NOTICE TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
RE: Formal Notice of Systemic Lending Fraud and Demand for Oversight and Investigation
Date: 6/25/2025
To: Secretary of the Treasury
United States Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
This notice serves as a formal declaration and demand to the United States Department of the Treasury regarding systemic fraud being carried out by banking and lending institutions operating under the regulatory frameworks of the United States.
The people of this nation are being subjected to unlawful, deceptive, and unconscionable financial practices in the origination and administration of mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, and other forms of alleged debt.
Specifically, lending institutions:
Monetize the borrower’s promissory note and deposit it as a banking asset without disclosing that the “loaned” funds originated from the borrower themselves.
Fail to provide full disclosure, mutual consideration, or valid contract elements.
Engage in fraudulent foreclosures on debts that have already been discharged or securitized.
Exploit the fiat currency system to extract labor-backed value through unlawful usury.
This is a call for immediate oversight, public disclosure, and a full investigation into the lending industry’s practices, in accordance with your fiduciary responsibility to safeguard the financial integrity of the nation.
All rights reserved under UCC 1-308 and UCC 1-103. Silence is dishonor and tacit agreement.
Respectfully,
State National
David Paul, Thurman
Contact:
[email protected]
The comprehensive legal summary sheet:
This outlines the legal ramifications, violations, and supporting case law that establish how current lending practices constitute fraud, conversion, and breach of contract.
Legal Basis for Declaring Modern Lending Practices as Fraudulent
(Accompanies Notice to All Lenders, the U.S. Treasury, the President, and the Attorney General)
🔹 1. Lack of Consideration = Contract Fraud
Under contract law, all valid contracts require three core elements:
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration (value exchanged)
In most loan agreements, no actual consideration is given by the lender. The borrower’s promissory note is treated as a financial asset, which the bank uses to fund the alleged “loan.” This results in a unilateral contract, which is not enforceable.
📚 Relevant Case Law & Authority: - Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.: “Consideration” must involve “something of value given in return for a promise.” - 18 U.S. Code § 1341 – Fraud and Swindles - 15 U.S. Code § 1602 – Truth in Lending Act (requires full disclosure of all finance terms) - UCC § 3-305 – Rights of Holder in Due Course can be challenged for fraud in the factum or illegality
🔹 2. Unlawful Monetization of Promissory Notes
Banks monetize promissory notes by depositing them as assets and issuing “loans” backed by the borrower’s own signature and credit — without disclosing this to the borrower. This is a deceptive trade practice and violates securities and banking laws.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Federal Reserve Publication “Modern Money Mechanics”: Confirms banks create money by issuing loans and do not lend deposits. - United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979): “A bank does not lend its own money or money of its depositors.” - 15 U.S. Code § 78j – Manipulative and deceptive devices in securities fraud - UCC § 3-302 – Holder in Due Course must not have notice of any defense or claim
🔹 3. Fraudulent Foreclosures and False Claims
After the note is securitized and/or paid off through third-party sources (insurance, credit default swaps, etc.), lenders and servicers continue to claim outstanding debt and foreclose on properties — often without proper chain of title or wet-ink note.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872): “The note and mortgage are inseparable.” - U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011): Foreclosure void without valid assignment of mortgage. - Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 (2013): Securitized trust cannot foreclose if assignment was not properly executed.
🔹 4. Securities Fraud via Securitization
Once the borrower signs, the lender often bundles and sells the note into mortgage-backed securities (MBS), profiting multiple times from the same instrument. This is done without disclosure or benefit to the borrower, violating SEC rules.
📚 Relevant Authority: - SEC Rule 10b-5 – Prohibits fraud or omission of material facts in connection with the sale of securities - TILA & RESPA – Require disclosure of transfer and ownership of loans - 15 U.S. Code § 77q – Securities Act of 1933 (anti-fraud provisions)
🔹 5. Use of Fiat Currency and Debt Instruments as Money
Banks issue “loans” in the form of credit (checkbook money) created from thin air, based on the borrower’s own signed promise. This violates the definition of “lawful money” and the spirit of the Coinage Act and Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.
Relevant Authority: - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: “No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” - Modern Money Mechanics (Fed publication): “Banks create money when they make loans.” - Rodriguez v. FDIC, 140 S. Ct. 713 (2020): Government agency may not ignore economic substance for legal form.
D
🔹 6. Constructive Fraud & Unconscionability
By concealing the true source of the “loan” and failing to explain the monetization of the borrower’s signature, banks create unconscionable contracts and practice constructive fraud.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Federal Trade Commission Act § 5: Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices - Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 – Unconscionable Contracts are unenforceable - Bryan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 304 F.R.D. 691 (N.D. Ga. 2015): Court recognized claims of misrepresentation of loan terms
📌 Conclusion
The above legal citations form the foundation for declaring that modern lending practices — especially those that involve fiat credit creation, lack of disclosure, false debt claims, and securitization without benefit to the borrower — are unlawful, deceptive, and injurious to the American people.
