Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Back to Cali

The federal court in Oakland has issued a Habeas to bring us there on the 26th. If this judge has more pull than Alsup, whose Habeas were ignored, we are on our way to California. I think because these are criminal and Alsup was a madman lost in the euphoria of presumption that they may be recognized. Utah, the federal ass kissers, are acting sheepishly which is another indicator. It’s too bad because the false witness Doug Ledeax would have been fun to publicly humiliate. I will just have to resort to my private remedy for those who misuse their office. This just leaves me and the Big Mouth between you and your victory. On the table (realistic) is 30 years for me and 3 trillion fannie mae fraud, congressional embarrassment and scandal, 10 trillion of voidable bank contracts, a setback of 30 years of progressive theft. I have little at stake in comparison so I like being at this table. Knowing the odds of my cards has me even more excited. I said on T.V. that the worst thing they could do is bring criminal charges. I wasn’t joking or blinking. The blind lust of people who are used to their roar making people turn and run never stopped to think about the consequence of running into two men with courage. Now that cards are dealt, the chips can’t be taken off the table. They only go to the victor. Bring me my plane ticket, I got a game to play.

34 comments:

emily from blog articles said...

Hello,

Are you aware that arthritis is the nations #1 crippling disease that affects more than 40 million americans. It's a little known fact that arthritis afflicts many people between the ages of 20 and 50.

I suffered uneccessary arthritic pain until I discovered that there are a number of effective treatments to relieve your pain.

You are welcome to share all the free information on arthritis symptons cures and other treatments I have gathered on how to reduce arthritic pain.

Best Regards
Emily

Solvo said...

See you at the top, along with "big O".

GR82BMOI said...

Mogel wrote: “…but when you present a ridiculously untrue financial figure & enjoin it with inflaming words to manipulate people’s minds, I definitely think that is morally wrong.”

Speaking of ridiculously untrue financial figures: Less than 20 refi’s you say? Huh. That’s not what DG promotional material led everyone to believe. I’m relying on memory here, but didn’t you/they claim 4,000 clients and a “successful, proven” process? Let’s do the math: 20 refi’s into 4,000 clients computes to a one half of one percent “success” rate. That doesn’t seem very successful to me and it sure doesn’t “prove” much. So, I guess the $64 Million question is: Mogel, as a Dorean broker, are you lying now, or were you lying before?

P.S. please do us all a favor and avoid use of the word “moral”, or any of its derivatives, when you promote Dorean’s fraudulent, dishonest, royal screw[ing] of a SCAM.

tcob247 said...

Actually....even though I am on your side gr82bmoi...

The figure they were quoting was not re-fi's

They considered it a success if you got a piece of paper from them saying that your mortgage was free and clear

That to them was a successful proven process
(we know now that it was a sceme to lure more people in)

I got that piece of paper.
It was good enough to wipe my ass with but not anything else

It just caused more headaches.
Screwd up my Title

I was somewhat lucky though
I was one of the people who kept up their mortgage payments

Some people lost their homes and families (including Scott Heineman)

Clueless Fudd said...

gr8ape ape, gr8pe ape

partysecured said...

I would hope soon that the people on this blog that insist that Kurt Johnson jumped into the "mortgage challenge" business for your "money" that you would finally put this nonsense to rest.

How much jail time = loss of freedom can one person (two people) subject themselves to and equate it to the $1500 that you forked over.
(you paid this amount for what? due to a lack of education on your part not knowing how your mortgage transaction went down since if you did you would have either a. argued the validity of your mortgage contract yourself or b. found that as you educated yourself of the entanglement that it was just something you could not fight by yourself and employed Kurt and Scott.)

If you decided to jump in the Dorean process for any other reason then you guessed right you only have yourselves to blame.

I guess you all thought that Kurt had this elaborate scheme to take your $1500 and get as many as he could to go for it while the getting was good (even while his partner was in jail never forseeing that this would too be his fate soon) spend oh maybe 40 - 50 years in the klink give or take for good behavior then slip back out into the free world to spend all of you poor sap's money?

And you decided that this was going to happen before or after you gave up the $?

What you hopefully did was to employ the services of Kurt and Scott to help you fight a battle that you educated yourself on first, then decided because you don't know a goddamn thing about contract law and commercial banking that the services that they were offering sounded valid and you decided to back their play with your consent and blessing so your children and your children's children have a happier earth to live, free of the bondages of a mathematically impossible monetary system.

