WildBill

Credit Cards are Not Lawful

Recommended Posts

7 Reasons why Credit Card/Loan agreements are unlawful

or why you don't owe your bank/credit card company anything ....

1. Your Credit Card Agreement is an unlawful contract as it is ONLY signed by you- constituting a Unilateral agreement. Contract Law

2. All contracts, in order to be valid, must be signed by someone able to bind the corporation in contract.

Contract Law at http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/UK/re...

3. Banks create money out of thin air- they have no money to lend you.

Fractional Reserve Banking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction...

4. It is not possible to actually pay the outstanding amount as the currency is based on worthless paper and 'electronic funds' on computers.

Fractional Reserve Banking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction...

5. You do not have to pay statements, only invoices.

Bills of Exchange Act 1882 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatute...

6. You are not lawfully bound to pay anything which is unsigned.

Bills of Exchange Act 1882 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatute...

7. The uppercase name on the credit card is not your name, but a 'corporate entity'.

Blacks Law Dictionary at http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/UK/re...

---------

Ens legis: "Ens Legis. L. Lat. A creature of the law; an artificial being, as contrasted with a human being. Applied to corporations, considered as deriving their existence entirely from the law." "Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 1951.

--------

Capitis Diminutio

Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines Capitalize adj. as "To take advantage of -

To use to ones own advantage."

Blacks Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows

Capitis Diminutio In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

--------

Capitis Diminutio Media - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

-------

Sui Juris: In civil law the phrase sui juris indicates legal competence, the capacity to manage ones own affairs (Black's Law Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary). Thus in Roman law the caregiver or guardian of a spendthrift (prodigus) or of a person of unsound mind (furiosus),

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum

1. Your Credit Card Agreement is an unlawful contract as it is ONLY signed by you- constituting a Unilateral agreement. Contract Law

Stopped reading here because this one is wrong. All you need for a valid contract is an offer and acceptance. This CC company offers you a credit card and you acceptt its terms and conditions via use of the card. And that my friend is a contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stopped reading here because this one is wrong. All you need for a valid contract is an offer and acceptance. This CC company offers you a credit card and you acceptt its terms and conditions via use of the card. And that my friend is a contract.

When you stopped reading, you stopped thinking.

If you dont KNOW your rights you dont have any..

The credit card company will not be able to show the accounting because they didn't take money they already had in the bank and give it to the vendors you bought from.

They actually created the money (unlawfully) by your signature. There was no collateral you offered. For a legal contract it has to have 6 elements and none of those elements exist in the unilateral application you sent in.

So there is no contract to enforce.

The real problem has to do with subject matter jurisdiction in a Kangaroo court with our corrupt Judges, if one can move it out of jurisidiction to a common law case, it is winneable.

Your head is stuck on statute law, which is bogus and for slaves (But binding if you give it authority), not common law which is for consumers and soverign, free people. (FTC)

As stated by Uniform Commercial Code §1-201(24) and §3-104 (the code that

governs commerce), it is a person's signature put on a loan application,

mortgage application, credit card application, or other promissory note which

gives it value i.e. makes it money. The contract signed (promissory note) is

converted into a "negotiable instrument" by a financial institution and becomes

an asset on the institution's accounting books.

"Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's publication Modern Money

Mechanics, on Page 6 wrote: 'Of course, they do not really pay out loans from

the 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 the borrowers' transaction accounts.'"

ie

"I am returning your presentment WITHOUT DISHONOR.

Are you a HOLDER in DUE COURSE, (UCC 3-302)?

You have sent me an incomplete instrument, UCC 3-115, with which you are trying to induce me by FRAUD, UCC 3-305 (2) (B) and ©, to accept for your benefit.

Please exhibit the instrument that contains my signature obligating me to your demand, under agreement (UCC 1-201).

Please provide me with proof of your claim that you maintain a security interest, UCC 1-201 (35), in my person or property that makes you a holder, UCC 1-201 (21), to make a presentment.

Please present the negotiable instruments I was supposed to sign, that was payable to you that would make you a holder in due course to make a presentment and demand payment.

Failure to provide the above invalidates your presentment, (UCC 3-505).

Edited by WildBill
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you post here, but sadly, getting a judge (who is barely, if not at, all familiar with FDCPA/FCRA) to go along with it will be much more of a fight than the conventional arguments.

Like Momof5 says, use at your own risk...

