Dealing with Credit Card Statementshttp://sovereignwarriors.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=6194679%3ABlogPost%3A274001&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Someone asked about using UCC 9-210 to challenge a credit card statement.http://sovereignwarriors.ning.com/forum/topics/ucc-9-210-and-default-letters

But why ask them for an account statement? That alone identifies you as a debtor. I want to see them to back up their claim that THEY're a creditor. I.e. I'd send them a Counter-demand under UCC 3-501, demanding that they exhibit the instrument and identify the creditor and their 'holder in due course' authority.

Furthermore, who really is the creditor? The bank did NOT lend you its own money. They used your signature to get credit from the US Treasury to fund your account. Which means that the REAL creditor is the United States. You know, the same United States which is bankrupt and pays you for your labor with green paper PROMISSORY NOTES instead of real money.

So the CC company basically is just a debt servicer and agent of US, the real creditor.

So if you demand redemption of your paychecks under 12USC411, then US is your DEBTOR, and so you should have the authority to SET OFF or A4V such public debts, against what the US owes you.

BTW here's a suggestion on how to use UCC 3-501 in case of foreclosures and mortgages.

https://tawebster.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/ucc-3-501-allows-borrower-to-discontinue-payments-without-dishonor/

Furthermore, you also might respond to credit card statements by returning them and asking what they want you to do with it? Do they want it to be paid, signed or accepted for value? And if they want it to be paid, who should pay it and with what? I mean, those are STATEMENTS and not real bills, so you're entitled to ask for explanation.

And if they want DOLLARS, then where exactly can you get them? I don't know about any definition of dollar, other than those that define dollar as about 0.77 Toz of silver, and there are no silver dollars in circulation. FRNs aren't dollars, they're only promises to pay dollars. And if they want FRNs, I'll be happy to give them those as soon as they show me a law or legal definition of the $ sign as Federal Reserve Note.

And if they fail to answer, then you have a valid reason NOT to pay those. If they're the creditor, then they're liable to specify what their account statement means. And one might add something like this: "Your failure to explain EXACTLY what you require of me, or making unreasonable demands, shall be considered a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted".

UCC 3-501 also requires a servicer to show authority to make a demand for payment, if it does not own the note, but is merely servicing it. In the event a noteholder or servicer or will not exhibit the note or perform other legal requirements when requested to do so by the borrower, this UCC section allows the borrower to discontinue payments WITHOUT DISHONOR until such time as the noteholder or servicer complies with all laws or contract provisions.

Oh and if the CC company is just a servicer for the real creditor (US), then it seems to me that it should be their duty, to forward your A4V banker's acceptances to US for discharge. The reason they don't, is because they pretend to be the real creditor, and if you accept that, then you owe payment to them, and they don't have to accept your A4Vs.

So the key would seem to be to challenge their creditor status, which gives them a choice to either admit that US is the real creditor, in which case A4V should work, or to keep claiming that they're the real creditor, which they can't back up, because they didn't really lend you anything.

UCC 3-501 allows borrower to discontinue payments WITHOUT DISHONORhttps://tawebster.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/ucc-3-501-allows-borrower-to-discontinue-payments-without-dishonor/

From: Mario Kenny’s siteOctober 25, 2009 

I am an attorney who has taken “produce the note” one step further. I am current on my mortgage, and actually what prompted me to take the action I am taking is that I had paid off my second mortgage but my lender refused to surrender my paid off second mortgage note. My lender also refused to prove to me that it had my first mortgage note or that it had the authority to make payment demands.  So I decided to sue my lender. 

I decided that if the “produce the note” strategy was working for people who were in default, it would work for those who are not in default. If the bank doesn’t have the right to foreclose, it doesn’t have the right to demand payment either.

The Uniform Commercial Code is the homeowner’s best friend. 

UCC 3-501 requires a lender to “exhibit the note” when the lender makes demand for payment, and the borrower demands to see the note. Technically a demand for payment occurs every month, and it also occurs when a bank begins foreclosure proceedings. 

UCC 3-501 also requires a servicer to show authority to make a demand for payment, if it does not own the note, but is merely servicing it. In the event a noteholder or servicer or will not exhibit the note or perform other legal requirements when requested to do so by the borrower, this UCC section allows the borrower to discontinue payments WITHOUT DISHONOR until such time as the noteholder or servicer complies with all laws or contract provisions.

 

Also helpful is UCC 3-309. UCC 3-309 requires the lender go through certain steps to prove up a note (make it enforceable) that is lost or destroyed. This is not easy for the lender to do, if one is willing to contest everything the lender does to try to prove up the note. This proof takes witnesses, who may not be able to say what the law requires, if the witnesses are thoroughly cross-examined. (Tip: Don’t let the lender get by with self-serving affidavits; take theirwitnesses’ depositions). Moreover, this section requires the lender to give adequate protection in the event the lender can make the lost note enforceable. That may be difficult for a lender that is under FDIC scrutiny and whose stock is in the tank. 

I filed suit in March and so far my lender has vigorously put off answering my suit with what I believe was a meritless motion to dismiss, but has not yet produced either note, and has confirmed my unpaid note was sold to Fannie Mae. This is clearly a justiciable controversy as will be clear when I ask the court to allow me to put my future payments into the registry of the court until the note is proven up and authority to make demand is proven.

If the bank really believed it had the evidence to compel me to pay, it would have gladly produced the note by now with proof of authority to demand payment. They have steadfastly avoided having to do this. Chances are the note is lost or destroyed.

It gets even better. MERS is the sole beneficiary of my Deed of Trust (quite often the case for homeowners on Deeds of Trust since 2000).  The Arkansas Supreme Court has just ruled in March of this year that MERS was not the beneficiary of a Deed of Trust (with language verbatim to mine) despite what the Deed of Trust said, because MERS has no interest in the note payments or in the corpus of the trust (homeowner’s obligation to pay). No beneficiary means the Deed of Trust is fatally flawed. 

More and more it is looking like I will have the lien on my home removed and I may well never have a noteholder to pay. I could even get some of my money back.

Found something that might be of interest on another group re use/abuse of who may be profiteering by 'investing' in sub-account creates off BC that others might like to look up for themselves:

enter a social security number ,include dashes,and see who has invested around the planet and made bank off your backhttps://www.gmeiutility.org/actions/Search