Or you just simply fell for another one of those sick and twisted scams so you could justify wasting your time bitching and complaining about how "woe is me, I was promised this and that again but because I have no real powers of my own other than to take the victim's role so I know, I'll get even I'm going to show everybody my brilliance on my web blog postings and how once again life isn't living up to my expectations of it because I've been swindled by the Dorean group.

I know it's easy for most to blame others for the shit you yourself are responsible for but seriously it's about time you either accept responsibility for your own shit or pipe down.

For those of you who think posting about this guy did this and they took this amount of money from who is going to dissuade the people who got involved with this process for the real reasons --- it really ain't happening.

For those imbisiles on here thinking they are doing a good deed by posting their bullshit so there won't be any more "victims" of the Dorean process I hope your good deeds don't go unpunished. You people should be running for public office we could really use your great foresight in areas that really matter.

partysecured said...

livinginxs said:

Kurt and Mogel - tell us to get educated. Where is a good place to start? I am in Florida if that makes a difference.

I'll give you a big piece right here. It may not apply to your current situation now but if you are in the mortgage challenge process realize that contract law is the law that reigns supreme in your world or anyone elses for that matter.

Kurt and Scott seem to know it well and if the beast that they are up against abide by it (instead of using force which is the chosen method used by those that think the law is "do what I say because I said so") then they will succeed.

If everyone understood that we are all the time contracting with one another commercially and understood the principals behind commerce and contracting that we wouldn't be in half the messes we end up in. We are all responsible for ourselves and our own creations and doings.

Commerce: all and every interchange between people, including (but not limeited to ) sexual intercourse, exchange of ideas, and the ordinary buying/selling in the marketplace to which the term "commerce is usually applied. All law is contract; every interchange between people is contract; all commerce is contract. It is a timeless and universal maxim of law: "Contract makes the law."

An unrebutted affidavit, claim or charge (no matter how preposterous, criminal or illegitimate) stands as the truth in commerce.

All matters must be expressed to be resolved.

The above cited maxims are necessarily true because unless what is asserted is rebutted or disputed by the affected party there is no basis for anyone to know or act in any manner contrarey to the unrebutted/undisputed claim or charge.

This is a free will universe you get more free will i.e. choices when you get more edu-ma-cated. Not too much edu-ma-cation = little choice or not too much free will. Little education = ignorance = more control over u since you choose it to be this way by letting those with more education run your affairs for you.

No one in the universe can speak for you other than you (but this is why you employed Kurt and Scott as your trusties who know how to rebutt and dispute on your behalf).
Get it.

Per universal contract law, in order for a contract to be valid, (i.e. a contract at all) it must be formulated in accordance with specific essentials. Not just "cuz we say it's this way whether you likes it or not".

Most fundamentally, a contract is the formalization and codification of an agreement. In order to achieve agreement, ALL parties must understand the full scope and nature, the full terms and conditions, of the proposed contract, or no agreement and hence no contract exists.

People enter into contracts in order to be bettered in their own terms. No one enters into a contract to be diminished, cheated, or destroyed.

Any purported "contract" that fails to be characterized by mutual good faith, meeting of the minds, open and full disclosure of all terms and conditions, is either void or voidable. It is flawed from inception and can at least be rendered null and void by the election of the deceived or defrauded party.

And hopefully to prove that this isn't some "pull it out of your ass" "parallel universe" law as some here think, here is the California Civil Code's take on contract law.

$1550. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CONTRACT

It is essential to the existing of a contract that there should be:
1. PArties capable of contracting (capacity)

2. Their consent;

3. Lawful object: and,

4. A sufficient cause or consideration.

$1556. WHO MAY CONTRACT
All persons are capable of contracting, except minors, persons of unsound mind, and persons deprived of civil rights.

$1565. ESSENTIALS OF CONSENT
The consent of the parties to a contract must be:
1. Free:

2.Mutual; and,

3. Communicated by each other to the other.

$1567. AN APPARENT CONSENT IS NOT REAL OR FREE WHEN OBTAINED THROUGH:

1. Duress; (let's see your driver's liscence and registration)

2. Menace;

3. Fraud;

4. Undue influence; or

5. Mistake

So for those that would still like to think that "well you singed the promissary note saying that you would pay back the little ole banks all that money they lenteded to you and its all a big scam what you rotten peoples are doing to scam the poor old banks out of their hard earned paper" the issue that Kurt and Scott that you so happilly sided with are doing is putting the poor little ole bankers to the ole contract test.

