ASSEVERATION AND DECLARATION

IN SUPPORT OF MORTAGE FRAUD

_________________ STATE )
) Scilicet
County of ______________ )

“Indeed, no more than (affidavits) is necessary to make the prima facie case.”
United States v. Kis, 658 F.2nd, 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W.
2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982

That I, ________________________, a living breathing man (or woman (select one!), being first
duly sworn, depose and say and declare by my signature that the following facts are true, correct and
certain to the best of my knowledge and belief.

1. THAT, Affiant is not an attorney or a investment broker or dealer in realestate, bonds, securities
as occupation, trade or profession.

2. THAT, Affiant has become exposed to the following facts which apply to Affiants Promissory
Note/Mortgage/Foreclosure case/matter.

3. THAT, Affiant’s home and property is being foreclosed upon by _______________________, a

corporation doing business within _____________________ State.

4. THAT, said Bank or Mortgage Company have a brokerage house that they use to set up trust
accounts/trust funds within their so-called ‘Mortgage Home Loan’ business to the general public.

5. THAT, these trust funds are called tax transparencies within _________________________
‘Mortgage Home Loan’ business.

6. THAT, __________________________ does not pay taxes on the in-sourcing or out-sourcing

side of the trust fund that is why _____________________________ set these accounts up with the
Depository Trust Company (DTC).

7. THAT, _________________________set up a trust fund which is a ‘REMIC’, a Real Estate

Mortgage Investment conduit and they have an indentured trustee to disperse the funds, who does all
the funds transfer, then ___________________________ sells off the trust funds as interest and
dividends to direct in-equity participants through the DTC.

8. THAT, all mortgage payments go to the holders of the securities and the bonds and none of
payments goes to the principle interest on the loan, not one little penny of it.

9. THAT, ____________________________________ are selling or has sold Affiants ‘Note’(s), it

extinguished the debt, its called de-recognition. The mortgage is extinguished from the books; all the
payments Affiant made towards the mortgage goes to the holders of the trust certificates or the
1 – Asseveration in Support of Mortgage Fraud Item # 05122011-1/MortCo/ABC
securities and the bonds, which are the Affiants equity or Affiants direct participants through the
DTC.

10. THAT, ____________________________________ monetize these notes, they actually securitize

them, securitize means they take the trust deed and the promissory note and make them negotiable.
________________________________ turns them into negotiable instruments through a REMIC,
they take a bunch of notes and they pull them together and they create a ‘HELOC’, a line of credit, a
Home Equity Line of Credit.

11. THAT, HELOC is called an equity line of credit. That is where the loan comes from, it does
not come from the bank by and through all the papers the Affiant signed at the bank, etc., it comes
from the HELOC trust, wherein _______________________________ gave Affiant an equity line of
credit and they used Affiants ‘Note’ for security and collateral for the loan.

12. THAT, _________________________________ used Affiants collateral to securitize the REMIC

which is called a tax transparency, where ______________________________ got the security and
the collateral for these tax transparencies and the assets, supplied by the Affiant via the promissory
note… as the assets for all these conduits.

13. THAT, _______________________________ is only giving Affiant an equity line of credit, (most
people have an existing loan and a second or third and what they do is, discharge the existing loan and
they charge your account on the accounts receivable)…__________________________ works
entirely on the accounts receivable side of the accounting ledger, which is called an asset.

14. THAT, Affiant has an opposite side of accounts payable which is an offset to the accounts
receivable, which is Affiants counter claim. Affiant is the creditor on accounts payable and the debtor
because on the accounts receivable because the bank is the creditor on the accounts receivable and the
debtor on the accounts payable.

15. THAT, Affiant has funds in the bank to set off the entire accounts receivable which is what the
promissory note(s) are based on. ___________________________ sells the note(s), they don’t
possess the note(s), so ______________________________ does not have standing to bring a claim
anyway because ___________________________ have no possession or control of the note(s) under
Article 9-313, 312 311, says states that One has to have possession and control of the Note in order to
have a security interest.

16. THAT, _____________________________ did not inform Affiant that a ‘Notice of Security’ once
deposited in an account becomes the equivalent of money.

