Saturday, October 22, 2005

Indictment Equals Victory

I once said in a television interview with Fox News in South Carolina that the dumbest thing they could do was to bring criminal charges. Well, thank your government for being patently stupid. The bankers would have been better off playing the hit and miss of civil jurisdiction using high priced lawyers and every kinky trick in the book to stall our success. Having moved to criminal they have guaranteed us victory. This will be a little lengthy and you should get a copy of the indictment for your reference. It was filed as CR05-00611 DLJ in the Northern District of California Federal Court. I shouldn’t give the prosecution such a heads up but I am confident his case is un-winnable and besides I want to expose him to his corrupt self who having knowledge of innocence will still prosecute for job security and political demand. I want him to realize evil has a high price on all participants. Remember they can bluff you uneducated clients out of your rights but not me. So let the games begin. The indictment has 46 counts but only 1-12 really matter. These are the criminal elements and the rest is the overt acts. The acts are listed merely to create a presumption that 1-12 occurred. If 1-12 fail, 13-46 fail automatically. I will focus on 1-12 for this reason. Pay attention Mr. Keller!

1. Yada Yada! Foundation agreed to in most part.
2. More foundation.
3. Foundation for conspiracy and artifice means nothing without scheme.
4. First meaty accusation: line items 22, 23 are the key proofs “falsely alleging” did or did I not have authority? Can prove I did hands down. “repaid” wrong word and can’t prove. Accurate description is prepaid. “appearing” fluff word to make them feel good. If real there is no appearing about it. They will have to bring the witnesses who can swear out they did not authorize. There are only few in each corporation who qualify. Of these I can get all to admit to felonies by cross-examination. What felonies you ask, Mr. Keller? Do your homework. I’ll do my job. This will impress the jury when proceedings have to stop so the state’s witness can be informed of his rights not to incriminate himself. Will they continue? Most executives will not. Oops! What if this happens to 2, 3, 5 state’s witnesses what would you think as a juror? Mr. Keller is going to put Dorean on the map as the most innovative layman legal theorist of modern time and personally should shock the mortgage industry whose fraud was exposed through the reverse engineering of a federal criminal trial. Thank you!
5.6. More foundation for wire fraud. All means nothing if you can’t prove the basic elements.
7. “Debt Elimination” This is an important mis-characterization in that it does not truly reflect our mortgage challenge process and when a debt cannot be proven what happens to your “debt elimination scheme theory”? The trust is a typical estate planning and will draw no real energy in trial.
8. “Claim” Line 15 easily supported by documentation. 16: “Demand the lender prove the validity of the loan” Oh what a crime! 17: “unilateral satisfaction of Dorean” Now here’s the big heap of poo poo that the prosecutor steps in. If the satisfaction has sound legal basis completely outside of the Dorean psyche, lender’s become the bad guys. 18: “Purport” if the offer is real what then? 20: “Holds no substantial assets” Here another dead end. They would like to prove the bond had no substance. Impossible! Save that bombshell for later. 22: “Borrower” not going to be able to prove that nature of the party. Oops! No borrower? What’s that do to loan theory or debt theory? 26: “Tacit assent and default” I think he means tacit procuration and fault based on performance. Which when proven means the government is trespassing on contracts. If I can find the law that justifies these elements, why can’t he? Because truth is too good for these evil rat bastards. 27: “In accordance with mortgage agreements” First off, this agreement is superseded but if it comes into play I will use it to prove the elements of fraud in the loan and again states witness is the bad guy.
9. “at least 10 days has elapsed” Hey finally a free testimony. We did what we said and bound ourselves to the contract. I hate it when that happens.
10. “Acting purportedly on behalf of the lender as its agent” I can prove I was no problem if they knew anything about contract law they would fold this hand. These cards are a loser. Line 16 “when such loan has not been fully paid” can prove it was paid 3 times and was not a loan. Another big problem. “Signed and recorded fraudulently” This requires intent even if I was legally wrong. Pay attention every corrupt county recorder because my prevailing here makes you all liable for commercial trespass, practice of law and punitive damages. Thank you feds!
11. 22 “appearing to be free and clear “28” not fully paid” reiterations of unprovable claims. Wouldn’t want Mr. Keller’s job. Do you think a rookie FBI agent Matthew Ernst who doesn’t know shit about banking and commercial paper even knows the questions to ask in his collection of evidence?
12. This is the meat and their biggest problem. “knowingly conspire” and “well knowing”. Who and how are they going to prove an evil mental state? I’ve been publicly speaking on this subject for almost 2 years, wrote memorandums of law, educated lawyers, and documented my intent in thousands of public records. Even with corrupt trial practices and deliberate orders from an evidence controlling judge they will still not be able to keep this out. All said and done, “Make my Day!”