Did the banks give equal consideration in their agreement with you? Did they disclose all the relavent facts pertaining to the transaction? This is where I hope you do your homework to finally see who is screwing who.

In law there is a difference between "assent" and "consent" One may assent to fraud, but one cannot "consent" to fraud however because "consent" requires actual agreement-- true meeting of the minds, full disclosure and good faith.


I hope this helps and gives you a head start in some educating yourself and realizing that no matter what anyone on this blog may think this is the real issue that you are dealing with in all of your affairs and hope you realize these truths and know that this is basically what Kurt and Scott have a profound knowledge of and realize that if we all would understand these basic principals then Kurt and Scott wouldnt have to be trying to fight this from the inside.

It is high time to realize that we are in the messes we are in for a lack of education and knowledge and until you find out what it is you truely want to do in this life you live that everything you have, don't have, situations you are in are directly related to you and nobody else. Thinking that it is due to somebody or something else gives your contracting power away.

GR82BMOI said...

Partysecured wrote: “I guess you all thought that Kurt had this elaborate scheme to take your $1500 and get as many as he could to go for it while the getting was good (even while his partner was in jail never forseeing that this would too be his fate soon) spend oh maybe 40 - 50 years in the klink give or take for good behavior then slip back out into the free world to spend all of you poor sap's money?”

No, I figure the ex-con and his gullible sidekick either…

a) Are so incredibly narcissistic that they actually believe they have stumbled upon a flaw in the banking system and/or contract law that heretofore has gone undetected by millions of smart and educated folks including, but not limited to, attorneys, bankers, accountants, judges, economists, businesspeople and Nobel prize winners.
b) Figured they would throw the brokers on the front line to take the fall, but the plan backfired.
c) Were so engulfed with greed that they miscalculated the precise moment they should have blown town.

I can’t decide which.

Clueless Fudd said...

gr8pe ape, gr8pe ape

partysecured said...

That's why you should either
a. let some one do all of your figuring for you or

b. stay inside where it is safe

GR82BMOI said...

So...judging by those responses, I guess neither of you fall into the "smart educated folks" category.

yeahrightwhateverz said...

PartySecured said...
"How much jail time = loss of freedom can one person (two people) subject themselves to and equate it to the $1500 that you forked over. (you paid this amount for what? due to a lack of education on your part not knowing how your mortgage transaction went down since if you did you would have either a. argued the validity of your mortgage contract yourself or b. found that as you educated yourself of the entanglement that it was just something you could not fight by yourself and employed Kurt and Scott.)"

"If you decided to jump in the Dorean process for any other reason then you guessed right you only have yourselves to blame."

No Fuckin Cocky Ass, I paid the $1500 for someone who "supposedly" had a remedy that was "successful" 100% of the time. Mr. know-it-all, I signed a document, you know, the "contract" giving Kurt limited power of attorney to handle my affairs. That's right dipshit, he was the "expert," not me. But yet this is somehow my fault because I didn't go out and get the right education right Fuckhead? It was my fault Kurt said he had a rememdy that could stop foreclosures and I quote, "GUARANTEED," right Fuckhead? It was my fault that Kurt promised the 500 who had similar results $100k to $400k to help either by a NEW HOME, or KEEP THE ONE THE CLIENT IS FIGHTING TO KEEP DUE TO FORECLOSURES AND BANKRUPTCIES? ALL these things were my fault right YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE?

I personally can give two shits about the $1500. What I DO CARE about is the money that is currently in escrow according to Kurt and the Li-Bolians, THE MONEY THAT THE HOME I LOST HELPED FUND. THE MONEY THAT IS NOT BENEFITING ME, OR HELPING ME ONE BIT. BUT ONLY BENEFITING THOSE WHO ARE IN CONTROL OF IT. But you keep beating your chest and blame the "un-edujamacated" clients.

partysecured said...

yeahrightwhateverz said:

No Fuckin Cocky Ass, I paid the $1500 for someone who "supposedly" had a remedy that was "successful" 100% of the time. Mr. know-it-all, I signed a document, you know, the "contract" giving Kurt limited power of attorney to handle my affairs. That's right dipshit, he was the "expert," not me. But yet this is somehow my fault because I didn't go out and get the right education right Fuckhead? It was my fault Kurt said he had a rememdy that could stop foreclosures and I quote, "GUARANTEED," right Fuckhead?

I really don't wan't to get into a posting war with anyone in here.

I don't mean to be condescending to anyone in particular either.