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Your Credit Card Agreement is an unlawful contract as it is ONLY signed by you- constituting a Unilateral agreement. Contract Law

i stopped reading here,

one signature does not make it a unilateral contract

a unilateral contract is when a promise is given in exchange for performance

that is not what a c.c. is

they are promising to loan you money and you promise to pay them back

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google:

"MPL Debt Verification"

"Ultravires Banks"

Note: I have personally presented some of these questions and cited some of the court cases listed in the above to several CA'S and collection attorneys, and asked them to submit their opinions to me, and to cite existing State and Federal Law which would supercede or negate the citations I submitted. Or if they cannot or refuse to do so, then please "CEASE AND DESIST FROM FURTHER COLLECTION EFFORTS"

In every case, they have never replied to me ! So there must be some truth to all of this. Google the above, and draw your own conclusions, and if you are so inclined, use the information as might be applied to your own situation.

I'm not saying the information is right or wrong. My position is to force the opposition to prove that that it is wrong and provides no defense. Just remember the BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE PLAINTIFF ....and in Tennessee, the code states that " THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE TRUTHFULNES OF STATEMENTS MADE LIES WITH THE AFFIANT", and the HONORABLE JUDGE FRANK G. CLEMENT in the COURT OF APPEALS at NASHVILLE stated that "THE PROOF OF ''STANDING" must be made on FACTS....not CONJECTURE ( which is a statement/s made without foundation or facts)....In other words, don't write a check with your mouth, if your butt ain't big enough to cash it !!

Link to post
Share on other sites
No offense intended, but I wouldn't expect that many folks would take the time to reply this kind of nonsense. They simply have better things to do.

Non sense perhaps...but I stand by my position which is : "THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE PLAINTIFF"

Anyway I also take the position that we should think outside the box and attack these matters using all available resources"

...and before you say this is "non-sense"...please explain how you arrived at that consensus? Explain why this approach is not valid!

So far...the entities to whom I have replied using this approach apparently must feel that there is merit, otherwise, why have they not pursued me ?

As I stated in my previous post " I don't know if this info is good or not"...but I challenge the opposition to prove otherwise....so far no proof has been submitted....and they have backed off...and that's all that matters to me !

....and I refuse to entertain any lengthy argument or debate over this.

So prove that your statement of "non-sense" has merit and foundation, or I shall ask the membership to "DISMISS YOUR STATEMENT WITH PREJUDICE" !!! hmmm...this sounds familiar !

Nascar, your statement of "non-sense" is thus far based on "conjecture"...NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS ! ( see previous post re: Judge Frank Clements ruling on Conjecture in the Tenn Court of Appeals at Nashville) LOL !

Anway, Nascar , I wish you well, my friend !

Edited by Prosay
Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents... There is NO SUCH THING as burden of proof or beyond a reasonable doubt when dealing in civil court. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence.... Which simply means 'more likely than not'.

Second of all I echo the 2 mods above me when I re-iterate... Use at your own peril. In my humble opinion using any of those cockamamy 'logical' arguments will get you laughed out of court most days and your a$$ handed to you the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are legal limits to how much interest can be charged. Usury rates are different in each state, most credit card companies are smart enough not to break the law.

That was the way it used to work, but that was before South Dakota changed its rules and laws, and Citibank was astute to seize the opportunity and moved its headquarters there. There was a "loophole" Citi discovered, that when a company resides in a state like South Dakota, who virtually had no usury restrictions, if Citi lent money to people in other states, the state of the lender (South Dakota) trumped the other states' laws of usury. Those people who were lent money from an out-of-state Citi had to abide by South Dakota's laws. (Delaware is another...one or two other states....Note where the big lenders are headquartered...it's because of the "loophole"..)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and before you say this is "non-sense"...please explain how you arrived at that consensus? Explain why this approach is not valid!

It's simply based upon a flawed interpretation of how the financial system operates.

I've noticed, generally, that these type of arguments tend to be advanced by those who don't seem to have the background to understand what they read and hear, so, ultimately, they translate that information into something that makes sense to them, to the exclusion of all else ... similar to your statement that you "refuse to entertain any lengthy argument or debate over this."

I mean, for goodness sake, you've got some guy quoting what he purports to be Olde English law from the middle ages to support his position (I expect the intent is for us to believe this extends to us, in the U.S., today?) Does that tell you anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, for goodness sake, you've got some guy quoting what he purports to be Olde English law from the middle ages to support his position (I expect the intent is for us to believe this extends to us, in the U.S., today?) Does that tell you anything?

It tells me that I can apply for a credit card, give them all the details of my identity, employment, assets and income. Once approved, I can use the plastic to purchase a full entertainment center and to finance a few vacations.

When the statement comes, I won't have to pay because the name on the card is in uppercase letters. That clearly doesn't refer to me. I am a person, not a corporate entity! Even though I received my goods and even though the bank paid the merchants on my behalf, broad money supply doesn't really exist; therefore, again, I don't have to pay! Even though I promised I would abide by the cardholder agreement at the time of my application, I don't have to pay because there is no signature on a promissory note! I also don't have to pay because they didn't even send an invoice; all they sent was a statement!

