Statement of Facts

Maine Media Resources Home American Civics Research Library Bank Loans, Credit Cards and Counterfeit Money: The Fraud of Contracts

SAMPLE STATEMENT OF FACTS

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. ) SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED ) MATERIAL FACTS

)

JOHN H. DOE, an individual of )

Any Town, County of Any, State )

of Maine. )

)

Defendant )

____________________________________ )

)

John Henry Doe, a live-born human )

being, a domiciliary in Any Town, )

Any County, Maine. )

)

Counterclaiment )

vs. )

)

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

with an office and place of business in )

Tampa, County of Hillsborough, State of )

Florida, ) )

Defendant )

1. My name is John Henry Doe; I am a live-born human being. I am not JOHN DOE, and do not serve as fiduciary for this nonexistent juristic entity.

2. The juristic entity, JOHN DOE, was created by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. at the time of the alleged loan without disclosing the fictional status of that entity to me, thereby resulting in constructive fraud.

3. It is a defense to a civil action for monetary damages that the damages arose from the misuse of a form of legal identification and the use of that identification has resulted in the conviction of a person other than the defendant under Title 17-A, section 354 and 905-A. The defense may be raised only by the person whose identification was misused. (17 MRS §153-A)

4. I am not, and have never presented myself as an officer, employee, or agent of the United States, a political subdivision, territory or insular possession of the United States, nor an Indian tribe recognized by the Government of the United States.

5. Maine is one of the several States party to the Constitution of the United States where the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Maine, are construed as organic acts and constitute the law of the land.

6. The ledger-entry hypothecated “credit” transaction originally effected with BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. is therefore null, void, and unenforceable.

7. At Article 1 §6, the Constitution of the State of Maine stipulates that, “The accused shall not be compelled to furnish or give evidence against himself or herself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, property or privileges, but by judgment of that person’s peers or the law of the land.”

8. Collection initiated by MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A. presumed authority of the Uniform Commercial Code (12 U.S.C. §1431 (e)(2)(c)), which is an Adopted Act of Maine and other States of the Union, predicated on the notion that States adopting the UCC are instrumentalities or political subdivisions of the United States subject to sovereignty of the United States under territorial clause authority (Art. IV §3.2, Constitution of the United States).

9. The Uniform Commercial Code proceeds in the course of civil law, which is repugnant to the course of the common law.

10. If a so-called civil action against the juristic entity, JOHN DOE, is filed by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. it will be attempting to deprive me of constitutionally secured due process in the course of the common law.

11. Under the Conflict of Law Doctrine, including the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Maine, and rights, benefits and protections secured therein, are always superior to the adopted acts, including the Uniform Commercial Code (Constitution of Maine Article X §3, Constitution of the United States Article VI, clause 2)

12. A person may not, by force or threat of force, intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere with, or intentionally attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with or intentionally oppress or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, secured to that person by the Constitution of Maine or laws of the State or by the United States Constitution or laws of the United States. (17 MRS §2931)

13. The lending institution, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and any other lending institution involved in succession, did, and in succession, do operate under auspices of a Federal grant of authority, in the capacity of Federal Tax & Loan Depositories, (31 CFR §§ 202 & 203), and thereby function in the role of “fiscal agent” of the United States.

14. As fiscal agent of the United States, the financial institutions, respectively, traffic in what is described as “public money”, thereby predicating all credit and other financial transactions on credit of the United States (see definition of “credit” at 15 U.S.C. §1602(e), Consumer Credit Protection Act).

15. This “public money” is not authorized as a medium for payment of debt by the Constitution of the United States, and obviously, the State of Maine is prohibited from enforcing contractual obligations predicated on such colorable bills of credit effected by mere ledger-entry accounting.

16. Whether demand deposits or savings, deposits in the said financial institutions may be insured only for officers, employees and agents of the United States, officers, employees and agents of the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States, and Indian tribes, as defined at 25 U.S.C. §1452(c) (see 12 U.S.C. §1821(a)(2)(A)).

