"Secutization is Illegal" set off and recoupment

It is only illegal for private corporations. Securitization: The process of homogenizing financial
instruments into fungible securities, so that they are sellable on the securities market. When you sign
a mortgage note it comes under UCC Article 3. After securitization, it comes under Article 8. Under
US law securitization is illegal because it is fraudulent. Instruments such as loans, credit cards and
receivables, are securitized. Enron was involved in securitization and someone brought charges
against them. But almost all large corporations are doing it as usual business. However, the banking
system and the government are also doing it. Jean Keating brought a RICO suit against a bank, but it
was thrown out. But he would have done better now that he knows more about it. It is all
accounting, whether it is banking, civil or criminal court. I submitted the FASB regulations - FAS125
securitization accounting, FAS140 Offsetting of financial assets and liabilities, FAS133 derivatives on
hedge accounts, FAS5, FAS95. These are the resource materials for understanding this process. The
note is not under a negotiable instrument any more, it is a security. All the banks follow these
standards. They set up GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles. The banks are mandated by
Title 12 USC to follow GAAP and GAAS. They have a local FASB and an international IFASB. They also
cover derivatives. FAS 140 relates to UCC 3-305, 306. If you want to instruct them on how to do
offsets, you have to refer them to FAS 133. If you don't know the accounting regulations, you can't
give them the proper instructions for settling and closing. What you really want is recoupment.
Recoupment - (1) The recovery or regaining of expenses Applying the setoff so you can get back what
you gave and what you are entitled to. (2) The withholding for the equitable part or all of something
that is due. This is all equitable action in admiralty style instruments. Blacks: IOU - a memorandum
acknowledging a debt. See also a due bill. DUE BILL - See IOU SIGHT DRAFT - A draft that is due on the
bearers demand; or on proper presentment to the drawer. Also termed a demand draft. A draft is an
unconditional order signed by one person, the drawer directing another person, the drawee, to pay a
certain sum of money on demand or at a definite time to a person, the payee, or to bearer. This is
colorable. Who is holding the debt? A due bill is like a sight draft. They are not saying from which
perspective it is a debt, from theirs or yours. The party receiving the IOU is the debtor, because the
IOU is an asset. It is an instrument, and you are the originator. You have monetized their system with
your signature. An IOU is an asset instrument, not a liability instrument. This is one of the places
where you have your perspective changed. Under the constitution, the government was not given
authority to create money. It is a power reserved by the people. Article I, section 10 restricted the
states from making gold coins. So the corporate government has to rely on the deception of people
to create money. So the way money is created is to have people sign an IOU, or promissory note. It is
not a debt instrument to the one who created it; it is actually an asset. The creator can pass it on for
someone else to use. It is negotiable unless it includes terms and conditions as part of a contract. The
property belongs to the creator, and the holder is merely using it and any proceeds that come from it
should be restored to the creator. That is the power we have if we realize we have the authority to
do this. The intent is to understand the regulations and to see how they are trying to deceive us to
believe we are the debtor and the slave and they are the creditor at all times. This is not true. We are
looking for recoupment. Once we, the creator of the promissory note have signed it and others are
using it, recoupment means we want our property back or have the account set off. Recoupment in
practice is a counterclaim in a civil procedure. That is how one does a recoupment. We did a
counterclaim on the grounds that; with the county, you can do a setoff. You can use the financial
liability of the accounting ledger to offset the financial asset if you have the right to do that. But you
have the right to do that if you are the creditor on the liability side and the bank or lending institution
is the debtor on the liability side. There is a duality here. The bank is the creditor on the receivable
side or their asset side that is the receivable. You are the creditor on the liability side or the accounts
payable. You can use your accounts payable as an offset or counterclaim to the financial asset side
that is the receivable. The bank or the court is using the receivable side of the accounting ledger.
That is what they are charging you with. On the receivable side, you have to pay the debt, because
that is where the charge is coming from since they are claiming to be the creditor like a bank
collecting the mortgage. The mortgage side of the bank ledger is the banks asset and their receivable.
But on the liability side, because they sold our gold... We have the actual gold contract where they
did this. This is not my opinion, we have eleven $50 million gold bonds sold from the DeBeers
Diamond Company. They sold America's gold under contract to the Bank of China. This is not my
opinion. The U.S. did not go bankrupt in 1933. What they did was sell all the gold under a gold
contract to the Chinese government. So the U.S. had to give us an account payable as a cash receipt.
