued as aforesaid, or shall pass, utter, or publish, or attempt to pass, utter, or publish, as true, any falsely altered or spurious circulating note issued, or purporting to have been issued, as aforesaid, knowing the same to be falsely altered or spurious, every such person shall be deemed and adjudged guilt of felony, and being thereof convicted by due course of law shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a period of not less than five years, nor more than fifteen years, and fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.	
for knowingly uttering, &c.,		
for engraving, &c., plates for forging notes, &c.,	SEC. 60. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall make or engrave, or cause or procure to be made or engraved, or shall have in his custody or possession any plate, die, or block after the similitude of any plate, die, or block from which any circulating notes issued as aforesaid shall have been prepared or printed, with intent to use such plate, die, or block, or cause or suffer the same to be used, in forging or counterfeiting any of the notes issued as aforesaid, or shall have in his custody or possession any blank note or notes engraved and printed after the similitude of any notes issued as aforesaid, with intent to use such blanks, or cause or suffer the same to be used, in forging or counterfeiting any of the notes issued as aforesaid, or shall have in his custody or possession any paper adapted to the making of such notes, and similar to the paper upon which any such notes shall have been issued, with intent to use such paper, or cause or suffer the same to be used, or forging or counterfeiting any of the notes issued as aforesaid, every such person, being thereof convicted by due course of law, shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labor for a term not less than five or more than fifteen years, and fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.	
for having blank notes, &c., with intent,		
for having paper, &c.		
Comptroller to report annually to congress.	SEC. 61. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the comptroller of the currency to report annually to congress at the commencement of its session — 	
Contents of report.	     First. A summary of the state and condition of every association from whom reports have been received the preceding year, at several dates to which such reports refer, with an abstract of the whole amount of banking capital returned by them, of the whole amount of their debts and liabilities, the amount of circulating notes outstanding, and the total amount of means and resources, specifying the amount of lawful money held by them at the times of their several returns, and such other information in relation to said associations as, in his judgment, may be useful.	
Contents of comptroller's report to congress.		
	     Second. A statement of the associations whose business has been closed during the year, with the amount of their circulation redeemed and the amount outstanding.	
	     Third. Any amendment to the laws relative to banking by which the system may be improved, and the security of the holders of its notes and other creditors may be increased.	
	     Fourth. The names and compensation of the clerks employed by him, and the whole amount of the expenses of the banking department during the year. And such report shall be made by or before the first day of December in each year, and the usual number of copies for the use of the senate and house, and one thousand copies for the use of the department, shall be printed by the public printer and in readiness for distribution at the first meeting of congress.	
Repeal of act of 1863, ch.58.
Vol. xii. p. 665.	SEC. 62. And be it further enacted, That the act entitled "An act to provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of United States stocks, and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof," approved February twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, is hereby repealed: Provided, That such repeal shall not effect any appointments made, acts done, or proceedings had, or the organization, acts, or proceedings of any association organized or in the process of organization under the act aforesaid: And provided, also, That all such associations so organized or in process of organization shall enjoy all the rights and privileges granted, and be subject to all the duties, liabilities, and restrictions imposed by this act, and with the approval of the comptroller of the currency, in lieu of the name specified in their respective organization certificates, may take any other name preferred by them and duly certified to the comptroller, without prejudice to any right acquired under this act, or under the act hereby repealed; but no such change shall be made after six months from the passage of this act: Provided, also, That the circulation issued or to be issued by such association shall be considered as a part of the circulation provided for in this act.	
Saving clauses.		
Executors, trustees, &c., holding stock, not to be personally liable.	SEC. 63. And be it further enacted, That persons holding stock as executors, administrators, guardians, and trustees, shall not be personally subject to any liabilities as stockholders; but the estates and funds in their hands shall be liable in like manner and to the same extent as the testator, intestate, ward, or person interested in said trust-funds would be if they were respectively living and competent to act and hold the stock in their own names.	
Act may be altered or repealed.	SEC. 64. And be it further enacted, That congress may at any time amend, alter, or repeal this act.	
Approved, June 3, 1864.

