Loans, Fraud, and the ‘Color of Law’ How Banks Engage in Fraud and Mislead Borrowers

Loans, Fraud, and the ‘Color of Law’: How Banks Engage in Fraud and Mislead Borrowers

When a purported borrower takes out a loan from a bank, it may appear that the bank is lending its own money. However, under 12 U.S.C. § 83, banks are prohibited from lending their own funds. Instead, they use the purported borrower’s promissory note as collateral to create credit, not using their own capital. This process lacks transparency, leading to non-disclosure and fraud, which may render such agreements void ab initio (invalid from the outset).

How the Scheme Works

The purported loan you receive from banks like Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Sofi, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, San Diego County Credit Union, Georgia’s Own credit Union, and other are absolutely not a loan, but rather a return of your own equity and a swap of your valuable promissory note, for “credit.” A simple “currency exchange” and 99% of the people in the United States don’t comprehend this and fall victim to coercion and extortion every single day.

The purported loan is actually based on your own credit and financial signature. The bank essentially monetizes your promissory note as an asset but fails to disclose these details to you, lacking the full disclosure and transparency required by law.

 

Has JP Morgan Chase Bank, Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, or Wells Fargo disclosed the fact that they never credited your accounts?

 

What Is the “Color of Law”?

The term “color of law” refers to actions that appear to be legally justified but are used to violate or infringe upon legal rights. Banks, in this context, misrepresent the loan process by pretending they are providing their own money when they are actually using the purported borrower’s promissory note to create credit.

The Loan Process and the Lack of Full Disclosure

When a purported borrower signs a loan agreement, the bank deposits the promissory note as an asset and creates credit based on that note. The funds credited to the purported borrower’s account do not come from the bank’s reserves but are generated from the note. This method, while consistent with fractional reserve banking, is not fully disclosed to the purported borrower.

Without this disclosure, the bank’s actions teechnically constitute fraud, as the purported borrower is misled into believing they are receiving the bank’s own money and thus they feel obligated to pay it back. This deceit and lack of essential information makes the agreement also technically. void ab initio. Void from the beginning.

 

Have they informed you that your promissory note is treated as an asset and not a liability?

 

Did they reveal that, by law, the purported borrower (you) is actually the creditor?

 

Legal Remedies for Purported Borrowers

  1. Demand Complete and Full Disclosure: Purported borrowers can request all loan details under consumer protection laws. If the bank fails to disclose that the purported borrower’s note funds the loan, the borrower may challenge the validity of the contract.
  2. Invoke UCC and Common Law Protections: The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) covers negotiable instruments like promissory notes. If the bank’s conduct violates these provisions, the purported borrower may seek to void the contract or obtain relief under the UCC. Fraudulent inducement to contract can also be addressed under common law.
  3. Cite the Agreement’s Void Status: An agreement lacking full disclosure may be considered void ab initio. Courts often rule in favor of borrowers who can demonstrate that they were misled or that material facts were withheld.
  4. Legally Claim the Assets and Be the Executor of Your Own Estate: The purported borrower can assert control over their assets and act as the executor of their own estate, taking charge of their financial matters legally.
  5. File a Lawsuit: If fraud or misrepresentation is evident, the purported borrower has the option to file a lawsuit against the bank for damages and to seek remedies under applicable state and federal laws.

 

Conclusion

Banks cannot legally lend their own money as stipulated by 12 U.S.C. § 83. By engaging if fraud and deceit and failing to disclose this and misrepresenting the nature of loans and financial products, banks like Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Sofi, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, San Diego County Credit Union, Georgia’s Own credit Union, and other, operate under the color of law, misleading purported borrowers into thinking they receive bank funds. This lack of full disclosure constitutes fraud, making such agreements potentially void ab initio. Understanding your rights, including legal remedies such as claiming your assets, filing lawsuits, and invoking UCC provisions, is vital to protect yourself from these practices.

Leave your vote

More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Screen Shot 2025 07 08 at 9.35.01 PM

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT MANDAMUS VANISHES: Ninth Circuit Fraud, Tampering, Judicial Collusion, and a Federal Cover-Up Seems Unequivocal

Federal courts are now under scrutiny after a verified Writ of Mandamus vanished from the Ninth Circuit docket without explanation—raising grave concerns of judicial tampering, fraud, and systemic misconduct. Judge Sunshine Sykes defied clear jurisdictional divestiture by issuing rulings on a matter under appellate review, violating 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 1651. This article exposes a disturbing pattern of ultra vires acts, denial of due process, and potential RICO violations implicating both district and appellate judges.Ask ChatGPT

lawful tender discharges the debt

When the Debt Is Discharged but the LIEN Remains: Why Auto and Home Loan Lenders Who Ignore Lawful Tender Are Committing Fraud and Commercial Crimes

This article delivers a devastating legal breakdown proving that lawful tender—once made and unrebutted—discharges auto loan debt under UCC §§ 3-601, 3-603, 3-310, 2-206, and 1-103, as codified in Cal. Com. Code §§ 3601, 3603, 3310, 2206, 1103, Fla. Stat. §§ 673.6011, 673.6031, 673.3101, 672.206, 671.103, and N.C.G.S. §§ 25-3-601, 25-3-603, 25-3-310, 25-2-206, 25-1-103. It exposes refusal to release a lien after lawful discharge as actionable fraud, conversion, embezzlement, and obstruction under state and federal law. With verified case law and commercial principles, it explains how silence equals acceptance and how creditors become commercially estopped. A must-read for secured parties, fiduciaries, and equity claimants demanding lien removal, declaratory relief, and commercial remedy.

Screen Shot 2025 06 28 at 4.55.33 PM

How a Perfected Security Agreement and UCC Filings Strip Servicers of Foreclosure Rights

A properly executed Security Agreement assigning all assets, rights, and interests to a private trust—paired with a UCC-1 financing statement and UCC-3 amendment claiming the Deed of Trust and Note—lawfully establishes the trust as the secured party and real party in interest. This perfected interest, under UCC §§ 9-203, 9-509, 3-301, and supported by controlling case law (e.g., Carpenter v. Longan, Ibanez, Veal), strips any servicer or third-party of standing to foreclose unless they possess the original Note, prove an unbroken chain of title, and rebut the trust’s perfected claim. Without that, all foreclosure attempts become void ab initio, commercial dishonor, and legal trespass on private trust property.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!