17. THAT, Affiant is the originator under 4A-104C of the first funds transferred… via the
promissory note tendered.

18. THAT, ____________________________ failed to disclose that the Affiant lent the bank so-called
money, and the Bank has to pay Affiant back.

19. THAT, _____________________________ failed to present a prima facie case and only created a
presumption that the Affiant owes money, whereby the Plaintiff has filed into the court record the
evidence of the agreement and ‘instrument’ tendered to discharge the debt and the facts in this
Affidavit herein rebuts the presumption otherwise.

2 – Asseveration in Support of Mortgage Fraud Item # 05122011-1/MortCo/ABC

 20. THAT, _______________________________ needs collateral and security for these HELOCS and
what ________________________ are doing is using Affiants security and collateral to underwrite
the commodities of the security exchange. It has absolutely nothing to do with a mortgage loan.

21. THAT, ________________________________ did not disclose to the Affiant what they are doing.
_______________________________ wrote up a note for value received, and Affiant, without full
disclosure, agreed to pay them back the money and _______________________________ initiated
foreclosure on Affiant when Affiant got behind in payments.

22. THAT, The federal rule is, whatever is loaned must be paid back in like kind. So if they are
taking the position that they loaned Affiant money, but whatever they loaned Affiant has to pay back
in like kind. So, if someone tendered the promissory note, then if there is the demand for payment
then the payment has to be in like kind that was loaned which was again either a promissory note or
other commercial paper. Because there is no money or no real lawful constitutional money of
exchange (Article I, Section X).

23. THAT, Constitutional Money of Exchange is what Walker Todd defines it, it is the basis of
gold and silver coin, which is no longer in existence. So there is no money of exchange? What we
have today is money of account. Which primarily comes from bills of exchange, commercial paper,
or promissory notes, it is all the same. (see attached ‘Affidavit of Walker F. Todd).

24. THAT, When anyone deposits ‘federal reserve notes’, it becomes ‘so-called’ money but lacks
the redeem-ability, but we use the word money, but it is just a book ledger or computer entry.

25. THAT, what ________________________ does within heir accounting legers, they do
electronic and book entries, which, they create money on the books, when they deposit a
note/promissory note in an account, it becomes the equivalent of so-called money.

26. THAT, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial code, a note is both a financial asset and a
liability; on the accounts receivable its treated as a liability but on the accounts payable its treat as an
assets,

27. THAT, the Affiant in having a ‘mortgage’, not disclosed by ________________________, is

that the Affiant is the security and title holder and the Affiant therein has rights as against the fraud of
_____________________________.

28. THAT, Affiant is identified on ___________________________ books because Affiant gave

them a security that they monetized when they deposited the note. Affiant gave them so-called money
and now ______________________________ has to give that back to Affiant.

29. THAT, pursuant to international accounting standards board, then the Affiant as the creditor
on the accounts payable, can use that dollar amount as an offset to offset the accounts receivable and
get rid of the liability.

30. THAT, In fact, the Affiant in signing and tendering a ‘Promissory Note’ to
___________________________, actually gave ________________________ value, the credit, the
‘money’, whether it is a loan or whatever and _________________________ they are treating it as a
general intangible. [court cases say promissory notes are a intangibles but when they deposit that, it

3 – Asseveration in Support of Mortgage Fraud Item # 05122011-1/MortCo/ABC

becomes a financial assets which is a security, UCC 3-102, subsection 7 and 15; a security is financial
asset and a financial asset is a security, and a promissory note is a security, and if
_______________________ endorses it on the back of the ‘Promissory Note’ [which they do], it
becomes an order to pay. [pursuant to UCC 3-104 (e) its no longer a liability instrument, its an asset
instrument which is an order to pay, which means ___________________________have been paid,
and that’s why ____________________________ refuses to produce the ‘Promissory Note’.

31. THAT, If by order of the Court, _______________________________ would produce the

‘instrument’ (promissory Note) it would show that it has been endorsed on the back and it would state
on it to ‘pay to the order of’, ‘without recourse’ and bear either the signature of the president or the
vice president of the bank via the endorsement on the back of said note.