Paying $1500 clams for a "100% successful remedy" might be where you made the first of your mistakes.

And not to add insult to injury but there really ain't no "guarantees" with anything now is there.

And yes I can hear the anger in your post probably meaning that you lost your house and maybe more than that but if you want somemore undeniable truth that stings.........believe it or not YES IT IS YOUR FAULT. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SHIT. I KNOW YOU DON"T LIKE THIS BUT NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE RESPONSIBL FOR YOU NOT SOMEBODY ELSE. IF YOU WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU YOU GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESERVE EVERYTIME.

Sorry but that's the way it is. And besides Kurt is in jail right now isn't he? Would you like him on a slab perhaps? Would this make things even? I know I know not by a long shot huh?

What you reap is what you sew. That's some more universal law shit. You may no like it much but there it is. Learn it quickly so as not to fall into anymore quagmires.

There's two ways to learn. Direct experience or through keen observation. If you don't learn life's lessons the second way your bound to get scraped up alot doing it the first way. Take a lucky guess how I know this.

But it still is a free will universe and lessons have to be learned in order to move on. Take something from your experience but enuff with "I got scammed by a man who guaaranteed %100" shit because the more you read that the more you would think it would sink in that yes it is your fault.

Not beating my chest here but if that's what it seems like then I do understand.

mogel said...

gr82bmoi: Since you are "relying from memory" & you don't really know who said that statement for sure, I'll assume you are mistaken or guessing, since you aren't necessarily quoting me per se. so your statement really isn't directed at me. Besides your statement is more of a question, questioning what was really said. Why don't you find out exactly what was really said, what date it was said, who really said it & then rephrase your question a 2nd time with facts to whomever said that. But then, make sure what the term "success" is really referring to specifically in the context it was used. Was the term of "success" maybe referring only to "successfully" taking away Legal Title of record from the lender?

Mogel

mogel said...

Gr82bmoi: I think "Party secured" has put some real perspective to what the real issues really are. Thank-you for your eloquence!!!! We all need to hear what you so eloquently said since it's truly inspiring.

Maybe this Court Case precedence BELOW might help you and MAYBE some others also get a little better perspective too how important FULL DISCLOSURE REALLY IS in order to bind a person to an agreement/contract:

The Power of the "Truth in Lending Act":

"The mortgage industry professed great surprise at the March 1994 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Rodash v. AIB Mtge. Co.,26 holding that a lender's pass-on of a $ 204 Florida intangible tax and a $ 22 Federal Express fee HAD TO BE INCLUDED in the finance charge, and that Martha Rodash WAS ENTITLED TO RESCIND HER MORTGAGE as a result of the lender's FAILURE to do so. The court found that ''the plain language of TILA evinces no explicit exclusion of an intangible tax from the finance charge,'' and that the intangible tax did not fall under any of the exclusions in regulation Z dealing with security interest charges."

How many violations does the Dorean mortgage challenge include? Certainly much more than what was included in the case precedence above. Hence, how unreasonable is it for clients to expect their discharge also and have it upheld?

Mogel

partysecured said...

Yes Mogel thank you for your own eloquence and inspiration. And thanks for your own fact finding that may lend some support for the people on this blog that need it.

I don't pretend to have all the answers to this puzzle but I'm sure as hell not going to let the ones that have absolutely zip to offer ruin the mood for the true believers on this blog.

Hope is not lost only perhaps just a few discouraged souls who didn't get what they wanted NOW!!

If more people would use their energy to help support a cause they believe in instead of offering shallow remarks and insults to fuel the already swollen pride of the adversary this and many other of lifes "death grips" on us would fail to last long enough to make a big deal about.

Just think for a moment if you were in jail because you stood up to an evil so big and encompassing on behalf of people you don't even know and for that matter they themselves not knowing how big the foe you're fighting really is, and have them same people throwing more shit on top of you to boot.

What would you do? Would you keep going? Is it about saving face now or is beyond that?

Would you take the deal so you could hopefully be home for game 7 ? Or would you atleast hope there is somebody else out there who gives a shit that you bothered to inconvenience yourself on behalf of the truth wich precious few seem to care about?

Now don't get me wrong I would have tuck tail and ran along time ago but then again I'm not close to the level of understanding that our friends Kurt and Scott are.

This is one of the big ones folks. I hope some really see the significants of this battle and put it in some sort of perspective for yourselves. As for me I've been waiting for this fight since I picked up "THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND" six years ago.

