Exhibit 8.0

_________(Begin Exhibit)_________

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

          I, Margaret D. Edwards, the undersigned, make this affidavit of my own free will and hereby affirm, under my oath, that the information contained in this affidavit is true and correct.  

          This affidavit is lawful notification to Metris, LLP. auto add, hereinafter: Metris, and to Direct Merchants Bank, hereinafter: DMB, and to their subsidiaries, parent(s), agents, attorneys, affiliates, assigns, employees or those associated with Metris and DMB in any manor, whatsoever, and is hereby made and sent to the above named Metris and DMB pursuant to the Federal Constitution, specifically, the Bill of Rights, in particular, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, IX and X, and requires your written response to me within 30 days, via your sworn and notarized affidavit, specific to the subject matter specified in this affidavit.  Notice to Principals is notice to agents, and notice to agents is notice to Principals.  You are hereby noticed that your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, anything with which you disagree in this affidavit, is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this affidavit is true, correct, legal, lawful, and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection, or that of those who represent you.  Your silence is your acquiescence. 

          I, Margaret D. Edwards, hereby affirm that the following actions and events took place:

1. I sent six letters to Metris, its attorneys and DMB and its attorneys, dated:  (spell out dates);

2. The letters notified recipients: (a) of my charges, averments, statements and questions; (b) that they, within a specified time period, had to rebut my charges and averments made in those letters if they disagreed with them;  (c) that if they failed to do so, then they agreed with and admitted to my charges and averments;  

3. Metris and DMB received the letters but failed to respond to the subject matter contained in them;

3. Metris and DMB failed to rebut any of my statements, charges or averments made in the referenced letters;

4. Pursuant to the notice contained in the letters, Metris and DMB, by their failure to respond to, and further, by their failures to rebut my charges and averments made in my referenced letters, Metris and DMB   agree with and admit to my charges contained in the referenced letters;

5.  By their failure to rebut the charges contained in the referenced letters, they admit to all of my charges.  Some of those charges to which Metris and DMB agree, by their failure to rebut them, are listed below.

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 made the  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, namely, 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  communications to Plaintiff, Plaintiff is not licensed to do business in New Mexico, conducted their business through the mails, thus proper jurisdiction is federal district court, and acts in violation of New Mexico Constitution, Article IV, Sections 25 and 26.

Lawful notification has been provided to you stating that if you do not rebut the statements, charges and averments made in this Affidavit, then you agree with and admit to them.  Pursuant to that lawful notification, if you disagree with anything stated in this Affidavit of Truth, then rebut that with which you disagree, with particularity, within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof, by means of your written, notarized affidavit of truth, based in specific, relevant fact and law to support your disagreement.  Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Affidavit of Truth is true, correct, legal, lawful, and is your irrevocable admission attesting to this, fully binding upon you in any court of law in America, without your protest, objection or that of those who represent you.

Affiant further sayeth naught.

All Rights Reserved

________________________________            _______________________

Margaret D. Edwards, Affiant              Date

In the State of New Mexico,                                                                             

County of San Miguel,

I swear that on this_____day of April, 2005, the above named Affiant, _____________________, appeared before me, and of her own free will, signed this Affidavit of Truth.

__________________________

Notary Public

My Commission Expires:______________