CONCLUSION
	Plaintiff respectfully seeks this Court to do their constitutional duty (Oath) that this Court is required to under their Constitutional oath to protect and defend the Constitutional rights of the individual against this corporate giant and ask this Court to protect the Plaintiffs rights according to the "Law of the land," "due process of law," and "due course of law" are synonymous. People v. Skinner, Cal., 110 P.2d 41, 45; State v. Rossi, 71, R.I. 284, 2d 323, 326; Direct Plumbing Supply Company v. City of Dayton, 138 Ohio 
St. 540, 38 N.E. 2d 70, 72, 137 A.L.R. 1058; Stoner v. Higginson, 316 Pa. 481, 175 A. 527, 531. 
	All litigants have a Constitutional right to have their claims adjudicated according to the rule of precedent.  See:  Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000).
The Plaintiff never knew that Plaintiff was entering into a non-judicial foreclosure contract and was never advised about unknowingly waving Federal and State Constitutional rights to have a trial by Jury.  “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” Mattox v. U.S., 86 S.Ct. 237 (1938).
	"Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of enforcement. Without the remedy the contract may, indeed, in the sense of the law, be said not to exist, and its obligation to fall within the class of those moral and social duties which depend for their fulfillment wholly upon the will of the individual. The ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation, which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion. The obligation of a contract 'is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement.” RED CROSS LINE  vs. 
ATLANTIC FRUIT COMPANY. 264 U.S. 109, 68 L. Ed. 582, 44 S. Ct. 274 February 18, 1924 Decided.
	For want of all of the above, Plaintiff now seeks this honorable Court’s immediate intervention for the re-establishment and/or protection of Plaintiff’s rights.  Plaintiff believes, in consideration of all of the foregoing, that Plaintiff has established just and proper cause for this Court to immediately intervene, by enjoining Defendants from any further action, lest further, irreparable harm and injury, and loss of property befall Plaintiff; and, to further issue declaratory relief consistent herewith.
	WHEREAS; Plaintiff states the claims, and as an offer of proof, hereby accuses Defendant of committing acts of perjury by; Defendant claiming to be in possession of the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE; and Defendant claiming to be the GENUINE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE; and the Defendant claiming to be the CREDITOR.
	THEREFORE; Defendants MUST present for inspection to Plaintiff and this court the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE or Defendants MUST agree to Judgment by Default in favor of Plaintiff.
	FURTHERMORE; Plaintiff states the claim: “the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE does not exist,” accordingly there is NO GENUINE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE, Defendant is NOT the GENUINE HOLDER IN DUE COURSE and Defendant is NOT the CREDITOR in this instant matter; and therefore no entity has the right to foreclose on the Plaintiff’s real property in question in this instant matter.
	ALSO FURTHERMORE; Plaintiff states the claim the GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE was “purposely destroyed” by Defendant in furtherance of Defendants’ fraudulent and unlawful acts to “securitize” the NOTE.
	ALSO FURTHERMORE; Plaintiff states the claim Defendant has committed fraud and is committing fraud upon the court by claiming a COPY OF A PROMISSORY NOTE as a GENUINE ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE, and claiming to be the CREDITOR regarding this issue.
	ALSO FURTHERMORE; Plaintiff respectfully prays this court to grant Plaintiff declaratory and injunctive relief, consistent with the findings of the aforesaid, including, but not limited to, enjoining the above-named Defendants, as well as any party, yet unnamed Defendant(s), from Selling, Converting, or, by any means whatsoever, Dispossessing Plaintiff of Property, until all Facts, are Clarified, as to be determined following the completion of discovery, which is now pending, and, to provide Plaintiff, thereafter,  Oral Argument, and/or any other relief this court deems just and proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: This 29th day of March, in the year, of our Lord, 2010.

                BY: ____________________________, agent     
                        Your   Name  here, pro se         
                 Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308 
							 Your   Name  here, pro se
							 12345 W. Free ST.
							 Scottsdale, AZ 85255
							 (480) 123-4567
							 <youremail@.?com>

			VERIFICATION OF Your   Name  here
I, Your   Name  here, declare as follows: 
1.	I am named as the Plaintiff in the above-entitled matter.
2.	I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and know the facts therein stated to be true and correct. 
3.	I declare, under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

 	Your   Name  here, pro per	

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ORIGINAL and ONE COPY delivered to Maricopa Superior Court 

this 29th day of March, 2010.

	I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above COMPLAINT has been furnished by certified U.S. Mail on this 29th day of March, 2010 to: 
Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 1830 0002 8146 2659
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.
ATTN:  JAMES F. TAYLOR, and/or his successor
2380 Performance Dr. TX2-985-07-03
Richardson, TX 75082

Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 1830 0002 8146 2598
HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC.
ATTN:  BRUCE PARADIS, and/or his successor
4350 Von Karnam Avenue, #100
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 1830 0002 8146 2666
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICNG, LP
ATTN:  BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his successor
Attn: Foreclosure Dept.
400 COUNTRYWIDE WAY SV- 35
Simi Valley, CA 93065

Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 1830 0002 8146 2642
BANK OF AMERICA
ATTN:  BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, and/or his successor
PO Box 5170
Simi Valley, CA 93062-5170

Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 1830 0002 8146 2635
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
ATTN: R.K. ARNOLD and/or his successor
PO Box 2026, Flint, Michigan 48501-2026

Certified Mail Return Receipt # 7008 1830 0002 8146 2628
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
ATTN:  ANGELO MAZILO, and/or his successor
400 Countrywide Way SV-35
Simi Valley, CA 93065
ATTN:  Foreclosure Dept
Your   Name  here, pro se

             BY: ____________________________, agent     
                        Your   Name  here, pro se         
                                                                        Signed reserving all my rights at UCC 1-308