I wouldn't have missed this for anything. I do however feel a bit hypocritical watching from the sidelines but then again we all have our role to play in one way or the other.

My advice is choose a side, find a good seat and enjoy.

I want what most of you want. I want what the Declaration of Independance promises "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life Liberty, and the pursuit of Hapiness" and that's whether a fuckin piece of paper tells me that or not.

What good is my freedom if you don't have any?

Trinity: No-ones ever done this before!!!

Neo: That's why it's going to work!!!!

GR82BMOI said...

Mogel wrote: “How many violations does the Dorean mortgage challenge include? Certainly much more than what was included in the case precedence above. Hence, how unreasonable is it for clients to expect their discharge also and have it upheld.”

The Dorean mortgage challenge does not include any identified violations of TILA. Anyone that believes a lending transaction was in violation regulation’s requirements can invoke their rights under TILA. BTW, the process is rather simple and does not include paying anyone a fee, nor does it require that the borrower transfer their property to a trust. It also does not say the borrower should present a phony bond (or a valid one for that matter) to the lender and it certainly does not include the requirement that the borrower file counterfeit mortgage releases.

FYI, the regulation also says…”the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer's interest in the property, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurs first.” Meaning, of course, that if any of your clients actually HAD a valid complaint under TILA, they gave up all their rights to remedy when they transferred their property to the trust. Pity.

GR82BMOI said...

Mogel wrote: "Since you are "relying from memory" & you don't really know who said that statement for sure..."

On June 30th, 2005 Whistleblower wrote: "I have been to battle now in over 4000 mortgage transactions".

When all else fails...backpeddle.

Starfish Prime said...

partysecured,

2 good posts. You set a good example for all of us.

WillToFight said...

Here Here Mongel & PartySecured!

I could not agree more!


What Up Solvo

WillToFight said...

Gr8peApe wrote:

No, I figure the ex-con and his gullible sidekick either…

a) Are so incredibly narcissistic that they actually believe they have stumbled upon a flaw in the banking system and/or contract law that heretofore has gone undetected by millions of smart and educated folks including, but not limited to, attorneys, bankers, accountants, judges, economists, businesspeople and Nobel prize winners.
b) Figured they would throw the brokers on the front line to take the fall, but the plan backfired.
c) Were so engulfed with greed that they miscalculated the precise moment they should have blown town.


Gr8ape Ape

Has is occurred to you that many people you mentioned that should have seen the fraud from the banks, did see that fraud.

However, they did not have to use the fraudulent financial formula of the banks. They have most likely large amounts of money was able to use your money to or cash to purchase or a secured loan against cash.

They would not have the same contract as you or I. In any of the cases I describe they walked away with Title to the property and they are not subject to a mortgage agreement as most of us are?

Get It?

yeahrightwhateverz said...

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID SHITHEAD? YOU JUST SAID THAT IT'S OKAY TO LIE TO PEOPLE, IT'S OKAY TO MISLEAD PEOPLE, AND IT'S OKAY TO TELL PEOPLE SOMETHING, AND NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT!

YOU'VE JUST SAID THAT THERE'S A UNIVERSAL FORCE THAT SAYS, OH WELL, TOO FUCKIN BAD YOU DIDN'T KNOW SOMEONE WAS GOING TO USE YOUR HOUSE AS A SPRINGBOARD TO GAIN FINANCIALLY, BUT NOT BE RESPONSIBLE TO PAY THEM ANYTHING FOR THE TROUBLE, HEARTACHE, ANGUISH, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS THAT IT CAUSED, RIGHT?

YOU'RE A GREAT ROLE MODEL PARTYCRASHER!

I'M NOT SCREAMING I GOT SCAMMED MR. BLIND DEAF AND DUMBASS! ALL THAT I SAID WAS THAT I WANT THE MONEY KURT MADE OFF OF MY JUDGMENT WHICH IS SITTING STAGNANT IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT THAT COULD PUT ME BACK IN A HOUSE WHICH WAS LOST BECAUSE OF HIS PROCESS, THAT SOMEHOW BECAUSE OF A UNIVERSAL LAW IT WAS MY FAULT FOR LOSING.

I WANT THE MONEY NOW SO THAT WHEN THE BIG BAD WOLF WIPES HIS ASS WITH KURT AND SCOTTY TISSUE PAPER, I'M NOT OUT THE MONEY THAT WAS SITTING IN AN ACCOUNT WAITING FOR SOME VICTORY PARTY TO HAPPEN BEFORE IT WAS DISPERSED.

