The secrets from within.
### Comprehensive Synopsis of how they did it.
Interest rates and principal payments are not obligations for consumers, as these have already been satisfied through their Social Security numbers. This situation is linked to House Joint Resolution 192, which dismantled the gold standard and forced consumers into a form of financial servitude, where they unknowingly pay twice for the same vehicle—once through their SSN and again through traditional financing methods.
The **Truth in Billing Act (TBA)**, under **47 USC § 228**, prohibits double charging and mandates accurate billing information. Despite this, consumers are often misled into making down payments without being informed that the vehicle has already been paid for through their Social Security number.
Furthermore, predatory lending practices, as highlighted by **25 CFR § 11.417**, indicate extortionate methods such as requiring unnecessary down payments for financing. Congress has the constitutional power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. It sets the debt limit, authorizes spending, and levies taxes, influencing the level of debt. Essentially, Congress has allowed the government to borrow from consumers' creditworthiness, which can be viewed as stealing, as it requires consumers to repay money that the government took from them. [Source](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C2-1/ALDE_00001056/?hl=en-US#:~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%208%2C%20Clause,the%20United%20States%3B%20.%20.%20.)
This issue is particularly evident in transactions like buying a vehicle. According to **UCCC § 3.301(1)**, the financing of an automobile by a bank does not constitute a consumer loan transaction. The bank acts only as the assignee of the automobile sales contract, potentially taking security interests improperly. This principle is supported by the case of **First Nat. Bank v. La Joie** (Okla) 537 P2d 1207, 86 ALR3d 309.
Basically....
The statement is true because, under UCCC § 3.301(1), the financing arrangement described does not classify as a consumer loan transaction, indicating that the bank's role as an assignee of the automobile sales contract may involve taking security interest improperly. This is supported by the case of First Nat. Bank v. La Joie, which illustrates this legal principle.
As stated in **15 USC § 1602**, consumers are regarded as creditors in their financial dealings. Furthermore, **12 USC § 1431** indicates that banks cannot loan money because they are considered the borrowers in the financial system. Additionally, **31 US Code § 5118** strictly forbids banks from lending their own money or that of depositors.
Money is created from the borrower's Social Security number, as outlined in **Title 12 USC § 412**. Requesting a Social Security number inappropriately is illegal under **42 USC § 408**, which protects against misuse of Social Security numbers.
If banks cannot prove they have provided a loan, the contract lacks consideration, making it unenforceable under contract law. This leads to the concept of **unconscionable contracts**, which the UCC states can be deemed unenforceable. Such contracts often arise from coercion or undue pressure, where one party feels compelled to agree to unfavorable terms due to a lack of options or a power imbalance.
Dealerships frequently violate the **Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)**, which prohibits creditors from asking about income or other personal information. The dealership's collection of such information constitutes a violation of this act. The **Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 408)** provides the legal framework surrounding the use of Social Security numbers, further emphasizing the illegitimacy of their improper acquisition by dealerships.
The promissory note itself confirms the transfer of ownership upon signing (UCC § 2-401), indicating that the vehicle is effectively paid for at that point. However, despite this legal understanding, banks typically take possession of the title and impose a lien on it, which remains until the consumer pays the total price of the vehicle, including all accrued interest and associated fees.
This practice becomes particularly contradictory when considering that these banks identify themselves as creditors, claiming to have provided a loan. This creditor status exposes them to the regulations outlined in **Title 15, subsection 1611**, which holds creditors liable for excessive interest rates or fees.
The fundamental issue lies in the discrepancy between the banks' actions and their claimed role. If they have not provided their own funds as actual consideration, their claim to the title and the charging of interest and fees raises significant concerns about the integrity of the financial system.
By: Iconic Accomplished Comments
