Help required with research.

Guys I am looking for assistance in some research into bank debt.
What I have found so far validates the additional questions in the new 3 letters. You know the ones
they never answer ! Unless I have got it wrong & I admit i'm probably not the sharpest tool in the box,
tell me now before I waste time on this.
My aim is to produce here a repository of evidence that can be used as a defense (along with what is
currently used now).
Please put relevant links in this thread .Please, documentation only NO youtube videos & please do not
send this thread off into different tangents.
I will be adding links to this post as & when I have them or the time.

Firstly to start from the beginning ; links regarding money creation .

Secondly ,more links regarding Presumption of Law,
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption &
(Stabit praesumptio donec probetur in contrarium ) A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved
(Bouviers 1856 law dictionary.

As we know its Standard banking practice to securitise (sell) the agreements (the note) I have found that
they are usually sold to investors at about 97% of their value. The investor then becomes the Holder In
Due Course and the 'note' passes to the investor. The OC then is only acting as an agent and passes the
payments minus a small percentage to the investor.
As the 'note' is now with the investor (who could be anywhere in the world ) the OC has no longer any
rights to it and as we know cannot ever produce the original.

This now becomes interesting as the OC claims you owe him, and even more interesting that he then
sells it to a DCA ,who in turn then claim you owe them .What does he sell the DCA ?

I have also found that there is indemnity insurance as well.
https://finadium.com/why-securities-lending-indemnification-matters-to-beneficial-owners/

https://iedunote.com/negotiable-instruments-types
https://www.upcounsel.com/holder-in-due-course
https://thismatter.com/money/bonds/types/abs/credit-card-abs.htm

As I understand it ,if we use the Presumption of Law route ,they must produce evidence that rebuts
all the linked evidence.Its to be hoped they will give up .
To be clear, this is something I will have no need for ,its only an attempt to help others .So please help
if you can.

This one is extremely detailed
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-501-2997?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

What is now clear despite different methods used, is that the rights to the receivables (which includes
interest & principle ) has been sold along with title to them . So how can the OC then sell these rights
to a DCA ? You can only sell something you own.

More links to follow

Good morning DI, great idea and thank you for starting this. I will submit when I find something of relevance!

Couple of Bank of England explanatory documents ...
Money in the modern economy:an introduction
Money creation in the modern economy

To simplify Presumption of Law .
If someone brings a court claim against you and you do not defend that claim. It is said that you lost
by default . What has happened is their claim is a presumption . You have not rebutted that presumption
with evidence. Therefore in law their presumption stands.

Thanks DI that really helps and will no doubt help all of our other members and visitors here!

Hi Dave,

I think, on default, the securities purchaser is reimbursed and the ownership returns to the OC.

The links re insurance don't prove the OC's lending is reimbursed, only the party taking a securitised package.

'Indemnification is an insurance policy that protects investors against borrower credit risk. Indemnification means that, in the event of a counterparty default, the agent would first use the available collateral (typically collateralized from 102-105%) to repurchase the client’s securities or return an equivalent amount of cash to their account. If the collateral were insufficient to make the investor whole, then the agent lender would use its own capital to repurchase the client’s securities or return an equivalent amount of cash to their account.'

Correct me if I'm wrong?