8/21/2015

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

)
)
Petitioner )
)
v.
)
Case Number: 1316-CV-30
Kate Millington
)
South & Associates )
U.S.BANK )
)
Respondents )

Sheri Jones

MOTION TO VACATE FOR FRAUDLENT PRACTICES WHICH REMOVED THE

COURTS JURISDUCTION

Sheri Jones, Aggrieved Party Appearing in Propria Persona Representing myself in Propria
Persona (in your own person) or pro-per Qualified me as an attorney in fact, according to
Blacks Law Dictionary. By asserting my Sovereign Right to represent myself in legal matters
establishes my status as my own attorney. To proceed in Pro-Per, means that the court cannot
impose the same standard up on me as are imposed on a licensed attorney. This court will treat
me as my own attorney, differently that it would treat me as the accused. This also means the
judge/ court cannot lawfully hold me to conduct myself or my case as a licensed attorney. Im
free to proceed as I choose.

I. ADVANCES OF BANK CREDIT AS THE EQUIVALENT OF MONEY IS FRAUD

In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the
funds advanced to the borrowers (assets of the bank) are created by banks themselves and are
NOT merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of borrows. This case is about
exchanges of money of account (credit), not about exchanges of money of exchange (lawful or
even legal tender). The bookkeeping entries required by application of GAAP and the Federal
Reserves own writings should trigger close scrutiny of Plaintiffs apparent assertions that it lent
its funds, credits, or money to or on behalf of the defendant, thereby causing them to owe the
plaintiff is claiming. It is not an unreasonable argument to state that the plaintiff apparently
changed the economic substance of the transaction from that contemplated in the credit
application form, agreement, note or other similar instrument(s) that the defendant executed,
there by changing the cost and risk to the defendant. At most the plaintiff extended its own credit
(money of account), but the defendant was required to repay in money (money of exchange, and
lawful money at that), which created at least the inference of inequality of obligation on the two
sides of the transaction (money, including lawful money, is to be exchanged for bank credit).

II. Summary of argument:

Plaintiff apparently accepted the defendants note and credit application (money of account) in
exchange for its own credit (also money of account) and deposited that credit into an account
with the defendants name on the account, as well as apparently issuing its own credit for

Amount of the mortgage account of the defendant. One reasonably might argue that the plaintiff
recorded the note or credit application as a loan (money of account) from the defendant to the
plaintiff and that the plaintiff then became the borrower of the equivalent amount of money of
account from the defendant.

The Plaintiff in fact never lent any of its own pre-existing money, credit, or assets as
consideration to purchase the note or credit agreement from the defendant. The plaintiff received
the amount claimed on the note, of credit money of account from the defendant as an asset.
GAAP ordinarily would require that the plaintiff record a liability account, crediting the
defendants credit account, showing that the plaintiff owes 81, 897.00 of money to the defendant,
just as if the defendant were to deposit cash or payroll check into their account. None of the
material facts presented in this document were disclosed in the credit application or the
promissory note or were advertised by the plaintiff to prove that the defendant are true lenders
and the plaintiff is the true borrower.

III. The Legal Concept of Form vs. Substance

The form in the contract is the promissory note, which says that the lender lent money to the
alleged borrower. The substance is the money trial; the bookkeeping entries. The substance
shows there was two loans exchanged equal value for equal value. The borrower was required
to repay his loan to the bank plus interest, but the bank never repaid the debt it owes to the
borrower. IOU was exchanged for IOU. The newly created IOUs cancel each other. The
Substance the true transaction shows that the borrower was the lender to the bank. Then the
bank repaid the loan from the borrower to the bank. The form, the alleged bank loan agreement
shows the opposite. The true transaction proves that there was no loan. The attorney is claiming
the defendants signature proves he received a loan when the substance of the transaction was an
3

exchange, and that the defendant was charged as if it was a loan. The attorney is using the
promissory/mortgage note just like a witness to give false testimony in court, claiming the
plaintiff lent money, cash or the equivalent to the alleged borrower. The attorney could be
disbarred for bringing fraud into the court. The form says the defendant received a loan,
but the substance, the true transaction shows the defendant never received what she
bargained for, and therefore the plaintiff is in violation of breach of contract and
predatory lending practices. The defendant was denied full disclosure:

The defendant was not informed that the Federal Reserve policies and procedures and the
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all FederalInsured (FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the United States Code, section 1831 n (a), prohibit them
from lending their own money from their own assets, or from other depositors, The bank never
told the defendant where the money came from.

The defendant was NOT told that the promissory note she signed was going to be converted
into a negotiable instrument by the bank and become an asset on the banks accounting
books. The bank failed to disclosed the fact that the defendants signature on that note made it
money according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), section 1-201 (24) and 3-104. The
plaintiff failed to disclose to the defendant that his promissory note (money) would be taken,
recorded as an asset of the bank, and then sold by the bank for cash, without valuable
consideration given to obtain the defendants note. The bank never gave the defendant a deposit
as a receipt for the money he gave them, just as the bank would normally provide when you
make a deposit to the bank. The bank failed to disclose to the defendant that the bank would
create an account at the bank that would contain this money the defendant gave them.

The defendant was not told that a check from this account would be issued with the defendants
signature, and this account would be the source of the funds behind the check that was given to
him as a loan.

III. The defendant demands her deposit back and she is challenging the validity of her
signature on any alleged bank loan agreement or check. Since the bank cannot allow
full disclosure of the defendants agreement and cannot answer the defendants
challenges about it, their silence is obvious admissions of fraud through acquiesce, and
damages should be awarded to the defendant.

The above mention issues are in clear violation of the defendants right to due process. Below is
a list of the documents needed to prove the plaintiff is in violation of breach of contract and that
no loan was ever made to the defendant.

1.

The S3 registration statement; this form will show the plaintiff sold the note that is

transfer. 2.The 424(b)(5) Prospectus.

3.

The balance sheet.

4.

The FR 2046, 2049,and 2099s, that have OMB numbers on them and are subject to

disclosure under the Privacy Act, Title 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

5.

The original wet blue ink promissory note needed to provide jurisdiction to the court.

In Summary:
1. Sheri Jones request this court to vacate the foreclosure proceedings against her property,
provide Jones, or (her family member of her choice) possession of said deed to the property in
dispute.
2. Jones, also request the court to grant Jones all of the money she paid into this fraudulent loan
account, plus interest.
3. Jones also request the court to grant punitive damages in what the court deem just.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the ________th day of August , 2015, the foregoing was mailed priority

return receipt to the Clerk of the court, and a copy was mailed to all parties.

Respectfully Submitted

____________________________

Sheri Jones