32. THAT, what ________________________ are doing, is taking the monthly payments and
giving them to the holders of the securities, which Fanny May guarantees the payments and what they
do is they get a paying agent from one of the Federal Reserve banks that pays the principle interest on
it. The paying agent guarantees the payment, and they just reimburse Fanny May for it, so indirectly,
Fanny May controls all these loans, because they guarantee the principle on the interest to the holders
and securities of the bonds.

33. THAT, Everything is in the accounting but One has to understand what they are doing with the
accounting. The ESTRY Registration statement tells you what they are doing with the funds and
notes. _________________________ sells everything.(NOTE; most all banks or holding companies
are Delaware Corporations, so everything is done through Delaware. As an example, BankOne
Security Corp., which is a holding company incorporated in Delaware, the notes are sold to them, they
sell the entire account to them, they actually sell the pulling and servicing agreement, they even sell
the rights to payment. These people are getting away with murder because they are selling stuff that
they have no right, title, or interest in.)

34. THAT, there is no holder due course on the ‘Promissory Note’ as any holder in due course
takes in with out notice of any defects or claims of the issuer against the payee? If a person takes it
with notice of a claim, then he cannot be a holder in Due Course, he can be a holder but not a holder
in Due Course.

35. THAT, ____________________________ took the Promissory Note with fraud, fraud in the
factum and fraud by scienter.

36. THAT, ____________________________ is not a holder in Due Course and has no right or
standing to foreclose on [a] the note or the property of the Affiant. (NOTE; Only a person who is a
holder in Due Course has a right or standing to foreclose on a note.)

37. THAT, Affiant has a right of recoupment, a counterclaim or a defense. See UCC 3-305.

38. THAT, Affiant herein has noticed ____________________________ of right of recoupment or

counterclaim via the Notice of Tort Claim sent via Certified Mail number
______________________________ and received by ________________________ on
____(Date)_______, 2007.

39. THAT, If ___________________________ took the note, with notice of a recoupment or a set
off, then they are not a holder in Due Course. (See UCC 3-106(D); it states if a person, contract or

4 – Asseveration in Support of Mortgage Fraud Item # 05122011-1/MortCo/ABC

obligation, if they have notice under applicable statutory or administrative law that they are
taking the note with notice of a defense or claim against the issuer then they can not be a holder
in Due Course.)

40. THAT, Affiant did not sign the ‘Promissory Note’ via the supplemental form and substance
that attaches to the signature at the time of signing.

41. THAT, ___________________________ is required to produce the ‘Promissory Note’ and if

____________________ fails to bring forth the ‘Promissory Note’, _______________________ is in
dishonor and fails to prove the challenge and the authenticity of the signature and
______________________ has failed or refused and therefore cannot bring the note forward as they
do not have a case for foreclosure.

42. THAT, at the time Affiant(s) ‘autographed’ the Note, Affiant(s) were not fully disclosed of
what is going on within the transaction and therefore it is an invalid ‘signature’ that appears on the
‘Promissory Note’ and any other documents signed at that time.

43. THAT, ______________________________ made a material alteration on the Note by endorsing

the Note and then selling it. They sold the pulling and servicing agreement. They sold the trustee,
they sold the note, they sold everything, and they even sold the pulling and servicing rights. (NOTE;
That is why many of these companies are secondary companies that have pulling and servicing rights
that were sold to them by the original mortgage company. That is why these servicing companies
come after the people/affiant via debt collector attorneys and not the original owner and they do not
even have the note, they are just coming after you because they have pulling and servicing rights. It is
called ‘The Great Horror of Babylon.’ It’s in the accounting and it’s complex. When they sell the
note they extinguish it from their books. See accounting rules; 1AF39.10.

44. THAT, There are two sides to the account, the note is an asset on one instance and it’s a
liability on the accounts payable and an asset on the receivables… they are coming after you under
the accounts receivable.

45. THAT, ______________________________ created the value for it, they took the value for it, they
ledgered it into the accounting, and it is an asset to them so doesn’t that offset the liability
automatically?

