FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SAN MIGUEL

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

METRIS COMPANIES LLP (Auto add,

            Plaintiff in Error,

v.

                                                                        Case No. 2003-188-CV

MARGARET EDWARDS,

            Defendant in Error.

REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION

TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO TELEPHONIC HEARING 

            Defendant-in-Error Margaret Edwards submits the following reply:

1.         Plaintiff did not rebut any of the statements and charges made in Defendant’s Objection to Telephonic Hearing.  Edwards invokes NMRA 1-008 (D) on grounds Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, admitted to the veracity of all averments in Edwards’s Objection, which required a response, because Plaintiff failed to address or deny them.  NMRA 1-008 (D) is quoted for the information of the Court; to wit:

                        Effect of failure to deny.  Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading.  Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied, or avoided.

2.         Since Plaintiff is in agreement with Edwards’ Objection to Telephonic Hearing, the Telephonic Hearing must be cancelled.

3.         Counsel for Plaintiff states that she suffers from a chronic illness.  The question arises as to whether this “chronic illness” existed at the time Plaintiff filed the action, by and through counsel.  If it did, then, counsel may have suspected or known, early in this action, that she would be unable to drive to Las Vegas for hearings or trial convened for the action, which she initiated on behalf of Plaintiff, and bears full responsibility for that action.  If this is the case, then, it appears counsel for Plaintiff may not have informed the Court, and did not notify Edwards, of her pre-existing illness.  This may constitute fraud, which is an act or an omission which works to the disadvantage of an opposing party.

4.            Edwards, as stated in referenced Objection to Telephonic Hearing, restates herein that she strenuously objects to any telephonic hearing, especially one based upon possible fraud.  Edwards, while sympathetic to counsel for Plaintiff’s plight, states that counsel could possibly arrange suitable transportation which would permit her to attend, in person, any scheduled proceedings for this action. 

5.         Further, Edwards contends that some form of unlawful, ex parte communication must have occurred between and/or among Plaintiff, by and through counsel, and the Court, to account for the issuance of the Notice of Telephonic Hearing for the reasons given therein.  The question here is when and by what means did the ex parte communication take place.  An obligation existed to include Edwards in any discussions pertaining to this action, however, Edwards was never consulted, in any manner, and any consideration which should have been given to her was ignored or denied.  An ex parte action, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, and the Court is unlawful and in violation of NMRA 21-300 and could be considered collusion and conspiracy by Plaintiff and the Court for the benefit of a licensed attorney to the detriment of an unrepresented American Citizen.  

6.         Still further, an ex parte action is a violation of equal protection under the law and due process of law.

7.            Edwards stated in her Objection that she is unable to properly hear through a telephonic system at this time and any such hearing would be a disadvantage to her and an advantage to Plaintiff.

8.         Plaintiff, by and through counsel, states:  “Defendant may and is not prevented from being present and presenting her alleged written evidence at the hearing.”  Edwards contends it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to present written evidence through the telephone in a 15 minute telephonic hearing, conducted for the benefit of Plaintiff’s counsel.  Edwards expects any rulings made by the presiding judge to be made based upon the evidence, fact and law.

9.         The “alleged evidence” to which Plaintiff, by and through counsel, refers is not “alleged”, whatsoever, and, in fact, is well known to Plaintiff and counsel since Edwards previously sent this evidence, in letter form, as lawful notification to Plaintiff, by and  through counsel, by certified mail, return receipt requested.  Edwards made statements, charges and averments and asked pertinent questions, none of which were rebutted or answered. Plaintiff, by and through counsel, had a responsibility to respond, with particularity, if they disagreed with Edwards’ statements and charges.  Plaintiff failed to rebut.  An unrebutted statement, charge and affidavit stand as truth, and truth, purportedly a standard of the Court, must be so recognized.  Plaintiff has admitted to Edwards’ statements and charges, by acquiescence; thus, since there is no dispute, there is no controversy and charges must be dismissed.

10.       The letters sent to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, stated that Plaintiff dealt in fraud, fraudulent business practices and fraudulent contract, and engaged counsel to enforce a fraudulent contract, in violation of NMRA 11-503 (D).  Plaintiff, at no time, rebutted this, either directly, or by and through counsel.  A fraudulent contract is invalid and unenforceable, because fraud cancels everything gained by and through fraud.  The Court cannot and has no authority to enforce a fraudulent contract, and if the Court believes otherwise, the Court must demonstrate by what authority it may condone fraud and enforce a fraudulent contract.  Government and police seize assets and money gained through fraud.  For the Court to publicly condone fraud is unprecedented. 

11.       The government is the only entity lawfully authorized to create money.  (See Art. I, Sec. 8 of the National Constitution.)  Direct Merchants Bank, by acquiescence, admits to creating money, in violation of Article I, Sec. 8 of referenced Constitution. 

12.            Edwards hereby provides to the Court Exhibit’s A through F, excerpted, paraphrased and highlighted herein, which fully support her lawful position, admitted to by Plaintiff:

            From Exhibit A: 

            1.  Direct Merchants Bank creates debt by creating money out of thin air. 

            2.  Direct Merchants Bank charges usurious rates on money which never existed before Direct Merchants funded the debt.

            3.  Edwards offered to pay balance at five per cent (5%) interest.

            4.  Direct Merchants Bank deals in usurious rates and unfair practices.

          5. Direct Merchants extorts hard-earned dollars in exchange for non-existent           money created by touch of computer keys.

