Page 1 of 2

Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:28 pm
by Leeds

here is a rough outline of my situation...

i am in court in december, i am seeking remedy under the protection from harrassment act and data protection act

i am taking the bank to court

i also believe the complete data subject access requests should have contained the information i would reqest in the affidavit anyway, as this would have to be part of a full disclosure.

i know he who does not assert his rights has none. i believe have the right to know if the credit issued to me was a unilateral contract. i am not refusing to pay back the loan. i want to clarify the truth.

i know my case as i have been sleeping, living and breathing it for two years. i feel an affifavit is the way to go

i have not gone down the freeman route but am aware of the strawman and the contraversy in court bringing it up can bring.

i do not want to disrespect the judge and have great interest in continuing to gain a thorough knowledge of the law and commerce. i am guilty by my own ignorance and seek remedy through the court.

here is a rough draft (copied and patched together from other affidavits i found on the net)

i would like to send an afadavit along these lines to my bank, giving them time to reply before he court date.

I conditionally accept your notice of alleged debt upon receiving the following :

1. Proof of debt , Validation of the actual debt (the actual accounting).

2.Full disclosure of the alleged debt. (a lawful requirement of any contract).

3. Verification of your claim against me (a sworn affidavit).

It may be wise to take note of the following are the terms of a lawful contract:

1. Full disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature).
2. Equal consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose).
3. Lawful terms and conditions (they are based upon fraud).
4. Signatures of the Parties/Meeting of the Minds (corporations cannot sign because they have no right, or mind, to contract as they are legal fictions).

I demand that all of the above conditions be met and presented in Affidavit format sworn under oath or attestation, under penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability. Due to the urgency and seriousness of this allegation, I will give you fourteen (14) days to respond. If I do not receive such a response conforming to the above criteria within fourteen (14) days of the date of this letter, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that the debt is null and void and non-existent.

Sincerely and without malice, afterthought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,

Signed by : _____________(agent)

All of the Notices, letters and emails I have sent to you thus far have a lawful bearing. If you are not trained in the law then you are unable to deal with my Claims. I have sworn an affidavit and signed it in front of three witnesses. My affidavit was then sent to your office, and you had time to rebut the claims I made but you did not. In law, my affidavit now becomes law. In law, there is no more powerful document than a signed, witnessed, unrebutted affidavit.

my reasons for the afadavit rests on following my own understanding of the law and some of my foundations are based on maxims in the law regarding commerce.

i would really appreciate any advice or help in this.


"If there is no contract there is no case. Contract is the law. Contractual Financial Liability is all that matters; it must be proven."

Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:03 pm
by Jim
Don't panic :grin:

You've been fighting and building this case for 2 years. No-one can possibly know more about this than you. Therefore, no-one can be in a better position to advise you about what to do than yourself. I know that sounds like a bit of a cop-out on my part because clearly you're looking for "advice" and "a solution" but I can't possibly provide either of those things. All I can say is you know what you need to do. You will always have our support.



Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:08 pm
by huntingross
I think jim has pretty much nailed it there.

It is also worth remembering that when (if) their grossly overpaid lawyer turns up, there will probably be no one from the company.....

You could ask the guy in the wig if hearsay is admissable as evidence......the wig should say "no"....then just ask why the stuffed shirt is bothering to they have no first hand evidence to offer the court and is hearsay.

Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:14 pm
by Leeds
thanks for the support,

i really didnt expect it to go this has been a long 2 years. i didnt know anything about law banking etc until i was forced to find out. obviously, i am still shaky and have a lot to learn.

just seen your post, Huntingross. how do you mean, hearsay? i dont understand.


Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:21 pm
by huntingross

If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth

As you are bringing the claim you have to establish the facts.....if there is no one from their side with first hand knowledge then it is hearsay.

Why not sack the solicitor and get your paper work back...and get a new date from the court.

Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:28 pm
by kevin
Leeds wrote:

just seen your post, Huntingross. how do you mean, hearsay? i dont understand.

If I take you to court and your brother turns up in your place to argue the case, the case should go in my favour as the other side hasn't turned up, same with them, if you take the bank to court and they send a solicitor...........

Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:43 pm
by Leeds
ahh, makes sense now.

also found this, it's all quite relevent to this post. i'm learning but not quick enough... it's a transcribed part of a Howard Griswold (phone) Conference. it explains things better then i ever can and confirms what you said about heresay, the rest is here

"[Howard] They need an affidavit from a person who was there at the time at the original transaction and knows of the existence of this document stating that this copy is a true and correct copy of that original document then they can get away with that. They will never get that kind of an affidavit because the bank is not going to help them by writing any affidavits or sending a witness to the court. The bank has written the debts off. They know that there is no real debt and they’re not going to send anybody that works for the bank to testify and perjure themselves that there is a debt. So, because the lawyer that’s trying to collect the debt can’t get anybody real to write an affidavit or come in and testify then he writes affidavits.

