I am not an attorney but from what I gather a note, a mortage ., anything entered into by a bank prohibited by the Constitution is illegal.

…a have a notation on a citation of a case I looked at when I was in Federal Court case here
.. a bank can lend it money, but not its credit
First National Bank of Tallalpoosa V Monroe

I was reading reading reading all night my mind is tired.

marilyn,

Ultra vires is an interesting doctrine. Do the cases you’ve cited speak directly to the lending of credit by banks being ultra vires, or are you extending that doctrine to the practice of banks yourself?

To Stupendous

From the Title of the case it looks like a bank case

Community Federal Savings & Loan v. Field

and on the other I don’t know what F & PR Richmond

I found some good info about what I vent is talking about

A Bank cannot lend its credit but can only lend their Money and all Loans of credit are Ultra Vires.

…Act is ultra vires when corporation is without authority to perform it under any circumstances or for any purpose.
By doctrine of ultra vires a contract made by corporation beyond the scope if its corporate powers is unlawful
Community Fed S & L., v Field 126 F 2nd 705

…when a contract is once declared ultra vires the fact that it is executed does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of suit or action, nor does the doctrine of estoppel apply
F & PR Richmond 133 Se 888: 144 SE 501 151 Va 195

Not being an attorney I did research my own way which included looking up the meaning of every single word in a court rule to make sure I got it right. So I accumulated alot of information in my head that had nothing to do with my case. If my memory serves me right I remember the issue of
“fraud against the court” where if an officier of the court (a judge, a law clerk etc ) committed fraud there was no latches to that case and so no statute of limitations. I have to find out where in ;my head I have that information.

Meanwhile about settlement, : I think if someone is not your agent they are not allowed to settle for “you” they have no standing.”

Rosa Park started a movement all by herself. I think I vent has already started a movement. He is our Paul Rivere i always thought that I vent was a girl. Either way I vent is telling us how we are getting ambushed. Now that we are all starting to see the bigger picture we have to get more organized.

Marilyn,
I am indeed, in agreement ,with you that the courts are not on the level, and they do not act for the people. My case lasted several months before some law student (can’t believe that it could be the judge) wrote an order that did not address the question but lent credence to a position that was invented for me by opposing council. My choice not to appeal was based upon economic necessity rather than abdication of position.
I still cannot see how a sanction against a state(art one sec ten) can be interpreted to include a private citizen or banking institution. (invention of money) However, I am so glad that you brought up that section of the constitution. It goes on to say that a state cannot allow any other medium save gold or silver to serve as payment of debt. “make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;”. It seems to follow that if I owe the bank an amount tallied in FED reserve notes, I could not repay but for gold or silver. At what exchange rate? If it is illegal for me to repay debt with debt instruments, then is there is no practical way to repay? So glad that you brought this up!

BTW Shays is a great cause to bring up in relation to our present situation. It was also a reaction to thieving European bankers!

Any judge with all his marbles knows that Shay’s Rebellion is the incident that gave birth to our Constitution. History is repeating itself and the Constitution was written prepared for that.

In 1997 when the bank hid four of my checks and the State Court refused to acknowledge that, I filed a Secus Federal Petition upon Federal Question to rule on:
1.Can a bank create their own money in direct prohibition to Art 1 Para 10 Cl 1 of the Constitution?
2.Can a bank ignore the Federal mandated 30 day Notice?

The Hon. Louis L Stannton read my Petition, accepted it for filing and when Judge Stanton sent me to the Federal Clerk to pay my fee and get a docket number I demanded a jury trial.

Shortly thereafter, Judge Stanton wrote his first orders and made a directive that I make a written demand upon the bank for a money settlement. I did that.

The attorneys for the bank stalled. They were in a panic. She wants a free house and money too!!!

I was only in Federal Court for three months when Judge Stanton abruptly remanded the case back to State Court. There is no way that Judge Stanton understood my Petition when he accepted it and un-understood it when he remands it. Judge Stanton did not lose his marbles in three months. It was politics.

When you demand a jury trial it is the jury that has to agree, disagree, dismiss or remand to state court, not
the judge.

That is what you are up against not the law. The law is one your side It’s the politics.

The very heart of what the Constitution was written to prevent – …no state shall coin money, nor emit bills of credit… is what is over taking the Constitution.

If our own Judges make war with the Constitution our country is in a downward spiral. But I believe the Judges if they haven’t, are starting to see what is happening to our country, when this fake money issued have invaded their pensions. There is nothing like something hitting home that makes someone pay attention.

As for I vent, it is easier to read and get the message when it is written in lower case and not caps but
PAUL REVERE HAD TO SHOUT!

Yes, I know what that means.

I have a copy of my state, and our federal, constitutions nearby. Less than arms length away actually. I refer to them frequently. I order ten (10) copies every month from my local legislative research commission and they fill my order for free. I then pass them out to ANYONE that is willing to accept them. I have raised the “constitutional consciousness” in my rural county. How much is debatable, but at least folks are provided an easy opportunity to read these seminal documents and begin to gain an understanding of them. There are at least a few that have become quite interested in applying the constitution/s, the authorities granted by them, as well as the limits and disabilities imposed by them, in the present context. Rather eye opening for them.

I am well acquainted with Article 1, Section 10. I’m also acquainted with Article 1, Section 8 (they dovetail together nicely). Additionally I’ve done significant reading and study of our monetary system, both current and historical, for the past ten (10) years. While I’m far from being a constitutional, or monetary, scholar I am a devoted student. My grasp of our monetary system exceeds that of most people.

Still I would not go into court basing ANY of my arguments on what I know of our monetary system. Other than the decision mentioned previously in this thread, the Scott County MN case of First National Bank of Montgomery v Daly, from December of 1968, I am not aware of even one other recent case in which the “vapor money theory” has been argued successfully. I have no interest in putting forth an argument which practically guarantees I will have my hat handed to me. ALL of my chips are in this hand and winning is my most important goal (though not the only one I have). I am interested in putting forth arguments the court will hear, and arguments I can prove. Frequently you must have the former before you’re afforded an opportunity at the latter.

The California Fed. Dist. Court I provided yesterday summed up quite well the courts current views on this. Did you read that case? Did you note how many recent and similar cases were cited within that case? Did you note the completely unambiguous language the court used to express its opinion?

At this point it has taken me 3.5 years of very hard work to have the erroneous lower court decision of 2008 that granted summary judgment to plaintiff overturned on appeal. I expect to be litigating several more years. I DO have some solid arguments, and intend to press them. These are arguments the court WILL hear, and that I believe I can prove to the satisfaction of a jury of my peers. While this is an emerging area of the law, and I am willing to incorporate newer successful arguments as they emerge (if they fit the circumstances of my case), I am also clear that as a pro se litigant I have significant enough hurdles in the courtroom without putting forth arguments the court will not hear at all.

If someone were to step forward and make an articulate argument in regard to our monetary system, and actually win the case in a superior court, I’d be the first to congratulate them. I might also be the first to follow them. But that isn’t a trail I am willing to blaze. I feel being the “lone voice in the wilderness” in foreclosure defense in my state is already enough of a burden for me to carry.

The only person I can think of that MIGHT be able to argue and win on this issue is Ed Vieira. If you haven’t already seen or read any of his book “Pieces of Eight” I highly recommend it. It is out of print but there are used copies available. Kind of pricey though. The last time I looked, about a month ago, the least expensive copy I found was $350.00. I wonder if they would accept silver coin?

Opps! I misspoke when I said that the States were free to print other mediums of exchange. Researching further, I find that I have to retract that statement. They are not. Thanks! Great topic!