A LOAN is Actually A Deposit of Money By A Customer With Banker

A LOAN is Actually A Deposit of Money By A Customer With Banker

A LOAN is: Deposit Of Money By A Customer With Banker; Gimbel Bros. v. White, 10 N.Y.S.2d 666, 667, 256 App.Div. 439 Black's Law Dictionary Fourth Edition (page 1085)

Did You Really get A Loan?

Did you really get a loan when you contracted to borrow money from the bank to pay for your home? Or was it just an exchange (your note for cash), but the bank called it a loan? Or did two loans occur?

The banker says, repay the loan because the bank lent you money. We simply ask one question: Should the one who funded the loan be repaid the money? Whether they answer YES or NO, the bank must forgive the loan and zero out the debt. That is the one question that they do not want to answer because the borrower funded the loan as proven by the bank's own bookkeeping entries.

Before an attorney can sue for foreclosure, he must show that the defending party (you) breached the agreement. The attorney needs a witness to give testimony that there is an agreement and that the agreement has been breached.

If Rich (as an example) testifies in court that there was a loan when he knew that there was only an exchange of equal value, Rich would be giving false testimony and would be called a false witness.

In a normal court foreclosure, the lender does not come to court to give testimony. The bank attorney uses the alleged promissory note with the alleged borrower's signature as the witness in court to claim that there is an agreement, that there was a loan, that the lender fulfilled his agreement, and that the alleged borrower did not fulfill the agreement to repay the money. Instead of the attorney using Rich to give oral testimony, the attorney used the promissory note as the witness as the evidence to sue the alleged borrower.

There is a legal concept of form vs. substance. The form is the promissory note, which says that the lender lent money to the alleged borrower. The substance is the money trail - the bookkeeping entries. The substance shows that there were two loans exchanged - equal value for equal value. The borrower was required to repay his loan to the bank plus interest, but the bank never repaid the debt it owes to you. IOU was exchanged for IOU. The two newly created IOUs cancel each other.

Acts in reference to the issue of whether "greenbacks" could be used to pay state taxes. In Perry v. Washburn, 20 Cal.318 (1862), the California Supreme Court ruled that United States notes could not be used to pay state taxes, especially where a California statute required taxes to be paid in coin. In State Treasurer v. Collector Sangamon County, 28 Ill. 509, 512 (1862)

The Colorado Constitution Page 12 states only coin can be used to pay debts. §10. Powers denied individual states. (1) No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque or reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

In reference to the lawfulness of the "greenback" currency of the Union, this issue involved not one single case but a multiple of cases spanning some 15 years. Before delivering any opinion wherein a challenge to the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Acts was concerned, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered certain opinions in cases related to this issue. In Bronson v. Rodes, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 229 (1869), the Court held that a bond requiring payment in specie coin could not be discharged by paying "greenbacks."

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/211365357/A-LOAN-is-Actually-A-Deposit-of-Money-By-A-Customer-With-Banker