14 comments:

Tony Tuba said...

Mr. Keller, proceed as you were.......your quicksand awaits!

son of a prophet said...

WILL YOU SURVIVE TO SPEND ALL THE $$$$ YOU WILL GET???

(not if the govt. can help it) lol!


'Code Red' Vaccine Alert -
Another Deadly Deception
Road To Destruction Paved With Good Intentions
For Immediate Release
Contact Jackie Lindenbach
tetra@tetrahedron.org)
208-265-8065
10-21-5

SANDPOINT, ID -- "This is incredibly serious," wrote Ingri Cassel, National Vaccination Liberation Organization (VacLib) director. "So serious that the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC)," led by President, Barbara Loe Fisher, issued a red alert on the Senate HELP Committee's passage of the "Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005."

The bill, nicknamed "BioShield 2" is expected to pass in the Senate by year's end. In its technically accurate assessment, the NVIC warns the legislation will "strip Americans of the right to a trial by jury if harmed by an experimental or licensed drug or vaccine that they are forced by government to take whenever federal health officials declare a public health emergency."

Ms. Cassel issued the "CODE RED alert" for health groups nationwide to launch a concerted effort to stop Richard Burr's Republican bill co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY), and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH).

According to Cassel everyone should oppose this bill by calling and e-mailing their senators to make them aware. The bill: a) undermines drug safety laws; b) violates the constitutional right to a trial by jury in case a vaccine or drug causes injuries; c) keeps the public in the dark about every aspect of vaccine research, development, injuries, and deaths resulting from the partnership between government and the pharmaceutical lobby; and d) forces mandatory compliance with public health proclamations demanding vaccinations and/or drugs be taken by anyone declared at risk, not necessarily infected.

"This is the latest deception and distraction issued by government and grassroots activists espousing public protectionism," said Dr. Leonard Horowitz, author of 15 books including the national bestseller, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola--Nature, Accident or Intentional? http://www.tetrahedron.org. "There is nothing new in this legislation that hasn't already been politically dictated."

Technically, Dr. Horowitz is also correct. Drug safety laws have been violated since their inception. The constitutional right to a jury trial fell years ago in cases brought against all federal officials including those engaged in public health practice. The National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, co-sponsored by NVIC and initially promoted by Ms. Fisher, shielded drug companies from vaccine injury lawsuits. The public, even medical doctors, have always been in the dark about "proprietary" pharmaceutical intelligence, the nitty-gritty on drug testing for FDA approval, and vaccine injury data. And following 9-11, the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act passed by most states forced compliance with public health vaccination/intoxication mandates.

The only message worthy of social, not political, activism at this point is, "WAKE-UP! At least half of the world's population is targeted for elimination under the global elite's depopulation agenda," Dr. Horowitz insists. "Avian flu over the cuckoos nest. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, GET VACCCINATED WITH ANYTHING!"

Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote the opening quote in the aforementioned bestseller. He claims, "To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good. . . . Ideology is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors."

This offers a great explanation of why "the road to destruction is paved with good intentions."

See also: http://www.drlenhorowitz.com
http://www.healingcelebrations.com
http://www.tetrahedron.org
http://www.originofAIDS.com

Tetrahedron Publishing Group
Health Science Communications
206 North 4th Avenue, Suite 147
Sandpoint, ID 83864
208-265-2575
208-265-2775 Fx

mogel said...

Excellent points made in the last post & it's great to know and receive even more confirmation that Kurt is exceptionally well prepared for whatever happens. The criminal trial shouldn't even be happening for one simple thing: the debt is paid off to the lenders, so there is no criminal intent anywhere. With no criminal intent the whole federal indictment falls flat on it's face. Not only did the original promissory note pay off the debt one time, the greedy lender wanted to be paid AGAIN, even with no risk on their part, so they conned the borrower to allow the so called lender to have a lien on THEIR property.

Not only did the Dorean Bond pay off the alleged debt 2 times MORE over, but since all borrowers have paid down their loan, the debt has been paid off MORE THAN 3 TIMES to this point in time. Remember the Dorean Bond tendered to each lender is based upon the amount originally borrowed (a misnomer there), not the principal balance on the alleged loan at the time of the bank presentment. WHEN IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH TO THE LENDERS?

Mogel

mogel said...