17. As Federal tax and loan depositories, the said financial institutions, respectively and collectively, may solicit and do business with only those people previously listed who are authorized to receive and use public money (31 CFR §§ 202.1,202.3 & 203.3)

18. Once qualified as Federal tax and loan depositories, the financial institutions, respectively, had to apply and become Federal Home Loan Banks (12 U.S.C. §§ 1421, et seq.), and in said capacity, operate as fiscal agents of the United States to extend “credit” of the United States on all home loan transactions, the said “credit” being hypothecated on credit of the United States. (Obviously, no private enterprise has power to unilaterally grant authority to defer payment of debt, or to create debt then defer its payment)

19. Authority of the Federal Home Loan Bank is predicated on the presumption that loans are made in Federal States subject to sovereignty of the United States under the territorial clause at Article IV §3.2 of the Constitution of the United States (see definition of the term “State” at 12 U.S.C. § 1422(3); also, the definition of the term “dwelling” in regulations governing the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Regulation C at 12 CFR § 203.2(d)

20. Even though State officials participate in the Cooperative Federalism fraud via uniform acts and various intergovernmental compacts and agreements, this colorable authority has no application or compelling force of law in the face of fundamental law (Article X §3, Maine Constitution)

21. Prior to initiating a civil action to collect an obligation to the United States, the said fiscal agent of the United States must secure a determination of liability from the General Accounting Office as general agent of the Treasury of the United States (31 U.S.C. §3702)

22. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. has not secured the required GAO determination of liability (see procedural regulations in Title 4, Code of Federal Regulations).

23. As fiscal agent of the United States, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and its predecessors of interest, are subject to all applicable Federal statutory and regulatory mandates, including, but not limited to, the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552(a)), the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. §§1501 et seq.), the Consumer Protection Act, including Regulation Z (12 CFR §226), and the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR § 1320)

24. The Privacy Act requires specific disclosure on all information-gathering forms, the requirement being notice that any given form is (1) voluntary, (2) mandatory, or (3) necessary to secure or retain a benefit.

25. No information-gathering form provided by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., including the original application form, included the required Privacy Act notice either in instructions or on its face.

26. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires each information-gathering form to display a currently valid OMB number and give notice that if it does not display a currently valid OMB number then whomever the form is given to is not required to complete the form.

27. No form provided by the originating financial institution, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., including the original credit application, displayed the requisite OMB number and notice.

28. Paperwork Reduction Act regulations, specifically at 5 CFR §1320.6, prohibit the interested agent or agency from securing administrative or judicial remedies if and when information-gathering forms fail to display the required OMB number and notice, and the regulation can be employed as a complete defense at any time.

29. It appears that the loan originator, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., operated under color of authority of the United States by altering the requisite credit card loan application by making unauthorized alterations, specifically by not displaying required information (24 CFR §§ 3500.9(a) & (c)).

30. Regulation Z preserves the right to effect rescission in the event of inability to pay even for officers, employees, and agents of the Government of the United States, et al, who may by law receive public money for their own use, and who are lawfully vested with the privilege of using “credit” of the United States for deferred payment purchases via fiscal agents of the United States such as MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A.

31. I was never informed of the right of rescission secured by Regulation Z.

32. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as trustee in interest, has operated under color of authority of the United States, without lawful authority for said solicitation and execution, to counterfeit a security of the United States.

33. Black’s Law, 7th ed., defines “actual fraud” - A concealment or false representation through a statement or conduct that injures another who relies on it in acting.

34. The Truth in Lending Act, as codified in Regulation Z, states that a lender must give borrowers written disclosure on essential credit terms.

35. The money to fund the alleged loan was created from nothing based upon my, the live born human’s, monetized signature, under the banking procedure known as a “created deposit”, deposited into a transaction account hypothecated “credit” and allegedly loaned to the juristic entity. The so-called “money” used to fund the alleged loan did not exist in any previous account with any bank and, because it never existed prior to the alleged loan, was and still is owned by nobody, except the one who’s signature allowed it to be created. That signature belongs to me and was stolen by BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. using deception and misrepresentation. All banks, in effect, never loan their money, they loan you your money.

36. The above stated procedure of created deposits, which actually takes something of value from the live born human being, is an essential credit term that was not disclosed, either verbally or in writing, at the time of the credit agreement; thereby resulting in actual fraud and a violation of Regulation Z.

37. The above stated procedure of created deposits is not a frivolous claim. Created deposits are described at length in the following publications:

169 Questions and Answers on Money, Senate Document 87-240, queries 33, 45, 47,

and 67.

38. Black’s Law, 7th ed., defines “constructive fraud” - Unintentional deception or misrepresentation that causes injury to another.

39. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. intentionally deceived me and misrepresented themselves in relation to the accepting of the signature for value. This has caused BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. to be unjustly enriched at the expense and injury to me; thus resulting in “constructive fraud.”