[Dave] And the bank already got paid by the insurance company for the write-off on the loan, anyway.

[Howard] That might not be true; all loans are not insured but all loans don’t exist. Because they don’t exist in reality, because they never loaned you any money, because they created the money from your signature on a piece of paper like the application for a credit card or the promissory note in a mortgage transaction and gave you back the funds that you’ve created from your signature they didn’t really lend you any money. So, do you think anybody’s going to come in and testify from the bank that there was an actual loan under penalty of perjury on the stand? No, they aren’t; the bank wouldn’t allow them to do it.

[caller] The bank would be exposing the fraud on their own books, wouldn’t they?

[Howard] That’s right. So, you can be assured that nobody’s going to show up and testify from the bank and nobody’s going to write an affidavit but some lying lawyer. The lawyer wasn’t there. He doesn’t have first hand knowledge and this is exactly what we’re going to talk about tonight—hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is not admissible but it is if you don’t object and this is where the American people fail because they trust lawyers and the lawyers should object. And the lawyers are on their side; he’s not going to object in your behalf..."

i think heresay is generally admissible in civil proceedings but English law differs dramatically from American law.


Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:07 pm
by Leeds
also i have looked up some stuff and sent an email to the solicitor. it was long and it was made up of these feelings

:grr: :police: :geek:

i could end up representing myself yet. i am waiting for a reply.

i am unsure, is it true, only a sovereign can issue an affidavit to a bank?

does this mean the first time my affidavit will be heard, read (or issued?) is in court and that will be my statement of truth as i see it?


Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:48 pm
by huntingross
An affidavit is the start of the trial, the notice period is the duration of the trial and the expiry of the duration is the close of the trial.....anything uncontested, anything not rebutted is the truth.

If it goes to court, there is NOTHING to say....the process is concluded.....submit the affidavit and its game over.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Re: Affidavit to Bank - im taking them to court

PostPosted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:59 pm
by Leeds
ok. perhaps i am going about this wrong. i am not sure what i need to do. any advice or thoughts are welcome.

what i want to ask/draw attention to is about the banks producing credit form thin air. how can they do that lawfully?

they say fractional reserve is what they use but obviously, this is not the case as they are more than fractionally bancrupt and the sums could not possibly add up. clearly they are making it up. both the credit and the excuses.

the signature (ours)is what makes the credit.

their hysterical harrassment and bullying is what gets them assets/peoples property etc and, i beleive, takes attention away from the fact that they have not lost anything as there was nothing there to start with.

the contracts are unilateral and they have not disclosed the truth,

Documents i would possibly like to request

1. The original promissory note, front and back, associated with the loan
2. All bookkeeping entries associated with the loan
3. The deed of trust associated with the loan
4. The insurance policy on the borrowers’ promissory note associated with the loan
5. The call reports for the period covering the loan
6. The deposit slip for the deposit of the borrower’s promissory note associated with the loan
7. The order authorising the withdrawal of funds from borrower's promissory note deposit account
8. The account number from which the money came to fund the loan to the borrower
9. Any allonge, front and back, affixed to the borrower's promissory note fro endorsements
10. Verification that the borrower's promissory note was a free gift to the lender from the borrower
11. The name and mailing location of the current holder of the borrower's promissory note
12. The name and mailing location of the lender's chartered accountant and auditor for the period covering the loan

i require

1. A signed bilateral contract between me and the Bank
It is my belief that this either does not exist or has been sold to a third party without my explicit consent

2. Proof of debt (by showing loss to your accounts)
It is my belief that the money was not in existence prior to its creation with the use of my signature and was in truth created out of thin air and never showed loss in accounts

3. Proof of Equal consideration (what the Bank brought as risk to the contract)
It is my belief that the money was not in existence prior to its creation with the use of my signature and was in truth created out of thin air and never showed loss in accounts
I believe that the Bank never gave equal consideration as they never put any risk onto the table

4. Full disclosure (how the funds were created
It is my belief that no disclosure was forthcoming as deceit was used and I was not informed into how the money was created

5. Proof that money exists (non fictional fiat currency and is backed by
Something of substance)

my solicitor replied and it is a hearing in December, not the actual case. witness statements will be need to be produced.i have zero experience in these matters. i need to convine the solicitor that this is important, not only to me but to society.peole need to know and i want it on the public record.

i have come this far and will continue. i have made notes, so many notes! i need to pull it all together. perhaps i should put my thoughts/findings in my witness statement?

i am not a freeman, i am getting confused as i feel i am somewhere in between free and not, and am unsure of the procedures i should be following.

my case is unusual becuase i want to question the validity of their contracts ( though harrassment is happening to 1000s of people, not many have taken the bank to court. there is little, if anything i can use as reference regarding what i want to do.)

i found the Credit River Case very interesting but cant find other similar cases to compare with.

the few harrassment cases that have tried seem to have sadly failed so far.