FAS 95 tells us that when they do a credit to a transactional account, which is a liability account, on
which we are the creditor, they give a cash receipt to the customer and a cash payment to the bank,
because it is cash proceeds. In intermediate accounting, when you give them a promissory note. I
gave a promissory note to a publisher for $1700. They accepted it because I gave them the proper
accounting instructions. I did another one to another publisher for over $3000. They accepted
initially, and then hired a collection attorney in one of the biggest collection agencies in the state of
Ohio. They didn't send the note back because a payment tendered and refused is discharged. Also,
any form of viable payment must be accepted. Almost anyone that you send a note to is going to be
making a mistake if they send it back. There is someone here that sent a transaction to the IRS on a
closed checking account. He got the cancelled check back from the IRS. They said the check is no
good because it is a closed account. But the transactional marks on the back of the check say
otherwise. If it is a note put into a bank, it is a cash receipt to the depositor and a cash payment to
the Bank. So when the bank processed that closed check, the IRS got a cash receipt and the bank got
cash payment. Then the IRS sent it back, so it is evidence that the transaction is accepted, but then
colorably and publicly claim it is no good. The publisher accepted the note and hired an attorney. I
sent them a letter and they dropped the matter since they know that I know what the accounting is.
Under FAS 140, you get your setoff. When you make a deposit, it is a cash receipt, a cash proceed.
Everything becomes a cash proceed in commercial law under Article 9. They show it as a cash
proceed. They give you a credit to your account that is actually a cash receipt to you the customer or
the borrower. Then they do a cash payment to the bank. The bank they sell the note. They do a
HELOC, home equity line of credit, and sell it to warehouse lending institution. This is the same as a
credit card. Even on a mortgage loan... A HELOC is different than warehouse lending. I got this from
their mortgage department. They take the proceeds from the promissory note and pay off the
warehouse lender. So the debt on the real estate is extinguished from the books (is that why they call
it closing). They are required to file an FR 2046. This is a balance sheet. Under 12 USC 248 and 347
they are required to file a balance sheet. They are required on a quarterly or weekly basis. They file
these balance sheets with the Federal Reserve Board. I talked to the head of the FRB. They file a
balance sheet with the board. The balance sheet shows the assets and liabilities that they use in the
accounting. The liabilities would be your promissory note. It is a liability because it is an asset to you.
Securitization is the process of transferring all the liabilities off the balance sheet. They can do this
because you never ask for them. They have everybody conned into believing we are debtors instead
of creditors and do not know to ask for our assets. We never ask for recoupment. So why carry the
payables on the books if they have been abandoned. Why not write them off and sell them for more
cash. The government has such complicated books it is impossible to figure out what is going on. If
you give a bank a promissory note, they are required to give you a cash receipt. They owe you that
money under a recoupment or asset. If you take the receipt back, they should give you some money.
They call it an offset in accounting, but in the UCC it is called a recoupment. Unless you do ask or do a
defense in recoupment under UCC 3-305, and a claim under 3-306, you have a possessory and
property claim against the cash proceeds under the liability side of the ledger. UCC 3-306, there
cannot be a holder in due course on a promissory note after they deposit it. They do an off balance
sheet entry. This means they take your note after they sell it, instead of showing it on their balance
sheet, they move over to some other entities balance sheet. It is no longer on the banks books. This
is called off balance sheet bookkeeping. The head of the FASB said that I was correct. They are not
showing the liability side of the ledger or the accounts payable because it has been moved over to
someone else's balance sheet. The IRS does the same thing when you tender them a negotiable
instrument. They accept it and never return it. But don't adjust the account. They pretend like
nothing happened. They move them off the books that the collection agent is looking at. He is only
looking at the accounts receivable ledger. You tender a note to the bank to stop a foreclosure, and
they ignore it. The agent at the bank claims she never got any payment. The agent only sees the
receivable side of the books. He is being honest. It is up to us to make a claim for them to look at
their other set of books. You have to learn how the system works so you can explain it to them. We
need to know how to get them to produce the missing documents. They are only going to produce
the documents that support their claim. The American and English litigation system is adversarial.
They only have to present the evidence that supports their claim. When a strawman is charged with
speeding, he is given a charging instrument. It is the same as a claim by the bank that shows that
someone has failed to make mortgage payment. It is a commercial entry from a corporation showing
that there is a liability on your part that is an account receivable and they are in the capacity of a
creditor and making you appear in the capacity as a debtor. So the clerk has an accounting charge
against the strawman but you are operating the account. It is your responsibility to bring in
recoupment in behalf of the real party of interest which is you because you are the ultimate creditor
if you raise that claim against the liability side of the account. People have a right to travel. So they
have the right of recoupment to offset any charges against the strawman in an attempt to restrict the
right of travel of living people. Civil and criminal court procedure operates the same as the bank.