THIS WAS KURTS BATTLE. THIS IS WHAT KURT WANTED. DON'T GIVE ME SHIT THAT BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ALL THIS BEFORE COMING INTO THE PROCESS, OR RATHER, IT WASN'T DISCLOSED TO ME - HMM, KINDA SOUNDS LIKE KURTS ARGUMENT ON WHAT THE BANKS DIDN'T DO DOESN'T IT? HOW IRONIC, BANKS DIDN'T DISCLOSE FACTS OF THE CONTRACT, AND KURT DIDN'T DISCLOSE FACTS OF HIS CONTRACT.

YOU SURE ARE MAKING A GOOD CASE FOR THIS TO BE A SCAM WITH YOUR BLAME GAME. GEE, HOW ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROCESS? DO YOU PLAN TO BENEFIT FROM THIS SOMEHOW? WERE YOU PROMISED THAT IF YOU CAME HERE SPOUTING YOUR BULLSHIT SUPPORT FOR KURT THAT YOU WOULD BE PAID THE MONIES KURT MADE OFF HIS SORRY ASS, UN-EDUCATED, STOOPID FUCKING CLIENTS?

HAD I KNOWN ABOUT KURT’S BOTCHED INVESTMENT INCIDENT AND HOW PEOPLE GOT SCREWED, I CERTAINLY WOULDN’T HAVE GAVE THIS BULLSHIT A SECOND THOUGHT. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT THE INVESTORS ONLY LOST MONEY, NOW, PEOPLE HAVE LOST HOMES AND BROKEN LIVES. HAVE A LITTLE RESPECT YOU PIECE OF SHIT SORRY ASS EXCUSE FOR A HUMAN BEING.

son of a prophet said...

McCanney always puts out good stuff....www.jmccanneyscience.com


October 25, 2005 posting # 2 ... on "laws and intent" ... if laws had an original intention and were sold to the public under one guise ... then extended and used outside the original intent and purpose ... are they still legitimate laws ??? how about vaccines that could be mandated to "protect the public from bird flu" but also secretly have a micro-coded ship in them ... how about the efforts now to legitimatize torture ... but just by the CIA (as if they were some kind of honorable group that can monitor themselves) and just for those "detainees" in foreign countries ... as other new "laws" redefine that american citizens can easily be defined as "terrorists" the implication is clear ... you can now be arrested and tortured and your constitutional rights taken away if you oppose the stance of the clowns in office who claim that they are the government ... or how about the "department of defense" which now could not defend this country against anything but is being used to defend private corporation interests all over the globe ... how about the alleged tax amendment #16 that was only supposed to be temporary in 1917 to pay for world war I and then abandoned ... they said that it would never go over 4% (they did not include that figure since they felt that the public would be so outraged at 4% that it would never have passed) ... growing evidence shows that it actually never was ratified as an amendment ... and it has no legitimacy even if it were ratified as it over-rides the fundamental nature of the constitution itself ... so there are huge issues today as we look down the barrel of the coming century ... with a good governmental system but a bad monetary system with essentially crooks and cockroaches in every corner of the government ... laws and intent ... this is a HUGE topic that spans the science world as well as we look now at private multi-national corporations doing "research" without boundaries as well as black ops research which holds no boundaries ... jim mccanney

October 25, 2005 posting # 1 ... there is a science to economics ... the very concept of wealth money that was designated by the constitution (and has now been replaced by the debt ridden federal reserve note in its place) had in its inherent design the fact that there would be no such thing as an unbalanced budget ... since this would mean that the workers produced more value and therefore congress would have the right to create more value money to pay them ... this is not inflation ... it is wealth creation ... this topic is a necessary diversion from my conversations about science ... and in fact under this system the private entrepreneurs like Burt Rutan and others would be paid for creating value by congressionally mandated value money allotments ... this would replace the guaranteed debt funding of overstuffed federal organizations like NASA that drive us all deeper in debt and produce no value or results for decades ... scientists who produced would be paid based on results ... not disney cartoons of what they perceived would be great like going to the moon and mars based on empty promises ... listen to my show thursday night to learn more about this and other science topics of the day ... jim mccanney

October 24, 2005 posting ... early this morning as i went outside ... a CIA helicopter (the short square bladed kind built by Ball Aerospace for the CIA central and south american drug trade business) came low over the trees above my head ... this has happened many times to me and i am familiar with their tactics ... when they get close like this ... it is their way of trying to tell me they did not approve of my latest postings regarding the age old bush clinton CIA business partnerships (yes and it does include hillary) ... i politely waived at the helicopter to let them know i saw them and they slowly passed out of sight ... so in honor of their statement i have made a new posting on the thought of the day page ... be sure to check out the Oct 23 Thought of the Day posting and others going back to September (including Sept 18) which prompted their little warning ... jim mccanney

mogel said...

gr82bemoi said: "FYI, the regulation also says…”the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer's interest in the property, or upon sale of the property,..."