40. Black’s Law, 7th ed., defines “fraud in the inducement” - Fraud occurring when a misrepresentation leads another to enter into a transaction with a false impression of the risks, duties, or obligations involved; an intentional misrepresentation of a material risk or duty reasonably relied on, thereby injuring the other party without vitiating the contract itself, esp. about a fact relating to value.

41. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., or any of its successors, did not inform me they were going to accept my signature for value, monetize it, deposit it and then create money with it. I was not aware the money used to fund the alleged loan was coming from me, to begin with, created as a ledger entry based upon my monetized signature. This was not disclosed in writing or verbally. If I am required to pay back that fictional money, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. will be unjustly enriched since the money entered into that ledger account was never theirs to begin with. This act by the bank has resulted in fraud in the inducement.

42. Black’s Law, 7th ed., defines “fraud in the factum” - Fraud occurring when a legal instrument as actually executed differs from the one intended for execution by the person who executes it, or when the instrument may have had no legal existence.

43. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. does not possess a contract disclosing all pertinent information re the creation of a deposit based upon the monetized acceptance for value of plaintiff’s signature. This has resulted in “fraud in the factum”

44. The right to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an instrument is subject to a defense of the obligor based on...Fraud that induced the obligor to sign the instrument with neither knowledge nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms (11 MRS § 3-1305 (1)(a)(iii)).

45. JOE BLOW & JOE BLOW, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 123 ANY STREET, ANY TOWN, MAINE 99999, hereinafter known as JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW, mailed an original presentment in the form of a dunning letter to JOHN DOE, P.O. Box XXX, Any Town, Maine 99999, hereinafter, Respondent, regarding an alleged debt of $2,000.00 with BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., on ____________, 2003,

46. Respondent mailed a counter-presentment, hereinafter known as Debt Collector Disclosure Statement, to JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW via Certified Mail, Return Signature Requested, receipt number 7005 0920 0013 6509 2365, on January 17, 2003, containing six (pages) and 70+ questions in order to verify the validity of the debt, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Exhibit A)

47. The Debt Collector Disclosure Statement was received by: K. Doe of JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW on _____________, 2003.

48. The Debt Collector Disclosure Statement, offered as a counter-presentment, stipulated all questions must be answered truthfully and honestly under penalties of perjury within thirty (30) days of receipt, or referenced alleged debt will be considered to be invalid.

49. JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW failed to respond within the plainly stipulated thirty (30) day time period,

50. Joe Blow, Esq. of JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW did respond nearly 150 days late with copies of statements (Exhibit B) showing merely an alleged debt between BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Respondent, and a copy of an alleged credit agreement (Exhibit C),

51. A monthly billing statement is only prima facie evidence of a debt, and not evidence of a legal, bona fide contract,

52. The copy of the alleged credit agreement was not a certified copy, not readable due to copier distortion, and did not appear as a promissory note, or other debt instrument,

53. The original Debt Collector Disclosure Statement has not been answered in full,

54. Pursuant to the terms of the counter-presentment JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW tacitly agrees, by non-response to Debt Collector Disclosure Statement, that there is no verifiable, bona fide debt between JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW and Respondent, or BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and Respondent; JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW also waives all claims against Respondent and indemnifies and holds Respondent harmless against any and all costs and fees heretofore and hereafter incurred and related re any and all collection attempts involving the hereinabove-referenced alleged account. Any attempt to collect an unverified debt is in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW may be liable for damages for any continued collection efforts, as well as any other injury sustained by Respondent.

55. Because BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. continued to pursue a collection activity after refusing to verify the alleged debt, they are in violation of The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using interstate communications in a scheme of fraud by using threat, intimidation, deception, and enticement to coerce me to commit some act creating a legal disability where none exists.

Dated January 1, 2003, at Any Town, Maine

_________________________________

John Henry Doe

In propria persona

c/o P.O. Box XXX

Any Town, Maine (99999)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have mailed a copy of the foregoing Answer/Judicial Notice and Counterclaim, this __________ day of __________, 2003, by U.S. Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, to JOE BLOW AND JOE BLOW, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, 123 Any Street, Any Town, Maine 99999 Receipt no. _________________________ and Clerk of District Court, P.O. Box xxx, Any Town, Maine 999999Receipt no.______________________________________

____________________________________

Jack A. Doe

Back to Answer/Counterclaim