On this link: http://white-knights911.com/Dove/edove045.htm
Reverend Robert Hanzel, C/O SPIRAL,
PO Box 57775, Tucson, AZ 85732-7775 email: vegabobinfo@webtv.net
and Minister of Awareness, former Economic Development Planner and Director, Clark County (Nevada) Regional Planning Council, said the following:

"In the early 1990's a United States District Court (upheld by the Supreme Court) ruled on a law suit that ALL LENDING INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN OPERATING FRAUDULENTLY SINCE 1933
BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER PROPERLY REGISTERED IN THE STATES as a lending institution to do business. Because they were NEVER a legal entity, they had no standing in the courts which they have used to seek remedy and relief from the people."

I don't know about you or anyone else, but I'd like proof of this law suit recorded of record or otherwise. If Mr. Hanzel is so bold to declare these things openly on the internet as being true, let him prove it to the benefit of all through his own enlightened research. Maybe if enough people write him, he will back up his claims. His statement is one of those things that you'd like to believe as true. :o)

Mogel

mogel said...

"When a Florida court recently blocked lenders from foreclosing in the name of MERS, it might have looked like a dreadful setback for the electronic registry that TRACKS OWNERSHIP OF MORTGAGE LOANS & SERVICING RIGHTS." Yes, that is their job to do just that.

If MERS tracks ownership & servicing rights, why does their attorney, Mr. Brachin, say LATER "it's going to be difficult to impossible to determine ownership & servicing rights & that's why MERS should be able to foreclose WITHOUT PROVIDING OWNERSHIP OF THE NOTE because it's cheaper for MERS to do this than to have individual lenders foreclose & by allowing this, it will be cheaper for all consumers SINCE CONSUMERS WILL BEAR A HIGHER COST IF MERS IS EXCLUDED FROM THIS RIGHT TO FORECLOSE." Since when should the consumer care about the costs of the lender? Does the lender care about the consumer & their costs when you read your closing statement & see all of those "junk fees"?

Does it appear that the attorney for MERS is talking out of both sides of his mouth? Would you recommend a company that can't do their own job? Would you represent a company that can't do their own job? Would you go to a surgeon that said it would be difficult or impossible for him to do his job & perform your operation successfully? However, Mr. Brachin feels that the Courts should allow MERS to continue? HOW DO YOU TELL AN ATTORNEY IS LYING?
Answer: His lips are moving. :o)
Thanks Kurt for that joke.

Mogel

neodemes said...

Mogel babbled:
>>so they conned the borrower to allow the so called lender to have a lien on THEIR property.

If Kurt opens his mouth and starts spouting your usual convoluted logic, he might as well just shoot himself.

LOL

Starfish Prime said...

Lawyers see charges this week in CIA-leak case

By Adam EntousSun Oct 23, 4:14 PM ET

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald appears to be laying the groundwork for indictments this week over the outing of a covert CIA operative, including possible charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers and other sources involved in case said on Sunday.

In a preview of how Republicans would counter charges against top administration officials by Fitzgerald, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record) of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury -- rather than for the underlying crime of outing a covert operative -- as a "technicality."

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" she suggested Fitzgerald may merely be trying to show that "two years' of investigation was not a waste of time and dollars."

Fitzgerald's investigation has focused largely on Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, and Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and their conversations about CIA operative Valerie Plame with reporters in June and July of 2003.

Fitzgerald is expected to give final notice to officials facing charges as early as Monday and may convene the grand jury on Tuesday, a day earlier than usual, to deliver a summary of the case and ask for approval of the possible indictments, legal sources said. The grand jury is to expire on Friday unless Fitzgerald extends it.

Fitzgerald could still determine that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges, but the lawyers said that appeared increasingly unlikely.

The White House initially denied that Rove and Libby were involved in any way in the leak.

Republican Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia joined Democrats in saying that Rove and Libby should step down if indicted. "I think they will step down if they're indicted ... I do think that's appropriate," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify about her conversations with Libby, is also facing calls from colleagues to leave the newspaper because of her involvement in the case.

Plame's identity was leaked to the media after her diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, challenged the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Asked whether he was taking part in a final round of discussions with the prosecutor's office, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said: "I'm just not going to comment on any possible interactions with Fitzgerald."

Lawyers involved in the case said Fitzgerald has been focusing on whether Rove, Libby and others may have tried to conceal their involvement from investigators.

While Fitzgerald could still charge administration officials with knowingly revealing Plame's identity, the lawyers said he appeared more likely to seek charges for easier-to-prove crimes such as making false statements, obstruction of justice and disclosing classified information. Fitzgerald could also bring a broad conspiracy charge.

INVESTIGATION EXPANDED

Fitzgerald has sent several signals in recent days that he is likely to bring indictments in the case, lawyers say.

