Dealing with Credit Card Statements

http://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 Counterdemand 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-discontinuepayments-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 DISHONOR

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

From: Mario Kennys site

October 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 doesnt have the right
to foreclose, it doesnt have the right to demand payment either.
The Uniform Commercial Code is the homeowners 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: Dont let the lender get by with selfserving affidavits; take their
witnesses 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 (homeowners 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 back
https://www.gmeiutility.org/actions/Search