All responsible agencies, officials, and public trustees are hereby placed on notice. Any further harm inflicted after knowledge of these facts constitutes willful fraud, bad faith, and potentially criminal negligence or complicity.
NOTICE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
RE: Demand to End Systemic Banking Fraud Against the American People
Date: 6/25/2025
To: The President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Mr. President,
This is an official notice and demand on behalf of the American people to immediately address the systemic and ongoing fraud being committed by the private banking sector under the false pretense of lawful lending.
The following fraudulent practices are rampant and provable:
Borrowers are led to believe they are receiving a loan, when in fact their signature creates the funds.
Banks give no lawful consideration and monetize the promissory note for private gain.
Foreclosures are being conducted without lawful ownership or standing.
The fiat currency system is used to entrap citizens into endless servitude through fraudulent debt.
As President and Trustee of the public trust, it is your sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the people from domestic economic tyranny. You are hereby called upon to initiate investigations, demand accountability, and implement remedy for the millions who have been harmed.
Notice to principal is notice to the agent. Notice to the agent is notice to the principal.
All rights reserved without prejudice. UCC 1-308 applies.
With Honor,
State National
David Paul, Thurman
Contact
[email protected]
The comprehensive legal summary sheet:
This outlines the legal ramifications, violations, and supporting case law that establish how current lending practices constitute fraud, conversion, and breach of contract.
Legal Basis for Declaring Modern Lending Practices as Fraudulent
(Accompanies Notice to All Lenders, the U.S. Treasury, the President, and the Attorney General)
🔹 1. Lack of Consideration = Contract Fraud
Under contract law, all valid contracts require three core elements:
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration (value exchanged)
In most loan agreements, no actual consideration is given by the lender. The borrower’s promissory note is treated as a financial asset, which the bank uses to fund the alleged “loan.” This results in a unilateral contract, which is not enforceable.
📚 Relevant Case Law & Authority: - Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.: “Consideration” must involve “something of value given in return for a promise.” - 18 U.S. Code § 1341 – Fraud and Swindles - 15 U.S. Code § 1602 – Truth in Lending Act (requires full disclosure of all finance terms) - UCC § 3-305 – Rights of Holder in Due Course can be challenged for fraud in the factum or illegality
🔹 2. Unlawful Monetization of Promissory Notes
Banks monetize promissory notes by depositing them as assets and issuing “loans” backed by the borrower’s own signature and credit — without disclosing this to the borrower. This is a deceptive trade practice and violates securities and banking laws.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Federal Reserve Publication “Modern Money Mechanics”: Confirms banks create money by issuing loans and do not lend deposits. - United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979): “A bank does not lend its own money or money of its depositors.” - 15 U.S. Code § 78j – Manipulative and deceptive devices in securities fraud - UCC § 3-302 – Holder in Due Course must not have notice of any defense or claim
🔹 3. Fraudulent Foreclosures and False Claims
After the note is securitized and/or paid off through third-party sources (insurance, credit default swaps, etc.), lenders and servicers continue to claim outstanding debt and foreclose on properties — often without proper chain of title or wet-ink note.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872): “The note and mortgage are inseparable.” - U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011): Foreclosure void without valid assignment of mortgage. - Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 (2013): Securitized trust cannot foreclose if assignment was not properly executed.
🔹 4. Securities Fraud via Securitization
Once the borrower signs, the lender often bundles and sells the note into mortgage-backed securities (MBS), profiting multiple times from the same instrument. This is done without disclosure or benefit to the borrower, violating SEC rules.
📚 Relevant Authority: - SEC Rule 10b-5 – Prohibits fraud or omission of material facts in connection with the sale of securities - TILA & RESPA – Require disclosure of transfer and ownership of loans - 15 U.S. Code § 77q – Securities Act of 1933 (anti-fraud provisions)
🔹 5. Use of Fiat Currency and Debt Instruments as Money
Banks issue “loans” in the form of credit (checkbook money) created from thin air, based on the borrower’s own signed promise. This violates the definition of “lawful money” and the spirit of the Coinage Act and Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.
Relevant Authority: - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: “No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” - Modern Money Mechanics (Fed publication): “Banks create money when they make loans.” - Rodriguez v. FDIC, 140 S. Ct. 713 (2020): Government agency may not ignore economic substance for legal form.
D
🔹 6. Constructive Fraud & Unconscionability
By concealing the true source of the “loan” and failing to explain the monetization of the borrower’s signature, banks create unconscionable contracts and practice constructive fraud.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Federal Trade Commission Act § 5: Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices - Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 – Unconscionable Contracts are unenforceable - Bryan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 304 F.R.D. 691 (N.D. Ga. 2015): Court recognized claims of misrepresentation of loan terms
📌 Conclusion
The above legal citations form the foundation for declaring that modern lending practices — especially those that involve fiat credit creation, lack of disclosure, false debt claims, and securitization without benefit to the borrower — are unlawful, deceptive, and injurious to the American people.
All responsible agencies, officials, and public trustees are hereby placed on notice. Any further harm inflicted after knowledge of these facts constitutes willful fraud, bad faith, and potentially criminal negligence or complicity.
NOTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
RE: Demand for Criminal Investigation into Banking and Lending Fraud
Date: 6/25/2025
To: The Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General,
This is a formal notice to your office and a demand for investigation into systemic fraud within the banking and lending industries across the United States. These practices constitute not only violations of contract and securities law, but also criminal fraud, conversion, wire fraud, racketeering, and unjust enrichment.
Lenders routinely:
Monetize borrowers’ promissory notes without disclosure.
Provide no consideration and disguise this fact as “credit.”
Foreclose on properties they do not legally own.
Engage in securitization without the knowledge or compensation of the signer.
The harm caused by this fraud is vast and measurable. Millions of families have lost homes. Trillions in manufactured debt have been falsely claimed against the people. The time for correction is now.
You are hereby placed on notice and called to uphold your oath to the people of this nation. Failure to act constitutes willful complicity.
All rights reserved under UCC 1-308. This notice may be recorded and made public.
In Honor and Truth,
David Paul, Thurman
Contact
[email protected]
The comprehensive legal summary sheet:
This outlines the legal ramifications, violations, and supporting case law that establish how current lending practices constitute fraud, conversion, and breach of contract.
Legal Basis for Declaring Modern Lending Practices as Fraudulent
(Accompanies Notice to All Lenders, the U.S. Treasury, the President, and the Attorney General)
🔹 1. Lack of Consideration = Contract Fraud
Under contract law, all valid contracts require three core elements:
Offer
Acceptance
Consideration (value exchanged)
In most loan agreements, no actual consideration is given by the lender. The borrower’s promissory note is treated as a financial asset, which the bank uses to fund the alleged “loan.” This results in a unilateral contract, which is not enforceable.
📚 Relevant Case Law & Authority: - Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.: “Consideration” must involve “something of value given in return for a promise.” - 18 U.S. Code § 1341 – Fraud and Swindles - 15 U.S. Code § 1602 – Truth in Lending Act (requires full disclosure of all finance terms) - UCC § 3-305 – Rights of Holder in Due Course can be challenged for fraud in the factum or illegality
🔹 2. Unlawful Monetization of Promissory Notes
Banks monetize promissory notes by depositing them as assets and issuing “loans” backed by the borrower’s own signature and credit — without disclosing this to the borrower. This is a deceptive trade practice and violates securities and banking laws.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Federal Reserve Publication “Modern Money Mechanics”: Confirms banks create money by issuing loans and do not lend deposits. - United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979): “A bank does not lend its own money or money of its depositors.” - 15 U.S. Code § 78j – Manipulative and deceptive devices in securities fraud - UCC § 3-302 – Holder in Due Course must not have notice of any defense or claim
🔹 3. Fraudulent Foreclosures and False Claims
After the note is securitized and/or paid off through third-party sources (insurance, credit default swaps, etc.), lenders and servicers continue to claim outstanding debt and foreclose on properties — often without proper chain of title or wet-ink note.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872): “The note and mortgage are inseparable.” - U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011): Foreclosure void without valid assignment of mortgage. - Glaski v. Bank of America, 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 (2013): Securitized trust cannot foreclose if assignment was not properly executed.
🔹 4. Securities Fraud via Securitization
Once the borrower signs, the lender often bundles and sells the note into mortgage-backed securities (MBS), profiting multiple times from the same instrument. This is done without disclosure or benefit to the borrower, violating SEC rules.
📚 Relevant Authority: - SEC Rule 10b-5 – Prohibits fraud or omission of material facts in connection with the sale of securities - TILA & RESPA – Require disclosure of transfer and ownership of loans - 15 U.S. Code § 77q – Securities Act of 1933 (anti-fraud provisions)
🔹 5. Use of Fiat Currency and Debt Instruments as Money
Banks issue “loans” in the form of credit (checkbook money) created from thin air, based on the borrower’s own signed promise. This violates the definition of “lawful money” and the spirit of the Coinage Act and Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.
Relevant Authority: - U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10: “No state shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” - Modern Money Mechanics (Fed publication): “Banks create money when they make loans.” - Rodriguez v. FDIC, 140 S. Ct. 713 (2020): Government agency may not ignore economic substance for legal form.
D
🔹 6. Constructive Fraud & Unconscionability
By concealing the true source of the “loan” and failing to explain the monetization of the borrower’s signature, banks create unconscionable contracts and practice constructive fraud.
📚 Relevant Authority: - Federal Trade Commission Act § 5: Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices - Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208 – Unconscionable Contracts are unenforceable - Bryan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 304 F.R.D. 691 (N.D. Ga. 2015): Court recognized claims of misrepresentation of loan terms
📌 Conclusion
The above legal citations form the foundation for declaring that modern lending practices — especially those that involve fiat credit creation, lack of disclosure, false debt claims, and securitization without benefit to the borrower — are unlawful, deceptive, and injurious to the American people.
All responsible agencies, officials, and public trustees are hereby placed on notice. Any further harm inflicted after knowledge of these facts constitutes willful fraud, bad faith, and potentially criminal negligence or complicity.