            6.  Direct Merchants Bank perpetrates a shell game foisted upon the people.

  7.  For contract to be valid, there must be full disclosure and there was no full disclosure to Edwards by Direct Merchants Bank stating that money is created out of thin air.

8. Outright fraud is being perpetrated by Direct Merchants Bank upon Edwards. Edwards has a duty to expose fraud.

            From Exhibit B:

1.  Direct Merchants’ letter of October 17, 2002 fails to address issues Edwards Raised in her previous letter to Direct Merchants Bank.

2.  Direct Merchants Bank has been perpetrating a fraud on the American People.

            3.  Questions:

a.  From whose account did Direct Merchants Bank withdraw money to pay vendors?

b.  Was the money created by Edwards’ signature on the voucher when she the made purchase?

c.  Is it Direct Merchants Bank’s policy to create checkbook money?

 

4.  Direct Merchants Bank was given an opportunity to rebut statements and answer questions, which it failed to do.

            From Exhibit C:

1.  Edwards states her questions remain unanswered.  

2.  Direct Merchants Bank admits by acquiescence to loaning or creating credit on its books.

3.  Court decision prohibits banks from creating money and credit upon their books by means of bookkeeping entries. 

4.  What Direct Merchants Bank is doing is fraudulent.  

5.  Edwards gave Direct Merchants Bank opportunity to rebut her statements which they did not do.

            From Attached Affidavit:

1.  Affiant signed documents without knowledge that a fraud was being       perpetrated upon affiant.

  2.  Affiant was coerced into signing documents without any knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated upon affiant.

            From Exhibit D:

1.  Edwards has communicated with Direct Merchants Bank since September 30,  2002 regarding serious concerns and issues that required a response, but none of these were addressed or rebutted.  By acquiescence, Direct Merchants Bank deems  that the statements are admitted, including fraud in their operational practices of  creating money and credit upon their own books by means of bookkeeping entries.

2.  Edwards will not be a party to fraud and assumes Sanchez would not wish to  be a party to fraud.

            From Exhibit E:

1.  Direct Merchants Bank never responded to Edwards’ questions raised to them,  thus, Edwards concludes that Direct Merchants Bank operates fraudulently and did not  loan Edwards anything but a liability, and is admitted as true.

2.  What Direct Merchants Bank was to loan to Edwards was created by Edwards’ note to them.

3.  The original application, which initiated the contract was fraudulent upon its   face and did not provide full disclosure.

            From Exhibit F:

1.  Edwards refuses payment for failure of the presentment to comply with the  terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or   rule.  

2.  Bank fraud.  Direct Merchants Bank created the money Edwards borrowed by using Edwards’ promise to pay to generate computer entries on Edwards’ account.  

3.  Direct Merchants Bank created money out of thin air and failed to notify Edwards of this.

4.  United States Code, Title 12, Section 24, Paragraph 7 confirms upon a bank  the power to lend its money, not its credit. 

 5.  The provisions referred to do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is such power  incidental of the business of banking.  The courts have ruled that a bank can lend its money, but not its credit.

6.  A national bank, under federal law, cannot lend its credit guaranteeing the debt of others.  

7.  A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note.  If there is no full disclosure and no consideration, there is no contract.

8.  Direct Merchants is able to create money in moments that will take Edwards years of labor to pay.  Direct Merchants has made Edwards a debt slave, controlling her time by loaning her bank credit in the place of money.

  9.  The original contract was fraudulent on its face, as it did not provide full disclosure.

10.  Fraud has no statute of limitations and its presence cancels every agreement.

11.  There is conspiracy amongst banks.

12.  Notice is provided to Direct Merchants Bank to rebut the statements, but  rebuttal never occurred.

 

            In view of the foregoing, which is admitted to by Plaintiff’s acquiescence, that Plaintiff dealt in fraud and engaged counsel for the purpose of collecting upon a fraudulent contract, fraud cancels any contract.  Further as Edwards stated in her previous pleadings to this Court, Plaintiff is not licensed to do business in New Mexico, conducted their business through the mails and acts in violation of New Mexico Constitution, Article IV, Sections 25 and 26.

            WHEREFORE, Defendant-in-Error, Edwards, in light of the foregoing evidence, requests that the scheduled Telephonic Hearing, unlawfully requested ex parte by Plaintiff, and without any consideration to Edwards, be permanently cancelled.

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        All Rights Reserved

                                                                        _________________________________

                                                                        Margaret D. Edwards, American Citizen

                                                                        C/o 739 Dalbey Drive

                                                                        Las Vegas, New Mexico [87701]

                                                                        Phone/Fax:  (505) 425-0659

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

                I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Objection was sent first class, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to Catherine Sanchez, Esq., Post Office Box 37290, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87176-7290, on this ____day of January, 2004.

All Rights Reserved

___________________

Margeret D. Edwards, American Citizen