Back to Sample Court Forms Index

SAMPLE AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF MAINE                                                                DISTRICT COURT

ANY, SS.                                                                                DISTRICT TWO

                                                                                                PRESQUE ISLE

                                                                                                Civil Action, Docket No._________

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a corporation             )

with an office and place of business in                         )

Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of                    )                      

Florida,                                                                      )                                                                                                                                               )

                            Plaintiff                                           )

                                vs.                                              )                                                                                                                              )                     AFFIDAVIT

                                                                                  )                              

JOHN H. DOE, an individual of                                 )

Any Town, County of Any, State                                )

of  Maine.                                                                  )

                                                                                  )

                           Defendant                                       )

I, John Henry Doe, herein after “Affiant”,  “Defendant”, “Borrower”, “Account Holder”,  being duly sworn, depose and declare that the statements made therein, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and not meant to mislead.  

1.  Defendant specifically denies that Plaintiff holds in due course any claim against the Defendant pursuant to a credit card account as represented by an original note/credit agreement signed by the Defendant and held by the Plaintiff that is the subject of this dispute, and demands strict proof of the same by producing the original, unaltered, and unnegotiated alleged instrument for inspection by the Defendant and by the Court.

2.  The validity of the records on which Plaintiff's affirmations of purchases and transactions made by the Defendant showing the balance allegedly due and owing was originally based is specifically denied.  And Defendant demands strict proof of the same by producing for his inspection and auditing the original, unaltered, and unnegotiated charge slips allegedly signed by the Defendant representing the history of his actions under this account from which the calculations of a balance allegedly due and owing is originally based.

3.  Moreover, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sections 3-308, and the Maine Revised Statutes (MRS) 11 MRS 3-1308, the validity of the signature on the original credit agreement and on all  charge slips to this account is hereby specifically denied by the Defendant as an attestation to their authenticity, until such time as the uses made of the credit agreement/note and/or  charge slips if any can be verified  showing that they were not used for a purpose that was not authorized or intended by the Account Holder in the agreement, being sold or deposited into the bank as monetized credit securities of commercial paper money equivalent assets bringing new payable deposit money credit on to its books by which it funded or offset the funding and payment of its card obligations and may not, in fact, represent  being  stolen by the Plaintiff for that purpose.

4.  Defendant specifically denies any affirmations of the Plaintiff' that the performance of the bank to this contract represents a loan, or loans, to the Defendant as implied and allowed to be understood by the language and terms of the agreement, of being money that already existed they would have equitable risk of loss to recover, that was not directly offset by new deposit money credit, originated and brought on to the bank’s books from the receiving of Defendant’s note/credit agreement into the bank as a commercial paper asset of  substantive money equivalence provided to this contract by the Defendant, as is a standard banking practice. And therefore, Defendant further specifically denies Plaintiff's allegations the Account Holder, JOHN DOE, is indebted to the plaintiff, and that any such can be past due and owing, or that Plaintiff has been damaged or made to suffer loss by any actions of the Defendant to this contract, and demands strict proof of claim by production of the book entry accounting of this transaction for examination and audit by the Defendant showing accounts debited and credited in the alleged loan transactions such as any debit or credit slips of the bank’s bookkeeping , receipts, deposit slips or book entry ledger records, written or reduced to computer disc, that factually demonstrate by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles the performance of the bank in this transaction; which accounting, the bank acknowledges under Generally Accept Accounting Principle to which it is bound by law to adhere, is the actual economic substance of this transaction taking precedent over all other legal forms and recordings of the agreement.

5.  The original note/credit agreement signed by me represented, implied or allowed to be understood: by the borrower that the bank would follow the law and GAAP as required by law.

6.  The original note/credit agreement signed by me represented, implied or allowed to be understood: by the borrower that the bank was loaning money that was already there they have risk of loss to recover that was not to be offset by any credit, asset, money equivalent, or thing of value provided by me the borrower.