First of all, the "consummation" as you have indicated never occurred due to nondisclosure, not to mention, there is no consummation because the lender never signed anywhere. Second of all the property wasn't "sold", it was put in a trust and the trustor is generally still the beneficiary so there is still a valid interest & it's NOT considered a sale, because when you go to the County Recorder you don't pay a transfer tax due to a sale. There was no financial consideration that took place, hence no sale. You're the one that needs an education.

Mogel

mogel said...

gr82bemoi: You said: "On June 30th, 2005 Whistleblower wrote: 'I have been to battle now in over 4000 mortgage transactions'.

When all else fails...backpeddle."

I think you are the one backpeddling because the two quotes you gave contradict alot of the alleged facts you first presupposed.

Secondly, it is true that Kurt's company had sent out 4,000 mortgage challenge complaints & yes, it is a battle.

Thirdly, the battle isn't over, so stop concluding an outcome.

And you point is??????

Mogel

mogel said...

yearightwhateverz: You said: "I WANT THE MONEY NOW SO THAT WHEN THE BIG BAD WOLF WIPES HIS ASS WITH KURT AND SCOTTY TISSUE PAPER, I'M NOT OUT THE MONEY THAT WAS SITTING IN AN ACCOUNT WAITING FOR SOME VICTORY PARTY TO HAPPEN BEFORE IT WAS DISPERSED."

I believe you are concluding things that just don't fit. The Federal Court actions or conclusions of this have nothing to do with the success of you getting what is due to you in escrow. Those two things are mutually exclusive events.

I hope you get what you deserve & more due to the pain you have already experienced. I hope at some point you feel that things have turned out "more than fair".

Mogel

mogel said...

gr82bemoi: You said: "The Dorean mortgage challenge does not include any identified violations of TILA."

First of all what is this TILA? It is the TRUTH IN LENDING ACT. Any untruth, mistruth, partial truth, lie, deceit, trickery, ommission, lack of FULL DISCLOSURE,
etc. falls under this Act.

The Dorean affidavit of truth, points 6-8 & points 13-51, are all violations of the Truth in Lending Act, in the very least.

There are other legal issues besides the Truth in Lending Act too. I never meant to insinuate that a person's rights, remedies, & damages are just limited to TILA.

Obviously, you never read the "Affidavit of Truth" that is sent out in every Dorean mortgage challenge. If you did, obviously, you don't understand it.

Now go delude someone else, because I'm not a willing buyer or participant of your delusions.

Mogel

mogel said...

Did MERS Take a Hit in New York?

Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004

by Bruce J. Bergman
Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, L.L.P. 's USFN Member (NY)

A recent case in New York dramatically calls into question the validity of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) methodology in the "Empire State" or so it seems on its face. Although the case is at the trial court level, it still exists and offers guidance in other cases that may be viewed with dismay in the mortgage servicing industry. [Merscorp v. Romaine, N.Y.L.J., June 17, 2004, at 21, col. 1 (Sup. Ct., Suff. Co., Catterson, J.)]



The short story is that while the decision confirms that mortgages reciting MERS as the nominee for the beneficial holder of the mortgage can be recorded, once the mortgage has been "assigned" in the MERS system, "assignments" and satisfactions issued by MERS cannot be, which to a significant extent defeats the underlying purpose.



A major problem in the mortgage industry is the lost or erroneous mortgage assignment. (The ability to issue a satisfaction of mortgage when the chain of mortgage ownership is broken or unclear is likewise a significant dilemma.) The MERS system is, of course, designed to ameliorate these concerns. In the electronic registration system, the transfer of beneficial interests in mortgages is facilitated by MERS serving in the capacity as agent for all of its members. Those members have agreed by contract to appoint MERS as the agent to act as the mortgagee on all loans registered in the MERS system according to the MERS governing documents.