What is the substantive principal involved in this that allows them to avoid fraud? The government
does everything correctly. They never make a mistake. The government is involved in securitization
that appears to be a fraud. There is immunity for people who understand the procedure. Only the
unlearned are fooled into voluntarily entering into fraudulent contracts. It does not work if you get
frustrated and angry at the fraudulent results of your own ignorance. When you sign a promissory
note to create the mortgage with a bank to buy your house, at closing, they have already sold your
note to the warehousing institution. The warehousing institution brought money into the bank when
they bought the note. At closing, they take the money and closes out the account on one side. The
bank forgot to tell you that you don't have a liability on their receivable side any more. Why do they
keep taking your money? They have become the servicer for the account; they are not paying
principal and interest. The payments are profit to the holder of the note. This is not stealing if we
knew how to make a claim for recoupment. They are using the note to expand the money supply.
Under Title 12 USC 1813(L)(1) when you deposit a promissory note, it becomes a cash item. It
becomes the equivalent of cash because I have a cash receipt. I talked to Walker Todd, one the heads
of the Cleveland FRB. He has been a government witness in court cases regarding BOE. He said that I
am correct that we are the creditor on the payables side of the ledger. The bank owes you the
money. No one is bringing up recoupment as a defense. You waive the defense and they go to
collection on the receivables.

Under civil rule 13, you fail to bring a mandatory counterclaim, which is based on the same
transaction. Under the rules you have waived it because you were ignorant of the rules of procedure.
I just filed a motion in a court case. I took portions of Statement 95 incorporated it into a
memorandum. These reports are filed on OMB forms in which the public has a right to disclosure
under the privacy act. If they shift the assets off the books, they have to report to the FRB where it
went, so you can follow it. In the memorandum, it shows that they are mandated to give a cash
receipt on any deposit. It is a demand deposit account. They are required to show it on their books,
but they are not doing that. They are doing an offset entry. This is not going to trial because we are
going to subpoena the auditor. Auditors keep track of where the assets went. These are special
auditors. We have asked for all this information in discovery under civil rule 36 if they don't answer,
they have admitted them. This is so powerful in this foreclosure that the banks attorney is saying that
discovery and records from auditors do not constitute admissions. Ha! Are you telling the court that
the banks records kept in the due course of business are not admissions? They are hurting. So in our
motion for summary judgment I put in admissions that they admitted by non-response. So now we
have them in a dilemma. The other side is scrambling. They have come out with an affidavit of a lost
note or destroyed instrument. Under UCC 3-309 you have to show four elements to claim a lost
instrument: 1) you were in possession at the time it was lost; ' 2) you have the right of enforcement
of the note; 3) you have to show that the obligor on the note is indemnified by you against and
future claims; 4) the loss was not due to a transfer. They are trying to maintain the allusion that they
are still holding your paperwork because you are still paying them. The allusion is that there is a debt
that is due. I've got the S3 registration statement. That is the form the bank filed that they sold the
note that is a transfer. The attorney lied when he put in a claim that the instrument was lost. We
have the 424(b)(5) prospectus. The bank we are dealing with is Bank One that is owned by JP Morgan
and Chase. They sold it in 1997 right after they got our loan they sold it. They are doing a HELOC.
Most banks do warehouse lending. As soon as they get the note, they borrow the money from a
warehouse lender. They bank does not give you the money or credit. They get it from a warehouse
lender. Then they pay off the warehouse lender with the note that they sell to them. Then they make
derivatives out of this note by a bookkeeping entry. The balance sheet, a 2046, 2049, and 2099, have
OMB numbers on them that are subject to disclosure under the privacy act, Title 5 USC 552(b)(4).
They have to give it to you if you ask for it. At closing and settlement, the reason they actually call it
closing is because they pay off the loan in its entirety. The debt is actually extinguished. Patriots say
they didn't lend any money. But that doesn't rebut the receivable. There is no money. But we loaned
them the note. So we started the process, so we have to help resolved the problem. They do the
accounting appropriately, but there is two sets of books. But if you don't ask to see the books, it is
your problem. This is also what they are doing in the courtroom. The clerk has the receivable side for
the corporation and the judge has the payables. The judge is holding accounts payable under HJR 192
for all the people that come before him if he has the SSN. The judge is not required to be a witness or
bring pleadings to the court. He is a referee. The receivables are the charges against the strawman.