I agree with Prosay. The only reason the banks won't reply to his letter is because if they did, then their secret would be out of the bag.

Credit cards are, in fact, unlawful!!!1111!!!111!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why revive this rediculuos thread!?!

If credits cards are illegal, the bigwoodystyl, you would be guilty of fraud, for using an illegal contract to benefit yourself!

Get over the illegal thing. Just don't use the credit card if you don't agree with the terms!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

lheart, I think the prior post was dripping with sarcasm, sometimes hard to see in a posting.

But seriously, this thread is unfortunately representative of the ludicrous pro-consumer (pro-theft) turn that this site has seemed to take in the past three years. Banks were "great" when they were giving out cash and property values were rising 15-20%/yr and people felt rich. Those same banks are now criminal enterprises when they actually expect to be paid back and move to enforce. It leaves me shaking my head more and more and quite frankly, I don't wish to be part of this toxic attitude.

This used to be a wonderful credit rebuilding forum and unfortunately it has become more of another internet cesspool "how to get away with...." and "why I hate my bank..." site. IMO, the admin did a good job trying to lock some of this grabage but its become too pervasive.

But to anyone reading this garbage, beware. If an attorney gave advice like this to a client, they'd be sued by the client for malpractice when the client returns a few months later with a judgment against them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hardly read this site anymore because it seems like nothing happens here anymore. Or so I thought... after a while I realized that nothing was happening in the "obtaining credit" forum which is the main one I liked reading and posting in. I guess there is action on this board but it seems to be more in the "going to court"-type forums, whatever they're called... "Is there a lawyer in the house?" etc.

So yeah, I think this site (for me) had its heyday a few years ago. I guess since credit has more-or-less dried up for the consumer (or at least for the non-high-FICO-score consumer), the site has taken a turn toward "how to get out of paying." Well, if you think it's bad here, I read around on "creditboards" for a while - what a waste of time! It's full of angry and rude people who unleash profanity and worse on you if you dare point out the tone of the entire board.

I just checked the link, "1139 unread posts since your last visit" and the overwhelming majority of them are in "Is there a lawyer in the house?" and a bunch from "collections" - also, there is actually a "post judgment forum"??? and I see some from "credit repair" but they have titles referring to "OC disputes" which sounds like "trying to get out of..." There's also an "arbitration" forum? Also sounds like "Trying to get out of..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess since credit has more-or-less dried up for the consumer (or at least for the non-high-FICO-score consumer), the site has taken a turn toward "how to get out of paying."

If you are looking for an active forum, check out "bkforum.com"....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am disappointed in the quality of the new posters. There is a clear lack of accountability of which I have never seen the like. To me, not being accountable for one's failures is tantamount to admitting one has no control over his/her successes. Largely, I believe in autosuggestion. If you think you can, then you can. Just be prepared to do the legwork.

Unfortunately, there is a pitchfork mentality that big corporations are out to take over in a "new world order". Further, there is a priori assumption that these corporations [especially banks] are inherently evil. These people's minds are filled with sour grapes. They think, "If I cannot attain similar riches as the executives of these companies, then there must be a great conspiracy theory."

Link to post
Share on other sites
lheart, I think the prior post was dripping with sarcasm, sometimes hard to see in a posting.

But seriously, this thread is unfortunately representative of the ludicrous pro-consumer (pro-theft) turn that this site has seemed to take in the past three years. Banks were "great" when they were giving out cash and property values were rising 15-20%/yr and people felt rich. Those same banks are now criminal enterprises when they actually expect to be paid back and move to enforce. It leaves me shaking my head more and more and quite frankly, I don't wish to be part of this toxic attitude.

This used to be a wonderful credit rebuilding forum and unfortunately it has become more of another internet cesspool "how to get away with...." and "why I hate my bank..." site. IMO, the admin did a good job trying to lock some of this grabage but its become too pervasive.

But to anyone reading this garbage, beware. If an attorney gave advice like this to a client, they'd be sued by the client for malpractice when the client returns a few months later with a judgment against them.

Well at least the consumer thought the "BANKS WERE GREAT"....until it came to light that they had been engaging in fraud against the consumer because of illegal foreclosure practice, fraudulent valuation of properties, etc not to mention that many of the leading ''GREAT BANKS" have been proven to engage in "robo signing of affidavits" for the purpose of expediting foreclosures, in which case they have committed perjury as well as committing fraud upon the courts and against the homeowners involved, not to mention committing violation of US Code Title 18 chapter 63 ( fraud and swindles) by sending fraudulent documents thru the US Mail...not to mention violation of wire fraud when they use e-file or some other electronic means to file with the courts.