MERS instruments are registered in its central database (available to the public), and it is here that all future transfers of beneficial ownership and servicing rights are tracked. If transfers are made among MERS members, then no papers are filed in any county clerk'a office, thereby avoiding the confusion, loss and error that has plagued traditional approaches. But then, under MERS, there are no assignments, only the transfers of servicing rights.




Regarding the origination of the mortgage, MERS becomes the lender's nominee at inception when the lender and the borrower name MERS as mortgagee of record. Or, if a MERS member acquires a mortgage, MERS becomes the mortgage holder's nominee pursuant to the MERS governing documents.



But the Suffolk County (New York) Clerk refused to accept any MERS documents, based upon a series of legal arguments that are not recited here. Consequently, MERS sued to compel the county clerk to, in essence, accept all of its documents. This lawsuit yielded a decision that was in part a victory, and in part a defeat although in the absence of complete success, the possible threat to MERS is of concern.





In ruling that the county clerk must record MERS mortgages (the victory), the salient points were as follows:



· The purpose of New York's recording act is not defeated by recording a mortgage reciting MERS as a nominee because it alerts the public to the existence of a mortgage on the property, which is a main function of the clerk's index.



· A mortgagee is defined by statute in New York [RPAPL § 1921(9)(a)] as either the current holder of the mortgage or the agent of the current holder of the mortgage. Because MERS is the agent of the lender, the statutory requirement is fulfilled.



· The county clerk's role is purely ministerial and invokes no exercise of judgment or discretion. Consequently, the clerk must accept for recording a MERS mortgage and has no power to reach legal conclusions concerning the validity of the underlying conveyance.



The court, however, viewed MERS assignments and discharges (satisfactions), differently. In denying MERS motion to direct the county clerk to accept assignments and discharges, the court found that the MERS method of transferring mortgage rights violates New York Real Property Law.



Here are the court's points:



· The recording of an assignment is constructive notice to the world of the rights of the assignee. (But an assignment involving MERS is only in its system's not of record with the designated public official. Indeed, it is not even a mortgage assignment, but is rather a transfer of servicing rights.)



· A recorded assignment affords protection against a subsequent assignment of the same mortgage and against its unauthorized discharge. (Again, a MERS assignment is not recorded with the clerk.)



· Absent a public record of assignments, the purpose underlying the recording act is eviscerated.



· The MERS system would "supplant" and usurp the clerk's function as a direct violation of real property laws.





The court went on at considerably greater length buttressing its position. Because the mortgage industry recognizes the importance of MERS, the decision is pointedly unpalatable " at least in that the court's view of assignments within MERS appears to be factually flawed." MERS takes the position that because there are no assignments of mortgages in its system, it is in compliance with what the judge has directed. But because MERS believes the court misstates the workings of MERS, clarification on appeal is necessary. Look for the results of that appeal in a future edition of the e-Update after an appellate decision is issued.

dgwondering said...

FYI - The federal courts approved a motion letting Utah have their shot first. November 1, 2005 is the Utah date.

yeahrightwhateverz said...

Mogel, I understand that technically they are not related, but I beg to differ with your assessment. Think about it, if Kurt gets thrown in the can for x number of years, do you REALLY think, or rather would it be plausible to think based on past performance that he would allow this money to make its way to the clients? According to the PartyKissAss, it was my fault that I lost my home and it was my fault that Kurt gained financially for the use of my collateral. So, according to PartyKissAss, why should I be able to enjoy the benefits of the judgments? At this point, I don\'t have much faith.

Nevertheless, thank you and I respect your posts.

Starfish Prime said...

INDICTMENT TIME!!!!!!

imbigo said...

Going going back back to Cali Cali...

See you at the Top !!!

BIG "O" 1+1+1=1

GR82BMOI said...

Mogel wrote: “…the battle isn't over, so stop concluding an outcome.”

The battle isn’t over because there never was one in the first place. You’re pushing a SCAM, Mogel (aren’t you bound by a restraining order to stop promoting the Dorean process?), which means the outcome isn’t a conclusion of MINE, it’s a foregone conclusion.

As for backpedaling – that’s exactly what you’re doing. As a Dorean broker you’ve splattered your drivel all over the internet. Are you absolutely sure you want somebody to “find out exactly what was really said, what date it was said, and who really said it?” Think carefully before you answer, Mogel.

You’ll be flattered to know you’ve officially been added to my morning routine: let the dog out, have a cup of coffee, check my e-mail and Google your name to see if you’ve been arrested yet.

tcob247 said...

indictment for who starfishy?