One of the first postings on a new official Web site for the investigation was a February 6, 2004, letter giving Fitzgerald explicit authority to investigate and prosecute "federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses." The Web site was available at www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc.

Indictments against top officials would be a severe blow to an administration already at a low point in public opinion, and would put a spotlight on aggressive tactics used by the White House to counter critics of its Iraq policy.

Legal sources said Rove could be in legal jeopardy for initially not telling the grand jury he talked to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper about Plame.

Libby could be open to false statement and obstruction charges because of contradictions between his testimony and that of Miller and other journalists.

Miller has also come under increasingly sharp criticism by editors and reporters in the pages of her own newspaper over her conduct. Times Ombudsman Byron Calame wrote Sunday: "the problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter."

WillToFight said...

Mogel made alot of sense to me Neodomesfuckface.

You can't respond to Kurts post with any fact of defense for the bank.

Your a sucker neodomes

WillToFight said...

Good Post

SOP!

kaycee said...

I have a problem with the fact that the Dorean Group issue doesn't make major news!!! They can't report on it because then it reveals the banker's scams and shows the farce of a "justice" system we have here in America. Guilty until proven innocent.

I hope we see, in the near future, the Dorean Group beat the crap out of the system, in addition to the entire Bush administration going down for all the lies they've conned the people into believing, along with the media for helping to create and spread the lies.

Don't you hate in when they use the word "misrepresentation" when it is a flat-out lie?

Starfish Prime said...

Kaycee,

Good night, and good luck.

mogel said...

neodemes said...
Mogel babbled:
>>so they conned the borrower to allow the so called lender to have a lien on THEIR property.

Sir Bruce: Let me explain my statement in a "verbose" way since apparently my simplistic statements usually go way over your head for some reason.

On page 2 Section IV of my Deed of Trust & similiar legalese is found in all deed of trusts, we read:

BORROWER'S RIGHT TO GRANT A SECURITY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND BORROWER'S OBLIGATION TO DEFEND OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY

I promise (i) I lawfully own the Property, (ii) I have the right to grant and convey the property to Trustee, and (iii) there are NO outstanding claims, charges, liens, or encumbrances against the property,......."

In order words, I give a general warranty of title to the Lender. This means I will be fully responsible for any losses which Lender suffers because someone (other than myself) may have some of the rights in the property which I PROMISE that I have at the time of signing the deed of trust. I promise that I will defend MY OWNERSHIP of the property against any claims of such rights.

The above Section IV clearly says that (1) I own the property at my address, BEFORE THE time I signed the deed of trust, (2) that I own the property "free and clear" of any encumbrances whatsoever, (3) I will defend that I own the property free & clear & have the RIGHT TO CONVEY the property or give a lienholder interest to the Trustee.

Now, how can all of these representations by me be properly AND TRULY given 3 days before the alleged loan is officially closed & funded or any monies were wired or transferred, and before the Trustee had an actual interest in the property? The question comes to mind, how can all of these things or conditions BE that the agreement acknowledges and I WARRANT if the lender granted a loan at the time of signing the deed of trust? The answer is that it's impossible. The only possible scenario is that my note the lender had me sign, WHICH I STILL OWN BY THE WAY, because they didn't pay me for it, have FIRST BREACHED OUR AGREEMENT TO LOAN ME MONIES. It appears to be a fact that I am the lender in this transaction & provided the funds for my own loan BECAUSE THE LENDER'S PAPERWORK ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGES THESE FACTS. Is that a real loan, or was a clever exchange made & the lender conned me into thinking they were given me a loan? If there was IN REALITY an exchange made, why is the lender CONNING ME INTO SIGNING A DEED OF TRUST TOO? And why am I signing a deed of trust if I already own the property at closing?

Now if you can't intelligently answer my questions, without making snied comments, then, maybe you are the one that should shut up or maybe you are the one that should shoot themself first IN THE FOOT as a community service. I patiently await an intelligent response from you to explain all of my unanswered questions which my bank can't or won't answer.

Mogel

neodemes said...

Mogel babbled again

...

Byron, I don't know what papers you signed(if you ever even bought a house)3 days before signing a promissary note.

In my state, a warranty deed from the seller conveys ownership to the buyer. That occurs regardless of the payment method.

If a promissary note is involved, the terms of same are described in the Deed of Trust, with the borrower conveying ownership of the property to the Trustee until such time as the payment of debt, promised by the buyer, has been fulfilled.

No matter how many times you apply your pretzl logic, the reality is the money borrowed from the bank and paid to the seller is what buys the house.

Period.

Mortgage Center said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a mortgage repayment calculator
site/blog. It pretty much covers mortgage repayment calculator
related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)