I don't think it's a question of the consumer trying to get out of paying their obligations...rather the consumers are better educated, more so now than ever, and are demanding that the "BIG BOYS" are held accountable for their actions.

More and more STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS are becoming involved with the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY GENERALS and are now taking on the BIG BOYS and demanding full accounting and explanation of their unlawful practice. I'm sure that you are aware that many lawsuits have been filed in this regard.....and many foreclosure actions have been dismissed or placed on hold by the courts.

I dare say that without the Internet, the consumer would still be "in the dark"...and the BIG BOYS would still be conducting business as usual !

Link to post
Share on other sites
My two cents... There is NO SUCH THING as burden of proof or beyond a reasonable doubt when dealing in civil court. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence.... Which simply means 'more likely than not'.

Second of all I echo the 2 mods above me when I re-iterate... Use at your own peril. In my humble opinion using any of those cockamamy 'logical' arguments will get you laughed out of court most days and your a$$ handed to you the rest.

TENN CODE ANNOTATED:

'" No such thing as Burden of Proof" ???

In Tenn, TENN CODE ANNOTATED 30-2-712(e)(1) specifically states that:

'THE BURDEN OF PROOF to show the truthfulness of statements shall rest upon the affiant"

WHICH LEADS TO: TENN CODE ANNOTATED TCA 39-16-705 (PERJURY)

"A person who, with the intent to deceive, induces another to make a false statement constitutes perjury"

Regarding your statement about getting one's "a$$ handed to them", please explain why a defendant is not allowed to ask any question or cite any law or code in their defense , and cite at least one CASE PRECEDENT where a defendant's a$$ has been slammed for exercising this freedom. I submit that it is up to the court and the judge to decide if any law or code is outdated, amended or overturned...not someone's HUMBLE OPINION.

I challenge you to go to court and tell the judge that the matter is based on "your humble opinion", and you'll be the one to leave court with your a$$ in a sling !

Also, if a judge rules on "their humble opinion" alone and decides to "laugh a defendant out of court" without weighing all of the facts and deciding the outcome based on Case precedent and existing law, that judge is also subject to being sanctioned for "committing fraud upon the court by the court"....and removed from the bench !

I respect your "humble opinions", but I prefer to let the court and the judge make the decisions , based on existing law

In any event, I wish you well my friend !

Edited by Prosay
Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to the tennessee code. Define burden of proof in a civil case. you'll find it's just a wee bit different than that of criminal Court.

And by the way, if any "case precedent and existing law" based in Olde English law from centuries ago work in a modern day court, let me know. otherwise, your theory is just that. An unproven theory. Nothing more. Maybe one of your creditors will get tired of your crap and call your bluff; then we'll see how well it works for you. Until then, all your bluffs are doing is getting them to fold (temporarily might I add) that hand. You're not winning any pots, you're just bluffing your way to one more hand. There will be a time when your bluff gets called and you will have nothing but a jack high.

Link to post
Share on other sites
These people's minds are filled with sour grapes. They think, "If I cannot attain similar riches as the executives of these companies, then there must be a great conspiracy theory."

Yeah, it takes some real accomplishment to figure out new ways to stick it to people. You executives must be so proud of yourselves. Sour grapes? I don't think so. Maybe it's just a general contempt for the overwhelming greed by these companies that are burying the consumer in debt. When you get a CC statement that jumps from $56 to $375 because they "adjusted" your interest rate, do you really expect anyone to just take it in stride with the "oh well, the banks have to make money too" attitude? I'm sure that would make life alot easier for you, but I sure wouldn't, and most normal people wouldn't either. The moment they cross that line is when they deserve to get the screws put to them every possible way. And I won't feel one bit sorry for what the people have done to them. The majority of people on this board aren't looking for a free ride, they're people that lost jobs and are on the verge of losing even more and are just looking for some help. I'm sure if they had the money to pay, they would. Sour grapes? What a stupid and insensitive comment. You MUST be a banker, or in bed with one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, really, workingpoor, what would you do if you were a banker? Run the bank as a non-profit?

People have to protect themselves from being taken advantage of, and from getting into precarious situations. Anyone who is significantly harmed by an interest rate increase has over-borrowed... I should know! I am over-leveraged in a variety of ways. It's not ideal. I got myself here, though... I'm not blaming anyone else for it.

I'm not saying that there should be no regulations or protections in place for the consumer - obviously there should - but for the most part, agony caused by the actions of banks could be avoided by many people learning to live within their means and manage their assets and debts more prudently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.