Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

This complaint/dispute is in regards to the account for 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL that is being reported to my XXXX credit report. 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL XXXX is the alleged lender. 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL is a financial institution. Every financial institution is bound by federal laws, GAAP, and their own policy and procedures. I disputed this alleged debt on my credit report over 6 months ago multiple times on CFPB afterwards the account was not removed from the XXXX credit report and 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL sent me a copy of a promissory note with what appears to be my signature on the note claiming that I owed them a debt. Promissory notes are promises to pay. I received a copy of the note from 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL this makes me a holder in due course. When I endorsed the note on the day the agreement was made XXXX loans were exchanged. I loaned my promissory note to 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL after they received the note they then deposited the note. 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL then used my promissory note to fund the bank loan check that they later loaned to me. All Deposits are actually loans to the bank. 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL did not lend me the their money. 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL loaned me my own money by using the promissory note I loaned them to fund the bank check. In doing so 1st FRANKLN FINANCIAL violated GAAP. The bank knew the truth and what their intent was. The bank wrote the agreement, they advertised and had the intent proven by the bookkeeping entries. They claimed there was a loan when, in fact, the economics prove that no loan existed. That there was an exchange and a charge as if there was a loan, I believe this shows that the bank intended to make false statements, false representations, to conceal the exchange in the agreement with the intent to reinforce a false impression, and failed to correct a false impression by showing the true intent in the written agreement and bank advertising. Why did the bank change and conceal the true intent? It obviously changes the cost and the risk of the alleged loan. The exchange allows the bank to obtain my assets for free and to force me to pay them interest on what they received from me for free. Can we prove the intent of the borrower? Sure we can. What borrower do you know that is stupid enough to agree to give the bank a gift of over XXXX $ actual cash value while at the same time receiving nothing and paying principle and interest on the borrowers own money. The bank has to follow GAAP all banks do.

I loaned the promissory note to 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL. 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL then deposited the note creating a new bank liability and then returned my loan to them back to me as a loan. The bank gave me nothing of value. How would you feel if you loaned someone money and that person you loaned money to came back to you and demanded you pay them the same amount you just loaned them plus interest. Any CPA bank auditor will tell you a XXXX $ bank liability means the bank owes XXXX $ of legal tender. Now I will ask you what is a check? The banks CPA may say a check is money or merely and order to pay money. I would say to the banks CPA according to the Uniform Commercial Code, it is money or merely a an order to pay money? If the bank CPA has the competence to answer the question the bank CPA would confess that it is not money, it is merely an order to pay money. I would then ask According to the standard bank bookkeeping entries and according to the Federal Reserve Bank policy and procedures, who provided the original capital to fund the bank loan check? Was it the bank or the borrower? The bank CPA will not answer that because the CPA knows they may go to jail. The check and liability is not money. The bank must pay XXXX $ to the borrower for the bank to legally own the promissory note not loan the borrower back their own money. A loan is money advanced to a borrower to be repaid at a later date usually with interest. The bank records legal tender as an asset. This refutes any claim that the bank has a license to create the opposite of legal tender ( bank liability called checkbook money owing legal tender ) and loan the opposite of legal tender to the borrower. It is standard policy for the banks to record promissory notes as a loan from the borrower to the bank. I have the Federal Reserve Bank publications showing the standard bank bookkeeping entries, which recorded the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a new bank liability. This is economically the same as loaning the promissory note to the bank, and the bank loaning the value back to you. If it is material to disclose a loan from the bank to you, it is equally material to disclose a loan from the borrower to the bank. If it was not a loan, it had to be a theft. The note was not a gift without my knowledge. The banks create money ( bank IOUs ) based on a borrowers promise to repay. The publication then explains how the alleged borrower 's promissory note and secured collateral gives the newly created bank IOU value. The banks create money " against the value of those IOUs. '' The IOUs they are referring to are the alleged borrower 's promissory notes. It continues to explain how banks are monetizing debt. Monetizing is simply explained as creating a new bank IOU ( called new money ) to match a promissory note ( IOU ) to repay the loan. The publication then admits, " Money doesn't have to be issued by the government. '' A simple IOU can be used as money. 
The same publication admits that promissory notes are money by admitting that any item having the following three traits is money : 1 ) anything individuals or banks " generally accept in exchange for items of value '', 2 ) a standard of measuring value, 3 ) purchasing power stored for future spending. When the bank sells, deposits or exchanges the promissory note, it is proof that the bank used the promissory note as money. It has a standard of measuring value ( it has equal value to cash ) and purchasing power is stored ( it retains its value because the principal and interest are returned or foreclosure/repo results ). I am not debating or complaining about banking economics in this country I am stating that 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL breached our agreement when they did not follow GAAP. If the bank did not follow the law then it is an illegal contract. Illegal contracts are null and void. The bank never used XXXX cent of their money to fund the check they gave me. The bank in doing this did not follow GAAP matching principle.

All exchanges have to be equal you must exchange something for equal value I Beleive the bank does not want to show the altered notes. Because 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL knows GAAP was not followed.