7.  The original note/credit agreement signed by me represented, implied or allowed to be understood: by the borrower that the bank was purchasing or obtaining the note/credit agreement from me with money consideration from already existing capital, assets, and deposits that was not to be offset by the origination of new payable deposit money credit onto its books from the receiving of the note/credit agreement into the bank as an asset of commercial paper money equivalence provided by me the borrower.

8.  The original note/credit agreement signed by me represented, implied or allowed to be understood: by the borrower   the intent of the agreement was that the party that funded the loan per its book entries was to be repaid the money.

9.  The original note/credit agreement signed by me represented, implied or allowed to be understood: by the borrower   that the written agreement gave full disclosure of all material facts.

10.  The original note/credit agreement signed by me represented, implied or allowed to be understood: by the borrower the loan was not to be anything other than the common equitable understanding of a loan in general commerce and society, i.e., that the bank was offering to lend money already in existence which was its own, that of its depositors or belonging to other banks they would have equitable risk of loss to recover during the term of the agreement until it was repaid.

11.  The note/credit agreement I signed as represented in its language and terms as written was asked to be signed by myself the borrower for no other purpose than as a security instrument to secure repayment of the loan by the borrower.

12.  The terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed do not disclose the bank was to use my note/credit agreement or signed charge slips to originate the funds extended to me as consideration representing the bank's loan or line of credit.

13.  The terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed do not disclose the bank deposited or recorded as an asset my note/credit agreement or signed charge slips and would show an increase in assets, liabilities and deposit money credit on its books from doing so.

14.  The terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed do not disclose consideration to obtain my note/credit agreement was to be originated from or offset by an increase in payable deposit money credit brought onto the bank's books from receiving into the bank my note/credit agreement as an asset of money equivalence.

15.  The terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed did not disclose that the bank was to receive the borrower’s note/credit agreement into the bank as an asset of money or money equivalence increasing the assets and deposit money credits of the bank by approximately the same amount as the loan the bank was to make to me.

16.  The terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed do not disclose that the bank was to accept the borrower's note/credit agreement like the bank accepts money and record it on to its books in the origination of new deposit money credit with which it was to fund its loan.

17.  According to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed, the bank has been charging interest on a principle of its own consideration it has supposedly had to give in making the loan.

18.  According to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed, the obligations and terms of repayment and the rights of the bank under the contract are based on the supposed equitable risk to the bank for extension of its own consideration of face principle to have made the loan.   

19.  According to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed, I have been paying alleged ‘principle’ with compound interest on the full face of the credit extended as if 100% of the alleged ‘principle’ were a loss to the book entry deposit money assets or the cash reserves of the bank as loan consideration dispersed and of risk to the bank to recover.

20.  The bank wrote the loan agreement I signed purporting such actual equitable risk of recovery for the full-face principle of the credit extended.

21.  It was not the intent of the loan agreement I signed for the borrower to provide an asset, money equivalent, or thing of value the bank would use to fund its loan to the borrower.

22.  In the loan agreement I signed, the bank represented to the borrower and allowed to be understood by the language and terms of its agreement that the bank was loaning money that was already there existing prior to the transaction in assets, deposits or accounts belonging to the bank, its depositors or other banks they have risk of loss to recover that was not offset by a like increase in payable deposit money credit brought onto the bank’s books from receiving into the bank my note/credit agreement or signed charge slips as a commercial paper  asset of  money equivalence.

23.  The terms and conditions of the loan agreement I signed do not provide for the bank to record the note/credit agreement into the bank as an asset of money or money equivalence to bring new payable deposit money credits on its books by that amount by which it would fund its loan.

24.  The bank had possession and use of my signed note/credit agreement prior to the making of any loan or extension of any credit to me by the bank that is the subject of this dispute.

AND FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT.

_______________________________________________

John Henry Doe, Affiant

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME, this ______day of _______________, 2004.

Notary Public

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

            I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the foregoing Affidavit, this __________ day of __________, 2004, by, to JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 99 Any Street, Any Town, Any State 99999; and to Clerk of District Court, P.O. Box 999, Any Town, Any State 99999 by U.S. Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, Receipt no.______________________________________    

____________________________________

Jack Doe