The party aware of the payables is not the same party handling the receivables. People don't bring in
an offsetting claim under the rules of procedure. The judge does not have to do the setoff unless you
raise the issue or defense. We have the right to waive it. So the judge is the priest receiving the
sacrifice for the corporation. Securitization 2 Levy on Paycheck Employer filed Form 1096 to pay Corp
income tax with employee's salary and using accounts payable Direct Treasury Account. Use Form
1099-OID, corrected box checked, Form 1096 and 1040, for refund. Keating's letter to bill collector
law firm HERE IS THE LETTER (Modify it to make it your own!!!)

Dear Mr. Doe, I am writing regarding your recent letter in regard to your client XYZ CORP, being the
alleged creditor in the amount of $1100. Your alleged client has waived their status as a creditor
when they accepted my tender of payment under UCC §§3-409(a)&(b) and UCC §3-604(a). They
did not adjust their accounting ledger to reflect settlement and closure of the accounts receivable
side of the accounting ledger. By way of review, I sent the woman in the credit department of the
creditor, a negotiable instrument on April 24th in the form of a commercial note draft, as an order to
pay under UCC 3104(e). This may be treated either as a promise to pay or an order to pay. Since she
has not returned the instrument to me she has obviously chosen the latter; an order to pay. Under
§3-104(f) of the UCC a draft is the equivalent of a check and may be securitized or monetized by
direct deposit in a commercial checking, time, thrift or savings account under Title 12 of the United
States code, Section 1813(L)(1) and when deposited it becomes the equivalent of money as outlined
under Section 1813(L)(1). The collection manager from the credit department of the creditor did,
however, send me a letter saying that she did not accept promissory notes. She is, however,
precluded by public policy HJR-192 and Title 31 of the United States Code Section 5118(d)(2), and the
Fair Debt Practices Act, aka, Consumer Protection Act at 15 USC §1601 and §1693 from
demanding payment in any specific coin or currency of the United States, even though she has not
done so. Section (d)(2) of Title 31 USC §1518 states that an obligation governed by gold coin is
discharged on payment dollar for dollar, by United States coin or currency that is a legal tender at the
time of payment. The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender is rejected under Section 1-
201(24) of the UCC. It is not limited to United States dollars. See official comments under section 3-
104 of the UCC under the definition of money. The woman at the creditor has failed to perform her
duty as fiduciary trustee of the account. I have done a Notorial protest against her and the account
for non-acceptance and payment under sections 3501 and 3-505(a)(b) of the UCC, which creates the
evidence or presumption of a dishonor. She is knowingly or unknowingly become the debtor and
myself the creditor by operation of commercial and administrative law. Also worthy of note, if she is
going to treat the note as a liability instrument, she has to present it to me for payment, make me
chargeable under 3-501 of the UCC, which she has also failed to do. To the extent that she is in
dishonor for non-acceptance and non payment by Notorial protest on the administrative side, ...
there has been a discharge of the debt in its entirety under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
within the 30 day time frame as mandated by law. I have been teaching and studying commercial
banking law and intermediate and advanced accounting for 36 years. I have a degree in Commercial
Banking law, four years in undergraduate study at USC and four years at Hastings School of Law in
San Francisco. This is for your edification and exhortation. Since I am reasonably sure that we can
come to a peaceful resolution of this matter, as your client does not understand commercial banking
law, and the IASB, the FASB and GAAP principles as they apply to commercial banking. I do a lot of
trading and purchasing in commodities and securities exchange market where the use of a revocable
standby letters of credit, documentary drafts, international bills of exchange, or promissory notes are
used exclusively under the UNICITRAL convention. Your client is not applying the correct accounting
entries under GAAP. She is treating the account as a trade receivable through securitization as an off
balance sheet financing technique. Since she has accepted the instrument that I have tendered, I
have a claim or possessionary right in the instrument and its proceeds under 3-306 of the UCC. Any
defense and any claim in recoupment under section 3-305 of the UCC, which I shall exercise at my
option, if she does not credit my account. The 1099-OID will identify who the principal is from, which
capital and interest were taken, and who the recipient or who the payer of the funds are, and who is
holding the account in escrow and unadjusted. Since I am solution oriented, and want to show good
faith, there are two ways of resolving this matter. Since you client has already accepted my tender of
payment and has not returned it, you can instruct her to credit my account for the sum said in full for
settlement and closure. Or, instruct her to return the original instrument to me, unendorsed, and I
will make an alternative form of payment. Otherwise, I will consider this matter settled and closed.