The bank charges me interest for the use of borrowed money. When I did not borrow anything from the bank. The bank borrowed from me. I was given back my own money. 
I did not give the note to the bank the note was stolen, altered, and forged fraud in the factum. 

The bank did not perform the bank breached the agreement and concealed material facts Per GAAP and Federal Reserve Publications two loans were exchanged. The loan from me to the bank is the deposit of the promissory note. GAAP requires that the bank match a new bank liability with my name on it showing that the bank owes me for the deposit they accepted from me just like they would do if I were to deposit cash into my checking account. Anyone with basic fundamental financial literacy knows that when someone deposits money into their bank checking account they lent the bank their money. If you withdraw your money the bank lent you nothing. Bookkeeping entries can prove the bank lent me no money to purchase my promissory note. 

If I lent the bank money as a deposit, the bank accepted money from me, the bank never gave up XXXX cent of the banks money. The bank accepted money from me and deposited it which is the opposite of lending me money. If I lent the bank money and the bank returned the same value back to me XXXX loans were exchanged or the bank stole my money. The bank charter requires the bank to follow GAAP I can presume the bank must follow the law or the contract is an illegal contract. 
The contract said interest which is defined as the charge for the use of borrowed money. 
I can presume that the party who funded the loan is to be repaid the money. 
Did the agreement say the bank was to steal the promissory note, and alter it to become money? 

If the bank violated GAAP then the CPA audit is a fraud and the bank management and CPA will go to jail and the SEC can go after them so the bank can not say they did not follow GAAP. If the bank follows GAAP, I know what the bookkeeping entries are and the bank did the opposite of what I understood the agreement to be. I only care about the agreement. I only care about GAAP. I only want the bank to explain the details of what they wrote. I want the original promissory note back to see the stamps to see if I am paying the proper party endorsed on it. Being that I have a copy of the promissory note I am a holder in due course in accordance with UCC 3-302. I demand adequate assurance of due performance in accordance with UCC 2-609. The bank must give assurance within 30 days failure to will be repudiation of the contract. In laymans terms the deal is off and I am relieved of any obligations in the contract. If the bank claims this does not apply to them then the bank admits that the original alleged lender never purchased the note from me. If the note was not purchased the note was stolen. The note was not a gift to the bank without my knowledge. The UCC says that no title passes without theft. This would lead me to presume the bank knew the note was stolen with no consideration given to purchase it from me. No consideration was given as required by the UCC.

This is an apparent case of fraud in the factum in accordance with UCC 3-305. Being that I did not write the agreement I had no reasonable opportunity to obtain the knowledge of the terms. 

The promissory note is stolen and forged and there is fraudulent concealment and fraud in the factum with unjust enrichment obtaining the promissory note for free, by violating GAAP. Fraud was committed by misrepresenting they would follow the law and GAAP and the 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL did not follow GAAP. 

If I provided the money to the bank why am I paying the 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL back principle and interest when 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL did not loan me something of equal value and refused to give the consideration promised? 

No title passes in a theft per UCC. Federal banking law GAAP was violated. This is a breach of agreement. The bank stole the note and I want it returned or for the bank to cancel/discharge any debt I am alleged to owe. The agreement is a forgery. If the bank altered the promissory note to turn the note into money, and then resells and/or transfers the note to other parties is my signature on the note a bonafide signature? The definition of bona fide means an act done in good faith without fraud or deception ; an act done without notice of fraud. Signature means a mark or a written name to authenticate a writing of document. XXXX places a signature on a document to authenticate the validity to the document. Forgery means to alter a document with intent to defraud. Forgery makes the signature null and void. The altering of the document makes the document a forgery, and signature no longer attests to the validity of the forged document. The forged document may have my handwriting or name at the bottom, but my signature is not lending validity to the authenticity of the document because it was altered. If the banks CPA or attorneys wants to question how I know for sure that the bank bookkeeping entries recorded it as a loan to the bank. The proof is in the accounting principles and the policies and procedures mandating standard bookkeeping entries for financial institutions. Bank auditors confirmed to me the bookkeeping entries are standard for all banks. There may be a short or long version but the net result is the same. The bank may not want to answer this next tax question ( because if they do the banks management may go to jail ). How did the bank get my promissory note for free? If a person or business received XXXX $ for free, the IRS is right there demanding taxes. It could not be a gift, because the borrower had to have known. There was no loan of actual cash value to the alleged borrower as consideration loaned to obtain it. If there is no loan there is no need to repay it. If it was a loan to the bank ( not taxable to the bank ), then I demand the loan be returned. If the loan to the bank was forgiven, it is taxable to the bank. If it was stolen, it is taxable to the bank. The bank tax return, signed under penalty of perjury, will tell me if it was a loan to the bank or if they obtained it for free. 

