STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT COURT of SAN FRANCISCO. DISTRICT TWO
ALAMEDA
Docket No CAL-SF/ALA041089
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (Plaintiff ) vs. GEORGE CRAIG GADSBY and MARGARET ANN GADSBY (Respondant/s)
Defendant/s, GEORGE CRAIG GADSBY and MARGARET ANN GADSBY, JUDGMENT, against Defendant/s, George Craig Gadsby and Margaret Ann Gadsby
Summary judgment has been granted against defendants having been found guilty of fraud and theft by their peers.
Count 1
ARTIFICIALLY-CREATED FIAT MONEY
The plaintiffs, “Bank of America NA” have shown there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute and "evidence to support the Plaintiffs case .for restitution against defendants" George C Gadsby and Margaret A Gadsby” a real estate partnership licensed in the state of California (32. Ca. 704 - RE (1987))
As stated in Plaintiffs separate statement of undisputed material fact of record before the court, by this the Court is asked to assume the bank made a loan of money that was already there before the transaction they have an equitable risk of loss to recover, as they agreed., and now have such loss and damage as a result of defendant's fraudulent act under the terms of the agreement. If we lived in the 19th century where the bank went to its vault got out the money in gold or currency and counted it out to the borrower and received his note to pay it back the performance of the bank would be obvious and this a moot point which the plaintiff would try to persuade the Court it is and has in fact written its note agreement and such language to make it appear so. In this age of fractional reserve banking and commercial paper that acts as money or money equivalent in finance, the fact that loan proceeds checks or disbursements for credit card obligations were written or electronically transferred out of the bank on behalf of the defendant is proof the bank made a loan of money that was already there before the transaction (Triplicated) they have equitable risk of loss to recover, which is the basis for the terms of the agreement. Payment of the obligations proved this and all money in existence has been created from fraudulent applications. The Plaintiffs wish the courts to recognize all transactions were made according to the applications submitted in evidence. The plaintiff also wishes the court to know that this case is also under federal investigation and charges of wire fraud and money laundering have been levied against the defendants.
Count II
FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS
Plaintiff's can establish and accounting will show these loan transactions were made in accordance with all State and Federal regulations The plaintiffs will show the defendants used multiple applications containing false and fraudulent information while using the same property (6710 Bedford Avenue Los Angles, CA 90056) as overvalued collateral.
Further the plaintiffs will prove that George C Gadsby and Margaret A Gadsby jointly used the social security numbers and identities bought from desperate homeless individuals for the sole purpose of obtaining large sums of credit and cash to finance their lavish and illegal enterprises.
Count III
RECOVERY OF ASSETS
The plaintiffs also request recovery of all assets the Gadsby’s have in all assumed names including but not limited to property in Mexico and finances held in foreign accounts and off shore accounts. The plaintiff also claims damages in order for a judgment to be awarded - including all cost and fee’s associated with recovery of there property and funds according to Law of Contracts, §§ 346, 352.257 F.3d.
An indisputable fact of this case is that the defendant provided a signed note/credit agreement to this transaction, before a loan was made. And as noted from authoritative sources of the banking and accounting professions, and from the SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS, of record before the Court, If Defendant’s signed note/credit agreement was taken by the plaintiff for its own unjust enrichment as commercial paper of substantive money equivalence as recorded into the bank records,
This is guile and deception against the plaintiff that would not be allowed to pass in any other commercial realm. The equitable cost and risk to the bank to make the loan has been misrepresented and it is this misrepresentation of an extension of its own consideration of face principle it has not had to make that has been the foundation for the terms of the agreement.
All the obligations and terms of repayment and the rights of the lender under the contract are based on the supposed equitable risk to the bank for extension of its own consideration of face principle to have made the loan. When the book entries show under GAAP this didn’t happen, they have breached the agreement in numerous ways:
1) The defendants have withheld material fact they have used as borrower’s given for no other purpose but to deceptively and falsely secure, assets to cover loans and attempt to avoid risk to its own assets it had promised to repay without truthful disclosure.
2) From another perspective, they have used the lender’s note to originate the consideration for the bank’s loan without giving anything to get the note, as the only consideration ever given in the transaction was originated from the note and cannot be consideration given before hand for the bank to gain and so use it.
3) Origination of the loans, therefore, has been made through unjust enrichment from its fraudulent conversion of the borrower’s asset without the banks knowledge or agreement
.
III
DISCOVERY INCOMPLETE
Because the issue of discovery and what has been or will be produced to be evidence in this case is presently not resolved, it is impossible for the court to know what of defendant's defenses and any allegations noted above can or cannot be with the exception of possible fabrications of statement, that will prove their contentions and defenses in discovery will be nullified by such statements. Plaintiff’s basis in asserting its motion for summary judgment has been proven at this time and requests the court to make final judgment in BANK of AMERICA NA favor pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Banking Code and Lending Practices (UCC) sections 13-3308, and the California Revised Statutes (CAS) 11 CARS 03-18018, the validity of a signature on all of the charge slips and loan applications is hereby specifically and unequivocally been proved to have been paid and fraudulently obtained by GEORGE C GADSBY and MARGARET ANN GADSBY the Account Holders on record as the recipients of all loans.
IV.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PREMATURE
Summary judgment by submitted evidence shows plaintiff’s case and according to the law where the facts before the court are conclusively that the court could conclude, as a matter of law, that only one conclusion of fact is possible.
The fact is, the plaintiff has shown the defendants to be guilty of the crimes they are accused therefore according to law a guilty verdict should be the only ramification that satisfies the sought judgment.