46. THAT, you also have a claim to possession of property interest in the note, because you are the
originator under 4A-104, then you go to UCC 3-105, which says the issuer is the drawer or the banker
which does the first funds transfer.

47. THAT, When you endorse the note the drawer and the banker, and tender the note to the bank
that was the first funds transfer, under 3-105 A and C, when they deposit it into an account that brings
it under article 8, which controls Article 3. (See what an entitlement holder is under 8-102 subsection
17 and 8-102 subsection 7, which is one defined as an entitlement holder and the other defines the
security entitlement. Security is the entitlement holder who is identified on the books of a banking
intermediary? As the entitlement holder, who has security and entitlement rights under 8-501, A, 2,
and 3, _____________________________ what they did was set up a securities account. All of this
‘Promissory Note’ transaction is under securities and not under what is perceived as normal banking
transactions/deposits.

5 – Asseveration in Support of Mortgage Fraud Item # 05122011-1/MortCo/ABC

 48. THAT, this ‘Promissory Note’ transaction is not showing up in the accounting legers because it
has been brought under a securities account that is why no body knows where the accounting legers
are. (NOTE; This is why One does not understand what is going on and why people cannot possibly
win in court, because of the fraud committed by ___________________________ in their failure to
make full disclosure by producing the right documents.

49. THAT, the Affiant(s) did not sign the Note and ____________________________ therefore
____________________________ is required to produce the Note, along with all accounting of the
Note, under full disclosure and to verify that the Note was duly ‘signed’ under said full disclosure and
that no fraud was perpetuated upon the Affiant in this matter/transaction.

50. THAT, fraud vitiates all things from the beginning. (Maxim of Law.)

THAT, it is of necessity that _______________________________ rebuts this Affidavit point by

point within 30 days upon receipt otherwise all facts contained herein become facts upon the record in
this matter, ________________________________ is in full agreement and is estopped as to any
defense and that _______________________________, fully admits, stipulates and confesses to the
fraud as imposed upon and against the Affiant in relation to any monetary injuries of the Affiant.

Further Affiant Sayth Not.

Done this ______day of ______________________, 2011 A.D.

___________________________________________
Your name - Affiant

JURAT

SUBCRIBED TO AND SWORN before me this _____day of _________________, A.D. 2011, a

Notary, that ___________________, personally appeared and known to me to be the man whose
name subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to be the same.

___________________________________ Seal;
Notary Public in and for said State
My Commission expires; ___________________

Read the following, but delete from your finished affidavit!

6 – Asseveration in Support of Mortgage Fraud Item # 05122011-1/MortCo/ABC

Since your claim is that you loaned us money, if you give us our note back we will give you your
money back, then no body owes anybody anything. They do not have the note; we had the
judge order them to produce the note. When you bind a judge under contract by oath and
bond, he has to rule according to the law; we put this judge under contract. We are a third
party intervener to his bond in the oval office, that’s how you control these courts, you have to
control the court, otherwise they are making political decision…

If they take the note, with notice of a recoupment or a set off, then they are not a holder in Due
Course. Go read 3-106D, its says if a person, contract or obligation, if they have notice under
applicable statutory or administrative law that they are taking the note with notice of a defense
or claim against the issuer then they can’t be a holder in Due Course.

The mistake most people make is they admit they signed the note. One might state; “I did not
sign the note.” Can they prove it? One of the things they have to prove is that you signed the
note. Well there is the aspect of supplemental form as attaches to the signature at the time of
signing, yes. Ok, doesn’t that challenge the authenticity of the signature if you deny the
signature? If ‘they’ gave you full disclosure of all facts, you could then state that that is your
signature (comporting to form!) Now unless you admit you signed the note, how are they going
to prove you signed it? Wouldn’t they have to bring it forward? Sure, ok, but if they cannot
bring the note forward and prove the signature then they do not have a case. The point is, as we
told them, “If we signed the Note, produce it.” Well true, but when you signed the Note or
somebody signs the Note, if they were not fully disclosed of what is going on within the
transaction then it is an invalid signature!

7 – Asseveration in Support of Mortgage Fraud Item # 05122011-1/MortCo/ABC