Unauthorized borrowing is a theft. An unpaid loan is really a theft. If I were to not repay my alleged loan the bank would take me to court. The bank would report negative remarks to borrowers consumer reports in order to damages the borrowers ability to operate in commerce and force the borrower to pay a fraudulent debt under the threat of duress and coercion. Which 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL has done to me. Perhaps i should do the same. I have plenty of questions for the bankers. The agreement says mandatory arbitration however the bank has breached the agreement and in doing so mandatory arbitration is no longer required because the agreement is null and void. The beauty of filing a lawsuit is if the case goes to jury trial and if the bank defends it by bringing in a CPA expert witness. the expert must know everything and can not say he does not know or understand. 

There is a legal concept of form versus substance. The form is the promissory note. The substance is the money trail the bookkeeping entries. The substance shows that there were XXXX loans exchanged, equal value for equal value. I loaned the bank a promissory note that once endorsed with my signature was worth the amount that the bank wanted to be paid for lending me the depreciated asset. The XXXX loans cancel each other out. However the intent of the borrower was not for the bank to be paid the amount the note was worth and to then demand that I pay them that amount again, and pay interest and then for 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL to be paid again and again transferring and reselling the note that I loaned them while also demanding I repay them the same amount I just loaned them. This is called double dipping. The bank already got paid. The bank can not demand a payment after already receiving the amount agreed upon once they altered the note to become money and then deposited the note while also transferring and reselling the note to other parties. These are economics similar to stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling. Economically speaking what is the difference if a stranger received my {$10000.00} worth of diamonds for free, or if he got a {$10000.00} lien on my property for free, or if he received {$10000.00} of my future payroll checks for free? The substance of the transaction is the transferral of {$10000.00} of property from me to the stranger for free. The transfer of wealth is precisely how bankers obtain liens on the nation 's homes, cars, farms, and businesses for free. If a XXXX were to use a XXXX to transfer my wealth, i would have him place in prison. If a banker does the same thing by using " forms, '' or agreements an attorney, a judge, and a sheriff, Am I suppose to think it is legal? I will remind any bank attorney reading this that an attorney could be disbarred for bringing fraud into the court. The substance was an exchange of value for value. If the form and the substance disagree, one must rely on the substance over the form because substance always wins over form. I have a personal CPA expert witness who I Beleive could disbar any attorney. Obviously the bank will bring in their own expert witness to testify to counter my expert. That is fine I have over XXXX questions to ask the bank expert witness. 

Equal protection is defined as a constitutional guarantee wherein no person or class of people shall be denied the same equal protections of the law enjoyed by other persons and the enforcement of contracts. Remember, under the law, a corporation is treated like a person. Concealing the economic effect of stealing and counterfeiting denies equal protection. Never forget that an agreement or contract is a mutual agree- ment, and you can not have mutual agreement without full disclosure. Under full disclosure, what agreement did I sign and have mutual understanding of at the time of signing? What gave the bank the right to deny me equal protection under the law? Are there XXXX classes of people, bankers with XXXX set of rules and nonbankers with another, so that banks can prey upon the nonbanker 's wealth? 

Bookkeeping is very simple. It is the story of the money trail. Once you know the money trail, the banker can not lie to you. I and my personal CPA are very familiar with bookkeeping entries. The truth is very power- ful and overcomes lies, if you know how to expose it. 
Bookkeeping entries have XXXX columns of numbers, XXXX on the left and XXXX on the right. These tell us what the bank owns and what money the bank owes to customers. The left hand column is the asset column. The asset column records what the bank owns. Cash and promissory notes are assets and recorded in this left hand column. How do you know if something is an asset? It is easy to tell. If you can sell it, it is an asset. Assets have value. The right-hand column, generally speaking, is the liability and capital column. The liability means you owe money to someone. You can not sell a liability. You can not sell some- one what you owe them. Some people call the left column a debit and the right column a credit. Just remember that it is a way to determine how much the bank owes you. In order for the bank to legally own the promissory note they must pay legal tender the amount the promissory note is worth. The bank has no right whatsoever to transfer and resell the note to investors in order to make infinite profits. That was not the intent of the borrower nor did the agreement state the bank could act as a money changer turn the note into money deposit the note in order to receive money for lending me the depreciating asset and after doing so continue to resell and transfer the same note as many times as the bank wants and in doing so making infinite profit. This is not an equal exchange this is a violation of GAAP the bank clearly did not follow the matching principle and in doing so breached the agreement because 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL did not follow the law or GAAP. The bank concealed materials within the agreement and in doing so did not follow the law or GAAP. The bank defrauded me of property and money in doing so the bank did not follow the law of GAAP. The bank concealed the true nature and transaction to obtain my property ( the promissory note ) for free in doing so the bank did not follow the law or GAAP. 
I am open to resolving this issue between I the living soul XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX trustee for my person XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL in a private capacity if my demands are met in a swift and timely manner. I demand for any and all debts be cancelled/discharged, and for this to positively report on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX consumer report as paid in full being that the the bank has already received my promissory note worth the amount they are demanding I pay 1st FRANKLIN FINANCIAL already got paid. I Beleive this is a fair and honorable resolution for both sides that honors the laws and GAAP. Once every demand is met this issue will be resolved and no further action will be needed. If my demands are not met I will report these matters to the Office of Comptroller Currency and the Security Exchange Commission.