9
DISTRICT COURT of SAN FRANCISCO. DISTRICT TWO
ALAMEDA
Docket No CAL-SF/ALA041089
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (Plaintiff ) vs. GEORGE CRAIG GADSBY and MARGARET ANN GADSBY (Respondant/s)
Defendant/s, GEORGE CRAIG GADSBY and MARGARET ANN GADSBY, JUDGMENT, against Defendant/s, George Craig Gadsby and Margaret Ann Gadsby
Summary judgment has been granted against defendants having been found guilty of fraud and theft by their peers.
Count 1
ARTIFICIALLY-CREATED FIAT MONEY
The plaintiffs, “Bank of America NA” have shown there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute and "evidence to support the Plaintiffs case .for restitution against defendants" George C Gadsby and Margaret A Gadsby” a real estate partnership licensed in the state of California (32. Ca. 704 - RE (1987))
As stated in Plaintiffs separate statement of undisputed material fact of record before the court, by this the Court is asked to assume the bank made a loan of money that was already there before the transaction they have an equitable risk of loss to recover, as they agreed., and now have such loss and damage as a result of defendant's fraudulent act under the terms of the agreement. If we lived in the 19th century where the bank went to its vault got out the money in gold or currency and counted it out to the borrower and received his note to pay it back the performance of the bank would be obvious and this a moot point which the plaintiff would try to persuade the Court it is and has in fact written its note agreement and such language to make it appear so. In this age of fractional reserve banking and commercial paper that acts as money or money equivalent in finance, the fact that loan proceeds checks or disbursements for credit card obligations were written or electronically transferred out of the bank on behalf of the defendant is proof the bank made a loan of money that was already there before the transaction (Triplicated) they have equitable risk of loss to recover, which is the basis for the terms of the agreement. Payment of the obligations proved this and all money in existence has been created from fraudulent applications. The Plaintiffs wish the courts to recognize all transactions were made according to the applications submitted in evidence. The plaintiff also wishes the court to know that this case is also under federal investigation and charges of wire fraud and money laundering have been levied against the defendants.
Count II
FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS
Plaintiff's can establish and accounting will show these loan transactions were made in accordance with all State and Federal regulations The plaintiffs will show the defendants used multiple applications containing false and fraudulent information while using the same property (6710 Bedford Avenue Los Angles, CA 90056) as overvalued collateral.
Further the plaintiffs will prove that George C Gadsby and Margaret A Gadsby jointly used the social security numbers and identities bought from desperate homeless individuals for the sole purpose of obtaining large sums of credit and cash to finance their lavish and illegal enterprises.
Count III
RECOVERY OF ASSETS
The plaintiffs also request recovery of all assets the Gadsby’s have in all assumed names including but not limited to property in Mexico and finances held in foreign accounts and off shore accounts. The plaintiff also claims damages in order for a judgment to be awarded - including all cost and fee’s associated with recovery of there property and funds according to Law of Contracts, §§ 346, 352.257 F.3d.
An indisputable fact of this case is that the defendant provided a signed note/credit agreement to this transaction, before a loan was made. And as noted from authoritative sources of the banking and accounting professions, and from the SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS, of record before the Court, If Defendant’s signed note/credit agreement was taken by the plaintiff for its own unjust enrichment as commercial paper of substantive money equivalence as recorded into the bank records,
This is guile and deception against the plaintiff that would not be allowed to pass in any other commercial realm. The equitable cost and risk to the bank to make the loan has been misrepresented and it is this misrepresentation of an extension of its own consideration of face principle it has not had to make that has been the foundation for the terms of the agreement.
All the obligations and terms of repayment and the rights of the lender under the contract are based on the supposed equitable risk to the bank for extension of its own consideration of face principle to have made the loan. When the book entries show under GAAP this didn’t happen, they have breached the agreement in numerous ways:
1) The defendants have withheld material fact they have used as borrower’s given for no other purpose but to deceptively and falsely secure, assets to cover loans and attempt to avoid risk to its own assets it had promised to repay without truthful disclosure.
2) From another perspective, they have used the lender’s note to originate the consideration for the bank’s loan without giving anything to get the note, as the only consideration ever given in the transaction was originated from the note and cannot be consideration given before hand for the bank to gain and so use it.
3) Origination of the loans, therefore, has been made through unjust enrichment from its fraudulent conversion of the borrower’s asset without the banks knowledge or agreement
.
III
DISCOVERY INCOMPLETE
Because the issue of discovery and what has been or will be produced to be evidence in this case is presently not resolved, it is impossible for the court to know what of defendant's defenses and any allegations noted above can or cannot be with the exception of possible fabrications of statement, that will prove their contentions and defenses in discovery will be nullified by such statements. Plaintiff’s basis in asserting its motion for summary judgment has been proven at this time and requests the court to make final judgment in BANK of AMERICA NA favor pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Banking Code and Lending Practices (UCC) sections 13-3308, and the California Revised Statutes (CAS) 11 CARS 03-18018, the validity of a signature on all of the charge slips and loan applications is hereby specifically and unequivocally been proved to have been paid and fraudulently obtained by GEORGE C GADSBY and MARGARET ANN GADSBY the Account Holders on record as the recipients of all loans.
IV.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PREMATURE
Summary judgment by submitted evidence shows plaintiff’s case and according to the law where the facts before the court are conclusively that the court could conclude, as a matter of law, that only one conclusion of fact is possible.
The fact is, the plaintiff has shown the defendants to be guilty of the crimes they are accused therefore according to law a guilty verdict should be the only ramification that satisfies the sought judgment.
9
