Consumer complaint received 2018-08-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Seized or attempted to seize your property
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
XXXX AND XXXX I have gave them Supreme Court ruling. U.S SUPREME COURT RULING, Title 15 United State Code ( USC ) section 1692, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, section 1601, the Fair Credit Billing Act. and Uniform Commercial Codes ( UCC ), section 203 Banking and Lending Act. THEY CAN NOT ISSUE CREDIT by becoming a surety, endorser or guarantor for another. Credit is the opposite of money. Money, which is legal tender for the payment of all debt is defined by Congress in 31 USCA Sec 392. The Federal Reserve Policies and Procedures and the generally accepted accounting principles ( GAAP ) requirement impose upon all Federally-Insured ( FIDC ) banks under Title 12 of the United States Code, section 1831, prohibit banks from lending their own money from their own assets, or from other depositors. It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). 
the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security ; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Fed Case No. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. 
A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX Ga XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Also see XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and United States XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Fed Supp XXXX, XXXX. 
The word money in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ky XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

A promise to pay can not, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of actual payment.. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX Utah 406 . Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibited  from lending credit. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  vs. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Banking corporations can not lend credit. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Nowhere is the express authority granted to the corporation to lend its credit. ( XXXX XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX, XXXX Me XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX ) A national bank has no authority to lend its credit. ( XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX, Fed XXXX. XXXX ) A contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of corporate powers is unlawful and void. ( XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( Note : XXXX XXXX   Dictionary : XXXX XXXX XXXX for beyond powers. It refers to conduct by a corporation or its officers that exceeds the powers granted by law. ) Despite the above court cases, XXXX XXXX, Superintendent, Department of Banks and Banking, State of Maine, said on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, A commercial bank is able to make a loan by simply creating a new demand deposit ( so called checkbook money ) through bookkeeping entry. This is in total contradiction to what the courts have said. Yet, that is exactly how the banks create the money to loan to its customers or to buy government bonds. 

Act is ultra vires when corporation is without authority to perform it under any circumstance or for any purpose. By doctrine of ultra vires a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful. ( XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX vs. XXXX, XXXX F XXXX XXXX ) A holder who does not give value can not qualify as a holder in due course. ( Uniform Commercial Code 3-303.1 ) In securities law, the most important requirement is full disclosure. Investors have to be given the full scoop. You can not hold anything back. Everything-lawsuits, criminal records, market share, debt-has to be disclosed. This same type of disclosure is required in the Truth in Lending Act as well. With that said, why is it that no one has ever heard of this legal argument? Well, probably because they have not been told. But dont you think that it is important and relevant to tell potential loan customers, as well as bank shareholders, that according to the US Code and numerous judicial decisions, it is questionable whether a national bank is actually authorized to lend credit, become a guarantor, or become surety? They should at least say something to their customers and shareholders along the lines of this : Disclaimer : We the bank, are lending credit, guaranteeing debts and becoming surety, through our lending business, for profit. The Comptroller of Currency approves. Congress has been silent in recent years. However, both federal and state courts in the  past have repeatedly told us that the National Bank Act does not provide for this activity. Therefore, at any point in the future, the bank could be subject to either federal or state cease and desist orders. In that event the bank will require immediate and full payments and will cancel your credit or loan. Further, the bank may be exposed to civil lawsuits from all its former loan Clients and shareholders. 
I WANT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL AND CONSIDERATION OF VALUE OF THE AGREEMENT

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation